Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss151-200

Text File | 1992-03-07 | 921KB | 21,994 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14853;
          20 Feb 92 3:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17938
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 20 Feb 1992 01:53:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02004
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 20 Feb 1992 01:53:20 -0600
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 01:53:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #151

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 Feb 92 01:53:17 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 151

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    RISKS of Automation (Mike Riddle)
    Mercury Cost Centre Codes (Nigel Roberts)
    Original NANP Questions (Linc Madison)
    You Too, Tovarich? (Peter Marshall)
    Competition in Service (Will Martin)
    FAX Protocol Specs (John T. Grieggs)
    800 DA Now in Common? (Stan Brown)
    Sprint Responds! (Jack Winslade)
    Non-Local Internet Access (Kenneth Freeman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 07:56:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
Subject: RISKS of Automation
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From RISKS Digest:

 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 13:37:11 PST
 From: [e-mail] (Allan Meers - Sun
       Education/Professional Service Subject: Automated Phone
       Systems

 >From rec.humor, a commentary on those over-optioned
                  automated phone answering/messaging systems.

                 AUTOMATION IN THE 20th CENTURY
                      By Michael J. Clark

The setting is a typical bedroom, a woman is in the bed asleep, next
to her bed is a night stand with an alarm clock and a telephone.
Suddenly the woman awakens to the sound of a strange noise in the
house, she looks around, starts to panic and then picks up her phone
to call the police.

Woman: (Startled and panicked, talking out loud to herself in a low
tone) "I-I-I-I've got to call the police, there's someone here, oh God
I know there is, let's see ... what's the number, (she nervously punches
the numbers into the phone.)

After a few rings the phone is answered, there is a delay, then we
hear: "Welcome to our emergency phone mate 911, the
automated emergency answering system, the latest in emergency
response technology!  If you are calling from a touch tone phone,
please enter a 1 at the tone, enter now" ... (the woman looks both
shocked and puzzled as she nervously punches in a "1") "Thank you,
our emergency phone mate 911 recognizes that you are calling from
a touch tone phone ... To serve you better your police and
emergency services have set up this system to route your call to
the appropriate emergency service personnel ... If you are in need
of police assistance enter a 5, if you require information in
Spanish, enter 7, in Chinese enter 4, in Greek enter 9, in French
enter 6 or Italian enter an 8, if you wish fire or medical service
enter a 3 and the corresponding numerical code for the language in
which you will be speaking or in need of translation ... to repeat
the previous information please enter 0 ... Enter your code now
please"... (the woman, who has now gone from fear and panic to
being irritated and confused enters a 5 and waits ...) "Emergency
phone mate 911 recognizes that you have requested police assistance
in English ... In order to better serve you, please enter the
appropriate number at the tone ... a 1 if your call is not an
emergency, a 2 if you need information, a 3 if you are returning
a call from a police official, a 4 if you are inquiring about a
parking ticket, or a 5 if this is an emergency, enter your code
now"... (she shakes her head and rolls her eyes and enters a
5 quite forcefully) "Emergency phone mate 911 recognizes that you
have a police emergency, please enter a 1 if it is a life
threatening emergency, a 2 if it is a non life threatening
emergency, a 3 if there are weapons involved, a 4 if there are
multiple perpetrators, a 5 if the perpetrators are non English
speaking and will require a Miranda warning in any other
language ... Please be sure to enter the appropriate language code
if you enter a 5 ... if the police emergency is a non life
threatening rape or physical assault please enter a 7 ...

(The woman now has lost her temper, she punches in a 2 saying out
loud "How the hell do I know if it's life threatening or not you
imbecile!)  "Emergency phone mate 911 recognizes that you have a
police emergency that is non life threatening, emergency phone mate
will now direct your call to the appropriate department for
response ... please hold while your call is transferred ... (we
hear ringing ... the phone is answered) "Dunkin' Donuts, may I
help you?"


AMAX 2.20
* Origin: The Nebraska Inns of Court (inns.omahug.org) (1:285/27)

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 00:48:39 PST
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mercury Cost Centre Codes


In Digest #132, David Brightbill referred to MCI account codes:

In the U.K., the only competitor to BT (formerly British Telecom) in
the provision of LD service is Mercury Communications. BT still has no
competition in providing local service, incidentally. Access to
Mercury is by indirect access only; you dial "131,pause,account
number" then dial using DTMF. In my area, the 131 has to be dialled on
pulse. This is promoted to Joe Average Consumer by the use of the
so-called "Mercury button". In reality, of course, this is only a
memory button with a different colour.

One of the big advantages of Mercury service (apart from the
considerably lower bills) is that the ability to use "Cost Centres"
(their term).  If you choose to have this enabled, you can dial a
short cost centre code before the telephone number you are calling,
and your fully itemised bill (something else I can't get from BT!) is
analysed by your cost centres.  Great for expenses re-billing.

By the way, you don't have to wait for another tone; the cost centre
code is merely tacked on to the end of the Mercury account number.

I finally got onto Mercury at home in Manningtree last week (after a 4
year wait -- the Manningtree switch is an old TXE-2). I am still
trying it out, but my first impressions are that it was worth waiting
for.

Now if only they'd provide automated calling card service ...

Anyone from Mercury read the Digest?


Nigel
Eur. Ing. N. Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; U.K.
[phone] / [phone]    FAX [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 02:10:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Original NANP Questions


I just got around to looking closely at the list posted recently of
the area codes used in the original North American Numbering Plan, as
described in the {Bell System Technical Journal} in 1952.  There have
been numerous area code splits since then, including several that took
place before most of North America had direct-dial long distance.

A few things I noticed that are particularly noteworthy:

* The area that is now 817 was originally divided between 214 & 915
  (Waco is listed as 214, but Wichita Falls is listed as 915)  Where was
  Fort Worth?  (I'd guess 214)

* The original 415 appears to have been a narrow band stretching along
  the California coast from Monterey to the Oregon border.

* I would guess that area code 714 originally included not only 619 but
  also 209 and 805 (central California)

* Area Code 902 originally included three (four?) entire provinces of
  Canada (N.B., N.S., P.E.I., Nfld?)

* What area code did Binghamton, N.Y., originally have?  315?

* Was 819 originally part of 514? (Quebec)

* Were 807 and 705 part of 613? (Ontario)

* There are at least two area codes (305 and 415) that have already
  split into four area codes each.  If my inference is right, 714 will
  be the first to split into five (714/909/619/805/209)

* Right at half the states and provinces have had area code splits.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]  ==  94701-2811 USPS

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 11:10:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: You Too, Tovarich?


[from a 2/12 eff.talk post by Michael Bravo of the "su"]:

 ... here's a piece of info from quite distant land-USSR. I'd like to
supply you with current situation and see if there's some possible
support for us ...

Fidonet is now the biggest network, and connects the majority of BBSes
on the USSR territory. After the January jump in phone tariffs, we
were faced with problem of fighting monopolistic rule of phone
exchanges.  There's constant threat of requirement to 'registrate'
your modem or even to pay data communication surcharge in amounts not
affordable for single individual. Moreover, paying such surcharges
doesn't guarantee you anything -- even line quality.

So, we, Fidonet sysops, decided to try and come up with some kind of non-
profit organization to represent us as a real public force. That's what
I'd call a real electronic frontier.


Peter Marshall([e-mail])
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 11:26:38 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Competition in Service


Those interested in the issues of video dial tone, cable-TV service
competition, and breaking up monopoly at the local-telco level should
be sure to read the article on the front page of the Feb 18 92 {Wall
Street Journal} rregarding just such a development taking place in
Glasgow, KY.

There the local electric utility had begun a two-way meter-reading and
energy-conservation-appliance-control wiring system, which then
developed into a competitive feed of cable-TV (causing the previously-
monopoly cable-TV company to slash its rates) and is now beginning to
support telephone communications (initially for the utility employees,
but expandable).


Regards, Will

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

From: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)
Subject: FAX Protocol Specs
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 16:19:32 PDT


I am interested in writing a program to talk directly to a FAX modem,
but have been led to believe that this might be difficult.

Is there a standard protocol for computer <-> FAX modem?  Something
akin to the Hayes command set, possibly?

If so, where might I find it?

If not, I'd be interested in knowing how such a wide-spread thing has
resisted standardization!


john

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

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 22:27:26 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: 800 DA Now in Common?
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


I was under the impression that (from a phone with AT&T for default LD
carrier) dialing 1 [phone] would give you an AT&T directory
assistance operator who would be able to give out 800 numbers IF the
carrier for those numbers was AT&T.

Recently I got email (not from this newsgroup) that contradicted this.
I was told:

1. 1 [phone] can give you _any_ 800 number, not just those that
belong to AT&T.

2. AT&T isn't running 800 DA any more (in that case, who is?)

3. 1 [phone] is free from any phone regardless of your LD carrier

4. "Gypsy" codes e.g. 10288 for AT&T shouldn't be used in front of 800
numbers because they can interfere with the routing via the LD company
that services the particular 800 number.

Email responses, please, since I won't have net access for the next
few days and will miss any posts.  I'll prepare a summary and send it
to PAT for posting.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please respond direct to Stan as requested. To give
a few answers though, AT&T does 'own' 800-555-1212, but it is managed
and maintained for them under contract with Southwestern Bell out of
St. Louis, MO. (or somewhere in the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis, I
think -- not sure.) AT&T owns the data base, but anyone with an 800
number from any carrier can be listed if they are willing to pay the
fee which should be handled directly with their carrier. Many 800
subscribers do not want to be listed. 800-555-1212 should not be
confused with the AT&T printed 800 directory, which is another thing
entirely and only includes AT&T numbers. The telco switch ignores the
10xxx codes if inserted in front of 800.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 23:40:45 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Sprint Responds!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


My submission a couple of weeks ago, 'What the {deleted} is wrong with
Sprint ??' has generated more replies to me than any other item I've
ever submitted to this group.  The vast majority fit into a few broad
categories.

1. Similar horror stories about customer <ahem> service at 'brand S' and
   'brand M' long distance.  No similar horror stories about 'brand A'.

2. Those expressing agreement that firms who use endless MOH and knee-jerk
   'please hold <click>' do not deserve our business.  One seemed to imply
   that the inventor of the automated touch-tone menu should be subjected
   to the ancient Chinese Muzak torture.  ;-)

3. A few defending the use of MOH and immediate hold.  (No comment.)

4. A couple of notes reminding me not to blame the poor receptionist, but
   those who put the receptionist in the position of having too much phone
   traffic to handle.  Yes, I agree.

5. A couple of notes that seem to imply that I have spent the last 30 years
   on some turnip farm somewhere in Manitoba and should become familiar with
   the ways business is done over the telephone in this day and age.

6. Two notes from people with 'brand A' and one from a guy with 'brand M'
   stating that they would be very happy to have my business if Sprint does
   not want it.

The surprise came Monday afternoon.  I received a call from a Vice
President in Sprint's business service center in Kansas City.  He had
received a call from a friend of his in Lawrence, KS (I assume with
the University) who read my post and thought he should know about it.
He appologized for the lack of follow-through, and said that he would
follow up, pull the trouble ticket, and report it to a counterpart at
his level in the residence service division.  I briefly reviewed the
problem, explaining that it was a definite problem followed by a
definite fix, and chatted a bit about the frustration in dealing with
their customer service people.

I'll follow up if/when I hear from anyone else in Sprint.

BTW, since Saturday two weeks ago, the Sprint lines to Iowa City have
been clean.  Unless trouble recurs I'll probably stay with Sprint for
the data calls on that loop.

I've been comparing throughput between Sprint and AT&T using both PEP
and v.32.  Results are inconclusive so far.  Throughput seems to be
dependent more on the phase of the moon than it does on the LD
carrier.  I still haven't tested enough to be sure of the results.


Good day!    JSW

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Freeman)
Subject: Non-Local Internet Access
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 10:16:11 GMT


Where in the U.S. is Internet/Usenet access not a local call?


UUCP: {ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!kfree INET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Lots of places!  Internet dialups are found in
every major urban area because of the large number of universities in
those areas. It is found in smaller towns with universities. If you
include services like Telenet/Sprintnet's PC Pursuit, with local
dialups in 9000+ telephone exchanges, you can increase the number of
local connections a little, but Telenet indials are most commonly
found where the action is, ie the larger cities where you will also
find many universities, so you can't really count all 9000 in the
estimate. That still leaves vast areas of the United States where the
closest Internet dialup is a long distance call. Now, if you want to
include the 'public access unix' sites found in a few small towns
(although most of them are in urban areas also) you can scrounge up a
few more local access numbers since the sysadmin is the one making the
calls to connecting points every day for mail and news. Even so, there
are many, many small and medium size towns around the USA with no
local access.  When I get moved out of Chicago (hopefully) within the
next year, I'll be in a place where the closest dialups are Telenet
operated, in Tulsa, OK, some sixty miles away.  I'll survive.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #151
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03891;
          21 Feb 92 3:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00680
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 01:16:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27068
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 01:15:40 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 01:15:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #152

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 01:15:28 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 152

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Walter Scott)
    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Peter Marshall)
    Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell (Doctor Math)
    Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful? (The Squire, Phish)
    Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful? (John De Armond)
    Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful? (Bob Miller)
    Re: MOH - Is it a Violation of ASCAP & BMI? (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint (Andrew M. Dunn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary
From: [e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 07:56:06 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
> writes:

>> The well-known fact (possibly not in the more hysterical fringes
>> outside of Portland) is that Wagner received and continues to receive
>> income from the lines in question.

> That definitely passes the "Duck Test" for a business. If US West is
> behaving more reasonably then SWBell I'm glad to hear it, but let's
> see what happens after this one's decided.

As one who has called and viewed Wagner's BBS, I see no indication of
solicitations for compensation of any kind. Although I have not
accessed Wagner's "Restricted" line to see what's there, I haven't
seen any reference to this line being a pay/subscription line in
bulletins and messages viewed on the other two lines accessible at no
charge, for now.  If Wagner "continues to receive income from the
LINES in question", I'd like to see Mr. Bush present to us some
evidence to back this statement up.


Walter Scott
The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 11:51:22 PDT
From: [e-mail] (peter marshall)
Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary


Here we go again, with Randy Bush now purporting to have an exclusive
grip on the One True Gospel about what he revealingly characterizes as
"the actual details of the case and filing."

Thought these were the same thing, but guess not, from what Randy
says. Then again, it seems that much of what he does say, if you look
at it at all closely, is opinion -- generally unsupported by factual
information, but, as we know, nevertheless, really "the actual details
of the case and filing."  Nice work if you can get it.  Funny thing
is that ongoing monitoring of the case and its environment, review of
documents and like that, hasn't managed to turn up much of anything to
support this Gospel According to Randy.  But, on the other hand, we're
nevertheless told that "US West has been and continues to be quite
reasonable and willing to discuss and negotiate."  OK. With whom?
About what? When? Funny that there's just no context given for this
claim. Funny too, that there's no even an attempt to provide any
support for it.  Likewise, there's no backup offered for the notion of
sysops "testifying" in support of the US West position; and, in fact,
it's a little hard to see that anyone can supply "testimony" after the
hearing phase of the case has ended, which just happens to be the fact
here. But, then again, Randy's in possession of those "actual
details."

And, no; we're not going to "get back" to dealing with the really
important stuff only after this little, annoying case goes away. That
stuff is what the little, annoying case is about, here and now. And as
to what Randy so unprecisely terms "the position of BBS operators," we
can only hope to guess at what he's talking about, while remaining
convinced that those who fail to see things his way are simply going
to "damage" this important "position."


Peter Marshall ([e-mail])
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino:  206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Subject: Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 09:24:06 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (System Administrator) writes:

>> One of the conditions is that the boards ... must not advertise and

> This is probably reasonable, depending on what they mean by "advertise".

I didn't get this one either. Obviously, taking out an ad in a
magazine is "advertising", but what about being listed in a BBS list
in the back of {Computer Currents}? Or being listed in the {Nixpub},
the Public Access Unix listing that circulates around the net?

>> must have fewer than five phone lines.

> There they go again. If they want to charge business rates for anyone
> with more than X phone lines (since they have to put in extra
> pedestals) that's fine. But making it "BBSes with more than X lines"
> is simply bogus. It's unreasonable to treat modem users any
> differently to any other class of subscriber.

I couldn't agree more on this point. Note that Pac*Hell isn't trying
this in California; it's being tried in other areas that are less
technologically "advanced". California is cited as the "center of the
net" in Vielmetti's "What Is Usenet", (14% of mapped sites) so it's
likely that Pac*Bell knows they would fight very hard to put this over
around there. Of course, they might wait for a precedent to be set
somewhere else before trying anything.

Our Esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, I do not know which Ameritech company has
> your business, but IBT has all those things you mentioned above,
> including residential centrex which they sell as 'Starline Service'.
> I have Caller-ID and several other CLASS features on my line including
> distinctive ringing and forward on busy/no answer to voicemail.  PAT]

Great! Now all I have to do is call IBT and order phone service! :-) I
wish it were that easy; I would have done so months ago. :( If only
there weren't still a monopoly on local service. Does anyone out there
know if this will be changed anytime soon?

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful?
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 07:05:11 GMT


[description of how ASCAP and BMI work]

Actually, though there are people who listen to tapes and transcribe,
one of the things I HATED when working in TOP40 radio was getting the
logs. We had to log EVERY song we played for two weeks. I guess it was
just easier to have the DJs do it. They never bothered to ask if it
would adversely affect our shift (it did) or was a hassle (it was).

We were even required to write down the names of songs used as
background beds for ads and promos.


[e-mail] | Fubar Systems BBS | (805) 54-FUBAR

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

From: [e-mail] (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 20:17:13 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.


[e-mail] (Kath Mullholand) writes:

> Laird Broadfield writes:

> As a matter of fact, it is, and ASCAP, among others, is vigorous about
> filing suit.  They have collected from small restaurants with piped in
> radio music, and from small companies with radio MOH.  If a company is
> using radio, CD, records, or other unlicensed recordings for MOH or
> over a speaker system on a regular basis, I'd wager it's only a matter
> of time before they'd hear about it.

Actually they are more like bullies.  They come in acting like the
gestapo but when someone stands up to them, they back down rather
rapidly.  About two years ago, they came in on the restaurant owned by
a couple of my friends.  These friends are very wealthy and run the
restaurant as a hobby.  The ASCAP gestapo pushed a consent order under
their noses on the first visit.  I happened to walk in toward the end
of that encounter.  We discussed afterward and decided to call their
bluff.  After consulting with their lawyer, they did just that.  They
were going to argue that the music from the radio already had
royalties paid and that there is no practical difference between a
centralized music system and with sitting a radio on each table.
ASCAP sent a couple more threatening letters and then slithered back
into their hole.  Too bad.  My friend had the resources and the
determination to fight this one.

To another poster's assertion that commercial radio could not exist
without this royalty scan, I say rubbish.  Performers could not buy
that kind of advertising at any price.  The opposite assertion could
much easier be made, that the commercial recording business exists
only BECAUSE of the airtime the albums get.  Proof?  Name one album
that has achieved significant success without any airplay.


John De Armond, WD4OQC   Rapid Deployment System, Inc.
Marietta, Ga             [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 09:16:26 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Miller)
Subject: Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I worked for a corporation where we disconnected MOH because we were
informed that we needed some sort of a license to rebroadcast
commerical FM radio.  Rather than look into this we decided to just
disconnect.

Also, it seemed strange to call Alanta and hear the same commerical
that was on the radio (at different times) in Denver.

I know this is a pet peeve but what about Call Waiting?  It's bad
enough that I get put on hold when calling a business, but also when
calling a friend.

Another pet peeve, or maybe I just resistent to change, cheap
speakerphones where the quality sounds terrible.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha.  Farewell to Admiral Grace  (200:5010/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MOH - Is it a Violation of ASCAP & BMI?
Date: 19 Feb 92 21:05:25 GMT


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

> SESAC is another, lesser-known, money collector. One seasoned
> broadcaster was visited by a representative from this group who
> demanded his pound of flesh. "We do not play any SESAC recordings so I
> am not paying!", was the reply. The "rep" went to the record library
> and after about fifteen minutes managed to produce a SESAC-represented
> disk. "What about this?", he inquired.

> Whereupon the station owner took the record and immediately broke it
> in two over his knee. "What about it? Would you care to find another?"
> That station never did pay any money to SESAC.

This may have happened, but the owner better be careful! In an
earlier life as a disc jockey I read in the trade press (Billboard?)
about a station that would not license from SESAC. They carried a ball
game and the band played a SESAC song that was picked up. SESAC sued
and won.

These groups are very serious. Call them "legal extortion" or
whatever. But they are the ONLY way composers get paid for their
work. ASCAP was founded by a group of composers as a non-profit
organization to stop the rip-offs and I, for one, support them. (I do
think the SESAC thing was absurd, though. But the station owner said
the SESAC license was VERY cheap compared to BMI and ASCAP.)


R. Kevin Oberman        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]    [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 18:52:39 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: The problem with delayed answering of phone calls
> in business places is largely the fault of the person in charge of the
> staff assigned to answering. If they need another person on the phones
> full time, then they should hire someone and not force such a backlog
> to occur. But predicting the proper staffing levels in large phone
> centers is an inexact science at best. It can't always be helped.  PAT]

Perhaps the most difficult part is figuring out how to pay the extra
secretary only for the calls she answers.  I haven't met too many
secretaries/receptionists willing to work piece-rate.

Seriously, if you're incoming call traffic is flat through most of the
day, with peaks from 9-9:30, 11:30-1:00, and 4-4:30, where normally
you get one call every five minutes but during the peaks you get 25
calls every five minutes, how would YOU staff the department?

You'd need 0.5 receptionists most of the day.  And, for a total of 2.5
hours each day, you'd need two receptionists.  So do you hire zero,
one or two?

Ultimately, you'll either be overstaffed (and who can afford that
these days) or have to put somebody on hold.

Pity, but it's unavoidable in most organizations.


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)


[Moderator's Note: When I was associated with the Amoco/Diners Club
sales authorization center here back in the middle seventies we had
about 30 incoming call positions of which about half were staffed
during the day and evening; with about three or four staffed during
the overnight hours. These people took all incoming calls (typically
800-900 per hour during the day, a hundred per hour overnight; average
call length 15-20 seconds) and handled about 90 percent of them with
an automatic approval or automatic decline message from the computer.
The remaining ten percent were passed to four credit representative
positions when the computer was unable to make a decision or
programmed to not handle it for one reason or another. Lamps on each
ACD position would illuminate steadily if one or two calls were on
hold in the queue. Three or four calls on hold caused the lamps to
flash at 60 ips. Five or more calls on hold caused the lamps to flash
at 120 (?) ips. Six or seven calls waiting in the queue caused a red
light bulb mounted on the wall at the front of the room to illuminate.
Eight calls in the queue caused the red light to flash off and on.

Ten calls waiting in the queue caused a buzzer to sound in the
supervisor's office; when that would happen usually once a day or
sometimes twice at no predictable time the supervisor came from the
office with a 'cricket' -- a little metal clicker he carried in his
hand. He would go to the other side of the room where people were
working pulling microfilm requests and snap the clicker a few times.
That was a signal for those people to stop what they were doing and go
immediatly to a vacant ACD position and start taking incoming calls.
They stayed at that position until he came around saying they were to
go back to their regular assignment. Usually that would be when the
queue had emptied out ten or fifteen minutes later. If the computer
was down requiring manual lookups from large books with printouts,
they'd be there all day sometimes, and even then the automatic floor
limit (approve without checking the books or asking questions) would
have to be raised several dollars just to keep things moving. The
supervisor also had meters in his office which counted the number of
calls at any time or per hour; also the number of 'lost calls' (calls
where the caller hung up without waiting in the queue) and the number
of times all incoming lines and/or all positions were busy.

They did not play MOH; the incoming call put on hold merely got a
short message saying "Amoco/Diners - all positions are busy; please
hold for the first available sales authorizer." The message would
repeat about every thirty seconds, but a wait longer than that was
rare.  The ACD had about fifty in-WATS (800) lines coming in; several
local Chicago numbers; and a couple-dozen 'tie-lines' or ringdowns
which came from dealers in large urban areas where there had been a
high incidence of fraud and/or the dealer otherwise called us at least
twenty times per hour for approvals (such as heavy traffic locations
on the interstates, etc.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #152
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06162;
          21 Feb 92 4:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11726
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:02:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:02:13 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:02:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #153

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 02:02:09 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 153

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Nynex Starts Cable and Telephone Service in the UK (Bryan Montgomery)
    Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages (Middlesex News via Adam M. Gaffin)
    C-Span Carried the RBOC Information Services Hearing (Bob Frankston)
    Bellcore's New NANP (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 17:14:17 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nynex Starts Cable and Telephone Service in the UK


As I mentioned in earlier postings, NYNEX has been moving into the
area of cable in the Portsmouth area of Southern England.

Currently NYNEX is the biggest cable company in the UK of their
operation and are keeping slightly quieter about their telephone
operations. As far as the CATV is concerned they are currently
broadcasting;

        4 Terrestial Stations
        5 General type programmes
        4 Sports channel
        5 News/Documentary channels
        2 Music
        3 Viewing details (1 4x4 matrix with VOA soundtrack)
        3 premium film channels
        4 German
        1 each of Italian, French, Dutch, Spanish and Russian

These are distributed through a cable consisting of both coax and
twisted pair, all of which are underground cables which has resulted
in a mass program digging up sidewalks and installing the ducts for
the cable.

After phoning the local number after asking for some technical
information for a report I was shortly called back by the chief design
engineer. I ended up having a very interesting conversation for about
20 minutes or so. I asked about the type of network implemented, which
threw him somewhat, but he said that it was a mixture of `classic'
types custom designed for this application.

The signals originate from their earth-station/CO and (if I remember
correctly) are fed through fibre to a 34Mbit (Nokia) multiplexor, this
signal is then carried to four 8Mbit multiplexors where it is then
converted to coax/twisted pair and then distributed to each household.
This arrangement covers 2400 houses at a cost of 1/2 million pounds
for materials, including 20km of plant. They are intending to offer
the service to 50,000+ houses and expect to recover the costs over
seven years before showing a profit. The system has been currently
designed to handle up to 40% coverage (in a similar scheme in
Birmingham the take-up rate was about 20%). Incidentally, he reckons
that within about ten years fibre optic cable will be supplied to the
house direct, also they are currently working on a real time video
phone for general useage.

The cable has a bandwidth of 50-550MHz with 1% as a return path for
two-way consumer interaction (as defined in their license). It is
designed to carry upto 50 Pal channels of 8MHz bandwidth. He also told
me that available technology was now capable of producing an amplifier
with 10 times the power, sends a signal twice as far on cable at half
the price of the similar top-range amplifier available this time last
year.

As far as the telephone is considered they plan to come on line with
the first consumer at the beginning of March with general release
coming soon after. The telephone service will require the customer
having a new number (although calls to the old number will automatically
be re-directed) and still listed in the BT phone directory. I wonder
what the deal is behind this, who pays who? NYNEX will offer the (US)
standard flat rate local calling. Up until now BT has ALWAYS had
measured local service. The standard monthly itemised billing system
was just intorduced by BT with the upgrade to digital switches and
ONLY on calls over 10 units-50 pence or so or 90 cents or so.

The long distance calls will automatically be re-routed the cheapest
way. Currently this is almost always through Mercury but they are
apparently having discussions with British Gas and British Rail. For
subscribers not on NYNEX, the local calls will be routed to NYNEX's CO
then onto BT onto the customer.

We recently had a salesman call at my parent's home. It was not a
particularly hard sale, although my Dad had already decided on getting
cable anyway. It turns out that installation is 30 pounds for which
you get the cable from the sidewalk, and a free telephone! The rental
is 2.99 a week+46pence per day per premium film channel. Additionally
an extra converter costs 92 pence a week (now there is a problem as to
which of my two brothers has this box!). When we asked about the phone
service he told us of the dates, said we would be one of the first to
have access if we required as the cables were laid simultaneously.
However he wasn't able to give us any prices but reckoned there would
be an average saving on the phone bill of 15-25%.

Last week the cable was actually installed.  It turned out that we
were the first to have it installed in our particular area. Each house
subscribing, has a cable which is fed from their house, through the
ducting and to the nearest `box'. In our case this is about 200 yards
down the road. The cable is then terminated in a RG75U(?) connector
and screwed to a connector within the box.  At that time there were 32
connectors within the box with provision for more to be added as needs
be. Currently the telephone cable is just terminated. The wire then
runs to a terminator at the front of the consumer's house, where again
the telephone wire is terminated. For our house, the cable is then
split into two sections which are then routed to an internal box. From
here the cable goes to a decoder which controls the channels, volume
and programming options.  There is also another cable which goes to an
FM radio socket in which certain channels are re-broadcast in addition
to `normal' radio stations and VOA.  Incidentally, the decoder is made
by Scientific Atlanta (I think) from Georgia USA.

The initial installation standard was quite high. The whole process
took about three hours. Contractors installed the cable from the road
to the drop and a NYNEX engineer did the internal work. However, the
picture quality was remarkably bad quality initially. On contacting
NYNEX, and following a visit from an engineer, the cable to the drop
was rewired and the picture quality was basically as one expected from
a normal transmission/video. In all I believe that the complaint was
handled quite well -- although I played no part in this as such.
Currently NYNEX reckons on having a 21% take up but that the telephone
capability is likely to increase this figure. It will be interesting
to see what happens in this field.

Although there has been competition, according to the government, this
hasn't taken off in the same way as the US. To take advantage of
Mercury, a fairly high volume of long distance is required, however,
unlike the US, NYNEX is now able to compete with the RBOCs, justifying
their investment in the local loop by combining with CATV.  I have
high hopes for this service and I'll be interested to see how it
progresses. I think NYNEX has quite good prospects at competing with
BT in a profitable way, I guess time will tell, especially as to how
BT will react to this challenge.

Until another time,


Bryan Montgomery.
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: 20-FEB-1992 04:05:50.80
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY


I just noticed something new today:

Cell One/NY (preivously Metro One) customers who are roaming in
Connecticut can now use their Call-Forwarding features again.

When NY cut over to an Ericsson in July of 1991, it was virtually
"isolated" from the rest of the Motorola EMX switches surrounding the
NY system, and at best could only pass along calls to other systems.
Call-Waiting, Three-Way calling, and Call-Forwarding simply would not
work.

They quickly fixed the Call-Waiting; Three-Way took a bit longer, and
finally, after more than seven months, Call-Forwarding works again. Thus,
NY customers in Metro Mobile's CT system can hit *71, *72, *74, or *70
(cancel CF) and these features will behave appropriately.

Note the use of *70 to cancel ALL CF features. I dunno why they do
this -- *73 worked until two weeks ago. I have written to Metro Mobile
about this, informing them that *70 was pretty non-standard. If they
can find anyone there who knows how to read, and better yet, write,
perhaps they will be kind enough to let me know what's going on. (Of
course that assumes that someone at Metro does, which they usually do
not. :( ) I'm going to have fun calling Metro tomorrow and saying:
"Hi, I noticed that NY customers can now use their CF features in CT,
is the converse true for CT customers in NY?" Good thing their *611 is
free -- I figure it will take them over 45 minutes to find someone to
answer this, and there is a 50% chance they will get it wrong anyhow.

To those NY customers who wish to try this: Make sure you DON'T
deactivate your voicemail. If you hit *70 (ie, *73) or *713 (unforward
No-Answer-Transfer only) you will wipe out your voicemail. NY uses the
*71/NAT feature in their last remaining Motorola to transfer to
voicemail, and if you hit anything to clear *71 (even another *71
number, as in *71-415-555-1212), you will erase the voicemail NAT
feature. I do not as of yet know how to restore voicemail using *71; I
will call NY tomorrow and find out. (It USED to be something like
310+mobile number, but that is no good now that 310 is assigned.  I
tried *9, *111, *110, 111+mobile number, etc, but all failed.)

So be careful: If you use *71, make sure you don't have voicemail (or
don't want it for a while -- you have to call customer service to turn
it on again).  *72 will work fine, ie, you can hit *72 and *723 to
unforward, and it will not affect your voicemail. After you unforward
your *72, your voicemail will work fine. (People who use Follow Me
Roaming may be familiar with this already).

I think the features are being handled in NY's Motorola -- it takes
FAR too long for a call to forward for it to be done in the Ericsson.
I assume that when they get rid of the Motorola (which they say will
be soon), these features will be handled directly by the Ericsson.

Note that all the above should also be true for NY customers who roam
into Cell One/South Jersey (ComCast Cellular). You may also find that
CF features will now work in ALL the northeast EMX systems, like
Boston, Philly, Wilmington, Atlantic City, and Rhode Island. I have
not tried this as of yet, but I'd be interested to see how this works.

As to CT customers using their Call Forwarding features in NY ... stay
tuned!

So be careful (for now) with using *71/*713/*70 if you have voicemail,
and enjoy the (finally!) restored CF features.


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 12:07:42 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
Subject: Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages


 My apologies for the "lead" on my story. I admit it, it was late, and
I was too tired to be original :-).

 There was speculation in the {Boston Globe} that this effort may
really be an attempt by Nynex to do something, anything, to get an
information service operational before Congress overturns the court
order letting them into the field (presumably on the theory that if
Nynex is already in the field, Congress will be more reluctant to kick
them out again, even if the effort looks particularly slapdash). Nynex
announced this service the same day the newspaper industry and AT&T
were testifying before Congress urging a return to the MFJ ban.


Adam

Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 2/20/92
Nynex will go on-line with listings

By Adam Gaffin

NEWS STAFF WRITER

     You can now let your fingers do the walking electronically through
the Yellow Pages.

     Nynex yesterday announced an online Yellow Pages available to anyone
with a computer and modem, becoming the first regional Bell operating
company to offer an electronic Yellow Pages database. The 1984 court
order that broke up AT&T had barred such efforts, but that provision was
overturned last year.

     The service, at least at first, will offer listings only, rather
than ads, from close to 300 Nynex directories - the company serves
most of New York and New England, except for Connecticut.

     Users will also be able to scan UPI news and financial
information, according to Kurt Roessner, president of Nynex
Information Technologies, the subsidiary that will run the service.
Ultimately, the company hopes to begin offering and displaying Yellow
Pages-like ads to users, Roessner said yesterday.

     Users will require special software to access the information
through the Minitel network, a French system that has so far failed to
catch on in the U.S. Nynex will provide the software for free to users
of MS-DOS, Macintosh, Apple II and Commodore computers, Roessner said.

     Roessner said Nynex eventually hopes to offer the service on
other, more popular computer networks. Minitel was chosen because
Nynex has offered its Yellow Pages information to French subscribers
for almost two years, he said.

     Nynex will charge 61 cents a minute - $36.60 an hour - the same
as French users pay. However, Roessner acknowledged this may be more
than Americans are willing to pay and that the company will look at
lowering the rate.

     CompuServe, the nation's largest consumer-oriented computer
network, charges $12.80 an hour -- but drops that to just 50 cents an
hour to people who use an AT&T directory of national toll-free
numbers.

     The Nynex project is the latest in a series of efforts by large
companies to sell information to consumers via computer. Some, such as
an effort by Knight-Ridder in the mid-1980s, have ended in spectacular
failure. Last year, Nynex dropped its own information "gateway"
service after losing several million dollars. CompuServe and several
other online services, however, reportedly earn sizable profits.

     Phone-company information services have been surrounded by
controversy. Opponents, who include organizations representing
newspaper publishers, say it is unfair to allow a company that
provides the means of distribution to also offer services -- a common
comparison is to a turnpike authority that also ran a trucking
company.

     Roessner, however, said he hopes the phone company can cooperate
with, rather than fight, other potential "information providers." He
said he has already talked with officials at a number of newspapers
who seem more willing to work with the phone company on joint projects
than their national organizations would let on.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: C-Span Carried the RBOC Information Services Hearing
Date: Thu 20 Feb 1992 11:58 -0500


Yesterday, CSpan carried hearings on RBOCs and information services.
ATT, MCI, Cox Newspapers and the newspaper associations (represented
by their chairpeople) gave good presentations on why RBOCs should be
kept under control.  The Vice-Chairman of Nynex lamely argued that
because they had competition in other areas they should be allowed to
compete in information services (am I being unfair in this character-
ization)?

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

Subject: Bellcore's New NANP
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 0:51:37 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


According to {Newsbytes} Bellcore has distributed a "Proposal on the
Future of Numbering in World Zone 1" which details the plan for
interchangable area codes starting in January, 1995 and looking ahead
30 years.  Since only two of the original 144 codes are available
(Bellcore's figures) there is some urgency.

They got predictable flak, partly people unhappy that Bellcore and the
RBOCs have a monopoly on number assignment, though nobody has offered
a plausible alternative, and some suggestions for adding extra digits
as an alternative.  (Note to readers outside North America: There are
billions of dollars of equipment ranging from central offices to
autodial phones that know that phone numbers are the 3 + 7 digits, since
all our numbers have been of that form for nearly 40 years.  Making
numbers longer would be extremely difficult.)

Bellcore is asking for comments on the proposal by April 30.
Apparently the proposal has a fair amount to say about how they plan
to assign the 640 new area codes.  Has anyone actually seen it?  Is it
possible to get a copy easily?


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #153
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08992;
          21 Feb 92 5:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30132
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:36:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21541
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:35:40 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 02:35:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #154

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 02:35:38 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 154

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960 - Part I (Jim Haynes)
    Bell System Declares War on Software Bugs (Phila Inquirer via Bill Zimmer)
    WECO / USOC Jacks (Carl P. Zwanzig)
    Telephone Economics (was PIC's From RBOC Payphones) (David Gast)
    Faster Protocol Needed ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 22:51:55 -0800
Subject: Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960 - Part I


The August 27, 1960 issue of {Business Week} showed W. U. President
Walter P. Marshall on the front cover, with a pushbutton message
switching position in the background, and the following story inside.
(page 86 ff)

    "Electronics Puts Young Blood in Old Company"

"When Walter P. Marshall (cover) stepped into the president's job at
Western Union in December, 1948, it looked as if his tenure might be
short and unhappy.  Western Union, once the backbone of fast and
dependable long-distance communications in the United States, was,
quite plainly, a deathly sick old company.  It was saddled with high
labor costs, old equipment, crushing debt, and local operations that
often cost more to run than they returned in gross revenue.

"Some Western Union executives were waiting for a declaration of
bankruptcy; many doubted that the company would survive to celebrate
its 100th anniversary in 1951.

"-Rejuvenation- But in the ensuing 10 years, Western Union not only
has pulled through, but it has thoroughly rejuvenated itself.  Instead
of a winded oldster that could only look back at the days when its
competition was the Pony Express, it now resembles an electronics
adolescent with a bright and profitable future.  The company's new
strength already is evident: Last year its revenues and earnings set
an all-time high.

"Western Union can be expected to keep on growing.  In the next five
years, management hopes to spend $350-million on expansion.  Next
year, the company plans to spend $105-million for plant and equipment
on top of $45-million this year.  Completion of a transcontinental
microwave network will increase the system's circuit capacity 10
times, and will add enormously to the range of services it can offer.
It will be able to provide increased telegraphic service, leased voice
channels, facsimile, closed-circuit television, and perhaps most
important of all, high-speed data processing channels that can handle
digital information at computer speeds.

"-I. Financial Turnaround
"The job of turning Western Union around from a faltering centenarian to
an eager and aggressive competitor in the communications field was a
difficult one.  Before the company could even think about modernization,
it had a raft of complex financial problems to solve.  Few outside
the company realized just how close to extinction it was 10 years ago.

"A look at the books shows how deeply in trouble the company was:

  "- Operating losses were about $1-million a month.
  "- Bond issues totaling $30-million were maturing in 1950 and 1951,
and bond issues and notes totaling $35-million were due in 1960, but no
provisions for paying them were being made.
  "- Labor costs were eating up 69.2% of the company's gross revenues,
leaving little money for maintenance or modernization.
  "- Message service, Western Union's basic revenue source, was
declining steadily.  It dropped from $178-million in 1947 to $146-
million in 1949.
  "- Competition was formidable.  More and more, business communication
was going over long-distance telephone lines, and American Telephone &
Telegraph's TWX service, a teletypewriter exchange network, was
diverting a tremendous amount of business from Western Union's wires.

"So the yellow glow of the familiar Western Union offices burned red
in Western Union's ledgers.  The many local offices it maintained hung
like a weight around the company's neck, pulling it deeper toward
losses.  Yet to abandon some of the offices or even limit their hours
required not only months of delay but also expensive hearings.

"-Quick Action - These are problems that Marshall set about solving
when he took over in 1948.  He was 47 and had a background in
financing and accounting.  Unlike most of his predecessors, he had
long experience in the telegraph business.  With the exception of
Joseph Egan, Marshall's immediate predecessor, Western Union's
presidents since the 1930s all had been railroad men.

"Marshall had come to Western Union in 1943 as assistant to the
president when the company absorbed Postal Telegraph, where he had
been executive vice-president.  For years, Postal Telegraph had been
on the verge of insolvency, and its troubles provided familiar
experience.  Marshall's first actions as president of Western Union
were to organize the company's debts and to start cutting labor costs.

"He took care of debts by selling off property and leasing it back, by
selling pole lines, cashing in securities, and selling such
subsidiaries as Teleregister and American District Telegraph. For
example, the big Western Union building in downtown New York was sold
to Woodmen of the World Life Insurance ... [illegible] company for
over $12-million.

"Then Marshall shocked the board of directors by announcing immediate
plans to spend millions of dollars on a broad modernization and
expansion program for services such as Desk-Fax, a method of
transmitting telegrams by facsimile directly to business offices.  He
also accelerated the program for installing automatic switching
centers in 15 cities.  He got management behind a big push to get more
private wire business and to increase facsimile services.  All of this
cost a lot of money.  And with the company's history of steadily
diminishing revenues, it looked risky indeed.

"-Quick Results- Losses in 1949 amounted to nearly $4.5-million on
sales of $181-million.  But by the end of 1950, Marshall's moves began
to show results.  Unprofitable local offices were being cut out and
automatic switching centers were beginning to increase efficiency.
That year alone, labor costs were cut by nearly $6-million, revenues
went up to almost $188-million, and the company turned a $7-million
profit.  There has been no red ink since then, and in 1959 earnings
were a record $16-million on sales of $276-million.

"The company's debt position also has been reversed.  All the
outstanding bond issues have been paid in full or advantageously
refinanced."


[Moderator's Note: This is part one of three parts. Part two will
appear in the Digest Friday night, and part three on Saturday.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 14:18:31 EST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Zimmer)
Subject: Bell System Declares War on Software Bugs


The following appears in today's (Thursday, February 20, 1992) edition
of the {Philadelphia Inquirer}:

BELL SYSTEM DECLARES WAR ON SOFTWARE BUGS
By Larry Fish - Inquirer Staff Writer

    WASHINGTON - The tiny "three-bit bug" that wiped out telephone
service for millions of customers on the East and West Coasts last
summer was an isolated incident and not a symptom of trouble in the
basic phone system, officials of Bell Atlantic Corp. and others said
yesterday.

    In releasing the final report on the cause and cure of the phone
outages, Bell Atlantic also said it was taking a number of steps to
reduce the possibility of similar incidents in the future.

    "I believe we have eliminated the possibility of this kind of
problem occurring," said John Seazholtz, Bell Atlantic vice president
of technology and information services.

    Massive, and baffling, phone outages began afflicting Bell
Atlantic and Pacific Bell last June 10.  They continued frequently
until July 2, each time taking millions of phones out of service.

    After days of round-the-clock, frantic efforts by hundreds of
engineers and scientists, the failures were traced to software that
ran the computers at points in the phone system called signal transfer
points, or STPs.

    An STP may be compared to an intersection of two major highways.
Nearly all phone traffic will have to pass through an STP to be routed
to the correct destination.

    For economic reasons, each STP handles millions of calls.  There
are only eight pairs of STPs for all the millions of lines in Bell
Atlantic's crowded service territory, which stretches from just south
of New York through New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the District of
Columbia and throughout Virginia.

    So crucial are STPs to phone operations that they are always
linked in pairs.  Each is supposed to be as "fail safe" as humanly
possible.

    Last summer, however, relatively minor malfunctions, which the
system should have been able to easily correct, triggered a congestion
that shut the STPs down.  Local phone traffic, which often does not
have to pass through an STP, and much of the long-distance traffic,
which is handed off to a long-distance carrier, were not affected.
But medium-range calls could not get through.

    The culprit turned out to be a software "patch" or upgrade recently
installed in the STPs by DSC Communications Corp.  In a dramatic demon-
stration of how vulnerable highly complex systems can be, the error turned
out to be just three "bits" -- the smallest possible unit of computer
instruction -- in programs that run as much as four million lines.

    Locating the incorrect bits has been comared to finding a single
typrographical error in an entire book.

    Allen Adams, vice president of stategic planning for DSC, said
yes- terday the software had been extensively tested before being
installed.

    But in retrospect, he said, DSC did not test it to see how it would
respond during times of routine computer failure and increasing phone
traffic, the set of circumstances that set off last summer's outages.

    Bell Atlantic will take several steps to protect itself, Seazholtz
said.  The company will try for greater "diversity" in its computers
and software, going to different manufacturers so that no flawed
equipment from one manufacturer can shut down a network.

    And Bell Atlantic will gradually expand the number of STPs, he
said, instead of trying to concentrate the maximum traffic through
existing STPs.  That way, the failure of one STP would affect
relatively fewer calls.

    But others warn that similar-sized outages can't be ruled out.
Allan M. Tumolillo, senior analyst for Probe Research in Cedar Knolls,
N.J., notes that diversifying the types of equipment and software
carries its own risks.

    "I'm reasonably sure that over the next several years, there will
be another shutdown." Tumulillo said.


Bill Zimmer - [e-mail]
Independence Blue Cross    Phila., PA

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 23:34:33 -0500
From: "Carl P. Zwanzig" <[e-mail]>
Subject: WECO / USOC Jacks


There is usually some confusion regarding the proper terminology for
the various Uniform Service Order Codes (USOC's) for interconnect
jacks.  Someone posted recently (sorry, I lost the original message)
that an RJ-11 was 4c6p (four conductor, on a six position modular
jack).

Well, not really.

The following USOC's use a six pin modular jack:
RJ-11    T/R on pins 4/3
RJ-12    T/R on pins 4/3, A/A1 on pins 2/5 (where set must be
         in front of key equipment)
RJ-13    same as RJ-12, set behind key equipment
RJ-14    T1/R1 on 4/3, T2/R2 on 2/5
RJ-17    T/R on 1/6
RJ-19    T/R on 4/3, A/A1 on 2/5, MB/MB1 (make busy) on 1/6
RJ-25    T/R on 4/3, T2/R2 on 2/5, T3/R3 on 1/6

(BTW, I skipped a few.)

The following USOC's use a eight pin modular jack:

RJ-31    T/R on 5/4 T1/R1 on 8/1 (for alarm dialers) (jack has shorting bar)
RJ-32    same as RJ-31
RJ-38    same as RJ-31, jack has connection between 2 and 7 to indicate
         that the plug is inserted
RJ-45    T/R on 5/4, programming resistor on 7/8 ("Programmed Data Usage")

(I skipped a few here also)

This information can be found in many station hardware catalogs (I
used Suttle Apparatus).

Now will people stop refering to 3.5" floppies as "hard disks" ??


Carl Zwanzig     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 03:06:30 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Telephone Economics (was PIC's From RBOC Payphones)

> This argument ignores the fact that much of the infrastructure has
> been built or substantially upgraded since divestiture.  This was not
> paid for with pre-competition dollars.

Some was, some was not (depending on when it was built or upgraded).
Some upgrade built after divestiture was paid for with dollars earned
from pre-divestiture advantage.

> This [ digital upgrade] was paid for by a succession of charges to
> prematurely write down the undepreciated value in what was already
> there.

You sound like an accountant.  From a financial standpoint, only cash
matters.  (See Copland and Weston (sp), for example).  Non-cash
charges against earnings do not pay for anything.  The equipment was
paid for when it was installed using some combination of debt and
equity.  (Sure ... maybe the checks were not written the precise
moment of installation, but the idea is correct).

> Note that what was already there was not fully depreciated in the
> late 1980's so this is hardly stuff that was paid off with
> pre-competition dollars.

Was not paid off except by people with green eye shades.  :-) If the
equipment was installed pre-divestiture, then it was paid for
pre-divestiture.  On the other hand, (and you will like this part),
the new equipment installed in the 1980s was paid for when it was
installed.  (It is not paid for over the life of the equipment.  The
situation is more complicated when the PUC sets rates, but by and
large AT&T is now a competitive corporation, not a monopoly subject to
FCC and PUC rulings on rates.  Note: I said by and large, there is
still some regulation).

> Examples: Bell Labs results  had to be made public.

Oh, I hadn't heard that the Unix source code (pre-divestiture version,
of course) was public.

> Accomodation had to be made for interconnection with those areas
> having independent local phone companies.

There have been other ideas expressed on this topic; I know PAT has
posted some, but not concerned with the 1980 time frame.

> > If AT&T were deregulated tomorrow, it would lower its prices to cost
> > for, say, one month -- and all its competitors would go bankrupt!

> Last I heard, the anti-trust division of the U.S. Department of
> Justice (which is not the rate regulatory stuff of the FCC) was alive
> and well, even in a Republican administration.  Such behavior would
> attract their attention.

The anti-trust division has been sleeping for ever since the Reagan
administration took office with one major exception.  The economic
theorists in anti-trust, the White House, OMB, etc, just do not
believe that momopoly can exist in an industry with free entry
(defined in terms of ability, not cost).  Never mind that the COST of
entry can be huge.  As a result and in spite of merger mania, there
have been only a few cases where the anti-trust division blocked
mergers or takeovers or filed anti-trust cases.  They did not object,
for example, when TWA bought Ozark airlines and in the process
garnered something like 83% of the landing gates in St. Louis.  And
they have not objected to the proposed merger of BofA and Security
Pacific Bank in spite of the fact that these are probably the two
biggest (at least both are in the top 3) banks along the west coast.
The merger will create the largest bank in the country and huge market
share in the west.  (The economic "geniuses" :-) in the OMB have not
figured out why BofA wants to merge with Security Pacific instead of
big bank in the East).

The one major exception to a sleeping anti-trust division involved MA
BELL, which is well known to have had a monopoly previous to
divestiture, and as a result to have been heavily regulated.  One
reason for breaking up AT&T was to get the government out of
regulating it.  And don't forget, 1. AT&T and the Justice Department
settled out of court.  2. The same day the out of court settlement was
announced, the anti-trust case against IBM was dropped.  (I posted an
article in early January just before the 10th anniversary of the MFJ.
The interested reader is refered there for additional information.)


David

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

From: [e-mail] (gip cursus)
Subject: Faster Protocol Needed
Organization: University of Nijmegen
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 19:01:51 GMT


Hello!

I'm looking for some protocol like Zmodem or SEAlink that runs under
UNIX. At the moment I'm using Kermit to get files from the university
computer to my own PC at home and visa versa, but it's so SLOW. When I
call a BBS I've got the oppertunity to use a protocol like Zmodem,
Puma or even BiModem to get the files across.

So what I'm looking for (in the PD software) is one (or more) of the
following protocols that run under UNIX:

Zmodem
SEAlink
Puma (not quite a standard, but it's fast)
BiModem (nah, don't believe that it's available for UNIX, but it's worth a try)


Regards, Patrick.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #154
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16332;
          21 Feb 92 21:55 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21845
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 19:47:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01480
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 19:47:21 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 19:47:21 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #155

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 19:47:18 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 155

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960 - Part II (Jim Haynes)
    Capitol Hill Cellular Service (Jeffrey J. Carpenter)
    Status Wanted on GTE California Rate Changes (Robert L. McMillin)
    Need Help With Household Phone Problem (Elizabeth Schwartz)
    Handset Connectors (Bob Miller)
    313 Split on the Way (Jim Rees)
    Acoustic Coupler Needed - Please Help! (Stuart Lea)
    Need Discount Source For NEC Cell Phones and Booster Kits (David C. Kovar)
    Can Directory Assistance Database Be Reached With Telnet? (Barry Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 22:52:16 -0800
Subject: Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960 - Part II


[Moderator's Note: This is part two of three parts of an article which
appeared in {Business Week} magazine over thirty years ago, back in
1960. Part one appeared Friday morning; part three will appear here on
Saturday morning.  PAT]

"-II. Leap to Modernization-

"So, with its financial house in order, Western Union is in a position
to take off in new directions to insure its future.  And in many
respects, never has there been so fortuitous a time for the company to
modernize.

"During the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, startling progress
has been made in electronics and communications technology.  Two
developments particularly were important to Western Union: (1) the
perfection of high frequency radio relay system - microwave - which
provided a logical and much less expensive way to increased
long-distance facilities; and (2) development of computers and
automatic electronic switching systems, which promised big increases
in efficiency at high reliability levels.

"-Big Jump- With much of its plant obsolete, Western Union was able to
go from old manual systems to the most modern automatic equipment in
one big jump.  For example, in the 1940s almost all of Western Union's
services were carried on telegraph channels of a very narrow frequency
range of 170 cycles per second, providing a top communications speed
of only 60 to 100 words a minute.  Today, the company's nearly
complete transcontinental microwave system will consist of two
6-million cycle channels capable of carrying broadband television,
handling over 12,000 simultaneous telegraph messages, transmitting
computer tapes at high speed, or carrying voice communication or
facsimile.  These so-called broad band signals can't be carried on
ordinary wires, but require coaxial cable or ultra-high-frequency
radio beam carriers.

"Had its modernization started earlier and been more gradual, the
company would have sought to increase its capacity slowly through
intermediate steps.  These would have been expensive and yet they
would not have been able to provide the facilities the company now
feels it needs.

"-Decreasing Dependency- The new broad-band system also will reduce
Western Union's dependence on other communications carriers.  Western
Union particularly has been dependent on the Bell System for leased
facilities.  In the early 1950s, about 70% of Western Union's circuit
mileage was leased, mostly from AT&T.

"Although the number of leased wires has not been reduced in absolute
terms, today their proportion has decreased to about 60%.  S. M. Barr,
Western Union vice-president in charge of planning, expects this
percentage to drop to 40% in the next few years, hopes to get the
proportion of leased facilities down to 20% eventually. 'You can
see the kind of growth we expect, then, if we see no reduction and
a possible increase in the number of leased facilities,' he says.

"The big increase in traffic that Western Union anticipates for its
new system is not likely to come from public message services, which
have been the backbone of its business.  This type of service basically
is tied to population growth, and to some extent to merchandising
gimmicks such as singing birthday greetings, flowers and candy by
wire, and other special services. [1]

"-Private Expansion- But it does expect its private wire services to
expand greatly.  Here, particularly, Western Union's new facilities
will be of help in solving communications problems for private customers.
Western Union already has a good deal of savvy when it comes to tailoring
a special system to a customer's needs.  About 2,000 companies in the U.S.
 -- among them U.S. Steel, General Electric, Sylvania, and United Air Lines
 -- have private communications networks leased from Western Union. And
its bank wire service interconnects 213 banks in 55 cities with pushbutton
switching.

"Western Union got into the private systems business without much selling
effort.  In most cases, it just waited for customers to come to it.  But
those days, like the days of the hand-operated message centers, are
long since gone.

"Now the company is pushing leased systems aggressively, and the results
show it.  In 1950, private wire revenues brought in $8-million, or about
5% of Western Union's message business.  In 1959, private wires sang a
$52.3-million tune on the cash register.  It won't be long, Marshall
believes, before the revenues from private wires top those from public
message services.

"-Meeting the Competition- Until recently, however, Western Union could
not compete directly with AT&T's TWX network, which offers direct
customer-to-customer teleprinter connection through a central exchange
system similar to a telephone network.  Several years ago, FCC gave
Western Union permission to purchase TWX from AT&T, but the price
was too high.  Now, Western Union is expanding a roughly similar
system called Telex that will offer direct customer-to-customer
dialing. [2]

"Besides direct dialing, the biggest difference between Telex and
TWX is the method of billing customers.  Telex customers are charged
only for the time that the facilities are in use plus a 50-cent
connection charge.  A short order to a New York broker from, say,
Chicago via Telex might be subject only to a 10-second time charge,
compared with a three-minute basic charge on TWX.

"-Growing Network- At present, Telex service is available only
between New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  But before
yearend, 19 more cities will be added.  In 1961, it will cover 23
more cities, and management hopes to get approval from the board
of directors to cover 128 cities by 1962."

[1] One would think that a writer for such an astute publication
as {Business Week} would have noted the price elasticity of personal
communication.  This would have suggested that the dropping price of
long-distance telephony would devastate public Telegram service,
as it did.

[2] Dial Telex service began in Germany in 1933, just three years
after AT&T introduced manual TWX service in the U.S.  Telex used
modified SxS telephone switching equipment.  Western Union imported
the European technology and equipment, even to the 50-baud
teleprinters.  One wonders if AT&Ts conversion to dial TWX was at all
in response to competition from Telex, or if it was simply a matter of
taking advantage of the switched telephone network for transmission.

I assume that manual TWX calls were timed using Calculagraphs, just as
voice calls were.  Telex used a simpler charging mechanism, no doubt
because it originated long before automated telephone billing.  At the
time a Telex call was set up the customer's charging register was
connected to a pulse generator, the pulse rate depending on the
distance to the called station.  The charges could be reduced at night
simply by slowing down the pulse generators.  At least in Germany
there were Telex PBXs in hotels; in this case the pulses were relayed
to the PBX so that the hotel guest could be billed.  Telex was always
customer-dialed long-distance service.


[Moderator's Note: Although telex was always customer-dialed,
provision was made for an operator's help in completing a difficult
connection. Dialing (was it? ) '17' from the telex unit connected the
user to WU's 'manual assistance positions' in Bridgeport, MO. An
operator there communicated with the user by typing back and forth on
the keyboard, like a modern day 'chat', and the operator could then do
what any telco operator could do: complete the connection, verify a
busy terminal, busy circuits, out of order, or number not in service
condition on the receiving end. In addition, the WU manual assistance
operator was used to place 'collect' (reverse charge) connections and
special or third-party billing. I think dialing '19' connected the
user to WU directory assistance where help was given by 'chatting'.
Part three of this article will appear in the Digest on Saturday.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 19:54:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capitol Hill Cellular Service


In the February 17, 1992 issue of "Roll Call" (a publication for
Capitol Hill) there was mention of a special cellular phone service
for Capital Hill users:

Projects underway in [Senate Sergeant at Arms Martha] Pope's office
include a five-digit cellular phone service.  In "the final testing
stages," according to Pope's statement, the new service will allow
cellular users to dial Hill numbers by keying only the standard
five-digit numbers that are used from Congressional phones on the Hill.
These units will also be able to receive calls dialed on the phone
system.

The greatest advantage of this system is that "when long distance
numbers are dialed [they are] completed over WATS facilities.  This
results in lower cost per minute," the statement said.


jeff

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 22:27:41 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Status Wanted on GTE California Rate Changes


Does anyone out there know what the status of the proposed California
rate changes GTE and Pac*Bell requested last year?  I have heard but
little on TELECOM Digest about this, and wondered whether the state PUC
has authorized the restructuring.  (The restructuring to which I refer
would cut daytime rates substantially at the expense of nearly
everything else, primarily to compete against companies like Cable &
Wireless, who provide local dialtone to businesses at prices markedly
lower than what John Higdon once called "toastem" rates.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Subject: Need Help With Household Phone Problem
Organization: UMass/Boston
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 06:32:21 GMT


My parents are having a problem which is driving us all NUTS ...

   They live in a narrow row house in Baltimore. Dad's study is in the
basement and Mom's is on the second floor. Each has a telephone; each
telephone works when used alone. The problem comes when I call them
and they both get on the phone at once. Dad sounds fine; Mom sounds
very faint-and-far-away to me. At *their* end, though, my mother
complains that my Dad is shouting! (both are talking normally).

   As you can guess, this has wrecked a lot of conversations!  My
question is, does anyone recognize this pattern? Is there something we
could do to perhaps filter one signal and boost another ... or is
there possibly a problem with one of the phones???

  I'd be very grateful for any help.

  Thanks!


Betsy Schwartz                        Internet: [e-mail]
System Administrator                  BITNET:[e-mail]
U-Mass Boston  Computer Science Dept. Harbor Campus  Boston, MA 02125-3393


[Moderator's Note: You did not say what kind of phones they are using,
and if they are electronic, or more traditional units. That would
help. Also, are the phones wired in series from the demarc, or parallel
(if you happen to know.)? If in series, whose phone is first after the
demarc and whose comes next?  Answer what you can of this please.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 00:46:10 cst
From: [e-mail] (Bob Miller)
Subject: Handset Connectors
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I need some help locating PC mount handset jacks.  I've tried
MCM Electronics, South Hills Datacom, Inmac, Digi-Key and Radio Shack.
Does anyone have a source?  I need about seventy-five of them.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha.  Farewell to Admiral Grace  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 00:12:17 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: 313 Split on the Way
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 05:12:08 GMT


Michigan Bell has announced plans to split the 313 area code in early
1994.  The newspaper story claims that there are only two area codes
left, and we'll get one of them.  I thought we were already out, which
would mean that we would get one of the new style (exchange-like) area
codes.  Is there in fact any traditional (or N10) area code left?

The proposed split roughly follows Eight Mile Road, with Detroit,
western suburbs, and Washtenaw county in 313, and northern suburbs in
the new area code.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lea)
Subject: Acoustic Coupler Needed - Please Help!
Organization: UMIST, Manchester, England.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 14:21:03 GMT


I'm trying to get hold of an acoustic coupler at the moment for my PC
 -- You know the rubbery cup things! It has to be one of these, rather
than the conventional modem as I'll be using it with a mobile phone.

I cannot seem to lay my hands on one for love nor money.  If anyone
knows where I can lay my hands on one (very) cheaply I'd appreciate
it.

Someone out there must have one of these beasties hiding under a pile
of rubbish.

Alternatively, if anyone has one I could borrow for a month I would be
very grateful.


Thanks for reading,

Stuart Lea------------Tel:[phone]------Fax:[phone]------------
JANET:    [e-mail]                                UMIST University,
INTERNET :[e-mail]       B18, Main Bldg., PO Box 88
  ---#include <std.disclaimers>-----------------------Manchester, UK  M60 1QD

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

From: [e-mail] (David C. Kovar)
Subject: Need Discount Source For NEC Cell Phones and Booster Kits
Organization: Eclectic Associates, Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 19:57:03 GMT


One in Boston is selling them for $500/$725 or thereabouts. One phone
call found me the P300 for $525, but I suspect there might be
something even cheaper out there.

  Also, I'd like to get a three watt booster for it, but they run
about $600.  What the heck?? I can buy a very nice three watt phone
for $600! Of course, I can't buy two phones and get one number, so
that's not really an option.  But why do the boosters cost so much?
Any way to get around this particular problem?

  The lowest price I've found so far for the P300, car kit, booster
kit, and installation is $1250, which isn't too shabby since the same
company was quoting me $525 for the phone, $300 for the car kit and
installation, and $600 for the booster. But ... I'm still looking ...


David C. Kovar
  Consultant            Internet: [e-mail]
  Eclectic Associates        AppleLink: ECLECTIC
  Ma Bell: 617-643-3373        MacNET: DKovar

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Johnson)
Subject: Can Directory Assistance Database Be Reached With Telnet?
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 18:20:53 GMT


One of our users came to me the other day asking if I knew of a
database he could telnet to, that held names, phone numbers, and
addresses of people in the US.  He said he was looking for a online
version of the database directory assistance uses when you dial
1-xxx-555-1212 in the US?  Does anyone know of such a public system?
Does AT&T have their stuff online somewhere?  Any ideas?


Thanks.

Barry Johnson
CTS Clemson University


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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #155
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17634;
          21 Feb 92 22:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00697
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 20:28:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32030
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 20:28:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 20:28:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #156

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 20:28:06 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 156

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Monty Solomon)
    Cellular Calls From High Buldings (was: Airplanes) (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes (Larry Svec)
    Re: Cellular NPA/NXX Tables (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cellular NPA/NXX Tables (John R. Covert)
    Re: Cellular Phones and Safety (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Ameritech Voicemail (Randall C. Gellens)
    Re: How Are Exchanges Assigned? (John R. Grout)
    Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer (Roy Smith)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Toby Nixon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 01:55:54 HST
From: Monty Solomon <roscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground


[e-mail] (Phydeaux) wrote:

> I've used my cellphone countless times while sitting in an airplane on
> the ground.  No airline employee has ever told me that I could not do
> this.  As I understand it (yes, I know, highly scientific evidence)
> the reason why use is prohibited in airplanes is because of the effect
> on the cellular system if you hit many many cells at the same time,
> *not* because it does anything to the instruments.

A couple of months ago I was on a flight from Boston to SFO on United
and had a long delay before departure.  There was a lawyer sitting
behind me who was having several lengthly cellular phone conversations
with parties in California and was asked by a flight attendant to
terminate the conversation so that we could take off.  His cellular
phone was somehow interferring with the plane's communication and/or
navigation systems.

He told the flight attendant that he "would be done in a minute" and
she told him that we weren't leaving the gate until he hung up.  He
quickly complied and went and got an AirPhone to make several more
calls.

The information guide in the seat pocket specifically prohibited
cellular phone usage as well as other RF devices like radios and TVs
while on the plane.


Monty Solomon    roscom![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
Subject: Cellular Calls From High Buldings (was: Airplanes)
Date: 19 Feb 92 10:10:18 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


> [Moderator's Note: I *have* used my cell phone from the observatory at
> Sears Tower.

> I saw no harm to the cellular system here as a result of my call ...
> but what do I know?  PAT]

I'm not saying that there was any harm.  However, if there was, I
don't think that you would know.  Being at a better vantage-point,
your SAT tone might overpower another user's SAT tone in a distant
(but line-of-sight to you) cell and cause his call to be disconnected.
But it is unlikely that you would notice.


Craig R. Watkins                [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.               [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 16:24:08 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> [Moderator's Note: I *have* used my cell phone from the observatory at
> Sears Tower. The local expressway/traffic monitors for Chicago have
> their office in the Sears observatory. They sit in a large room with
> plate glass windows so that the public may peer in and see the various
> hookups they have to radio stations using their services, etc.

   The stuff you see at Sears Tower are remote "monitors" connected to
the Illinois Department of Transportation's Traffic Control Center
(TCC), which has the computers driving the displays and providing all
the radio station hook-ups, etc.  TCC is located in Oak Park,
overlooking the beautiful Eisenhower Expressway, with four PDP-11/70s
monitoring the 2200 traffic sensors and 90+ entrance sensors buried
beneath the Chicago Expressways.

The PDPs tabulate the sensor data and forward it to a large VAX for
actual processing, including algorithms that estimate the travel times
over various Expressway sections.  A recent IEEE-sponsored tour of TCC
was very enlightening.  The data collection equipment looks like a
small telephone office (lots of wires, etc.)  and their problems are
similar (outside plant failures, etc.).  Sensor data is transmitted by
home-made Frequency Division units that stack 23(?) sensors onto
leased telephone lines.

   TCC says they operate the most modern traffic monitoring system in
the world, from humble beginnings in 1960.  They believe their
reports, coupled with rapid accident removal (the IDOT "Minutemen"),
allow the expressways to carry 20% more traffic than un-monitored
systems, and reduce travel times by allowing "flexible" travelers to
choose another time or route.  The entrance lights that control the
entry rate in many areas serve to keep (where possible) the average
traffic at about 25% density, which seems to yield minimum travel
times with maximum throughput -- more cars actually reduce the total
number of cars traveling a given distance within a given time.  TCC
also runs digitized voice information through low-power transmitters
(at the far ends of the AM band) located at prime intersections of the
expressways.

Note that IDOT is not currently allowed to monitor area tollways;
they're operated by another state agency.

I can provide more if desired ...


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


[Moderator's Note: Sure, tell us more.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Svec)
Subject: Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 17:53:18 GMT


The following is half serious, half tongue in cheek...

Since they no longer allow smoking in the USA, they could re-fit the
NO-SMOKING lights on the overhead portion of the airplane to serve as
Yes/No indicator for allowing phone calls, I can just hear the
stewardess now over the loudspeaker ...

 (substituting "smoking" with "phone calls")

"The captain has lit the "no cellular phone calls sign". Please return
your flip phone to it's original upright position, and please refrain
from phone calls until well inside the terminal".


Larry Svec - KD9OF
  home: 708-526-1256   e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl  VHF: 145.150-
  work: 708-632-5259      fax: [phone]        UHF: 443.575+

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular NPA/NXX Tables
Date: 20 Feb 92 16:34:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert Ricketts) writes:

>      Any help on where to obtain cellular NPA/NXX pairs would be much
> appreciated.  V&H data is optional - I'm mainly interested in the
> NPA/NXX and wire center name.  An indicator showing which system (A/B)
> would also be useful but not required.

In the NYC area, both NYNEX and CellularOne (formerly MetroOne) have
several NXX codes assigned for their exclusive use.  But they also
both have some numbers assigned in prefixes which are also used for
POTS, Centrex, and other non-cellular telephone services.  I think
this is common elsewhere.  If I do business in Morristown, NJ (which
is about 30 miles from New York City) I might request a number for my
cell phone which is local when dialed from my business location or my
customers' locations.  They'd assign a number in Florham Park, NJ in
the 201-822 exchange (for NYNEX).  Lots of residence, business, and
several centrex customers are also served out of the 822 prefix.  The
prefixes assigned exclusively to Cellular One are mostly local to
Hackensack -- probably the location of their MTSO.


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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 08:59:56 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular NPA/NXX Tables


One problem with what you are looking for is that it is not always the
case that NPA-NXXs are assigned entirely to cellular.

Cellular phones can share NPA-NXXs with regular phones and even with
the competing cellular carrier in the area.

You'd need the data all the way down to the hundreds groups assigned
to the various cellular carriers.


/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Safety
Date: 19 Feb 92 20:18:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


In the city of Lake Oswego, Oregon, which owns most of the roads
around my house, driving while talking on the phone can get you a $100
fine.  I don't know whether this includes hands-free phones, although
it's a moot point because such behavior can't be detected.

In part because of this law, I usually pull over and stop when I get a
phone call.  (But I drive a stick shift, so it's not really safe for
me to drive one-handed.)


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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 09:08 GMT
From: Randall C Gellens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Voicemail


In TELECOM Digest Volume 12 : Issue 108, the Moderator (Patrick A.
Townson) discusses Ameritech Voice Mail Commands and Security Flaws:

>   After the message has played out, 5 to delete it; 7 to save it.

Considering that the Aspen voice mail product (from Octel,I think)
uses 7 to delete a message, and that Aspen is widely used by
businesses, this seems an unfortunate choice, as people with Aspen at
work and IBT RVMS at home will be likely to confuse 7 and end up
deleting messages by accident.  Of course, this is not as serious a
risk of nonstandardization as airline flight controls which differ
from model to model :-).


Randy

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: How Are Exchanges Assigned?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 16:20:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> In many cases, older step-by-step technologies will have
> likely determined how exchanges would be assigned. For instance, it
> was expensive to put in equipment to process extra number
> combinations; "digit absorbing" was used instead.

> For instance, an exchange with 523-xxxx numbers could be set up on a
> step-by-step so that only the last four digits need be used to
> complete a call to another 523-xxxx number. Thus, the digits 5, 2 and
> 3 would be "absorbed" or ignored by the phone company equipment for
> dialing purposes; only when the next digit comes along does the call
> start to get routed (and that first digit cannot be a 5, 2 or 3 ... in
> fact, in one exchange in my experience, you can dial absorbed digits
> for hours and still complete the call once the last four digits start
> to get dialed). Thus, it would not be possible to use other prefixes
> such as 532 or 252 or 333 for a local call from such an exchange;
> furthermore, care would have to be taken to avoid a conflict with
> local calling (say 523-4xxx local numbers were in effect; you could
> not put a 234-xxxx exchange in service without overhauling the service
> on 523-xxxx since 234 would be interpreted as 523-4 ...)

The cases of shortened dialing I've heard about didn't use this
technique as you described it: instead, they had five digit dialing
for some local calls and restricted the exchanges in the local calling
area so the first digit one dialed (which would be the third digit of
the exchange) would uniquely identify the call as a five-digit local
call and that only four digits would follow.  For example, if one's
local exchanges were 225 and 227, no other seven-digit dialed
exchanges in one's dialing area would be allowed to begin with 5 or 7.

This would lead to complex patterns of exchange assignment: I never
saw it used except in isolated areas where there were few exchanges in
the local dialing area to consider.


John R. Grout        INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 16:56:40 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T $20 Cash Offer
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


    Dan Meyer writes about a little game he played with AT&T and
MCI, switching back and forth, taking advantage of a "cash for
switching" offer, and then being upset when it turned out to be hard
to get switched back.

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think you will be switched back.

    And, in my opinion, I don't think you *should* be switched
back.  Get real here.  You deliberately took advantage of an apparant
loophole in the wording of AT&T's offer.  If you watch enough TV
lawyer shows, you learn that to have a valid contract, you need to
have a "meeting of minds", i.e. both parties have to understand and
agree to the terms of the contract.  You didn't have a meeting of
minds, you deliberately attempted to violate the spirit of the
agreement to your advantage because you thought you spotted a flaw in
the letter of the agreement.  You deserve what you get.

    Maybe the problem with the US is not that we have too many
lawyers, but that we have too many people who are willing to take
advantage of other people (or companies) just because they can.  I can
be half convinced that the people complaining about getting charged
900 rates for an 800 number are right (but only half convinced; they
were telecom junkies who knew they were doing something wierd just to
see what would happen) but not in this case.


[e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
Date: 19 Feb 92 13:15:54 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony
Harminc) writes:

>> {Relay calls via Canada?}
>> Someone in Miami just tried this about a year ago.  Once word got
>> around to the exile community, he got busted rather quickly.

> Sure -- but my point is that obviously a Canadian company can't be
> busted in Canada under a US law.  Who would they bust?  The US
> callers of the service?  Surely in the good old, freedom loving, USA
> it can't be illegal to make a phone call?

International telecommunications treaties tightly regulate the routing
of international calls through third countries.  One thing few
Americans realize is that our Constitution makes treaties "the supreme
law of the land", once they are ratified by the Senate, with the same
level of effect as the rest of the Constitution.  Thus, I would not at
all be surprised to find that one or more federal agencies would get
involved in shutting down a service which "illegally" routed telephone
calls in violation of "international law".

Not to get too far of the subject, but that provision of the
Constitution making treaties "supreme law" is one of the reason so
many folks are opposed to US membership in the UN, and to such
"treaties" as the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which gives
governments many powers which our own Bill of Rights denies to the
government).


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 #156
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18671;
          21 Feb 92 23:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06168
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 21:02:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31609
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 21:02:02 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 21:02:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #157

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 21:02:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 157

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile (Bruce Clement)
    Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: MCI Prefered and Modems (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Popular Communications Magazine in Braille (Michael Schuster)
    Re: WECo Modular Connector Naming (John R. Levine)
    Re: Caller ID Information Wanted (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Alternatives to MOH (Chris Arndt)
    Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Party Not Answering Phone (Michael Bender)
    Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: MOH - Is it a Violation of ASCAP & BMI? (Macy Hallock)
    Re: 1-800-HAIR (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Clement)
Subject: Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile
Organization: Children of Ingle-Frey
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 01:39:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(michael.a.frank) writes:

> been included.  One last final thing, Great Britain has a form of
> GOSIP, and any information concerning its differences with GOSIP would
> be most helpful.  Thanks in advance.

I understand that there are minor differences between the UK GOSIP and
the real thing (which was sorted out between the Australian & NZ
Governments). There are also other variants of GOSIP used by various
foriegn governments.

The specs on the real thing should be available from either the
Australian or NZ Government print shops. One in every major city.


Bruce Clement speaking for truth, beauty, and the New Zealand way.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile
Date: 19 Feb 92 20:07:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(michael.a.frank) writes:

> I'm presently taking a course on ISDN, and our instructer wants us to
> get information on on the Government Open Systems Interconnection
> Profile (GOSIP).  I thought the folks reading the the TELECOM Digest
> might be of help to me.  I'm looking for general information on
> GOSIP,as well as the defining specifics and how ISDN requirements have
> been included.  One last final thing, Great Britain has a form of
> GOSIP, and any information concerning its differences with GOSIP would
> be most helpful.  Thanks in advance.

GOSIP does not deal in any way with ISDN. It does not exclude it. It
simply doesn't cover it.

If you have Internet access, the GOSIP documents are available from
many NICs including NIC.ES.NET in the NIST directory. They cover the
transistion of government networks to ISO protocols as per the Open
Systems Interconnect (OSI) reference model. These protocols are
scheduled to replace TCP/IP and DECnet over the next 4 years in
government networking.

GOSIP V1 is now in effect for federal procurements. I don't recall
when V2 takers effect, but it's pretty soon. NB: The NSAP format
specified in V1 does not work! It is fixed in V2.

The UK GOSIP is very similar to the US one, except it calls for X.25
instead of CLNP as the network layer protocol.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Prefered and Modems
Date: 19 Feb 92 13:04:52 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Alan Burnstine) writes:

> I use MCI account codes with my modem with no trouble.  What you need
> to do is enter a W between the dialed number and the account code.  The W
> is the Hayes symbol to wait for second dial tone.  This will only work
> if your modem is set to X4 either as the default or in your
> initialization.  x1 - x3 will not recognize the second tone.

Actually, the opposite is true, at least in Hayes modems.  The "W"
command is an explicit request to wait for a second dial tone, and it
does so without regard to the value of the X command; it will issue a
NO DIALTONE result code if S7 expires before the second dial tone is
heard, even if dial tone detection is "disabled" by X.  All the X
command controls is whether or not automatic wait for initial dial
tone is done when the modem first goes off hook.


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] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Popular Communications Magazine in Braille
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 17:47:29 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> Starting with the April issue, NLS will be producing {Popular
> Communications} as a new braille magazine.  This magazine covers
> subjects such as short-wave listening, scanners, CB, ham radio,
> cellular telephones, and other communications topics.  If you are
> getting QST from NLS already, and are known to be a braille reader,
> you will automatically be on the mailing list.  If you do not meet
> those criteria, but are interested in getting this magazine free,
> contact your cooperating braille/talking book library.

Now if there were only something in Popular Communications ("Poop Can"
to the savvy) worth reading. A lot of us have grown so tired of old
news and of Tom Kneitel's "sthick" that we've migrated to Monitoring
Times ... a far more timely and palatable publication, IMHO.


   ____________________________Mike Schuster_____________________________
NY Public Access UNIX: [e-mail]        | [e-mail]
The Portal (R) System: [e-mail]   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

Subject: Re: WECo Modular Connector Naming
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 19 Feb 92 11:06:17 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Well, a Graybar Telecom catalog I have here, admittedly not an
> authoritative source, lists that as an RJ-14.  Four position, four
> conductor.

Close, but not quite.  An RJ-14 is the same physical jack as the
familiar RJ-11, but with two separate phone lines wired to it.  I have
an RJ-14 under my desk here, as I imagine many of the other people
reading this message do.  The handset cord uses a slightly smaller
connector.

According to my old Armiger catalog, the jack for the handset cord is
a 616W, the cord is an H4 or H4DU, and the handset itself with a jack
is a G15.

Handset parts don't get RJ numbers because they don't interface to the
network, they merely connect parts of the phone together.


Regards,

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

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Information Wanted
Date: 19 Feb 92 13:30:05 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Eddie Anthony) writes:

> What exactly has to be "in place" for Caller ID to work? I see a box
> advertised in the Tenex catalogue for $50 that shows who's calling you
> but with the disclaimer that it might not work in all areas. Now, here
> in Cleveland, I believe that the police departments have it on their
> phones to trace the cranks and the suicide calls and such, but can the
> necessary circuitry be in place for JUST the police departments or
> would it have to be implemented for a whole system?

Enhanced 911 systems DO NOT use the same technology as Caller ID.
With Enhanced 911, there is a high-speed leased line from the phone
company database (which has subscriber addresses) directly into the
police department's dispatch computer.  When a call comes into the
police, the calling number information goes to the database computer,
which looks up the subscriber information (name, address, etc.) and
sends it through the separate out-of-band connection to the police's
computer; the call and the information arrive at about the same time,
but through different routes.

Caller ID is delivered on the same line as the actual call, by sending
modulated data between the first and second rings.  It is an entirely
different technology from Enhanced 911.  I suppose in some small rural
police and fire departments they might use Caller ID because they
can't afford to pay for an E911 system, but they also will get only
the number and not the name or address (which doesn't help them to get
to the fire faster, but only to prosecute false alarms).


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: Wed, 19 Feb 92 11:13:45 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOH


Right after I mailed the post about NOAA weather radio on hold, I
called Winnebago Industries in Iowa to order some motorhome parts. I
got the much lamented "Winnebago ... can you hold? (click)"

The "M"OH was a local radio station with a FARM REPORT format. I
started the stopwatch, and after 33 minutes, I called the same 800
number on a different line. (I left the first one on hold.) I
explained my dilemma to the reception person answering. I heard a
phone ringing in the background. Curiously, it stopped ringing after I
hung up my first call. Anyway, I now know more about hog bellies,
grain futures and Iowa weather than I care to! (Oops, I 'know' more
not 'no' more. :-) )

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

Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls
Date: 19 Feb 92 10:43:36 PST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


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

> 1) Pac*Bell can trace these calls right? I've been keeping up with
>    Telecoms articles on the advancements of call tracing ... so why
>    would this person lie to me? (Or why would they refuse to rectify
>    the problem from their end?)

Not only can Pac*Bell trace the call, it can set up a "trap" which
holds the connection so that it can be traced at leisure. However,
except in cases of criminal intent or harassment, the company has no
interest in wasting its time or resources for such a non-revenue
producing activity. Pac*Bell does not have to worry about keeping you
happy; where else are you going to go for telephone service?

> 2) What kind of data equipment makes a 1.5 sec (5k-8kHz) beep, then
>    pauses for an equal amount of time, then repeats? (The supervisor
>    said something of FCC approval of "junk faxes")

More puzzling than that is how on earth did you hear frequencies of
5-8K over a phone line? Virtually all calls in Pac*Bell go in and out
of offices via digital carrier which has a brick wall response limit
at just above 3 KHz. Also, if you are any distance at all from the CO,
the loading coils will kill anything above 5 KHz.

Could you be just a little off on those frequencies?


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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 11:58:39 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Party Not Answering Phone


On the subject of busy being generated as close to the originating
caller as possible, I've often wondered why, when the called
subscriber goes on hook, the busy indication doesn't go away and
change to a ringing indication, as well as ringing the called
subscriber's phone?  It would seem, with SS7 at least, that this would
not tie up trunks, just a signalling channel.  But then I suppose you
get into the problem of which caller gets ringing indication if
multiple callers call a busy subscriber ...


Mike

[Moderator's Note: The answer is, the *first* one waiting would get
through and the others would continue to wait.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes
Date: 19 Feb 92 20:29:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> The parties overwhelmingly agree that the airborne use of cellular
> telephones would likely cause interference to cellular operations ...
> Cellular telephones shall not be operated in airplanes, balloons or
> any other aircraft capable of airborne operation while airborne.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to just how a cell phone in a
hot-air balloon could interfere with cellular operations?  Does the
cell seize up if radio waves arrive from outside the ground plane?


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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 23:58 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: MOH - Is it a Violation of ASCAP & BMI?
Organization: The Matrix


> At any rate, could it be possible that by "re-broadcasting" this music
> it's violating the royalty contracts of the various artists?

You bet it is.  Last time I checked, ASCAP charged $100 per trunk per
year.  Never checked BMI.  Of course Muzak also has a charge for
hooking up their service to your MOH.

That means that every time the phone system owner tells the phone
installer to just hook up the MOH to the Muzak tuner, a violation is
occuring.

We do not sell FM tuners on our PA systems nor radios for MOH use to
protect ourselves from liability exposure  ...

How to get around this?  You can buy a CD of "cleared" music for about
$300.  Hook this up to your MOH and you are legit ... with no monthly
charge.

We get our custom music on hold with messages recorded by a production
house.  I made sure we have a letter on file from them assuring us
that they only use "cleared" music for this purpose ... along with a
backup letter from the music service they use.

BTW -- ASCAP told me that BMI seldom enforces their MOH rights, but
that ASCAP can and will do so agressively.  Odd comment, they are
apparently not too friendly competitors ...

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]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 00:30:15 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: 1-800-HAIR


Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]> writes on Tue, 18 Feb 92:

>>  As one of the "fillers" on tonights 5 pm news (WNBC-TV, New York City)
>>  the female anchor (Sue Simmons) mentioned her changed hair style.

> Was it good taste or merely technologically simpler times that kept
> WNBC from using an 800 number (the acronym is left to the reader's
> imagination) to ask us whether Sue Simmons should have the breast
> reduction surgery that she was contemplating a few years ago?

One might equally wonder in Los Angeles, where a pretty face is worth
millions, why KCBS has been so delinquent in holding a similar contest
 -- for a different reason -- for Bree Walker, co-anchor of the
evening news.  A genetic defect mangled her hands at birth, a fact
which seems to have upset many people only after she announced that
she and her husband and co-anchor planned to have a child.  So do we
get 800-BAD-HAND and 800-YES-KIDS as the alternatives?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #157
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21710;
          22 Feb 92 0:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10014
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 22:32:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27131
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 22:32:17 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 22:32:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #158

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 22:32:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 158

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Steve M. Hoffman)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Ken Abrams)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Tim Russell)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Stuart Lynne)
    Re: What is This Box Under The Pay Phone? (Michael Rosen)
    Re: What is This Box Under The Pay Phone? (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Information Wanted on Cellular Service in NYC Area (David E. Sheafer)
    Re: Information Wanted on History of Muzak (Chris Campbell)
    Re: Jobs, FTP and Other Trivia (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 07:42:41 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PAT,
aka TELECOM Moderator) writes about his efforts to "capture" Caller ID
data.  A dozen or so replies were published, mostly speculation such
as:

(from Jacob DeGlopper)

"As I understand it, Caller-ID is not sent using the standard 1200 baud
tone pairs, and therin lies your problem."

(Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)

"... is there any chance that it's a synchronous packet that's being
sent?"

And in article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen
Tell) writes:

> Once you get a modem that understands the [Bell 202] encoding,
> you'll get recognizable ASCII on your terminal. Since such a
> modem can "mod" as well as "dem" the Bell 202, you would probably then
> be more than half way to constructing a "caller-ID simulator."  Just
> detect the first ring and squirt out the data right after it.  A CNID
> reciever tester could probably be built from a phone-line simulator,
> the old modem, and a tiny bit of software on the PC.

    Steve was probably closest to a complete answer to the "capture"
data problem, but needs to recognize that phrases such as "... squirt
out the data right after [the first ring]" is an inadequate specifica-
tion for constructing a "Caller-ID simulator", or by implication, a
Caller-ID receiver.  There are published specs for the CPE (Customer
Prem. Equipment), and I would urge anyone really interested in doing
anything beyond what Pat attempted to buy them.

    TR-TSY-000030, "SPCS Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface"
       (Issue 1, Nov. 1988, $25) from Bellcore [FSK, etc. details]
    TR-TSY-000031, "CLASS(sm) Feature: Calling Number Delivery"
       (Issue 3, Jan. 1990, $30) [format of messages for Caller-ID]
    EIA Specification RS-470 [allowable DC resistance and AC impedance
       for an on-hook CPE.]  This might also be in FCC regs.?

Bellcore's documents are available via phone: [phone]-CORE or
[phone]  (FAX orders: [phone]) -- Visa, MC and AMEX
Or via check/money order (US funds + sales tax) or plastic at:

    Bellcore
    Customer Service
    60 New England Avenue
    Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196

When ordering from Bellcore,

(1) ask for a copy of their latest catalog [if you NEED it],
(subscribers to the Bellcore Digest - $60 - 12 issues/year
automatically get a catalog each year),

(2) [if using the telephone] comment on their automated answering
system,

(3) also ask for a copy of TA-NPL-000912, "Compatibility Information
for Telephone Exchange Service" (Issue 1, Feb. 89, TAs are usually
free) which replaced PUB 61100, "Description of the Analog Voice-band
Interface between the Bell System Local Exchange Lines and Terminal
Equipment" (pre-divestiture document), and,

(4) complain that their latest catalog dropped the Bellcore
Replacement Index, which was three pages of dense listings, showing
the Bellcore publication(s) that replaced pre-divestiture documents.
As the item (3) above shows, Bellcore changes the titles of
replacement documents, so that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine if
Bellcore has replaced pre-divestiture documents or just "dropped"
them.


Al Varney -AT&T Network Systems
Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with Bellcore, other than as a
customer of their expensive documents and contact for their questions.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 09:04:07 CST
From: [e-mail] (Steve M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group


A couple of friends and myself are trying to build a cheapo caller-id
interface to a computer using a MC145447 chip, nine capacitors, six
resistors, four diodes, an oscillator, and a buffer IC.  I'll let you
know if it works and give you our circuit design.  Since we don't have
caller-id available yet on our switch, there's no real urgency for us
to get this circuit finished too soon.


Steve Hoffman                                Software Engineer - Motorola Inc.
email: [e-mail]        International Subscriber Division GSM
ph:  1.708.632.2588      All opinions are my own.  Big corporations have none.
fax: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 15:08:49 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


If you can get access to Compu$erve, there are a couple of files in
IBMCOM, under (not sure of this next part) the modem hardware file
area that can show you how to add a serial output to a typical CID
display.

I cannot attest for the hack, however.  I have not tried it or known
anyone who has, so use discretion.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 23:30:38 GMT


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

> Has anyone experimented successfully with getting Caller-ID data
> displayed on their terminal?  If so, please tell me what I am doing
> wrong. Am I not getting the parity or stop bits correct? Is the modem
> at fault somehow, scrambling up or misunderstanding what is coming in?

I don't know the whole story but I think I can explain why your modem
connection didn't work.  The term MODEM itself stands for "modulate-
demodulate"; all the signals a modem "reads" are impressed in some
form (modulated) on a base carrier frequency.  The first thing a modem
must do is detect that base carrier frequency for a short but descrete
period of time, often one to two seconds of continuous tone is
required for a "carrier detect" to occur.  Even if you force the CD
active this does not remove the requirement for the modem electronics
to "sync" on the base carrier.  Even if the CID data is really
impressed on the standard 1200 baud base carrier frequency, the
duration of the tone is not long enough for a standard modem to deal
with.  A few specially designed modems are available that are able to
deal with CID but I don't see any way that a "standard" unit would
ever be able to cope with the short burst.


Ken Abrams         nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL    [e-mail]  (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 22:01:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Eliot Moore) writes:

> Suggest you save your sanity: buy a Caller-ID-to-RS232 kit.  $45.50
> from IMC, 1-800-992-3511.

    Or better yet (possibly, if you haven't already bought a modem),
Dallas Fax at 1-800-876-8581 has an internal half-card 2400 modem with
9600 send/ receive fax, MNP5 and V.42bis, and answering machine
features, PLUS Caller ID decoding, for $149.

    Geez, these things are getting cheap.  Anyone tried this one?


Tim Russell   Omaha, NE    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 21:23:30 GMT


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

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

>> So far, so good. Now how to capture or read that data ... we know from
>> the Telecom Archives file 'caller.id.specs' that the data is sent at
>> 1200 baud in ASCII. So I plugged a modem into the tapped line, and set
>> it for 1200 baud.

> It's not Bell 212 or V.22, which are the modulation schemes normally
> used for full-duplex data transmission in PC-type modems.  Caller ID
> uses Bell 202, which is a half-duplex modulation scheme.  A Bell 212

Or wait a while for the latest generation of modems to come out.  For
example the new Supra's use the new Rockwell fax/data pumps and will
support CallerID in the near future (the hardware is willing the
software is weak, Rockwell should have it by spring with luck).


Stuart Lynne    Computer Signal Corporation, Canada
 ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: What is This Box Under The Pay Phone?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 21:59:27 GMT


I believe you are referring to a TDD terminal.  I saw one of these at
the train station at home a while back.  I'm not sure about the red
light blinking that you spoke about, I didn't use the phone in
question.  I'm not exactly sure how these work.  Somehow, if you wish
to make a TDD call, you can get the box to open and a terminal I think
is exposed.  I believe the handset is then placed on a holder on the
side of the phone booth maybe.  Has anyone seen one of these used to
explain it better?


Mike

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

Subject: Re: What is This Box Under The Pay Phone?
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 20:56:56 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

[in response to my asking about a silver box under the payphone]

> Perhaps what's hidden in the panel is a TDD or ASCII keyboard. The
> panel would open when it detects a modem carrier. This would be
> extremely useful (in the case of a TDD) for the hearing-impaired and
> for obsessive modemers like myself if it's an ASCII keyboard attached
> to a 2400 bps modem.

I've also received a couple of mail responses to this inquiry, as
well.  The box is, indeed, a TTY/TDD keyboard.  I was able to confirm
it today by calling a TDD number.  I didn't think to try a standard
BBS number, but the keyboard didn't move out until the TDD started
sending characters ... the leading carrier tone was ignored.  I don't
think it will connect to a standard modem.

Thanks to all who responded!


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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 19:33:57 EST
From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Cellular Service in NYC Area


I am in Boston most of the calls would be coming from people in
Boston.

Here are some questions:

- NYNEX or Metro One, which company should I go with?

I have been a satisfied customer of NYNEX for over a Year.  I have
never used Metro One, but have heard that it is not a great system

- FMR roaming: is it true that I have to turn it on *every day*?  What
  is the availability in CT and RI?  Are there any alternatives to FMR
  roaming for getting calls while I am on the road?

Yes, FMR has to be activated once a day.  If you get a Nynex Mobile -
New England you will have no problem in RI.  Nynex Mobile - New
England encompasses MA (except for Springfield), all of RI and
Southern NH.  So you will automatically recieve calls if you are in
RI, MA and Southern NH at your normal rates.

In CT and Springfield MA you would be Roaming on the SNET network and
would have to activate Follow-me-Roaming while in this area.  When
Roaming on the SNET network NYNEX charges .75/minute and they do not
charge a daily fee when you using the SNET network.

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Campbell)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on History of Muzak
Date: 20 Feb 92 18:19:47
Organization: NSDD, Data General Corp.


On 11 Feb 92 02:27:18 GMT, [e-mail] (Mathew Zank) said:
Article-I.D.: eecs.telecom12.130.10

> Does anyone know where I can buy a used SCA FM Radio?, If anyone has
> one laying around I be more then happy to take it off your hands!

I'd also be interested in sources for one of these.  Any ideas?
Thanks!


Chris


[Moderator's Note: I must point out the FCC regs say it is illegal to
use an SCA radio unless you are a qualified listener. A qualified
listener is one who has paid the fee required by the company
transmitting the specialized information being heard there. Other
qualified listeners would include persons who have been certified as
visually or print handicapped. They can listen to the various reading
services operating there. By the by, an SCA tuned for a service like
Muzak is different than one tuned for a service like CRIS Radio. The
former has a squelch circuit which kicks in between songs. If you take
an SCA tuned for a reading service and are smart enough to get inside;
change the crystal for Muzak's frequency and diddle the trim pots a
little you'll get Muzak alright ... and an annoying hiss (or sometimes
even a little of the main carrier audio!) which lasts several seconds
between each selection.

If you prefer to illegally build your own, tuneable SCA, (most are
crystal controlled and fixed on the SCA service for which they were
built) then take any el-cheapo Walkman-like unit *with stereo* and the
little light which indicates when a stereo transmission is on the air.
Get inside and look for the product detector. You'll need a 555 chip
which you can get from Radio Shack. Switch between AM/FM/SCA using the
little three way switch on the radio for AM/FM/AFC. You don't need the
AFC or the stereo indicator light anyway. I'll leave it to your vivid
imagination how to wire it all up.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Jobs, FTP and Other Trivia
From: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 03:40:17 CST


Someone recently wrote me asking about a mail server for the Telecom
Archives.

> Is the ftp by mail service still available for the telecom archives?
> If so could you please supply the details again. Alternatively has
> anyone got details of the Princeton/Dec ftp service?

I responded:

> [Moderator's Note: The 'FTP by Mail' service is still available.
> Write to [e-mail] (Doug Davis) for details. Or perhaps
> I will post his help file here if he will send me a new, updated
> version. The one I have goes back to last May.  There are various
> other email/ftp servers around also, and I hope someone will write
> with an updated list of these sometime soon.  PAT]

As I review the index from letni, I see it really is quite out of
date. It might be better to begin using some other mailserver until or
unless letni gets up to date.

DEC (Digital Equipment Corp) has an FTP mailserver. For information
send a message to [e-mail] with help in the body.  I
haven't used it yet except to get the help file, but instead of an
archive like most it supposedly lets you FTP from other hosts and
mails the files back to you.  (I'm tempted to try it with the Telcom
Archives).

For more information about mail servers read look for the latest
version of the following article ...

 Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.wanted,news.answers
 From: [e-mail] (Jonathan I. Kamens)
 Subject: How to find sources (READ THIS BEFORE POSTING)
 Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 08:00:17 GMT
 Expires: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 08:00:07 GMT


I hope this offers a little help to people without Internet access who
wish to use the Archives, which are located at lcs.mit.edu.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #158
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23616;
          22 Feb 92 1:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16750
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 23:31:13 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16262
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 21 Feb 1992 23:31:02 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 23:31:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #159

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Feb 92 23:30:59 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 159

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Willie Smith)
    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Randy Bush)
    Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell (Rob Stampfli)
    Re: More on Telcos and BBSs (Reginald Hirsch)
    Telco Data Services (Bud Couch)
    Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls (Andrew Green)
    Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls (M. Galloway)
    Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
    Re: Question on NY Tel's Capabilities (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off? (Ken Abrams)
    Re: Non-Local Internet Access (J. Philip Miller)
    Re: Help Wanted Wiring Western Union Clock (Jim Rees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: pictel!![e-mail] (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 22:59:49 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Oh, I don't think 'within a month or two' anyone
> would go off line who hadn't planned on it in the first place, let
> alone 'most of the BBSes'. Somehow I think they would survive.   PAT]

Respectfully, Pat, I have to disagree.  It's been a while since I
was into the BBS scene, but at the time, most of them were run by
teenagers in their bedrooms in their spare time on 'obsolete' hardware,
and paying for the incoming-only phone lines was enough of a burden
that business rates would shut them right down.  I would expect half
of the BBSs in Massachusetts would disappear within a month of such a
rate hike.

I don't know how I feel about the rest of this issue (are they
businesses, are they 'using more resources' than a 'normal' line,
etc), but I do know that even the most popular ones are run for the
cost of a phone line, power, and some spare time.


Willie Smith     [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 01:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary


> If Wagner "continues to receive income from the LINES in question",
> I'd like to see Mr. Bush present to us some evidence to back this
> statement up.

Try the monthly statement of the FidoNet Net-1:105 echomail fund and
the FidoNet Region-1:17 echomail fund, which pay the bill for at least
one of the lines in question.  If you really need a copy of these
statements, write to Bob Hay 1:105/54.3 aka bob.hay@p3.f54.n105.z1.
fidonet.org, treasurer of those funds.

If it ain't going to Tony's phone bill, then a whole lot of us are
gonna be pissed off at Bob Hay if we can find him.  :-)

But enough of the net.hysteria.  The PUC will decide what it decides
based on whatever PUCs decide these things.  And then we down here in
Oregon can sort out the mess that's left.

While you and what's his face up in Seattle are learning to make
net.novice ad homina, it would help if you knew more of what you were
talking about.


randy

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

From: colnet![e-mail] (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 05:19:02 GMT


> here (Ameritech -- Illinois/Indiana/Michigan/Ohio/Wisconsin) they
> start to ask questions if you order more than two (I have three) and
> may require an "inspection" to ensure that you aren't running a
> business. Centrex?  Not tariffed for residential. Period. No mixing
> measured and unmeasured service, either.

It is my understanding that Ameritech (at least in Ohio) recently
changed their tarriffs to allow mixing measured and unmeasured
service.  I have a friend that has four lines at his residence
(installed with no hassles) and he just converted them to two
unmeasured, two measured (actually time- and-distance), again with no
hassles.


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, [e-mail] (Internet), [e-mail] (AMPR)

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

Subject: Re: More on Telcos and BBSs
From: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)
Date: 19 Feb 92 19:46:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)


> [Moderator's Note: Oh, not really. Even though the Bells are all now
> separate, they still are very cozy and close. Look at how CLASS
> features such as Caller-ID was proposed and implemented in the
> various states. The Bells all still stay in close contact with each
> other.  PAT]

Yes but they swore to me it was not a unified effort. <Smile>.


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure you believed them. If you don't think the
telcos are all <thisclose> to one another in their planning of new
features, services and tariffs, try to find an example of it. Yes, in
small very minor matters they go their own way, and the features they
offer are known by different names in different places, but they all
seem to come about at the same time.  PAT]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail]
Subject: Telco Data Services
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 23:52:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
writes:


> Other service providers, who *do* understand data, can use the telco's
> digital leased lines to build the kind of packet-switched networks
> that their users really want. The Internet's backbone and regional
> networks are the best example, but there are also many private and
> corporate packet-switched networks.

> But when the telcos themselves get involved in data switching, you get
> brain-damaged circuit-switched services like ISDN. Tell them you want
> packet switching, and they'll give you X.25. And even these clumsy

I'm not at all sure of the telco's dedication to the concept, but have
you looked at SMDS? There are a bunch of field trials going on right
now, and if the service is funded sufficiently (my reason for the
"dedication" caveat above), it will be a real competitor for the
packet switch data business.

Basically, what it does is to move the router back into the switching
network where it really belongs.

> I confess to some doubts in advocating radio bypass of the telephone
> companies, as radio spectrum is a very precious resource. It is
> usually preferable to use copper or fiber for fixed applications,

I think that SMDS is the answer to your doubts, since the present
units are running over T1 links, and the next generation will be at T3
or SONET over fiber.

As a telecom-oriented hardware engineer who has been sliding into the
data domain for about ten years now, it's very easy to see why the
telcos have not been very anxious to get into the data business ...
it's just too darn complicated. The telecom industry's changes
introduced by SPC offices has created the technical (read: software)
infrastructure necessary to allow them to even think about a service
such as SMDS.


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 12:45:30 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls


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

> Last weekend I had a few oddities on my private phone line. I get home
> Friday night, and my answering machine indicates a call has been
> recorded. When I playback, I get a cycling beep, which continues for
> an infinite amount of time (I had my machine set to VOX instead of
> 1min)

> 2) What kind of data equipment makes a 1.5 sec (5k-8kHz) beep, then
>    pauses for an equal amount of time, then repeats? (The supervisor
>    said something of FCC approval of "junk faxes")

Whatever it was, it's a perfect description of what I got on my
machine at that same time up here northwest of Chicago. I've still got
part of it saved on tape (I think). Never heard it before or since
last Friday.  Possibly space aliens trying to contact Elvis? :-)

This is a long shot, but I compared our phone number with the one that
Eric told me is on his machine, and although they don't match, they're
both arrangements of 5, 7, 8 and 9. (Well, ours has a 1 in it, too.)
Hmmm ... I wish I had Caller I.D. or Last Call Return right about now.
We've got AT&T for long distance, if anyone thinks that might be
relevant.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Claims They Can't Help Me With Annoyance Calls
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 22:18:50 GMT


We had the same problem here at Presbyterian College, but Southern
Bell did try the trace without a lot of flack.  We told them that _we_
didn't want to know the number; we just wanted the originator told of
the wrong number.

Bell called back a day or two later, saying the LEC on the other end
(non-Bell) wouldn't tell Bell where the call was coming from.

Bell gave me their contact at the remote LEC (local exchange carrier).
I called them directly.  (That shook them up a little, I think.)

It tooks _several_ "let me speak with your manager" hops to find someone
who would listen and not recite the party line.

End result: The guy agreed to investigate; he found the problem; it
was a computer attempting to deliver a fax on a regular basis.  It
stopped.  It was a pain.

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 22:57:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> I also hate to pay long distance rates to listen to some radio
> station on the other coast while on hold.  We have previously
> discussed locally generated busy signals (as opposed to ringback,
> which is generated at the far end).  How about some long distance
> carrier offering locally generated music on hold?  When someone
> puts me on hold (if the distant CO knows they did, which they would
> with call waiting), drop the voice circuit (and stop charging me!).
> When the person gets back to my call, the voice circuit would be
> reestablished (realizing these things take time).  I guess the
> closest thing we have now is voice mail on busy.

My phone has a "tear-down the talk path and stop charging" me feature
just like this.  It is implemented by a dual set of buttons located at
the top of the phone.  Pressing either will tear-down the talk path,
and suspend billing.  When the remote end feels like re-establishing
the talk path, my phone briefly rings to let me know they are back.
In sharp contrast to all the other features that add $2.50 / month to
the bill, this one is free. ;-)


Wolfgang Rupprecht    [e-mail] (or) uunet!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
Fastest-Path:           [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Can you give us a little more technical detail on
this, or at least describe the make/model of phone, etc?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Question on NY Tel's Capabilities
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 17:59:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(david niebuhr) writes:

> I've tried several of the 9901 numbers and received various responses
> ranging from "this is the ... 5ESS(tm) serving the exchanges of
> ..., ..., ...," to "this is the ... DSO serving the ..., ..., ...,
> exchanges" to "this is the ... DMS serving the ..., ..., ..., exchanges".

> I even received "not in service" and "cannot be dialed" messages for
> valid exchanges.

I have tried several of the 9901 numbers around here, and received
various responses ranging from "RING, RING, RING ..." to "We're sorry,
we cannot come to the phone right now ..." and "Who the hell are you
and why are you calling me?".

Not a single one of the local exchanges has anything technical at
xxx-9901 - just subscriber ports. For the record, this is GTE
territory.  I think it would be nice, if this information was
standardized, but it's not; most LECs try to hide it. On the other
hand, GTE has put the ANI verification number in a stable, easily
remembered location: 114 ("the reverse of 411").


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off?
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 22:14:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Jonathan Bradshaw) writes:

> numbers into a computer. If I move into an apartment that has had
> phone service before, what POSSIBLE extra work that is worth $57 are
> they doing? No cables to run, no wires to connect, just activation of
> the circuit which is probably completely computerized. Even better,

> Am I missing something here? It all seems like another phone company
> scam. Right along with the "deposit" fee new phone customers are
> charged.

There is more to the picture than you might think.  While the network
itself is largely computerized, we are not NEARLY as advanced as we
might be with the administrative record keeping.  I think most of the
major companies are moving toward "instant service" which should lower
the costs some and, when (if) that is ever realized, rates may come
down a little.  The flip side of this is that the necessary computer
hardware and software to accomplish this "instant service" is a VERY
large investment and this capital cost may negate some of the cost
savings.

If you are really, seriously interested in the internal workings of
processing orders by your local phone company (and not just satisfying
an idle curiosity), many local telco's will arrange a short "show and
tell" if you ask nicely and are flexible enough with your scheduling.
Then again, some companies don't do this at all; it won't hurt to ask.

Bottom line is that a lot more goes into connecting a phone than you
might expect.  Anyone who wants a brief summary of the various
elements is free to drop me mail and I will reply (or I'll post same
if Pat asks).


Ken Abrams         nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL    [e-mail]    (voice) 217-753-7965


[Moderator's Note: Surely ... a little more background please.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Re: Non-Local Internet Access
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 21:59:34 CST


> Where in the U.S. is Internet/Usenet access not a local call?

> [Moderator's Note: Lots of places!

AMEN to this!

I have an escape home about 50 miles outside of St. Louis.  I cannot
even get a "foreign exchange" from my phone there (314-358-xxxx) to
St. Louis.  The isolation is not just for Internet access, the same is
true for public services such as Compu$erve or Prodigy.

I would like to submit that many of these "rural" areas are the very
areas that would be best served by network access.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
     [e-mail] - Internet  [phone] [362-2694(FAX)]


[Moderator's Note: Absolutely! When I move out of Chicago hopefully in
the next year, I'll be about 60 miles from the nearest dialups, which
will be those of Telenet, actually. Somehow I will survive.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Western Union Clock
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 05:07:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laird
P. Broadfield) writes:

> I thought the most brilliant suggestion was whoever wrote in and said
> he had cannibalized one of the digital watches that had an
> "on-the-hour" beep, and connected the beep out circuit to the
> accurizing armature on the clock.

That was me.  I'll be glad to scan the circuit in if anyone's
interested.  It's just a simple FET switch with an NPN power
transistor switch.  The only trick is keeping the idle current low,
since I run this off of batteries.  I use two D alkalines for the
winding circuit, and another two in series with them to produce 6
volts for the sync circuit.

I wasn't satisfied with the accuracy and have since switched to a
scheme that synchronizes from WWV (via radio clock and ntp over dialup
SLIP).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #159
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24966;
          22 Feb 92 2:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06349
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 00:10:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 00:10:05 -0600
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 00:10:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #160

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Feb 92 00:10:02 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 160

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful? (Steve Thornton)
    Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful? (John David Galt)
    Re: Alternatives to MOH (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Fax Protocol Specs (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Fax Forwarding Services, Anyone? (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic (Barton F. Bruce)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 10:01:26 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful?


> only BECAUSE of the airtime the albums get.  Proof?  Name one album
> that has achieved significant success without any airplay.

Just as a matter of fact, there are a LOT of albums that sell well
without any airplay. I've seen it referred to as a trend, even. That
new record-sales reporting mechanism that was implemented recently
proves it. I am speaking of rap and heavy-metal records, neither of
which get any airplay at all (in their more-popular, more extreme
versions) but sell far more copies than was previously believed, much
to the detriment of the bigger name acts. Look at the top 100 chart.
There's quite a bit of stuff there that you couldn't broadcast if you
wanted to.

I know this is getting pretty far from telecom, but I hate to see an
argument supported by untrue statements.


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
[e-mail] / [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The topic is getting adrift, so with the next two
messages in this issue, regretfully the thread has to be closed.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MOH From Radio: Is it Lawful?
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 17:49:40 PST


John De Armond <[e-mail]> writes:

> ... The opposite assertion could
> much easier be made, that the commercial recording business exists
> only BECAUSE of the airtime the albums get.  Proof?  Name one album
> that has achieved significant success without any airplay.

Frank Zappa's "Overnite Sensation" (and most of his other albums)
can't even get on Dr. Demento, because they would be considered
obscene by radio standards (or at least, DJs don't dare to assume
otherwise).  Most of Richard Pryor's and Eddie Murphy's humor,
likewise.

I'll grant you that airplay makes a big difference; and it would be
nice if only the market were setting the "standards," so that choices
like the above would be available to more potential customers.

The consensus seems to be that you have to pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/etc.,
but this seems a little unreasonable.  I mean, the radio station is
already sending its signal, quite legally, to 20,000 or 100,000
listeners, and the artists' unions want to quibble about 5 or 10 more?
Come ON, guys!

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOH
Date: 21 Feb 92 04:45:32 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


I have a customer that once got whacked $25k for being caught one
night for what some local band played in their bar/restaurant! That
was years ago.  I think there were assumptions made about prior
violations. They simply stopped having music.

The same folks now are using a local classical station for music on
hold, and were nervous about legality. Since that station also SELLS
SCA delivered background music, they surely MUST know the rules ... I
called and asked, and was told that indeed using their normal
programming was a violation but signing up for and using their SCA
service could include a service charge to cover MOH.

Folks, there is something rotten here. I am not trying to 'CHEAT'
musicians, but there has to be a better way! There may well be some
quality off shore music sources -- little known but good school
orchestras, etc. -- that would LOVE to sell CDROMS for say $25, $50,
$100 (anything is better than BMI) and INCLUDE specific permission for
MOH use. I called the music department at the Harvard Coop and asked
if they had 'legal-for-MOH' recordings, and got nowhere. I know a
local guy that owns a recording company that may well have such things
or if not might be interested! I will ask as soon as possible.

Anyone else know where BMI/ASCAP/extortion proof recordings are
available?

FWIW, DEC's Colorado customer service has GOOD classical of the sort
that will be listened to by classical fans but that won't make others
puke -- a thin line. I wonder what their source is? It is so good that
I twice felt compelled to compliment them -- something I would rarely
do to DEC :-)


[Moderator's Note: A lot of classical stuff is in the public domain
because of its age, is it not?  You don't have to pay fees for public
domain music. But, we are way off telecom.  Let's call it quits.  PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax Protocol Specs
Date: 20 Feb 92 12:53:49 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John T. Grieggs) writes:

> I am interested in writing a program to talk directly to a FAX modem,
> but have been led to believe that this might be difficult.

The existence of fax modem command set standards doesn't necessarily
make it any easier, I'm sorry to say!  But at least it will, before
too long, result in interchangability of fax modems and software, so
we're not stuck using only the software that was shipped with the
modem.

[Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'lack of standards'?   PAT]

> Is there a standard protocol for computer <-> FAX modem?  Something
> akin to the Hayes command set, possibly?

Yes.  The only adopted, published standard is ANSI/EIA/TIA-578,
"Asynchronous Facsimile DCE Control Standard -- Class 1".  A Class 1
fax modem (as they're called, generically) provides the minimal level
of hardware support necessary to communicate with remote Group 3 fax
machines.  The modem has the fax modulators/demodulators (V.21,
V.27ter, and optionally V.29, V.33, and V.17), the ability to convert
async characters into synchronous bit streams (and vice-versa), some
low-level HDLC framing capability, flow control, and that's about it.
All of the CCITT T.30 fax protocols and T.4 image formatting must be
done in the computer software.

The committee (TIA TR-29.2) is about to finish work on the Class 2
standard, which will be ANSI/TIA/EIA-592 when it is completed
("Asynchronous Facsimile DCE Control Standard -- Class 2").  Class 2
moves the handling of the T.30 fax protocols out into the modem,
releaving the software of most of the critical timing and procedural
details.  The software still must do the T.4 image handling, although
Class 2 modems may (but are not required to) support some T.4 image
conversion capabilities ("normal" to "fine" resolution, etc.).

Class 2 should be completed and published soon; it is about to be sent
out for what we hope to be the final industry ballot (by the way, I am
Hayes' representative on TR-29.2).  You'll find a lot of modems on the
market today claiming to be "Class 2" modems but NOT "TIA-592" modems;
these ersatz "Class 2" modems are designed according to the August,
1990 draft of the standard.  There's no way for anyone to get a legal
copy of that draft anymore, so writing your own software for one of
these non-standard "Class 2" modems is a bit problematical.

> If so, where might I find it?

You can get a copy of TIA-578 (Class 1) through Global Engineering
Documents (800-854-7179 or 714-261-1455).  You'll be able to get a
copy of the latest Class 2 draft ballot edition through TIA
Publications at 202-457-4963, probably in a couple of weeks; once the
TIA-592 Class 2 standard is formally adopted and published, it will
also be available through Global Engineering Documents.

> If not, I'd be interested in knowing how such a wide-spread thing has
> resisted standardization!

We've been working on Class 2 for about 3 1/2 years now.  It is a very
complex thing!  The open, public review process which must be followed
by ANSI-accredited standards committees helps to insure that no
company or group of companies can monopolize a market, but it also
causes the standards development process to stretch out a bit (to say
the least).


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] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: Fax Forwarding Services, Anyone?
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 20:48:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
org (Jay Ashworth) writes:

> Jiro, I must inquire ... is this newsletter free?  Every newsletter
> I've ever seen cost so much that the difference between .80 and 1.78
> would be trivial ...  Oh, BTW, what's your production flow look like?

    I didn't post the price since it might have gotten censored.
So I will approximate in the hopes the Moderator will let it through.
The per unit cost is between $2.99 and $3.01. The subscription cost
for six issues via US Mail is between $9.99 and $10.01. Thus you can
see that the difference between 0.80 and $1.78 is highly salient. :-)

    We are currently setting the fax subscription at a tentative
approximate $15 above the US mail cost.

    If we charged $400 a year, then hell -- we could even FedEx it
to people. :-)  But we aren't in this for the money.

    As an aside....

    Thank you VERY much to the thirty or so people who replied.  I
am trying to follow up on the promising leads. People have told me
that AT&T offers it through AT&T Mail, Sprint through SprintFax ,and
MCI through MCI mail.

    A lot of people have also mentioned not using fine mode.
Currently the newsletter uses 4 and 6 point in some places. 10 point
is the main size. We are trying to see how low normal mode can go, but
I think 8pt is the minimum, using a fax modem. Unfortunately the fax
modem does not obviate the fact that faxing the newsletter to 30 some
people would still take five to ten hours ...., which is the primary
reason for using a forwarding service.

    E-mailing it as PostScript would not be suitable since 1) not
all people are connected to the net, especially not the beginning/
intermediate business/personal users we are targetting and 2) we use
strange fonts (ITC Stone Sans and Stone Serif).

    Again, many thanks to ALL the people who replied. Special
thanks to Nigel Allen who sent us a list of places to register our
newsletter ("Free Publicity" as he called it).  His return e-mail
address was broken, but I'd like to thank him publically. I can
reforward his list to other people who are interested in publishing
newsletters.


Jiro Nakamura        [e-mail]
The Shaman Group    [phone] Voice/Fax/Data

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 13:28:02 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


>>Sure -- but my point is that obviously a Canadian company can't be
>>busted in Canada under a US law.

> That turns out not to be the case :-(  There have been several companies
> and individuals in Canada busted for violating US laws having to
> do with embargoes. There was a very famous case of a Nepean businessman
> who got a multi-year jail term for shipping a Vax (and not even
> a very big one) to the USSR a few years back. [Nepean is one of Ottawa's
> satellite cities, and has a fair bit of high-tech industry.]

I think you are confusing two different laws, and (separately) two
different cases.

Canada indeed has export control legislation.  This is what made it
illegal to export a VAX to the USSR.  For political reasons, the
Canadian list of proscribed goods is closely coordinated with the US
list.  The group known as COCOM is run by the US, and controls exports
from essentially all the western countries.  As you point out,
countries that don't go along with this little piece of imperialism
risk being shut out of US high-tech goods.

But this has nothing to do with trade with Cuba in such items as
cigars, sugar, tourism, or phone calls.  None of these items is
remotely related to munitions (which is what COCOM calls the things it
controls). It is perfectly legal in Canada to trade with Cuba in these
items, and it is also perfectly legal to sell such items to Americans.
This goes on every day -- Cuba is promoted as a tourist destination,
Cuban cigars are sold in tobacconists, and people (like me) dial
Havana phone numbers.

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic
Date: 21 Feb 92 02:58:50 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I have asked (at least once) in this forum about recommendations for a
> small KSU/PBX to be used in a radio station.

> We would really, really like something like the Panasonic 1232, but
> it's just a bit too small for our needs; 32 distinct extensions
> doesn't leave us enough room for expansion. We really like the way it
> hybridizes proprietary and POTS service on the same line, the overall
> feature-richness, and the cost.

And NOW you can have BOTH proprietary *AND* POTS on the same extension
at the same time! Stick a cordless base unit on a Y jack with a
proprietary phone, or stick an answering machine on. The 8, 16, 32
station KSUs all do it NOW, and all that changed was the microcode in
EPROM. Will Panasonic sell new proms? "Sell the customer a new KSU"
was the answer. Will you go to hell for using a prom blaster in this
case? -- your problem ...

> Can't we get these any bigger?

SURE CAN! The big investment is NOt the KSU, but the phones if they
are most all proprietary. And there IS a NEW LARGE system. Try 292
stations!

It works this way. The basic box is 92. You may not get there
depending on what else you plug in. That was going to be the end of
the system.

AT&T had 'arranged' for the anti-Japanese (aka anti-dumping) import
duties that made Panasonic open a factory in the British Isles to then
let phones get imported here.

Apparently another boundary in the rules was for systems under 200
lines. Getting OVER that size (in capability, not necessarily as
installed) eliminated the punative import duties.

So Panasonic engineered 100 port expansion boxes. You can add up to 2
of them to the basic 92 port box. The basic box starts in the very low
$2k range. Station cards come in three flavors -- in increasing cost
order: proprietary only, pots only, both. The most expensive one is
maybe $400.  There are NO ground start tks yet, no DID, no T1. T1 may
come before the others!

Now the bummer. ONLY INVITED dealers get to sell these. Is Panasonic
going Mitel on us? I am sure there will be reasonable ways around this
with out the totally ILLEGAL pirate security PALs needed for Mitel
switches  -- (not just to save the $s but simply because Mitel
arrogantly lets you buy the switch but WON'T sell you the generic to
make it work).  The small interconnect has to 'crawl in bed' with some
Mitel MQD dealer down the road that probably is his competition!

What does one do for the Panasonic BIG-BOX? try ALL the distributors.
Some are not too financially solid these days and any sale is *NEEDED*.

The older KSU specific phones (though that worked with the other two
sizes) are now obsolete but will be sold until stock is gone. The
newer 7000 series works for the WHOLE family, but you may need newer
proms (see above) for an older KSU to get all possible functionality.

So if you are happy for now with your 32 station unit, and can't yet
get the biggest KSU, you are NOT locked in to a dead end. The phones
at least will migrate to a bigger system. FWIW Panasonic made a
discovery (that other big switch manufacturers already KNEW) that many
installations of big systems use VERY FEW proprietary phones. So sales
projections and stocking levels of PANASONIC stylish but *POTS* phones
targeting the Greybar class distribution channels were cranked up.
Normally these are sold primarily through the Letchmore Zales class
store. And, speaking of them, technically I think they have 'access'
to the entire line, so even if not stocked, you might be able to get a
custom order placed.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #160
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22036;
          22 Feb 92 15:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07779
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 12:48:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10193
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 12:48:21 -0600
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 12:48:21 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #161

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Feb 92 12:48:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 161

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960, part III (Jim Haynes)
    DOS Software For ClassMate CLID Box? (John Temples)
    NYTel Cuts Off Police Department (David Niebuhr)
    T1 Bridge With Dial Backup? (Rick Battle)
    PHONES Conference on RelayNet (Joshua Lee)
    Digit Absorption (Carl Moore)
    Caller*ID Experimenting ([e-mail])
    The Difference a Smiley Makes! :) (TELECOM Moderator)
    Continued Discussion on MOH Invited by Reader (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 23:44:55 -0800
Subject: Things Looked Rosy for Western Union in 1960, part III


[Moderator's Note: This is part three of three parts of an article
about Western Union which appeared in {Business Week} magazine more
than thirty years ago, in 1960. Parts one and two appeared in the
Digest on Friday morning and Friday evening. To continue this series
about Western Union, an issue Saturday overnight/Sunday morning will
include an article from {Fortune Magazine}, March, 1959, also supplied
by Jim Haynes.  PAT]

"-III. Building For the Future-

"Western Union has great hopes that Telex will increase its revenue
load many fold.  Even so, it's hard to imagine that such business will
fill all the extra traffic capacity that Western Union's new microwave
system provides.  And so, once again, President Marshall is counting on
electronics technology to help him out.  Three out of every four
systems that Western Union is now installing for customers include
provision for handling data processing information.  Communication
between computers, or tape-to-tape digital messages between dispersed
plants, offices, and data processing centers may eventually equal the
volume of voice and message communication.  AT&T President Frederick R.
Kappel, too, thinks that's possible.

"-Expandable System- So Marshall believes his modern plant is coming
on stream just in time to catch the new flood of data processing
business.  The transcontinental microwave network's two 6-million
cycle channels each are capable of handling transcontinental
telecasts, or thousands of telegraphic, voice, and data processing
channels.  The system is designed to carry up to seven broad-band
channels, and these will be added as needed.

"The Transcontinental network, with extension legs, will cost
$56-million, but once the microwave relay towers are in place, the
system's capacity can be doubled for about 15% to 20% of this cost.
Eventually, Western Union will have a great loop of microwave routes
that will interconnect North and South as well as East and West.  The
full system may cost $250- million between now and 1970.

"-Government Contracts- Part of the load the new microwave system will
carry is already under contract.  The U.S. Air Force hired Western
Union to build an automatic system of data and message handling that
will interconnect all domestic Air Force bases.  The combat and
logistics network (COMLOGNET) [1] also costs, coincidentally, $56-
million and will be operated by Air Force personnel.  Western Union
also built for the Air Force an international automatic switching
telegraph network, [2] which was completed last May, and has put in a
high-speed weather map facsimile system for the Strategic Air Command.
In addition, it built a nationwide weather map facsimile system for
the Weather Bureau that serves several hundred points.

"To work out new communications applications to keep its microwave
system busy, Western Union has enlarged its engineering and research
departments.  The company is now spending about $6-million a year on
research and development -- more than ever before in its history.  Of
course, Bell Laboratories spends a lot more.  But Marshall has some
pretty definite ideas on how to get the most mileage out of research
expenditures.

"'One problem,' he admits, 'is getting the right kind of people that
can really come through with innovations, and I'm not at all sure it
is possible to hire this kind of person off the street, even if you
have the most wonderful facilities in the world.  Some people just
don't like to work for big organizations.'

"-Research Interests- To tap that kind of talent, Western Union has
purchased large interests in a number of small companies that offer
intriguing technological or manufacturing competence:

   "Microwave Associates, Inc., a leading developer of microwave
   elements such as waveguides, tubes, and semiconductor elements.

   "Technical Operations, Inc., a Boston company engaged in contract
   research for the government and industry in computing, physics,
   mechanical engineering and electronics.

   "Dynametrics Corp., another Boston company, which produces electronic
   measuring equipment that possibly could be related to future production
   control systems.  Such systems might fit into an integrated data
   processing system built around a Western Union network.

   "Hermes Electronics Co., a producer of crystal filters for
   microwave uses and designer of part of the telemetering system for
   the Titan missile.  Hermes also has done a lot of work on computer
   translators that change binary code to decimal readouts.

   "Gray Mfg. Co., Hartford, manufacturer of switchboards, dictating
   machines, and electronic gear.

   "Teleprinter Corp., which has developed the smallest page teleprinter
   on the market. [3]

"These six companies dovetail so well as a combined research,
engineering, and manufacturing operation that there are incessant
rumors that Western Union intends to meld them into one big outfit.
Marshall denies such an intent, disputes the logic of such a move on
the ground that the talent attracted by these companies comes from
their small size and independence.  Actually, Western Union benefits
substantially from the present management.  As part owner, it can use
the services of the individual companies and also coordinate their
activities to some degree.

"In addition to these six companies, Western Union also has invested
in Teleprompter Corp.  But this company falls into a different
category.  Teleprompter is not a manufacturer of communications
equipment.  It custom-designs office communication centers, assembling
equipment made by others and mounting it on its own furniture.  But
Teleprompter's work in closed-circuit and pay TV and in other fields
jibes with Western Union's interests.

"-Dynamic Outlook- These new interests and Western Union's own
research efforts all point to a greatly expanded future for the
company.  Although it still has some problems to solve, the company is
in vastly better shape than it was ten years ago.  Instead of sitting
back and being outdated by new technology, Western Union very
definitely is counting on the latest electronic wizardry to win a
bigger piece of the communications market for itself."

[1] COMLOGNET started out as a bunch of IBM card transceiver machines,
which used internal modems to transmit punched cards over private
telephone lines connecting the Air Materiel Command bases.  When the
Air Force set out to replace these with a Real communication system,
both the name and the scope of the project changed several times as is
typical of government projects.  Names that followed COMLOGNET were
first AFDATACOM and ultimately AUTODIN (automatic digital network),
which became the main record communication system for the whole DOD.
The original terminals consisted of a Model 28 ASR teletypewriter, an
IBM card reader/punch, and a refrigerator-sized electronics package
made by IBM.

Transmission was synchronous using a modified Fieldata code.  All
transmissions were encrypted.  This was somewhat to the dismay of the
materiel people, who had started out with the card transceivers in
their Base Supply offices; the AUTODIN terminals had to be locked up
in secure Base Communications buildings because of the encryption
equipment.  So the supply people had to carry their cards between
buildings on the base.  There were also a few magnetic tape AUTODIN
terminals.  This was in the days before IBMs tape format became a de
facto standard of the industry; so the terminals had to be designed to
read and write the kind of tapes appropriate to the kind of computer
they were to be used with.

AUTODIN provided both message switching (i.e. store-and-forward) and
circuit switching a la Telex.  The switching centers for AUTODIN used
computers made by RCA, originally discrete-transistor machines
contemporary with the RCA 301-501-601 line, later replaced by machines
of RCAs Spectra 70 line.  Having to replace all those original
computers after only five years or so must have been terribly galling
to old Western Union hands, as some of the company's own offices were
still using teleprinters made by Morkrum-Kleinschmidt prior to 1930.

[2] This system was Western Union's Plan 55, based on paper tape store
and forward technology.  The switching centers used a combination of
electromechanical and vacuum-tube electronic technology.  Cross-
office transmission was at 200 wpm, requiring electronic transmitting
and receiving distributors and parallel-input reperforators.  Plan 55
was superseded by AUTODIN when the latter acquired Teletype as well as
punched card capabilities.

[3] Perhaps Western Union hoped to use Teleprinter Corp. to free
itself from dependence on AT&Ts Teletype subsidiary.  W.U. had made
some previous efforts to build its own teletypewriters.  As things
turned out the Teleprinter product, MITE (Miniature Integrated
Teleprinter Equipment), was popular with the military for its small
size and weight but never achieved much of a commercial market.

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: DOS Software For ClassMate CLID Box?
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 20:05:51 GMT


A friend of mine just purchased the ClassMate RS-232 caller-ID
interface box from Bell Atlantic, and he's looking for DOS software to
use with it.  Does anyone else who has that box know of any?  Have you
purchased the software on the included demo disk?


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 07:54:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: NYTel Cuts Off Police Department


Yesterday, Feb. 21, 1992, the New York Telephone Company pulled a
boo-boo.  It seems that callers to the Shelter Island (part of Suffolk
County) Town Police were getting a recording that the service had been
disconnected.

The Town had paid the telephone bill but the telco slipped and cut off
the service.  Luckily, nothing disastrous happened during the outage.
The population of Shelter Island is less than 2,000 people in the
winter and well over 20,000 in the summer and it's a good thing that
this happened now rather than four or five months from now.


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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 10:21:12 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rick)
Subject: T1 Bridge With Dial Backup?


Does anyone know of a T1 Ethernet bridge that also has a "smart"
RS-232 port that can dial the other end (RS-232 port) in case the T1
line goes down???

I know that there are 56kb Ethernet bridges that have dial backup
capability but I need a T1 with dial backup.


Thanks,

Rick Battle  [e-mail]

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

From: ukelele![e-mail] (Joshua Lee)
Subject: PHONES Conference on RelayNet
Organization: GAU Technologies, Fairfax County, VA
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 08:32:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> People with access to RelayNet BBSes may be interested in the PHONES

The RelayNet PHONES conference is also gated to FidoNet, I'm recieving
it on my Fidonet BBS, 1:109/542 ... It's alot of phone company people
who talk highly technically about phone switches, though every now and
then it's understandable to mere civilians like me. :-)

> Of course, FidoNet has its MDF and FCC echoes, which I regularly
> participate in.

Hmm, I'm picking up the FCC echo, which talks about both the FCC, and
general phone company policies. Never heard of MDF. There's also the
AT&T echo and several other phone company oriented conferences.

Please e-mail me if MDF is on the Fidonet Z1 backbone, or if it is in
R13. Although I'm not sure what it is. Of course, anything with an
acronym that mysterious has to be good. <g>


ArfaNet: [e-mail] (Joshua Lee on 1:109/542)
uucp: ...!{uunet,rutgers,ames}!mimsy!prometheus!ukelele!jlee

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 12:55:04 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digit Absorption


Dave Leibold writes:

> For instance, an exchange with 523-xxxx numbers could be set up on a
> step-by-step so that only the last four digits need be used to
> complete a call to another 523-xxxx number.

> [ for a 7-digit local call ] you could
> not put a 234-xxxx exchange in service without overhauling the service
> on 523-xxxx since 234 would be interpreted as 523-4

In this sample, you're saying that the 23 in "234" would be
interpreted as the last part of "523"?

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 04:50:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller*ID Experimenting


Pat:

All speculation aside ... I have built a Caller*ID-to-RS232 interface
for my PC. It took all of about two minutes to design and two more to
build:

Get a 2211 FSK demodulator chip (anywhere) and copy the 2200/1200 Hz parts
suggestions right out of the specifications. Tuning is not critical.

Feed the TTL-level serial data to a MAX232 level converter, and the
output of the MAX232 to your PC. Voila! I know it works (on the first
try!) so give it a shot.

PS: I hope you weren't serious about Wolfgang's phone that can drop the
voice path and terminate charges. He was talking about hanging up! I
have, and use, the same feature. I refuse to pay for MOH, so I just hang
up. If they knew who I was, they'll call back. If not, someone else
willing to actually speak with me can get my business.


[Moderator's Note: If others try this mod, let us hear your experiences
with it.  Regards Wolfgang's telephone, read on.   PAT]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Subject: The Difference a Smiley Makes! :)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 10:10:25 CST


These two messages were typical of several received overnight:

 From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)

>> [Moderator's Note: Can you give us a little more technical detail on
>> this, or at least describe the make/model of phone, etc?   PAT]

> Pat, he's talking about the switchhook.  Nudge, nudge.

 From: [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)

> Ah!  A case of missing the forest for the trees...

> This is a feature all (I hope) comp.dcom.readers already have.  Reread the
> description above and think "switchhook." :-)

Obviously, the smiley got missed somehow on my end. Sorry about that!
Here are a few to make up for it.    :)  :)  :)  :)


PAT

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 12:38:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Continued Discussion About MOH Invited by Reader


A reader has requested that further discussion on the topic of MOH and
all its ramifications (disgruntled callers, disgruntled musician
protection groups, etc) be directed to him. He is considering starting
a new newsgroup on commercial broadcasting, and would also be
interested in your feedback for that topic.

Write him direct:   Bill Pfieffer
                    [e-mail]


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #161
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24042;
          22 Feb 92 16:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25954
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:04:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17223
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:04:07 -0600
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:04:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #162

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Feb 92 14:03:45 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 162

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Emergency Calls at Pay Phones (Andrew C. Green)
    Inmarsat Directory Assistance (Dave Leibold)
    GTE Expands Email Coverage (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Bellcore's New NANP (Carl Moore)
    Re: Bellcore's New NANP (Paul Cook)
    Re: Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Telephone Economics (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY (Bill Berbenich)
    800 vs. 10xxx Codes (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: WECo Modular Connector Naming (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: 313 Split on the Way (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 12:28:33 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Emergency Calls at Pay Phones


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> What about emergency calls from these phones which charge for the
> calls to 800-?  Remember that emergency calls now usually do not
> require money deposit from a dial-tone-first pay phone.

Charging for emergency calls from a payphone would be absolutely
unthinkable. Imagine the hue and cry that would erupt the first time
somebody died because the caller didn't have a quarter.

This is not to say that COCOTs can't make things difficult. I had one
experience with trying to make an emergency call from a COCOT at a
corner gas station (the phone was outside and the station was closed,
so it was COCOT or nothing). Fortunately the "emergency" to report was
suspicious goings-on in a parking lot, not pillars of flame, a tragic
bus plunge or the like. Following is from my memory of about a year
ago ...

ATTEMPT 1: Pick up phone, punch 9-1-1. Long pause, numerous clicks,
several rings, finally "This community is not wired for 9-1-1.
Please hang up and ..."

ATTEMPT 2: Punch 0. Another long pause, numerous clicks, painfully
long number of rings, finally an operator answers. "I need Arlington
Heights Police; this is an emergency."

"What number are you calling from?"

"I don't know, I'm at a payphone in the dark and I can't see the
number. This is an emergency!"

"Are you at an intersection? What street are you on?"

"What the $#%&@ difference does it make? I need Arlington Heights
Police, NOW!"

"Please Hold ..."

To this day, I have no idea why they were asking all those questions.
Perhaps they figured that if they lost the call, they'd have some
clues to pass on to the emergency services.

Incidentally, Arlington Heights is now wired for 9-1-1. I wonder if it
would have helped at that time. It did seem as if the COCOT tried to
shove the 9-1-1 attempt through right away, but when I had to resort
to the Operator, things went downhill fast.


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


[Moderator's Note: The reason for 'all those questions' was two-fold
as I understand it. One, the operator is trained to obtain as much
information as possible in the event you are unable or unwilling to
stay at the telephone long enough to speak with the emergency agency.
Our telephone books for many years stated that 'in the event of a fire
or dangerous situation where you cannot remain at the phone, tell the
operator as much as you can before you must leave; she will relay this
to the firemen or police officers.' Two, the situation with 911 in
northern Illinois is still sort of messy. Many small towns share the
same telephone exchange, but for political reasons they cannot decide
among themselves who will answer 911 calls for the other(s). So they
keep on using a seven-digit number despite the state law (911 Enabling
Act) which required everyone to have 911 by last year. Due to the very
confusing nature of community boundary lines here (Chicago's northwest
side is a good example), the operator is trained to assume that in
your anxiety due to the emergency you may possibly be requesting
assistance from the wrong agency. If she is uncertain, she will relay
the information to more than one place. I'm sure she was only trying
to be helpful in your case.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 02:13:50 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Inmarsat Directory Assistance


It is possible to obtain phone numbers of ships and other stations
involved with the Inmarsat (maritime satellite) communications
service. Namely, these are the overseas numbers with country codes 871
through 874, used by ships at sea, ports, and any other interested
satellite stations.

I requested a directory assistance for Inmarsat from a Bell Canada
operator. The operator wanted to know which Inmarsat region was
involved (Atlantic East, Atlantic West, Indian, Pacific). I chose
Pacific and tried to get a number for the Exxon Valdez. The directory
assistance operator came on, took the request, but didn't find Exxon
Valdez as such, but I got a seven digit number for the Exxon California.
(Other Exxon ____ ships were available as well).

In the U.S., a long distance operator (such AT&T operator or
International Assistance) should be able to connect with the Inmarsat
assistance.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 22 Feb 92 04:00 UT
Subject: GTE Expands Email Coverage


Well it looks like we at GTE now have full access to most Electronic
Mail Systems including EasyLink and ATTMail through a new script.  To
see how it worked I send myself E-mail to EasyLink and in about five
minutes it was there. I'm sending this using the script so it really
saves me a lot of typing strange things to get it to work. Now if they
would only allow us to access the full archives which if I want to
look at I have to wonder done to my local university library and use
one of their terms.  The wonders of Electronic Mail!


Steven Lichter   COEI GTE Calif


[Moderator's Note: I'm glad you have expanded coverage now. Gradually
all email services are coming around to realizing that universal email
is where things are at. Hopefully the few remaining commercial
services which still restrict internet mail will realize the error in
their thinking soon.  Prodigy comes to mind as the best example.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 10:00:27 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore's New NANP


Notice "only two of the original 144 codes are available (Bellcore's
figures)".  There are 160 three-digit numbers of N0X/N1X form, and if
you throw out the N00 and N11, that 160 drops to 144.  Of those 144,
only 610,710,810,910 have not been announced for anything; and there
were some questions (including a Moderator's Note) about what 610 and
710 were used for (are they NOT available as geographic area codes?);
if 610 and 710 are not available, that leaves two unassigned area
codes, but then how do you arrive at 144 (instead of 142) original
codes?

For area codes announced but not in use yet, you can look up the
archive file history.of.area.splits , or you can write directly to me.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 22:22 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore's New NANP


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> According to {Newsbytes} Bellcore has distributed a "Proposal on the
> Future of Numbering in World Zone 1" which details the plan for
> interchangable area codes starting in January, 1995 and looking ahead
> 30 years.  Since only two of the original 144 codes are available
> (Bellcore's figures) there is some urgency.

> Apparently the proposal has a fair amount to say about how they plan
> to assign the 640 new area codes.  Has anyone actually seen it?  Is it
> possible to get a copy easily?

I received a copy a month ago and had planned on summarizing it for
TELECOM Digest, but there is a LOT there, and I never got around to
it.

This is one of the more interesting documents that I have received
from the folks who administer area codes.

Actually, it is a plan that is supposed to keep us supplied with
numbers for the next FIFTY YEARS (!).  The document provides a nice
overview of the history of numbering plans, options for the future,
and a lot of future contingencies that I had never thought of.

I am not sure how to get on the distribution list for this document,
but a couple of names on the cover letter and follow-up letter for
questions were Fred Gaechter (201-740-4596) and James Deak
(201-740-4594), both of North American Numbering Plan Administration
at Bellcore.  I suppose that one could call them to get a copy.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages
Date: Fri 21 Feb 1992 09:17 -0500


The {Boston Globe} published 1-800-35-NYNEX as the number to call for
more information. I'll tell you when the package, with software,
arrives.

Seeing the mention of the Apple II in Adam's article does bound the
level of service.  It will be interesting to see if the provide an
"over the wire" protocol or just a canned program.

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

Date: 21 Feb 92 13:52:50 EST
From: Tim Gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Economics


[e-mail] (David Gast) writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #154:

> You sound like an accountant.  From a financial standpoint, only cash
> matters.  (See Copland and Weston (sp), for example).  Non-cash
> charges against earnings do not pay for anything.  The equipment was
> paid for when it was installed using some combination of debt and
> equity.  (Sure ... maybe the checks were not written the precise
> moment of installation, but the idea is correct).

>> Note that what was already there was not fully depreciated in the
>> late 1980's so this is hardly stuff that was paid off with
>> pre-competition dollars.

> Was not paid off except by people with green eye shades.  :-) If the
> equipment was installed pre-divestiture, then it was paid for
> pre-divestiture.  On the other hand, (and you will like this part),
> the new equipment installed in the 1980s was paid for when it was
> installed.  (It is not paid for over the life of the equipment.  The
> situation is more complicated when the PUC sets rates, but by and
> large AT&T is now a competitive corporation, not a monopoly subject to
> FCC and PUC rulings on rates.  Note: I said by and large, there is
> still some regulation).

I hate to recopy all of the above but I feel it is necessary for
background.  First, I am not a CPA, my economics training has been
from an engineering viewpoint. However, I disagree with the statement
that only cash matters.  This may be true in a business with little
long term capital investment compared to net income. It is not true
for a long term capital intensive business. From the telephone
companies viewpoint, the equipment is NOT paid for until the debt has
been retired. From the switch vendors viewpoint it may be, but
certainly not from the debt holders viewpoint. And the debt holders
viewpoint is the one that matters. This also applies to equipment
funded out of stock sales. If the equipment is thrown away before its
useful life is reached (i.e. as measured by depreciation schedules)
then, in essence, you have not acheived full value for the
stockholders investment.

As an analogy, suppose you were running a car rental agency. Suppose
the cars were depreciated over a ten year period but you throw them
away when they are one year old. The cars are paid for when you get
them, either by getting a loan from the bank, by getting additional
venture capital, or out of profits. How long do you suppose it would
be before your company was run into the ground? Your annual rates
would be upkeep + wages/salary + 1/10 replacement value + debt payment
+ profit. I think you find your debt growing each year so you can buy
new cars, probably until the debt is more than your assets. (Don't
cheat by saying the profit factor will be raised to take care of it,
that is nothing more than decreasing the depreciation schedule). Your
rates will also have to keep going up to make the increasing debt
payments.

Bottom line, that equipment investment is not paid for when it is
installed.

>> Examples: Bell Labs results  had to be made public.

> Oh, I hadn't heard that the Unix source code (pre-divestiture version,
> of course) was public.

Isn't UNIX copyrighted not patented? I don't believe this has anything
to do with copyrighted material. BL doesn't publish switch generic
software either.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

Subject: Re: Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 16:05:27 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I would be interested in knowing how the Motorola switch is connected
to the Ericssons and what protocol is used.  A friend in-the-know on
cellular matters speculated that perhaps SS-7 is being used.  I know
that there is a cellular system in South Florida which is connected to
the LEC with SS-7.  I wonder if that is the case up north, as well?

Anyone know the deal in NY-CT?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 11:05:21 GMT


> The telco switch ignores the 10xxx codes if inserted in front of
> 800.  PAT]

Not on my line.  If I dial:

    10288-1-800-257-
    10222-1-800-257-
or    10333-1-800-257-

I get an intercept recording "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial
a long distance access code for this number".  (It really means "it is
necessary to NOT dial a long distance access code").  I don't have a
chance to enter the last four digits.  If it matters, I don't have a
default long distance carrier.  Calls were made from 817-249 (Fort
Worth).

Maybe it works if I guess the right carrier, but I tried the Big 3
above, and it wasn't any of them.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: Let me rephrase my original statement. The LEC will
not route 1-800 calls according to your instructions. It will either
ignore the 10xxx dialing and proceed with the call, or as you found
out, it will object to 10xxx and dump the call completely. On 800
calls, the recipient detirmines what carrier is to be used to place
the call. You can't override it.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 03:05:18 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: WECo Modular Connector Naming


In article <[e-mail]>, Jay.Ashworth@psycho.
fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) writes:

> Well, a Graybar Telecom catalog I have here, admittedly not an
> authoritative source, lists that as an RJ-14.  Four position, four
> conductor.

Since the Graybar catalog isn't an authoritative source, though it
seems to be quite complete in terms of practicality, what *is* the
authoritative source?  And has someone put these in electronically-
readable form?  Perhaps in the archives?

I've browsed the Telecom Archive index and related articles, but can
only find discussions as to the merits of RJ-45 vs RJ-11/12 and the
like.


Maxime Taksar   KC6ZPS   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: 313 Split on the Way
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 16:50:53 GMT


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

> Michigan Bell has announced plans to split the 313 area code in early
> 1994.  The newspaper story claims that there are only two area codes
> left, and we'll get one of them.  I thought we were already out, which
> would mean that we would get one of the new style (exchange-like) area
> codes.  Is there in fact any traditional (or N10) area code left?

810 and 910 are currently unassigned.


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


[Moderator's Note: And 610 is unavailable for voice network use.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #162
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25011;
          22 Feb 92 16:46 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23885
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:55:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15328
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:54:54 -0600
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:54:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #163

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Feb 92 14:54:48 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 163

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Differences in State Telecom Regulations (Jack Decker)
    Pac*Bell Line Oddity; Now a Compound Problem? (Eric W. Douglas)
    Really, it's an IMPORTANT Call (Robert L. McMillin)
    Telco Togetherness (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Party Not Answering Phone (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas (Dave Levenson)
    Re: More on Telcos and BBSs (Reginald Hirsch)
    800 Number Published In Cartoon (Thomas Lapp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 13:18:14 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Differences in State Telecom Regulations


I've decided that I'd like to try and keep track of some of the things
that tend to vary from state to state, so I created the chart below.
You will note that there are MANY gaps, and I will invite TELECOM
Digest readers to help me fill them in with information on your state.
The three items I am keeping track of so far are:

1) Free Touch-Tone.  This will be set to "Y" if telephone companies in
the state do not charge an additional monthly charge for Touch-Tone
service.  Yes, I know it's not REALLY free, but at at least folks in
these states aren't paying extra for a service that saves the phone
company money when they use it!

2) Caller ID.  This will be set to "Y" if Caller ID is available
ANYWHERE in that state, or "N" if it is known to NOT be available
anywhere in the state yet.

3) Mandatory measured service ban.  This will be set to "Y" if a voter
referendum or legislative action has banned the imposition of
MANDATORY measured service.  In this case, "Mandatory measured
service" means that no option is available that would permit a
business or residential telephone customer to make an unlimited number
of local calls, without being charged on a per-call or timed basis,
even if a "free" call allowance of a certain number of calls or a
certain number of minutes of calling exists.  In states marked with
"Y", telephone customers are guaranteed by law the right to subscribe
to a calling plan that offers unlimited local calling.  In states
where no unlimited flat-rate calling option is available, or no legal
ban against mandatory measured service exists, this should be marked
"N".

Where neither a "Y" nor an "N" appears, I do not have the necessary
information to fill in the space.  If you have information that would
help fill in some of the blanks, or suggestions for other items that
should be tracked on a state-by-state basis, or corrections to the
list below, please send them to [e-mail].  I will
re-post the list after I get more of the "holes" filled in.

Disclaimer: The list below is NOT guaranteed to be accurate, but if
you spot an error, PLEASE let me know about it.  Murphy says that if
there is only one error in the list, it will be in the item you are
most interested in, so please obtain independent verification before
spending any money based on what you see here!


                     Free  Caller  Mandatory
                      T/T     ID   Meas. Ban
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California             Y
Colorado               N
Connecticut
Delaware                       Y
District Of Columbia           Y
Florida                        Y
Georgia                        Y
Hawaii                 N
Idaho                          Y
Illinois               N       Y       N
Indiana                        Y       Y
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky                       Y
Louisiana                      Y
Maine                          Y       Y
Maryland                       Y
Massachusetts                  Y
Michigan               N       N       N
Minnesota              N
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska               Y       Y
Nevada                         Y
New Hampshire
New Jersey                     Y
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma                       Y
Oregon                 Y               Y
Pennsylvania                   N
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee                      Y
Texas
Utah
Vermont                        Y
Virginia                       Y
Washington             Y
West Virginia                  Y
Wisconsin              Y               N
Wyoming


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


[Moderator's Note: Readers should send corrections and updates direct
to Jack Decker, who will then provide us with an updated table at a
later time. Can anyone tell him other categories to include?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 11:43:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Pac*Bell Line Oddity; Now a Compound Problem?


Well, it seems as if the problem that was exhibited on my phone line
is getting worse ...

(Re: the data equipment problem ... according to a previous poster
under Bell South administration, who got a positive response in
that data equipment was trying to fax to his number ... and another
poster from Chicago who's line exhibited the same problem. I'd
say from the large distance between us, that this is a very wierd
problem indeed. I think that possibly some computer has garbled
its calling table, or the person who input it  did it entirely
incorrectly. Needless to say, I haven't had the problem again. N.O.W.

To John Higdon: No, I'm not exactly sure on the tone frequencies, I
don't have access to a tone generator, so I can't get a real precise
measurement ... if it's any help, I'm approximately 0.75 mi from my
CO.)

This morning, I get a call from a friend. I answer the phone, and she
says "How are you?", etc ... after about two seconds, another party
enters the conversation with "Hello?". Since she was alone at her
apartment, and mine is the only extension on this line, things seem to
be getting very bizarre. After the conversation was over, I thought
about the problem for a few minutes.

I turned off all of the equipment on my line, and dialed the number
from another line. Sure enough, someone answered! Ends up that it was
someone who I know, who was at their mother's house, who had recently
been moved to a retirement home. They were at the house getting ready
to rent it out, and they were shocked when the phone kept ringing when
it has supposedly been disconnected.

Needless to say, I've already placed my call to 611 repair. The woman
on the other end didn't seem to care very much about my problem, but
said that they would have it fixed by 6pm Monday at the latest. Kind
of reminds me of the Lily Tomlin/Saturday Night Live skit, "We don't
care, we don't have to; we're the phone company."

Anyway, since this extension was installed about two months ago, it's
obvious that this pair leading from here to the CO has been tied in
with one that was still in use. Today's question is, can someone tell
us what the process is for determining what pair will carry a new line
from the point of installation to the CO?


eric   ([e-mail], [e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Re: 'some computer is mixed up' ... what makes you
think there is *only one* out there mixed up?  And regards a 'process
for detirmining' which pair is used for which subscriber, in some
telcos, outside plant records are notoriously inaccurate. In older
urban areas, the master demarc for a large apartment building will
usually be a real mess. Maybe I will print the archives article on
this very topic (find.pair).   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 11:00:09 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Really, it's an IMPORTANT Call


An article in today's {Los Angeles Times}, entitled "Outdated
Equipment Blamed for Flood Warning Delay", relates how the National
Weather Service fell down on the job during the recent torrential
rains out here, partly because of a lack of Doppler radar, and partly
because of insufficient phone lines!  It seems that they NWS people
had to upload weather data to an Army Corps of Engineers computer
which had a shared data line.  As anyone who ever tried to call a busy
BBS can attest to, that turned out to be a challenge.  For as long as
two or three hours, the report said, the NWS computer failed to
connect to the Army computer, delaying information that authorities
could have used to cordon off the soon-to-be-flooded Sepulveda Basin.
(One wonders why they didn't call the people at the Army Corps and
tell them to disconnect the person then online.)

So now the Army plans to install a new phone line dedicated to weather
data.  You know what they say about hindsight ...


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


[Moderator's Note: Or better still, call those people and give them
the basic facts so they could start emergency procedures while full
details were being uploaded to them.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 13:59:45 EST
Subject: Telco Togetherness
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> [Moderator's Note: I'm sure you believed them. If you don't think the
> telcos are all <thisclose> to one another in their planning of new
> features, services and tariffs, try to find an example of it. Yes, in
> small very minor matters they go their own way, and the features they
> offer are known by different names in different places, but they all
> seem to come about at the same time.  PAT]

Does this really seem that surprising or sinister?  Even with the MFJ
restrictions, the RBOCs *do* retain a rather large jointly owned R&D
facility, Bellcore.  That the fruits of Bellcore's labors wind up
deployed at similar times in different places doesn't seem all that
strange.


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] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Party Not Answering Phone
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 17:18:01 GMT


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

> On the subject of busy being generated as close to the originating
> caller as possible, I've often wondered why, when the called
> subscriber goes on hook, the busy indication doesn't go away and
> change to a ringing indication, as well as ringing the called
> subscriber's phone?  It would seem, with SS7 at least, that this would
> not tie up trunks, just a signalling channel.  But then I suppose you
> get into the problem of which caller gets ringing indication if
> multiple callers call a busy subscriber ...

You could also get into problems with race conditions.  The called
busy party goes on hook, thus causing the terminating office to send a
message towards the originating office and start power ringing on the
called line.  While this message is enroute, the calling party
abandons the busy call.  So now we've got a called line ringing and no
calling line.

You could get around this by having the terminating office not start
power ringing until it gets back a confirmation message from the
originating office, but then what if the original called party goes
offhook, expecting to originate another call, while these messages are
in transit?  Does the terminating party get dialtone?  You can't
cutthrough the voicepath to the originating party, because the
voicepath hasn't yet been set up (assuming it's set up in the normal
way, that is, with the forward-direction messages).

And if you do allow the terminating party to originate a new call, the
originating party will hear <busy> (until the reverse-direction
message arrives), <silence> (after the reverse-direction message
arrives saying the original called party has gone onhook, and until
the voicepath is established to the far end), and then <busy> again
when the messages arrive at the terminating office and find the called
party offhook again.

In addition to these "purely" technical problems, none of this would
really work with the way SS7 signaling works now, because when a
terminating office determines the called line is busy, it releases the
call back to the originating office.  It then has no association
between the called line and the incoming trunk (which has, in any
case, been released).  So when the called line goes onhook, there is
no trunk identified with which a reverse-direction message could be
associated.

There is a supplementary service being defined in CCITT and T1S1
called Call Completion to Busy Subscriber (at least in T1S1); it
essentially provides a "camp-on" service.  When the calling party
encounters busy, it can request CCBS; it then goes onhook.  When the
called party goes onhook, a message is sent to the originating office,
which offers the calling party the opportunity to automatically
re-originate the CCBS call.  It doesn't provide "realtime" handling of
a busy subscriber going onhook, though.

My personal opinion is that a CCBS-like service is of more use than a
"wait for onhook on busy"-like service, in that the calling party can
be making and receiving other calls with CCBS, whereas if you just
wait offhook listening for the busy tone to end, your line is tied up
and unavailable.

Disclaimer: any statements in this message are not meant to imply any
endorsement or disendorsement (is that a word?) of any particular
services, standards, protocols, etc., etc.  In fact, any information
that you may glean from this message about what AT&T does or does not
do is probably wrong.  So there.


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

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

Subject: Re: Me and My Crazy Ideas
Date: 20 Feb 92 19:29:27 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)


Patrick:

The CID data is 1200 bps ASCII, but it is AFSK modulation.  Your
1200bps full-duplex modem uses a different modulation technique, and
cannot demodulate AFSK.  The older half-duplex modems, 'Bell 202' and
compatibles, may be able to demodulate it, but the mark and space
frequencies are slightly different from what it expects.  If the modem
is sloppy, it can probably get the data.

There are at least two products on the market designed specifically
for your application.  We use the ClassMate, by MHE Systems.  It was
reviewed in this forum, by this author, about a year ago.  It is a
receive-only modem (I should call it a 'dem', no?) about the size of a
cigarette pack.  It has a modular jack on one end, for connection to
the telephone line, and a DB-25 at the other, for connection to an
RS-232 data terminal.  It is powered by some of the signal lines in
the RS-232 interface.

MHE Systems Corporation
14251 Chambers Road
Tustin, CA  92680


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

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

Subject: Re: More on Telcos and BBSs
From: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)
Date: 22 Feb 92 08:09:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)


> [Moderator's Note: I'm sure you believed them. If you don't think the
> telcos are all <thisclose> to one another in their planning of new
> features, services and tariffs, try to find an example of it. Yes, in
> small very minor matters they go their own way, and the features they
> offer are known by different names in different places, but they all
> seem to come about at the same time.  PAT]

Pat, I should have listed you as an expert in 8386!  (8386 was the
adminstrative proceeding brought by Texas Sysops against SWB regarding
their attempt to charge all BBS's at commercial rates.)


[Moderator's Note: No thanks! I never go to those things.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 12:12:12 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Published In Cartoon


I'm surprised not to see a humor message about someone who has called
the 800 number published in the Doonsbury cartoon over the last two or
three days.  Surely someone in this group has called it and can save a
lot of calls by telling us what it homes to?

(To non-USA readers: Doonsbury is a newspaper comic strip which often
makes fun of current events.  The 800 number in question was part of a
series of cartoons related to the USA process of campaigning for
political office.)


internet  : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #163
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16713;
          24 Feb 92 8:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12196
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:04:40 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17693
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:04:32 -0600
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:04:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #164

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Feb 92 06:04:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 164

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Early History of Western Union (Fortune & Business Week via Jim Haynes)
    More "High-Tech" Services From BOCs (Randall C. Gellens)
    ISDN Market Penetration (Doctor Math)
    Cost of Directory Services (Doctor Math)
    Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems (Michael Graff)
    0+ and 950 Access to MCI -- How Do They *Really* Differ? (Phydeaux)
    Canadian Call Display Computer Interface (Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 00:01:43 -0800
Subject: Early History of Western Union


This is excerpted from {Fortune Magazine}, March 1959 - an excellent
article with nice pictures, "Western Union, by Grace of FCC and AT&T".

"Many legends have blurred the history of Western Union.  Contrary to
widely held belief, for instance, the company was not founded by
Samuel F. B. Morse, the portrait painter who invented the first
telegraph.  Initially, as a matter of fact, it didn't even use the
Morse patents and, relatively speaking, it was a latecomer to the
field.

"Morse did his pioneering work on the telegraph in the 1830's.  By
1850 there were fifty telegraph companies operating between various
cities in the U.S., most of them with licenses on the Morse patents.

"In 1846, Royal E. House of Vermont had come up with a device that
permitted the electrical impulse to imprint letters and numbers on
tape, eliminating the dot-dash symbols.  The House printer became the
basis for a new company financed and operated by a group of
Rochester[3] investors headed by Hiram Sibley.  This was the New York
& Mississippi Valley Telegraph Co., formed to link upper New York
State to St. Louis. But even as Sibley's plans began to unfold, the
competition in the telegraph industry became chaotic.  Some cities
were being served by three competing patent systems.  Meanwhile the
war in rates was ruinous.

"Sibley had a simple solution: consolidate all the telegraph companies
into one.  New York & Mississippi Valley Telegraph was reincorporated
as the Western Union Co., with licenses on both Morse and House
patents, in New York State in 1856.  Its avowed purpose was to bring
together into one company all the telegraph firms then operating
beyond the Hudson -- hence 'Western' Union.

"Western Union grew at a fantastic rate.  The New York company gobbled
up hundreds of competing telegraph companies, made exclusive, and
advantageous, deals with the railroads, and reached all the way to the
Pacific Coast.  By 1866 it had a virtual monopoly.  In the first ten
years of its life its capital had grown from $500,000 to $41 million.

"-The war with the telephone-

"The company's first brush with the telephone came in 1877, when it
imperiously declined an opportunity to buy the invention of Alexander
Graham Bell for $100,000.  Soon after, Western Union decided to enter
the telephone field via the American Speaking Telephone Co., which
would exploit voice-communication patents by Elisha Gray [1] and
Thomas Edison.  The Western Union system was quite as good as Bell's,
and Western Union began to grow in the telephone field.  But in 1878,
Bell sued for patent infringement.  As part of the settlement, reached
the next year, Western Union agreed to stay out of the voice business
and Bell agreed to stay out of the telegraph business.  But Bell
slipped out of the agreement when it formed, in 1885, a new company
called the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

"In 1909, AT&T won stock control of Western Union by purchasing the
shares held by the estate of Jay Gould.  Theodore Vail, a distant
cousin of the Alfred Vail who had helped Morse start his telegraph
line, was president of Bell at the time, and he planned to integrate
the two companies.  To begin with he had himself elected president of
Western Union and began using it to promote the telephone by
encouraging people to phone in their telegrams.  Western Union had
already developed a private-wire business with a volume of $3 million
annually, and AT&T took this over, too, adding it to the small
private-wire service it had developed on its own.

"In 1914, to avert government antitrust action, AT&T disposed of its
Western Union holdings, but stayed in the private-wire business.
After AT&T and Western Union parted, expansion of the telgraph system
merely kept pace with the increase in population.  By the Thirties the
business was contracting.  More and more Americans forsook telegrams
for long-distance phone calls and air mail.  Western Union was now
bothered also by competition from the Postal Telegraph Service, a
system formed in the 1880's.  Postal had been taken over by Sosthenes
Behn of IT&T in 1928, and thereafter fought Western Union hard.  As if
this were not enough, AT&T introduced in 1931 its TWX service, whereby
subscribers could have direct telegraphic connection with each other
through a central exchange. (AT&T invited Western Union to join it in
the TWX network, and later even considered selling the system to
Western Union, but Western Union couldn't pay the price.)

"In the early Thirties a debate began on whether there was enough
telegraph business to support two telegraph companies -- meaning
Western Union and Postal, but not AT&T, which most people thought of
as a telephone service only.  The debate was not resolved until 1943,
when Congress authorized a merger of the two companies.  An amendment
to the same law authorized Western Union to buy the telegraphic
services of AT&T -- but it did not make it mandatory for AT&T to
sell."

The following material comes from a {Business Week} article of
approximately ten years earlier than the {Fortune} article: Nov 19, 1949.

"Western Union's only all-telegraph competitor of recent years in the
domestic field, Postal Telegraph, Inc. started in the 1880s.  It
competed with Western Union with indifferent success, but Western
Union was prevented by law from buying its competitor.

"Finally, during the war, it became obvious that Postal couldn't go
on.  Operations for several years had been dependent on RFC [2] loans.
So Congress finally permitted Western Union to absorb its competitor
(BW - Aug. 7 '43, p102).

"Western Union was probably not too eager to acquire Postal in 1943.
For one thing, Postal's facilities partly duplicated its own.  Further
it had (1) to take over Postal's $12.5-million debt to RFC, and (2) to
guarantee jobs for most of Postal's staff for four years, despite its
own heavy labor costs.

"However, Western Union didn't have much choice.  Otherwise the
government might have taken over Postal.

"Another competitor is the government-operated communications systems.
The armed services and the State Department have their own networks of
'record' communications (any means of communication that produces a
permanent record on paper) ..." [This seems like a silly remark to me,
since the government-operated systems were based on private wires
leased from the common carriers.]

[1] This is the Elisha Gray who lost the race to the Patent Office to
Bell.  I remember in the 50s or so there was a "Gray Telephone Pay
Station Co.", making pay stations almost identical in appearance to
the Bell phones, for the independent companies.  I wonder if this is
connected with the Gray Mfg. Co. that was listed as a Western Union
affiliate in another article?

[2] RFC = Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Depression-era
government agency in the business of lending money to business firms
to help them get back on their feet.

[3] I wonder if the late Larry Lippman, in clearing out the Western
Union office there, was aware that Western Union was started in
Rochester.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 20:43 GMT
From: Randall C Gellens <[e-mail]>
Subject: More "High-Tech" Services From BOCs


Thursday's {Los Angeles Times} Business section carried a story
headlined 'High-Tech Services May Be a Call Away' that mentioned a
"homework hot line" in Pittsburgh, a leave-message-on-busy (like
ATT&T's Voice Mark, I imagine) in Oklahoma City ($1.50), and PacBell's
headline and sports scores to debut next year.

It also mentiones NYNEX's electronic yellow pages, at 61c/minute, and
PacBell's plan to offer customized news reports such as stock quotes
and sports scores, to its voice mail customers.  It says PacBell is
also planning an "expanded directory assistance" which would give 411
callers more information on a business, and a "Knowlegde Gateway
Network" linking California schools to the NFS database.

The article sounded quite positive about these services, mentioning
only that newspaper publishers fear a loss of revenue, and noting a
few bills pending in Congress.  There is a quote from Ivan Seidenburg
of NYNEX saying the BOCs should be able to continue expanding into
information services, as well as enter equipment manufactoring and
long-distance: "We cannot hope to compete in the global
telecommunications market of the year 2000 and beyond while living in
a regulatory environment suited for 1982," he said.

The only rebuttal to this view comes from David Easterly, president of
the Cox Newspaper chain, and AT&T CEO Robert Allen, who counter that
phone companies would use their position as local monopolies to
subsidize other new businesses.

This is consistent with other {L.A. Times} stories on the BOCs entry
into unregulated markets: no awareness of the dangers of having a
common carrier compete with its own customers, or the increase in
local rates needed to subsidize such money losing ventures as charging
people 61c/minute to listen to ads!  At least, the article should have
pointed out how silly NYNEX's statement is: it seeks to *compete* when
it is a regulated monopoly.

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Subject: ISDN Market Penetration
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 15:46:51 EST
Organization: The Department of Department of Redundancy Department


The following table appeared in the Spring '92 {NeXTWORLD} alongside
an article about the new Phone-Kit and ISDN-Kit in NeXTstep 3.0.  Note
that NYNEX is the farthest behind, which is in line with rumors about
the state of the phone system in New York.

                     RBOCs RAMP UP ISDN EFFORTS

RBOC            Year    Lines with access   Percent of Total
 -------------- ------- ------------------- ----------------
Ameritech       1991     2,200,000
                1994    14,000,000          87

Bell Atlantic   1991     6,900,000
                1994    17,100,000          90

Bell South      1991     3,100,000
                1994    10,500,000          52

NYNEX           1991     2,100,000
                1993     4,100,000          26

Pacific Bell    1991     3,740,000
                1994     7,500,000          50

Southwestern    1991     1,127,000
Bell            1994     4,421,000          32

US West         1991     3,000,000
                1994     7,300,000          51

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Subject: Cost of Directory Services
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 04:44:09 EST


Various things in this newsgroup and elsewhere have led to an
interesting series of thoughts about directory service and the cost of
providing it. A phone book costs around $30 to produce.  This could be
marketing crap, also. I was told this by the company who is contracted
to deliver the directories. If I want to order a directory for
Chicago, the charge is around $35 with shipping.  If I go to Chicago
and take one free from the piles free for the taking at the telco
offices, it is free. If they pressed it onto a CD-ROM, it would cost
around $3.00. Shipping would be negligible.  NYNEX offers this and
charges thousands for it, and doesn't even let you keep the discs for
reference purposes.

The Bells want to provide information services on-line; they would
then not have to print paper directories if everyone had a terminal of
some kind.  Enter US West and Minitel. A recent article from this
group mentions a charge of something like $0.61/minute for videotex
services.  This would not be out of line; there is a $0.60-0.65 charge
for out-of-area information (1+NPA+555-1212) and a lesser charge for
in-area information (411). The average out-of-area information call
takes less than a minute, so there should very well be ample precedent
for the Bells to charge "comparable" rates for "enhanced" service.

Many people, including myself, are guessing that this is all gravy,
and that the Bells could well provide directory information at next to
nothing (on-line or on CD-ROM). Perhaps one day the Bells will back
themselves into a corner? "Well," the Judge would say, "You charge
$300 for a set of paper directories, and $3000 for a set of CD-ROMS,
even though the paper directories cost ten times as much to print?"
How many millions of paper directories printed while we wonder where
our trees are going? Something to think about.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Graff)
Subject: Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 21:44:12 GMT


I have two modems, both made by a company called ConData.  One is a
P212A, while the other is a T212A.

I'm looking for pinouts/manuals/whatever-I-can-get for these modems.
If anyone has a hint, or better yet a manual, please let me know.

Please respond via Mail because I rarely read these newsgroups.

Thanks much,


Michael Graff    Iowa State University Computation Center      Project Vincent
237 Durham                voice: [phone]           [e-mail]
Ames, IA  50010           fax:   [phone]           [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 13:18:32 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: 0+ and 950 Access to MCI -- How Do They *Really* Differ?


I recently attempted to dial an MCI calling card call from a phone
that had MCI 1+ dialing.  I got the MCI 'bong' and entered my card
number.  My card number came up as invalid.  I then tried the same
call from the same phone with the MCI 950 number and it worked fine.
Why did it matter which way I accessed their network?


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


[Moderator's Note: I think the difference is that when you one plus
your call, the local telco computer is validating the card number, and
the telco computer will only accept telco-issued calling cards and
(maybe still?) AT&T cards. To reach the MCI billing computer, you have
to use 950+.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 08:50:30 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Call Display Computer Interface


A Canadian Fidonet sysop forwarded the following message to me, and I
thought it might be of interest to some in this group.  I have no
connection whatsoever with the seller of this device or the author of
the message, so obviously I cannot be responsible for any dealings you
may have with this person and/or firm.


* Original From: ROBERT LECHTER (1:167/159)  [This address expressed in
Internet notation is [e-mail]]
* Original to: All SysOps

     Une version francaise de de message est disponibe sur demande.

We would like to know how many SysOps would be interested in
purchasing a Call Display unit which would interface directly with the
computer via a serial cable.

The unit reports the time and date of an incoming call, as well as the
phone number from which it is placed.

For security purposes, many SysOps have Call Display units which just
show the data -- which is eventually lost.  This unit will allow you
to add the number to the caller log or even display it on the opening
screen! Free software, by John Crouch, which reads this unit is
already available on the market and would be included with the unit.

It should be noted, however, that this unit will be the Canadian
version, since the signal encoding for the U.S.A. and Canada are
different.

You will still have to get the Call Display service from Bell Canada
which is in the $4-5 range per month.

The cost of each of these units is unknown as of now, but will
probably be slightly more expensive than the units which just display
the numbers; I am talking about 100$ (Canadian).  You will require a
free serial port (at 1200 baud) for it to operate.

If you are interested in such a unit, please reply via NetMail to this
address, or contact us at one of the numbers which follows.

Please note, we are still negotiating with the manufacturer, so I am
not yet taking orders.  I merely want to be able to tell the
manufacturer that we would be interested in so many units.

Robert Lechter

    [phone]   fax: [phone]


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #164
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17030;
          24 Feb 92 8:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:19:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19672
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:19:32 -0600
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 06:19:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #165

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Feb 92 06:19:33 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 165

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Fun and Games Finding Working Pairs (TELECOM Moderator)
    RFD rec.radio.broadcasting/talk.radio.broadcasting (Bill Pfeiffer)
    Pac*Bell Wisecrack Retraction (Eric W. Douglas)
    Third Party Software Wanted For Watson (Philip E. Pavarini Sr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 15:19:24 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fun and Games Finding Working Pairs


The article below appeared in TELECOM Digest in 1989, and I thought it
was worth reprinting for readers who had not seen it before. I wrote
the article based on my experiences here.

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

The discussion in TELECOM Digest in recent issues regarding house pair
wiring has been interesting, and brings to mind a problem which is
chronically popping up in older urban areas like Chicago: the lack of
pairs between the central office and each premise. I've experienced
both a scarcity of house pairs and a scarcity of central office pairs
in the past, and it is interesting watching the installer scrape
together a working pair from a selection of three or four wires not in
use in the junction box.

In the late 1920's and early 1930's, many high rise (six stories or
taller) were constructed which operated as 'apartment-hotels', that
is, they had front desk, switchboard, and maid service, among other
amenities. In those days not as many people had their own private
phone line. Typically, in a building twenty stories tall, there would
be a dozen apartments per floor, or about 240-275 units in all. Each
unit had a phone through the switchboard, as did the administrative
offices. So the switchboard would typically be a two or three position
cord board, serving 250-275 'stations' or extension phones; all manual
switching of course. Under the accepted rule of thumb that ten percent
of the subscribers (tenants, in this case) maximum would be on the
phone at any given time, and that some of these would be local, from
one apartment to another, typically there would be only 20-25 central
office trunks coming in, to handle all incoming and outgoing traffic
through the board at the front desk.

In the building I lived in from 1967-1974, the switchboard had 26
trunk lines in rotary hunt, from Dorchester 3-7500 up to 7525. Now
there were perhaps a thousand such buildings in Chicago at one time;
there were two others like this on my block alone. Sometime in the
early to middle seventies, the economics of running older high rise
apartment buildings was such that the owners of the building decided
to close the front desk and switchboard. If the tenants wanted phones,
let them get it direct from Illinois Bell. As more and more buildings
chose to pull the boards out, these posed considerable problems for
Bell in getting at least one pair to each person in the building.

Generally the buildings had an IT, or inside terminal block somewhere
near the switchboard where all the central office lines came in. From
the board to the basement would be the (usually) several hundred pairs
needed to bring each phone to the board. From the basement, these
house pairs would typically run up through conduits to each floor,
where they would open up on a smaller terminal block of maybe twenty
pairs each. Let's say the apartment building had twelve apartments per
floor; every apartment would have two pairs to the local box with one
pair actually wired to a house pair coming into the box and the second
pair just loose. Of the twenty pairs that came up through the conduit
to that floor, twelve would in fact be specifically dedicated, or
wired, one to each apartment on the floor. The remaining eight pairs
would be multipled to the floor above and below. The end result would
be a pair for every apartment, and maybe 100-150 extra pairs which
could be manipulated throughout the building by tying any one of the
extra pairs to the second pair for a given apartment. If necessary,
the installer could open up a line at one place and tie down the
multiple on the next floor, etc.

The only problem then was the bottleneck *coming into the building*.
Only maybe fifty pairs in all, considering the board had (like ours)
around twenty five central office lines; a few direct lines to long
distance if the board was big/busy enough, and maybe a pair or two to
Western Union.  If the building had Muzak, or Western Union Clock
Service, or a telegram machine, then those each took a pair, etc.

When the switchboards were pulled out, suddenly telco had to find
enough pairs on the pole or in the street to bring a line (or two)
into the building for everyone. This stretched things pretty thin for
a few years, and in older areas where a lot of these buildings still
stand, you can go into any building on the block; go to the big,
humongous old fashioned wooden terminal box in the basement and get
the dial tone from everyone on the block! In theory, when one person
moves out somewhere in the vicinity, the phone man goes to *their
basement* and opens up the pair, then goes to the place where a new
subscriber wants service and attaches the multiple there. But people
have moved into an apartment, plugged their phone into the jack,
gotten dial tone and assumed they were connected only to later on hear
someone talking on 'their' line who was actually down the street and
across the alley somewhere. Other times telco has insisted the service
was working, and the new subscriber was equally insistent that the
line was dead. Phone man comes on scene, goes to the basement, fiddles
around awhile, gets no where, goes out and climbs pole for awhile,
comes back to basement and still dead pair, etc. Using a good pair to
call the test board, they finally scrounge up one wire here and one
wire there to make a pair for the bewildered customer, who *does* have
two perfectly good pairs in his apartment.

BEWARE THE INVASION OF THE PAIR-SNATCHERS! Even the most ignorant
installer, if he hears dial tone on a pair will leave it alone and
assume it belongs to someone in the building. But sometimes the pairs
are incorrectly labled, or not labled at all. I have two lines here.
One day looking out my window I saw a phone man on the pole in the
alley. Two minutes later, my first line is dead. I called repair
immediatly, and had a young lady sass me back and tell me it was
'impossible' that the guy on the pole had messed me up. I finally
convinced her supervisor to at least call the guy on the pole and have
him reconsider what he had done. There are some installers however who
wish to avoid extra work for themselves and they will 'accidentally'
snatch a working house pair from someone else, figuring it is just as
easy for that person to call repair service and complain about their
phone not working as it is for them to keep searching and ringing out
(or sounding) pairs until they find a good *idle* one for themselves.
In these older buildings, the house pairs are now sixty years old, and
with faded tags written on by phone men who have long since departed
this life; so it does get hairy at times.

About ten years ago, a novice telephone installer comes to the door.
Very concientous young lady that she is, she carefully holds up her ID
badge and asks me to let her in the basement to work on the big box.
"I am to turn on the phone in apartment 902", she beams at me. In the
basement, with the covers off the terminal box she looks at this
spaghetti-like mound of wire and said, "my gracious! I wonder how I
will find apartment 902". I told her, you might go to 902 *first*, and
see if it -is- working already. If not, put your sounder on the line
up there. Then, check the box in the hall on the ninth floor and
listen for your sounder. If you hear it, take note of the numbers
written on the little strip of wood next to the screw terminals and
then come back down here and find the same numbers on the screw
terminals at this end. "Oh, do you think that would work?"  Yes, I do.

Sure enough, she was back five minutes later, to tell me the box on
the ninth floor said HP206. I told her, now why don't you look for
house pair 206 in this box. We found it, and she heard her sounder
over the wire and decided 'this must be it'... She looked puzzled and
said well now we have to get the line from our office. Brilliant
deduction!  I told her her order ticket said Rogers Park Cable 97,
Pair 34 was assigned to this customer. By default, the entire terminal
box in our basement is Rogers cable 97. It shows up across the street
also, but that is beside the point. I told her you start in the upper
left hand corner of the box and count down pair by pair. The first
number is 18, so count from 18 to 34, down one row, then start at the
top of the next row. Stop when you reach 34. She found it eventually,
and jumped it to house pair 206. I had to feel sorry for her. She had
only been working for Bell for a short time, and had probably never
done anything in a large high rise building like that before.

She even started to leave *without going back up to 902 to get her
sounder and replace the cover on the modular box in the apartment*!!
As I was in need of one at the time myself, I should have kept my
mouth shut, but I knew she would get bawled out if she had lost it.

I saw the same lady about a week later over at the 6800 North Sheridan
Building, which years ago was the Rogers Park Hotel. She told me 'they'
had assigned her to work that day with two other people, and that they
were removing the switchboard from the building and putting in private
direct lines for all the apartments ... a job that took several days.
Quite a learning experience for her.

In the past decade, Illinois Bell has added quite a bit of additional
cable, so the shortages and pair snatchings are not as severe as they
were, but in some older buildings, particularly when there are two or
three on the same street, there is still a lot of 'fun and games' when
someone wants a second or third line installed.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: RFD rec.radio.broadcasting/talk.radio.broadcasting
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 21:38:56 GMT


This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new Usenet
newsgroup, tentitively entitled rec.radio.broadcasting. I am proposing
that this newsgroup be moderated, and barring any serious objection, I
am offering my time and energy to BE that moderator.

As the 'statement of charter' indicates, I believe that a group of
this type is needed on Usenet because there is no current newsgroup
dealing with the general subject of radio broadcasting. Yet radio is,
arguably, the most consumed of all mass media, in terms of actual
person/hours of exposure.  People listen to radio in their cars, in
their offices, while jogging, dining, reading, getting ready for work,
commuting, and just about any other conceivable activity. Radio shapes
our opinions, perceptions, musical tastes, and (hopefully) stimulates
our imagination.

For these reasons, and others, I propose the creation of this
newsgroup.

I suggest a 'moderated' format, for these reasons.

1) A properly moderated group generally produces a more concise and
   cohesive product w/less "net-clutter" and a higher signal/noise ratio.

2) If the moderator is knowledgable in the subject matter covered in
   the newsgroup, s/he can be of assistance in responding to questions
   posed to the group which might, otherwise, go un-answered.

3) Moderation of a newsgroup means different things to differnet people.
   My concept of moderation is simply to act as a buffer, weeding out
   test messages, repetitive, abusive or 'grossly off topic' messages,
   and to re-direct, misplaced articles to appropriate newsgroups.

I am an experienced broadcaster, and have had an avid interest in the
medium since early childhood.  I would consider moderating this group
an honor and a pleasure, because of my respect for the medium, and the
people in it.  Plus, I have time and willingness to dedicate to such a
project.

The tentitive name of 'rec.radio.broadcasting' (r.r.b) is, of course,
open to change if a better title can be created.  While the charter of
the group suggests potential topics which are not specifically
recreational, I tend to feel that 'rec' might be the be the most
appropriate heading since the only other Usenet group dealing with
domestic broadcast radio (rec.radio.noncomm) uses this heading and
therefore r.r.b would be a good companion group.

I considered the name 'talk.radio.broadcasting', but felt there might
be a misunderstanding that the group was centered around the 'talk
radio' format.  Perhaps something like 'talk.broadcasting.radio' might
be a good alternative, but that will be determined by you folks "out
there in Usenet-land" :), assuming that the process gets that far.

I do not envision r.r.b to be a replacement for any other newsgroup,
including rec.radio.noncomm.  The latter group's focus is on a
specific genre of radio and therfore I feel the two groups would
compliment, rather than compete with, one another.


   ****** Statement of charter; rec.radio.broadcasting. *********

Rec.radio.broadcasting (r.r.b) will be for discussion of a wide
variety of subjects pertaining to the general arena of
entertainment/information radio.  While not specifically limited to
North American broadcasting, r.r.b will avoid dealing with
international (shortwave) broadcasts because this topic is already
being handled in rec.radio.shortwave.

Valid subjects for discussion might include (but not be limited to);

1) Programming and formats
2) Technical and engineering matters
3) Concerns of smaller market stations
4) Innovations and legislation affecting the medium
   (and those attempting to enter it)
5) Radio's historical & cultural significance
6) Radio news coverage and it's impact on our nation and our world.
7) Audience input and ideas for improving the state of radio broadcasting.

Since rec.radio.noncommercial is the only Usenet group pertaining to
domestic broadcast radio, r.r.b would provide a forum for those
individuals who's interest in the medium is not limited to the
non-commercial arena.  I believe this group would be of great interest
to Usenet participants because ...

1) Everybody listens to, and is affected by, radio broadcasting.  It
   is the only mass media in which one can fully participate, while
   engaged in another activity.

2) Colleges and universities currently train, and graduate, thousands of
   potential radio professionals every year.  These individuals would
   be very likely to participate in such a forum to discuss and compare
   notes on their chosen field of endeavor.

3) The face of radio is always changing. Satellite feeds, automation,
   and other influences are molding the future of the medium.  This
   newsgroup would be a link between interested parties from all corners
   of the industry, keeping one-another up to date on the latest trends
   impacting radio broadcasting in America an beyond.

********************** End Of Statement Of Charter *********************

I welcome your comments and suggestions. If all goes reasonably well I
will be putting out a 'Call For Votes' in about a month and hopefully
the Usenet community will agree that such a group would be a valuable
addition to it's heirarchy.  Since this is not a proposal for
'splitting' an existing newsgroup, but rather for the creation of a
group to fill a 'vacancy', I hope you will seriously consider a
positive response to this proposal even if you, yourself, are not
particularily involved or interested in broadcasting.  Such a group
could only augment the already diverse spectrum of Usenet newsgroups.

Feel encouraged to post responses to news.groups, and/or to e-mail me
directly at the following address.

[e-mail]

send c.c. to..
[e-mail]

Thank you.

William D. Pfeiffer


[Moderator's Note: This is published here FYI, and discussion should
be in news.groups.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 20:11:10 PST
From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Pac*Bell Wisecrack Retraction


Well, I publicly apologize to Pac*Bell, especially the lineman who
showed up at my house Sunday morning at 10 am, to let me know that
they'd corrected the problem with my phone line.  They'd found the
"sleeper", and had removed it.


eric ([e-mail], [e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 20:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Philip E. Pavarini Sr.)
Subject: Third Party Software Wanted For Watson
Organization: PAVNET News & Mail Service


I have a Watson voice messaging board manufactured by Natural
MicroSystems.  Does anyone have any third party software written for
this board?

Or can anyone tell me where to get third party software?


pavnet!pps    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #165
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18607;
          24 Feb 92 9:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02414
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:08:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12009
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:07:44 -0600
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:07:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #166

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Feb 92 07:07:41 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 166

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance (John R. Covert)
    Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance (Don Maslin)
    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Walter Scott)
    Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Telco Data Services (Phil Karn)
    Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes (Phil Howard)
    Re: Alternatives to MOH (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Pac*Bell Line Oddity; Now a Comound Problem? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Bellcore's New NANP (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 13:45:48 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance


> I chose Pacific and tried to get a number for the Exxon Valdez.

The reason you were unable to get a number for the Exxon Valdez is
that the ship has been renamed and also moved to a different area of
operation.

> In the U.S., a long distance operator (such AT&T operator or
> International Assistance) should be able to connect with the Inmarsat
> assistance.

Or just call 800 424-9152.  It's free, and AT&T charges for connecting
to overseas directory assistance now because other carriers, not
providing the service, were telling their customers to dial 10288-0
for directory assistance, then getting revenue for the call without
spending the money to get the number.  Canadians may continue to call
their operator, since there is, as yet, no charge for international
D.A., since there is still only one carrier for calls originating in
Canada.

BTW, I once tried to get Peter Arnett's number in Baghdad, and funny
thing, they weren't willing to give it out.  Numbers are only listed
at the subscriber's request.

If you forget the 800 number, remember that it is listed as MARISAT,
not as INMARSAT.


/john

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 13:29:18 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance


Dave Leibold <[e-mail]> writes:

> I requested a directory assistance for Inmarsat from a Bell Canada
> operator. The operator wanted to know which Inmarsat region was
> involved (Atlantic East, Atlantic West, Indian, Pacific). I chose
> Pacific and tried to get a number for the Exxon Valdez. The directory
> assistance operator came on, took the request, but didn't find Exxon
> Valdez as such, but I got a seven digit number for the Exxon California.
> (Other Exxon ____ ships were available as well).

You may be interested to know that Exxon renamed the Exxon Valdez last
year, which would explain why you couldn't find that ship via
directory assistance -- it doesn't exist.  Considering the well-known
nautical lore that renaming a ship causes bad luck, I wonder what
Exxon's management was thinking at the time.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, any possible bad luck couldn't be much worse
than what the Valdez already experienced with the horrible mess in
Alaska a couple years ago.   :(   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Maslin)
Subject: Re: Inmarsat Directory Assistance
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:16:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> I requested a directory assistance for Inmarsat from a Bell Canada
> operator. The operator wanted to know which Inmarsat region was
> involved (Atlantic East, Atlantic West, Indian, Pacific). I chose
> Pacific and tried to get a number for the Exxon Valdez. The directory
> assistance operator came on, took the request, but didn't find Exxon
> Valdez as such, but I got a seven digit number for the Exxon California.
> (Other Exxon ____ ships were available as well).

Probably, the reason is that the Exxon Valdez was recommissioned as
the Exxon Mediteranean (if I remember correctly) after repairs were
completed.  As the name implies, she is no longer in the Pacific.


UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!donm
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary
From: [e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 08:28:35 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


[e-mail] (Randy Bush) writes:

>> If Wagner "continues to receive income from the LINES in question",
>> I'd like to see Mr. Bush present to us some evidence to back this
>> statement up.

> Try the monthly statement of the FidoNet Net-1:105 echomail fund and
> the FidoNet Region-1:17 echomail fund, which pay the bill for at least
> one of the lines in question.  If you really need a copy of these
> statements, write to Bob Hay 1:105/54.3 aka bob.hay@p3.f54.n105.z1.
> fidonet.org, treasurer of those funds.

> If it ain't going to Tony's phone bill, then a whole lot of us are
> gonna be pissed off at Bob Hay if we can find him.  :-)

     The idea, from my perspective, is to get at the truth, whatever
that might be. I appreciate the reference provided above. However, YOU
are the one making assertions here that require some presentation of
evidence in order to maintain some level of credibility. Thus, it
would be helpful if you could present excerpts of, or entire
statements provided by Bay. If Wagner is not on the up and up, pure,
unfiltered evidence will sink him. So far, I haven't seen any such
evidence presented by you who make assertions relevant to this thread.

      Now, if we are dealing with FidoNet and sharing of expenses by
SysOps: Are you or would you then support the notion that a FidoNet
HUB must resign him/herself to paying business rates simply because
he/she is compensated for the cost of forwarding mail into FidoNet at
whatever cost? What impact do you think this would have on FidoNet in
Oregon, IF this is the way you see things?

      If I, and someone else, are not well informed about what is
going on in Oregon, educate us. We are here (those of us collectively
reading the Digest) to, among other things, learn. Be our teacher.


Walter Scott

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:25:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doctor
Math) writes:

> I didn't get this one either. Obviously, taking out an ad in a
> magazine is "advertising", but what about being listed in a BBS list
> in the back of {Computer Currents}? Or being listed in the {Nixpub},
> the Public Access Unix listing that circulates around the net?

Well, that's why I said "depending what they mean by advertising".
Since most BBS listings will accept any entry from anyone, that would
probably be a bad idea: the LOC could simply send in fake listings for
BBSes and charge them business rates on that basis. It would have to
be a deliberate action on the part of the sysop, tracable back to him.
What basis does "Computer Currents" use for judging the validity of
listings?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Telco Data Services
Organization: Very little
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 20:57:44 GMT


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

> I'm not at all sure of the telco's dedication to the concept, but have
> you looked at SMDS?

Yes, I am quite familiar with SMDS. A couple of years before I left
Bellcore, I participated in a rather in-depth internal review of SMDS.

In theory, SMDS is quite nice.  The details are a little too
contaminated by IEEE 802.6 and ATM brain-damage -- there's a lot of
gratuitous complexity that will make the system much harder to
implement than it need be -- but unlike ISDN, the service model is
fundamentally sound. (Aside: why can't people learn that when
standards committees screw up, as they so often do, the proper thing
to do is to IGNORE them?  If you slavishly accept a standard, no
matter how broken, just because it came from an august body like
CCITT, ISO or TIA, then you're just inviting them to come back and do
it to you again and again. Somebody has to teach the standards
committees that their work will have to earn the right to be called a
"standard".)

Anyway, the real question, as you allude, is the telco's dedication to
the concept.  Sure, there's been plenty of lip service. But as with
ISDN, I've seen little to give me hope that this service will really
become ubiquitous and affordable. Also, remember that SMDS is being
targeted for large multi-location companies, ones who can already
afford T-1 or faster leased lines between their facilities. I can
guarantee you that you won't be able to afford SMDS service to your
house.

The root problem, of course, is that the telcos have virtually no
competition to spur them on. They have little motivation to provide
SMDS any time soon, especially since the main "competition" is from
(and to) their own leased-line services. (The commercial components of
the Internet are too small to be meaningful to the telcos, and in any
event they generally provide inter-lata service, which is barred to
the telcos under the terms of the MFJ.)

Don't misunderstand me, I would *love* to be proved wrong on all this.
In the rather unlikely event that the telcos were to see my note and
be so ashamed by it that they were to immediately tariff universal
ISDN and SMDS at reasonable rates, I would be absolutely delighted.
I'd sign up tomorrow.

But I'm not holding my breath, and that's why I'm advocating a packet
radio data service that bypasses the telcos entirely. Because even if
it lasts only until the telcos are spurred to action, it will have
been well worth it. And if the telcos ignore it, well, then at least
we'd have a reasonable data network to use.


Phil

PS: Needless to say, these are strictly my own personal opinions.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 23:17:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

> I get an intercept recording "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial
> a long distance access code for this number".  (It really means "it is
> necessary to NOT dial a long distance access code").  I don't have a
> chance to enter the last four digits.  If it matters, I don't have a
> default long distance carrier.  Calls were made from 817-249 (Fort
> Worth).

> Maybe it works if I guess the right carrier, but I tried the Big 3
> above, and it wasn't any of them.

> [Moderator's Note: Let me rephrase my original statement. The LEC will
> not route 1-800 calls according to your instructions. It will either
> ignore the 10xxx dialing and proceed with the call, or as you found
> out, it will object to 10xxx and dump the call completely. On 800
> calls, the recipient detirmines what carrier is to be used to place
> the call. You can't override it.  PAT]

I don't have a default LD carrier either.  Even if I know the 800
number is using AT&T, for instance, adding 10288 to the front dumps me
to the recording (which as you pointed out is stating the facts
incorrectly).  Just dialing the number as it, without the LD access
code, puts the call through just fine, as it does with long distance
calls handled by the local carrier instead of an LD carrier.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It might be correct to say that the prefix in an
800 call, ie, 800-xxx, the 'xxx' serves the same purpose as 10xxx,
that is, it says to the originating telco 'this is a collect call to a
subscriber of xxx'. The prefix following the 800 overrides any other
instructions given, such as the 10xxx on the front.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOH
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 07:25:49 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: A lot of classical stuff is in the public domain
> because of its age, is it not?  You don't have to pay fees for public
> domain music. But, we are way off telecom.  Let's call it quits.  PAT]

Sure, but even if you don't pass this on, you should understand why
that's not right.  The music itself (the unique arrangement of notes)
is indeed in the public domain due to its age, just like older written
works.  However, the *performance* by the talent is also a unique and
creative effort, equally protected.  If you choose to put
Mendelssohn's Concerto in E minor on your MOH, you don't owe
Mendelssohn a penny.  You *do* owe Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg (who
played it on your CD).

Similarly, Rostand's play Cyrano is yours to type in.  In the original
French text.  The translation is the creative work of the translator,
and you owe him.  The "rendition" into the exact image in the book is
the "creative" (sorta) work of the publisher; if you photocopied the
book, you'd owe them too.


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb


[Moderator's Note: What about TROH (Talk Radio on Hold)?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 06:58:20 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Call-Forwarding Features Return CT-NY


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

> I would be interested in knowing how the Motorola switch is connected
> to the Ericssons and what protocol is used.  A friend in-the-know on
> cellular matters speculated that perhaps SS-7 is being used.  I know
> that there is a cellular system in South Florida which is connected to
> the LEC with SS-7.  I wonder if that is the case up north, as well?

I've seen the mention of an Ericsson switch here, in the papers and
have run into it on a few exchanges in the 516 area code.

In the first two instances, no mention of what the switch was used for
with the exception of the above.  If that's the case then there are a
few exchanges in a.c. 516 wired for SS7.

I tend to feel as Bill says that the Ericsson is used for cellullar
but am not sure.

Any assistance appreciated.


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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 07:19:09 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Line Oddity; Now a Comound Problem?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Kind of reminds me of the Lily Tomlin/Saturday Night Live skit, "We
> don't care, we don't have to; we're the phone company."

About a month ago, I saw a wonderful bumper sticker on a car.  It had
the old "Bell System" logo on the left (bell in a circle printed in
traditional light blue ink) with the words "We don't care.  We don't
have to." on the right.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Bellcore's New NANP
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 16:54:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Proctor & Associates) writes:

> John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

>> According to {Newsbytes} Bellcore has distributed a "Proposal on the
>> Future of Numbering in World Zone 1"  ...  Is it
>> possible to get a copy easily?

> I am not sure how to get on the distribution list for this document,
> but a couple of names on the cover letter and follow-up letter for
> questions were Fred Gaechter (201-740-4596) and James Deak
> (201-740-4594), both of North American Numbering Plan Administration
> at Bellcore.  I suppose that one could call them to get a copy.

As a favor to Messrs. Gaechter and Deak ... please do *not* call them
directly asking for copies.  They're listed as technical contacts to
whom you can address technical questions about the document.  To
request the document, I'd suggest you call the Bellcore Documentation
center at 1-800-521-CORE ([phone] for foreign calls).  They
should be able to look up the document and provide ordering
information, and take the order over the phone.  (Bellcore accepts all
major credit cards...)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #166
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20219;
          24 Feb 92 10:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01144
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:57:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30675
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:57:13 -0600
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 07:57:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #167

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Feb 92 07:57:01 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 167

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Party Not Answering Phone (Peter da Silva)
    Re: How Are Exchanges Assigned (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Digit Absorption (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Acoustic Coupler Needed - Please Help! ([e-mail])
    Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon (John R. Covert)
    E911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Phil Howard)
    E911 (was Caller ID Information Wanted) (Bob Turner)
    When and How is CID Available? (Thomas K. Hinders)
    *67 Effect on 800 Numbers? (Eric Thompson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Party Not Answering Phone
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:14:36 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Peter asked me to leave the numbers in the message,
> which I have done. But the analogy is not fair!

Of course not. I'm running a BBS.

> He specifically invites calls, and no doubt responds to calls with
> software which is difficult or impossible to break out of via the
> modem;

Anyone running a computer connected to a modem attempts to do the same
thing. This software, under UNIX, is the program "login". If it is
secure, so is anyone else's BBS or login program. If not, the user can
get through that security to a shell.

> thus the operating system and remainder of the computer is safe from
> intrusion, meaning the computer is only in a limited way 'usable'.

Well, I will happily set you up a shell account, Pat, and you can
judge its usability yourself.


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


[Moderator's Note: No, but thanks anyway. I've got too many accounts
now to use most of them on a regular basis.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 12:45:34 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: How Are Exchanges Assigned


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R. Grout)
writes:

> [e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

 [Text deleted ... goes on to explain how just the last four digits
on an older step-by-step switch absorbed portions of the exchange
numbers.]

> The cases of shortened dialing I've heard about didn't use this
> technique as you described it: instead, they had five digit dialing
> for some local calls and restricted the exchanges in the local calling
> area so the first digit one dialed (which would be the third digit of
> the exchange) would uniquely identify the call as a five-digit local
> call and that only four digits would follow.  For example, if one's
> local exchanges were 225 and 227, no other seven-digit dialed
> exchanges in one's dialing area would be allowed to begin with 5 or 7.

> This would lead to complex patterns of exchange assignment: I never
> saw it used except in isolated areas where there were few exchanges in
> the local dialing area to consider.

I seem to remember this situation in the Sioux City, Iowa - South
Sioux City, Nebraska telephone connections.  All numbers internal to
Sioux City were five-digit and all numbers in South Sioux City were
four-digit.

When crossing the boundary in either direction, five digits were used.
Internal to South Sioux City, the numbers were four.  Callers out of
that area simply referred to the five digit number and the call was
routed.

This was in the '50s and '60s and has changed since then to where the
full seven-digit number is now required.


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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 16:13:40 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Digit Absorption
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


I'm mixing Carl's questions with some earlier comments by "j-grout".
I hope they don't mind my jumping in ...

First, [e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

>> In many cases, older step-by-step technologies will have
>> likely determined how exchanges would be assigned. For instance, it
>> was expensive to put in equipment to process extra number
>> combinations; "digit absorbing" was used instead.

>> For instance, an exchange with 523-xxxx numbers could be set up on a
>> step-by-step so that only the last four digits need be used to
>> complete a call to another 523-xxxx number.

>> .... Thus, it would not be possible to use other prefixes
>> such as 532 or 252 or 333 for a local call from such an exchange;
>> furthermore, care would have to be taken to avoid a conflict with
>> local calling (say 523-4xxx local numbers were in effect; you could
>> not put a 234-xxxx exchange in service without overhauling the service
>> on 523-xxxx since 234 would be interpreted as 523-4 ...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Moore)
asks:

> In this sample, you're saying that the 23 in "234" would be
> interpreted as the last part of "523"?

   Sort of!  He's saying that you dial local numbers with only four
digits, with the "523" prefix "absorbed".  In most cases, the
absorption does not care about digit order -- so the "234-xxxx" digits
are interpreted as "junk" "junk" "4".  In fact, dialing "523-4xxx",
"225-4xxx" or even "25253535225-4xxx" would place the same call.  The
absorption of "523" would prevent the assignment of ANY NXX within the
local area containing the digits 2,3 or 5.  There were cases where the
first digit has to be "5" to trigger absorption, but these have
largely disappeared.

   However, this is unlikely to be a problem in the USA today, because
it is likely that the only places with such dialing plans are small
SXS offices called Community Dial Offices (CDOs).  And such places
only had one (or 2) NXXs in their "local" area.  Since they couldn't
do all the things a real Class 5 CO could do (such a billing or real
seven-digit number routing), they typically "homed" on a local tandem
switch for any fancy routing.  For most purposes, you could consider
CDOs a "public" PBX, only there were no "features" (unless you call
eight-party lines a feature :-))

   My home town is a good example of such a system (or was until last
November).  Small Kansas town, 580+ people, another 50 or so farms
served by the CDO.  Probably less than 400 telephone numbers in use,
since EVERY number is of the form NXX-3AXX, where A is 2-6 {500
numbers max.}.

The telephone directory is published in 5"x8" format, with:

  32 pages of Instructions
  17 pages of listings for the big town 18 miles south (2200 folks)
   3 pages of listings for my hometown (pop. about 580)
   6 pages of listings for the county seat (pop. 1100)
  36 pages of "Yellow Pages"
  12 pages of advertising for Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages!!

New directories are distributed using the Post Office.

   As listed in the front of the directory,

"The local calling area for ______ includes all telephone numbers
beginning with the YYY prefix."

This is repeated for each town; that's right, only one NXX to remember
for local calls. :-(  So the CDO was wired to accept the following as
the first dialed digit:

  1  -- a "1+" Toll call, bridge to tandem for remaining digits
  0  -- an operator call (until ANI-D(?) was installed, an operator would
        come on after the full number and ask "Your number please?" for
        billing.  Also always needed on those eight-party lines.)
  3  -- a local four-digit call (next digit in the 2-6 range)
        anything else was absorbed, unless someone took the trouble to
        handle "9" as a probable "911" call, and sent it to the
        operator or fire department -- there is no "police" number.

  So adding new NXXs to the NPA caused no changes in the CDO; you
would have to dial "1+" to reach it anyway.  Now they have their own
little Ericsson switch, and have to dial seven digits for local calls
 -- but the first four digits are always the same (NXX-3).  My
suggestion to a SW Bell friend that they should just use Centrex to
continue to allow four-digit dialing was ignored.  And I had to
explain to my 90-year-old grandmother that it was "people", not
technology, forcing her to dial all those extra digits.

And in article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] adds:

> The cases of shortened dialing I've heard about didn't use this
> technique as you described it: instead, they had five digit dialing
> for some local calls and restricted the exchanges in the local calling
> area so the first digit one dialed (which would be the third digit of
> the exchange) would uniquely identify the call as a five-digit local
> call and that only four digits would follow.  For example, if one's
> local exchanges were 225 and 227, no other seven-digit dialed
> exchanges in one's dialing area would be allowed to begin with 5 or 7.

> This would lead to complex patterns of exchange assignment: I never
> saw it used except in isolated areas where there were few exchanges in
> the local dialing area to consider.

   Watch what you call "isolated areas", sir.  Your five digit version
of local calling was typically implemented in Crossbar COs, or larger
SXSs.  In the 1970's, Kansas State University had the 532 prefix and
the city of Manhattan (the Little Apple) had 539.  One would dial
"9-xxxx" to reach an off-campus number and "2-xxxx" to reach an
on-campus number.  Anything else was "1+" toll.  I still remember
"Wolfi's Deli" was "WOLFI".  I believe Manhattan is now a Number 1
ESS(tm) Switch, and uses seven-digit dialing.  But it's unlikely Fort
Riley can be reached without "1+".


Al Varney - AT&T Network Systems
- None of the above has been authorized by AT&T in any way.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 09:49 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Acoustic Coupler Needed - Please Help!


31919 1st Avenue S., Suite 100
Federal Way, WA 98003-5258
orderline: 1-800-531-7276

You can have information about it (the coupler's Fax-on demand # is
21) by calling 1-206-946-5129.


[Moderator's Note: But you failed to give us the company name! Who is
this supposed to be?    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 13:48:06 PST
From: John R. Covert  23-Feb-1992 1626 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon


The 800 number published in Doonesbury last week was exactly what the
strip said it was: The number for "Jerry Brown for President."

If 100,000 readers called it to see what it was, I suspect it cost
Jerry's campaign on the order of $10,000.  Do you think it got him
that much in contributions?


/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: E911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 23:12:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: The reason for 'all those questions' was two-fold
 ...

> to the firemen or police officers.' Two, the situation with 911 in
> northern Illinois is still sort of messy. Many small towns share the
> same telephone exchange, but for political reasons they cannot decide
> among themselves who will answer 911 calls for the other(s). So they
> keep on using a seven-digit number despite the state law (911 Enabling
> Act) which required everyone to have 911 by last year. Due to the very

Why is it that the E911 system cannot use the callers number as an
index to determine which agency to route the call to?

There are LOTS of exchange boundaries that are not in sync with
political boundaries.  The lack of this capability sure seems to be a
crimp in the effectiveness of E911.  I know they had this problem in
Champaign county in central Illinois, where they did this on a county
wide basis, but there were a few exchanges crossing county boundaries.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't know why IBT can't do it. I have heard of
other places where calls to 911 can be sorted down to the last four
digits using a data base. In fact we've had articles here about it,
although the implication was the data base was not very accurate much
of the time, leading to delays in firemen arriving, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Turner)
Subject: E911 (was Re: Caller ID Information Wanted)
Organization: Univ. of Dayton, School of Engineering
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 18:01:49 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Eddie Anthony) writes:

>> phones to trace the cranks and the suicide calls and such, but can the
>> necessary circuitry be in place for JUST the police departments or
>> would it have to be implemented for a whole system?

> Enhanced 911 systems DO NOT use the same technology as Caller ID.
> With Enhanced 911, there is a high-speed leased line from the phone
> company database (which has subscriber addresses) directly into the
> police department's dispatch computer.  When a call comes into the
> police, the calling number information goes to the database computer,
> which looks up the subscriber information (name, address, etc.) and
> sends it through the separate out-of-band connection to the police's
> computer; the call and the information arrive at about the same time,
> but through different routes.

Not necessarily ... many E911 systems today are using on-premises
databases so that they don't have to pay the outragous fees that some
telcos want for access to the database. It is a little more
complicated than that but that is the jist of it.

> Caller ID is delivered on the same line as the actual call, by sending
> modulated data between the first and second rings.  It is an entirely
> different technology from Enhanced 911.  I suppose in some small rural
> police and fire departments they might use Caller ID because they
> can't afford to pay for an E911 system, but they also will get only
> the number and not the name or address (which doesn't help them to get
> to the fire faster, but only to prosecute false alarms).

I would be real suprised if there were 911 systems depending on CID
for ANI delivery. Reasoning: an E911 trunk doesn't require any super
fancy equipment. There is a MF trunk card for the E911 trunk. This
card in turn connects to an identifier, such as an ANI-C, which most
CO's have.  (At least the ones I have seen and heard about). Several
manufacturers (Proctor & Associates for example) have addon equipment
to add E911 trunks to an existing switch.

I am not sure its that easy to add CLASS to older existing switches.


Bob Turner                       System Engineer and Programmer
513-434-2738                   [e-mail]
CommSys, Inc. 77 West Elmwwod Drive, Suite 101, Dayton, OH 45459

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

Date: 22 Feb 92 16:04:12+0500
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: When and How is CID Available?


A couple of quick questions:

- Is CID "enabled" on all lines, and all you have to do is obtain/build a
CID box?

- I have a el-cheapo eletronic phone that chirps whenever someone goes
off-hook.  It also chirps at 2AM on a regular basis.  My guess is that
the local phone co is testing the lines ... any other thoughts?

Thanks in advance.


             Thomas K Hinders
  Martin Marietta Computing Standards
   703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5975 (f)


[Moderator's Note: No, it is not 'enabled' on all lines, ala
touchtone. Delivery is only made when you subscribe to the service.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 02:36:44 -0800
From: Eric Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: *67 Effect on 800 Numbers?


Hi,

This is probably an easily answered question..

I know *67 is for blocking Caller-ID, and even though we don't have
CLASS services in CA, *67 still returns a staggered dial-tone. The
question is, when you dial 800 numbers after entering *67, do they
still receive information about the calling number?  I guess I'm not
sure whether per-call blocking blocks *all* information about a
calling number (e.g. to 800 numbers), or just the Caller-ID for people
who subscribe to CLASS services.


Thanks,

Eric


[Moderator's Note: You cannot block your number from being received by
a 700, 800, 900 or 976 service. Nor can you block your number from
being received by 911, the operator or other telco administrative
lines. You cannot block delivery of your number to another carrier
when dialing via 10xxx or 950. The use of *67 on these calls is
ineffectual. The *67 will be accepted, and ignored.  I might also add
that on some switches, if using both *67 and *70 at the start of a
call, the *67 must come first. Not always, but some places will ignore
it if it is not seen before the suspend call waiting request.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #167
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23328;
          25 Feb 92 1:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15390
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 23:36:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17052
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 24 Feb 1992 23:35:47 -0600
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 23:35:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #168

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Feb 92 23:35:21 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 168

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phones Rattle and Hum in U2 Ticket Rush (Boston Globe via B.J. Herbison)
    ISDN Payphones in Japan (Ted M.A. Timar)
    ISDN Market Penetration (Hector Myerston)
    Bell Canada Changes Payphone Compensation (Dave Leibold)
    Learning DSP With Motorola's New Evaluation Board (Joe Jesson)
    Thoughts on BBS Rates (Jack Winslade)
    1+ Also Removed From a Portion of 717 (Carl Moore)
    The Intelligent Network and Service Creation Environment (Tom Gray)
    Voice-Mail Software (Brian Hendrix)
    Seeking-Reverse Telephone Book (Richard B. August)
    Looking for OKI 900 Cellular Phone Programming Guide (Seng-Poh Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 11:23:29 PST
From: B.J. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones Rattle and Hum in U2 Ticket Rush


[From {The Boston Globe}, Monday 24 February 1992, page 15.  B.J.]

By Steve Morse / Globe Staff  [Music reporter--B.J.]

Irish rockers U2 left local telephone operators hasping for breath
yesterday.  In an unprecedented move designed to thwart scalpers,
tickets for U2's March 17 show at Boston Garden went on sale through
telephone charge only -- and the result was a long morning for the
phone company.

"It was complete gridlock.  I don't know how else to describe it.  The
bombed us right out of the water," said Joanne Waddell, a New England
Telephone manager.  "We expected a lot of calls ... but this was
unbelievable.  Our operators [?]  were clicking away like crazy out
there."

The Garden show sold out in 4 1/2 hours, said Doug Borg of Tea Party
Concerts, adding that it took that long because there was a two-ticket
limit per person -- another step taken to frustrate scalpers.

"The demand was overwhelming.  I heard there were a half-million calls
in the first hour," said Larry Moulter, president of Boston Garden.
The telephone company said exact figures were not yet available, but
Moulter's information is consistent with a recent U2 sale in Atlanta,
where more than one million calls, many from eager fans with automatic
redial, were logged.

"I don't really have a number.  It's safe to say thousands, many
thousands," said Peter Cronin, a spokesman for New England Telephone.
He admitted there were minor delays in getting a dial tone, but that
it was "not a serious situation.  If people stayed on the line, they'd
get dial tone in a few seconds."

    [Stuff omitted.  There were 100 lines selling sales for the
    Garden concert.  They checked for duplicate names, credit card
    numbers and addresses (to help enforce the limit of two per
    person) and caught `some' attempts to use a card number more
    than once.]

"Who is this U2? I never heard of them before," said Waddell of New
England Telephone.  "I haven't heard the term U2 since the Second
World War.  Guess that just goes to show the age bracket I'm in."

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

From: [e-mail] (Ted M A Timar)
Subject: ISDN Payphones in Japan
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Omron Corporation
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 12:54:47 GMT


I was walking towards Osaka Stadium with some friends when I happened
to notice a payphone that looked different from any I'd seen before.
My friends spent the next few minutes trying to pry me away.

While I was there, I determined that the phone was an ISDN Payphone.
It has a 3 by 4 inch LCD display in English or Japanese.  The display
provides an information menu that can be perused without using the
phone.

The phone can be used for normal voice purposes (like most payphones.)
But it also has two modular jacks, labeled "digital" and "analog".

The analog jack can be used for either a normal telephone or for
analog data communication.  I cannot imagine why someone would want to
plug a normal telephone into a payphone.

The digital jack provides direct access to 2B + 1D ISDN services, though
I know nothing of the details.

The phones appear to accept only Japanese telephone cards from NTT
(basic debit cards).  I was considering trying one, but I could only
use it for normal voice, as I didn't happen to be carrying any
portable ISDN capable equipment with me at the time.

Has anyone seen any portable computers with ISDN connectors?  Who does
NTT imagine will be using these.  Locating them directly outside Osaka
Stadium and providing english menus would suggest that they expect the
press to be using them to upload stories, and probably pictures.  (My
guess.)

Any comments?  Do these exist elsewhere yet?


Ted Timar     [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Feb 1992 11:30:27 -0800
From: "Hector Myerston" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Market Penetration


In Issue 164 Doctor Math ([e-mail]) quotes figures from
NeXT WORLD on "Lines with access".

Readers might be interested to know what these figures (around 18
million for 1991) really mean. They are the latest wringle in the ISDN
dis-information campaign promoted by the ISDN "True Believers".

The figures represent the TOTAL number of lines served by central
offices which are theoretically CAPABLE of providing ISDN.  The actual
number of EQUIPPED ISDN lines is probably less than 250,000
nationwide.  The actual number in use is less than 200,000.  The
actual number in use by real world users is probably less than
100,000.  (The rest are the RBOCS themselves, AT&T and other ISDN
insiders such as equipment developers). Using the quoted figures to
judge market penetration is like estimating car sales by counting
driver's licenses; it is related but not determinative.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 00:04:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Bell Canada Changes Payphone Compensation


{The Toronto Star} reports that Bell Canada will be giving businesses
with public telephones a cut of the long distance revenues from those
payphones. Previously, payphone agents got 11% of local call revenues
for having the payphone on hand. The new deal means 4-7% on total
revenues (adding long distance revenues as well as local) with higher
volumes of calls getting bigger bonus percentages.

Yet, some smaller payphone agents are finding themselves shortchanged
with the new commission structure. Minimum monthly revenue
requirements are specified before commissions can take effect. One
business expects that even under a long-term contract (Bell is
encouraging longer term commitments from its payphone agents) there
would still be a drop in payphone commissions from CAD$400 to CAD$300.
Some telephone competiton lobby concerns are being raised about the
longer term contracts precluding businesses from seeking a better
revenue deal (from a forthcoming COCOT supplier?) later on.

While Bell Canada has a legal monopoly on payphones, this could change
with the increasing competition in Canada (ie. the spectre of COCOTs
with their own commission/revenue sharing deals).


[e-mail]
[e-mail]    [e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Jesson)
Subject: Learning DSP With Motorola's New Evaluation Board
Date: 24 Feb 92 04:22:36 GMT
Organization: CERFnet


Well, after reading about the new Motorola MC68HC16Z1 microcontroller
with DSP, I finally purchased their evaluation board.  Motorola was
hyping the $168.16 evaluation board was worth $500.00 in parts!  How
could I refuse such a deal?  The ad went on to say if I finished one
of the tutorial projects (all parts included), I would receive a
$68.16 cash rebate from Motorola -- total cash outlay of $100.00.

What kind of DSP system did I get for minimal dollars?  I was REALLY
surprised when I opened the large boxes.  Two boxes with the following
hardware and software:

 - Assembled and Tested Evaluation Board with MC68HC16, Monitor ROM,
   and RS232 Serial Port Hardware

 - Secondary LED Display Board for the DSP Tutorial (Frequency Analyzer)

 - MSDOS Cross Assembler to MC68HC16 Code

 - Small C Compiler (Minimal Freeware, you are expected to purchase the
   full-size C Compiler if you like the "trial" size)

 - Books, MANY books on the IC, DSP fundamentals, and Controller Specifics

The 68HC16 is interesting as it is upwardly code compatible with the
MC68HC11 series and is Motorola's high speed 16 bit control unit. Features:

 - 16 Bit Architecture
 - Digital Signal Processing Capability
 - 8 Channel 10-Bit Analog to Digital Converter
 - Two Megabyte Address Space
 - Watchdog Timer, Clock Monitor, and Bus Monitor
 - Two 16 Bit Counters with Seven Stage Prescaler
 - Three Input Capture Channels
 - Standby Ram, 1024 Byte Static Ram

Motorola is clever, allowing engineers to learn DSP by a self-study
low cost evaluation and tutorial package.  Hopefully, the trained
person will be in a position to specify an understood chip.  I was
looking for a self-study package to learn DSP (having hardware,
software, and building a workable frequency analyzer) and this system
accomplishes this.  The DSP functions is not as powerful as the 56000
dedicated DSP chip, but the completeness (10 A/D converter, timer,
etc.) solves many midrange DSP functions with a minimum of external
components.  A multiply and accumulate unit provides the capability to
multiply signed 16 bit numbers and store the 32 bit result in a 36 bit
accumulator.  I think this system would be an excellent foundation for
a graduate DSP course.

Since Motorola is building and selling the evaluation board, a Motorola
dealer must be contacted (the $168.16 offer ends March 20th, 1992).  My
Motorola distributor is willing to sell the systems to the net readers
for $168.16 and will ship for $10.00.  Don't forget if you complete the
frequency analyzer tutorial, a $68.16 rebate will be received if the
paperwork is completed.

My Motorola Distributor -

Future Electronics,
3150 West Higgins Rd, Suite 160,
Hoffman Estates, IL, 60195,
Phone [phone]  Sue or Vince Vitucci

Note: I am NOT affiliated in any way with Future Electronics, just
passing on a new introductory DSP system to my net friends.


Joseph E. Jesson       Address1: mhs!amoco![e-mail]
21414 W. Honey Lane    Address2: [e-mail]
Lake Villa, IL, 60046  Address3: [e-mail]
Telephone: (day) 312-856-3645 (eve) 708-356-6817

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 22:35:00 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Thoughts on BBS Rates
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


While chatting (voice, of course -- telephones were made for chatting,
terminals were not ;-) the other day on the subject of BBS rates with
a friend who happens to work for TPC <tm> I became aware of a couple
of situations here in Omaha.

One was a 25 line Major BBS system that openly solicits for donations.
Yes, all 25 of them are residence lines.

Another was a multiline system (I forget the number of lines, but 12
strikes me as being accurate) who recently regraded from business to
residence.  Apparently Ma Bell didn't even bat an eyelash, but simply
processed the order.

Something is rotten in the state of Nebraska.  Just 50-some miles away
in LT&T land, a couple of BBS operators were threatened with business
rates, but here in Omaha, TPC is apparently letting openly-commercial
BBS operators regrade to residence service simply by asking for it.

Call me paranoid if you want, but I surely hope TPC does not make
examples of these two (and probably others) systems stating how the
BBS operators are unfairly using residence service to make a profit --
and therefore using the examples as leverage to force all BBS systems
to regrade to business.

Comments, anyone ??


Good day      JSW


[Moderator's Note: Do you know for a fact these two systems are
running on residence lines, or is this just something passed on to you
by someone other than the sysops in question?  It is hard to believe
they would be that blatant about it and get away with it. I am not
discussing the rightness or wrongness here, just what people can get
away with where telco is concerned.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 10:44:22 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+ Also Removed From a Portion of 717


I have learned that Enterprise Telephone Company in New Holland, Pa.
has cut over to the instructions published for the 215 area (7D for
long distance within own area code, with within-area 0+ changing from
0 + 7D to 0 + NPA + 7D).  But there's a twist: like the previously-
mentioned Denver & Ephrata, this company serves parts of 215 and 717;
BUT it has cut over its instructions for the 717 portion as well as
215.  This affects:

215-445 Terre Hill
717-354,355 New Holland
717-656,661 Leola
717-768 Intercourse

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: The Intelligent Network and Service Creation Environment
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 12:12:20 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


> [Moderator's Note: I'm sure you believed them. If you don't think the
> telcos are all <thisclose> to one another in their planning of new
> features, services and tariffs, try to find an example of it. Yes, in
> small very minor matters they go their own way, and the features they
> offer are known by different names in different places, but they all
> seem to come about at the same time.  PAT]

The telcos may wish to plan their services but these services are
actually implemented by the switch vendors. The telco's submit their
list of requirments to the vendors which then put them on a priority
list for inclusion in forthcoming software and hardware gnerics. All
telco's will receive the generics at about the same time and then can
offer the same services at about the same time.

Now the telco's have been pushing the concept of the Intelligent
Network and Service Creation Environment for some time. With these
implemented the network will provide a directoruy of basic services.
The telco's will be able to program their equipment to use these basic
services in any number of ways. They will be able to provide
customized services down to the individual customer level.

The reason for similar services from all telcos is the long lead time
required for the major switch vendors to provide new software
releases. The Intelligent Network will allow an individual telco to
define and implement new services. A teloc provided Service Creation
Environment will allow the single customer to define his own service.

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

Subject: Voice-Mail Software
From: [e-mail] (Brian Hendrix)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 14:12:56 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada


[e-mail] (Philip E. Pavarini) wanted to find out
if there were any software tools for his Watson board:

ITI Logiciel
1705 St. Joseph E
Suite 4   Montreal, PQ   H2J 1N1
[phone]

They sell a set of 'C' and Pascall tools that allow you to write
custom software for the Watson board (they also have a DIALOGIC
version).

I had them fax me some information once and the tools looked good, but
I didn't order the kit.  The price is $99 US, as of a few months ago.

I'd be interested to hear about the quality of the product if anyone
were to buy it.


Brian Hendrix   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 22:34:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (Richard B. August)
Subject: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book


I'm certain such a thing exists ... but where?  To add to the problem
I'm interested in one that is electronic and accessable via modem.
Anyone know of such a beast?

Thanks in advance.


Regards,

Richard B. August


[Moderator's Note: Certainly. Try Compuserve, where the national
reverse directory (what there is of it, non-pubs are excluded as are a
lot of business numbers) is accessed with GO PHONEFILE. You can also
use this file to search alphbetically all over the USA. There is a
small surcharge in addition to normal Compuserve rates.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Subject: Looking For OKI 900 Cellular Phone Programming Guide
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 15:44:54 EST


I was sure this appeared in the Digest, but I looked in the archives
and couldn't find it. So, if anyone has the programming guide for the
OKI 900 Cellular phone, please drop me a line.

Thanks.


Seng-Poh Lee   <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #168
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25431;
          25 Feb 92 2:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05771
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:18:54 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00310
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:18:38 -0600
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:18:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #169

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Feb 92 00:18:35 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 169

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Jack Decker)
    Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off? (Andrew M. Dunn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 10:55:01 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L. Varney)
Subject: Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Howard
KA9WGN / I am the NRA) writes:

> [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

  [When dialing "10XXX+1+800-nxx-xxxx"]

>> I get an intercept recording "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial
>> a long distance access code for this number".  (It really means "it is
>> necessary to NOT dial a long distance access code").  I don't have a
>> chance to enter the last four digits.  If it matters, I don't have a
>> default long distance carrier.  Calls were made from 817-249 (Fort
>> Worth).

>> [Moderator's Note: Let me rephrase my original statement. The LEC will
>> not route 1-800 calls according to your instructions. It will either
>> ignore the 10xxx dialing and proceed with the call, or as you found
>> out, it will object to 10xxx and dump the call completely. On 800
>> calls, the recipient detirmines what carrier is to be used to place
>> the call. You can't override it.  PAT]

> I don't have a default LD carrier either.  Even if I know the 800
> number is using AT&T, for instance, adding 10288 to the front dumps me
> to the recording (which as you pointed out is stating the facts
> incorrectly).  Just dialing the number as it, without the LD access
> code, puts the call through just fine, as it does with long distance
> calls handled by the local carrier instead of an LD carrier.

   This handling of "10XXX+1+800" is suggested by Bellcore.  The
current method for handling 1-800 IC calls uses SAC (Service Access
Code) routing, part of the original IC requirements.  (See Bellcore's
TR-TSY-000530, FSD 20-24-0000, Issue 2, July,1987, part of the LSSGR,
"IC/INC Interconnection") A SAC is a number of the form N0X-NXX-xxxx
or N1X-NXX-xxxx that has been "designated" as a SAC.  I believe the
only "designated" SACs are N00 codes.  SACs are required to be routed
to an IC (or LEC) based on the NXX code.  This implies a particular IC
(or the LEC) gets all the calls to a particular 800-NXX code.  The TR
states:

   "If a 10XXX prefix is dialed, an announcement should be returned.
    (See Section 3.3.2.4C)"

Since Section 3.3.2.4 doesn't exist, one must guess that Bellcore
meant Section 3.3.2C, which specifies an single announcement when:

   "Customer dials an intraLATA call with a 10XXX prefix of a
    carrier that has elected not to handle intra LATA calls, or
    customer dials a SAC call with a 10XXX prefix, or ... [3 other
    cases of dialing 10XXX where prohibited]"

Section 3.7.2 provides announcement guidelines {Bellcore specifies
REQUIREMENTS for vendors, but GUIDELINES for its clients}.  This
references Table D for further information.  Since Table D doesn't
exist, one must assume they mean Table 4, which only indicates that
the appropriate SIT (the three tones at the beginning of the
announcement) should be for the "Announcement-Vacant Code-Customer
Error" category.  Section 3.7.2 says to see "Notes on the Network" {an
AT&T publication}, but I'm sure they mean TR-NPL-000275, "Notes on the
BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986", dated April, 1986.  In this TR,
Section 6, Table AU says 10XXX-SAC should receive the announcement:

   "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a long distance company
    access code for the number you have dialed.  Please hand up and
    try your call again."

So your CO seems to be working as designed.  But note that 1-700 calls
probably are allowed to dial 10XXX, in violation of the TR
"guidelines".  As to the suggestion that 10XXX + 1 + 800 should be
allowed IF the XXX matches the carrier providing the 800 service, it's
unlikely to happen.  The FCC in Docket 86-10, allows selection of an
800 carrier on a ten-digit basis.  This is covered in Bellcore
TR-TSY-000024, Issue 1, Revision 1, January, 1986, "Service Switching:

  "[800-type services] calls dialed with a "10XXX" prefix should be
   blocked or completed based on the three-digit code received."
   [Blocking of "0+" prefix is also a TelCo option.]

Unfortunately, the option to "complete" the call cannot currently be
used in any reasonable manner because there is no mechanism to
reliably signal the dialed XXX to the SSP, the Service Switching Point
with the ability to query the ten-digit 800 database.  So there cannot
be a check of the dialed XXX against the database-selected carrier.
{The SSP selects the carrier, but doesn't know the dialed XXX.}
Without a new signaling mechanism (and some new requirements), the
dialed 10XXX can either be ignored (the "completed" option) or blocked
(with an unspecified treatment).  I cannot believe anyone would want
to allow 10XXX as an ignored prefix on 800 calls; imagine the
arguments:

   "... Telco failed to follow my explicit instructions and
    arbitrarily routed the call to another carrier."


Al Varney -- AT&T Network Systems
  -- but AT&T is not responsible for the above in any way.


[Moderator's Note: I can tell you that unless it is merely a
programming error in my local CO, calls from IBT to 800 numbers simply
are completed based on the 800 - XXX rather than the 10-XXX number.
Maybe other COs reject the call; mine seems to simply complete the
call ignoring the 10XXX. And I don't really think your hypothetical
argument holds any weight simply because the person paying for the
call *always* is the one who gets to choose the carrier. I can tell
you that if *my* 800 bill came with charges from some carrier other
than Telecom*USA I would be the one complaining. The caller has no
right to any choice in the matter.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 16:45:57 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Toby Nixon)
writes:

> International telecommunications treaties tightly regulate the routing
> of international calls through third countries.  One thing few
> Americans realize is that our Constitution makes treaties "the supreme
> law of the land", once they are ratified by the Senate, with the same
> level of effect as the rest of the Constitution.  Thus, I would not at
> all be surprised to find that one or more federal agencies would get
> involved in shutting down a service which "illegally" routed telephone
> calls in violation of "international law".

It would be interesting to know if the fact that the person were doing
this as a business had anything to do with it.  Personally, I'd want
to see more details on the case. Living along the Canadian border as I
do, and knowing how much the Canadian government resents too much
interference in its affairs by its neighbor to the south, I really
find it difficult to believe that the Canadian government would help
prosecute a Canadian citizen solely for completing a call to Cuba,
UNLESS there was some profit motive involved.  In that case they might
consider it a violation of some telecommunications law (in effect, the
business in question probably wasn't a licensed reseller of
communication services).  Without more detail, I'm afraid this falls
into the category of "urban legend."

Here would be a more interesting question.  Suppose a private citizen
(that resides in Florida, let's say) get a phone line somewhere in
Canada served by an exchange with call forwarding (never mind HOW he
gets the phone service; let's assume that is legal ... maybe he owns a
hunting cabin in Canada and has a phone installed there, or maybe he
contracts with an answering service to allow a line to be brought in
there).  Then he programs his phone in Canada to call forward calls to
a particular number in Cuba (a close relative, perhaps).  Obviously,
there's nothing illegal about the call forwarding to Cuba, the
telephone subscriber may want his relative to answer the phone for him
when he's away.  Nor is there anything illegal about dialing the
number in Canada from a U.S. phone.  Nor, in this case, would anyone
be engaging in telephone service for profit in violation of a
communications act.

Now technically, it would be a violation of U.S. law (or would it?)
but first they'd have to catch the subscriber making such a call (that
originated in the U.S. and was call forwarded to Cuba), and would
probably have to prove that he intended to violate U.S. treaties by
doing this, and even then, I imagine that if the line were not being
used for some illegal purpose, the U.S. authorities might tend to look
the other way, since it would probably be a tough sell to a jury to
get a conviction (would YOU send someone to jail for setting up a way
to talk to his 75 year old parents every week?  I sure wouldn't!  And
let's face it, if everyone were sent to jail for every technical
violation of the law that occurs, they could just put a set of bars
around the United States and let it go at that!).  But if it could be
proved that such a setup were used for making drug connections,
interfering with the operation of the government (ours or theirs), or
something else of that nature, that's a pony of another color.

Of course, my guess is that Castro can't last much longer anyway,
given that most of his Communist friends are no longer Communist, and
that residents of the island are doubtless painfully aware of the
difference in living conditions between Cuba and Florida.  Personally,
I'd think that allowing improved communications between the U.S. and
Cuba would only tend to increase the desire of the people to get rid
of the Communist government, but maybe our government knows something
about that that we don't.  I would sure hope that there's some reason
for continuing that policy other than just "inertia".

> Not to get too far of the subject, but that provision of the
> Constitution making treaties "supreme law" is one of the reason so
> many folks are opposed to US membership in the UN, and to such
> "treaties" as the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which gives
> governments many powers which our own Bill of Rights denies to the
> government).

I agree, in my opinion the U.N. has been milking U.S. taxpayers for
years while at the same time they promote a very anti-U.S. agenda.
Why should we help pay the bills for an organization that wants to
destroy our way of life?  You see things like this, and then hear the
president talk about the "New World Order" and it is rather chilling,
but as this is getting off topic already I'll spare you any
comparisions to the Biblical book of Revelation or similar prophetic
writings.


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


[Moderator's Note: You are probably correct that the telephone call in
and of itself would not be prosecutable. The entire context would have
to be considered. And even call-forwarding would not have to be used.
What about a business in Niagara Falls, NY with a branch office in
Niagara Falls, Ontario and a 'foreign exchange' line (in this case it
really would be 'foreign'!) on the New York side?  Or Detroit/Windsor?
Or Sault St. Marie?  And what about Texas ==> Mexico ==> Cuba?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off?
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 14:06:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Jonathan Bradshaw) writes:

> I am personally interested in knowing whether the phone company is
> ripping consumers off for these so-called "hookup charges".

Yes, but not nearly as badly as you think.  Read on.

> In today's world of computerized switching I fail to see how a
> company like GTE can charge you $57 for what I consider is basically
> punching some numbers into a computer. If I move into an apartment
> that has had phone service before, what POSSIBLE extra work that is
> worth $57 are they doing? No cables to run, no wires to connect, just
> activation of the circuit which is probably completely computerized.

But if you moved into an apartment which had _not_ had phone service
before, you'd need (assuming techie time costs $40 per hour):

   10 minutesd BusOff time to assign numbers,
      locate and identify pairs and route    =   $   6.67
   150' of two-pair drop cable @ .22/foot    =   $  33.00
   2 (or 3) modular wall-mount jacks @ $4 ea =   $   8.00
   20 min. tech time to connect drop at PDB  =   $  13.33
   50 min. tech time to run drop cable       =   $  33.33
   10 min. tech time to test the line        =   $   6.67
   10 min. CO time to "punch numbers"        =   $   6.67

Now, that's a total of $101.67, and assuming a 30% markup (the telco
_is_ in business to make money, after all) you would probably be
billed $132 for the connection.

Also, assume that in one out of every twenty cases (hypothetical, but
probably not far off) there's a problem in a pair somewhere, and it
takes an extra two hours of somebody's techie time.  That will cost an
additional $4 per connection.

Also, assume that in one out of every fifty cases, new outside plant
has to be run from the street to the building.  Then we can add
another 150' of armoured two-pair-shielded outside drop cable, two
hours trenching time, one hour cable running, and one hour fill time
(two people involved for four hours).  This adds $386 to the bill.
Divided into the fifty cases, that adds $7.72 to the per-site hookup
fee.

In total, then, we have $101.67 + 4.00 + 7.72 = $112.87, with markup
becomes $147.

You contend that it should only cost (6.67 BusOff + 6.67 CO + 30%) or
$17.34 for the connection fee.  Plus the $4 per connection for faults.

We now have the following schedule of rates and probabilities of
service connections:

Ease of Connection           Per Thousand      Fee          Fee per Thousand

Simple - "push buttons"       930             17.34          16,126.20
Run inside drop                50            105.67           5,283.50
Run outside drop               20            491.67           9,833.40
                                                             ---------
                                                             31,243.10

Now, since everybody is billed equally (who wants to be hit with the
$491 fee just 'cuz they need some outside wiring) we divide that total
by the 1000 subscribers connected, and we get $31.24 each.  Mark up by
30%, again, and we have $41.

So based on these assumptions, it should cost $41 or so for a connect
fee.  Well, mark the other $16 up to greed.  :-)

> Even better, it's the same charge whether I am adding a new line or
> simply transferring my current phone. In the later case, they aren't
> even ADDING me to the database, just changing the physical location
> address within the database.

True.  But transferring a phone involves a connection as above and,
assuming weighted charging as above, should be billed the connection
fee.

> Am I missing something here? It all seems like another phone company
> scam. Right along with the "deposit" fee new phone customers are
> charged.

The deposit isn't a scam either.  It's the telco equivalent of COD.

Consider the case where you want to buy something from me (in my case,
computers ... that's what I sell).  You walk into my store and say
"I'd like model 8633 over there".  I say "OK, who are you?"  You tell
me your name and address, and walk off with the computer.

NOT!!!!  I'm certainly not going to let you, who I don't know from Joe
Schmoe, walk off without paying.  But you want the telco to give you
an account, give you 30-day credit terms, and let you use a service
where you could run up thousands of dollars per week in bills that
they can't even be sure you'll pay?

That's what deposits are for.


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #169
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28011;
          25 Feb 92 3:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12052
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 01:30:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06162
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 01:29:57 -0600
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 01:29:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #170

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Feb 92 01:29:57 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 170

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: E911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Emergency Calls at Pay Phones (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: 313 Split on the Way (Daniel Herrick)
    Re: Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Re: Ameritech Voicemail (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations (John R. Covert)
    Re: 800 Number Published In Cartoon (Michael Bender)
    Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint (Ron Bean)
    Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile (Nelson Bolyard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 00:26:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: E911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)


> Why is it that the E911 system cannot use the callers number as an
> index to determine which agency to route the call to?

> [Moderator's Note: I don't know why IBT can't do it. I have heard of
> other places where calls to 911 can be sorted down to the last four
> digits using a data base. In fact we've had articles here about it,
> although the implication was the data base was not very accurate much
> of the time, leading to delays in firemen arriving, etc.  PAT]

We're one of the places that can do it.  The E911 system in Montgomery
County resolves down to a fire box area or a police beat, which is a
fairly small area, and more importantly not at all connected with
exchange boundaries.  We don't really have the problem of seperate
municipalities, as fire/rescue is countywide.  Police is mostly county
police, but the two municipal police forces are dispatched through the
county.  The data base isn't perfect, but it's fairly good.  There's
an additional Computer-Aided Dispatch system hooked into the E911,
which adds information about the residence, such as dangerous
residents, repeat callers, known hazards, and so forth.  The first
line of a CAD session log is almost always something like the
following: 23:24 E911 ON 5551212 1234 Main Street

 From what I remember of the system before the CAD, the 5-inch E911
screen would display calling number, address, registered owner, class
of phone service -- RESD, BUSN, or PAY, and the fire box area and
police beat, implying that those areas were coming from E911 and not
the new CAD system.


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad -- [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Feb 92 17:18:58 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)


[e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) writes in TELECOM
Digest V12 #167:

> Why is it that the E911 system cannot use the callers number as an
> index to determine which agency to route the call to?

The Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I don't know why IBT can't do it. I have heard of
> other places where calls to 911 can be sorted down to the last four
> digits using a data base. In fact we've had articles here about it,
> although the implication was the data base was not very accurate much
> of the time, leading to delays in firemen arriving, etc.  PAT]

The software feature to provide this ability using ESN's (Emergency
Switch Numbers, I think) is expensive. Switches are normally designed
to route on called number not calling number. Special software is
needed for this.

Even worse is the administrative cost to keep the routing data base
updated. Telephone company systems are established to identify the
wire center associated with an address, not an emergency agency.
Telephone numbers are assigned by wire center not emergency agency so
they cannot be used to differentiate. Thus, in order to add a new line
someone has to spend time working with the governmental agencies to
establish where calls should be routed. Then someone has to put this
in the switch which I am not sure our mechanized systems can handle,
so you get more administrative costs.

Bottom line, most emergency agencies don't want to pay the rates for
this capability. Because of political concerns, they also don't do a
good job of coordinating among political entities. With the PSAP
equipment available today, it really should be easy to install a
remote printer at the other PSAP to print the call details out on, and
a ringdown voice circuit to bridge the two agencies resulting in
delays of only seconds.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 9:28:10 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls at Pay Phones


[e-mail] writes:

> To this day, I have no idea why they were asking all those questions.
> Perhaps they figured that if they lost the call, they'd have some
> clues to pass on to the emergency services.

Here in New Hampshire we had a particularly chilling example of why
the operator needs 1) adequate ANI, and 2) lots of information from
the caller.  TPC operators answer calls from Maine, New Hampshire and
Vermont.  One day an operator gets an emergency call for "The Durham
Fire Department", no ANI, and put it through to Durham, NH emergency
services.

The dispatcher was having a terrible time -- the woman, who was
reporting a house fire, although quite distraught, was able to give
him her address and some directions to her home, but the address and
directions made no sense.  He was trying to dispatch fire services,
but did not recognize the street name she was giving him, or any of
the landmarks she mentioned.  Finally, after two or three incredibly
tense and precious minutes, the woman said she was in Durham, MAINE.
The operator, who had been monitoring the call, immediately cut in and
sent the caller to the proper agency.  Fortunately, no lives were lost
as a result of the error.

The local dispatch center has kept a tape of this call which they play
whenever talk of E-911 comes up.  Obviously, better emergency call
routing capability would have avoided this particular glitch.


Kath Mullholand,  University of New Hampshire,  Durham, NH

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

From: HERRICK, DANIEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 313 Split on the Way
Date: 24 Feb 92 11:32:57 EST


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

> Michigan Bell has announced plans to split the 313 area code in early

> The proposed split roughly follows Eight Mile Road, with Detroit,
> western suburbs, and Washtenaw county in 313, and northern suburbs in
> the new area code.

I never thought of Flint, Port Huron, and the eastern half of the
thumb as "suburbs of Detroit".  Are they really planning to change my
first area code?


dan     [e-mail]
dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: Nynex Starts Electronic Yellow Pages
Date: 24 Feb 92 18:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 162, Message 6 of 11

> Seeing the mention of the Apple II in Adam's article does bound the
> level of service.

Not necessarily.  America Online (and AppleLink) define a protocol
between the host system and clients.  You can do as flashy a user
interface as your client machine (Apple II, IBM PC, or Mac.) allow.

> It will be interesting to see if the provide an "over the wire" protocol
> or just a canned program.

Agreed.  When I called, I was told that the functionality isn't
different.  I suspect we'll just be getting a dumb terminal emulator
with a character user interface.  I'd be real suprised to see NAPLPS
or anything graphical.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Phone: [phone]      Radio: N3FGW

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: Ameritech Voicemail
Date: 24 Feb 92 19:08:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Randall C Gellens) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 156, Message 8 of 11

> In TELECOM Digest Volume 12 : Issue 108, the Moderator (Patrick A.
> Townson) discusses Ameritech Voice Mail Commands and Security Flaws:

>>   [Ameritech Voice Mail uses 7 to save messages]

> [Aspen voice mail product (from Octel ... uses 7 to delete a message
> Wonderful.  AUDIX (AT&T's product) uses the mnemonic '*D' to delete --
> hard to do by accident.  I believe this is even consistent with other
> AT&T voice messaging services, such as the AT&T Mail Mailtalk feature
> (your electronic mail is read with a DECtalk-sounding speech synthesizer).

Is anyone working on command standardization?  As long as we have to
use deficient interfaces designed around the constraints of the
touchtone keypad they should at least be interoperable from vendor to
vendor.

'*H' for help would be a good start.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Phone: [phone]      Radio: N3FGW

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 07:42:51 PST
From: John R. Covert  24-Feb-1992 1040 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations


Your list showed "Y" for Caller ID in Massachusetts.

Caller ID is not available anywhere in Massachusetts.  The
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, after holding public
hearings, ordered New England Telephone to provide per-line blocking.
As a result, N.E.T.  chose to withdraw its plans to offer Caller ID.
Call Trace is provided on all lines, free of charge (but with a charge
per-use) as a method to combat harassing calls.


/john

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 16:20:19 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 800 Number Published In Cartoon


> I'm surprised not to see a humor message about someone who has called
> the 800 number published in the Doonsbury cartoon over the last two or
> three days.  Surely someone in this group has called it and can save a
> lot of calls by telling us what it homes to?

Why doesn't Jerry Brown just have AT&T reverse-bill the 800 call as a
900 call?  That should help his campaign fund!


mike

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 9:44:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Published In Cartoon


mvac23![e-mail] writes:

> I'm surprised not to see a humor message about someone who has called
> the 800 number published in the Doonsbury cartoon over the last two or
> three days.  Surely someone in this group has called it and can save a
> lot of calls by telling us what it homes to?

For those of you not *fortunate* enough to live in New Hampshire and
enjoy the overkill of Presidential campaigning that occurs every
fourth January and February here ...

1-800-426-1112 is the 800- number for the presidential campaign of
Jerry Brown, who is leading a *crusade* of grass roots to take back
Washington from the evil crab-grass.  If you call it you will be asked
to pledge a donation, and to assist in his campaign.

BTW, it is interesting to note that Jerry garnered his "governor
moonbeam" epithet because he wanted to set up a microwave system taht
would allow California state offices to communicate with each other
quicker and more cheaply, bypassing TPC and offering high- speed data.
No wonder they think he's nuts.  Who would ever want government
officials to be able to communicate efficiently?


kath.

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

Subject: Re: MOH, Bad Manners, Poor Throughput, and Sprint
Date: Sun Feb 23 18:17:28 1992
From: astroatc!vidiot!madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> I also hate to pay long distance rates to listen to some radio
> station on the other coast while on hold.  We have previously
> discussed locally generated busy signals (as opposed to ringback,
> which is generated at the far end).  How about some long distance
> carrier offerring locally generated music on hold?  When someone puts
> me on hold (if the distant CO knows they did, which they would with
> call waiting), drop the voice circuit (and stop charging me!).  When
> the person gets back to my call, the voice circuit would be
> reestablished (realizing these things take time).  I guess the closest
> thing we have now is voice mail on busy.

   This would be useful in another way: Occasionally someone puts me
on hold to go look something up, and then something comes up on my end
and I'd like to put them on hold before they get back, especially if I
think they'll be gone for a while. But if I do that, they might assume
we've been cut off, especially if there's no MOH. It would be nice to
have some kind of indicator that says "You're on hold", or maybe have
the phone ring again when the person comes back. Since being "on hold"
is purely a local phenomenon, it would have to use some kind of
audible signal -- perhaps this is a use for the [ABCD] tones. And both
ends would have to have the feature (not likely). Of course I can
always call back, but I'm thinking of cases where one phone number
gets you the "first available" Customer Service rep.

   Speaking of MOH: I called one of our suppliers last week and
discovered that their MOH was identical to our MUZAK. It was pretty
wierd to listen to it over the phone AND in the office.

   Another supplier used to have theirs connected to a radio which had
drifted off the station, and just played static until someone finally
fixed it months later. And our own warehouse, which (so far as I know)
is only called by other people within the company, actually plays
advertising in it's MOH. I think this is because the same tape is used
at all locations, but I'm not sure.


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 17:07:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard)
Subject: Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

> I understand that there are minor differences between the UK GOSIP and
> the real thing (which was sorted out between the Australian & NZ
> Governments). There are also other variants of GOSIP used by various
> foreign governments.

> The specs on the real thing should be available from either the
> Australian or NZ Government print shops. One in every major city.

What's all this talk about "the real thing" as if there was one true
GOSIP??

A GOSIP is a government's OSI Profile.  There is not ONE GOSIP that
applies to all goverments.  Each government has its own OSI Profile,
and is obliged to publish it.  Given that the OSI family of standards
has numerous options from which to pick at each layer (e.g. Transport
Protocols 0 through 5), any government (and indeed, any major body of
OSI users, national or international) needs to pick the option or
options at each level that it is going to use, and say "Here in our
country (or company) we do OSI this way".  That is, each government/
company publishes its selection from among the standards, which is to
say, its profile.

In many countries (especially in Europe) there will never be any OSI
WANs except those administered by the government (e.g. the PTT).  It
was this type of thinking (all networks are government networks) that
lead to such profiles being called Government OSI Profiles.  Perhaps a
better name would be to call them Network Service Providers' OSI
Profiles, but NSPOSIP doesn't sound as nice as GOSIP.

There are MAJOR differences between the USA GOSIP and the UK GOSIP.
In particular, USA GOSIP uses heavyweight COTP (Connection-Oriented
Transport Protocol, e.g. TP-4) on top of CLNS (ConnectionLess Network
Service), which is analgous to the way in which TCP runs on top of IP.
By contrast, UK GOSIP (and others) use lightweight COTP (e.g. TP0)
over CONS (e.g. X.25), even when running over LANs like Ethernet (!).


Nelson Bolyard           MTS Advanced OS Lab           Silicon Graphics, Inc.
[e-mail]     {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson     415-335-1919
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #170
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12530;
          25 Feb 92 23:49 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00318
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 21:13:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14425
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 21:13:19 -0600
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 21:13:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #171

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Feb 92 21:13:08 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 171

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Alan L. Varney)
    Bellcore/CMU Forum (Judith Irven, Bellcore via Robin Grayson)
    How Are Concentrators Used in Networks? (Minze V. Chien)
    Is That Line In Use? (Bob Perigo)
    Telix 3.15 FTP Site Wanted ([e-mail])
    Texas Politics and the Phone (Mark Earle)
    Legal History of MOH (Ron Bean)
    What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS? ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 23:57:28 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Chicago Traffic Monitoring
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


  I'll try to keep it short, interesting and telephony-related ... two
errors in the previous article; it's the Traffic System Center (TSC),
not the TCC, and they use PDP 11/53s -- not PDP 11/70s.

  This information is from a paper presented to the Regional
Conference on Traffic Management and Planning for Freeway Emergencies
and Special Events, Nov. 1991, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and from the
July/Aug.  1991 issue of "Home and Away" (Ill.-Ind. version),
published by AAA-Chicago Motor Club.

  Chicago motorists frequently hear reports such as:

    "On the inbound Edens, it's 50 minutes from Lake-Cook, 25 from
     Dempster.  On the Kennedy, it's 55 minutes from O'Hare , 22
     from the junction, and 15 in the express lanes ..."

  Data for such reports come from a network of about 2000 sensors
under the 130 miles of Chicago-land Expressways (but not Tollways),
collected and processed at the Traffic Systems Center in Oak Park, IL.
The TSC supplies information to various radio/TV stations, etc. where
it is made available to hundreds of thousands listeners each day.

  The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) operates TSC as
part of a program begun in 1961.  Computerization of traffic
information in the early 1970s was a cooperative effort of TSC, the
AAA-Chicago Motor Club and WBBM NewsRadio (AM 780, a CBS affiliate).
Reporting on WBBM is sometimes from Chicago Motor Club staff at the
Sear Tower's 103rd floor "skydeck", which connects to TSC via two
terminals plus other displays.  WGN Radio (AM 720) has a graphical
display at the Tribune tower "showcase" driven directly by TSC's main
computer.

  Is giving the travel times more effective than just indicating
"congestion" on various Expressways?  A survey at the 1990 Auto Show
suggests that up to 85% of those questioned had changed their travel
plans or routes because of this data.

  Raw data for the reports comes from sensors buried in each lane at
about 2000 foot intervals.  The sensors consist of loops of wire under
the pavement, usually three turns in a three-foot square.  Vehicles
passing over will cause changes in the loop inductance.  The presence
of a vehicle is reported by sending a tone at a frequency assigned to
the individual sensor over leased telephone lines or IDOT cables.  (I
think 23 frequencies can be "stacked" on a single line/cable pair.)

  These lines are monitored at TSC by individual units tuned to a
particular frequency for each sensor.  Each "line" is apparently
connected to multiple units.  This technology is basically unchanged
since the early 1970s, and reminds me of early T1/DS1 plug-in units
and frames.  Four PDP 11/53s each sample about 25% of the units,
collecting samples up to 60(?) times/second/sensor.  This data
(vehicle present/absent) is reported to a VAX 6210 over Ethernet(?).
The VAX is mid-sized (32 MB memory, two RA82 622 MB disks), connected
to six DECservers.  These provide the processed reports to terminals,
graphical displays, etc.

  It appears that data is smoothed over 30 second periods, and most
reports are at five minute intervals.  Interactive terminals can
request "raw data" -- the current data for ten or so points updated at
five second intervals.  The more processed reports give travel times
every five minutes, derived from lane occupancy sensor data.  I'm not
a Transportation Engineer, but they seem to use "%-occupancy" as well
as estimates of vehicle speed to determine the travel time.

  One of the interesting charts shown on our tour was %-occupancy vs.
"throughput" of an expressway.  At less than 20% occupancy, adding
more cars increases throughput and has no effect on speed.  From about
20 to 35%, adding cars increases throughput but slowly decreases
speed.  Beyond 35%, adding cars decreased both speed and throughput --
near 100%, the traffic is stalled and speed/throughput approach zero.

  TSC provides the reports (at no cost for the data, just the cost of
the connections) directly to several IDOT locations, four State Police
Districts, the O'Hare Parking Center, METRA (Commuter Rail) and PACE
(Suburban Bus) headquarters, and about 15 radio/TV stations.  And the
"Shadow Traffic" and "Metro Traffic" services provide these reports to
50+ other media outlets.

  IDOT operates TSC as part of a three-part freeway traffic management
program.  The other parts are:

 (1) the Emergency Traffic Patrol trucks (called "Minutemen") have
operated since 1961 to render quick assistance for traffic incidents.
These 35 trucks provide emergency gas (two gallons/$5 billed later),
water, air, tools and off-freeway towing.  All but the gas is free.
The trucks actively patrol the freeways, to spot hazards and minimize
response time.  In 1990, over 100,000 assists were provided, mostly
for disabled vehicles.  Main location is at 3501 S. Normal Avenue,
Chicago.

 (2) the Commuications Center (IDOT District 1 headquarters at 201 W.
Center Court, Shaumburg, IL, 23 miles from TSC.  This center handles
all radio dispatching, hot lines, traffic/maintenance coordination,
incident management, interface with police, etc.  They receive all
citizen reports of traffic problems, including 10,500+ calls each
month via Cellular *999 calls.  They also run the 10 low-power AM
radio broadcast stations (at many major interchanges on AM 1610), with
digitized voice driven directly from the TSC reports.  Versions of
this are also available on Cellular *123, "menu #6 (?)", then select
the proper expressway.

  312-245-1132 provides same information, tone phone needed.
  708-705-4618 provides travel advisories and congestion information.
  312-DOT-INFO (via menu #6) provides access to the (708-705-4618)
     information, and other menu items provide access to other IDOT
     services.

Experimental delivery mechanisms under test include alpha-numeric
"pager" delivery and a cable TV graphical display with audio times.

  TSC has several other responsibilities.  They were first with ramp
"metering" signals; there are now 95 such ramps.  Signal timing is
varied automatically (with a manual over-ride available) based on the
"%-occupancy" calculations.  Each such ramp has sensors for the first
two spaces before the signal, and one after.  It is easy to observe if
anyone is not waiting for a "green" light, or is "piggy-backing" on a
previous vehicle's light.

  TSC also provides a clearing-house for emergency travel information
distribution for State Police, METRA, PACE, O'Hare Parking, etc.  Any
media connection receives this information along with the five minute
reports.

  The expressway "changeable sign" system is also controlled by TSC.
Some 13 signs at key positions can be used to give road condition and
emergency information information to drivers that are not listening to
"traffic reports" on the radio.

  "Studies have shown the TSC plus other measures have reduced peak
congestion by up to 60% and accidents by 18%.  A trucking-industry
study suggests that $17 in benefits are returned to the public for
each $1 spent by the system."


  Al Varney - AT&T Network Systems
Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with IDOT except as a periodic
             highway user and taxpayer.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 10:41:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Robin Grayson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore/CMU Forum


February 18, 1992

 From: Judith Irven
       Executive Director
       Bellcore Information Networking Institute

 To:   Interested Members of the Education Community


Dear Colleage:

The dates of the Bellcore Forum on Information Networking Education
are fast approaching.  The Forum, bringing together academic and
industry leaders, convenes on Friday, March 13-14, 1992, at the
Bellcore Training and Education Center in Lisle, Illinois, located
near Chicago.  Our focus is the growing need for industry
professionals with an integrated background in business management,
computer science, electrical engineering and public policy.

Bellcore, the research and engineering consortium of the nation's
regional telecommunications companies is sponsoring this unique event.
Managers and executives from Bellcore, decision makers from the
telecommunications industry and academics versed in this new field of
information education are teaming together to present a "resource-full"
Forum for you.

The Information Networking Institute (INI), a multidisciplinary
educational program in information networking, jointly developed by
educators from Bellcore and Carnegie Mellon, will be one of the
featured programs.

Attend this Forum on Information Networking to broaden your insights
into a breakthrough field that can position your department,
university or company to compete successfully in the information
economy.

The Forum Agenda and logistical information are attached.  Denise
Hayes, Bellcore Information Networking Institute coordinator
(201-829-2209) can answer your questions.  We look forward to seeing
you at the Forum.


Sincerely,


Judith Irven
Executive Director

*****************************************************************************

                           Program Agenda


            Friday, March 13, 1992

        Industry Needs for Information Networking: Two Perspectives
10:15-        Management and Research Perspectives
11:00 a.m.    Alfred Aho, Bellcore, AVP, Information Sciences and
Technologies            Research Laboratory
        Charlie Divine, Southwestern Bell Telephone
11:15-          Panel of Practitioners: Information Networking Industry
Noon        Challenges
        Moderator: Rick Hronicek, Pacific Bell
        Panelists: Michele Bourdeau, Southwestern Bell Telephone
               Mike White, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
                   George Mather, Bell Atlantic
               Doug Nortz, Bellcore
Noon-        Luncheon Speaker: Stewart Personick, Bellcore, AVP, Information
1:30 p.m.                      Networking Research Laboratory
        Perpectives on Information Networking Professional Education
1:30-3:00 p.m.    An Industry Model: Bellcore TEC Perspectives and Methods
        Panelists: Robert Keely, Bellcore TEC
               Cynthia Oehler, Bellcore TEC
3:15-5:00 p.m.    Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Technology Innovation
        Program
        Panelists: Casey Jones, Carnegie Mellon University
               Tom Ho, Carnegie Mellon University
               Judith Irven, Bellcore
5:00-6:00 p.m.    Informal  Cocktail Hour
5:00-6:00 p.m.    Optional Bellcore TEC Laboratories Tour
6:00-8:00 p.m.    Dinner Speaker: John Bruce, Ameritech Services, VP, Training

            Saturday, March 14, 1992

        Information Networking Academic Program Forum
9:00-        Carnegie Mellon University Information Networking Program
10:00 a.m.    Panelists: Marvin Sirbu, Carnegie Mellon University
               M. "Satya" Satyanarayanan, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
               Virginia Stonick, Carnegie Mellon University
10:00-        Summation Panel: Actions We Can Take From Here
11:00 a.m.    Panelists: Marvin Sirbu, Carnegie Mellon University
                   Roger Eldridge, U S WEST Advanced Technologies
               Leonard Kleinrock, UCLA
               Dale Harris, Stanford University
               Judith Irven, Bellcore
Noon        Luncheon and Forum Closing

   *****************LOGISTICAL AND REGISTRATION INFORMATION*********

FORUM FEE: the Forum fee is $105, to cover your room at Bellcore TEC
and all meals.  There is no separate registration fee.  Checks are
acceptable and should be made payable to "Bellcore TEC."  Your
institution may also be billed directly. Call the Registration contact
number below.

TRANSPORTATION: Bellcore TEC is easily accessible from Chicago's
O'Hare and Midway airports.  Discount airfares are available.  Call
United Airlines meeting desk:

     1-800-521-4041 (give Bellcore's meeting number: 524 EV)

Discount limousine serves are available (reservations required).  Call
either of these limousine services for details:

     American Limousine 708-920-8888
     Lisle Livery 708-971-8484

REGISTRATION CONTACT: To register, call Donna Liesse, Forum Registrar,
at 708-960-6400.

FORUM CONTACTS: For more information about the Forum, call Dr. Jay
Gillette, Program Manager, Bellcore Information Networking Institute,
at 201-829-2505, or Ms. Denise Hayes, Bellcore Information Networking
Institute coordinator, at 201-829-2209.


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

Robin Grayson    ***Have A Nice Day***

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

From: [e-mail] (Minze V. Chien)
Subject: How Are Concentrators Used in Networks?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 18:55:46 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering


Hi, netland,

   I have this question regarding how concentrator's are used in
telephone switching networks or in computer networks now in practice.
Can any expert in this field tell discuss it?  Thanks a lot.


Minze

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Perigo)
Subject: Is That Line in Use?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 23:25:31 GMT


Ever seen the circuit for a device that shows when an extension is
off-hook?  I'd like to build same into each of my phones so a LED
would warn whoever NOT to pickup the phone so they wouldn't disturb
modem activity.  I assume we need compare the 48 volt standard to
under 25 when any device is online.

Please post the circuit here.  I bet it would become a popular project.


[Moderator's Note: From time to time we have printed the schematic and
messages about it here. Perhaps someone will forward it to you.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 25 Feb 1992 02:36:34 EST
Subject: Telix 3.15 FTP Site Wanted


If you know where TELIX 3.15 zip files are, could you email the FTP
site to me.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 08:42:27 GMT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas Politics and the Phone


  The Democrats accused the Republicans of calling a specific court to
influence the "Robin Hood" school district re-financing plan.

  Apparently, they somehow obtained phone company records detailing
calls to the court from specific locations.

  Now, the Republicans are requesting similiar records to use to
"prove" that the Democrats made just as many calls to lobby the court
to rule in their favor.

  Ah, politics. Serious doubts are raised in my mind about privacy,
etc. It seems these days that telco records of calls are all to easily
obtainable if one has "clout". And they want to detail all calls with
metered calling? I hope that doesn't come to pass!


Mark Earle    [e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You may recall that Proctor and Gamble tried this
tactic when they got a bee in their bonnet about an employee leaking
information to the {Wall Street Journal} ... just pull all the phone
records for the town and search out the calls in question.   PAT]

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

Subject: Legal History of MOH
Date: Sun Feb 23 18:18:21 1992
From: astroatc!vidiot!madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)


   When I was a kid back in the late 60's/early 70's, there was a sort
of urban legend floating around that it was "illegal" to play music
over the phone. The reason given was either something about
"broadcasting without a license" (not likely), or copyright violations
from not having an ASCAP license (possible). I wondered if this might
also be related to the Carterfone decision, since MOH involves
connecting things to the phone line.  Has anyone else ever heard of
this? When did MOH become common?

   [Of course, this also meant that it was illegal to _sing_ over the
phone, which provided us with plenty of opportunities to try to
impress each other: "look, I'm breaking the law!" "Ooooh, you could go
to jail!".]


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 17:27 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS?


   Okay, the company name is MICRO OFFICE and the product name is
Acoustic Couple, its price is $119 ...

  Also, I would like to ask the readership of this fine journal of
ideas, if any of them have and would be able to supply me with a list
of area codes, still on X-Bar or SxS switching.


Thank you,

>< White Knight ><


[Moderator's Note: I really doubt anyone has compiled such a list, but
I am curious: why do you want to know? Would you want phone service
from one of those systems if it was available in your town?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #171
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14750;
          26 Feb 92 0:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21715
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:07:34 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25529
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:07:23 -0600
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:07:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #172

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Feb 92 22:07:21 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 172

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book (Jim Youll)
    Re: Fax Protocol Specs (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Alternatives to MOH (Sander J. Rabinowitz)
    Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off? (Mike Berger)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Allen Gwinn)
    Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell (Reginald Hirsch)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (John R. Covert)
    Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Alternatives to MOH (Mike Berger)
    Re: Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems (Mike Berger)
    Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations (Bob Frankston)
    It's Happened! (Wrong Number, Intended for 310) (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Youll)
Subject: Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book
Date: 25 Feb 92 23:14:42 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State Univ.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard B. August) writes:

> I'm certain such a thing exists ... but where?  To add to the problem
> I'm interested in one that is electronic and accessable via modem.
> Anyone know of such a beast?

> [Moderator's Note: Certainly. Try Compuserve, where the national
> reverse directory (what there is of it, non-pubs are excluded as are a
> lot of business numbers) is accessed with GO PHONEFILE. You can also
> use this file to search alphabetically all over the USA. There is a
> small surcharge in addition to normal Compuserve rates.   PAT]

I'd like to take this opportunity to discourage anyone from wasting
time and money on the "National Phone Book" on CI$. It's bad enough
that you are surcharged for search-time. Multiply that by the fact
that the last time I attempted to use the service, it crashed
repeatedly, with the old surcharge timer running all the time.  And I
checked on a number of family members who have *had the same phone
number for over 20 years* ... they aren't in there.  Go figure.

Anyway, the best way to find someone's phone number is to call
directory assistance. At 60 cents (even if it were a dollar) it's less
than the time it takes to look up one number on CIS ...

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax Protocol Specs
Date: 25 Feb 92 18:39:53 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Our esteemed Moderator noted:

>> The existence of fax modem command set standards doesn't necessarily
>> make it any easier, I'm sorry to say!  But at least it will, before

> [Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'lack of standards'?   PAT]

No, I meant what I said.  The fax modem command set standards in
existence handle only a relatively small portion of the processing
necessary for sending or receiving a fax.  With Class 1, all of the
protocol processing AND T.4 image processing must still be done in the
software; with Class 2, the T.30 protocol is moved into the modem, but
the software must set up a plethora of parameters in the modem to
control it, and the software also must still handle the T.4 image
processing.

My point was that even with the existence of these standards, there is
still a substantial amount of work that goes into writing a fax
application.  They DO provide for interchangability of modems and
software, which will help the market immensely, but it doesn't make
writing the software itself THAT much easier than it used to be with
only proprietary fax interfaces.  We can hope that T.611 and/or
FaxBios, which interface at a much higher level (ASCII or printer
output file formats, phone numbers and schedules, rather than protocol
frames and bitmapped images), will simplify the process to the point
that adding fax capability to applications will become substantially
easier.


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: Wed, 26 Feb 92 01:14 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOH


> [Moderator's Note: What about TROH (Talk Radio on Hold)?  PAT]

Hmmm ... the problem there is that it wouldn't be 100% talk.  The
radio station might play something as background music every so often,
and I suspect even the theme music might have BMI/ASCAP protection of
some kind.  :-(

My solution: Go to garage sales, flea markets, etc., and buy all the
old 78-rpm records from the 1920's and 30's (or earlier) you can find.
With the appropriate equipment (a Victrola, perhaps?), transfer them
over to cassette, and play *that* over your MOH system.  Of course,
you'll probably turn off some of your customers, but at least you
won't have to worry about licensing.  :->

Sorry if this note's the one that *really* closes the subject.


Sander J. Rabinowitz ([e-mail]), Brentwood, Tennessee.


[Moderator's Note: We'll have *just one more*, later in this issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 09:07:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (John R. Covert) writes:

> If 100,000 readers called it to see what it was, I suspect it cost
> Jerry's campaign on the order of $10,000.  Do you think it got him
> that much in contributions?

Dunno -- but keep your eyes on your newspapers.  After Trudeau ran the
`I want to become a Texas resident just like George so I don't have to
pay income tax' coupons, the office of the Texas State Comptroller was
innundated with requests from around the world.  (Maine in particular
was listed as heavily represented.)  One state filed a request with
the Comptroller's office for the names of people who sent in coupons.
(John told them to take a leap.)

Sharp did have certificates printed up and mailed out.  This was done
with `political' rather than state funds.  Reports left it unclear
whether the labor to do so was paid for by the state or not.


Chip Rosenthal   <[e-mail]>
Unicom Systems Development     512-482-8260

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Hookup Charges - Are They Ripping us Off?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:37:53 GMT


[e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:

> The deposit isn't a scam either.  It's the telco equivalent of COD.

> Consider the case where you want to buy something from me (in my case,
> computers ... that's what I sell).  You walk into my store and say
> "I'd like model 8633 over there".  I say "OK, who are you?"  You tell
> me your name and address, and walk off with the computer.

> NOT!!!!  I'm certainly not going to let you, who I don't know from Joe
> Schmoe, walk off without paying.  But you want the telco to give you
> an account, give you 30-day credit terms, and let you use a service
> where you could run up thousands of dollars per week in bills that
> they can't even be sure you'll pay?

> That's what deposits are for.

But the phone company doesn't ask for a deposit that can cover their
potential loss.  So surely they're not REALLY afraid that I'm going to
run up a huge bill and leave the country.  And they can cut off my
service if I don't pay right away.  You don't have the same option if
you let me walk away with a computer.  I don't need your continued
service for that.

So I don't see that as a reasonable justification.  I've known people
who had 15 year excellent payment records who were still required to
leave a deposit for new phone service.


Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067   Internet    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Gwinn)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: sulaco
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 13:18:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> roscom![e-mail]
(Monty Solomon) writes:

> A couple of months ago I was on a flight from Boston to SFO on United
> and had a long delay before departure.  There was a lawyer sitting
> behind me who was having several lengthly cellular phone conversations
> with parties in California and was asked by a flight attendant to
> terminate the conversation so that we could take off.  His cellular
> phone was somehow interferring with the plane's communication and/or
> navigation systems.

Speaking as a pilot, I have never seen a cellular phone that
interferes with any aircraft navigation equipment.  My guess is that
they told him that he was interfering with communications just to get
him to hang up.

Sneaky bastards :-)

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

Subject: Re: Kansas City Sysops and Southwestern Bell
From: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)
Date: 24 Feb 92 19:05:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Reginald Hirsch)


> I didn't get this one either. Obviously, taking out an ad in a
> magazine is "advertising", but what about being listed in a BBS list
> in the back of {Computer Currents}? Or being listed in the
> {Nixpub}, the Public Access Unix listing that circulates around the
> net?

In Texas the answer is no, paid advertising would result in a yes.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:51:57 PST
From: John R. Covert  25-Feb-1992 0944 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


It is a clear violation of international treaties and CCITT
recommendations for calls from one country to another to transit a
third country in the absence of specific transit arrangements.

The case with Cuba has nothing unique about it.  It is just as illegal
for someone in Canada to route calls from the U.S. to Cuba as it would
be for someone in the U.S. to route calls from Canada to England
(saving about $1.00 per minute, I might add).

You will note that most exchanges do not support call forwarding to an
011+ destination.  Only recently has this become available due to
pressure for deregulation of the international telecoms industry.  Yet
it is still not legal to set up a call forwarding arrangement
explicitly for the purpose of providing a third-country transit
arrangement.

Foreign exchange lines which cross national boundaries are supposed to
be restricted from accessing the international network.

Continental countries were threatening to raise telephone rates
between the continent and the U.K. when the U.K. began to deregulate
and allow inexpensive (relative to the continent) leased voice and
data lines to the U.S.

Telecom rates and regulations are set as a matter of national policy,
and the CCITT regulations firmly support this.


/john

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 12:34:25 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GOSIP: Government Open Systems Information Profile


[e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard) wrote:

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

>> I understand that there are minor differences between the UK GOSIP and
>> the real thing (which was sorted out between the Australian & NZ
>> Governments). There are also other variants of GOSIP used by various
>> foreign governments.

>> The specs on the real thing should be available from either the
>> Australian or NZ Government print shops. One in every major city.

> What's all this talk about "the real thing" as if there was one true
> GOSIP??

The original post referred to UK GOSIP as a variation on GOSIP, with
the implication that the poster felt that US GOSIP was the "real" one,
and everything else a mere variation.

The reply from our antipodean friend was a send-up of that US-centric
attitude.  Surely not every little joke needs a stack of smilies ?


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to MOH
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:19:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Folks, there is something rotten here. I am not trying to 'CHEAT'
> musicians, but there has to be a better way! There may well be some
> quality off shore music sources -- little known but good school
> orchestras, etc. -- that would LOVE to sell CDROMS for say $25, $50,
> $100 (anything is better than BMI) and INCLUDE specific permission for
> MOH use. I called the music department at the Harvard Coop and asked
> if they had 'legal-for-MOH' recordings, and got nowhere. I know a
> local guy that owns a recording company that may well have such things
> or if not might be interested! I will ask as soon as possible.

> Anyone else know where BMI/ASCAP/extortion proof recordings are
> available?

Really?  It sounds like that's what you're trying to do.  Music
recordings are licensed works.  If you don't want to pay the license
fee, then listen to them, but don't use them commercially.  It's very
simple, and doesn't sound too restrictive to me.

You might be surprised how little it costs to license music for public
use.  A friend that presses 78 RPM records for old juke boxes pays five
cents/song/record to ASCAP.  Anything that's older than 20 years is
free.  Top 40 stuff costs a little more.

As for your suggestion of having unknown or foreign bands record the
music, the selections themselves are copyrighted and licensed.  Your
local high school pays a fee when they perform a play, even if you've
never heard of the performers.  So that's not a legal loophole for
cheating musicians.

It's funny how upset some people on the Internet get when somebody
asks about stealing software, but I don't see the same outrage over
stealing performance art.


Mike Berger    Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067     Internet    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You raise a very good point about theft of the
intellectual efforts of another person or group.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:49:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Graff) writes:

> I have two modems, both made by a company called ConData.  One is a
> P212A, while the other is a T212A.

> I'm looking for pinouts/manuals/whatever-I-can-get for these modems.
> If anyone has a hint, or better yet a manual, please let me know.

> Please respond via Mail because I rarely read these newsgroups.

I guess I'm pretty insensitive to this kind of request these days.  Do
your own homework!  Comdata (you can get the spelling right from the
modem) is still in business, and they're pretty nice about sending
manuals for old equipment.  But you probably won't read this anyway.

Just so nobody gets the wrong impression, I'm happy to help out when
somebody has made a little effort himself, first.  But I see so many
requests for documentation which is readily available from manufacturers
that can be found with little effort.  Why would anybody expect a
stranger to go to more trouble for them than they're willing to go to
for themselves?


Mike Berger     Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067     Internet    [e-mail]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations
Date: Tue 25 Feb 1992 20:52 -0500


Why can't the DPU order NET to provide Caller-ID with per-line
blocking instead of letting NET act like a spoiled child and withdraw
the offering when it couldn't have its own way?  One can argue that
Caller-ID is a useful service anyway even if NET loses some marketing
clout by not providing 100% service.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 12:06:13 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: It's Happened! (Wrong Number, Intended For 310)


I just got a call intended for area code 310 in California, and had to
tell the caller she had reached either 301 or 410 in Maryland.  I
asked (and got affirmative answer) "Are you trying to reach Beverly
Hills?"  I am on the 278 prefix in Maryland.

The wrong number call was intended for Marilyn; the last name was NOT
Monroe.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #172
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16725;
          26 Feb 92 1:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29391
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:57:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10105
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:55:39 -0600
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 22:55:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Telex from Internet


This special mailing includes a summary of responses too large for a
regular issue of the Digest.

PAT

  From: [e-mail] (Chip Elliott)
  Subject: Telex from Internet
  Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Many thanks to everyone who replied with information about ways to
send Telexes from an Internet host. Here is a compendium of all the
replies I received -- the ones most useful to me are at the front.

I appreciate the time and effort taken to send me this information.

Again -- many thanks!         [e-mail]

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

Chip,

  Here is more information about email and telex.

Don Newcomb
[e-mail]

I have updated my earlier posting comparing various e-mail services
for personal use. I want to thank everyone who responded and supplied
corrections to my posting. To put some persons' concerns to rest, my
only relationship with any vendor of computer services is as a
customer. In this study, I based my comparisons on the grades of
service which would give the lowest cost for the least use.

I have struggled with finding a good format to present my findings.  I
found that some people did not relate well to the matrix I used in my
first posting. Others did not agree with the basis I was using to make
my comparison. Sort of like, "Why compare the price of the basic sedan
when everyone is going to order A/C and automatic anyway." To
alleviate these concerns I have included a brief discussion based on
my understanding of each system's features and pricing. My information
may be incorrect. Some providers are hard to "pin down" on prices and
features. I encourage you to check with providers yourself before
purchasing a service. If glaring errors remain in my listing, I would
appreciate your corrections. I have tried to provide a phone number or
e-mail address to contact each service for information.

Three types of charges are detailed:
 A. Setup: A one time charge to get your account established.
 B. Annual minimum: What you will be charged even if you don't use
    the system.
 C. Hourly access: What it costs (often a range of costs) to occupy
    a port even if you don't send or receive mail. This is a problem
    area for my analysis. Some systems bundle access via PSN or 800
    number into this figure, some don't.

Other charges for e-mail are assumed to be a function of the number
of characters or messages sent or received. Charges of this type are
indicated by a "$" in the matrix. A problem arises in that "$" does
not indicate "how much." So, while both Omnet and ATT Mail indicate
a "$" to send to Telemail, for Omnet this is about $.06 while for
ATT Mail it is $.40-.85 .

The features are:
 A. Can send mail to various networks & systems:
    1. Intermail: Internet, SPAN, UUCP, BITNET and all the systems
       connected by Internet.
    2. Telemail: Sprint Mail, NASA Mail, Omnet etc.
    3. MCI Mail
    4. Compuserve
    5. GEnie: General Electric's E-Mail
    6. TELEX: Unrestricted World-wide Telex
    6a. Personal Telex #. User has a personal Telex number for
        receiving Telex vs. common Telex number using a code in
        the message to route the message.
    7. Telegram: World-wide delivery.
    8. Paper Mail: Delivery by USPS.
    9. Dialcom: Tymnet E-mail
    10. FAX:
 B. X.400 addressing: Utilizes and receives X.400 addressed messages.
 C. Packet network connections.
 D. Telnet: Access to and from Internet Telnet.
 E. Usenet: Has at least a basic Usenet News
 F. Binary File Transfer. Has a way to transfer binary files.
 G. File Store: User has at least 360K characters of storage.
 H. 800#: Access from toll-free 800 number for lower 48 states.
 I. Receipt: Sender can request an automatic receipt when a message
    is read.
 J. Auto-forward: User can set mailbox to automatically forward
    incoming mail to _any_ possible destination. (The acid test
    is to forward incoming e-mail to a FAX)

The systems compared, so far, are:
    1. Omnet (a source of Telemail)
    2. MCI Mail
    3. ATT Mail
    4. ESL (Western Union EasyLink)
        5. GEnie (Star*Services) (not same as Quickcom)
    6. Pinet (American Institute of Physics)
     7. World (Software Tool & Die, world.std.com)
    8. Portal (Portal Communications)
    9. Netcom (Online Communication Services)
    10. Compuserve
    11. Fidonet


                   Features-Read Down                 Costs ($US)
           |---------------------------------------|------------------
           |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S  | A  | H |
           |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e  | n  | o |
           |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t  | n  | u |
           |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u  | u  | r |
           |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p  | a  |   |
           |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F|    | l  |   |
           |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o|    |    |   |
           |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r|    |    |   |
           | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w|    |    |   |
           | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d|    |    |   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Omnet     |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N $ $ $ Y N 75   180  4-16@
 MCI Mail  |$ $ $ $ N $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N ? $ Y ? N  0    35   0
 ATT Mail  |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ ? Y $ A N N $ $ Y Y Y  0    30   0
 ESL       |D $ $ $ ? $ Y $ $ $ Y $ ? N N N $ ? $ N  0   300*  ?
 Genie     |N N N N Y N N N N N N N P N N ? ? $ ? N  0    60   0-18@
 Pinet     |Y Y Y Y ? $ D N $ $ N $ S Y Y Y Y Y N N 15    0    10-19@
 World     |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D C Y Y Y Y N N Y  0    60   2
 Portal    |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D S N N Y Y ? N Y 15   168   0
 Netcom    |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N Y Y Y ? N N Y  0   180   0
 Compuserve|$ $ $ $ ? $ ? N $ ? ? $ M N N Y Y $ ? N 40    30   1-12?
 Fidonet   |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N N N ? ? N N ? 0?    0?   0?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key:
    Y=Available feature at no extra cost.
    N=Not available.
    $=Available, an extra charge for usage applies.
    D=Feature available with subscription to DASnet.*
    S=Sprint (Telenet) Packet Network
    C=Compuserve Packet Network
    T=Tymnet Packet Network
    P=Private Packet Network
    A=ACUNET Packet Network
    M=Multiple Packet Networks
    ?=Unsure
    *=Minimum sum of usage charges
    @=Includes domestic PSN charges

Note:(*) DASnet is a service that provides systems and individuals
     with a gateways to a variety of incompatible e-mail systems.
     Despite frequent mention of DASnet, this is not an endorsement
     of their service. They can help you get mail to and from many
     networks, but the addressing is often complex (not realy their
     fault). Delivery is not always instantaneous. Six hour delivery
     is not uncommon. Direct DASnet connections are available for
     electronic mail systems and networks. Legal considerations may
     restrict the means of connection.  A monthly charge of $4.75 plus
     usage charges apply to DASnet services for individuals. For
     information contact, ([e-mail]).

More details:

Omnet: There are various ways to obtain GTE Telemail (a.k.a.
    Sprintmail) the one I am most familiar with is Omnet.
    Omnet is popular with oceanographers and meteorologists
    and probably costs more then some other Telemail providers.
    I once could have had a Telemail account for $25.00 setup +
    $15.00 a year + usage, but that opportunity passed. A
    few years ago, connections between Telemail and Internet
    were "iffy" at best; now things are more reliable. Telemail
    has long been tied closely with Telenet. I don't even know
    if it is possible to dial directly into a Telemail host.
    Well developed connections to FAX, Telex etc.
    (/id=service/o=omnet/admd=telemail/c=usa/@sprint.com)

MCI Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex
    number. High use option (Preferred Pricing) available at
    $10.00/month for 40 "domestic electronic messages." No
    charge to access or retrieve mail. Basic communications are
    charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small
    annual fee ($35). Normal access via 800 number or Telenet.
    Seems set to compete with ATT Mail and vice versa.
    ([e-mail] or 800-444-6245)

ATT Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex
    number. Auto-forward supported (even to Telex or FAX).
    Various extra-cost options, but basic communications are
    charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small
    annual fee ($30). No charge to access or retrieve mail. One
    nice extra is message pick-up via 800 number with synthesized
    voice ($.50 per minute). Normal access is 800 number or
    ACUNET packet network. For someone who wants to receive a
    lot but send very little looks quite attractive. No Usenet.
    The gotcha is that ATT's $100+ software is required or you
    get charged an extra $.45+ to create each message online.
    You must have their software to send or receive binary files.
    This charge is not on their price list and is only mentioned
    obliquely in the brochures. It makes me wonder about other
    hidden charges.  In fairness to ATT, I should say that they
    seem to specialize in linking in-house corporate mail systems
    to outside networks. In this application the expense of their
    software would be reasonable.(800-624-5672)

ESL: EasyLink was Western Union's attempt at e-mail. It has recently
    been purchased by ATT but is still separate from ATT Mail. ESL
    can be best described as "virtual Telex." For companies that
    send a lot of Telex, ESL may be a good choice. Charges are
    based on the infamous "Telex minute" (about 400 char) and are
        lower than most other Telex connections. No "account maintenance"
    fee but a monthly minimum applies. There are no connections to
    Internet (except via DASnet). (800-624-5672)

GEnie: I'm not sure GEnie should be described as an e-mail system as
    it does not seem to provide connections to any other system.
    GEnie Star*Services are economical and have many interesting
    features but e-mail is strictly local. (800-638-9636)

Pinet: Pinet is a service of the American Institute of Physics. It is
    primarily intended for use by members of affiliated societies
    (AGU, APS, AAS etc). It is included because I have personal
    experience as a user. Basicly a Gould  UTX/32 host with a
    restrictive mail shell. Normal access via 800 dial-in. Telenet
    access has been recently added and may replace the 800 number.
    Well connected to Telnet but users can't FTP. Access to Telex,
    paper mail, FAX etc. provided by system connection to DASnet.
    Abbreviated Usenet. ([e-mail])

World: Software Tool & Die, Brookline MA. Sun 4 host. Well connected
    to Nearnet and SURAnet for Telnet and FTP but not rest of
    Internet (yet). They pride themselves on having an absurdly
    large number of news feeds (2500+). User has regular shell
    with only restriction being a rather "soft" file space quota
    of about 500 K bytes. Quota can be raised for small charge.
    Sign up for $20/mo and you get 20 hours with $1/hour above
    20. Normal access is via dial-up or Telnet. Compuserve PSN
    access is available for $6.00 per hour surcharge.
    ([e-mail])

Portal: Well known as UUCP & Usenet server. Also provides personal
    accounts. Access via Telenet $2.50-$15.00 per hour surcharge.
    Storage charge of $.04/K/month above 100 K bytes. Not well
    connected for FTP & Telnet. Cupertino, CA. ([e-mail])

Netcom: This was a big surprise. Online Communications Services seems
    (if I am reading their brochure correctly) to provide unlimited
    access to Intermail, Telnet, FTP, archives and more for a flat
    $15.00 per month. Well connected to Internet. 9600 baud
    dial-ups. No packet net or 800 number access. San Jose, CA.
    ([e-mail])

Compuserve: Well known to Joe Public. Provides 1001 services in
    addition to e-mail. Seems to provide FAX, Telex, Intermail,
    commercial mail connections etc. Brochures high on gloss; low
    in facts and prices. (800-457-6245)

Fidonet: Fidonet is a world-wide, store-and-forward network for PCs.
    In theory, it connects BBS users from South Africa to
    Greenland and on all continents. A hierarchal addressing
    system organizes the net into geographic zones and nets
    organized around a local hub. A one-way message may take
    2-3 days to arrive at its destination. FidoNet is gated to
    Internet via the fidonet.org domain. It is possible for a
    FidoNet node to set up a DASnet link for other services, but
    this may not be via Internet or UUCP. No set cost schedule.
    FidoNet nodes in my area are all cost free. No single P.O.C.
    Node list available via FTP on asuvax.eas.asu.edu in
    /stjhmc/nodelist.txt . Also via BITFTP on BITNET.

Donald Newcomb

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

Chip,

You could join our network.  From it you can send and receive telexes.

Further information on our system and Internet access to it is
attached.

Regards,
Tom Gray
IGC Support

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

INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS: PeaceNet * EcoNet * ConflictNet
18 De Boom Street, San Francisco, CA  94107
[phone] voice     [phone] fax      [phone] telex
electronic mail: [e-mail]

What are IGC Networks?

The IGC Networks -- PeaceNet, EcoNet and ConflictNet -- comprise the
world's only computer communications system dedicated solely to
environmental preservation, peace, and human rights.  IGC, located
in San Francisco, California, is a division of the Tides Foundation,
a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Electronic Mail:

Send and receive private messages -- including Fax and Telex -- to and
from more than 8,000 international peace, environmental and conflict
resolution users on our affiliated networks or to millions of users on
other networks.  Electronic mail is quick, inexpensive, reliable and
easy to use.

Conferences:

IGC's conferencing services offer easy-to-use tools in group
communication and event coordination.  Geographically dispersed people
can communicate inexpensively on any subject.  Whether you are
administering an organization or distributing an urgent action alert,
IGC conferences are an indispensable tool.  Private conferences can be
set up to facilitate internal group decision-making, task-sharing
processes, or sensitive communications.  Public conferences are great
for information sharing, newsletter distribution, legislative alerts
and news services.

Information Resources IGC's several hundred public conferences also
include events calendars, newsletters, legislative alerts, funding
sources, press releases, action updates, breaking stories, calls for
support, as well as ongoing discussions on issues of global
importance.  IGC is also an access point for the USENET system of
interuniversity bulletin boards.  IGC's capabilities allow you to
search lists of speakers, U.S. Congress and world leaders, media,
grant-making foundations or bibliographies.

International Programs & The Association for Progressive
Communications IGC regards international cooperation and partnership
as essential in addressing peace and environmental problems.  IGC
maintains a major program to develop low-cost access to computer
networking from outside the United States, especially from
non-industrialized and Southern hemisphere countries.  The result of
this program has been the Association of Progressive Communications
(APC) which now includes low- cost computer networks in eight
countries.

IGC has played a major role in starting the Alternex (Brazil), Nicarao
(Nicaragua) and GlasNet (USSR) non-profit computer networks, as well
as in providing technical support to all of the partner networks.  ..
Current projects include developing computer networks for peace,
environmental and international development organizations in Bolivia,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Uruguay and Kenya.  The focus of the work is to
empower local, indigenous organizations by transferring expertise and
capacity in computer networking.  Operation and management of a local
APC node becomes the full responsibility of the local organization.
All APC partners are independent organizations, and retain full
control over their network.  IGC collaborates with the United Nations
Development Programme in work in Latin America.  The International
Programme is supported entirely by grants from major Foundations and
individual donors. Contributors include: The Ford Foundation, General
Service Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation.

IGC Rates:

After a one-time $15 sign-up fee, the monthly subscription is $10,
which includes one free hour of off-peak time (after 6 p.m. and on
weekends) and phone support.  Domestic connect time is $5/hour for
off-peak and $10 for peak time (M-F 7 am to 6 pm).  Alaska and Hawaii
users are subject to slightly higher rates.  Internet connectivity is
available from many locations for $3 per hour.  International connect
rates vary with each country's public data network.  A growing number
of countries have direct SprintNet connections at $21 per hour.  Some
gateways and storage space are extra.

How Can I Join?

Fill out this coupon and send/fax it to us.  Or sign up online by
having your computer dial [phone] (N-8-1) - have your credit
card ready!.  Type 'new' at the LOGIN prompt hit <RETURN> at the
PASSWORD prompt, then follow the step-by-step instructions.  ..

Select: [ ] EcoNet [ ] PeaceNet [ ] ConflictNet ..  Name
________________________________________________________________
Organization ________________________________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip ____________________________________________________
Telephone ___________________________________________________________
Major Areas of Interest______________________________________________
For credit card billing only: Name on card
__________________________ Expiration date _____________ Acct #
_________________________ Signature __________________________ If you
prefer to pay by check monthly, send a refundable $50 deposit.  May we
list your address in our online user directory?  May we list your
phone number?

  From support2 Thu Jul 25 04:07:08 1991
  Subject: Internet Documentation


Connecting to IGC Networks via the Internet

I.  About the Internet

IGC networks (e.g. PeaceNet, EcoNet and ConflictNet) are now
accessible via the Internet, making it cheaper and easier for many
academic users to login.  The Internet is the world's leading
inter-university network, and connects thousands of academic and
research institutions around the world.  There is no surcharge for
Internet access - you pay our normal direct dial rates of $3/hour, 24
hours a day!

If you don't know if your campus is connected to the Internet, you'll
have to find out.  If you don't have a friend who can tell you, then
it's best to contact the campus organization that manages your campus
computer networks.  Otherwise, you could contact your computer science
department or campus computer system, and ask to speak to a computer
network administrator or computer system administrator.

If your campus is on the Internet but you don't have an account on a
computer that's connected to the Internet, then you'll have to acquire
one.  The best way to find out how to do this is to find a friend who
already has an account on a computer that's on the Internet, and ask
them how they got it.  If you don't know anyone who has an account,
then you could try contacting the head of your department, or the
computer science department or campus computer system, and ask to get
an account on a timesharing computer that's connected to the Internet
(or else ask to have your personal computer connected to an "ethernet"
that's connected to the campus "backbone" network).

NOTE: The Internet is to be used only for bona-fide educational or
research purposes, and it is up to an individual's sponsoring
institution to make sure that a user is using it for bona-fide
educational purposes.

II.  LOGGING IN TO THE IGC NETWORKS THROUGH THE INTERNET - TELNET

Once you have an Internet account, you'll have to learn how to log in
to it.  Once you can do this, then you're ready to log in to your
account on the IGC Networks.  To do this, run the command

    telnet igc.org

        -- or --

    telnet 192.82.108.1

from your Internet account.  If this doesn't work, contact a technical
expert at your campus to get assistance.  Note that if your personal
computer is connected directly to an ethernet and you don't log in
directly to a campus computer, then you might need to run a command on
your personal computer that's called something different than
'telnet'.  Because there are dozens of different ways that campus
systems connect to the Internet, we cannot anticipate all of them.

If you don't already have an account on IGC, and you would like to
signup for an account and pay for it with a credit card, then you
should type 'new' at the login: prompt, and type RETURN or ENTER at
the Password: prompt.  If you don't use credits cards, please call us
at 1-415-442-0220 between 9am and 5pm, Pacific Time to arrange payment
for a new account.

III.  File Transfers over the Internet - Using FTP with IGC

There are two different ways to upload files from your personal
computer to IGC, and download messages from IGC to your own system.
If you're using your personal computer and a modem program (such as
ProComm or RedRyder) to login to another campus computer, then you can
do uploads and downloads exactly as described in the IGC manual, i.e.
using one of the "normal" file transfer protocols such as ascii or
kermit.  [Try to avoid using xmodem, since it requires a pure 8-bit
data path; in particular, CTRL-S and CTRL-Q can *not* be used for flow
control with xmodem.]

If you're not using a modem program (e.g. you're running the 'telnet'
command from your personal computer, or you're using a dumb terminal
that's directly connected to a campus computer), then you probably
won't be able to use one of the "normal" protocols.  However, you can
use your computer's FTP command instead.

To use your university computer's FTP command in conjunction with the
IGC Networks, you need to inform the IGC computer that you'll be doing
this.

UPLOADING: At the prompt:

Hit <RETURN> to enter/edit a message, or 'u' to (u)pload a file:

be sure to select (u)pload.  At the next prompt:

Protocol: (a)scii-text (k)ermit (x)modem (y)modem (z)modem (f)tp:

be sure to select (f)tp.

You will then see:

Please use your ftp program to log in as 'anonymous', and place your
file in upload/<yourloginID>.

Use your university computer's 'ftp' command to initiate a file
transfer.  When asked to login, be sure to login in to:

       igc.org, or cdp.igc.org, or 192.82.108.1

       DO NOT ftp into gatekeeper.igc.org.  FTP will not work
       through
        'gatekeeper'.

When you login with ftp as 'anonymous', use 'guest' or 'ident' as a
password.  This puts you into a place on our computer network that
allows temporary storage of uploaded files. Be sure to change
directory to 'upload' and then use the ftp command to transfer the
file from your computer to ours using your loginID as the destination
name of the file.

Once the transfer is completed, go back to the telnet command and hit
<RETURN> or <ENTER>. This completes the ftp upload process.  This also
deletes your file from the 'anonymous' upload subdirectory on the IGC
computer.

You will be asked if you want to edit the uploaded file.  If you say
(y)es, then use the online editor's (v)iew command, you will see the
contents of your file.  Hitting <RETURN> twice from the Edit: prompt
will save and send your changes.

If you are using a multi-user computer on your campus, then you may
have "job control", a feature that allows you to switch back and forth
between programs.  If you need to leave telnet (or ftp) and go into
ftp (or telnet), type '~ CTRL-Z' or 'CTRL-] CTRL-Z' to temporarily
"suspend" telnet (or ftp), then type e.g. 'fg %ftp or 'fg %n' (where
the 'jobs' command will tell you which 'n' is needed for the ftp
command) to go into ftp.  If you don't have job control, you may be
able to type '~ z' or 'CTRL-Z z' (or '!' or 'shell' instead of 'z') in
telnet to get a subshell, so that you can start ftp then transfer your
file then exit ftp then type 'exit RETURN' to return to telnet and
continue specifying commands on the IGC computer.

If you're using MacIP on a Macintosh, then you can have an ftp window
and a telnet window.

If you're using the NCSA telnet command on an MSDOS computer, then you
don't have a separate ftp command, and your telnet program provides
only an ftp server not an ftp client; the IGC system does not provide
an ftp client to talk to NCSA telnet's ftp server.  So you won't be
able to use the ftp protocol directly from your MSDOS computer.  If
you can get an account on a multi-user computer at your campus that's
accessible from telnet on your MSDOS computer, then you can telnet
from your MSDOS computer to the campus multi-user computer and login
to that computer, and from there use the multi-user campus computer's
telnet and ftp commands to contact the IGC computer.  Then use ftp on
your campus computer to transfer files to and from your MSDOS
computer.

DOWNLOADING:

Downloading using FTP is similar to uploading -- just in reverse.  You
must first inform the IGC Networks that you will be performing an FTP
download:

 From the Mail? or Conf? prompts, select (c)apture, followed by
 Status: RO

(d)ownload.  If Status: R

in Conf mode, you'll be asked to identify what you want to
download.  You will then be asked for a protocol.  Select (f)tp.

You will then see:

OK.  Now log in to this machine with anonymous ftp, and get the file
download/<yourloginID>

As in the case with uploading, use your university computer's FTP
command to log in to igc.org or cdp.igc.org (NOT gatekeeper.igc.org!).
Use the account name (login name) 'anonymous' with a password of
'guest' or 'ident'.  Change directory to 'download'.  (If you are
still logged in from a previous FTP session, and moving from 'upload'
to 'download', you may have to change directories twice: first just do
a 'cd' back to the ftp home directory; then 'cd download'.)

Use your system's FTP command to download the file to your system.  On
our system, the file will have as its name your login ID.  You may
name it as you wish on your system.

A few useful FTP Commands:

   cd <directory>  -  Change to Directory named <directory> on
   IGC.  put <filename> <loginID>  -  transfer file from YOUR
   computer to IGC.  get <loginID> <filename>  -  transfer file
   from IGC to YOUR computer.

Note that with some ftp software you may not be able to specify a
second argument to 'put' or 'get', in which case the file on your own
computer will need to be called <loginID> also.

WARNING: FTP downloads are not completely secure.  There may be a
small window of time during which someone else might be able to have
access to your file.  We therefore recommend you do not use FTP for
documents that you strongly want to keep private.

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

Chip,

  Send a copy of your question to [e-mail] . They will be glad
to tell you about a $ervice you can $ubscribe to that will link
Internet and telex.

Don Newcomb
[e-mail]

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

Mail to [e-mail] (Rupert Mohr). They provide such a service
if I recall correctly.


Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse    ([e-mail])
Katatura State Hospital  ([e-mail] works for small files)
Private Bag 13215        Windhoek, Namibia

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

We use a product called MGATE that is a MCI-to-UNIX gateway.  This
would alow you to send tellexes (as well as FAXen,paper mail,....etc)
from you Unix nodes with a To: filed like "c=0%tlx=232123@telex".
Gotta buy MCI though. (think its 1.50/telex msg).


XtcN Ltd
11 Roxbury Ave.     4425 Butterworth Pl. N.W.
Natick MA 01760     Washington D.C. 20016
Tel:[phone]    Tel:[phone]
E-mail: Internet: [e-mail]   Telex: 6504829720
X.400: C=US; A=MCI; S=Lamb; D.ID=4829720

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

Hi,

If you need to telex to Russia, you can probably makae your inquery to
Victor Andreenko [e-mail].
They are doing some kind of telex-fax-internet gateways.

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

Call AT&T Mail, and set up an account as a registered system.  You'll
have to call them direct via UUCP, or they'll have to call you, for
security reasons.  But once this is in place, you can address messages
to "attmail!telex!<telex number>", and they'll go through just fine.
Their customer service number is 800-624-5672.

I don't know of any service that allows you to send telexes through
Internet, because of the difficulty in billing.  If you find one,
please let me know!


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]

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

If you're registered with AT&T Mail, you can send telexes by using the
address:

    attmail!telex!number

You'll have to be hooked directly to attmail in order for this to
work.  Going through the Internet gateways, such as using

    telex![e-mail]

wouldn't work because telex is blocked for mail coming in through that
route.


Tony Hansen
[e-mail], [e-mail]
att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony

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

A couple of years ago, there was an interconnect email carrier called
"dasnet" which would do this. I don't know if they are still in
business or where to reach them, though. They are not in "whois" under
the name "dasnet", but there is a company called "DA Systems"
registered for the domain names DAS.NET and DAS.COM. So try to write
to [e-mail] and ask if they do this kind of thing, and write
back to TELECOM of they do.


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

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

I think is best done via MCI Mail. We use all of the main commercial
services at my work (Sprint, AT&T, MCI etc.), but I think MCI is the
best one. I'm not affiliated with them, just my two cents. No on-line
time, no monthly minimum, and easy menus.

Regards,
Adam
                  --------------------

We are able to send Telex locally, but we have blocked the possibility
messages from outside to be sent as Telex. The reason is simple:
sending a Telex is not free, and Unix software (which I have written
myself) does not handle accounting.  I'd be glad to mail you my
software, which interfaces an Intertex 44-box to Unix mail, but I
doubt you'd have any use for it as the box is connected to the
Teletex-network and as far as I know there are very few
Teletex-connections in the US. (Teletex is about 50 times faster than
Telex and there are gateways between the nets.)

If you nevertheless would find our solution interesting for any
reason, please don't hesitate to contact me.


Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden     email: [e-mail]













Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13055;
          27 Feb 92 2:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24409
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:40:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14116
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:40:19 -0600
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:40:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #173

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Feb 92 00:40:17 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 173

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: History of WU Files in Archives (TELECOM Moderator)
    Help on T1/56k Equipment/Vendor? (Eric Pearce)
    Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Steve Forrette)
    `00': A Single European International Dialing Code (XIII, via Drew Radtke)
    Can't Call (201) 380 From Connecticut (203) (Seng-Poh Lee)
    CLASS Services Interfering With Other Custom Calling Services (Ron Kushner)
    How to Win Customers and Influence People (Guardian, via Nigel Roberts)
    Elevator Phone Spooked Man (Calgary Herald, via Steven Leikeim)
    Nynex, Vintage 1980 or 1970? (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 00:10:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: History of WU Files in Archives


The four articles on Western Union history which appeared here over
the last weekend have been incorporated into a new archives file by
the name 'history.of.western.union' in the Telecom Archives. This file
has been placed in proximity with 'history.of.teletype' and 'history.
of.stock.ticker'.  You'd pull all three files if you wanted a good
comprehensive look at earlier times in the telegraph business.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 01:30:19 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
Subject: Help on T1/56k Equipment/Vendor?


Hello,

(You can skip to the end for a summary of the question)

This is a rather long explanation of the last two weeks of my research
and I invite comments on it.  It might also be useful for someone
else.  I'm also planning on incorporating my experiences into a book
at some point.

For those you haven't heard of us, we are a publishing company
specializing in technical documentation of the MIT X Window System and
a series of 'Nutshell' guides to UNIX.

We have two offices, one in Cambridge, MA and the other in Sebastopol,
CA (near Santa Rosa, 50 miles north of SF).  We have Ethernet lans
in both offices and I would like to connect them.  Phone-wise, we have
incoming 800 (ATT Readyline) service to the CA office and outgoing
(ATT Pro-Watts) from both offices.

Things I looked into:

Getting a dedicated data connection from one office to the other.
Either T1, fractional T1, single 56k or mixture.

Reducing our long distance phone costs.
(We currently have ATT, which is rumored to be expensive)

Extending our PBX (Fujitsu Starlog) into the other office, as we have
lots of inter-office calls.  I'd like to keep this open as an option
for the future (more on this later).

Video conferencing.  I checked out PictureTel and Compression Labs.

What I did:

I went to Sprint, MCI and ATT and told them what I was looking for.

Results:

This meant an initial meeting with sales people and then a data
specialist once I overwhelmed them with questions they couldn't
answer.   I did end up finding 'techie' types that know their stuff
at each company.

Video conferencing:

It looks like we can't afford this, as each end would cost more than
$25k in equipment alone.

Extending PBX:

Could use switched 56k or additional dedicated ds0's. I put this on
the back burner for the moment.

Reducing phone costs:

Everybody seemed to agree that T1 local access was the way to go.  We
avoid the local carrier and go directly to the long distance carrier.
Everything seems to get cheaper with T1 access and Sprint and MCI both
waived installation charges.

Data connection:

I quickly determined that we could not afford full T1 across the
county (quotes ran from $10 - 20k a MONTH).  A single 56k seems to
cost about $1k a month.  Local T1 access was in the $600-700 range per
end.

Sprint and MCI were within a few hundred dollars of each other for
most costs.  I don't have a final quote from ATT yet.  The problem
with switching carriers for incoming 800 service is that we have to
change our 800 number.  This is a big deal, since the number is used
everwhere on paper and the last seven years of publications.  I did
not look very hard at aggregators.

Several people mention BRI (Basic Rate Interface), but the long
distance carriers shot it down, saying it won't do me any good for
intrastate connections since their PRI won't talk to it (I don't know
if it's offered in my area anyways).

What I ended up with:

T1 local access for both offices and 1 56k line for the long distance
part (IXC?)

What I am stuck on now is premise equipment.  My criteria is low
entrance cost and expandability.

The phone companies think I should get a channel bank that will split
off the 1 ds0 for data and take about 12 of the other channels for
voice.  These would run into the PBX as regular analog lines and not
require new PBX hardware.

The other option is to get a DTI card for the PBX and run the T1
directly into it.  We still have to split off the ds0 at some point.
It sounds like this gives us a completely digital connection, but
requires new hardware for the PBX in addittion to a 'drop and insert'
box(?).

I also looked at an inverse MUX called Ascend Multiband. This does
bandwidth-on-demand using switched 56k from one T1 to the other.  It
is probably overkill for us, but it sounds pretty cool and has a good
rep.  It only does data, so is doesn't do anything my T1 voice
requirement.

The phone companies want to rent me channel banks and CSU/DSUs for
$350-400 a month.  It looks like I can buy new ones for $10k and used
ones for $5k.

Thanks for any thoughts.  I don't mind hearing from vendors too.


Eric Pearce [e-mail]
O'Reilly & Associates, Publishers of NutShell Series Handbooks
103 Morris St, Sebastapol, CA 95472  1-800-338-6887

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 11:29:08 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages


Now that the permissive dialing period for the 415/510 split is over,
I've been caught a couple of times still dialing 415 and getting an
intercept from the IXC.  I think the wording of the recordings is
quite indicative of the general character of the IXC's:

AT&T: "The area code for the number you have dialed has been changed
to 510."  Sprint, MCI: "The area code you have dialed has been changed
to 510."

Now come on folks, is this really that hard to get right?  I truely
believe that the wording that Sprint and MCI use will only lead to
further dialing mistakes by those unfamiliar with area code splits.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Drew Radtke)
Subject: `00': A Single European International Dialing Code
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 21:38:13 GMT


Here's an article from {XIII Magazine News Review} which just goes to
show how quickly things can move in Euro-Telecoms.

`00': a single European international dialing code

The Council of Ministers has endored a Commission proposal setting 00
as a single dialing code for access to the international network
throughout the Community. A formal decision will be taken once the
European Parliament has given its opinion.

The single international code should be operational via public
networks from 31 December 1991 at the latest. [My copy only came
today, but it was December 1991's edition]. However, taking account of
some Member States' technical, financial or organizational
difficulties, certain countries may be authorised to delay application
until 31 December 1998 [!!!!].

There are currently seven different international codes within the EC:
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portual and Luxembourg already use
the '00' code. All other member states use different codes: 009 in
Denmark, 07 in Spain, 19 in France, 010 in the UK, 16 in Ireland and
09 in the Netherlands.


Drew Radtke   [e-mail]
Fax: [phone] * Voice: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Subject: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (203)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 22:04:20 EST


This could also be called an evening with AT&T.

This evening, I tried to call a cellular roamer port in New Jersey.
The number was (201) 380-ROAM.  I have AT&T as my primary carrier.  I
live in CT, area code 203.  Time after time, upon dialing the number,
all I got was 'Your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check
the number and try again..  203-2T'.  I was beginning to think I had
the wrong port number until I tried 10222.  Bingo! Call went right
through.  So, I thought AT&T had a misprogrammed switch in CT.  So I
called the long distance operator and tried to inform her.  She tried
the number and got right through, but then she was in Albany, NY.  She
also called an operator in NJ, and the number went right through.  I
had a tough time convincing her that the problem was getting from CT
to NJ and that MCI worked.  For the record, she said 'Well, use MCI
then'! Honest!

Finally she called her supervisor, who seemed to comprehend a bit more
about unprogrammed switches and unrecognized prefixes.  She said that
that prefix was owned by a private company (anyone know who?) and may
not be recognized by everyone.  She then tried to put me in touch with
someone in long distance repair.  The first place she called, she got
the run around :-) They told her she shouldn't be calling there.
Finally she was able to put me in touch with long distance repair, who
seemed to take it in stride.  They just took down the details and said
they would investigate.  When? Who knows.  I wonder how many more
places cannot dial (201) 380-ROAM via AT&T?


Seng-Poh Lee   <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 06:45:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ronald Kushner)
Organization: Sycom Direct
Subject: CLASS Services Interfering With Other Custom Calling Services


I really have a gripe with the Callback feature. It has radically
changed the way my Custom Calling features work and the way the line
in general works. I can no longer flash off a misdialed call (takes a
2.5 second onhook to clear if its ringing), I can no longer flash off
if I mess up in a dialing sequence when trying to set call-forwarding
(ie: I dial 286 instead of 268 and then try to flash to reset dial
tone, it takes a 2.5 second onhook), I can no longer use *72 to
activate call forwarding -- it makes me use 72#, and its not as fast
in picking up on a 72# <number> in my autodialer; *72 <number> worked
fine. I used to have Premier service years ago and 72# was illegal on
this service. It is hard learning a new way to program something --
silly isn't it?  I have a beeper and use the voice mail as my
answering machine, I'm so used to *72 because I used it everyday for
seven years. Even myself, hitting 72# I have to wait for the stutter
dialtone to become solid before dialing, its just not an autodialer
problem, I'm too quick myself.

I think I would have an easier time adjusting to 72# if I didn't use
*67, *69, and *70 all the time. 1172 doesn't even work if you can
believe that!

If I call a busy number a flash no longer hangs up, it gives me a
three-way dialtone that you can not dial on. This is really irritating
to have something radically change when you order one little service.
Anyone else have a simular experience with radical changes in Custom
Calling services when ordering a CLASS service? *69 doesn't even work
on three way calling, which is really stupid. It works at a friend's
house when she's on the phone and gets a call waiting call, she can
call them back on three way.

Its irritating enough for me to want to cancel the callback service.
I'll give telco a chance to address my concerns, but I get the feeling
they will blow me off. I had a problem when this DMS-100 was new in
1986 with three-way calling never clearing the line when I hung up on
it. I could have ten five hour calls to a busy number I was redialing
in California on three way (with Allnet, remember they used to bill
for a call if it was over x number of seconds, even when busy). It
took three years of moaning and complaining to get this problem fixed.


C-UseNet V0.55c
Ronald Kushner
P.O. Box 353
Sterling Heights, MI  48311-0353
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: One of the changes people have to get used to with
any special service which uses a switchhook flash in the sequence is
that flashing no longer will clear the line as before. Three way
calling is the main culprit here. But I am surprised it is taking you
that long to clear the line when in the middle of a misdialed number.
IBT has it set up so you cannot access three-way until after the first
call has at least gotten set up. That is, during the dialing of
digits, a flash is taken as a hangup. It is only taken to mean a flash
when the first call is in progress. *69 should work on three way calls
as a response to a call waiting signal not answered unless by chance
the number itself is not reachable through Callback (that is, out of
LATA or somehow unidentifiable by your CO). Then *69 won't work under
any conditions.  As for 72# vs. *72 or 1172, it sounds to me like you
could be getting some centrex features (Premier service?) on the line.
When I had Starline from IBT, we had to use 72# instead of *72, but we
could dial straight through the stutter tone without waiting. You
might want to ask the Business Office exactly what all is on your
line; the features by name, etc. You might be surprised.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 01:15:14 PST
From: Nigel Roberts  26-Feb-1992 1007 <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Win Customers and Influence People


The following item is taken from Monday's {Guardian}. The same story
also appeared in a number of other British newspapers on Monday.


BRITISH TELECOM FAILS TO ENGAGE ITS WATCHDOG

 -----------------------
 Financial Staff
 -----------------------

When OFTEL, the telephone watchdog, asked British Telecom for a new
switchboard, it received a swift reply: sorry, but we can't supply
it in time.

OFTEL, the Office of Telecommunications, had invited quotations from
five contractors, including BT's rival, Mercury. The department needs
a new switchboard to cater for up to 350 extensions at its base in
Ludgate Hill, central London. OFTEL says the system must be installed
by the end of March.

A spokesman for OFTEL said: "We have just had a note from British
Telecom, saying that they cannot do the job in the time we wanted. We
want to replace the switchboard -- it's not a massive system."

A spokesman for British Telecom said: "We would treat OFTEL like we
would treat any other customer. The time taken to install a system depends
very much on the individual job."

A spokesman for Mercury said it could do the job within the time span.

                           ---------

Nigel Roberts   [phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Elevator Phone Spooked Man
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 12:47:31 MST


Seen in the {Calgary Herald}, Jan 26, 1992.

Canadian Press, Edmonton

Somewhere in this city, there's a man who was nearly driven crazy by a
security telephone in an elevator that automatically dialed his home
number each time it rose past the fifth floor.

Every time the man picked up the phone, there was silence on the other
end.

After receiving persistent calls from the elevator's malfunctioning
phone, the man thought someone was out to get him, says Phil Brooks,
security manager for Edmonton Telephones Corp.

"The elevator was in a hotel, so you can imagine how many times that
would go off when it passes the fifth floor." The man was relieved
when the city-owned phone utility traced the calls to the elevator.


Steven Leikeim
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Calgary    Calgary, Alberta


[Moderator's Note: Did anyone say why this was occurring?  PAT]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nynex, Vintage 1980 or 1970?
Date: Wed 26 Feb 1992 15:11 -0500


I got the diskettes for Nynex Northeast Access.  The service is
actually Minitel with Nynex Northeast Access as one of the gatewayed
services.  It is a repeat of the earlier Infolook serivce except with
some more colors.  The service itself predates the concept of a
personal computer and is tuned for slow terminals (2400bps) for slow
people with keys like [next] and [send].  F10 is the help key and F1
is the Index key, for example.  Far from the developing PC standards.

Luckily I was able to run it in a DOS window so that I didn't have to
give up my entire system to the service.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #173
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16068;
          27 Feb 92 4:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04040
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 27 Feb 1992 01:52:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12387
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 27 Feb 1992 01:52:18 -0600
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 01:52:18 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #174

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Feb 92 01:52:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 174

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Review: Telecomunications Magazine - February, 1992 Issue (Jack Decker)
    Telecom Manufacturing in Montreal (Nigel Allen)
    Silly AT&T ROA Commercial! (Toby Nixon)
    Problem With Panasonic Phone (Roger Cornelius)
    Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland (Jason Childers)
    Name Game in the CIS (Jason Childers)
    Caller-ID Company (John Huffman)
    CLID to a PBX; Alternatives to ISDN PRA? (Francois Truchon)
    Exactly What Was Carterfone? (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Credit Verification Hints Needed (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 16:09:50 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Review: Telecommunications Magazine - February, 1992 Issue


I've been getting {Telecommunications Magazine} for a while now, and
generally there's not a whole lot in it that's of any real interest to
me.  This month (February, 1992) was an exception.  There were several
articles and news items that might be of more than passing interest to
readers of the Digest.  Here's a brief synopsis of some of those
items:

* US Sprint to provide commercialized Internet service.  According to
the article, there are two major players in this field -- Advanced
Network and Services (ANS, the creation of IBM, MCI, and Merit), and
the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX, which includes Performance
Systems International, UUNET Technologies, and General Atomics).  US
Sprint has joined the latter organization as of January 2, 1992.  This
means that MCI and Sprint are in the two opposing camps.  The article
gives further details on Sprint's participation in the project,
marketing and availability, etc. (pg. 7)

* "The New York Public Service Commission has opened the door to the
unbundling of basic phone services under its jurisdiction.  The move
will place both New York and Chicago at the vanguard of regulatory
progress in the area of local exchange competition."  (pg. 7) Wonder
if that means that Pat can get local dial tone from someone other than
Illinois Bell soon?

* McCaw Cellular, Oracle to Develop Data Broadcast - the idea is
apparently to develop and test new high-speed (56 kbps to 2Mpbs) data
broadcasting technology.  Experimental trials will likely be in the
1.85 to 1.99 GHz band.  (pg. 11)

* A news brief entitled "'Shotgun' callers beware" reports that on
November 7 the Senate approved two bills that would protect us from
the telesleaze (my words ... actually, the bills address "unwanted
telemarketing and automated solicitation calls").  The bills are
S.1410 and S.1462, and the latter prohibits the making of unsolicited
automated marketing calls to homes, emergency phones, cellular phones,
and paging systems, and also addresses "junk faxes." (p. 17)

* A feature article by Alfred C. Sikes, chairman of the FCC, where he
shares his views on various regulatory issues including ONA, local
exchange competition, long distance, marketplace fairness, and network
reliability.  The comments on local competition are very interesting,
and would lead me to believe that the FCC is getting ready to look at
the issue seriously.  Initially they'll be focusing on special access,
but Mr. Sikes adds that "we are also seeking further information on
switched access, and expanded interconnection opportunities with local
telephone facilities are likely to enlarge the universe of customers
who can be served by the new competitive entrants and the scope of
phone company offerings subject to competition."  (article starts on
pg. 19)

* A feature article by Royce J. Holland, president and CEO of
Metropolitan Fiber Systems, entitled "Competitive Local
Communications: The New Landscape."  If you are among those who think
local competition can come none too soon, this article holds out the
hope that it may indeed happen in the '90's.  One interesting
statistic in the article is that although the local phone companies
claim they are losing billions of dollars to bypass, competitive
access providers actually have a market share of less that 0.2 percent
of the $90 billion local communications market.  (starts on pg. 23)

One paragraph from the article may be of particular interest to Digest
readers:

"Of equal significance [to recent actions by the FCC and New York
Public Service Commission], Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee
recently introduced a bill before the House Commerce and Energy
Committee that would require further local tariff unbundling, number
portability, and market share tests as the quid pro quo for BOC entry
into content-based information services in their own service
territories.  Terry Barnich, chairman of the Illinois Commerce
Commission, proposed a telecommunications free-trade zone in downtown
Chicago, where regulatory barriers to entry would be removed for all
local communications services.  The Cooper Bill and the Barnich
Proposal are significant because the benefits of local competition
would be extended to residential as well as business customers, in
effect creating a competitive local environment for a broad range of
services and customers.  Although the regulatory events of last year
are promising, perhaps even a harbinger of things to come, the forces
of local competition today still face significant regulatory
barriers."

* A feature article on the Future of the Public Switched Network by
Kent F.  Foster, president of GTE telephone operations group. (starts
on pg. 29)

* A special supplement entitled "Global Internet", which among other
things contains articles on "The significance and Impact of the
Commercial Internet" and "Scenarios for Internet Commercialization".

* An article entitled "New Frontiers in Wireless Communications",
which talks about cellular, public packet radio, and personal
communications networks.  A table provides a comparison of five
different types of PCN handsets (frequency, power, methods of
operation, etc.).  (starts on pg. 65)

This is by far the most interesting issue of this magazine that I've
seen to date.  I think many university libraries carry
{Telecommunications}, so you may want to check there if you don't
receive it personally.  Note that I get the North American Edition --
if you live elsewhere in the world, I have no idea if the same
articles appear in your edition, or whether they're on the same pages.


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

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Telecom Manufacturing in Montreal
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


The Montreal Urban Community ran a full-page advertisement in
{Telecommunications} magazine suggesting that telecommunications
manufacturers consider locating in Montreal. (The MUC is a
metropolitan municipal government which includes the City of Montreal
and the other municipalities on the island of Montreal. Think of it as
a county government.)

The ad says that Montreal's "well-established, growing electronics and
telecommunications industry is now home to 470 companies, with a
skilled workforce 29,000 strong." As well, Montreal-area universities
do a lot of telecommunications research, much of it funded by Northern
Telecom, and Universite du Quebec's INRS research institute has a
pretty impressive telecommunications lab on Nuns' Island.

While interesting things are happening in the high-technology sector,
low-technology manufacturing is running into severe problems
throughout Canada and in Montreal in particular. (The ad doesn't
mention this.) The decline of low-tech manufacturing can be blamed on
obsolete Montreal factories, the elimination of tariff barriers and
access to lower-cost labor outside Canada.

I was born in Montreal, although I now live in Toronto.

If you would like more information about investing in Montreal, call
[phone] (voice) or fax [phone].


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Silly AT&T ROA Commercial!
Date: 26 Feb 92 13:14:37 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Normally I ignore IXC commercials on TV, but this weekend for some
reason I paid attention to AT&T's advertisement for Reach Out America.
I'm talking about the one that has the husband call for information,
turn the phone over to the wife who orders the service and the husband
says "Who do we call?" at the end -- you know the one I'm talking
about.

What struck me is that there is a silly inconsistency in this ad, and
I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed it.  The AT&T telemarketer
asks the guy to "Tell me about how you use long distance", and the guy
says "Well, we make long distance calls all day long."  But then a few
seconds later we see, a couple of different times, a shot of their
phone bill -- and their total AT&T charge is $11.26.

$11.26?  and they "make long distance calls all day long"?  Give me a
break!


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, but he didn't say how they pay for those long
distance calls 'all day long'. Maybe they are husband and wife phreaks,
and they use those phunny boxes or something. The eleven dollars
represents the ones they had to pay for. :) PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Cornelius)
Subject: Problem With Panasonic Phone
Organization: Personal System Computing :-) Gulfport, FL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 19:51:27 GMT


I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone two line speakerphone model KX-T3155.
This phone requires three AA batteries to operate the line-in-use
lights and the LCD display.  One line is my voice line and the other
is my data line.

My data-line is almost constantly in use, causing the in-use light for
that line to stay on.  This in turn causes the batteries to drain
fairly rapidly.  When the batteries get low, the LCD display goes
blank and the keypad on the phone completely locks up.  There's no way
to dial without replacing the batteries.  This is a pain in the butt.

Is there any easy trick to disable the in-use light for the data line
so as to conserve the batteries?  I've taken the thing apart and
prefer not to do anything to the internal circuitry.  I also prefer to
leave both phones cords attached to the phone, i.e. unplugging the
data line from the phone isn't an option.

I appreciate any suggestions.


Roger Cornelius   [e-mail]   ...!uunet!sherpa!rac

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

Date: 26 Feb 92 11:23:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jason Childers)
Subject: Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland


    Are there any Bitnet or Internet channels (stations?) going to
Aberdeen University in Aberdeen, Scotland?  And are there any in the
Dublin (Baile Atha Cliath) area, such as to Trinity University or
University College as well as others?  It would be greatly appreciated
if someone could point me in the right direction, since over here at
U. of Dayton, everyone just give me blank looks just for asking for a
directory where I could look for one.  Thank you so much.



Jason Childers

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

Date: 26 Feb 92 11:50:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jason Childers)
Subject: Name Game in the CIS


Now that the Soviet Union (USSR, CCCP) is non-existent, the republics
have decided to change the names of some of their cities back to their
pre-Soviet titles.  Here is a list of names which {Time Magazine}
published last month, some of which are stated in the Telecom Archives
file ZONE.7 as having city codes:


Old name            New Name        Code

Leninakan, Armenia        Kumayri
Kirovabad, Azerbaijan        Gyandzha
Minsk, Byelorussia        Mensk, Belarus        7 017
Gegechkori, Georgia        Martvili
Makharadze, Georgia        Ozurgeti
Ordzhonikidze, Georgia        Kharagouli
Tsakhaya, Georgia        Senaki
Tsulukidze, Georgia        Khoni
Frunze, Kirghizia         Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan     7 331
Rybachye, Kirghizia        Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan
Moldavia            Moldova
Andropov, Russia        Rybinsk
Brezhnev, Russia        Naberezhnye Chelny
Chernenko, Russia        Sharypovo
Georgiu-Dezh, Russia        Liski
Gorky, Russia            Nizhni Novgorod        7 831
Kirov, Russia            Vyatka          7 833
Kuibyshev, Russia        Samara
Kalinin                Tver
Leningrad, Russia        St Petersburg        7 812
Ordzhonikidze, Russia        Vladikarkaz
Sverdlovsk, Russia        Yekaterinburg        7 343
Ustinov, Russia            Izhevsk
Voroshilovgrad, Russia        Lugansk
Zagorsk, Russia            Sergiev Posad
Lvov, The Ukraine        Lviv, Ukraine        7 032
Zhdanov, The Ukraine        Mariupol, Ukraine


Any edits and amendments would be appreciated.

Does anybody know if Kaliningrad (the little oblast north of Poland
and west of either Estonia or Lithuania (sorry, don't have a map next
to me)) is going back to being known as Ko:ningsburg?


Jason Childers

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

From: [e-mail] (John Huffman)
Subject: Caller-ID Company
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 03:33:45 GMT


There is a company called International Micropower Corp.

The address is:

3305 W. Spring Mountain Road, Suite 60
Las Vegas, NV 89102

They claim to be the world's only supplier of hobby kits for Caller-ID.
They come 39.95 for the kit or 45.50 for an assembled and tested
version. They also sell software and other parts for Caller-ID boxes.
They also sell books about Caller-ID data formats, waveforms,
frequencies and other things.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 18:44:25 EST
From: [e-mail] (F Truchon)
Subject: CLID to a PBX; Alternatives to ISDN PRA?


Hi everyone,

I'm looking for info on how to configure PBX access trunks so we can
obtain the CLID (Calling Line ID). We have a NT Meridian 1 (SL1) to
which we can feed ISDN PRA. This would definitely give us the CLID.
The problem is that we don't know when (and if) ISDN will be available
on the CO side so I'm looking for alternatives to ISDN. I've heard
something about a T1 interface that can transmit the CLID/ANI, can
anyone comment? How about a CCS7 trunk, is that possible at all?

Can someone explain the difference between CLID and ANI. Are they just
two different names for the same thing or is there more to it?

Thanks,


Francois Truchon
Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Canada
uucp: bnrmtl![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: CLID and ANI are not the same thing even though the
result they yield (delivery of the calling number to the called party)
is the same. I'm assuming others will write you in email with more
specifics and help for your application.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 10:15:02 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exactly What Was Carterfone?


Could someone explain the term "Carterfone" clearly and concisely?

josh  ([e-mail])

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Credit Verification Hints Needed
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 2:29:11 EST


[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
X-Original-Subject: Re: AT&T No Longer Billing For Bogus 800

Gordon Burditt included this text:

>> I have been instrumental in setting up some 800 number ordering
>> systems that are able to use credit flexibility that has heretofore
>> never existed. One of the key elements is the verification of the
>> simple matter of the caller being who he claims to be. If the

and continued ...

> If you use the ANI information for verification only, (and later
> tracking down of deadbeats) and sufficient billing information comes

Could the person who wrote the quoted text concerning verification
schemes using 800 ANI info please email [e-mail] to
discuss this further. In fact, anybody with experience in this area
may do so.

I am currently going around in circles since the carriers don't seem
to really know what they offer. Strange :)


[e-mail] (John Boteler)
NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE  Club updates, events, and info

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #174
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23537;
          28 Feb 92 2:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24677
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:09:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19242
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:09:19 -0600
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:09:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #175

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Feb 92 00:09:18 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 175

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (John R. Covert)
    Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic (John Boteler)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Ronald T. Crocker)
    Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS? (John Rice)
    Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon (Bill Nickless)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls From Payphones) (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: Phones Rattle and Hum in U2 Ticket Rush (Carl Moore)
    Re: CLASS Serivces Interfering With Other Custom Call Services (S Forrette)
    Re: Silly AT&T ROA Commercial! (Max Rochlin)
    Re: Silly AT&T ROA Commercial! (Robert J. Woodhead)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 05:24:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> roscom![e-mail]
(Monty Solomon) writes:

> A couple of months ago I was on a flight from Boston to SFO on United
> and had a long delay before departure.  There was a lawyer sitting
> behind me who was having several lengthly cellular phone conversations
> with parties in California and was asked by a flight attendant to
> terminate the conversation so that we could take off.  His cellular
> phone was somehow interferring with the plane's communication and/or
> navigation systems.

HIS cellular phone? It's interesting that the flight attendants never
seem to stop anyone who is using the "Airfone" facilities on board! Of
course, the airline is getting a cut of the profits from Airfone. And
they're not getting zip from the lawyer's own phone, esconced, I
presume, in his briefcase.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:16:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Allen Gwinn) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> roscom![e-mail]
> (Monty Solomon) writes:

> A couple of months ago I was on a flight from Boston to SFO on United
> and had a long delay before departure.  There was a lawyer sitting
> behind me who was having several lengthly cellular phone conversations
> with parties in California and was asked by a flight attendant to
> terminate the conversation so that we could take off.  His cellular
> phone was somehow interferring with the plane's communication and/or
> navigation systems.

> Speaking as a pilot, I have never seen a cellular phone that
> interferes with any aircraft navigation equipment.  My guess is that
> they told him that he was interfering with communications just to get
> him to hang up.


  Also speaking as a pilot ... cell phones operate in the 800-900mhz
spectrum.  Radar Transponders operate around 1000mhz and have fairly
broad banded receivers. It's not inconcievable that the phone was
getting into the transponder.

  Not to mention the fact that it's illegal to use a cell phone from
an aircraft in the air (be the aircraft commercial or private -- still
illegal).


John Rice         K9IJ     MY opinion only, no one elses...Especially
[e-mail]      Not my Employers....
(708)-940-9000 - (work)    (708)-438-7011 - (home)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 00:38:03 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


John R. Covert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The case with Cuba has nothing unique about it.  It is just as illegal
> for someone in Canada to route calls from the U.S. to Cuba as it would
> be for someone in the U.S. to route calls from Canada to England
> (saving about $1.00 per minute, I might add).

This seems a little hard to believe.  The current prime-time rate to
the UK from Canada is 1.65/1.10 (first minute/additional minutes).
Night rates are 1.16/.77.  These are "rack rates" -- if you deal
directly with Teleglobe and have a minimum monthly billing of $500,
the prime time rate is about .68/minute.

Add to this the cost of the Canada/US call and it's very hard to see
how anyone is going to save $1/minute unless US/UK rates are .65/.10 .
And of course these are CAD figures -- expressed in USD they would be
about 15% less.

Teleglobe recently had an intriguing set of ads.  The first said that
Teleglobe has the lowest overseas rates in North America.  There is a
little chart showing rates for AT&T, U.S. Sprint, and Teleglobe for a
"3.5 minute business call" to various countries.

A week or so later the same chart appeared but with the heading
changed to "some of the lowest rates ...".


Tony H.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 02:55:21 PST
From: John R. Covert  26-Feb-1992 0551 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


I'm glad to hear that the the current prime-time rate from Canada to
the U.K.  is now 1.65/1.10.  The last time I priced it (about four
years ago), it was over $2.00/minute.  From the U.S. it's 1.44/.94.

Add 15% tax to the Canadian price, and 3%-8%, depending on the state,
to the U.S. price.


/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 13:02:39 GMT


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

> Now, if we are dealing with FidoNet and sharing of expenses by
> SysOps: Are you or would you then support the notion that a FidoNet
> HUB must resign him/herself to paying business rates simply because
> he/she is compensated for the cost of forwarding mail into FidoNet at
> whatever cost?

Yes. People who charge ("sharing costs") to forward Usenet do.


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

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 2:33:37 EST


I have heard rumors of the new Panasonic 7000 series and others about
the 'demise' of the KX-T616.

May I assume that the entire line of 308, 616, and 1232 is going to go
bye-bye and be replaced by a single 7000 series KSU which you plug up
with cards until you reach your desired goal?

I really like the (formerly) current line of three, so I hope this
doesn't screw up a good thing.

Please elaborate on this as much as possible, as I wish to be an
informed buyer very soon now, and this info has put the brakes on.


Thanx!

[e-mail] (John Boteler)
NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE  Club updates, events, and info

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 09:29:40 CST
From: motcid!gold![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Ronald T. Crocker)
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 15:29:32 GMT


One of the interesting side-effects of having passive sensors is that
when traffic is completely stopped (as it was when we had 8" of snow
between 1 and 5 pm on day a couple of years ago), the system reports
that there are no delays!


Ron Crocker
Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS?
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:07:40 GMT


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

> Also, I would like to ask the readership of this fine journal of
> ideas, if any of them have and would be able to supply me with a list
> of area codes, still on X-Bar or SxS switching.

    There is no such list of "area codes". All area codes are a mix of
switch technology, from Digital to SXS and all in between. At this
point of time, I doubt that you would find an SXS switch in any Urban
area with greater than 5000 population. They still exist, but mostly
in sparse rural locations with fewer than 1000 subscribers/switch.
X-Bar is about the same. Since the FCC mandated equal access,
electro-mechanical switching has been replaced by digital in most
areas of any size, since the economics of adding equal access hardware
to electrical-mechanical switches is prohibitively expensive.


John Rice         K9IJ    "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     MY opinion only, no one elses...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   Not my Employers....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Nickless)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Published in Cartoon
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 04:08:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert 23-Feb-1992 1626) writes:

> If 100,000 readers called it to see what it was, I suspect it cost
> Jerry's campaign on the order of $10,000.  Do you think it got him
> that much in contributions?

WBEZ, the local NPR radio station here in Chicago called that number
last Friday night.  According to the operator that was answering the
phones, they were indeed doing quite well.

(For Chicago listeners -- WBEZ, 91.5 FM, 9 PM Friday night is the Wild
Room, where a couple of the local public radio personalities have an
hour of airtime to do with as they choose.  Quite eclectic, but often
fun to hear.)


Bill Nickless  System Support Group  <[e-mail]>  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 17:31:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(tim gorman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) writes in TELECOM
> Digest V12 #167:

>> Why is it that the E911 system cannot use the callers number as an
>> index to determine which agency to route the call to?

> The Moderator notes:

>> [Moderator's Note: I don't know why IBT can't do it. I have heard of
>> other places where calls to 911 can be sorted down to the last four
>> digits using a data base. In fact we've had articles here about it,
>> although the implication was the data base was not very accurate much
>> of the time, leading to delays in firemen arriving, etc.  PAT]

> The software feature to provide this ability using ESN's (Emergency
> Switch Numbers, I think) is expensive. Switches are normally designed
> to route on called number not calling number. Special software is
> needed for this.

It SOUNDS simple enough -- when we dial "1" now, the switch knows
whether to deliver the call to AT&T, MCI, or XYZ depending on a
predefined carrier choice; why not similar "choices" when we dial
"911"?

> Even worse is the administrative cost to keep the routing data base
> updated. Telephone company systems are established to identify the
> wire center associated with an address, not an emergency agency.
> Telephone numbers are assigned by wire center not emergency agency so
> they cannot be used to differentiate. Thus, in order to add a new line
> someone has to spend time working with the governmental agencies to
> establish where calls should be routed. Then someone has to put this
> in the switch which I am not sure our mechanized systems can handle,
> so you get more administrative costs.

When an account is established, the Telco knows the service address;
Town lines do not often change, and the delivery point for each town
(PSAP) would not change often either; ("slamming" by rival emergency
service providers should also be minimal :-) There are about six towns
on one exchange nearby where 911 confusion is a problem, so setting up
for at MOST six emergency service providers would be like setting up
for six long distance carriers.  The towns would be likely to
cooperate in ironing out bugs in a scheme like this, whereas the town
with 911 now does not want to (nor should it have to) answer calls for
the other five towns on an ongoing basis.

> Bottom line, most emergency agencies don't want to pay the rates for
> this capability. Because of political concerns, they also don't do a
> good job of coordinating among political entities. With the PSAP
> equipment available today, it really should be easy to install a
> remote printer at the other PSAP to print the call details out on, and
> a ringdown voice circuit to bridge the two agencies resulting in
> delays of only seconds.

The Telco's solution here is to try to sell an overblown, statewide
E911 system which would add a level of complexity, personnel, and
expense to the existing systems here.  Could this be another reason
that they deride simpler solutions?


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 9:50:22 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phones Rattle and Hum in U2 Ticket Rush


This is getting outside the range of telecom, but I'll take issue with
"haven't heard the term U2 since the Second World War".  There was the
U2 incident (in 1960), in which Francis Gary Powers was shot down over
the USSR.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 11:52:52 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASS Serivces Interfering With Other Custom Calling Services
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Even myself, hitting 72# I have to wait for the stutter
> dialtone to become solid before dialing, its just not an autodialer
> problem, I'm too quick myself.

> [Moderator's Note:
> When I had Starline from IBT, we had to use 72# instead of *72, but we
> could dial straight through the stutter tone without waiting.

Regarding being able to dial through the stutter dialtone, my
experience has been that this works on a 1AESS and 5ESS, but not on a
DMS-100.  I think your different experiences are related more to your
switch types rather than the options you have enabled.  Also, the
stuttering on the DMS-100 is actually the busy signal frequency pair,
whereas it's really the dialtone sound on the ESS's.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: gupta![e-mail] (Max Rochlin)
Subject: Re: Silly AT&T ROA Commercial!
Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 20:22:29 GMT


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

> What struck me is that there is a silly inconsistency in this ad, and
> I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed it.  The AT&T telemarketer
> asks the guy to "Tell me about how you use long distance", and the guy
> says "Well, we make long distance calls all day long."  But then a few
> seconds later we see, a couple of different times, a shot of their
> phone bill -- and their total AT&T charge is $11.26.

> $11.26?  and they "make long distance calls all day long"?  Give me a
> break!

The reason for this is that, according to the comercial, "If you make
more than eleven dollars of long distance calls ROA can help save you
money."

Now lets see, it costs $6.00 to switch to ATT, so if they average
11.25 a month in calls it'll take this couple TWO YEARS to realize any
savings using ROA.  Hmmmm.


[e-mail]     Max J. Rochlin     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Silly AT&T ROA Commercial!
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 02:39:01 GMT


[e-mail] (Toby Nixon) writes:

> $11.26?  and they "make long distance calls all day long"?  Give me a
> break!

Call up AT&T and demand to be given the "all-day-long for 11.26 a
month" ROA plan!  When they say no, threaten to go to the FCC, BBB,
CIA, NSA and LMNOP with your complaints.  Could be worth a laugh ...


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #175
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25367;
          28 Feb 92 3:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06177
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:51:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:51:30 -0600
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:51:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #176

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Feb 92 00:51:28 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 176

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (John Higdon)
    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Steve Forrette)
    Re: `00': A Single European International Dialing Code (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Re: Problem With Panasonic Phone (Tim Irvin)
    Re: Texas Politics and the Phone (Bill Warner)
    Re: Caller-ID Company (Lane A. Robert)
    Re: Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 01:51 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Now come on folks, is this really that hard to get right?  I truely
> believe that the wording that Sprint and MCI use will only lead to
> further dialing mistakes by those unfamiliar with area code splits.

For the past month or so, I have been involved with the various long
distance companies on a major scale. Not only have I been working with
the various technical departments at those companies, but have heard
countless anecdotes from administrators for some larger business
installations.

After all these years, and with all the hoopla, there is still really
only one long distance company. I am talking here about real
industrial long distance; not the service you use at home to talk to
Aunt Minnie.  Residence and small business IXC service is something
anyone with a switch can provide.

Sprint and MCI STILL treat long distance service as if it were cans of
tomatoes. If you are a major MCI customer, you can wait days to get a
technical problem fixed. In the meantime you are told how the problem
is at your end. Sprint cannot get its billing straight to save its
life.

This is not to say that AT&T is perfect. To be honest, AT&T is not
really interested in your company unless you can fill at least two T1s
with constant traffic. When you get to that size, then you start
getting the famous red carpet technical treatment. One of my clients
has finally broken that threshold and has given MCI the boot. In
short, the company outgrew MCI and became AT&T material.

What was wrong with MCI? Constant outages, for one. The entire T-span
would go down for days. Another problem was call setup time. It
typically took more than six seconds to set up a call once the
outpulsing into the MCI trunk was completed. (The same calls made on
the new AT&T trunks take less than 0.5 second to complete.) By the
time extra technicians were paid overtime to work with MCI on a
regular basis to fix problems, any savings were more than swallowed
up.

Sprint may be better than MCI technically, but its billing is so bogus
that until that company can convince me that it has its act together,
I will never recommend it again to a client. It has been years since
people started noticing this problem and it has never been fixed.

This past month has convinced me that AT&T's competition has still got
some ways to go before it can be taken seriously. For small
applications (say one T-span), both Sprint and MCI can greatly
undercut AT&T. They are both very hungry and will eat the T1 costs
even if your business only uses several channels in the span. AT&T
will not even talk to you if you are not ready to pack all twenty-four
channels.

But when you finally reach this size, then there is no other choice
than AT&T -- at least not if you rely on your telephone service. This
is interesting considering how AT&T's competition is constantly
reminding us of the fact that their networks are the "latest and
greatest".  Indeed, a week ago I visited the MCI switch in Rialto, CA.
This is the crossroads of the network in the west and handles all of
the area traffic from GTE. (Pac*Bell traffic is handled at the Compton
switch.)  It was all very impressive and much more modern "looking"
than the 4E I visited at the AT&T facility in San Francisco.

But results are what count. If you are a major customer and want
reliable, fast, and accurately-billed service, you have one choice.
And please note: I am only speaking of major business service here. I
am sure you Sprint and MCI residence and small business customers are
very happy. And why not? Providing service at this level is VERY easy
to do.  But twenty-four or more dedicated trunks for business? That is
another matter, apparently.


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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 11:44:20 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I think the wording of the recordings is quite indicative of the
> general character of the IXC's:

> AT&T: "The area code for the number you have dialed has been changed
> to 510."  Sprint, MCI: "The area code you have dialed has been changed
> to 510."

I think this is the first time I've followed up on my own article.  It
has been pointed out to me that I was unfair in criticizing the latter
IXC's for not having accurate intercepts.  This is obviously the
result of the pre-divestiture advantage that AT&T enjoys.  If it
weren't for this advantage, the other carriers would be able to have
accurate intercepts as well!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what divestiture has to do
with someone speaking into a microphone and saying one phrase or
another.  Can't they record whatever message they like?  Or did I edit
out a smiley in your message somewhere in error?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Re: `00': A Single European International Dialing Code
Date: 27 Feb 92 18:27:5 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (Drew Radtke @ University of Bradford, UK)
once wrote ...

> There are currently seven different international codes within the EC:
> Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portual and Luxembourg already use
> the '00' code. All other member states use different codes: 009 in
> Denmark, 07 in Spain, 19 in France, 010 in the UK, 16 in Ireland and
> 09 in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands have already moved their other stuff away from 00, and
they could start using 00 soon (and they will).

Time recording was 002, weather 003, business office 004, mobile-operator
(long time ago) was 005, internal test numbers were at 006X, 007 was
customer service and information was 008. Other (more obsurce) ones
like telex-service, and postal info were at 001X. They were all moved
to the 06 exchange, whcih handles all special traffic, including
pagers and mobile phones, keeping them from wasting POTS numbering
space.

Intereting note: 008 (information) used to be free from payphones,
even though metering pulses were generated. So all the phones know not
to take money when 008 is dialed. What happens if 00 becomes interna-
tional access?

Simple, we can make free calls to Inmarsat (87X) for months before TPC
gets around to fixing the bug. I'm willing to bet a lot of money
they'll forget!  Inmarsat calls cost 18 guilders (about US$ 10) a
minute!


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Problem With Panasonic Phone
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 10:50:17 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V12 #174, [e-mail] (Roger Cornelius) writes:

> I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone two line speakerphone model KX-T3155.
> This phone requires three AA batteries to operate the line-in-use
> lights and the LCD display.  One line is my voice line and the other
> is my data line.

> My data-line is almost constantly in use, causing the in-use light for
> that line to stay on.  This in turn causes the batteries to drain
> fairly rapidly.  When the batteries get low, the LCD display goes
> blank and the keypad on the phone completely locks up.  There's no way
> to dial without replacing the batteries.  This is a pain in the butt.

> Is there any easy trick to disable the in-use light for the data line
> so as to conserve the batteries?

I have this same phone (I think it is the same -- don't remember the
exact model number right now), and had the same problem.  I bought an
AC adapter and plugged the phone into the wall.  I left the batteries
in so if there was a power failure things still worked.

I didn't really have the problem of the keypad locking, but the
speaker phone wouldn't work and the LCD would go blank.

Hope that helps.


Tim Irvin

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Warner)
Subject: Re: Texas Politics and the Phone
Date: 27 Feb 92 12:43:36 EST
Organization: The Ohio Data Network


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mark Earle) writes:

> Ah, politics. Serious doubts are raised in my mind about privacy,
> etc. It seems these days that telco records of calls are all to easily
> obtainable if one has "clout". And they want to detail all calls with
> metered calling? I hope that doesn't come to pass!

It may not be as bad as this.  In Ohio, the Ohio Public Record Act
makes most records public information.  In the case of a phone bill,
it would be a public record as soon as the State of Ohio gets it.
Public Records, in most cases there are a few exceptions, are open for
inspection by anyone during regular working hours.  Copies can be
made, but the State can charge the requester for the State's cost to
make these copies.  So if the calls were long distance they would be
available to the public.

We, The State of Ohio Office of Telecommunications, often respond to
requests for the phone bills of various officials (Usually when they
are in the limelight for something.)

If the official has phone services directly from a phone company the
bills would still be public information but the official themselves
would be responsible to respond to the public records act request.

In the past, some elected officials would get "WATS" type services
that did not provide call details for this reason.  This is not
currently possible using the State of Ohio Phone Network (SONIC) since
we do our own long distance switching so we need the call detail to
bill back to the various agencies we serve.

Just an aside, if you ever have trouble getting information from the
State of Ohio or one of its subdivisions, the words "Public Records
Act" carry a tremendous weight.  For more information on Ohio's "right
to know" laws including the Sunshine Laws and Public Records Act
contact Ohio's Attourney General (614 466 4320) and and ask for the
"Yellow Book."  It is quite interesting reading!


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] (Robert, Lane A.)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Company
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert, Lane A.)
Organization: Univ. of SW Louisiana, Lafayette
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 20:28:11 GMT


[e-mail] (John Huffman) writes:

> There is a company called International Micropower Corp.

> The address is:

> 3305 W. Spring Mountain Road, Suite 60
> Las Vegas, NV 89102

> They claim to be the world's only supplier of hobby kits for
> Caller-ID.  They come 39.95 for the kit or 45.50 for an assembled and
> tested version. They also sell software and other parts for Caller-ID
> boxes.  They also sell books about Caller-ID data formats, waveforms,
> frequencies and other things.

I just bought one of their Caller-ID to RS-232 kits, so I thought that
the folks here might be interested in a brief review.  It was
delivered in about a week by first class US-snail, just as they
promised.  The kit contained sparse but sufficient documentation to
get it up and running, along with all necessary cables and connectors.
About the only thing not provided is a box to house it.

As kits go, it's not much of one as most of the parts are already
surface mounted to the (about 1" x 3") board.  All that was necessary
to finish the assembly was to mount an audio transformer, a crystal
(which oddly enough was not mentioned in the assembly instructions,
but it was easy enough to figure out where it went), and wires to
carry power and signals to and from the board.  Even so, I'd recommend
that anyone planning to purchase one of these buy it already
assembled.  The board is so cramped that it is difficult to get
everything soldered down without accidentally burning something.

It's designed to run off power derived from the receive data lead on
the RS-232 port plus a nine volt battery (not included, of course :-)
for a "start-up surge" at the beginning of each message.  They claim
that the battery will last for months, unless you have an RS-232 port
that doesn't supply at least -9 volts; then the battery will have to
run the whole thing and will last about 65 hours.  In this case you
could use a nine volt battery eliminator to run it.  I'm lucky enough
to have -12 volts available on my RS-232 port, so that's what I'm
using.  If using a battery, they also warn that turning the computer
off without removing the battery will cause the battery to discharge
rapidly.

So far it works like a champ.  It gives plenty of noise data on ringing
signal and loud voices, but the lead in to the Caller-ID signal is so
distinctive that it's easy to pick out from the hash.  Now I just have
to write some software to make intelligent use of the information it
gives.


Lane    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Looking For Information on Two Mystery Modems
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 02:56:14 -0800
From: "Maxime Taksar" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) writes:

> Just so nobody gets the wrong impression, I'm happy to help out when
> somebody has made a little effort himself, first.  But I see so many
> requests for documentation which is readily available from manufacturers
> that can be found with little effort.  Why would anybody expect a
> stranger to go to more trouble for them than they're willing to go to
> for themselves?

I figure this is pretty relevant, since quite a bit of the traffic on
this group is requests for 'ID' of some item of equipment.

I don't think, Mike, that anyone is asking you to do his research work
for him.  I think it's more of a 'by the way' request.

I know that if *I* had some sort of unusual telecom equipment, I would
ask on the net before doing serious research, mainly due to the fact
that it's quite likely that someone on this group would know what it
is just off-hand.  This way I don't spend several hours on something
that could be useless and is probably just a curiosity item for me
anyway.


Maxime Taksar    KC6ZPS     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 01:50:11 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland


> Are there any Bitnet or Internet channels (stations?) going to
> Aberdeen University in Aberdeen, Scotland?  And are there any in the
> Dublin (Baile Atha Cliath) area, such as to Trinity University or
> University College as well as others?  It would be greatly appreciated
> if someone could point me in the right direction, since over here at
> U. of Dayton, everyone just give me blank looks just for asking for a
> directory where I could look for one.  Thank you so much.

You might try, for starters, the Nutshell Handbook (published by
O'Reilly & Associates) _!%@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail
Addressing & Networks_.  It contains some interesting information
about various nets hooked up to the Internet.  You might want to start
off by talking to [e-mail] (Michael Walsh, University
College Dublin).  According to the book, his snailmail address is:

    Michael Walsh
    Computer Centre
    University College Dublin
    Belfield, Dublin 4
    IRELAND

voice:    [phone]

For Aberdeen University, you might want to email the Netserver on
JANET, the UK's Joint Academic NETwork, at [e-mail] with
the text GET JANET SITELIST.  Also, you may wish to send e-mail to
[e-mail].

This information is fairly stale -- about two years old.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #176
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27228;
          28 Feb 92 3:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16082
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 01:47:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21879
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 28 Feb 1992 01:46:52 -0600
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 01:46:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #177

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Feb 92 01:46:41 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 177

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Yet Another Omaha Telemarketer Busted! (Jack Winslade)
    USA Direct Automated (John R. Levine)
    United Telecom Changes its Name to Sprint (John R. Levine)
    Replacement Technology For Local Loop? (Joe Jesson)
    NET&T Won't Tariff New 10xxx Screening (Barton F. Bruce)
    Telecom Conference: Call for Participation (Rick Reed)
    Looking For Two-Wire Handset Vendor (Dave Pascoe)
    ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted (Jim Chen)
    Information Wanted on Cable and Telcos (Ronald R. Jarmon)
    Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Channel Access Protocol For Mobile Communications (Chamroeun Kchao)
    Information/Prices/Advice Sought on "Ring Leaders" (John Kelly)
    Flawed N.Y. Times Article (Carl Moore)
    CPNI Question (Kath Mullholand)
    Dial-a-Friend Was Lonely (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 22:58:39 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Yet Another Omaha Telemarketer Busted!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


(The time has come, the switchman said, to talk of many things.
 From telesleaze and fever trees, to grounds and tips and rings.  ;-)

According to the lead-off news story on television station WOWT in
Omaha, agents from the US Postal Service and FBI seized records from
National Distribution Center, a telemarketing firm located in the
Millard area of southwest Omaha.

According to WOWT reporters, the investigation focused on possible
mail fraud violations regarding travel packages promoted by the firm.

Melissa Cheatwood of the Postal Inspection Office stated on camera
that the firm sold travel packages redeemable by an unnamed travel
agency, and that customers found it difficult or impossible to obtain
the travel services without purchasing an 'upgrade'.  Postal
inspectors alleged that the 'upgrades' ranged from $1200 to $1500 per
person.

No arrests have been made at this time, and the firm is apparently
free to conduct business.  WOWT's anchor stated that representatives
of National Distribution Center refused to talk to them concerning the
investigation.

Well, that's the latest from America's Junk Call Capital.

As a humorous sidebar, a Nebraska State Senator has introduced a bill
to make it a crime to 'seriously annoy someone else by a course of
conduct on purpose'.  (From {Omaha World-Herald}, 2-27) Could that
possibly make telemarketing illegal ?????  <big obnoxious grin>


Good day!    JSW

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

Subject: USA Direct Automated
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 20:43:56 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that AT&T has automated their USA Direct service,
at least for calls from the United Kingdom.  Callers now get a robot
similar to the one used domestically at which you can dial the desired
number and calling card number.  Pulse dial callers fall through to a
live operator, and do so quickly since international circuits are
expensive.  The price is the same whether you dial or the operator
does.

The report mysteriously concludes: "The representative added that it
is not possible to place calls to countries other than the U.S. and
Canada where the call originates outside of the U.S."  Since when can
AT&T handle calls from third countries to Canada?


Regards,

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

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

Subject: United Telecom Changes its Name to Sprint
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 20:47:40 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


As promised, United Telecom is changing their name to Sprint Corp.,
reflecting the fact that Sprint now comprises the bulk of their
business.  They'll use the Sprint red diamond logo and their stock
symbol will change to FON.

Some UT subsidiaries will change their names to match, others such as
North Supply and their seven LECs won't but will add "A Sprint
Company" to their names.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Jesson)
Subject: Replacement Technology For Local Loop?
Date: 28 Feb 92 03:05:25 GMT
Organization: CERFnet


With all the recent interest in wireless communications, I was
somewhat surprised at a recent NCR meeting.  On display was an NCR
WaveLAN wireless network card.  No big deal, I thought, since wireless
Local Area Network cards are produced by several companies using
different wireless media.  Radio Frequency and infrared seem to be the
wireless media of choice with one limiting aspect -- coverage of one
room or, at most, a single office floor.

Since the WaveLAN product uses 902 - 928 MHz no-license band, I
assumed the one floor 100 foot limitation.

 Here is the surprise; a FIVE MILE distance between transmitter-receiver!!
 At 2 Mbps!! Real DX for a 250 Mw Digital System ...

I asked the NCR salesman to confirm this unusual claim.  He said a
"typical" distance in an enclosed office is 100 - 800 feet but, with
an optional antenna and direct line-of-sight path, five miles IS
reasonable.  He did not have info on the optional antenna.  I would
assume, at 902 Mhz, the size of the antenna has to be small (even a
directional multi-element yagi at 902 Mhz is really small).  Ethernet
(CSMA/CA) protocol with a low RF bit error rate of 10 exp -8 (at five
miles?).

Using spread spectrum and optional DES encryption, the 2 Mbps could
represent a T-1 data stream with some overhead bits (2 - 1.544 Mbps)
potentially as a Local Loop replacement or a no license repeater
system.  Since the antennas are directional and spread spectrum would
allow simultaneous transmissions over the same frequency band (with an
increase in noise level).  There are interesting applications and
security aspects for a wireless 2 Mbps, 250 Mw power, Spread Spectrum,
Differential Quadrature Phase Shift Keying Modulation (DQPSK) system.


Joseph E. Jesson       Address1: mhs!amoco![e-mail]
21414 W. Honey Lane    Address2: [e-mail]
Lake Villa, IL, 60046  Address3: [e-mail]
Telephone: (day) 312-856-3645 (eve) 708-356-6817

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NET&T Won't Tariff New 10xxx Screening
Date: 27 Feb 92 03:34:45 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


As has been mentioned here before, AT&T went to some considerable
trouble and expense to provide the software for a new kind of call
screening/blocking that would vastly simplify 10xxx compliance which
becomes required for many sites by March 16, a few weeks away.

AT&T wanted it to be LAW that such support be offered, but failed to
get their way.

AT&T *** G I V E S *** this software upgrade to the LECs for their 1A,
2B, and 5ESS COs, and certainly hoped that the LECs would offer it,
though probably NOT for free ...

With time running out, I sent copies of an AT&T consultant liasion
publication that detailed this new feature to an appropriate New
England Tel manager and asked when and how (e.g. USOC code or
whatever) I would be able to order this.

Below is the meat of a letter to me dated Feb 24, 1992:

  "This letter follows up my phone message of February 3, 1992.
  I have reviewed the information you provided regarding the
  LECs obtaining software from AT&T and then offering
  aggregated call restriction in our Central Offices.
  (attachment)

  New England Telephone currently has no plans to offer this
  capability under a tariff offering. I cannot address
  whether other LECs will be offering this feature.

  I apologize for the delay in responding formally."


That certainly does not rule out asking for it as 'special assembly',
but that is not a route one generally wants to go.

Of course with cover of the Feb 24 {Network World} having a story
"AT&T's ALLEN LOBBIES Congress to shut RBHCs out of new telecom
markets", one realizes some old friends aren't any more.

Sadly it is the customer that gets hurt in the middle here. 10XXX
compliance is LAW, and NET&T not helping with free AT&T software is no
excuse for non-compliance.

Actually I suppose it was purely $s. Would they make enough to cover
the hassle? I bet the answer was: NO. So we didn't get it.

Of course anyone writing to Washington about what they think RBOCs
should or should not be allowed to do, should remember things such as
this.

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

Date: 27 Feb 1992 14:26:54-GMT
Subject: Telecom Conference: Call for Participation
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]


SETSS 92 Call for participation.

     The 8th International Conference
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
         SYSTEMS and SERVICES

         30 March - 1st April
           Florence, Italy

Sessions: Network Management
          Intelligent Networks
          Application Experience
          Service Integration
          Object Oriented
          Requirements Analysis
          Formal Methods
          Specification and Description Language
          Human Machine Interaction
          Developments

This conference is well known within the telecomms industry for
concentrating on issues from an engineering viewpoint. As well as the
30+ papers (chosen for more than twice as many good quality
submissions) there are also discussion sessions:

   Information Systems and Communication Systems: IN as
        the melting pot.
   Conformance and Compliance Analysis
   Formal Methods
   Security

With the current overlapping of telecommunications and information
technology, the conference is now appropriate for a wider audience
than the traditional telecomms industry. The change in the scope of
engineering has been reflected by inclusion of Services.

For further details apply:

J. Gordon
SETSS Conference Organiser
Conference Services
IEE, Savoy Place,
LONDON WC2R 0BL   United Kingdom
Tel: [phone] (071 240 1871 in UK)
Fax: [phone] (071 497 3633 in UK)
Telex: 261176 IEE LDN G

or email <[e-mail]>.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Looking For Two-Wire Handset Vendor
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 10:17:56 EST


I need to find a manufacturer of a two-wire handset, equivalent in
function to a lineman's "butt set", but packaged just like a normal
telephone handset.  Ideally it should have an RJ-11 connector.

I have had no luck in my search so any help or pointer will be
appreciated.  Please e-mail.


Dave Pascoe
[e-mail]    |    GTE Gov't. Systems/SCSD
KM3T                    |    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Chen)
Subject: ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 17:26:13 GMT


Hi:

    I am looking for a ISDN - Ethernet gateway, any pointer and
information will appreciated. Thanks.


Jim Chen      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronald R Jarmon)
Subject: Information Wanted on Cable and Telcos
Date: 27 Feb 1992 17:54:01 GMT


I'm looking for information on telephone companies being able to
provide TV-Cable service to the homes. Could someone Help me with
this.


Ronald Jarmon    Baylor College of Med.
Internet address [e-mail]

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

Date: 27-FEB-1992 12:56:49.57
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only


 From the bitnet list Donosy <[e-mail]>, the following
tidbit, under the heading "Phone the President" (Dzwon do Prezydenta)
has content of TELECOM interest:

On Sunday March 1 Polish President Walesa will appear on the BBC
transmission "It's Your World".  From 1:00 pm Warsaw time on, on the
day of the broadcast, a free direct phone line will be available for
Poles at the number 0-044-08000-95-91.

[In the original Polish:

W niedziele 1 marca prezydent Walesa wezmie udzial w audycji BBC
'It's Your World'. W dniu emisji od godziny 13 czasu polskiego
zostanie uruchomiona bezplatna linia telefoniczna dla Polakow
pod numerem 0-044-08000-95-91. ]


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chamroeun Kchao)
Subject: Channel Access Protocol For Mobile Communications
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 18:19:22 GMT


Can anyone recommend me some references (books/articles) on the
channel access protocols for the mobile communication systems (such as
AMPS, NAMPS, etc.)?

Please response via my e-mail address.

Thanks,

       Chamroeun Kchao
    TRW Electronic Systems Group
             R12/2043
          One Space Park
      Redondo Beach, CA 90278
 E-MAIL: [e-mail]   PHONE: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Kelly)
Subject: Information/Prices/Advice Sught on "Ring Leaders"
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 03:45:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Bell-Atlantic and Bell of Pennsylvania provide a service called
identa-ring.  This allows the subscriber to have up to three different
phone numbers that "funnel" into the same physical phone number.  Each
number produces a different ring pattern on the one physical phone.  A
"ring leader" is a box that detects and routes the distinctive rings
to different phone jacks.  Bell will sell me the device for $50.00 The
question are : is this a good price, are there other devices that
provide better service/expandability or price/performance?  Any
comments or suggestions are welcome.  Thanks in advance.


John C. Kelly  Home1:  [e-mail]
               Home2:  [e-mail]
DISCLAIMER: I speak for me.  Only.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 12:34:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flawed N.Y. Times Article


I have looked at {New York Times} microfilm, and read on it an article
on August 18, 1991 about the area code shortage (this starts on page
1).  I know it's flawed, because in the bar chart which purports to
show the five most crowded area codes, it includes:

201 in New Jersey.  (Wrong, because 908 was already fully cut over by
then.)  301 in Maryland.  (OK, but the splits which were noted in the
footnotes failed to include the upcoming 301/410.)

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 14:05:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: CPNI Question


We received a request today from New England Telephone that we "remove
all CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) restrictions that
exist on any of our Billing Telephone Numbers."

Briefly, what are the implications of agreeing to this request?

Note: New Hampshire does not, at this time, offer any CLASS services.


Kath Mullholand           University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH


[Moderator's Note: I think before changing anything, I'd write telco
and request a written summary of just what it is they want to have
disconnected, and ask for a concise, precise answer WHY?  Then show it
to us please when you get their response.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 18:34:27 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dial-a-Friend Was Lonely


A story from recent press mentioned the disconnection of a 900 number
Dial-A-Friend after the owner, Lorraine Blum, received a grand total of
one call in three months from someone inquiring about her measurements.

Blum hoped that the Ft. Lauderdale-based service would be rolling in
calls from people who wanted to just talk or get social service
referrals at $2.99/minute. No word on what kind of publicity was done
to promote this number, if any.


[e-mail]     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Poor Lorraine.  She must be mortified.  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #177
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18479;
          29 Feb 92 17:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24795
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 15:03:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22209
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 15:03:23 -0600
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 15:03:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #178

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Feb 92 15:03:19 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 178

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Tim Gorman)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Andy Sherman)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes (Martin McCormick)
    Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes (Steven King)
    Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book (Mark D. Wuest)
    Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book (Keith Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 92 10:26:49 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)


[e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes in TELECOM Digest V12
#175:

> It SOUNDS simple enough -- when we dial "1" now, the switch knows
> whether to deliver the call to AT&T, MCI, or XYZ depending on a
> predefined carrier choice; why not similar "choices" when we dial
> "911"?

Again, this routing is based on called number processing. If you don't
dial a 10XXX code, the 10XXX code associated with your line is
prepended to the called number. The call routing has nothing to do
with your telephone number.

> When an account is established, the Telco knows the service address;
> Town lines do not often change, and the delivery point for each town
> (PSAP) would not change often either; ("slamming" by rival emergency
> service providers should also be minimal :-) There are about six towns
> on one exchange nearby where 911 confusion is a problem, so setting up
> for at MOST six emergency service providers would be like setting up
> for six long distance carriers.  The towns would be likely to
> cooperate in ironing out bugs in a scheme like this, whereas the town
> with 911 now does not want to (nor should it have to) answer calls for
> the other five towns on an ongoing basis.

Two points: 1) Yes, the service address is known. It just doesn't
help.  Again, most service order systems are set up to identify the
serving central office not the PSAP. Changing this would be an
expensive proposition for an admittedly small percentage of the total
lines processed. 2) In the cases we have where multiple towns are
served out of one central office, providing for multiple PSAP's is no
problem. The towns are usually separate rate areas so we keep their
routing information in the central office separate also.

The problems come at the geographical boundaries of these towns. We
have at least two situations where a few residents of one town are in
a different county from everyone else. Since the 911 bureau's are set
up by county we have a problem (just as an aside, some of these
stations may actually have Rural Route identities, figure out where
they are from that :-> ).

> The Telco's solution here is to try to sell an overblown, statewide
> E911 system which would add a level of complexity, personnel, and
> expense to the existing systems here.  Could this be another reason
> that they deride simpler solutions?

In the whole state of Kansas, I only know of two situations where this
is a real problem. I doubt if more than a few hundred customers are
impacted (actually I would be amazed if it were more than 100). I also
assumed from the way the original posting was written that it was not
a significant number of the total customers involved in that 911
bureau either (if it were, there would be enough political clout to
get a resolution). I still feel the most cost effective solution in
these situations, at least from the 911 bureau's viewpoint, is to
provide an adequate, easily implemented inter-communication vehicle
between the affected bureaus.

I don't feel it would be cost effective to have the local exchange
company to install an expensive, central office based solution which
would raise the cost to everyone in order to handle a small percentage
of the customers.  If the calling number routing solution is needed as
part of a comprehensive package for the entire area so easy dispatch
to the various fire, police, etc. agencies can be done, then this may
be a different matter. I would expect the involved parties to perform
some detailed cost comparisons of the possible ways to do this.
Including a central office based alternative should certainly be done
but let it stand on its own merits.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 12:01:31 EST
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


[e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer).edu (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

[ On handling multiple 911 jurisdictions in the same CO

> When an account is established, the Telco knows the service address;
> Town lines do not often change, and the delivery point for each town
> (PSAP) would not change often either; ("slamming" by rival emergency
> service providers should also be minimal :-) There are about six towns
> on one exchange nearby where 911 confusion is a problem, so setting up
> for at MOST six emergency service providers would be like setting up
> for six long distance carriers.  The towns would be likely to
> cooperate in ironing out bugs in a scheme like this, whereas the town
> with 911 now does not want to (nor should it have to) answer calls for
> the other five towns on an ongoing basis.

Everything sounds cheap and easy on paper.  Do note that you have
proposed adding a bunch of information to the switch database entry
for *EVERY* line in the end office, with the corresponding increase in
storage capacity required to hold it.  And the switch software to
route 911 based on it.  And the administrative software to determine
the right emergency agency from the subscribers' address.  Just
because it is a similar problem (not the same problem) to routing
dial-1 based on PIC selection does not mean that your solution will be
free just because PIC is already there.

I'm sure that my colleagues from Illinois (where AT&T switches are
designed) as well as our friends from Northern Telecom/Bell Northern
Research will be glad to confirm that there are very few trivial
problems adding features to a switch.  You've asserted that your
solution is cheaper than E911.  I doubt it.  If E911 is too expensive
the towns might consider regionalizing their emergency services, which
would probably reduce the cost of more than just the
telecommunications.


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!

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

Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Date: 28 Feb 92 13:23:28 EST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer)


[e-mail] writes:

> Everything sounds cheap and easy on paper.  Do note that you have
> proposed adding a bunch of information to the switch database entry
> for *EVERY* line in the end office, with the corresponding increase in
> storage capacity required to hold it.  And the switch software to
> route 911 based on it.  And the administrative software to determine
> the right emergency agency from the subscribers' address.  Just
> because it is a similar problem (not the same problem) to routing
> dial-1 based on PIC selection does not mean that your solution will be
> free just because PIC is already there.

Not "free" but reasonable to implement.  Maybe something also based on
cable pair, as they change end locations less than subscribers do.
Also, I do not see how implementing it statewide would be simpler,
since the same requirements you describe would still exist, and have
to cover EVERY line in the state, rather than just those in exchanges
which overlap jurisdictional boundaries.

> I'm sure that my colleagues from Illinois (where AT&T switches are
> designed) as well as our friends from Northern Telecom/Bell Northern
> Research will be glad to confirm that there are very few trivial
> problems adding features to a switch.  You've asserted that your
> solution is cheaper than E911.  I doubt it.  If E911 is too expensive
> the towns might consider regionalizing their emergency services, which
> would probably reduce the cost of more than just the
> telecommunications.

Most towns ARE operating under co-operative or regionalized emergency
dispatching, and many of those dispatch centers are very efficient,
but their boundaries do not coincide with the telephone exchanges!

The Telephone Company (now, Companies) and everybody from William
Shatner on down has done a good job of embedding "call 911" into the
mind of the public at large over the last 20 years or so; most people
think they have it whether they do or not.  Telcos have also been
active in discouraging new installations and upgrades to existing
independently wired municipal fire and police signalling systems,
because "there are phones everywhere."  Therefore, it seems like it
should be a basic feature in a modern switch, rather than an "added
feature."  I would like to see "when any subscriber dials 9-1-1, the
call will be delivered to the PSAP previously designated by the
officals of the town or municipality where the subscriber is located"
as a basic requirement for the company to operate in the state.

(My views on 911 are not related to my employment mentioned below.)


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS - [e-mail]
Telecommunications and Network Services             - VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                   - FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 16:00:45 -0600
From: [e-mail]


Andrew Klossner ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to just how a cell phone in a
> hot-air balloon could interfere with cellular operations?  Does the
> cell seize up if radio waves arrive from outside the ground plane?

    The question, here, is a very good one .  To answer it, think
of the root word of the expression "cellular telephone," that being
the word "cell."  Cell phones operate in a very complex network of
individual little domains or cells.  The frequencies used for the
radio signals essentially travel in straight lines, just like light.
The higher up you are, the farther you can see or be seen.  Since cell
phone systems are built around the belief that their users have their
feet planted on the ground, their expected coverage areas are
calculated based on how far the signal will go before it reaches the
horizon.

The engineers make the cells larger by putting the cell cite antenna
up high, or smaller by putting it close to the ground.  If two cells
are far enough apart, they may use the same frequencies for all
channels with no problems because any cell phone will either be in the
coverage area of one cell or the other, but never both.  If you go up
in a balloon or airplane, all bets are off.  In the first place, your
cell phone will be able to "hear" paging channels from everywhere.  It
may even try to receive the paging channel from more than one location
if there happen to be several on the same frequency.  FM radio being
what it is, one signal may briefly override another and become the
dominant one for a few seconds and then be replaced by another.

    When you want to make a call, your output will be heard by
every cell within several hundred square miles.  Each switch will try
to process your connect request.  Assuming that you might actually
make a successful connection with a switch in your coverage area, all
the cells controlled by that switch will most likely see your signal
and utter confusion will reign as the switch tries to make sense of
it.  It is also very possible that the vacant channel the switch hands
you to to make the call is not vacant on one or more of the other
cells.  Some poor soul, out there, is going to find his or her call
jammed by some stranger babbling away about how neat it is to be
calling from the air.

    In summary, calling from an aircraft on a cellular phone isn't
good manners because the system was not designed to handle
transmitters with a wide coverage area.  The FCC made it illegal
because airborn operation produces harmful interference to the normal
operation of the system.  Operating from tall buildings such as the
Sears Tower or World Trace Center is different because the local
system was designed with such buildings in mind and allowances were
made for the increased coverage.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven King)
Subject: Re: FCC Allows Cellular Phones in Airplanes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 17:10:36 GMT


[e-mail] scribes:

> Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to just how a cell phone in a
> hot-air balloon could interfere with cellular operations?  Does the
> cell seize up if radio waves arrive from outside the ground plane?

The problem is that from high up, you're likely to cause interference
on other cells that use the same frequencies as the cell you're
talking on.  The name of the game in cellular is "frequency re-use",
meaning systems are designed with the idea of re-using the same
channels over and over across the service area.  When you're on the
ground, your signal is attenuated enough (by trees, hills, buildings,
etc.) that you generally only hit the cell you're actually talking to
and its immediate neighbors.  The neighboring cells don't matter,
since they're using different frequencies.  However, get up high away
from all that ground clutter and it's pretty likely that you'll cause
interference on cells across town that use the same frequencies the
local cell is using.  You probably won't notice any difference, but
other people may be getting dropped calls (or picking up your voice!)
because of it.  And then the cellular provider sees an increased
dropped call rate, and they call our support center, and the software
engineers blame the hardware engineers, and the systems engineers
blame the base site engineers, and fingers are pointed everywhere, and
I get a headache.

(Well, hopefully it doesn't get that far.  The cellular provider will
usually recognize interference for what it is.  Unless, of course, the
state-wide Telecom Enthusiast Hot Air Balloon Rally is being run ...  :-)


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 19:57:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard B. August) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Certainly. Try Compuserve, where the national
>> reverse directory (what there is of it, non-pubs are excluded as are a
>> lot of business numbers) is accessed with GO PHONEFILE. You can also
>> use this file to search alphabetically all over the USA. There is a
>> small surcharge in addition to normal Compuserve rates.   PAT]

> I'd like to take this opportunity to discourage anyone from wasting
> time and money on the "National Phone Book" on CI$. It's bad enough
> that you are surcharged for search-time. Multiply that by the fact
> that the last time I attempted to use the service, it crashed
> repeatedly, with the old surcharge timer running all the time.  And I
> checked on a number of family members who have *had the same phone
> number for over 20 years* ... they aren't in there.  Go figure.

I have used it successfully (get calls that show up on my CID display,
but they left no message). It *is* missing some things and isn't easy
to figure out at first.

The relevant point is that the local phone book isn't much help if you
have the number and want the person. What if they live in Manhattan
(not the one in KS)? ;-)


Mark Wuest   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: Seeking Reverse Telephone Book
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 04:04:53 GMT


By "reverse" phonebook do you mean telno to name address? In that case
what you desire is a "City Directory" which can be purchased from a
number of sources.  You can buy the directories themselves (paper
bound) or you can also get complete mag tapes (9-track) and CD roms
from several sources over certian geographic areas.  These areas are
not neccessarily near the publishers either.  I have a TON of this info
at my office for some telphone database reasearch I was doing to link
it in with CID, but the cost for the tapes for all the areas we wanted
would have been the same as paying someone to key in the phonebook.


aka Digital Designs   uunet!ksmith!keith   GEMail: K.SMITH52

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #178
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21987;
          29 Feb 92 18:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28360
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 16:48:12 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30323
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 16:47:59 -0600
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 16:47:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #179

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Feb 92 16:47:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 179

Proper Opinions In This Issue:      Opinionated Censor: Patrick Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Allen Gwinn)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Peter Sleggs)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Carl Moore)
    Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS? (John Higdon)
    Re: 411 is Now a Profit Center in Texas (Gregg E. Woodcock)
    Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone? (Dave Weitzel)
    Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (203) (John R. Covert)
    Re: Problem With Panasonic Phone (Jerry Durand)
    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Laurence Chiu)
    The History of Telecom and Patrick (David Horvath)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allen Gwinn)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: sulaco
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 01:16:55 GMT


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

[responding to my article about a lawyer using a cellular phone on the
 ground, and the pilot refusing to taxi until he hung up]

> Also speaking as a pilot ... cell phones operate in the 800-900mhz
> spectrum.  Radar Transponders operate around 1000mhz and have fairly
> broad banded receivers. It's not inconcievable that the phone was
> getting into the transponder.

Interesting that this would be noticed while the aircraft was still on
the ground.

> Not to mention the fact that it's illegal to use a cell phone from
> an aircraft in the air (be the aircraft commercial or private -- still
> illegal).

Yes, but we were talking about using it while the aircraft was still
on the ground, weren't we?


[Moderator's Note: Yes, the aircraft was on the ground, however the
message said the crew was interested in getting started on the flight,
meaning the aircraft was about to go into the air.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: 28 Feb 92 13:50:53 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Allen Gwinn) writes:

> Speaking as a pilot, I have never seen a cellular phone that
> interferes with any aircraft navigation equipment.  My guess is that
> they told him that he was interfering with communications just to get
> him to hang up.

According to the original post, they told him to turn off the cellular
phone so that they could take off.  They didn't tell him that his
phone was actually causing interference.  They told him that they
could not take off with the phone operating.  This is because the law
forbids it, not because he was actually causing interference in this
case.  This is part of the same FAR that requires that portable radios
and other 'electronic devices' not be operated aboard a flight
operating under IFR unless authorized.


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

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 12:59:03 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Allen Gwinn) writes:

> Speaking as a pilot, I have never seen a cellular phone that
> interferes with any aircraft navigation equipment.  My guess is that
> they told him that he was interfering with communications just to get
> him to hang up.

If the low power transmitter would really interfere with plane comm's
systems I think we'll all better give up flying ;-)

It is likely that this 'excuse' is used to convince users that they
really should terminate the call.


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 10:16:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground


Last year, I made a call from a phone that was provided on-board,
while flying from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.  What is the dif-
ference with this phone and the cell phones which cannot legally be
used while in flight?


[Moderator's Note: I presume part of the difference is the frequency
atr which the radios operate, and the transmission characteristics.
The one is deemed harmful under the circumstances, and the other is
not.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS?
Date: 29 Feb 92 12:39:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> There is no such list of "area codes". All area codes are a mix of
> switch technology, from Digital to SXS and all in between.

> Since the FCC mandated equal access, electro-mechanical switching
> has been replaced by digital in most areas of any size, since the
> economics of adding equal access hardware to electrical-mechanical
> switches is prohibitively expensive.

I would like to add a technical correction to the above.  Digital is
not necessary for equal-access.  It is true that the electromechanical
switches using crossbar or step-by-step technology don't adapt
inexpensively to equal-access or any of the value-added custom-calling
features.  But the 1ESS and 1AESS switches are probably the most
common in the RBOC networks today, and definitely do support equal
access, custom-calling, CLASS, international direct distance dialing,
and other 'state-of-the-art' customer services.

These are not digital switches.  (They don't offer ISDN.)  They are
stored-program-controlled switches.  They contain a lot of computing
power, and provide lots of software-defined features, but the switch
fabric is space-division analog.  They switch using reed-relays
arranged in a matrix, basically the same architecture as the crossbar
switch.  These crosspoint switches are under the control of a digital
computer, but the switch is analog.


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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 02:00 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS?


[e-mail] writes:

> Since the FCC mandated equal access, electro-mechanical switching
> has been replaced by digital in most areas of any size, since the
> economics of adding equal access hardware to electrical-mechanical
> switches is prohibitively expensive.

It should be pointed out that the "FCC-mandated" equal access does not
apply to most rural areas. For instance, Contel in California is
exempt from the equal access provisions due to the fact that it
operates almost exclusively in rural areas of the state.

In reality, however, Contel has been most progressive in upgrading its
facilities and offers FGD in most of its service area which includes
some really remote areas of California's high desert. If Pac*Bell were
half as with it as Contel, you would hear scant complaints from this
terminal about phone service.

Incidently, in years past while GTE was screwing its customers with
directorized SxS, Contel was using crossbar in much of its service
area. My company has quite a few lines from Contel and I am just
waiting for the GTE merger "axe" to fall. At present, the PUC has
mandated that the companies be run separately. When that grace period
ends, the full abomination of GTE will be brought to bear, no doubt.


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

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

From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 411 is Now a Profit Center in Texas
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 08:44:39 -0600


The really scummy thing the LEC did was to try to trick the user into
accepting the charges by changing the way they play the recordings.
Before this feature, the recording would read you the number and then
say, 'repeating...' and then read you the number again.  Now that users
have grown up always getting two chances to remember the number they have
changed the message.  It reads you the number and then goes into a
ridiculously long (over 30 seconds) spiel about this fantastic new auto
dialer feature and all the methods they can bill you for it and *then*
they say, 'repeating...' and read the number the second time.

I would have to guess that most users would think to themselves,
'Darn, I missed the number the first time and they aren't going to
repeat it.  I guess it would be cheaper to just have it dialed
automatically insted of going through all the trouble of hanging up
and doing it all again.'  I feel this is quite deceptive even though I
understand why they did it.  If they hadn't put their spiel inbetween
the readings, 90% of the callers would hang up before they heard a
word of it.


Gregg Woodcock = [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 13:01:57 EST


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joshua
E. Muskovitz) writes:

> Could someone explain the term "Carterfone" clearly and concisely?

 From James Martin's 2nd ed "Telecommunications and the Computer":

"Prior to 1968 it was illegal for subscribers to connect their won
devices to telephone company lines. After a long legal battle the
'Carterphone Ruling' permitted the Carter Electronics Corporation to
connect its mobile radio system directly to the Bell System.  The FCC
concluded that 'a customer desiring to use an interconnecting device
should be able to do so ...'  (stuff deleted)

"It was then permitted to connect devices to the Bell System via a
small white box on the wall called a DAA (direct access adaptor), which
is essentially an isolation transformer.  Later the need to use a DAA
was eliminated in most situations ..."

For those of you in the Washington DC area, the American History
building of the Smithsonian has had a recent exhibit on communications
that has a lot of things us newer to the industry have only read about
in the history books.  One of those devices is a Carterphone.  My
recollection is of a clear desktop telephone.  Can anyone with a
historical perspective tell us if the actual device was clear or just
this 'display model'?


Dave Weitzel "standard disclaimer applies"

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 13:28:52 PST
From: John R. Covert  28-Feb-1992 1624 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (203)


Well, it does work from both Southern NH and Eastern MA.

The "private company" is "Sussex Cellular", the "A" carrier for Sussex
County, NJ.

Even after AT&T gets the routing straightened out in CT, there will
still be a problem on AT&T.  Sussex Cellular has an Ericsson switch,
and Ericsson switches often have their roamer ports arranged the way
it would be nice for all roamer ports to be arranged -- if AT&T would
allow it.

Sussex Cellular's roamer port works the way roamer ports were
originally designed.  It won't return off-hook and begin charging
until the actual called party answers.  But this runs afoul of AT&T's
fraud prevention, which means that you've got one-way transmission --
you can hear the roamer port, but it can't hear your Touch-Tone.

So, for now, you'll have to call it on MCI or Sprint regardless of
where you're calling from.


/john

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Problem With Panasonic Phone
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:44:16 PST


> Is there any easy trick to disable the in-use light for the data line
> so as to conserve the batteries?  I've taken the thing apart and
> prefer not to do anything to the internal circuitry.  I also prefer to
> leave both phones cords attached to the phone, i.e. unplugging the
> data line from the phone isn't an option.

Have you tried using an exclusion device in line with the telephone?


Jerry Durand   Durand Interstellar, Inc.   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 00:44:34 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

>> AT&T: "The area code for the number you have dialed has been changed
>> to 510."  Sprint, MCI: "The area code you have dialed has been changed
>> to 510."

> I think this is the first time I've followed up on my own article.  It
> has been pointed out to me that I was unfair in criticizing the latter
> IXC's for not having accurate intercepts.  This is obviously the
> result of the pre-divestiture advantage that AT&T enjoys.  If it
> weren't for this advantage, the other carriers would be able to have
> accurate intercepts as well!

> [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what divestiture has to do
> with someone speaking into a microphone and saying one phrase or
> another.  Can't they record whatever message they like?  Or did I edit
> out a smiley in your message somewhere in error?   PAT]

I thought the smilies were loud and clear, albiet implicit.  Here -
I'll make up for lost time: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Your comment is right
in line with my (intended) point: this is an example where "the other
guys" provide inferior technical competance, and in this case there is
no way they can possibly blame pre-divestiture advantage as the cause.
There is no fundamental reason that all three could not have correct
intercepts -- the only prerequisite is that the people making the
recording be technically knowledgeable about which they speak.  All
three recordings are easy to understand; AT&T's has the added
advantage of being correct!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages
Date: 28 Feb 92 20:03:40 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wellington, NZ


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

> Now that the permissive dialing period for the 415/510 split is over,
> I've been caught a couple of times still dialing 415 and getting an
> intercept from the IXC.  I think the wording of the recordings is
> quite indicative of the general character of the IXC's:

> AT&T: "The area code for the number you have dialed has been changed
> to 510."  Sprint, MCI: "The area code you have dialed has been changed
> to 510."

> Now come on folks, is this really that hard to get right?  I truely
> believe that the wording that Sprint and MCI use will only lead to
> further dialing mistakes by those unfamiliar with area code splits.

Thank goodness calling from NZ I got the ATT message. Though I knew
about the area code split (which apparently was done politically
rather than rationally since more people had to change than if SF and
the South Bay was changed to 510 rather than the East Bay etc.), had I
not known, I might have been confused.


Laurence Chiu

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

Date: 29 Feb 92 09:40:26 EST
From: David Horvath <[e-mail]>
Subject: The History of Telecom and Patrick


Could you enlighten me with a history of the newsgroup/mailing list?
How did it come to be?  Who started it (if not you)?  How did you come
to be involved?  Who are *you* (you've given tid-bits about your self,
how about more?)?

I think there would be enough interest for this to be posted/added to
a FAQ.


[Moderator's Note: There is a file in the archives called 'history.of.
digest' which gives a little information. In summary, the Digest was
started as an Internet Mailing List in August, 1981. It was an
offshoot of a mailing list called 'Human Nets', and was intended to
take the large volume of telephone-related messages out of that group.
The first Moderator was Jon Solomon. He resigned in October, 1988. I
was a regular participant here at the time and Jon asked me to take
over his duties.  During the first couple years, the Digest did not go
to the Usenet group 'comp.dcom.telecom'. The Usenet side formerly was
under the moderation of Chip Rosenthal. In 1989 I agreed to handle the
tasks involved with comp.dcom.telecom also. Enough for starters?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #179
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25385;
          29 Feb 92 20:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28475
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:46:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02373
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:46:08 -0600
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 17:46:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #180

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Feb 92 17:46:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 180

Approved Opinions In This Issue:    Opinionated Censor: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Jack Decker)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (John R. Covert)
    Re: CPNI Question (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only (Colum Mylod)
    Re: USA Direct Automated (Graham Toal)
    Re: Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland (Graham Toal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 16:04:20 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


> It is a clear violation of international treaties and CCITT
> recommendations for calls from one country to another to transit a
> third country in the absence of specific transit arrangements.

> The case with Cuba has nothing unique about it.  It is just as illegal
> for someone in Canada to route calls from the U.S. to Cuba as it would
> be for someone in the U.S. to route calls from Canada to England
> (saving about $1.00 per minute, I might add).

I probably shouldn't comment on this, but it should be obvious that
people tend to ignore stupid laws, especially where telecommunications
are involved (going back to the days when people hooked up their own
"illegal" extension phones).  I would contend that this is basically
an unenforceable law, since even if the phone company won't allow
call-forwarding to an international number, there are devices such as
call diverters (or even a standard two-line phone with a conference
button) that will do the trick, as would three-way calling.  It would
be a nearly impossible task for any telephone company or government
agency to figure out all the different ways that such a call might be
placed, and then monitor lines to detect and/or prevent such calls.

I have to tell you about a telephone conversation I had with a state
Public Service Commission person back in the early 80's, just after
the FCC opened the door to customer provided telephones.  For some
unfathomable reason, Michigan Bell felt that they were still entitled
to receive a small monthly charge for each extension phone that was
connected to the line, even when the phone was neither installed nor
maintained by Bell.  I happened to be in the state capitol one day and
called the Michigan Public Service Commission to inquire as to why the
phone company was still allowed to levy this charge. The general
response (from the low-level PSC staff) seemed to be that the charge
was justified because the phone company needed the money!

I didn't think that was a satisfactory answer, so after getting
switched around a few times I wound up talking to a higher level
person.  This person was a female and a feminist and was more
interested in correcting my "sexist" speech (I made the mistake of
referring to a person that I had previously spoken to as a "gal") than
in hearing my complaint, and she basically parroted the same line I
had been given earlier.

I then pointed out that if the phone company insisted on charging
extra for extension phones, most people would simply not call and give
the FCC registration number, and just use the phone anyway, and then
the phone company would have no idea of how many phones were on a
line.

"You can't do that", she said.  "They can tell if you hook up an
extension."

"Not if you disconnect the ringer", said I, "or you can call and say
you have an extension ringer.  They don't charge extra for extension
ringers."

"But you can't do that!  There's a $10,000 fine for hooking up an
illegal extension telephone!"  I guess she thought THAT piece of
information would cause me to drop the matter like a hot potato,
judging from the finality in the tone of her voice.

"So what?  You don't think anyone's going to be stupid enough to tell
the phone company that they've got one of these hooked up, do you?
And they're certainly not going to tell YOU!"

She took a deep breath, and exploded: "But YOU CAN'T DO THAT!  It's a
TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE!  And WE'LL FIND OUT!"

I calmly said, "Well, I've had extension phones on MY line for many
years now" (a slight exaggeration, I hadn't PERSONALLY had phone
service or "illegal" extensions for "many" years, but I knew several
people who had), "and they've never found them yet, and I can assure
you they never will, and YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM, and at this point
I'm certainly not dumb enough to tell you!  And I know of several
other people who have their own extension phones, and they didn't call
the phone company to report their phones either!"

The poor woman had shot her wad, and it didn't work ... she was
reduced to babbling about how the phone company needed the money, and
it was the Public Service Commission's job to make sure that the phone
company was profitable.  "No", said I, "it's the PHONE COMPANY'S job
to make sure they stay profitable.  It's YOUR job to protect the
telephone customers of this state against unreasonable charges.  Your
job is to serve the PUBLIC.  That's while you're called the PUBLIC
Service Commission!  And you aren't protecting the public by allowing
the telephone company to charge for something when they are providing
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return. You could never collect that ten
thousand dollar fine, because no jury would ever agree that a company
should get paid for providing absolutely nothing in the way of
service.  It's my phone; I maintain it; I have to pay to have it
repaired if it breaks down, and I can't use it to make additional
calls if another phone is already using the line.  And I am NOT going
to pay an extra monthly charge for it, and you people shouldn't be
allowing the phone company to try to collect it!"

And within a year or so of that conversation, the charge was gone.  I
can't say that I was responsible for that (I'm sure they received many
other complaints about that charge!), but I'm certain the conversation
had some effect one way or the other.  I'm not recommending that
anyone violate the law, but in this case, I felt that the law itself
(actually the tariff, which has the force of law) was illegal, or at
least immoral, in that it allowed a company to collect money for doing
absolutely nothing.  I was banking on the fact that reasonable minds
would see that this was wrong, as indeed apparently happened.

But I think that the other thing that mitigated against this law was
that it was basically unenforceable ... people were starting to buy
their own phones all over the state; most were NOT calling the
telephone company to report the use of those phones (they just plugged
them in), and I'm sure that when the phone company did discover extra
phones on a line, many people would not readily agree to being charged
extra.  I'm sure the phone company and the PSC finally got tired of
arguing with customers over the matter.

[By the way, the above quoted conversation is NOT a verbatim
transcript, just the way it went as best I remember it.  The actual
conversation lasted perhaps a good twenty minutes, so if nothing else
this is a highly condensed version of that dialog.]

Now, most people (in North America, anyway) feel they have a right to
communicate, and to purchase things at the lowest possible cost, and
they resent government interference with either of these freedoms.
You mentioned that it is illegal to route phone calls from Canada to
the U.S. and then to Europe.  That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it
just means that those who do it usually don't get caught because they
aren't stupid enough to tell anyone, especially anyone with the power
to give them grief over it.

It's also illegal for Canadians to send (paper) mail from the United
States to avoid the higher postage rates (and GST on the postage, to
add insult to injury!) in Canada.  Ask any of the postal workers at
the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan post office if they ever see Canadians
sending mail from here ... I can guarantee you that it happens several
times each day (in fact, it's rare to go to the post office and not
see at least one or two Ontario licene plates on cars parked outside).
Is this illegal?  You bet.  Can the Canadian government enforce it?
No way.  Our government isn't about to allow Canadian postal
inspectors to stand around outside our post office and make arrests.
Now if a large business sends a quantity of mail from here back into
Canada, it will probably be detected sooner or later, but the
individual or small business owner gets away with it all the time.

There's no way (at least not yet) to block call-forwarding based on
where the call originates ... that is, to complete a call forwarded to
Cuba if the call originates in Canada, but not if it comes from the
United States.  And if a call diverter (a perfectly legal device) is
used, or a three-way call is set up manually, there's virtually no way
to control that using technology.  Someone doing this as a business is
at risk, since there is a paper trail and receipts, and the business
must be advertised in order to be profitable.  But someone who quietly
sets up call forwarding on a line and uses it only for his own
personal use is most likely at very little risk, because YOU DON'T
KNOW WHO THEY ARE.  And neither do the bureaucrats who might be
inclined to care.

You're talking law; I'm talking reality.  And I really hate it when
the government passes unenforceable laws, because it causes people to
have less respect for the law as a whole.  Once you get into the habit
of breaking one law (because you are virtually assured that you'll
never be caught, or never be punished if you are caught), you find it
easier to break others.  To me, that a form of temptation that I'd
rather not see in our society.  Therefore, I would personally support
the repeal of any laws that ban the passing of traffic through a third
country in order to achieve cost savings, or for any other reason.

It's worth noting that the Chinese have one of the most tightly
controlled societies in the world, and no legal concept of personal
privacy that precludes government eavesdropping, yet they cannot stop
the sending of FAXes in and out of the country.  How much more
difficult would it be for our government to clamp down on such
traffic?  And, to we really want them to do so?  Something to think
about ...


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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 14:53:45 PST
From: John R. Covert  28-Feb-1992 1750 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


> I probably shouldn't comment on this, but ...

There's a big difference between hooking up an extension telephone and
providing a service to route calls through a third country.

Hooking up an extension telephone only involves the agreement between
a telephone company and a single customer.

Routing calls through a third country involves international treaties
between governments.  Telephone administrations are jealous beasts,
and they tend to do things like threaten to cut off all service
between two countries when violations of the treaties exist.

And the CCITT Recommendations suggest doing just that.


/john

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: CPNI Question
Date: 29 Feb 92 13:02:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kath Mullholand) writes:

> We received a request today from New England Telephone that we "remove
> all CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) restrictions that
> exist on any of our Billing Telephone Numbers."

> [Moderator's Note: I think before changing anything, I'd write telco
> and request a written summary of just what it is they want to have
> disconnected, and ask for a concise, precise answer WHY?  Then show it
> to us please when you get their response.  PAT]

I don't think this request refers to disconnecting any hardware.  In
NJ, the CPNI restrictions refer to documents kept on file at the
telephone company.  These documents, under the control of the
subscriber, forbid the company from sharing information regarding the
number and kind of network connections (trunks, lines, etc.) the
subscriber is paying for.  In NJ, each subscriber was offered the
option to impose or not impose restrictions upon the distribution of
this information to equipment and service vendors other than the local
telephone company.

I would assume that this subscriber has CPNI restrictions in place,
and that the telco, perhaps about to launch a venture in competition
with other service or equipment providers, wants the CPNI restrictions
removed, so that its new venture may obtain the information and use it
to try to sell something to the subscriber.


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] (Colum Mylod)
Subject: Re: Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only
Date: 28 Feb 92 14:22:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Colum Mylod)
Organization: Oracle Europe, De Meern, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

> On Sunday March 1 Polish President Walesa will appear on the BBC
> transmission "It's Your World".  From 1:00 pm Warsaw time on, on the
> day of the broadcast, a free direct phone line will be available for
> Poles at the number 0-044-08000-95-91.

Does anyone know what sort of number this is? Splitting the above
number as follows leads to suspicion:

  0-0 for international access code from Poland, leaving
  [phone]

So if it is not a special number dialable only in Poland, then it is
an international number. However the only area codes in the UK (+44)
that begin with a 0 are special codes to the Irish Republic (and
chatlines in London, though they're phased out aren't they?). Thus
your sleuth suspects it's really [phone], i.e. free only if
you're in Britain.  But these freefone numbers are six digits (except
Childline). So if you want to contact Lech, check this out first! I
assume the program is on the BBC World Service?


Colum Mylod    [e-mail]      My opinions all

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: USA Direct Automated
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 18:01:33 GMT


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

> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T has automated their USA Direct service,
> at least for calls from the United Kingdom.  Callers now get a robot
> similar to the one used domestically at which you can dial the desired
> number and calling card number.  Pulse dial callers fall through to a
> live operator, and do so quickly since international circuits are
> expensive.  The price is the same whether you dial or the operator
> does.

The London AT&T people hinted to me recently that the $2.50 operator
connection charge may soon be lowered or dropped.  In which case I
might actually *use* my AT&T card for the first time :-)


Graham

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Bitnet/Internet in Scotland, and Maybe Ireland
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 18:19:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
UDAYTON.EDU (Jason Childers) writes:

> Are there any Bitnet or Internet channels (stations?) going to
> Aberdeen University in Aberdeen, Scotland?  And are there any in the
> Dublin (Baile Atha Cliath) area, such as to Trinity University or
> University College as well as others?  It would be greatly appreciated
> if someone could point me in the right direction, since over here at
> U. of Dayton, everyone just give me blank looks just for asking for a
> directory where I could look for one.  Thank you so much.

Britain is finally connected to the internet, by "JIPS" which is a
layering of IP protocols over X25 protocols.

I suspect the blank looks came from the imprecision of your request;
did you want to ftp from these sites?  Telnet to them?  Send mail to
someone there?  If anonymous ftp, you just need the name of the site
which is I think aberdeen.ac.uk; if telnet -- well, if you're asking
these questions you don't have an account there, so forget it; if mail
 -- just send mail to [e-mail], or ask their postmaster
for help with finding the user's name.


Graham

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #180
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26009;
          29 Feb 92 20:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04005
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 18:48:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01734
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 29 Feb 1992 18:48:07 -0600
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 18:48:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #181

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Feb 92 18:47:43 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 181

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Wonderful New 800 Service (TELECOM Moderator)
    Rolm Digital PBX Questions (J. Eric Townsend)
    What The Heck is a Merlin PK-1 (Plus)? (John Boteler)
    Numbering Changes: Are All 713 Local Calls Going Ten Digits? (Dave Leibold)
    Creative Use of Marine Radio Band (Fido FCC Echo via Nigel Allen)
    Who is Mr. Kerrey? (David Gast)
    New Telecom Legislation in Canada (Montreal Gazette via A. Okapuu-von Veh)
    On the Road Again ... (Ed Greenberg)
    MCI Call USA For Non-US Residents (Alan Chee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 03:36:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Wonderful New 800 Service


Friday afternoon I discovered a wonderful new 800 service which I want
to mention to all readers of the Digest, in the hopes you will use it
soon.

The Mystic Marketing Company in Nevada has started a fortune telling
by telephone service. They give readings and hold seances for callers
who are fortunate enough to have discovered their service, as I did.
Seances are held over the phone on the hour and half-hour between 6 AM
and 3 PM Pacific Time daily. Various fortune tellers are on duty also,
and you can choose between one who will help you discover how to get
rich, or one who will help you uncover other mysteries in your life. A
third one will help you with sex problems, and still others practice
Tarot.

I guess you could title this message 'Seance on a Wet Afternoon' since
I was waiting in the Metra Station for the rain to quit when I chanced
upon the advertisement for these folks, and I had to try their service
then and there from a COCOT phone which was conveniently located
nearby, courtesy of the folks at the Chicago Transit Atrocity.

By dialing 800-736-7886, I was connected with the service, which is
very reasonably priced at a flat rate of only $120.00. No, that very
low price for an 800 call is not a typographical error, my friends, it
is the cost. One Hundred-Twenty Dollars and 0/100 cents. Of course I
hurried to take advantage of it immediatly.  By dialing that 800
number and having that one low fee charged to the telephone number you
are using, you get a 20 minute session with one of their staff.

I was given the option of charging the cost of my counseling session
to VISA/MC or the telephone, and of course I chose to put it on the
phone bill. Why clutter up my already overloaded VISA card, I thought
to myself. There were two or three COCOTS there and I tried using the
service from each of them. In every case:

  Dial 800-736-7886;

  A message welcomed me, and told me of the low cost for the service.

  I was transferred to 'the menu', where my choices were to:

      1) Use a PIN issued earlier for my counseling at this time;
      2) Arrange billing so a PIN could be issued;
      3) If I had forgotten my PIN, speak with someone to locate it.

  When I selected (2), I was told to enter:

      1) To bill to my VISA/MC
      2) Bill to the telephone number I was using.

  By selecting (2), I was:

      Told via ANI the number I was using and which would be billed,
      and given an option to:

      1) Press 1 if correct, or
      2) Press 2 if the ANI had somehow fingered the wrong number.

      Of course, the ANI was correct, in every instance.

      I was told to hold on 'while my phone number was verified', and
      the verification process took all of five seconds each time.

   I was then issued a PIN and told to 'call back anytime' to have
   my reading, or participate in a seance, or whatever.

I waited patiently for a couple minutes, fully expecting an operator
to come on the line and ask me to deposit 120 dollars for the first
twenty minutes, but no operator ever answered!

I tried a few more times from a Genuine Bell pay phone expecting fully
that a Genuine Telephone Operator would come on and have me deposit
the $120, but none answered me there either. You'd think a bunch of
fortune tellers would know whether or not they were going to get paid
for their services before rendering them, but I guess that's something
they haven't figured out yet.

I was going to wait until I got home to call back and use my PIN for a
counseling session, but I thought better of that and used the pay
phone at the Loyola Rapid Transit station instead after I got off my
train.  After all, with the ANI and Caller-ID stuff the Telephone
Company offers these days, you never know when one of those fortune
tellers might try to invade my privacy by noting the phone number I
was calling from and sell my number to others like themself.

Aren't these new services the Telephone Company is offering since the
judge broke them up really great?  I mean, a call to a fortune teller
on an 800 number for only $120. How can you beat a deal like that?

Be sure and join a seance soon! And when you do, please be sure to use
a COCOT for the call ... after all, we all know how deserving they are
of our business and how they were put there to fight the greed and
other terrible things Ma Bell does. Show your support for the fine,
altruistic business person who owns the COCOT. You'll help him get
even with Bell by giving him your business.

You might even want to help the Mystic Marketing Company promote their
seances by writing a little message next to the COCOT phone inviting
people to use this fabulous service. After all, for only $120 how can
you go wrong?  For what I actually paid, it would be a bargain at
twice the price!  :)

Mystic Marketing can be reached at 1-702-251-1415 if you wish to call
them and compliment them on their fine service, and the reasonable
price they charge when you call their 800 number.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (J Eric Townsend)
Subject: Rolm Digital PBX Questions
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 04:01:01 GMT


So, the University of Houston finally got a *real* phone system.
(Previously, we had centrex lines and a bunch of really old-rotary
switches.  Most on-campus phones were rotary only, and *all* of the
office-intercom-buzzing-stuff was rotary only.  We also had party
lines.  Wheee fun.)

Anyway, so Rolm comes in with a used PBX that doesn't sample fast
enough to handle modems/faxen/etc.  (Brilliant, eh?  Now we have to
pay an even higher cost per line to keep centrex lines since we lose
much of our bulk-centrex discount by going to the Rolm PBX.  Auugh.)
I dunno what the model number is, or anything, but we've got scads of
Rolm 120 phones lying around, and a voice-mail interface that almost
puts Mac System to shame.

My questions:

0. Obviously that RJ jack in the wall isn't a "real" phone connection.
It's got plenum rated twisted pair on the other side going to an
integrated phone/data punchdown in the mechanical closet.  It also
doesn't give a dial tone ... :-) So what the hell is it?  Some sort of
packet based thing?  I doubt it, since I refuse to believe that my
el-cheapo Rolm 120 has a 8-12bit D/A device in it.  (Then again, we
have to rent their phones instead of buying our own, and at $30 month
for phone + line, we might just be paying for a real neat toy.)

1. The other day things got *real* wierd.  I was playing with
phonemail and discovered that about 2/3 of the time, it wasn't getting
all the numbers I entered.  I'd enter "123456" and it would repeat
back "You have entered 12346", or some other number with at least one
digit dropped.  (Dialing slow or fast didn't make a difference.)  This
makes me suspect there's some sort of packetized data thingie going on
instead of DTMF (see below).

2.  I haven't tried it yet (we can't dial off-campus yet), but I
suspect that DTMF is gone bye-bye.  Why?  All my buttons make the same
noise when I press them.  (Sorta like the cheesy tone that some
push-button rotaries emit.)  Maybe they'll bother to turn it on once
they actually hook up outside lines.  Would a company like Rolm
seriously build something that won't do DTMF (and therefore make all
DTMF menu systems I call unusable)?

3.  We can receive calls from outside the PBX but can't call out.
Huh?  Maybe this is a billing problem or something.

4. Stupid-feature-of-the-week: If voicemail gets five bad access
attempts, it locks out the mailbox.  Not so bad, right?  Wrong.  You
can call up voice mail and enter the *name* of the person who owns a
mailbox and then bang on their password five times and whoops -- no
voice mail for a few days while you wait on internal telecom to
reactivate your box.

5.  How do I hook up some non-Rolm equpiment to that digital jack?
Can I?  Is there a standard for this sort of thing that will allow me
to go out and buy a black box that would let me use a brand xyz phone?
What happens if I use a Rolm-phone other than the one designated for
my line?  (I have a friend with a few of the mondo-secretary Rolm
units picked up at a property disposal sale.)

6.  How does the PBX know where I'm calling from?  "If you're calling
from your own extension, press the pound key or enter.  Otherwise,
enter your extension and press pound or enter."

7.  I can tell it to call me somewhere else if I get phone mail
(gak!).  How secure is this information (other than if somebody hacks
my 18 digit phonemail password)?

Too many questions, I think ...  If you have any comments/whatever on
Rolm PBXs, drop me a line.  thanks.


J. Eric Townsend - [e-mail] - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
Note! New vox number: [phone]  '91 CB750, DoD# 0378

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: What the Heck is a Merlin PK-1 (Plus)?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 4:01:08 EST


You can email this info, I doubt it's of general interest.

What is a PK-1 Merlin Plus? A speaker-phone, an ancillary station
button unit, a martini maker, what?

Thank you.


[e-mail] (John Boteler)
NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE  Club updates, events, and info

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 00:55:46 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Numbering Changes: Are All 713 Local Calls Going Ten Digits?


Someone on Fidonet's FCC conference area mentioned that all local
calls in area code 713 must be dialed as 10D (area code + local
digits) as of 1st March 1992, even within 713. Can anyone confirm or
deny this, or is this just for calls crossing into another area code?

(Note: This fidonet.org address seems to have problems; please contact
postmasters down the line if the address gets rejected)

Other addresses to try:   [e-mail]
[e-mail]      [e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 01:30:47 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Creative Use of Marine Radio Band


The following message appeared in FidoNet's FCC echo.

Originally from: Bill Sepmeier (1:104/325)

In a message of <22 Feb 92 11:16:00>, Chris Campbell (1:267/103) writes:

> Interesting you should mention this Alan; I have seen just that
> happen with the marine band radios in this area. Some RS salesman
> sold a few marine rigs to a couple of teenagers ...

In Aspen, CO., they use the marine band for plumber dispatch ...
surrounded by mountains and landlocked, they seem to get away with it.
Purchased, of course, from the local Shack.  (South American 50w
"cordless" telephones get a lot of use up here, too ...)

 # Origin: NSN's Master Control V.32b 303-949-3253   (1:104/325)


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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 00:58:19 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Who is Mr. Kerrey?


I read somewhere, probably in the sister publication, Telecom-Privacy
Digest, that one of the big telemarketing firms in Nebraska is run by
a Mr. Kerrey.  I wonder if he is any relation to the presidential
candidate.  If so, to what extent would the candidate, if elected,
promote the cause of telemarketing as Bush has helped his family?

Is Kerrey using his brother's firm for telemarketing during the
campaign?  That's 1-900-4-KERREY.  :-)


David


[Moderator's Note: Gee, we go from 'who is Mr. Kerrey' at the start of
this message to the assumption the candidate is a brother of the one
doing telemarketing. 'Kerrey' is a common name; possibly they are not
related at all.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 09:35:02 EST
From: A. Okapuu-von Veh  <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telecom Legislation in Canada


Here are some excerpts from the {Montreal Gazette} of Feb. 28, 1992:

"Consumers would be able to block unwanted telephone sales pitches and
cable-television companies would be allowed to enter telecommunications
under long-awaited legislation unveiled yesterday.

 ....

"Under the new legislation, cable companies will be allowed to provide
any telecommunications service they want without any regulation. "That
gives them the power, in theory, to offer local telephone service --
something that's already happened in the U.S.

"But it's more likely Canadian cable companies will first introduce
so-called interactive television. Such a system could allow viewers to
make purchases from home-shopping channel through a cable-TV converter.

 ....

"The most immediate change for consumers is a measure giving the CRTC
power to block unsolicited phone calls and fax messages. Details
aren't complete, but a Communications Department official said
telephone companies may be required to register customers who don't
want sales pitches or junk faxes.  Both human and computerized
solicitations are covered by the ban."

Excellent news, I say!  Let's hope it works, though ...


Alexander Okapuu-von Veh   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: On the Road Again ...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 19:24:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I'll be on the road for 35 days this summer for an extended motorcycle
tour across the USA.  Currently, I have AT&T service at home, and an
AT&T Calling Card.  I also have a Pacific Bell calling card number.

I know all about choosing carriers, AOS's in hotels, etc., and am not
worried much about being scammed due to ignorance.

My request for the group is for pointers to other services that may be
more cost effective for the large number of long distance calls, both
voice and data, that I plan to make, from motel rooms, people's homes,
and pay phones, both Telco and COCOT.

Obviously, I will be inconvenienced by "things" that do not support
10xxx dialing, 800 number dialing or 950. Since I'll be staying at cheap
motels, I expect to find much less gouging on the telephone than one
does at "good" hotels.  For instance, Motel 6 advertises that they are
telecom friendly.

So, if you have a favorite LD service, that I can subscribe to without
changing my home service around, I'd like to hear from you by email.
I'll summarize to the Digest if there is sufficient response.


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] (Alan Chee)
Subject: MCI Call USA For Non-US Residents
Date: 29 Feb 92 17:36:57 +1100


Hi all,

I just saw an ad in Australian paper by MCI offering non-US residents
to secure MCI Card for CALL USA. It needs to be linked to
VISA/MasterCard/EuroCard.  It targets users with lots of calls to USA.

Presumably AT&T will not be far behind in their CALL USA.

Apologies if this has been discussed to death but assuming both AT&T
and MCI does step up their offering, can anyone shed some light on the
pitfalls and/or advantages of the scheme?

Are there hidden charges?  Minimum charge irrespective of use?  Card
fee?  Always via operator assistance? Any direct dial, operator bypass?

Anyone care to share their experience? Please mail if this has been
discussed before as I vaquely recall they have. My personal interest?
Well, perhaps dialup to databases, Compuserve; more frequent direct
calls to vendors, etc.

Thanks in advance.


Alan Chee    [e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #181
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03062;
          1 Mar 92 15:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29322
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 12:20:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07641
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 12:20:03 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 12:20:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #182

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Mar 92 12:20:04 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 182

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John Higdon)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John McHarry)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Joe Konstan)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Jerry J. Anderson)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Ihor J. Kinal)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey? (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone? (John Higdon)
    Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Is This Ad Self-Defeating, Or What? (John David Galt)
    Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (Walter Scott)
    Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed (Mike Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 02:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


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

> Friday afternoon I discovered a wonderful new 800 service which I want
> to mention to all readers of the Digest, in the hopes you will use it
> soon.

Delightful article! However, get ready -- this is just the beginning.
Now that everyone has fouled the 900 sewer (including IPs, telcos,
IECs, and even customers), new and improved scams will become the
order of the day. IPs have smelled the money and are not about to give
it up.

I have said it before and will say it again for those who missed it.
900 is on its way out. Its reputation is shot. IECs and telcos have
ripped the IPs off. The less scrupulous IPs have ripped callers off.
Legislators will probably deal the death thrust with some sort of
"presubscription" legislation garbage. It is over. All that remains is
to pull the plug.

Surprisingly, 976 currently enjoys a better reputation than 900. I had
a conversation recently with a Pac*Bell 900/976 rep who was mystified
concerning the recent upsurge of 976 (not 900) requests. It is a
simple matter of economics: people are more apt to call a 976 number
in California than they are a 900 number. Why? My theory is that 976
enjoys a lower perceived "sleaze factor".

Now we will see the larger IPs actually become IECs. This will give
them the same flexibility that the long distance companies now enjoy
(because for all practical purposes, they will BE long distance
companies). The most obvious is the 800 scam that Pat mentioned.
Another is the location of the service in a foreign country. The
service is billed as "free" of surcharges, but the provider gets a cut
of the international toll bill.

All of these "alternative" methods come with a major advantage: all of
the 900 content restrictions are repealed. The sleazy sex lines can be
"as nasty as they wanna be" without the slightest fear of Jesse Helm
or anyone else. Also: Presubscription is out. Uncollectables are
drastically reduced. Arbitrary disconnection (something AT&T loves to
do to its IP customers) is a thing of the past. The IP gets to keep
more than pennies on the dollar of the charge to the customer. And no
more fear of a Telesphere fraud where a bunch of very slimy business
types literally stole millions of dollars from IPs.

It is going to be a jungle out there. Those who were so indignant
about 900 numbers will flip over what is to come. At least with 900
numbers, you had a concentrated target. Now you will vulnerable from
every direction. Those innocent 800 numbers could cost you a bundle.
Your kids could be dialing all sorts of raunchy sex numbers using a
code obtained from a friend and no charges (or tipoff) will appear on
your phone bill. Those who thought 900 services were a cancer will
discover that the disease has spread to all parts of the body.

If you did not like the sleaze, there will be no way to legislate or
tariff it away now without actually abridging rights of ordinary
telephone users. If you were worried about excessive charges, the sky
is now the limit. And if you thought that 900 charges were "sneaky",
wait until you see some of the creative ways the providers will tap
your wallet now.

The good news is that the honest, quality providers will have access
to the same methods and will be able to deliver a more reasonably
priced product to their customers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date:  1 Mar 92 16:37:02 GMT


Why restrict this to COCOTs?  Isn't it The Phone Company (TPC) itself
that started this game of 900 numbers and such?  Are they not the
gentlepersons who operate the billing systems for these operations?
Besides, it would be amusing to see how they try to wiggle out of
paying.  They must be as liable as a COCOT owner.  PAT is right ... this
is a wonderful new service!


John McHarry ([e-mail])
#include strong.disclaimer

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 17:16:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


Our Moderator recounts another 900-style 800 number.  Well, just for
fun I checked the 800 prefix assigned list in the archives (great
source of information) and, what do you know, this number is served by
Sprint!  I haven't had the time to try Sprint's customer service (nor
this "800" call) but may do so when work clears up and/or I'm in the
mood for a little friendly confrontation.  If anybody else picks up
the ball on this one, please let me know.


Joe Konstan     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 20:31:49 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jerry J. Anderson)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


[many chuckles]

Thanks for the post.


[e-mail]     Jerry J. Anderson   vox: [phone]
K-State Telecom    fax: [phone]   Manhattan  KS  66506


[Moderator's Note: You're quite welcome. And for those who may have
missed the original post, by calling 800-736-7886 you can participate
in a seance on the hour and half-hour each day, 6 AM to 3 PM Pacific
Time. Or you may speak with fortune tellers and Tarot practitioners. A
twenty-minute session is only $120, billed to the telephone you are
using. Be sure and use a COCOT or Genuine Bell pay phone for your
calls unless you don't mind having the charges on your own phone.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 15:09:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In a p.s. to article <[e-mail]>, our Moderator
notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I *have* used my cell phone from the observatory
> at Sears Tower. I saw no harm to the cellular system here as a result
> of my call ... but what do I know?  PAT]

This is an amusing story, but it hides the real issue.  If you call
from a height, and are moving quite fast, you are presumably handing
off to numerous transmitters, and using up a fair amount of resources,
which you are NOT doing in the Sears tower. [I mean it might sway a
bit in the wind, but it hardly does a couple hundred MPH relative].

Second, there's minimal impact to to any airplane navigation/
communications gear from the Sear Tower [I hope planes don't fly
close :-) ].  Remember, any device receiving communications will also
typically be emitting radiation at some IF frequency.  [other than the
primary frequency -- and that might EASILY be equal to someone else's
IF frequency] -- that's how radar-detector detectors work, by the way.

Finally, I remember a story where someone's cellular phone was left on
in his BAGGAGE, and an incoming call somehow triggered the FIRE
DETECTION system in the cargo hold.  NOT NICE!!!  [And boy, would I
hate to be the owner !!!!].

Standard disclaimers [and I've never brought a cellular phone onto
an airplane].


Ihor Kinal       att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 1 Mar 92 02:48:10 GMT


[e-mail] (tim gorman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes in TELECOM Digest V12
> #175:

>> It SOUNDS simple enough -- when we dial "1" now, the switch knows
>> whether to deliver the call to AT&T, MCI, or XYZ depending on a
>> predefined carrier choice; why not similar "choices" when we dial
>> "911"?

> The problems come at the geographical boundaries of these towns. We
> have at least two situations where a few residents of one town are in
> a different county from everyone else. Since the 911 bureau's are set
> up by county we have a problem (just as an aside, some of these
> stations may actually have Rural Route identities, figure out where
> they are from that :-> ).

I don't know why SWBT thinks this is such a great problem.  Here in
California we have lots of town pairs locally (Los Altos-Mountain
View) (Los Altos Hills-Palo Alto) where one exchange serves
subscribers in both towns.  The E911 system correctly routes the Palo
Alto folks to PA dispatch, and the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills folks
to Los Altos dispatch.  The choice of dispatch center can be corrected
from the dispatch centers themselves.  All this was working when Los
Altos still had crossbar, so you can't claim that some fancy #42ESS is
required to do it.

Maybe the folks in the midwest are just too lazy to do it.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey?
Organization: Georgia Tech
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 03:12:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Gast) wrote to discuss a 'Mr. Kerrey'. The Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, we go from 'who is Mr. Kerrey' at the start of
> this message to the assumption the candidate is a brother of the one
> doing telemarketing. 'Kerrey' is a common name; possibly they are not
> related at all.  PAT]

Indeed, there are even TWO U.S. Senator Kerreys.  One is the
presidential candidate and is from Nebraska, the other is the junior
senator from Mass.  A good Irish name, 'tis!


Bill Berbenich - School of EE, DSP Lab

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 19:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone?


[e-mail] writes:

> "It was then permitted to connect devices to the Bell System via a
> small white box on the wall called a DAA (direct access adaptor), which
> is essentially an isolation transformer.  Later the need to use a DAA
> was eliminated in most situations ..."

I object! :-) As someone who was subjected to the full frontal hell of
that era, I demand to be heard! It was not a "small white box". The
post-Carterfone desision era was a time of CDH, STC, STP and a host of
other "coupling devices" that seemed to be designed to cripple
telephone service at every turn.

If you had an answering machine at your home, you had to order an
"STC" coupling device. This carried a $100 installation charge and a
hefty $5.50/month extra charge on your phone line. For this you got
quite a gadget. It was full of relays, transistors, and a bunch of
other components. It provided a fully isolated loop to which you
connected your answering machine. It was so isolated that it did not
pass CPC (loop current interruption) or ring voltage. Your answering
machine had to be capable of receiving ring current on a third wire.
The STC would generate its own 20 Hz ring voltage with a relay that
chattered twenty times a second, alternating the 70 volts DC that was
generated elsewhere in the unit.

The CO ring detector would take a full half-second to recognize an
incoming ring, so your device only got little bursts of that bogus
ring voltage. Voice transmission loss through the coupler was over one
decibel. It required AC power, so your answering machine would be
inoperative during a power outage, even if it ran on batteries.

The other major coupler was the CDH, and was used to connect PBXes to
the network. These required five pairs for each line between the
interface and the PBX. The extra wires signalled ring up, battery
present, line siezure, etc., in addition to the actual audio pair. The
cost for a CDH was the same as for an STC. In some phone rooms, one
could find frame after frame full of CDH cards, each card costing its
telephone customer $5.50 per month.

But then, as you may know, the phone company had to give it all back.
Every last dime. All installation charges. All monthly charges. And
interest on all charges EVER collected for the installation or use of
these devices. It almost made it all worthwhile -- but not quite.


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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 9:11:38 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated


Yes, indeed, on my recent UK trip I was able to use USA Direct without
any operator intervention, since most hotel room and many private home
phones are now equipped with Touch Tone. However, I could not find a
single pay phone so equipped, so my portable Radio Shack tone dialler
came very handy. Apparently, some payphones used to have tone, but
this was removed since for some reason having to do with phone fraud.
(I always expected to be questioned by a police officer when using my
tone dialler, but no such luck :-)

I don't understand the charging structure, here are three calls made
at about the same time, three days in a row, to the same number:

14 mins  $15.92    ; good rate, I think
2  mins  $ 4.64    ; huh?
1  min   $ 3.70    ; well, I guess they *are* adding $2.50 as someone said.

At a BT store someone wanted to offer me a BT charge card, and I
stupidly responded that I didn't think I'd qualify, not being a UK
resident. (Just, like I say "I can't vote" when harrased by political
party people). Maybe they do issue them to US residents, anyone know?


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Is This Ad Self-Defeating, or What?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 23:21:06 PST


Billboard in BART station this afternoon:

"We called to tell you about [Pacific Bell's] Message Center, but you
weren't home."

Sounds like I missed a sales call by not getting the service.  I think
I'll keep not getting the service.  :)

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 14:08:28 PDT
From: ole!lorbit![e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Subject: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)


In Telecom Digest, Vol. 12, Issue 175, Article 5, [e-mail]
(Peter da Silva) writes:

>> Now, if we are dealing with FidoNet and sharing of expenses
>> by SysOps: Are you or would you then support the notion
>> that a FidoNet HUB must resign him/herself to paying
>> business rates simply because he/she is compensated for the
>> cost of forwarding mail into FidoNet at whatever cost?

> Yes. People who charge ("sharing costs") to forward Usenet
> do.

What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion?
What impact would this have on FidoNet throughout the US if all
FidoNet HUBs being compensated for forwarding mail and files in the US
were required to pay business rates on their BBS phone lines, in your
opinion?


Walter Scott
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

From: sean![e-mail] (mka)
Subject: Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed
Date: 28 Feb 92 00:47:07 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City


I saw a device in a local telephone store that attaches to two phones
(for demonstration and sales purposes) labeled "Phoenix CO", I think.

It provides dial tone to one phone, and automatically rings the second
phone five seconds after the first goes off-hook. When both phones are
off-hook, it provides talk battery.

This device would be very useful to me in writing modem and fax
drivers, but the folks in the store couldn't tell me where to get one.

Does anyone know of these or similar devices and where they can be
obtained?


Thanks,

Mike Anderson    uunet!sean!mka

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #182
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04205;
          1 Mar 92 15:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01632
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:43:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01576
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:42:54 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:42:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #182


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Mar 92 12:20:04 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 182

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John Higdon)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John McHarry)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Joe Konstan)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Jerry J. Anderson)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Ihor J. Kinal)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey? (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone? (John Higdon)
    Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Is This Ad Self-Defeating, Or What? (John David Galt)
    Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was: Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (Walter Scott)
    Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed (Mike Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 02:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


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

> Friday afternoon I discovered a wonderful new 800 service which I want
> to mention to all readers of the Digest, in the hopes you will use it
> soon.

Delightful article! However, get ready -- this is just the beginning.
Now that everyone has fouled the 900 sewer (including IPs, telcos,
IECs, and even customers), new and improved scams will become the
order of the day. IPs have smelled the money and are not about to give
it up.

I have said it before and will say it again for those who missed it.
900 is on its way out. Its reputation is shot. IECs and telcos have
ripped the IPs off. The less scrupulous IPs have ripped callers off.
Legislators will probably deal the death thrust with some sort of
"presubscription" legislation garbage. It is over. All that remains is
to pull the plug.

Surprisingly, 976 currently enjoys a better reputation than 900. I had
a conversation recently with a Pac*Bell 900/976 rep who was mystified
concerning the recent upsurge of 976 (not 900) requests. It is a
simple matter of economics: people are more apt to call a 976 number
in California than they are a 900 number. Why? My theory is that 976
enjoys a lower perceived "sleaze factor".

Now we will see the larger IPs actually become IECs. This will give
them the same flexibility that the long distance companies now enjoy
(because for all practical purposes, they will BE long distance
companies). The most obvious is the 800 scam that Pat mentioned.
Another is the location of the service in a foreign country. The
service is billed as "free" of surcharges, but the provider gets a cut
of the international toll bill.

All of these "alternative" methods come with a major advantage: all of
the 900 content restrictions are repealed. The sleazy sex lines can be
"as nasty as they wanna be" without the slightest fear of Jesse Helm
or anyone else. Also: Presubscription is out. Uncollectables are
drastically reduced. Arbitrary disconnection (something AT&T loves to
do to its IP customers) is a thing of the past. The IP gets to keep
more than pennies on the dollar of the charge to the customer. And no
more fear of a Telesphere fraud where a bunch of very slimy business
types literally stole millions of dollars from IPs.

It is going to be a jungle out there. Those who were so indignant
about 900 numbers will flip over what is to come. At least with 900
numbers, you had a concentrated target. Now you will vulnerable from
every direction. Those innocent 800 numbers could cost you a bundle.
Your kids could be dialing all sorts of raunchy sex numbers using a
code obtained from a friend and no charges (or tipoff) will appear on
your phone bill. Those who thought 900 services were a cancer will
discover that the disease has spread to all parts of the body.

If you did not like the sleaze, there will be no way to legislate or
tariff it away now without actually abridging rights of ordinary
telephone users. If you were worried about excessive charges, the sky
is now the limit. And if you thought that 900 charges were "sneaky",
wait until you see some of the creative ways the providers will tap
your wallet now.

The good news is that the honest, quality providers will have access
to the same methods and will be able to deliver a more reasonably
priced product to their customers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date:  1 Mar 92 16:37:02 GMT


Why restrict this to COCOTs?  Isn't it The Phone Company (TPC) itself
that started this game of 900 numbers and such?  Are they not the
gentlepersons who operate the billing systems for these operations?
Besides, it would be amusing to see how they try to wiggle out of
paying.  They must be as liable as a COCOT owner.  PAT is right ... this
is a wonderful new service!


John McHarry ([e-mail])
#include strong.disclaimer

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 17:16:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


Our Moderator recounts another 900-style 800 number.  Well, just for
fun I checked the 800 prefix assigned list in the archives (great
source of information) and, what do you know, this number is served by
Sprint!  I haven't had the time to try Sprint's customer service (nor
this "800" call) but may do so when work clears up and/or I'm in the
mood for a little friendly confrontation.  If anybody else picks up
the ball on this one, please let me know.


Joe Konstan     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 20:31:49 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jerry J. Anderson)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


[many chuckles]

Thanks for the post.


[e-mail]     Jerry J. Anderson   vox: [phone]
K-State Telecom    fax: [phone]   Manhattan  KS  66506


[Moderator's Note: You're quite welcome. And for those who may have
missed the original post, by calling 800-736-7886 you can participate
in a seance on the hour and half-hour each day, 6 AM to 3 PM Pacific
Time. Or you may speak with fortune tellers and Tarot practitioners. A
twenty-minute session is only $120, billed to the telephone you are
using. Be sure and use a COCOT or Genuine Bell pay phone for your
calls unless you don't mind having the charges on your own phone.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 15:09:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In a p.s. to article <[e-mail]>, our Moderator
notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I *have* used my cell phone from the observatory
> at Sears Tower. I saw no harm to the cellular system here as a result
> of my call ... but what do I know?  PAT]

This is an amusing story, but it hides the real issue.  If you call
from a height, and are moving quite fast, you are presumably handing
off to numerous transmitters, and using up a fair amount of resources,
which you are NOT doing in the Sears tower. [I mean it might sway a
bit in the wind, but it hardly does a couple hundred MPH relative].

Second, there's minimal impact to to any airplane navigation/
communications gear from the Sear Tower [I hope planes don't fly
close :-) ].  Remember, any device receiving communications will also
typically be emitting radiation at some IF frequency.  [other than the
primary frequency -- and that might EASILY be equal to someone else's
IF frequency] -- that's how radar-detector detectors work, by the way.

Finally, I remember a story where someone's cellular phone was left on
in his BAGGAGE, and an incoming call somehow triggered the FIRE
DETECTION system in the cargo hold.  NOT NICE!!!  [And boy, would I
hate to be the owner !!!!].

Standard disclaimers [and I've never brought a cellular phone onto
an airplane].


Ihor Kinal       att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 1 Mar 92 02:48:10 GMT


[e-mail] (tim gorman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes in TELECOM Digest V12
> #175:

>> It SOUNDS simple enough -- when we dial "1" now, the switch knows
>> whether to deliver the call to AT&T, MCI, or XYZ depending on a
>> predefined carrier choice; why not similar "choices" when we dial
>> "911"?

> The problems come at the geographical boundaries of these towns. We
> have at least two situations where a few residents of one town are in
> a different county from everyone else. Since the 911 bureau's are set
> up by county we have a problem (just as an aside, some of these
> stations may actually have Rural Route identities, figure out where
> they are from that :-> ).

I don't know why SWBT thinks this is such a great problem.  Here in
California we have lots of town pairs locally (Los Altos-Mountain
View) (Los Altos Hills-Palo Alto) where one exchange serves
subscribers in both towns.  The E911 system correctly routes the Palo
Alto folks to PA dispatch, and the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills folks
to Los Altos dispatch.  The choice of dispatch center can be corrected
from the dispatch centers themselves.  All this was working when Los
Altos still had crossbar, so you can't claim that some fancy #42ESS is
required to do it.

Maybe the folks in the midwest are just too lazy to do it.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey?
Organization: Georgia Tech
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 03:12:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Gast) wrote to discuss a 'Mr. Kerrey'. The Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, we go from 'who is Mr. Kerrey' at the start of
> this message to the assumption the candidate is a brother of the one
> doing telemarketing. 'Kerrey' is a common name; possibly they are not
> related at all.  PAT]

Indeed, there are even TWO U.S. Senator Kerreys.  One is the
presidential candidate and is from Nebraska, the other is the junior
senator from Mass.  A good Irish name, 'tis!


Bill Berbenich - School of EE, DSP Lab

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

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 19:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Exactly What Was Carterfone?


[e-mail] writes:

> "It was then permitted to connect devices to the Bell System via a
> small white box on the wall called a DAA (direct access adaptor), which
> is essentially an isolation transformer.  Later the need to use a DAA
> was eliminated in most situations ..."

I object! :-) As someone who was subjected to the full frontal hell of
that era, I demand to be heard! It was not a "small white box". The
post-Carterfone desision era was a time of CDH, STC, STP and a host of
other "coupling devices" that seemed to be designed to cripple
telephone service at every turn.

If you had an answering machine at your home, you had to order an
"STC" coupling device. This carried a $100 installation charge and a
hefty $5.50/month extra charge on your phone line. For this you got
quite a gadget. It was full of relays, transistors, and a bunch of
other components. It provided a fully isolated loop to which you
connected your answering machine. It was so isolated that it did not
pass CPC (loop current interruption) or ring voltage. Your answering
machine had to be capable of receiving ring current on a third wire.
The STC would generate its own 20 Hz ring voltage with a relay that
chattered twenty times a second, alternating the 70 volts DC that was
generated elsewhere in the unit.

The CO ring detector would take a full half-second to recognize an
incoming ring, so your device only got little bursts of that bogus
ring voltage. Voice transmission loss through the coupler was over one
decibel. It required AC power, so your answering machine would be
inoperative during a power outage, even if it ran on batteries.

The other major coupler was the CDH, and was used to connect PBXes to
the network. These required five pairs for each line between the
interface and the PBX. The extra wires signalled ring up, battery
present, line siezure, etc., in addition to the actual audio pair. The
cost for a CDH was the same as for an STC. In some phone rooms, one
could find frame after frame full of CDH cards, each card costing its
telephone customer $5.50 per month.

But then, as you may know, the phone company had to give it all back.
Every last dime. All installation charges. All monthly charges. And
interest on all charges EVER collected for the installation or use of
these devices. It almost made it all worthwhile -- but not quite.


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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 9:11:38 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated


Yes, indeed, on my recent UK trip I was able to use USA Direct without
any operator intervention, since most hotel room and many private home
phones are now equipped with Touch Tone. However, I could not find a
single pay phone so equipped, so my portable Radio Shack tone dialler
came very handy. Apparently, some payphones used to have tone, but
this was removed since for some reason having to do with phone fraud.
(I always expected to be questioned by a police officer when using my
tone dialler, but no such luck :-)

I don't understand the charging structure, here are three calls made
at about the same time, three days in a row, to the same number:

14 mins  $15.92    ; good rate, I think
2  mins  $ 4.64    ; huh?
1  min   $ 3.70    ; well, I guess they *are* adding $2.50 as someone said.

At a BT store someone wanted to offer me a BT charge card, and I
stupidly responded that I didn't think I'd qualify, not being a UK
resident. (Just, like I say "I can't vote" when harrased by political
party people). Maybe they do issue them to US residents, anyone know?


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Is This Ad Self-Defeating, or What?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 23:21:06 PST


Billboard in BART station this afternoon:

"We called to tell you about [Pacific Bell's] Message Center, but you
weren't home."

Sounds like I missed a sales call by not getting the service.  I think
I'll keep not getting the service.  :)

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 14:08:28 PDT
From: ole!lorbit![e-mail] (Walter Scott)
Subject: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)


In Telecom Digest, Vol. 12, Issue 175, Article 5, [e-mail]
(Peter da Silva) writes:

>> Now, if we are dealing with FidoNet and sharing of expenses
>> by SysOps: Are you or would you then support the notion
>> that a FidoNet HUB must resign him/herself to paying
>> business rates simply because he/she is compensated for the
>> cost of forwarding mail into FidoNet at whatever cost?

> Yes. People who charge ("sharing costs") to forward Usenet
> do.

What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion?
What impact would this have on FidoNet throughout the US if all
FidoNet HUBs being compensated for forwarding mail and files in the US
were required to pay business rates on their BBS phone lines, in your
opinion?


Walter Scott
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.

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

From: sean![e-mail] (mka)
Subject: Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed
Date: 28 Feb 92 00:47:07 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City


I saw a device in a local telephone store that attaches to two phones
(for demonstration and sales purposes) labeled "Phoenix CO", I think.

It provides dial tone to one phone, and automatically rings the second
phone five seconds after the first goes off-hook. When both phones are
off-hook, it provides talk battery.

This device would be very useful to me in writing modem and fax
drivers, but the folks in the store couldn't tell me where to get one.

Does anyone know of these or similar devices and where they can be
obtained?


Thanks,

Mike Anderson    uunet!sean!mka

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #182
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05433;
          1 Mar 92 16:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01732
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:46:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01734
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:45:36 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 13:45:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #183


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Mar 92 12:47:34 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 183

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations (Jack Decker)
    Re: USA Direct Automated (John R. Covert)
    Caller*ID Software Project (Rob Bailey)
    Videophone Survey (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
    Moving Into an Old House (synsys![e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 21:23:05 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Differences in State Telecom Regulations


About a week ago I posted a chart of some things that vary by states
and that I wanted to keep track of.  To recap, the items I am keeping
track of include Free Touch-Tone, Caller ID, and whether there is a
legal ban on mandatory measured service in the state.  I also invited
suggestions for other items that vary on a state-by-state basis, that
readers might want to keep track of.  I received several responses and
will attempt to summarize them here.

First, several respondents suggested that where Caller ID is
available, I should indicated whether blocking is in effect, and if
so, whether it is per-call or per-line blocking, or both.  I feel that
this is a worthwhile suggestion, so in the future I will indicate the
type of blocking by one of the following codes next to the "Y" in the
Caller ID column: [C] for per-call blocking, [L] for per-line
blocking, [CL] if both types of blocking are in effect, and [N] if
there is no blocking of Caller ID.  The absence of any of these codes
indicates that I do not know the status of Caller ID blocking in that
state.  Note that these codes would apply to calls from regular
phones, and not to special cases such as Battered Spouses' Shelters,
etc.

Some respondents suggested I keep track of availability of custom
calling features such as three-way calling, call waiting, call
forwarding, distinctive ringing, call return, call trace, etc.
However, these services are usually offered on a company by company
basis, and may be available in only some exchanges served by a given
company.  I know of no state that bans or mandates a company to
provide these services, so it's not really appropriate information for
this chart.  Some folks wanted actual rate information, which would of
course be impossible because rates often vary considerably within the
same state, depending on the serving telephone company, size of local
calling area and other factors.

Some wanted to know if mixed measured and unmeasured service is
available in the same household.  Again, I think this would tend to
vary more by company than by state; however, if I should be convinced
that some states either require or ban this on a statewide basis, I
will put it in the list, if demand warrants.

One respondent suggested keeping track of enhanced 911.  Again, I
suspect this varies by serving company more than by state.

A couple of respondents suggested I keep track of whether residential
ISDN is available.  I am willing to add a column showing that
residential ISDN has been tariffed in a particular state, if anyone
tells me that this has in fact been done in their state.

One person suggested that I keep track of whether COCOT's (Customer
Owned Coin-Operated Telephones) are legal in various states, and
supplied information on two states.  I will add that information to
the list.  He also suggested I add whether non-measured business lines
are available.  I'm really tempted to add that one as well, but again
suspect that this is something that varies on a company-by-company
basis.  Also, if a mandatory measured service ban is in effect, it
would apply to business lines as well as residential.  If no such ban
exists, then even though flat rate business service may be available
today, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be available.

That pretty much summarizes the comments I've received so far.
Responses were received from:

Phil Howard KA9WGN <[e-mail]>
Doctor Math <caen!viking.rn.com![e-mail]>
Rich Greenberg <prodnet.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Glenn R. Stone <[e-mail]>
Christopher Davis <[e-mail]>
Garrett Wollman <[e-mail]>
Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Mark Rosenstein <[e-mail]>
Kath Mullholand <[e-mail]>
Arthur Rubin <[e-mail]>
John R. Levine <[e-mail]>
Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Gil Kloepfer Jr. <[e-mail]>
Jim Holmes <[e-mail]>
John David Galt <[e-mail]>
Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Jon Baker <gtephx![e-mail]>

Thanks to all who responded.  The revised chart and footnotes follow.
Again, the following items are the ones being tracked on the chart:

1) Free Touch-Tone.  This will be set to "Y" if telephone companies in
the state do not charge an additional monthly charge for Touch-Tone
service.  Yes, I know it's not REALLY free, but at at least folks in
these states aren't paying extra for a service that saves the phone
company money when they use it!

2) Caller ID.  This will be set to "Y" if Caller ID is available
ANYWHERE in that state, or "N" if it is known to NOT be available
anywhere in the state yet.  Blocking status is indicated by [C] (per
call), [L] (per line), [CL] (both per call AND per line blocking
available), and [N] (blocking is NOT available.  If none of these
codes appear, then the status of blocking in that state is unknown.

3) Mandatory measured service ban.  This will be set to "Y" if a voter
referendum or legislative action has banned the imposition of
MANDATORY measured service.  In this case, "Mandatory measured
service" means that no option is available that would permit a
business or residential telephone customer to make an unlimited number
of local calls, without being charged on a per-call or timed basis,
even if a "free" call allowance of a certain number of calls or a
certain number of minutes of calling exists.  In states marked with
"Y", telephone customers are guaranteed by law the right to subscribe
to a calling plan that offers unlimited local calling.  In states
where no unlimited flat-rate calling option is available, or no legal
ban against mandatory measured service exists, this should be marked
"N".  PLEASE NOTE that a flat-rate calling option may CURRENTLY be
available in all or part of some states marked with an "N", but there
is no law to prevent mandatory measured service from being imposed in
the future.

4) COCOT's (Customer Owned Coin-Operated Telephones).  "Y" indicates
they may be legally used in the state, while "N" indicates they are
prohibited.

Where neither a "Y" nor an "N" appears, I do not have the necessary
information to fill in the space.  If you have information that would
help fill in some of the blanks, or suggestions for other items that
should be tracked on a state-by-state basis, or corrections to the
list below, please send them to [e-mail].  I will
re-post the list after I get more of the "holes" filled in.

Disclaimer: The list below is NOT guaranteed to be accurate, but if
you spot an error, PLEASE let me know about it.  Murphy says that if
there is only one error in the list, it will be in the item you are
most interested in, so please obtain independent verification before
spending any money based on what you see here!


                     Free  Caller  Mandatory Allow
                      T/T     ID   Meas. Ban COCOT
Alabama                N     N[1]      N
Alaska
Arizona                Y       N
Arkansas               N
California             Y       N
Colorado               N
Connecticut          N?[3]     N       N       N
Delaware               N       Y       N
District Of Columbia   N       Y
Florida                N       Y
Georgia                N       Y
Hawaii                 N
Idaho                          Y
Illinois               N       Y       N
Indiana                N       Y       Y       Y
Iowa                   N
Kansas
Kentucky               N       Y
Louisiana                      Y
Maine                          Y       Y
Maryland                       Y
Massachusetts          N    Y[L][2]    N
Michigan               N       N       N       Y
Minnesota              N
Mississippi
Missouri               N
Montana
Nebraska               Y       Y
Nevada                         Y
New Hampshire          N       N       N
New Jersey             N       Y
New Mexico             N
New York               N       Y       N       Y
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma                       Y
Oregon                 Y               Y
Pennsylvania                   N
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee              N       Y
Texas                  N       N
Utah
Vermont                N       Y       N
Virginia               N       Y
Washington             Y
West Virginia                  Y
Wisconsin              Y               N
Wyoming

[1] Caller ID tariffed (or under consideration by the PSC) but not yet
introduced in Alabama.

[2] In Massachusetts, Caller ID is allowed by tariff but only if
per-line blocking is used.  New England Telephone has currently
withdrawn its plans to offer Caller ID in Massachusetts.

[3] I've had conflicting reports on whether free Touch-Tone is
available in Connecticut.


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


[Moderator's Note: Here in Illinois we have Caller-ID statewide with
the exception of a few exchanges not yet upgraded. We have per call
blocking with *67, but no per line blocking.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 10:10:14 PST
From: John R. Covert  01-Mar-1992 1250 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct Automated


> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T has automated their USA Direct service,
> at least for calls from the United Kingdom.

Yes, from the U.K. you now get the AT&T Jingle (no bong), then you get
asked to enter the number you are calling or 0 for an operator, then
you get the bong and get asked for your calling card and PIN or zero
for an operator.

For D.A., you can enter the area code plus 555-1212, but then you have
to enter 0 and say "calling D.A." to be connected.  (No charge.)

 From France it is not yet automated; I still get the operator
immediately.  I have the impression that there are more DTMF phones in
France than in the U.K., but ...

> The report mysteriously concludes: "The representative added that it
> is not possible to place calls to countries other than the U.S. and
> Canada where the call originates outside of the U.S."  Since when can
> AT&T handle calls from third countries to Canada?

They can't, and if you dial a number in Canada, you will be connected
to the operator immediately, with the number you dialed in her
display.  Or, if you try to call it as a sequence call, you will be
told to hang up and dial again.  A little experimentation shows that
USA Direct will now complete calls to the 50 States, D.C., Puerto
Rico, and the U.S.  Virgin Islands.  Area Code 809 is sufficiently
translated so that USA Direct rejects calls to 809 points that are not
in the U.S.


/john

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

Date: 01 Mar 92 01:20:24 EST
From: "Rob Bailey, WM8S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Software Project


I'm done playing with the Caller*ID-to-RS232 interface I've built and
have decided to write some software. Any suggestions? I'm thinking
about a program that will log all calls to a file (like a Caller*ID
box-in-a-disk), and will also provide a simple database to enter
information like: date/time history of most recent xxx calls from this
number, all CNA (Customer Name and Address) information (you'll have
to enter the first time you get a call from the number), a box for
comments, and other fields.

I'll also make it compatible with as many different formats of input
as possible (e.g., a box that sends all data raw, even junk from the
ring trips, one that sends just raw data, one that sends cooked data
[i.e., just the ID byte, number, checksum, date/time, etc.], or the
keyboard to allow for manual searches).

If I decide to market the software commercially, anyone who sends me a
suggestion I use will get a copy gratis (in complete consideration for
their contribution -- sending me suggestions grants me permission to
use them in the program in exchange for a freebie copy of the
product).

Please e-mail me directly, and I'll at least summarize the results (no
guarantee that anything commercial will result; I'll put the result
somewhere anonymous ftp if I decide to give it away).

I've also considered writing a program to simply push the digits that
come in from the CID back onto the keyboard stack along with an ENTER
or some user specified keystrokes so you could use a CID interface
with your favorite software. I'll get back to the group on that one.


Rob Bailey      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 00:38:40 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
Subject: Videophone Survey


We are surveying computer science, electrical engineering, and
telecommunications professionals and graduate students in order to
assemble a technology forecast for the video telephone.  This forecast
will be a part of a technology assessment that we are preparing for a
graduate course at Washington University.  We would appreciate if you
would take the time to fill out this survey and return it to Lorrie
Ackerman ([e-mail]).  All responses will be kept
confidential.  Feel free to forward this to other people who may be
knowledgable about video phones.

Thank you for your time.

     Lorrie Ackerman
     Gang Chen
     Greg Griffin
     Huong Nguyen
     Linda Witt

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

Employer:

Job title (if you are a student, list university and department):


Have you done research related to video phones? If yes, please describe
it briefly.



What percent of American businesses do you predict will own videophones by
the year 2002?


What percent of American households do you predict will own videophones by
the year 2002?


In your opinion, are there competing technologies that will be more widely
adopted than videophones over the next 10 years?  If yes, please explain.


What level of picture quality (as compared to current television picture
quality) do you think video phones will be able to achieve by the year 2002?


What do you predict the list price of a videophone will be in the year 2002
(in 1992 dollars)?


Additional comments about videophones:


May we contact you for additional information?  If so, please list
your name, phone number, and e-mail address.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 06:10:11 -0500
From: synsys![e-mail]
subject: Moving Into an Old House


I'm moving into an old house and the telephone wire from the pole is
just three separate wires twisted together.  I'll be installing two
lines, so what should I ask for?  What's the cheapest way to get the
lines installed?  I'm moving only a few blocks, so I'll want to keep
the same numbers.  Is there someway to consider this a transferral
rather than a new installation / account and would that help me?

Looking at the pole, my wire joins the neighbor's not at the usual
punchdown block but to a small box that I suspect is a "slick-96".
How can I tell?  If it is, will it interfere with my Telebit
Trailblazer (which does V.32 and PEP)?


jeffj     [e-mail]   synsys![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #183
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20677;
          1 Mar 92 23:47 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23875
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:13:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23753
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:13:10 -0600
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:13:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #184

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Mar 92 21:12:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 184

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Peter Sleggs)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (David Lesher)
    Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey? (Adam M. Gaffin)
    Stupid COCOT Tricks (Joel Upchurch)
    One Line With Two Numbers (Ken Mandelberg)
    Voice Mail Access by Modem? (Ken Mandelberg)
    New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Bob Frankston)
    AT&T Directory Assistance (Carl Moore)
    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 20:26:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service


On Friday afternoon, Cellular One service in the far northwest
suburban area of Chicago was disrupted when Vandals toppled a cellular
tower in the Itasca, IL area. In the process of the tower falling
over, considerable damage was done to the equipment there, wires were
severed, and the tower fell in such a way that traffic was blocked on
the street in front of the tower for a few hours.

The immediate results were numerous cell calls in progress knocked off
the air, but Cellular One was able to reroute traffic a few minutes
later.  Cellular service in the area remained unreliable through
Saturday evening when service had been mostly restored.

Because there had been rain and strong winds Friday afternoon, there
was some conjecture that the tower had fallen on its own; but federal
investigators on location Friday evening pointed out what they termed
the 'clean way in which the metal had been cut', and noted that in an
act of nature (strong winds) 'the results would have been a lot more
crude'; that is, the evidence would have shown the tower to have
probably been yanked up and tossed aside by the wind.

Once the original tower had been removed from the road so that
automobiles could pass by, Cellular One crews set about restoring
service. By working all night, and all day Saturday in shifts, the
cell site was back on line late Saturday evening.

Federal investigators repeated their claim that Vandals were to blame,
but no leads had developed in the investigation as of today. They
pointed out that 'more than one person had to be involved from the way
this came off'.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 92 20:42:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> Last year, I made a call from a phone that was provided on-board,
> while flying from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.  What is the dif-
> ference with this phone and the cell phones which cannot legally be
> used while in flight?

> [Moderator's Note: I presume part of the difference is the frequency
> at which the radios operate, and the transmission characteristics.
> The one is deemed harmful under the circumstances, and the other is
> not.   PAT]

    The phone service provided on airlines is specifically designed
for air to ground service. Where the cellular service re-uses
frequencies over a fairly small geographical area (20-30 miles between
sites using the same frequency, depending on terrain, made possible
due to the frequency range and power levels used), air-to-ground
shares frequencies over a large area (500 miles between ground
stations on the same frequency).

   A cellular phone used from an airplane in flight would blanket cell
sites in three or four states (depending on flight altitude). That
could mean literaly dozens of receive sites on the same frequency.
Correspondingly, the interference to the cellular receiver from the
correspondingly large number of transmitted signals on the same
frequency would probably make the phone un-usable once the aircraft
reached an altitude of 1500-2000 feet or more.

   Cellular phones operate in the 800-900mhz frequency range. Last
time I was close to air-ground telephone equipment, it was operating
in the 450-470mhz range.


John Rice         K9IJ    |   "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |    MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |    Not my Employers....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)   |


[Moderator's Note: I did not think 450-470 megs normally travelled
over such a wide area, despite the height.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 16:18:45 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> Last year, I made a call from a phone that was provided on-board,
> while flying from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.  What is the dif-
> ference with this phone and the cell phones which cannot legally be
> used while in flight?

> [Moderator's Note: I presume part of the difference is the frequency
> at which the radios operate, and the transmission characteristics.
> The one is deemed harmful under the circumstances, and the other is
> not.   PAT]

Or does it depend on who makes the $ on the call ? ;-)

Anyone taking bets on when each aircraft becomes an airborne cell with
a link via the current airfone system to the ground? As an aside, is
the power of the current radios controllable enough by the systems to
allow this sort of operation? A VERY low power aircraft sized cell?

Cell-O-Plane anyone ?


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 17:28:44 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> This is an amusing story, but it hides the real issue.  If you call
> from a height, and are moving quite fast, you are presumably handing
> off to numerous transmitters, and using up a fair amount of resources,

I really ought to let a cellsite engineer argue with this one, but
I'll bite anyhow..

Yes, excessive handoffs can be a hassle. I recall reading an early
{cellphone} antenna test. They were in NYC, and in the canyons of Fifth
Avenue, they got something like 40 handoffs in the first minute,
before the switch gave up.

Given that, I doubt the above explanation. The fact is, if you get up
in the air, you get lots of range. And in a cell setup, excessive
range is NOT what you want ...

I recall reading a posting, maybe here, from some state disaster
relief agency. He'd called his office once from the air. Said office
had many trunks in rotary, and the bill was a surprise.  He got
charged for 30+ completed calls, from all over the place.  I'd have
thought the handshake scheme would have been complex enough to avoid
THAT effect, but maybe not.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
Subject: Re: Who is Mr. Kerrey?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:00:13 GMT


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

> Indeed, there are even TWO U.S. Senator Kerreys.  One is the
> presidential candidate and is from Nebraska, the other is the junior
> senator from Mass.  A good Irish name, 'tis!

Sorry, but there's only one Sen. KerrEy.  Ours is plain ol' Sen. Kerry
(although he also served in Vietnam, and his initials just happen to
be JFK).


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

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

Subject: Stupid COCOT Tricks
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 92 12:06:54 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


Saturday I went to Florida Mall in Orlando with a friend of mine.  I
told her to call my beeper number when she was ready to leave and then
I would meet her back at the car. I was walking around the mall later
when she found me and told me that the pay phones wouldn't accept my
beeper number. I thought she must be mistaken, but then I went to one
of the pay phones and try dialing my beeper number. As soon as I
entered the first three digits it said "invalid prefix" and stopped. I
got my quarter back and tried again and it said the same thing.

I assume that the problem was that the COCOT phone was misprogrammed,
so that it didn't recognize the prefix as a valid one for the 407 area
code. This isn't crooked, like where they try to get you to pay toll
rates for a local call, this is just dumb. It is especially
frustrating, since the office of my paging company (Pac-Tel) is just
on the other side of the parking lot from the mall. I called the COCOT
automated repair number to report the problem.

I was thinking about what else I should do. I was going to call the
Mall offices Monday and complain about the COCOT phones. I was also
going to call Pac-Tel and tell them about it. It occurs to me that if
the phones in the mall have the wrong information, then all the phones
this COCOT has locally may have it also. Other customers of Pac-Tel
may get bitten by this and may not be telecom savvy enough to realize
it isn't Pac-Tel's fault. I figure Pac-Tel might want to complain to
the COCOT and the Mall and they might be taken a lot more seriously
than I will be.

Does anybody have any other suggestions?

BTW, on a more amusing note, I was in Costco the other day and I
noticed that they had two pay phones. The one out in the area that the
customers would normally use was a COCOT phone, while the one by the
employee lounge was a Southern Bell phone.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: One Line With Two Numbers?
Date: 1 Mar 92 20:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


I know various phone companies offer two phone numbers for the same
line with a ring differentiation (called Ring Master in this area).

What I want is the ability to fix one of the numbers to forward on
busy and the other to do call waiting. I'm on a modem a lot and would
like my advertised number to forward, but still have a more select
number that could get through (the call waiting tone breaks the modem
carrier).

Is this possible?


Ken Mandelberg      | [e-mail]          PREFERRED
Emory University    | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km    UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | [e-mail]              NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322   | Phone: Voice [phone], FAX [phone]


[Moderator's Note: When IBT set up my Distinctive Ringing service, an
option they gave me was to have the additional number forward along
with the main number when call forwarding was turned on, or to ring
through, despite the status of the main number. I chose the latter,
which seems to be what you are interested in. Explain it to them that
way when you order it. If you have two additional numbers tied in
(there seem to be three possible ringing cadences they use) then you
can have both forward with the main number, either one, or neither.
That seems to allow maximum flexibility. Also I have noticed the
distinctive ringing number works fine with caller-ID, voicemail and
all other CLASS features.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: Voice Mail Access by Modem?
Date: 1 Mar 92 20:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


I deal with two different voice mail systems, one offered by Southern
Bell (Memory Call) and the other a system Northern Telecom sells with
their SL100 switch.

Does anyone know if either of these can be accessed by modem? I would
be happy just to be able tell if there were in fact waiting messages.


Ken Mandelberg      | [e-mail]          PREFERRED
Emory University    | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km    UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | [e-mail]              NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322   | Phone: Voice [phone], FAX [phone]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers
Date: Sun 1 Mar 1992 16:39 -0500


I saw this in the {NY Times} this past week.  A company (Infotrax) has
been sending out phone delivery notices and telling people to call the
900 number to claim their package.  The NY Attorney General has
threatened to sue them and they agreed to refund 10,000(!) payments.
To forestall self-righteous telecom readers who will say that if you
call a 900 number you should know what you are getting into, these are
the kind of scams that prey on the naive.  Not everyone has gotten to
the point of recognizing phoney offers like condo letters designed to
look like they come from the IRS.

I've also decided that the 900 numbers are an example of the RBOCs
getting into a value added service without any thought.  There is NO
NEED FOR 900 numbers.  If people did want convenience in paying they
can use their existing credit cards and key them in.  If that is too
much trouble, the phone company can offer a payment macro that would
store your credit card number for you and only require you to key in a
PIN.  For the truely lazy and naive, there would also be the option of
flagging the line to present the payment information without requiring
the PIN.

One nice thing about this approach is that would allow a uniform
system of payment from any phone so that you can use a credit card
number even from a pay phone or internationally.  Currently the 900
number sometimes works and sometimes doesn't depending on what phone
line you happen to be using.  Clearly a design error.

Of course, for this to work properly, there would have to be a uniform
way of entering the billing information and updating it as well as a
way to prevent the calling party from listening in on the PIN entry.
For ISDN, it would be nice to incorporate the presentation of bill-to
information in a standard message.

In short, the goal of providing a simple and uniform way of paying for
services over the phone line is a reasonable one.  But the 900 number
is a very stupid way of doing it. The only virtue is that it was
kludged into the phone system when no one was watching.  The ability
to charge to a standard credit card would provide wider availability
of charging services with more control ont he part of the subscriber.

People without credit cards are not a problem since the fact that they
can charge to a 900 number means that someone is willing to vouch for
their ability to pay -- the telcos can guarantee an appropriate card.

I can elaborate on this proposal in much more detail if there is interest.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 21:11:34 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Directory Assistance


I just did a 0+ call to 713 directory assistance from 410 area in MD,
and got the message "Thank you for using AT&T directory assistance" --
a message I take to merely mean my use of AT&T card on such call.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 21:18:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages


I have written to Laurence Chiu pointing out that the 415/510 split
was done along the Bay, and that the biggest city usually keeps the
old area code (with exception pointed out for Baltimore).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #184
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15253;
          3 Mar 92 1:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00332
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:12:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01845
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:12:29 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:12:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #185

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Mar 92 23:12:28 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 185

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Ron Dippold)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Andy Sherman)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John David Galt)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John R. Levine)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Patton Turner)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: AT&T Directory Assistance (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 23:00:47 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I tried the number from a cellular phone and had an invalid,
disconnected phone number repeated back to me.  Apparently the ANI
records on the outgoing cellular lines are messed up.  If the IP tried
to bill that non-working number, they'd be up the creek.

I then had the Southern Bell operator try the number -- this is when
things get interesting.  The operator dials and a few seconds later a
man's voice comes on and says "This is the ATI operator.  What number
did you call, please?"  The local operator asked "Is this 800-736-7886?"
to which the 'man's voice' replied "Thank you," then hung-up on us.
The operator and I both agreed that the 'man's voice' sounded like a
recording, so we called back and the local operator asked "Are you a
person or a recording?"  A few seconds later, the same "Thank you"
then disconnect.  Apparently, if there is not a valid ANI the call is
routed to that intercept announcement (pretty slick) which then
records the caller's response.

I then tried calling from an AT&T credit card phone.  You know, the
kind with the little neat-o TV screen on it.  I got the same 'male
voice' and figured that the ANI had been disabled from that phone so
that AT&T wouldn't get billed for any of these nuveau-sleeze 800
number calls.  Smart move.

So then I moved over to a RBOC pay phone (not a COCOT) and the call
went through fine and the correct number was read back to me.  I even
got my six-digit PIN, but apparently the 'seers' only work until 3:00
P.M.  Pacific time and it was well past that time when I called.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 04:28:13 GMT


I wanted to put it on my Visa.  However, when they asked for the
number, I figured if they needed me to tell them there was no point in
calling ...

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 00:55:47 EST
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


FYI

800-736-7886, which was Pat's $120 fun call, is assigned to Sprint.


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]
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: Sun,  1 Mar 92 15:55:52 PST


John Higdon writes:

>  Surprisingly, 976 currently enjoys a better reputation than 900.  I had
>  ...  Why? My theory is that 976 enjoys a lower perceived "sleaze factor".

Perhaps it's because (in Calif. at least) 976 numbers are allowed to
charge a maximum of $2 per call (or is it per three minutes)?  900
numbers can run to $50 or $100 or more.

I have no problem with people offering paid services over an 800
number, provided that they don't use the phone system to do their
billing for them.  But the ANI method leads to a lot of fraud (such as
what the Moderator did to Mystic and/or the COCOT owner!) and I'm sure
it will fall into disuse as soon as enough of the victims realize how
they're being had.


John David Galt

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

Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 2 Mar 92 01:21:09 EST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> Be sure and join a seance soon! And when you do, please be sure to use
> a COCOT for the call [to the $120.00 800 number] ...

Hmmn, I used to subscribe to a mailing list where there was a
moderator of immense moral stature who told us naughty children to pay
our bills for calls to 800-555-5555 rather than whining that 800 calls
were supposed to be free or something like that.  But I'm relieved to
see he's gotten over it.


Kleptomanically yours,

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


[Moderator's Note: If you use your own phone, expect to pay what bills
show up, whether it is {USA Today} or some Tarot practitioners at
800-736-7886. I never said you had to pay the COCOT owner's phone bills
for him also!  :) PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 18:58:40 GMT


> If you did not like the sleaze, there will be no way to legislate or
> tariff it away now without actually abridging rights of ordinary
> telephone users. If you were worried about excessive charges, the sky
> is now the limit. And if you thought that 900 charges were "sneaky",
> wait until you see some of the creative ways the providers will tap
> your wallet now.

There are some simple legislative methods to reduce the sleaze (note
that I consider the BILLING METHOD the sleaze, not the possibly-
pornographic content of the call):

(1) 800 numbers shall be free to the caller.

(2) There shall be no "reverse-charging" to telephone numbers for amounts
    over and above the toll for any telephone call.  Use credit cards or
    set up your own billing system, IPs.  IPs may not use the calling line
    information to determine WHO to bill.  They may use it to verify the
    sanity of billing information given by the caller.

(3) Information service charges may not be tacked onto the toll for
    a call except for those individual numbers (411, and specific numbers in
    900, 976, 212-540, etc. but not 800) existing (and grandfathered) when
    the legislation is passed.

(4) The owner of the line (telephone company customer) is not responsible
    for information service charges incurred on his line (any more than he
    would be for merchandise ordered by phone and paid for with a bogus credit
    card on his line) because he is the owner of the line.  He will be
    responsible if he is also the caller.  He may be responsible for the
    actions of his children (if they're minors and he has custody, etc.)

This leaves international calls.  Businesses with PBXs and pay phones
should already know they're expensive and block them or know how to
charge for them.

> The good news is that the honest, quality providers will have access
> to the same methods and will be able to deliver a more reasonably
> priced product to their customers.

If these people insist on billing the wrong person (line owner, not
caller), then I question the description "honest, quality providers".


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 17:36 GMT
From: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


> Be sure and use a COCOT or Genuine Bell pay phone for your
> calls unless you don't mind having the charges on your own phone.  PAT]

Yes, I said that, but earlier today I was speaking with someone who
suggested since the 800 number came from U.S. Sprint, perhaps it would
go through on that company's 'Sprint Direct' service if called from an
international location, since AT&T's USA Direct only allows calls to
AT&T 800 numbers. Indeed, when someone in Japan tried calling the
seers' 800-736-7886 number via Sprint Direct, the call went through.
It then so conveniently billed the call to some 214 number
(214-688-4432) that Sprint owns.  My fear is that it will be buried on
Sprint's huge bill and they'll never notice it.

If Sprint does notice the call, then it should be be a simple matter
to link the outbound call on 214-688-4432 with the inbound call on
Sprint Direct at the same time. If there is some sort of ANI operating
on inbound (to Sprint Direct) calls from Japan, the billing can be
bounced right back to the original caller, assuming he was not calling
from a pay station or a hotel lobby, etc.  I think between the seers
and the telcos of the United States, they had better get their act
together.

I must stress vigorously however that deliberatly billing any
telephone service to someone else's telephone number without their
permission is illegal. Several of us by now have observed that on
calls to 800-736-7886 the seers seem willing to accept *almost* any
phone number given as valid for billing ... but I'm sure none of us
have actually used the services offered or otherwise defrauded the
folks at Mystic Marketing. And remember: if you use the service and
get billed, don't come here whining! Pay your bills! Be responsible
for the use of your instrument!      PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 18:18:58 GMT


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

> On Friday afternoon, Cellular One service in the far northwest
> suburban area of Chicago was disrupted when Vandals toppled a cellular
> tower in the Itasca, IL area. In the process of the tower falling
> over, considerable damage was done to the equipment there, wires were
> severed, and the tower fell in such a way that traffic was blocked on
> the street in front of the tower for a few hours.

  I might also comment that about a week prior, there were three
towers similarly damaged in Western Ohio/Eastern Indiana, in an area
served by GTE North. I don't have any details, but heard about it when
I was doing work in the GTE Ft. Wayne Service Center.


John Rice         K9IJ    |   "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |    MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |    Not my Employers....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)   |

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 22:33:45 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground


> [Moderator's Note: I did not think 450-470 megs normally travelled
> over such a wide area, despite the height.   PAT]

Propagation of UHF signals is limmited by the curvature of the earth.
At crusing altitude for pressurised aircraft, this line of sight will
be hundreds of miles, especially if the antenna is located on a tall
tower.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 92 20:36:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Allen Gwinn) writes:

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

[responding to my article about a lawyer using a cellular phone on the
ground, and the pilot refusing to taxi until he hung up]

>> Also speaking as a pilot ... cell phones operate in the 800-900mhz
>> spectrum.  Radar Transponders operate around 1000mhz and have fairly
>> broad banded receivers. It's not inconcievable that the phone was
>> getting into the transponder.

> Interesting that this would be noticed while the aircraft was still on
> the ground.

  True, of course. Also DME is up in that range, and that 'might' be
noticed. Currenly FAA regulations prohibit operation of ANY
non-standard radio equipment in a commercial aircraft, while in
flight, without quite extensive testing. It's 'possible' to get a
radio certified for use but the certification applies to a 'specific'
radio, in a 'specific' aircraft and requires testing of THAT radio in
THAT aircraft. Seldom worth the effort.

  There's a common mis-conception that the Captain can authorize use
of a two-way radio in flight, and while I've heard of it being done,
FAA regulations do not allow for that and the Captain could be held
liable if there were a problem.

>> Not to mention the fact that it's illegal to use a cell phone from
>> an aircraft in the air (be the aircraft commercial or private -- still
>> illegal).

> Yes, but we were talking about using it while the aircraft was still
> on the ground, weren't we?

   Actually I think we were talking about the flight attendent asking
the gentleman to cease operation so that the aircraft could depart.
While it's not illegal on the ground, the aircraft couldn't leagaly
depart until operation of the Cell Phone ceased.

   It's kind of academic. The phone would probably become un-usable
pretty quickly anyway, once in the air. Between co-channel
interference and the Cell-System going crazy trying to figure out what
cell to put the user on, or multiple Systems trying to provide
dial-tone at the same time or sending conflicting command signaling.
What a mess (and of course this is what the FCC is trying to prevent).


John Rice         K9IJ    |   "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |    MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |    Not my Employers....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)   |    ASEL,AMEL,IP

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1992 06:13:18 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I did not think 450-470 megs normally travelled
> over such a wide area, despite the height.   PAT]

At that frequency you get line-of-sight for quite a distance.  The
420-450 ham band has been used for amateur satalites.  Around 50 mhz
and up to light, except some microwave bands that are absorbed by
water vapor in the atmosphere, line of sight and the inverse square
law governs the range.  Given omni-directional antennas, I would
guesstimate 50-100 watts erp at each end would do the job for the
airphones.


 ---> Rich Greenberg,  [e-mail]    TinselTown, USA  310-337-5904
Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles
Opinions expressed are solely those of the writer.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 21:12:30 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Directory Assistance
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I just did a 0+ call to 713 directory assistance from 410 area in MD,
> and got the message "Thank you for using AT&T directory assistance" --
> a message I take to merely mean my use of AT&T card on such call.

I've noticed something similar when calling DA bureaus for Southern
California area codes.  When using a calling card, you hear the normal
female "Thank you for using AT&T" message immediately after entering
your card number, then a male voice comes on and repeats the same
message.  When dialing direct, the male voice still comes on, so it is
not really related to the use of a calling card.  However, it sounds
(more) stupid when used in conjuction with a calling card as you hear
the same message twice.

When I first heard this, I thought that perhaps AT&T was operating its
own DA bureau for long distance inquiries, but when the friendly DA
gentleman asked "what city?", I instead asked him "what company" do
you work for?  This caught him a bit off-guard as you might imagine,
but he responded "General Telephone" This was for either 619 or 714 --
I can't remember which.

I tried to get a reason for this by asking the AT&T customer service
folks at 800/222-0300, but they were of no help.  Nobody there would
admit to ever hearing of this before, and all they would say "Well,
sir, it's just to let you know that you're using AT&T."

So, does anybody know the real reason that this message is now
inserted for long distance DA?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #185
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19341;
          3 Mar 92 3:04 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09664
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 00:27:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15570
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 00:27:10 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 00:27:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #186

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Mar 92 00:26:52 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 186

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Keith Smith)
    Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages (Bill Garfield)
    Area Code List Wanted (Claus Tondering)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Bruce Perens)
    Re: USA Direct Automated (John Slater)
    Re: USA Direct Automated (Frederick Roeber)
    Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks (Stan Krieger)
    Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (Bruce Ferrell)
    Re: Creative Use of Marine Radio Band (Bruce Perens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Keith Smith <ksmith![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 21:33:25 EST
From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 02:33:19 GMT


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

> What was wrong with MCI? Constant outages, for one. The entire T-span
> would go down for days. Another problem was call setup time. It
> typically took more than six seconds to set up a call once the
> outpulsing into the MCI trunk was completed. (The same calls made on

Well, We have three T1's with MCI.  Two are used for Telemarketing
(ugh!) and one is used at our main office for WATS service.  We had
some major problems with outages and such for about 30 days after the
original install.  Since then we have had about three outages only one
of which lasted for more than about one hour.  The one that did I
understand was the big one that made all the papers, and seemed to
affect ALL the LD carriers.  None as far as I know were because of our
T1.  Call completion is a bit sluggish, but our SL-1 has best way
routing and could account for much of the time.

> Sprint may be better than MCI technically, but its billing is so bogus
> that until that company can convince me that it has its act together,
> I will never recommend it again to a client. It has been years since
> people started noticing this problem and it has never been fixed.

I THINK Sprint is getting somewhat better.  The last billing error I
called about was handled easily in about one minute.  The person was
courteous on the phone.  HOWEVER, They obviously KNEW about the
problem and they SHOULD have written me LONG before I called.  This is
NOT commercial money either.

MCI's billing on the other hand ... we have offices with LD all over
the states of NC and VA.  ALL of it is SUPPOSED to be centrally
billed.  The last SCREAMS I heard from that direction indicate that it
is STILL screwed up.  MCI also has something new.  It's a way to
download your phone bill detail from MCIMAIL.  So I took a 286 PC with
640K and a 20MB hard disk and ran the program.  It barfed before it
finished after running about 12 hours (*Please be patient*).  The
phone time to MCI was about 1.5 hours.  I haven't had the courage to
call and try it again.

> This past month has convinced me that AT&T's competition has still got
> some ways to go before it can be taken seriously. For small
> applications (say one T-span), both Sprint and MCI can greatly
> undercut AT&T. They are both very hungry and will eat the T1 costs
> even if your business only uses several channels in the span. AT&T
> will not even talk to you if you are not ready to pack all twenty-four
> channels.

But ... AT&T is a LOT more expensive.  Like we figured close to $500 a
month more.  I wouldn't mind auditing the phone bill once a month for
$500 and spending say two hours on the phone for $500, would you?

What I have trouble with is all this "package" crap.  Like you can pay
$100 month + .10 a minute or $200 month +_ .09 a minute or by calling
on odd Mondays twice as much as even ones you can sign up for ...
This is bogus.  Charge me X per minute for my first X minutes, Y per
minute for the next Y minutes, etc NO MATTER WHO or WHAT.  Two rates
instead of three, Prime, and Off Prime.  It costs them no more to
complete a call off peak than on.  The difference is the amount of
equipment in use during peak periods.  Peak usage is premium because
more peak usage = more equipment neccessary.  No, No, I have to sign
up for ROA or whatever stupid package.  What sprint and MCI BOTH need
to do it TOTALLY simplify their billing and GET IT RIGHT.  It would
end up saving money at BOTH ends.


Keith Smith  uunet!ksmith!keith  5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs BBS  1-919-423-4216  Hope Mills, NC  28348-2201

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

From: yob![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits and Telco Error Messages
Date: 1 Mar 92 15:31:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> For the past month or so, I have been involved with the various long
> distance companies on a major scale. Not only have I been working with
> the various technical departments at those companies, but have heard
> countless anecdotes from administrators for some larger business
> installations.

> After all these years, and with all the hoopla, there is still really
> only one long distance company. I am talking here about real
> industrial long distance; not the service you use at home to talk to
> Aunt Minnie.  Residence and small business IXC service is something
> anyone with a switch can provide.

> This past month has convinced me that AT&T's competition has still got
> some ways to go before it can be taken seriously.

John, I'm sure you or anyone can make a valid argument in specific
areas of the country, but likely that same argument can/could be made
of any the IXC's, including the all powerful AT&T, given the right
combination of circumstances.

The company I am with presently has a total of five T1 spans to Sprint
here in Houston.  Every experience I have had in the past four years
dealing with the USS technical support staff has been both timely and
gratifying.  I've also had *no* problems with billing after first
spending a couple calls quite early in the relationship getting the
tape format ironed out -- but then I recall spending a few more calls
doing the same thing with the gang over at AT&T.

Granted, we do hold "national account status" with Sprint, which
probably swings a little weight, but we're also a national account
with AT&T.  The fact that Sprint's CEO sits on our board of directors
may also be of some small influence. The fact that we coincidentally
lease ten floors in the *same* building with MCI's POP just 300 cable
feet straight up the elevator shaft might also be a mitigating factor.
I'm sure that running up toll charges deep into five figures every
month is a major consideration as well. Regardless of what it takes
to constitute the "right combination" of circumstances, suffice it to
be said that I am very well pleased with the services offered to my
company by Sprint. :-)

Equally worthy of note, it was Sprint who alerted us *very* early on
to toll fraud activities on our DISA port one weekend last October,
such that we were able to sew up the hole, nipping the problem in the
bud with minimal loss. Our COAM network of five ISDN interconnected
MITELs handed off a third or more of the fraudulent NPA 809 calls to
our good friends at AT&T, due to overflow provisioning, but I don't
recall hearing from *those* folks until the bill arrived a month later
requesting payment. :-(

So say what you will about this or that IXC.  Anyone can find fault if
he looks hard enough and long enough.  I'm sure our company has its
faults too.  -- And people in glass houses should not cast stones.


Bill Garfield <[e-mail]> | Standard disclaimer applies.
Telecommunications/PBX Specialist           | Nothing is implied. Opinions
Panhandle Eastern Corporation               | are solely my own and are not
Houston, TX                                 | to be construed as official
713-989-0000 (nine-ate-nine-nuthin)         | statements of my employer. I
                                            | speak for no one.

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

From: [e-mail] (Claus Tondering)
Subject: Area Code List Wanted
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 12:16:21 GMT


Has anyone got an on-line list of the US area codes that you could
mail me?  The one I've got is four years old, and several area codes
have been split since then.

Thanks!


Claus Tondering   E-mail: [e-mail]
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 18:22:31 GMT


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

>> This is an amusing story, but it hides the real issue.  If you call
>> from a height, and are moving quite fast, you are presumably handing
>> off to numerous transmitters, and using up a fair amount of resources,

> I recall reading a posting, maybe here, from some state disaster
> relief agency. He'd called his office once from the air. Said office
> had many trunks in rotary, and the bill was a surprise.  He got
> charged for 30+ completed calls, from all over the place.  I'd have
> thought the handshake scheme would have been complex enough to avoid
> THAT effect, but maybe not.

   Handshaking is only effective within the same system. In the case
where more than one system were being simultaneously accessed, all
calls 'could possibly' complete. (30 sounds a bit excessive, however).


John Rice         K9IJ    |   "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |    MY oppinion only, no one elses...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |    Not my Employers....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)   |

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 18:55:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman) wrote:

> HIS cellular phone? It's interesting that the flight attendants never
> seem to stop anyone who is using the "Airfone" facilities on board! Of
> course, the airline is getting a cut of the profits from Airfone. And
> they're not getting zip from the lawyer's own phone, esconced, I
> presume, in his briefcase.

Unfortunately, there are real technical reasons that make it
imperative that cellular phones not be used from airplanes in flight.
When you are in flight, you have line-of-sight to thousands of mobile
telephone cells, and you monopolize a channel on every one of those
cells, denying use of that channel to local callers on the ground.
This is why the FCC has made it illegal to operate a cellular phone
from an aircraft in flight. They used to, but no longer, restrict you
from using one in an aircraft on the ground. Using the phones from a
high mountain close to a metropolitan area similarly disrupts service,
but is not illegal unless you are doing it with the _intent_ to
disrupt service.

I doubt it was interfering with the plane's radio systems, though that
may be how it was explained to the stewards. They just said that to
get the esquire to sign off.

The Airphone has its own national frequency allocation, and its
"cells" are few, far separated, and designed for use from the air
_only_, relying on line-of-sight to the aircraft.


Bruce Perens

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 09:44:45 GMT
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)
Subject: Re: USA Direct Automated


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Ole J. Jacobsen)
writes:

> At a BT store someone wanted to offer me a BT charge card, and I
> stupidly responded that I didn't think I'd qualify, not being a UK
> resident. (Just, like I say "I can't vote" when harrased by political
> party people). Maybe they do issue them to US residents, anyone know?

As far as I know BT charge cards have to be linked to a phone number,
and the calls appear on your normal bill. I have not heard of any
other billing arrangements.


John Slater

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 18:56:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USA Direct Automated


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

> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T has automated their USA Direct service,
> at least for calls from the United Kingdom.

It's automated from Switzerland, too.  From France, I still get an
operator.

Now if only the Swiss banks could wire money to AT&T without losing
it, I'd be all set up!


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

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

Date: Mon,  2 Mar 92 00:40:21 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks
Organization: Summit NJ


Joel Upchurch writes:

> I assume that the problem was that the COCOT phone was misprogrammed,
> so that it didn't recognize the prefix as a valid one for the 407 area
> code. This isn't crooked, like where they try to get you to pay toll
> rates for a local call, this is just dumb...

And try to explain COCOT programming errors to the non-technical
types.  Here was a problem my wife ran into; I still don't know if she
ever understood my explanation.

The problem itself is with the implementation of the 908/201 split.
As originally announced by NJ Bell, the area code would not be needed
for local calls across the boundary.  As it turned out (and which is
very quietly pointed out in the current phone books), this is not 100%
true.  There are a number of local call possibilites (the standard
service here in unlimited local calling) where the area code is
needed; typically these are when one of the central offices serves an
area that is not on the 201/908 boundary.

Now for the COCOT problem.  My wife was trying to call Summit, NJ
(which is on the 908 side of the split) from Livingston, NJ (which is
in 201 and is a local call to/from Summit) from a COCOT.  Following NJ
Bell instructions (at the time), she pushed only the seven digits and
got "an area code is required" message.  So she then tried again,
pushing 1-908-etc., and got the same message.

When she told me what happened, it was obvious to me what had gone
wrong.  I assume that the COCOT recognized 1-908-522-xxxx as a local
call, and thus when it toned the number to NJ Bell dial tone, it sent
just 522-xxxx.  But try to explain to a non-techie that when you punch
numbers into a COCOT (assuming you can explain what a COCOT is) that
you're not really dialing the number, but feeding it into a computer
in the phone that redials the number separately, after it figures out
how much to collect from you.  Then try to explain how the 1-908 that
she pushed could have been thrown away.

Just one question -- WHY?  What was wrong with what we had?  The only
thing it did was work correctly and perform as expected.


Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Ferrell)
Subject: Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 02:54:50 GMT


As a former cellular switch manager I have to step in and correct
this.  AT&T is not to blame for this problem.  The Cellular carrier
is.  They're too cheap to buy the appropriate interconnect from the
LEC and the appropriate soft/hardware from their switch vendor to go
with.

It's easy to say "ATT did a bad job", but as long as communications
systems are run by cheque book artists with little or no understanding
of the reasons for correct interconnect practice, we'll be saddled
with poor service at at all levels.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Creative Use of Marine Radio Band
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 19:05:17 GMT


In California, some of the Marine radio frequencies are also allocated
to the State Police for inland use. I don't know how much use they get
from these channels, since there's lots of water around.


Bruce Perens

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #186
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22700;
          3 Mar 92 4:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26458
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 01:35:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21454
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 01:35:04 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 01:35:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #187

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Mar 92 01:35:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 187

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Software Problems in Phone System Failures (Chuck Howell)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Tim Gorman)
    Re: CLASS Serivces Interfering With Other Custom Call Services (J Gottlieb)
    Re: Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only (Martin Harriss)
    Re: On the Road Again ... (David E. Martin)
    Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic (Barton F. Bruce)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions
Date: 2 Mar 92 08:20:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (J Eric Townsend) writes:

> So, the University of Houston finally got a *real* [ROLM] phone system.
> (Previously, we had centrex lines and a bunch of really old-rotary
> switches.

Some would argue whether you have taken a step forward or not.

> Anyway, so Rolm comes in with a used PBX that doesn't sample fast
> enough to handle modems/faxen/etc.

Yes, all our modem/data problems miraculously disappeared when we
trashed our ROLM.

> 0. Obviously that RJ jack in the wall isn't a "real" phone connection.

Right.  It's a proprietary connection that only works with ROLM's phones.

> I doubt it, since I refuse to believe that my el-cheapo Rolm 120 has
> a 8-12 bit D/A device in it.

Start believing.

> I was playing with phonemail and discovered that about 2/3 of the
> time, it wasn't getting all the numbers I entered.  I'd enter "123456"
> and it would repeat back "You have entered 12346"

This seems to be real common with ROLM's Foonmail.  I originally
thought it was strange that, unlike most voice-mail/auto-attendant
systems, it asks you to verify what extension you had entered.  But
then I figured out why: it always misses digits.

> suspect that DTMF is gone bye-bye.  Why?  All my buttons make the same
> noise when I press them.

It will still send DTMF (at least on outgoing trunks), but they will
be of a fixed duration and will fall behind your dialing.

Other things I hated about our ROLM:

If an outside call hadn't supervised, it would not place it on hold.
And no, it wouldn't just ignore the press of the "Hold" button; it
would drop the call.  Some calls, like credit card calls and "Free
Dial" calls, never return supervision.  If you were on this kind of
call and another extension rang, you were stuck.  But in reality, most
people don't think of what number they had dialed before they push the
"Hold" button.

Pressing the extension button of the line you are on disconnects your
call.  People in the office were always picking up their ringing
phones and pressing the line button, only to immediately disconnect
the incoming call.

We couldn't call forward to an outside number.

Call forwarding within the switch didn't even work right.  I set up an
answering machine on an analog extension and tried forwarding to it
when I left the office.  But the hunting that was programmed on my
phone took priority, so I couldn't do this.

Sound quality on the ROLM phones sucked.  And increasing the volume in
the earpiece also increases the sidetone, making the phone useless
whenever the office was the slightest bit noisy (I kept an ITT 2500 on
an analog extension next to my desk to use in cases like this).

The fact that any ROLM systems get sold is a tribute to the fact that
most people buy their phone systems based on a glossy brochure and
never even ask for the chance to try using one.  In our case, in a
typical Japanese arrangement, the building we were in was run by
Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi is the local distributor for ROLM so we were
forced to use a ROLM system.  We fixed that.  We moved out.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions
Date: 2 Mar 92 22:38:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J
Eric Townsend) writes ...

> Anyway, so Rolm comes in with a used PBX that doesn't sample fast
> enough to handle modems/faxen/etc.  (Brilliant, eh?  Now we have to
> pay an even higher cost per line to keep centrex lines since we lose
> much of our bulk-centrex discount by going to the Rolm PBX.  Auugh.)
> I dunno what the model number is, or anything, but we've got scads of
> Rolm 120 phones lying around, and a voice-mail interface that almost
> puts Mac System to shame.

Huh?  Old Rolm systems (i.e., the CBX/CBXII "pre-9751" systems) sampe
FASTER than standard, i.e., 12000 times per second.  I never heard of
them failing on fax.  I used to maintain a tassel of 'em.

> ... So what the hell is it?  Some sort of packet based thing?  I
> doubt it, since I refuse to believe that my el-cheapo Rolm 120 has a
> 8-12bit D/A device in it.  ...

The RP120 has a standard 8-bit codec in it; the line card has to
convert it to 12-bit format inside the switch.  (Both the sample size
and speed are non-standard on the old Rolm backplanes.)  But the RP120
sold retail for only $100, the first "cheap" digital phone.  Of
course, you needed _their_ line card, so the real price was for the
pair.

> 2.  I haven't tried it yet (we can't dial off-campus yet), but I
> suspect that DTMF is gone bye-bye.  Why?  All my buttons make the same
> noise when I press them.

Since the phone doesn't use DTMF for signaling, its buttons don't
generate DTMF.  But the switch includes tone generators, so it's still
possible (you may need a "tone" feature key; that's how the old
ETS-100 worked and I don't know the RP120) to have the switch generate
the tones when you punch the buttons.  You just don't hear them.

> 3.  We can receive calls from outside the PBX but can't call out.
> Huh?  Maybe this is a billing problem or something.

Your line is probably restricted.

> 5.  How do I hook up some non-Rolm equpiment to that digital jack?
> Can I?

Nope.  It's their own proprietary link.  Usable only for "Rolmphone"
sets and maybe a few specialty cards built for it.

If you want to hook up "ordinary" gear, you need an analog line.  It's
quite possible to have an analog line on a Rolm switch.  The Rolmphone
just gives you more access features and it's generally easier to use.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Subject: Software Problems in Phone System Failures
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 10:31:10 -0500
From: Chuck Howell <[e-mail]>


I'm writing a brief "case study" for {IEEE Spectrum} of the
software-related failures of telephone switches in two unrelated
periods: the AT&T problem on Martin Luther King Day in January 1990,
and the failure of several local switches over a several week period
in the Summer of 1991 (reportedly due to small patches in switch
software made by the manufacturer).

Help on any/all of the following would be greatly appreciated:

What are the facts (chronology of the problems and the impact, how
diagnosed, how was damage contained, what were the longer-term changes
adopted by the developers (and regulatory agencies) afterwards to
reduce exposure to these problems)?

Is there a point of contact at the developers who could describe how
they have changed their process in reaction to the problems?

What processes (qualitative and quantitative) were used to develop,
test, and judge the reliability of software by the developing
organizations at the time of the failures?

This brief case study is due to the IEEE by the end of March, so I'm
already in semi-crunch mode!  Thanks in advance for your help.  I'll
post the text version of the Spectrum case study to this net, and I'll
gratefully acknowledge any and all help I can get.


Chuck Howell, MS Z646
The MITRE Corporation    INTERNET: [e-mail]
7525 Colshire Drive      USENET: {uunet,...}!gateway!pacific!howell
McLean VA 22102-3481     FAX: [phone]

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

Date: 02 Mar 92 09:04:44 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics


[e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes in TELECOM Digest
V12 #182:

> Tim Gorman wrote:

>> The problems come at the geographical boundaries of these towns. We
>> have at least two situations where a few residents of one town are in
>> a different county from everyone else. Since the 911 bureau's are set
>> up by county we have a problem (just as an aside, some of these
>> stations may actually have Rural Route identities, figure out where
>> they are from that :-> ).

> I don't know why SWBT thinks this is such a great problem.  Here in
> California we have lots of town pairs locally (Los Altos-Mountain
> View) (Los Altos Hills-Palo Alto) where one exchange serves
> subscribers in both towns.  The E911 system correctly routes the Palo
> Alto folks to PA dispatch, and the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills folks
> to Los Altos dispatch.  The choice of dispatch center can be corrected
> from the dispatch centers themselves.  All this was working when Los
> Altos still had crossbar, so you can't claim that some fancy #42ESS is
> required to do it.

> Maybe the folks in the midwest are just too lazy to do it.

Rather than mindlessly flaming at the phone company or at me, Mr.
Kaufman should take time to read my posts and understand what I have
been saying.  I think he would be amazed to see that I have been
describing exactly his own scenario. Perhaps it would make things more
clear if Mr. Kaufman would explain what would happen if twenty Palo
Alto customers were actually under the jurisdiction of the Los Altos
dispatch center. I suspect they would wind up at the Palo Alto
dispatch center and need to be passed to the Los Altos dispatch
center.

ONE MORE TIME: Routing by town is not the problem, especially if they
are separate rate centers. We keep these translations separated in the
switch (different line class codes, rate and route patterns, etc.).
If, however, one town crosses governmental boundaries and PSAP
jurisdictions, this creates a problem, especially when only a few
customers are involved. Having the dispatch centers pass the calls to
the correct point themselves is the answer in these cases. The problem
is getting them to do it and do it in an accurate and timely manner.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: CLASS Serivces Interfering With Other Custom Calling Services
Date: 2 Mar 92 08:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> Regarding being able to dial through the stutter dialtone, my
> experience has been that this works on a 1AESS and 5ESS, but not on a
> DMS-100.

Worse than that, it's not even consistent within the same switch.  On
the 5ESS you can dial through the stutter on the *70 but not on the
*67.

Hey guys.  Get your act together.  It's bad enough that the 5ESS acts
completely different from the 1AESS.  Let's get some consistency here.
Even the DMS series of switches has a "1AESS Emulation Mode".  Perhaps
the 5E needs this too.

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Free-Phone to UK From Warsaw March 1 Only
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 16:34:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colum
Mylod) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

>> On Sunday March 1 Polish President Walesa will appear on the BBC
>> transmission "It's Your World".  From 1:00 pm Warsaw time on, on the
>> day of the broadcast, a free direct phone line will be available for
>> Poles at the number 0-044-08000-95-91.

> Does anyone know what sort of number this is? Splitting the above
> number as follows leads to suspicion:

>  0-0 for international access code from Poland, leaving
>  [phone]

The initial '0' is dropped on incoming international calls.  The
equivalent number from within the UK, assuming you could dial it,
would be:

   0080 009591

This number is almost certainly not dialable from the UK for several
reasons.  Firstly there is probably no translation set up for 0080.
You'd probably get NU (number unobtainable) tone.  Even if it was
enabled, you'd probably run foul of the blanket barring of '0' after
an STD code. (Barring in place to prevent certain nefarious numbers
being dialed.)

Even if none of these restrictions were in place, note that the call
is not neccessarily free.  Look carefully at the code: 0080, NOT 0800.
Many years ago, STD codes of the form 00XX did certain 'interesting'
things.  But if you got answer supervision, you got charged an arm and
a leg; I think it was the same as the most expensive international
call.

Of course, this was many years ago, before the UK phone system was all
digital, so some of the above may no longer apply.


Martin Harriss     uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Re: On the Road Again ...
Date: 2 Mar 92 19:06:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA


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

> I'll be on the road for 35 days this summer for an extended motorcycle
> tour across the USA.  Currently, I have AT&T service at home, and an
> AT&T Calling Card.  I also have a Pacific Bell calling card number.

You might want to sign up for the AT&T Reach Out America plan with the
Calling Card Option.  I travel a good bit and this allows me to get
the Reach Out America prices (11 cents/minute) on all calls on my
calling card during the plan hours.  They also waive the calling card
surcharge.  In fact, now that AT&T is doing this strange cash-back
deal on their calling card, it is cheaper to use my calling card than
direct dial from my home phone.


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: [phone]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510  USA    E-Mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Looking For a KSU a Bit Bigger Than a Panasonic
Date: 2 Mar 92 18:26:43 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I have heard rumors of the new Panasonic 7000 series and others about
> the 'demise' of the KX-T616.

I may be missing some info, but the way I understand it all is that
the KSUs stay exactly the same. The newer issued versions of these
KSUs have newer firmware that supports SIMULTANEOUSLY having one of
their proprietary sets AND a POTS phone plugged into the same station.
A good example is a cordless base station and their speaker phome or
maybe you simply also want to use a generic answering machine or even
modem on the same extension as one of their fancy phones. Panasonic
won't sell these newer proms to upgrade older KSUs ("sell them a new
KSU"), but that is all that has changed.

What is also supported is a new series of phones, the 7000 series.
These are the SAME for all KSU models. The buttons may have different
assignments and features depending on the size of the KSU. This
replaces the silly system where MOST of their sets differed only by
the number of buttons physically installed, and the stripped sets only
saved you $5 or $10. If you ever upgraded to a bigger KSU you then
suffered with less buttons than needed. Stock in the older style
phones is being sold out with NO new being built. Either buy the 7000
series, (except the special DSS/Console models, etc for the 3x8 which
WILL still be made) or demand rock bottom prices for the older models.

Yes, there IS a new KSU, but it hardly replaces the current ones. It
starts with the basic 92 port box (low $2xxx - wholesale) and you can
add up to two of the 100 port expansion boxes for a max of 292 ports!
They won't sell these to just anyone. They expect you to be trained
first, and that only by invitation of a sponsoring distributor.

You have to stuff in cards for all trunks and stations as the basic
box has none. It uses all the same phones. Initially there are NO tie
trunks, and NO ground start ones (what's that, they ask ...!).
Apparently thay MAY get a T1 interface added before any of the more
traditionally needed trunk types.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #187
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23217;
          3 Mar 92 4:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00966
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 02:10:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22668
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 3 Mar 1992 02:10:45 -0600
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 02:10:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #188

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Mar 92 02:10:43 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 188

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Responses to Recent Cellular Articles (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    1992 International BBSing & Electronic Communications Conference (M. Barry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1-MAR-1992 16:33:49.71
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Responses to Recent Cellular Articles


I'm combining a few posts since the topics are interelated:

1. RE:Boston Cell customer wants info on use in NY:

If you go with NYNEX, remember that FMR (Follow Me Roaming) is NOT
available in NYNEX/NYC or NYNEX/Orange County. You have to go up to
the NYNEX/Albany system before you can use FMR.

Thus, until they set up some sort of call-delivery system between
NYNEX/Boston and NYNEX/NY (which may be part of the SNET link between
NYNEX/NY and the planned connection to NYNEX/Boston), the only way to
get calls on the "B" side in NYC if you are NOT an SNET/Linx customer
is to use the roam port at 212-301-7626.

NYNEX/NY also has PATHETIC coverage -- I don't get as many dropped
calls with them as I used to, but they have very poor coverage on Long
Island (although 12+ new towers are on order) and in Westchester
County, and don't seem to be doing as much about it as Cell One/NY
(Metro One). NYNEX's coverage is VASTLY inferior to that of Cell One.
However, their switch is more stable than NY's Ericsson, which they
are constantly playing around with, so there is much less of a chance
of getting some error recording upon trying to reach a NYNEX/NY
customer than a Cell One user, especially late at night or on weekends
when Cell One does a lot of its switch work. Overall, though, Cell One
is definitely the way to go in NY at this time.

Cell One/NY does not as of yet have a call-delivery system to/from
Boston, but in the December 1991 issue of {Cellular Business}, p.18,
there is a map showing planned interconnections to NY and all of the
McCaw system.

Phase I was the integration and connection of the McCaw Ericsson
properties throughout the US via SS7 links. This was ONLY between
McCaw Ericsson equipment.

Boston is not an Ericsson, but, according to {Cellular Business}, is
owned (to an extent?) by LIN Broadcasting, which is owned by McCaw.
(Knowledgeale TELECOM Digest readers have told me that Boston is owned
wholly by Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, so the article/map in
{Cellular Business} may be wrong ...)

In any event, people in NY have told me that they do plan to
interconnect with Boston as part of Phase II, where all McCaw
properties with dissimilar equipment will be linked up. This is
similar to the linkage that they are experimenting with now between NY
and ComCast in NJ and Metro Mobile in CT.

So, since NYNEX/NY offers such pathetic coverage, and no FMR, maybe
check with Cell One/Boston about the prospects for some timely
connection to NY (and CT for that matter.)

(BTW, Phase III will be the connection of Cantel in Canada to the
McCaw network, as well as other "A" carriers not associated with
McCaw.)

2.  Re: SS7 links between the Ericssons and other switches:

As far as I know, the SS7 links are only in place between the Ericsson
switches. They can already "talk" to each other, so they don't need
any sort of "interpreter" to convert signalling information between
them.

To connect the Ericssons which Cell One/NY has to ComCast and Metro
Mobile requires some sort of translation between the two differing
types of switches. IS-41 is supposed to handle this, but its
implementation has been delayed in NY. They are using a "protocol
converter" presently, as well as a software package to detect that a
customer is not in in the NY system to make call delivery to customers
outside of NY faster.

Basically, NY has an Ericsson (or four of them) which services NY
A-side customers. It retained ONE of its Motorolas after McCaw ditched
Motorola (Motorola, among other things, is rumored not to have been
able to deliver autonomous registration software quickly enough) in
favor of Ericsson.

If a Cell One/NY called party is in the NY system (home system), the
Ericsson, which does autonomous registrations, knows he is there, and
delivers the call to him.

If the Ericsson hasn't had a successful autonomous registration in a
while (a few hours or so), then it will not even try to find the
customer in NY, and sends the call out to the Motorola, which then
"talks" to the CT and NJ Motorolas, and tries to locate the customer
there. (This could easily be expanded to all the other Motorolas,
including DC and Vermont, but there are non-technical reasons to
prevent this.) If it is successful, the customer gets the call. If
not, the Motorola either goes to voicemail (via, quite simply, the "No
Answer Transfer" feature!), or returns a message saying the customer
is not available.  (I dunno if the Motorola plays the recording or it
tells the Ericsson to do so.)

Thus, the Motorola acts as a "gateway" between all the other Motorolas
in the Northeast (from Boston down to Wilmington), which are all
interconnected (but no call-delivery yet, just features work).  It
also handles voicemail (temporarily) for Cell One/NY customers.  The
Motorola will only be needed as long as IS-41 is delayed -- that is, if
they find that IS-41 works as well as the "protocol converter", they
will get rid of the Motorola. If not, they may keep it a while longer
until they have an effective way to exchange messaging between the
Ericsson and the Northeast EMX system.

So I'm not sure where SS7 fits in here, but it is not simply an SS7
link between these switches, although it may play a part.  Any ideas
on exactly how the protocol converter works and is connected to the
switches?

3. Re: My post about NY customers getting Call Forwaridng features in CT:

After more extensive testing, I found out what I expected to find: If
you are a Cell One/NY customer, you can use Call-Forwarding in any of
the "Northeast EMX" systems (except RI, oddly enough).

IF you have voicemail, remember to use *72 to forward and *723 (or
*720 in Philly) to unforward. Use of *73 (or *70 in CT) or *71, or
even *74 will result in eliminating the "*71" to your voicemail. There
is NO command that you can use (presently) to re-establish voicemail -
you must call customer service.

The Motorola and the Ericsson are as of today (Sunday, 3/1/92) not
exchanging CF information between each other. CF is set up in either
the NY Motorola, the CT or the NJ motorola, or the Motorola in the
system where you happen to be. (I am not sure exactly how it works
yet. I'll post more details if there is an interest.)

So, if you set up CF outside of NY, the Ericsson will NOT know about
it. It will simply look for you in NY, and if it can't find you, will
look to the Motorola. Depending on exactly where the CF info is stored
(ie, in which Motorola switch), the NY Motorola will query the
Motorola EMXs in the Northeast, ask where you have your calls
forwarded to, and then proceed to forward them. (Or, as I have
discovered, send your call to the distant Motorola and have THAT
switch process your call, ie, pay toll charges!)

So it is NOT the Ericsson which does the forwarding, UNLESS you set
forwarding in NY. This means that is you *72 to some number while in
NY (ie, store the *72 number in the Ericsson and instruct the Ericsson
to forward your calls), you will NOT be able to *73 (or *723 if you
have voicemail), ie, unforward your calls anywhere. (Except in another
Ericsson owned by McCaw, as in California or Florida, etc.) You will
have to come back to the NY system to unforward your calls if you want
to receive calls.

Another implication of this is that if you set up a *72 number while
you are in CT, and then come back to NY, you will STILL get calls in
NY. The Ericsson "looks" for you, finds you (well, it already knows
you are there, actually), and since it doesn't know that you hit *72
in CT and that your calls are to forward elsewhere, it delivers the
call to you.  So your phone will ring five or six times, the Ericsson
will give up, and will THEN pass the call to the Motorola, which will
then forward your calls. In effect, what you get is "No Answer
Transfer", which has been blocked in NY since the switch change in
July of 1991.

(Note that it is very likely that there will be weird billing for this
 -- the system is not public -- ie, it is experimental, so please don't
try to cheat the system by forwarding in a way which will allow you to
get free forwarding and thus use the mobile companies involved as a
free LD service between NY and NJ or CT. I'm sure if they find out
that this is going on they will take the sytem down and restrict who
can use it, which will delay its implementation since they will have
fewer "actual" users to test it. Conversely, you may just be billed
double airtime for this ... who knows?)

Note that all this is just the transitional stage. Things are a mess
now, as you can see by my description of how Call-Forwarding works,
but eventually will be all cleared up.

Of course there are exceptions: Metro Mobile, in its usual brain-dead
manner, sent out a letter to all of its customers saying that "No
Answer Transfer is again available in NY, and there will be no delay
in reaching customers there". Well, not so. As a matter of fact, Metro
Mobile customers can do NOTHING new in the NY system -- hitting
*71,*72,*74 or *73 all results in an error code. And calls take just
as long as they did ... so nothing is new. (They MAY be able to get
calls in NY if they have *71/NAT active in CT, I dunno.  But thay can
NOT control or do ANY *71/*72/*74/*73 features in NY at this time.)

What's wrong with Metro Mobile? Ask John Schulman - he wrote the
flyer, which was dated Fed 24th. It said "Metro Mobile cusotmers can
BEGIN using these features", ie, presently. Well, it is not working.
Mr. Schulman is also the guy who, when asked why Metro started
charging airtime for call-forwarding replied: "... Because it uses the
airwaves..." and "... because we are allowed to by law."

He is now Northeast Regional manager. Any questions on why Metro
Mobile is so messed up?? :(


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 12:17:23 MST
From: [e-mail] (Marshall Barry)
Subject: 1992 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference


                                IBECC
      A Non-Profit Educational, Literary, and Scientific Society

                             P.O. Box 486
                      Louisville, CO  80027-0486

                               Presents
The 1992 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference

                        [phone] [VOICE]
                         [phone] [Fax]
                        [phone] [DATA/BBS]
                E-Mail: [e-mail]

                          What is IBECC '92?
                          ------------------

IBECC '92 is the SECOND ANNUAL International BBSing and Electronic
Communications Conference.

It will be held AUGUST 13-16, 1992 in Denver, Colorado.  This year's
theme is "Socially Responsible Computing."

                            --------------
                            Special Guests
                            --------------

DR. JERRY POURNELLE, Ph.D.  - Computer Columnist and Editor (Byte),
Author (Science Fact and Fiction), Lecturer, Consultant on the Impact
of High Technology on Society, Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory
Council on National Space Policy, and Outspoken Social Critic -
Speaking on "Socially Responsible Computing", the future of
communications and technology in an electronic world, as well as his
own views on the society of tomorrow.

LARRY NIVEN - Futurist, Hugo Award-Winning Author, Designer of Worlds,
Supporter of Space Conquest - Speaking on the future of networks as
personal interfaces, reality overtaking fantasy, and living with
computers when you really don't want to.

DAVID HUGHES, SR. - Architect of Big Sky Telegraph (the Montana
Electronic School House), Consultant, Mover and Shaker, President of
Old Colorado City Communications, U.S.  Military (ret) - Speaking on
NREN, the SuperComputer Highway, and education through computers and
networking.

                         Attending IBECC '92
                         -------------------

IBECC '92 is an intensive THREE-DAY conference. Sessions planned
include: "Introduction to BBSing" (What is a BBS, and How Do I Use
It?), "BBSes and the Law" (The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of
BBS Operators and Users), "Safe Computing" (The Detection and
Prevention of Computer Infection), "Rumor Control 1992" (Knowing the
Difference Between Fact and Fiction, and Taking Action Where Needed),
"Why Kelly CAN Read" (An Exploration into Education and the Computer),
"NREN" (The National SuperComputer Highway and How it Will Affect Us
All), "Staying Alive" (BBSing, Electronic Communication and the
Homebound / Physically Challenged), and "Security? What's That?" (The
What, Why, and How of Keeping Your Data and Information Safe).

Should you attend? If you have an interest in electronic
communications, bulletin boards, telecommuting, security or safe
computing, yes. If you would like to understand what a "hacker" is,
and is not, and what you can do to protect your electronic privacy,
yes. If your children make more use of your modem or computer than you
do, yes.  In fact, unless you have absolutely no interest in using
your computer for interacting with the world, you should be there!

So that the conference will retain its personal and informal
atmosphere, attendance at IBECC '92 is strictly limited.

                            What Is IBECC?
                            --------------

IBECC is a Non-Profit Educational, Scientific, Literary and Charitable
Society (IRS 501(c)(3) applied for).  Incorporated in Colorado,
IBECC's purposes include the promotion of national and international
electronic communications, the advancement of telecommunications and
teleconferencing, the improvement of communications between electronic
networks, education in the uses, requirements, and security of online
services, and general support of the electronic community.

A non-profit organization, IBECC is much MORE than just another `trade
show' -- it is a year-round clearing house for ideas, news, and
relevant information.  IBECC represents the interests and concerns of
not only the professional, but the hobbyist and home user as well.

IBECC is primarily Volunteer-Run.  Membership (currently $25.00/year
individual, $100.00/year corporate) pays for the IBECC Newsletter and
electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS), telephones, support and
information services, etc. - not salaries.  The founders of IBECC, who
are all handicapped, are extensively involved in computer networks and
electronic communications, and also run several BBSes in the Denver
area.

               ----------------------------------------
               IBECC '92 Membership & Hotel Information
               ----------------------------------------

                   (All Rates are in U.S.  Dollars)

            VIP (Includes IBECC Membership and VIP Suite)


              SPECIAL RATE THROUGH MARCH 8, 1992: $80.00
             March 9, 1992 through June 15, 1992: $125.00
             June 16, 1992 through July 31, 1992: $175.00
        August 1, 1992 and at the door (if available): $200.00

           Spouse/Significant Other, with VIP Member: $9.69
              Children (Under 14), with VIP Member: FREE

                    Call or Write for Other Rates
                 (Conference Only, Handicapped, etc)

                         Conference Location
                         -------------------

     The conference will be held in the SAME HOTEL AS LAST YEAR:
            Sheraton Denver West Hotel & Convention Center
               360 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228
                   (800) LAKEWOOD or [phone]

                                Rates
                                -----

                   $62.00 (+ tax) Single or Double
            Please Mention IBECC for this DISCOUNTED RATE!

           Special Rates on Hospitality and Sleeping Suites
                    may be Arranged through IBECC

                  ----------------------------------
                  VENDORS, DEALERS, and DISTRIBUTORS
                  ----------------------------------

            Dealer and Vendor Booths and Tables Available
                      at VERY Competitive Rates

            Please Call or Write for Information and Rates

      IBECC - Now, More than Ever, Your Connection to the WORLD!

     IBECC BBS: [phone] (3/12/24/96/14.4 v.32bis/v.42/HST)
   IBECC VOICE INFORMATION: [phone] (Mon-Sat, 9AM-7PM, MST)
   IBECC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO  80027-0486

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #188
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13054;
          4 Mar 92 2:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11983
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 4 Mar 1992 00:03:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24046
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 4 Mar 1992 00:03:02 -0600
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 00:03:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #189

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 Mar 92 00:02:20 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 189

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (was CLASS Serv Interfering) (L. Broadfield)
    Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Oren HaberSchaim)
    BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Roberts)
    Panasonic KX-T123211D (Monty Solomon)
    900-Number Congressional Bill (Robert M. Hamer)
    Caller ID Starts Today in Louisville, KY (Michael Harpe)
    Canadian Telecommunication Industry De-regulation (Albert Pang)
    What's This About a Panasonic VoiceMail Product? (Marc Veeneman)
    Motorola's Iridium System (Mobeen Khan)
    Encryption Help Needed ([e-mail])
    Caller*ID Project Update (Rob Bailey)
    Fax-Modem-Phone-Answerphone in the U.K. (Adam Ashby)
    TAT-9 Begins Service (AT&T Press Release via Andy Sherman)
    Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (was CLASS Services Interfering)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1992 02:49:38 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
writes:

> Regarding being able to dial through the stutter dialtone, my
> experience has been that this works on a 1AESS and 5ESS, but not on a
> DMS-100.  I think your different experiences are related more to your
> switch types rather than the options you have enabled.  Also, the
> stuttering on the DMS-100 is actually the busy signal frequency pair,
> whereas it's really the dialtone sound on the ESS's.

We're moving to a new building, in a different CO, soon, and it's
served by both a 5ESS and a DMS-100.  We'll probably have 200 DIDs
across about 50 inbound trunks, a dozen or so 1MBs, and a T1 straight
to our LD carrier.  Oh yeah; there's also an SMDI for our voicemail.

It's also possible we'll wimp out on the switch decision again and
have 200 lines of Centrex.

In either case, Steve's remarks prompt me to ask if anyone has any
remarks about which switch we should ask to be served from, and
reasons/remarks/feelings thereon.  I *do* remember a *lot* of #5
bashing over the last year, at least wrt residential service ... (I
wouldn't know, we're on a #1A right now.)


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb

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

Subject: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
From: [e-mail] (Oren HaberSchaim)
Date: 1 Mar 92 16:02:51 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


Is a pure tone transmitted with unaltered frequency on a normal voice
telephone line?

I want to check if a friend's piano is tuned to a 440 hz "A", as is my
cello, so I won't have to do major retuning when I get there.  The
plan would be to just listen on the phone and compare with my tuning
fork or my instrument.

SInce phone lines were basically designed for verbal communication
where a uniform frequency shift of a few percent would not affect
intelligibility at all, I wonder if this freedom is made use of in all
the signal processing apparently done today, or if pitch accuracy is
reliable to .5% which is good enough for my purposes.

Thank you.


Oren Haber-Schaim

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

From: "eddf13::roberts"@frais.enet.dec.com
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 03:04:08 PST
Subject: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service


Ole Jacobsen write:

>> However, I could not find a single pay phone so equipped, so my
>> portable Radio Shack tone dialler came very handy. Apparently, some
>> payphones used to have tone, but this was removed since for some
>> reason having to do with phone fraud.

No BT payphones have tone dialing. This is because there was an error
somewhere, either in the exchange or on the phone itself which allowed
you to make free calls by using a portable dialer and adding a couple
of extra digits to the number. This happened a couple of years ago.

BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing payphones.

HOWEVER BT's own 144 automated credit card service would not work
without a tone pad, so what to do?  BT payphones have come up with an
enormous kluge which I'm only just beginning to appreciate the
enormity of.


[Moderator's Note: The message stopped at the point above. Perhaps the
writer can tell us more about the fix they have installed.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 07:26:44 EST
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom>
Subject: Panasonic KX-T123211D


I have several non-EMSS two-line Panasonic phones that I am using as
extensions with the Panasonic KX-T123211D EMSS.  Each line on the
two-line phone is a separate extension and is connected by a separate
single pair.

All of these Panasonic two-line phones have line buttons/indicators
which are illuminated when the line is in use.  For some reason these
phones think that both lines are always in use even when they aren't.
Why does this happen?

Does anyone else here have one of these Panasonic EMSS systems?

Have you experienced similar problems?

Thanks.

Monty      roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:23 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900-Number Congressional Bill


John Higdon's posting several days ago started me thinking about a
question regarding legislation which I think is currently before
Congress.  (I think someone may have posted the bill here, but I'm not
sure.)

Discussion here has left me puzzled as to whether the bill puts
restrictions on numbers whose {area code} is "900," or whether some
more general class of numbers (distinguished by their behavior rather
than their {area code}) is restricted.  It would seem to me to be
stupid to write a bill to restrict "900" numbers, when all some
company would have to do is use a different set of three numbers to
acomplish the same thing.

They wouldn't do that, would they?  They wouldn't be that dumb, would
they?


[Moderator's Note: What you are overlooking is that in theory at
least, 900 numbers are unique in their operation, ie the charging of
some fee for services other than the transport of the call itself.
Even if only 900 numbers are singled out by the legislation, there
will be considerable differences seen in the IP by phone industry.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Harpe)
Subject: Caller ID Starts Today in Louisville, KY
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 18:48:11 GMT


South Central Bell began offering Caller ID to subscribers in the
Louisville area.  It costs $7.50 per month.  Terminals are being sold
by BellSouth for $64.95.  This does include free blocking with *67.
Cell phones, calls from neighboring Indiana areas (even though they
are in the same LATA), and some payphones are excluded.


Mike Harpe, N4PLE    University of Louisville

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

From: [e-mail] (Albert Pang)
Subject: Canadian Telecommunication Industry De-regulation
Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 21:07:40 GMT


A 'federal telecommunications act' has been proposed in the Parliment
in Canada last week.  I believe this is the first act dedicated to
govern the telecommunications industry in Canada.  I think up until
now, the industry still falls under the "Railroad Act" dated at the
beginning of the century.

The information given in the newspaper article that I read was not
very detailed.  Hopefully, someone who has more knowledge in the
industry will care to clarify or ellaborate a few points.

The act covers a lot of things (details are not complete, yet).
According to my understanding of the article, the act will give power
for "cable companies to provide any telecommunications servie they
want without any regulation.  That gives them the power, in theory, to
offer local telephone service -- something that's already happened in
the U.S."

Also, "telephone companies may be required to register customers who
don't want sales pitches or junk faxes.  Both human voice and
computerized solicitations are covered by the ban."

I am not sure if the bill covers competition in the long-distance
market.  It has been a long battle between Bell Canada and Unitel
(formerly CNCP).  Hopefully, somebody can clarify this.

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

From: marcal![e-mail] (Marc Veeneman)
Subject: What's This aAout a Panasonic VoiceMail Product?
Organization: Marcal Systems Corporation
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 22:09:28 GMT


I've seen two advertisements now for a new Panasonic product, the
KX-TVP150.  Anybody know whether this thing will hook onto our
KX-T1232?  And can it store a couple of dozen pieces of addressable
voice data so outside callers can get information from us without our
having to manually intervene?

We're really close to buying a product called the Complete Com-
municator to do a similar job, but would prefer the (known?)
reliability of a Panasonic product.

Any advice the net can provide would be appreciated.


Marc Veeneman  Marcal Systems Corporation  Cary, Illinois U.S.A.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mobeen Khan)
Subject: Motorola's Iridium System
Date: 2 Mar 92 23:39:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Can any one provide me latest info on the iridium low-orbit satellite
communication system proposed by Motorola.  I wish to know:

 1.    What is going on currently?
 2.    Where is the research base?
 3.    Were any articles published anywhere on this,
        and where ? (Most important)

In other words, I just want to update myself on it.  Any help would be
appreciated.  Replies could be sent directly to me.

[e-mail]

Thanks much,


Mobeen Khan

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Encryption Help Needed
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 02:27:56 GMT


I have a presentation to do on DATA ENCRPITION for the third year of my
computing course.

If anyone can give me any infomation, or even example programs ... I
would probably think you're god!

Thanks in advance.


Jase

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

Date: 03 Mar 92 02:07:52 EST
From: "Rob Bailey, WM8S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Project Update


I got more requests for the schematic for my Caller*ID interface than
I did ideas for the software (so far -- I'm getting some good ideas in
 -- keep up the help!). I'm not sure how to provide the schematic
on-line and I can't possibly keep up with a bunch of paper requests,
but as a starting point for most, I will say that if you can get the
data sheet for the two chips I used (the XR-2211 FSK DEMODULATOR and
the MAX-232 TTL-TO-RS232 INTERFACE), you've got 90% of the schematic.

I built a simple DAA from an audio transformer (about 100:1 ratio)
with the primary coupled through a 250V 0.1uF capacitor directly to
Telco (I provided a LINE and WALL connection like modems do so I could
add the box to a system with a phone or modem). The secondary of the
transformer (oh PS the primary also has a MOV on it -- just in case!)
is hooked directly to the input of the FSK demodulator circuit. That
FSK 'dem is simply the 1200/2200 FSK circuit and components suggested
in the data sheets (they provide the calculations and several examples
of typical components and 1200/2200 is a pair they give). I didn't
feel too bad not being more original -- my commercial Caller*ID box
uses exactly the same circuit! Even the parts values are the same!

The output of the 2211 is fed right to one of the transmitter drivers
(TTL out of the 2211 to RS-232 for the PC). 3/4 of this chip is wasted
(one more transmitter and two receivers -- or would that be one more
receiver and two transmitters ;-) but the chip has on-board +12 and
-12 VDC pumps and only requires +5VDC -- the 1488/89 require +/- 12 (I
think). The MAX-232 is also wired exactly from the spec sheets (only a
few 10uF caps were required for the charge pumps). The output of the
232 is fed, via a DB25, right to my XT's serial port - a computer I
have dedicated to Caller*ID, for now.

If you wanted to be energetic, an optocoupling ring-indicator would be
a good addition (AND'ed with the data-stream, or provided on the RI
pin) since the 2211 interprets the ring trips as garbage data and it
is up to my software to ignore it (which is easy with the preamble
MaBell sends). I was just too lazy to add something which isn't
required.

If you really try and can't find the spec sheets, send me a SASE(!)
to:

211 GEORGES DR #B301
CHARLESTON WV 25306-7501

and I'll see what I can do.

A later article may summarize the software project.


For now,

Rob Bailey, WM8S         74007,[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 14:07:42 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Adam Ashby)
Subject: Fax-Modem-Phone-Answerphone in the U.K.


I have just spotted an ad for the LINESHARE 2000.

Paraphrasing ...

 ... allows you to connect fax, phone, answerphone and modem to same
line ... saving the cost of extra lines ... compatible with Mercury
phones (so?) ... FULL BABT APPROVAL ... 30 day money back guarentee
 ... full 24 month parts and labour warranty.

I have sent off for information -- prices etc., but will not be able
to report back to the Digest as I am moving on tomorrow and I do not
think I will have net access.  So, for anyone that is interested in
more info ...

Lineplex Ltd.,
1st Floor, Fairmile House,
High Street,  Ripley,
Surrey    GU23 6AN

Phone (or fax!) [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for sharing with us while you could.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: TAT-9 Begins Service
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 92 09:46:51 EST


Lifted from an AT&T press release:

AT&T today activated service on a new $450 million undersea
fiber-optic cable system linking the United States and Canada with the
United Kingdom, France and Spain.  The new system will be able to
handle the equivalent of 80,000 simultaneous phone calls or any
combination of voice, data and video signals -- double the capacity of
previous-generation submarine fiber-optic cables.  As service begins
on the new TAT-9 cable -- the ninth across the Atlantic Ocean -- AT&T
has already begun installing the next transatlantic fiber-optic
system, TAT-10.

The 9,310-kilometer (5,586-mile) TAT-9 system will be the first
transatlantic fiber-optic link to Spain, which has been served since
1970 by TAT-5, an analog cable capable of handling only 845
simultaneous phone calls.  The TAT-9 system was designed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories, STC of Great Britain, Submarcom of France and MPBT of
Canada.  Resorts Condominiums International is the first International
Accunet Digital Services (IADS) customer to be placed on AT&T's new
TAT-9 fiber-optic system.  AT&T is the largest investor in TAT-9, with
approximately one-fourth of the system's circuits.  The other major
co-owners include British Telecom, Teleglobe Canada, France Telecom
and Telefonica of Spain.

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

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!

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

Subject: Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 92 09:26:20 PST
From: [e-mail]


As a long time customer of US Sprint and loud proponent of their
service, I figure I ought to let yall know that I have switched to MCI
on my main residence line.  MCI's audio quality is much better than it
was years ago.  I still have one line connected to Sprint and think
their audio quality is the best (and loudest, perhaps.)

However, I think MCI friends and family pricing is the best deal
around.  It should be less than ten cents per minute, yes?

And the major reason for the MCI switch: Northwest frequent flyer
miles!


eli

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #189
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21039;
          4 Mar 92 5:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31787
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 4 Mar 1992 03:05:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23174
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 4 Mar 1992 03:04:56 -0600
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 03:04:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #190

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 Mar 92 03:04:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 190

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Wallace Colyer)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Ted Marshall)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Graham Toal)
    Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions (Tim Russell)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Bill Squire)
    Re: Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed (Paul Cook)
    Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (P. da Silva)
    Re: On the Road Again ... (David E. Martin)
    Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks (Carl Moore)
    Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Carl Moore)
    Looking For Users of Teledesk (John Holman)
    Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Timothy R. Wilhite)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 92 08:43:00 EST
From: "OCEANA::JONGSMA" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


    Something is strange with this number. I called it from a
COCOT at the local mall last night and was connected to the recording,
but it was slightly different from the recording you described. It did
not offer the chance to bill it to the number I was calling from. It
only would let me talk to an operator or enter in a previously
generated PIN number. I called twice and it worked the same way. I
figured that someone from Sprint realized what a mess they create by
allowing this kind of billing and disabled the ANI billing.

But! I called back this morning from work and did get the ANI option!
So what's going on here?


Ken     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue,  3 Mar 1992 12:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Wallace Colyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


This 800 number charging me got me real upset so I decided to do a
little investigation.  Here is what I have come up with so far:

1) I called Bell of PA and requested 900 call blocking.  They were
very nice and said it would be done in four hours.

2) I then asked them about this 800 number, and why it could charge
me.  They said that the long distance carriers could basically put any
charge on that they want.  There is nothing they can do.  In some
cases they can't even remove the charge (I don't believe this one).
They suggested contacting the long distance carrier.

3) I am have been a customer of US Sprint for a long time (I remember
US Telecom) so I called US Sprint and talked to customer service.
There were very nice, but didn't know anything about this.  They
forwarded me to the account representative for the 736 exchange.

4) A very nice lady answered and was concerned about it.  The US
Sprint security department is going to look into it, but she said
there was nothing she could do.  They have to provide 800 service to
anyone who asks no matter how scummy they are.  I got the name of the
company that resells the phone number.  It seems that they buy these
numbers in bulk and resell them to others.

The company is:

Audio Communications and their contact is Greg Bruce 702-251-7733.

I haven't had time to follow up and am not sure I want to make the LD
call.  If anyone else does please let me know.

Next step: US Sprint suggested I call the Fraud Department at my local
office of the FCC.  I will let you know how that goes.


Wallace


[Moderator's Note: I think you have probably done as much as you can
do on your own, Wallace. It is very likely Mystic Marketing is at
least on the edge of the law, if not well within the legal zone in
their actions, no matter how scummy it appears.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 10:37:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (Ted Marshall)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Teradata/ShareBase Corporation


My question is how this wonderful service would show up on my phone
bill. No, I'm not stupid enough to try this $120 charge on my own
phone.

Would it show up on a page for Sprint charges (or another carrier) as
a $120 800 charge? That would be something to see! Maybe a new section
of the page for "special services"?  Maybe the provider would just buy
the name and address info from Sprint and send a separate bill.

My feeling is that there should never be an ANI based bill generated
from an 800 call. As others have written, they are billing the phone
line owner, not the caller. Also, just because this service provider
is nice enough to ask you if you want the call billed to your number,
there isn't any reason that a really slimy provider couldn't charge
without informing the caller. (Of course, if this charge was
chalanged, they would claim that it was OKed. Then it's their word
against the caller's.) It's fine for the provider to ask for a credit
card number. It would be harder for them to fake that.


Ted Marshall                             [e-mail]   [phone]
Teradata Corp. (ShareBase Div.), 2055A Logic Dr., San Jose, CA 95124
The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer.


[Moderator's Note: If you want to know 'how it looks when it shows up
on the phone bill', why don't you ask a few COCOT owners what it looked
like when it showed up on *their* bill.   :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 92 23:46:31 GMT


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

> Friday afternoon I discovered a wonderful new 800 service which I want
> to mention to all readers of the Digest, in the hopes you will use it
> soon.

Pat, isn't this just like the wrongly-800'ed information service you
publicised last year - aren't you a wee bit worried about getting
pinched for conspiracy to defraud?  All it takes is for some idjit to
pass your posting on to a newspaper.  Come to think of it, don't the
FBI handle that sort of fraud in the USA?  And they're reading this
group already ...


Graham


[Moderator's Note: Yes, there are a number of telecom security people
on the mailing list here, as well as FBI folks. No matter, they could
read comp.dcom.telecom anyway, mailing list or not. And no, it is not
like the routing error with {USA Today}. In their case, they did not
ever tell people to call the 800 version, for free or otherwise. In
the case at hand, the folks at Mystic Marketing operating the service
at 800-736-7886 do not offer a 900 version of the number and
specifically solicit calls via that number, with charges to be placed
on the phone bill. I think that is a bit different, don't you?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Rolm Digital PBX Questions
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 18:31:10 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb) writes:

> Call forwarding within the switch didn't even work right.  I set up an
> answering machine on an analog extension and tried forwarding to it
> when I left the office.  But the hunting that was programmed on my
> phone took priority, so I couldn't do this.

    Indeed.  I run a helpdesk that has an outside 800 number coming in
to a hunt group of four lines.  We still have never figured out a way
to allow that to be forwarded when I am away from my desk.  The
closest I have come is to undo the 800 link using a station speed
number I've programmed, then leave the power off on the main console
so that the call rings in over our night PA system.  What a hack.

    Hopefully this will all be behind us soon, since we've been
looking at leasing a new Fujitsu switch with a /lot/ more features,
including direct inward dial, which I'm very much looking forward to.


   Tim Russell      Omaha, NE     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
Date: 3 Mar 92 12:45:26 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


The best way to do this is to set up the service in a country that
allows calls to Cuba(or N. Korea or Vietnam).  The service could put
the call thru for you or they could call you back, and probably get
you a better rate.  I understand several of the "country direct"
services presently will place theese "illegal" calls for you on your
AT&T calling card.  If all else fails you could call a number in
Mexico, blow 2400Hz and then with MFC dial Kp2 + 53 + 07 + NNNNNN + St
or use a similar bluebox technique.  I don't advocate people break the
law of the land, but common sense would put the right of communicating
with one's relatives, etc above the aims of mis-directed politicians.
In most of the "free world" all telephone users have the right to
connect to any other phone in the world, reguardless of what the
present political climate may be!


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Well Bill, as you point out, bluebox techniques are
highly illegal. I don't know about you, but given my druthers, I'd
prefer getting caught calling one of those countries via a third-country
transit scheme -- ie USA ==> Canada ==> Cuba -- than to get caught
blowing 2400 down the wire. Just my personal preference, you understand.
But why the side trip to Mexico only to blue-box the rest of the trip?
Why not go with the 53 plus 07 plus right from this country? How do
you suppose the calls get through to the Navy base down there now? But
I really feel you would be wise forgetting this approach!    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 23:50 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial Tone Generator/Tiny PBX Needed


Mike Anderson (uunet!sean!mka writes):

> I saw a device in a local telephone store that attaches to two phones
> (for demonstration and sales purposes) labeled "Phoenix CO", I think.

> It provides dial tone to one phone, and automatically rings the second
> phone five seconds after the first goes off-hook. When both phones are
> off-hook, it provides talk battery.

> This device would be very useful to me in writing modem and fax
> drivers, but the folks in the store couldn't tell me where to get one.

Various models of our telephone demonstrators do this.  We are even
coming out with a new model that simulates CENTREX.  When you try a
phone in any AT&T phone store or in Sears, our model 49200 is
providing the dial tone.

Contact us via any of the addresses below for details.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 04:19:27 GMT


I wrote that in my opinion charging to "share costs" in forwarding
Fidonet mail out of state should qualify as a business venture and pay
business rates.

> What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion?

It'll increase costs, no doubt. But it passes the duck test for a
business.  I would hope that Fidonet can adjust to bear the costs
better: return to the older practice of calling the destination city
directly, perhaps, or simply pay a little more for the long-distance
forwarding service. You don't *have* to carry long-distance mail to
run a BBS ... I think it's a better solution than targeting free chat
systems in favor of for-pay BBSes that charge for downloading K00L
WAREZ, which is what happened in Texas.

Like I said, Usenet (with a much higher volume) manages to operate in
this sort of environment. There are even companies making money
selling full feeds of Usenet for as little as $75/month (including
long distance dedicated links) with no distribution restrictions.
Surely Fido with its far lower volume can do better ...


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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 16:09:38 -0600
From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Road Again ...


I got several requests for information on the Reach Out America Plan
with the Calling Card Option.  It is very difficult to get correct
information from the people at AT&T (800-222-0300), but I finally
found someone who would read to me verbatim from their manual.  The
information below agrees with my bills.

AT&T Reach Out America Plan with 24 Hour and Calling Card Options:

Plan Hours: Mon-Fri 10PM-8AM, Sat All Day, Sun before 5PM and after
10PM Cost: $10.70 (includes 60 min interstate long distance during
Plan Hours).

Direct Dialed AT&T Calls from home:

5% discount on intrastate calls during all time periods
10% discount on interstate calls 8AM-5PM Mon-Fri
25% discount on interstate calls 5PM-10PM Sun-Fri
5% discount on international calls during all time periods

Additional minutes during Plan Hours billed at $0.11 per minute

Calling Card Calls:

Intrastate calls charged at $0.11 per minute and count toward included
hour.

Calling Card surcharge ($0.80) waived during plan hours

Some of the same discounts as direct dialed calls may apply, but no one
seems to know for sure.

Calls can be placed with old AT&T calling card, new AT&T calling card,
or LEC calling card.

New AT&T Calling Card Calls:

With the New AT&T Calling Cards (number is random string of digits) only:
1-15 New AT&T Calling Card calls in a month -- $2.00 cash back.
16 or more New AT&T Calling Card calls in a month -- $5.00 cash back.

Cash back is paid quarterly by coupons for AT&T long distance.

Something I must make clear is that the New AT&T Calling Card must be
attached to your home phone bill.  You must request it from AT&T
(800-222-0300).  None of the discounts I spoke of are available with
the calling card attached to the AT&T Universal card.


David Martin

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 14:17:21 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks


OK, so now the call guide in the Livingston area says to dial 1 + NPA
+ 7D on those local calls from Livingston to Summit, right?  Any idea
why that particular calling requirement is there?  Apparently that
COCOT received 1-908-522-xxxx and sent out 522-xxxx, which then got
rejected.

I did recall seeing that local calls between Newark (201) and
Elizabeth (908) are done just as 7D.  That makes the Newark exchanges
non-useable in 908.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 10:29:44 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas


I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for
local within own area code.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992  00:00:00 GMT
Org: University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Subject: Looking For Users of Teledesk


I will be installing a TELEDESK centrex attendant workstation from
Conveyant Systems Inc. soon.  I am looking for a University which is
using this system that may have some advise for a smooth cut over.  I
will be downloading about 14,000 names from student and faculty/staff
mainframe data bases.  I will be using a Viking automatic call
processor with a sequential ring generator in front of the TELEDESK to
hopefully gain some efficiency.  Has anyone configured a workstation
with the Viking equipment?  You may respond directly to me if there is
any one else interested I will post to the group.


Thanks,

John Holman  Internet  [e-mail]    phone     [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Timothy R. Wilhite)
Subject: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 15:14:48 GMT


I need suggestions on a intercom circuit.  In our church, my pastor
would like to talk to our soundboard man via a phone from the
platform.  The purpose is to make adjustments concerning sound etc.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #190
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07938;
          5 Mar 92 2:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06907
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:28:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05895
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:28:12 -0600
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:28:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #191

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Mar 92 00:28:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 191

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones) (Marc T. Kaufman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  3 Mar 92 13:34:15 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L. Varney)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics (Was Emergency Calls at Pay Phones)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


  The intent of this article is to CLARIFY some "911" issues, not
argue with anyone or sell anything.  Please understand that our
organization supports "911" features (among others) on AT&T Switching
products.  However, the comments below are my PERSONAL opinion (not
AT&T's) and therefore subject to error.

 Al Varney
                  --------------------------

  First, some comments on some of the latest articles: There have been
suggestions to use something like "presubscribed XXX" data in EVERY
switch to properly route calls to the proper PSAP.  That is only a
portion of the capability of E911.  The more important one is the
ability of the PSAP to route the call to the proper agency (fire,
police, etc.) after receiving the call.  In concept, there may be only
a single PSAP for a huge area -- it doesn't really matter.  What's
important is the ability to extend the call to the "correct" fire
station or police station, based on the caller's location.

  Particularly in suburban areas, there may be dozens of fire
departments with several stations each associated with ONE CO rate
center or wire center.  Properly set up, E911 can allow the PSAP
(whether one per town or whatever) to extend the call to the right
fire station (or a set of stations), relay the address information and
other information and drop off of the call all within a period of a
few seconds.  No one at the PSAP has to translate the address to the
correct station, or even wait for the address information before
ringing the correct fire station.  In fact, this works even if the
address database fails.

  The "problem" with a per-line PSAP capability in every switch is
that it forces the TELCo to update EVERY switch with this new
capability, unlike the current E911 architecture that requires E911
software in only ONE SWITCH in a large area.  I'd love to sell such a
capability in EVERY ONE of our switches, instead of just one or two
per LATA.  In fact, T1S1 and Bellcore seem to be addressing an
SS7-based database for 911 and other services, but it requires SS7
trunks and database access from most switches.  The current E911
tandem switch implementation is one that works with almost any
ANI-capable switch without added costs (except for a few 911 trunks)
on each switch.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(tim gorman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) writes in TELECOM
> Digest V12 #167:

>> Why is it that the E911 system cannot use the callers number as an
>> index to determine which agency to route the call to?

That is exactly what "E911" does.  But every 911-capable system is not
an "E911" system.

>> [PAT, our Moderator, notes: I don't know why IBT can't do it.

   I think you mean "... why Chicago's system doesn't do it."  It is
my understanding that Chicago (and perhaps Cook County) do not have
what I call "E911", but instead use a centralized dispatch system with
their own software/hardware (what I would call Ordinary 911 from the
telephone switch perspective).

   This is probably a good place to put a description of 911, as I
know it.  There are at least two "providers" involved in handling a
911 call: The TELCo, which must determine WHERE to send the call, and
the "911 agency" that RECEIVES the call.  The 911 agency contracts
with the TELCo for 911 services, so it should not be a net-loss
service for the TELCo.  The 911 agency can specify a single or
multiple locations to answer the calls, but beyond a simple single
answering point version, the TELCo must have some method of
determining WHERE to send the call based on the caller's location.

   In this simple model, there are two databases that must be
populated AND MAINTAINED.

     - The Location Identification database used by the 911 agency
       for Address, Emergency Information, etc. and

     - the TELCo switch database that routes 911 calls to the
       proper answering point.

Both the "Location Identification" database (I believe it's provider
is determined by the 911 agency) and the switch database must be
updated routinely from the TELCo billing database.

   From the perspective of the TELCo switches, there are three forms
of 911 handling:

    "Ordinary" 911 treats the call as an abbreviated means of reaching
a single Telephone Number -- no special software is need for this, and
the burden of identification of the caller (number, address, etc.) is
on the "911 agency".  ANI or CallerID could be used in some cases to
assist in identification.

    "Basic" 911 (B911) is a switch software package that supports a
single Telephone Number PER RATE CENTER for 911 calls and provides a
few other control enhancements to the agency, such as force hold and
caller re-ring.  No ANI is provided, relying on force to hold the call
up (for tracing) even if the caller hangs up.  This is suitable
primarily for offices supporting a few small communities (say 20K-60K
lines) that have one answering point per community.

   "Enhanced" 911 (E911) is a software package that supports a whole
variety of options for supporting large 911 communities.  The feature
itself is usually loaded in only one well-chosen tandem switch, and
all COs in the area route 911 calls to that tandem.  The tandem
receives incoming ANI from most COs and translates that number to an
Emergency Services Number (ESN) corresponding to an Emergency Services
Zone.

   The information below applies only to E911 Switch services.

   The E911 "zones" are really areas that are serviced by (primarily)
a single unique set of agencies.  For example, all telephones serviced
by a given police agency, fire department, and ambulance company could
be considered a unique zone.  The assignment of zones is controlled by
the "911 agency"; each "zone" is represented in the tandem as a unique
ESN.  The ESN in turn contains a list of Telephone Numbers, one per
service type (police, fire, etc.), and the Telephone Number of a
Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) for that "zone".  A major
benefit of this system is that one PSAP can answer calls for many
zones, and still route calls to the designated agency with minimal
delay.

   When a call is received at the PSAP, the caller's ANI is displayed
and can be used to retrive Address information from the Address
database (not a tandem function).  To reach the appropriate service,
say the fire department, the PSAP attendant merely presses the button
labeled "FIRE" and the call is "three-way-connected" to the appropriate
fire department.  Address information, etc. can be relayed by voice to
the fire department, or other options can forward the information to
suitably-equipped fire department display equipment.

Then Tim Gorman of SW Bell comments:

> The software feature to provide this ability using ESN's (Emergency
> Switch Numbers, I think) is expensive. Switches are normally designed
> to route on called number not calling number. Special software is
> needed for this.

   Tim, "expensive" is in the eye of the buyer or seller ... averaged
over time, I'm not sure it isn't going to cost more in time and staff
to manually re-route all those calls using some other system.  You can
put the data into a switch, or into a separate database, or into a
manual system (replicated in many places), but one way or another,
"911" is a trade-off in response time, effort and staff.

   For example, your system in Houston is still (I believe) a single
tandem handling around seven million numbers.  The capital costs for
the "expensive" software must be dwarfed by the operational costs --
so I don't believe the cost of "special [switch] software" is an issue
here or elsewhere.  The costs of the nightly updates to the ESN
database (and the external database with address and emergency
information) can't be too great -- it's automated from the TELCo
subscriber database, no?

> Even worse is the administrative cost to keep the routing data base
> updated. Telephone company systems are established to identify the
> wire center associated with an address, not an emergency agency.
> Telephone numbers are assigned by wire center not emergency agency so
> they cannot be used to differentiate. Thus, in order to add a new line
> someone has to spend time working with the governmental agencies to
> establish where calls should be routed. Then someone has to put this
> in the switch which I am not sure our mechanized systems can handle,
> so you get more administrative costs.

   But those costs are typically funded by the served agencies, not
the TELCo; the agencies would incur similar (but perhaps less obvious)
costs to maintain the data in some other database(s).  Are you saying
that the TELCo loses money with E911?

> Bottom line, most emergency agencies don't want to pay the rates for
> this capability. Because of political concerns, they also don't do a
> good job of coordinating among political entities. With the PSAP
> equipment available today, it really should be easy to install a
> remote printer at the other PSAP to print the call details out on, and
> a ringdown voice circuit to bridge the two agencies resulting in
> delays of only seconds.

   Well, the PSAP costs are going to be related to the number of
agencies and their willingness to share staff/locations/etc.  When you
say "the other PSAP", you must realize that some systems may have a
PSAP for almost every ESN (more than a few PSAPs).  The purpose of
"E911" is to allow 911 calls to be directed to the appropriate agency
QUICKLY.  So even if there is only a few PSAPs, the switch is able to
connect the call to the "right" agency with only the press of a
button.

   But your statement about "political concerns" is the key here. From
my personal perspective, the bickering about who actually manages and
funds the E911 agency is a major issue.  The potential for empire
building and patronage aren't lost on the agencies that currently
perform the 911 services.  Even if you remove the "funds" issue, the
politics can be overwhelming.

   As an example, take DuPage County, Illinois (affluent suburbs west
of Chicago).  Illinois attempted to break the funding issue by
allowing a county or other "911 agency" to collect 50-100 cents per
TELCo subscriber per month to fund 911 services.  Collection for
DuPage County started immediately ($.50/month).  After a period of
time, the E911 databases were ready, etc. and service was cut-over.
However, one large holdout in the county, Naperville, has decided to
not participate in a central PSAP, but instead wants it's own version.
But they aren't ready to handle such calls (internal issues, hardware,
who knows??).  So subscribers on Naperville switches, but not served
by Naperville agencies, are still required to either call agencies
directly or must specify the agency (or their address) when calling
Naperville 911.

   There is no alternative to some version of E911 in DuPage County.
Illinois has MANY non-contiguous agency boundaries, and each gets its
own tax levy, budget, board or committee, etc.  As an example, I live
in Wheaton, IL, but am in a Glen Ellyn school district (the elementary
school they attend is across the street with a Wheaton address).  Most
other services are from Wheaton.  Two blocks west is in the main
Wheaton school district, two blocks east is in the "unincorporated
county", served by the Sheriff, a different fire department and a
different ambulance service.  Eight blocks in any direction gets you
to at least one different emergency agency.  Street names are
sometimes duplicated in adjacent developments, but don't connect or
even run in the same direction.  Illinois Bell wire centers are about
eight miles in radius, and telephone number assignment couldn't hope
to follow any political boundary.

                              -------

[Moderator's Note: Thanks for a really excellent look at the situation
with 911 in northern Illinois. You are correct that Chicago does not
have E-911, but I believe work is in progress now to change that over
the next couple years. 911 started here in the early seventies; it
replaced POLice-5-1313 and FIRe-7-1313 which themselves were translated
by each CO into some other XXX-1313 number before being forwarded to
the police. The various prefixes the incoming calls were received on
told the police what area of the city was calling, but of course, not
the exact address. From much of the north side of Chicago, 911 is now
translated to 312-787-0000.  When 911 first started here, there was a
lot of inter-agency fighting between the Police and Fire Department
over who would provide the first answer to the caller. The Fire Depart-
ment wound up running parallel systems for about a year, getting calls
transferred in to them from 911, and getting their own calls on the
'traditional' number, FIRe-7-1313.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  3 Mar 92 17:04:28 GMT


[e-mail] (tim gorman) writes:

> Rather than mindlessly flaming at the phone company or at me, Mr.
> Kaufman should take time to read my posts and understand what I have
> been saying.  I think he would be amazed to see that I have been
> describing exactly his own scenario. Perhaps it would make things more
> clear if Mr. Kaufman would explain what would happen if twenty Palo
> Alto customers were actually under the jurisdiction of the Los Altos
> dispatch center. I suspect they would wind up at the Palo Alto
> dispatch center and need to be passed to the Los Altos dispatch
> center.

Au contraire.  There is just that situation at the edge of Los Altos
Hills, where one side of the road is Palo Alto, the other side is Los
Altos Hills, and all the phones on the road have the same prefix (and
are generally randomly assigned within the prefix).  Not only do the
calls go to the correct 911 center, but if an error in the data base
is discovered, it is possible for personnel in one of the dispatch
centers to correct the error, not requiring intervention by TPC.

> ONE MORE TIME: Routing by town is not the problem, especially if they
> are separate rate centers. We keep these translations separated in the
> switch (different line class codes, rate and route patterns, etc.).

I guess I just don't understand this statement.  How does town name
(which is a billing item) affect the information kept in the switch.
And if it does, it sounds to me like "correct 911 center" could be
kept in the switch as sort of an extended class code.  I mean, only a
byte is required unless there are more than 255 centers served by a
single switch.

Maybe its just because California has generally gone for the high-priced
(as suggested by another poster) E911 service with all the bells and
whistles.  As I remember, we put this system into place in Los Altos
Hills in about 1984.

> If, however, one town crosses governmental boundaries and PSAP
> jurisdictions, this creates a problem, especially when only a few
> customers are involved. Having the dispatch centers pass the calls to
> the correct point themselves is the answer in these cases. The problem
> is getting them to do it and do it in an accurate and timely manner.

I can understand this, if there are only a few subscribers on an
exchange that have to be routed.  Depending on how many, a dispatch
center could get a trunk or two specific to that exchange, though.

In our area, the early problems were ALL political, rather than
technical.  The County, which provides the police service, wanted to
be the dispatch center, whereas the residents wanted the City, which
provided the fire service, to have first crack at the dispatch.  The
phone company didn't care.  The Palo Alto phone customers always went
to Palo Alto dispatch in any case.

The Santa Clara county dispatch center handles calls from (parts of)
two area codes (415, 408).  In almost every case, there are customers
within a prefix that go to county dispatch, and other customers in the
same prefix that go to some local jurisdiction dispatch.  Furthermore,
there are "mutual aid" provisions such that if a dispatch center is
out of service for some reason (as happened when San Mateo County's
basement center filled with smoke last week) the calls are
automatically routed to other (usually adjacent) dispatch centers run
by other jurisdictions.

Based on what we have installed and running, I can't imagine the
validity of "technical" excuses for not having 911.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #191
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10422;
          5 Mar 92 3:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30514
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 01:10:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29083
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 01:10:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 01:10:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #192

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Mar 92 01:10:14 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 192

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    213/310 Area Code Split Conversion Program (Paul Eggert)
    'Portable' 800 Numbers (Eric Pearce)
    Exclusion Modules (was Problem With Panasonic Phone) (Paul Cook)
    Class Services at SNET (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Death of 900 Numbers Greatly Exaggerated (Steven Leichter)
    FCC Gives OK For New Cellular Field Trials (Mathew Zank)
    Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
    Need Help With Cobra Speakerphone (Dave Ratcliffe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Eggert)
Subject: 213/310 Area Code Split Conversion Program
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 18:24:04 GMT


Here is the 1992/03/03 edition of `213fix', a program for adjusting
telephone numbers in text files to account for the 213/310 area code
split.  The program is a Bourne shell script that uses the `sed'
stream editor.  It contains many corrections from the previously
posted version.  Since there doesn't seem to be a generally accepted
list of which prefixes stay in 213 and which move to 310, the shell
script lists all its sources.

 ----- 213fix START -----
#!/bin/sh

# Read argument files (or standard input if none), and write standard output,
# adjusting telephone numbers to account for the 213/310 area code split.

#    $Id: 213fix,v 1.12 1992/03/03 18:10:04 eggert Exp $

# Please send corrections (with justifications) to [e-mail].

# I consulted several sources for the list of prefixes in the 213 area code
# that are being moved to the new 310 area code.  None of the sources agree.
# The following list is my best guess; use it at your own risk.
# Where there is any disagreement, I've put a comment next to the prefix
# stating the sources that disagree with my inclusion or exclusion of
# the listed prefix.
# Sources are:
#
#    F    Alan Foonberg <[e-mail]>, who mostly relies on the
#            GTE South Bay phone book, October 1991
#    g    GTE CA 5596 (rev) phone bill insert
#    G    GTE Santa Monica phone book, March 1992, pp 24-25
#    M    Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
#    P    Pac Bell Culver City yellow pages, March 1992, pp A29-A31
#    p    list dated January 1991, faxed from Pac Bell business office
#            (310-811-3322) on 1992/02/10

# Some of the prefixes mentioned below apparently are not used,
# so it doesn't really matter whether they're on the list or not.

# Special notes:
#
#    1.  These special prefixes are replicated in both 213 and 310.
#
#    2.  Source G says that 917 will be in both 213 and 310,
#    but this looks like a typo.
#
#    3.  Robert L. McMillin <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com> writes that
#    according to GTE (1991/09), the 310 exchange was used by GTE only
#    and has since been discontinued.  Since it was in Santa Monica,
#    it logically belongs in the 310 area code even though it isn't used.


# area codes
from=213
to=310

# Compute the sed commands from the area codes and prefixes to be changed.
sedsed='{
    s@#.*@@
    s@[     ]@@g
    /^$/d
    s@.*@s/\\([^0-9]\\)'$from'\\([-).     ][-).     ]*&[-.     ]\\)/\\1'$to'\\2/g@
}'
sed_commands=`
    sed "$sedsed" <<'EOF'

        # prefixes in $from that should be moved to $to
        # 200    # M Gardena (ie. M disagrees with _excluding_ 200)
        20[1-9]
        21[02]
        # 213    # M Gardena
        21[4-9]
        220
        246    # p Beverly Hills (ie. p disagrees with _including_ 246)
        247
        # 248    # FM Gardena
        27[013-9]
        28[0-24-9]
        297
        30[1256]
        310    # g Santa Monica (note 3)
        31[2-9]
        32[02-9]
        33[0-8]
        348
        350    # g Santa Monica
        35[24]
        355    # p Hawthorne
        36[34]
        3[79][0-9]
        # 400    # FMp Gardena
        401    # p Downey
        40[2-46-9]
        41[024679]
        4[23][0-9]
        44[0-8]
        449    # gp Santa Monica
        4[579][0-9]
        # 500    # FM Gardena
        501    # g Gardena
        502    # Gg Gardena
        # 505    # FMp Gardena
        51[02-9]
        # 520    # Los Angeles (note 1)
        52[1-479]
        5[34][0-9]
        55[0-2]    # g Beverly Hills
        553
        # 55[45]    # (note 1)
        55[6-9]
        # 561    # G Gardena (says G); Los Angeles (say M,P)
        568
        57[0-8]
        59[0-9]
        60[1-9]
        61[568]
        63[0-57-9]
        64[0-9]
        65[279]
        67[0-79]
        69[0-9]
        # 70[03]    # FM Gardena
        # 706    # FMp Gardena
        708    # Gg Gardena
        # 709    # FMp Gardena
        # 712    # FMp Gardena
        715
        # 718    # FM Gardena
        719
        # 760    # FM Gardena
        76[1-47-9]
        78[1-578]
        79[1-9]
        80[1-4679]
        # 810    # FMp Gardena
        81[2-4]
        815    # g Culver City
        816
        819    # gp Gardena
        8[23][0-9]
        84[0-2]
        843    # gp Beverly Hills
        # 853    # (note 1)
        85[4589]
        86[0-9]
        885    # gp Compton
        886
        898
        899    # Gg Gardena
        90[2-5]
        906    # p Whittier
        90[78]
        914    # p West Los Angeles
        915    # p Mar Vista
        916    # gp Norwalk
        917    # gp Santa Monica (note 2)
        918    # Gg Gardena
        9[24][0-9]
        967
        97[03]
        # 976    # (note 1)
        978
        980    # p Long Beach
        98[1-9]
        # 999    # FM Gardena
EOF
`

# Run the sed script.
exec sed '
    /'$from'/{
        s/^/ /
        '"$sed_commands"'
        s/^ //
    }
' ${1+"$@"}

 ----- 213fix END -----

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 14:25:32 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
Subject: 'Portable' 800 Numbers


I'm trying to get a feel of when/if 800 numbers are going to be
transferable from one long distance carrier to another.  Several
people have told me March, 1993 is the magic date for this, but the
people at Sprint and MCI advise me that this date keeps on moving
forward.

We have had the same ATT 800 number for seven years and it appears on
our entire product line (we are a publisher).  If I had the impression
that the 800 number could be moved to another carrier a year from now,
we could keep the ATT service until then and switch over to MCI or
Sprint at that point.

We are looking at different types of service between our two offices
(one is in MA, the other in CA).  When I compare types of access
(switched, 56k and T1), the 'cost' of keeping the 800 number on ATT
becomes a bigger issue when compared to MCI/Sprint.

These numbers combine voice and data costs, but do not include
any equipment (channel banks/drop insert/CSU/DSU)


type of access                     difference between ATT and MCI/Sprint

current switched service                        $5.5k
combination of T1 and 56k                       $9.8k
T1 local access for both sites                  $12k

Installation fees for ATT are much higher -- around $3500 for T1 and
$1000 for 56k.  Sprint/MCI are $0 for T1 and $600-$900 for 56k.  If we
stuck with ATT for the connection with T1 local access on both ends,
it would cost us $19k more for the first year compared to same service
from MCI/Sprint.

I group MCI and Sprint together, as they are within a couple hundred
dollars of each other for the most part.  MCI is slightly cheaper for
long distance voice, but Sprint is cheaper for the data traffic.  When
I combined both voice and data costs, Sprint is a little cheaper but
not in a big way.

Does anybody really know for sure what is going to happen with 800
numbers?

Thanks.


Eric Pearce [e-mail]
O'Reilly & Associates, Publishers of NutShell Series Handbooks
103 Morris St, Sebastapol, CA 95472  1-800-338-6887

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

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 19:28 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exclusion Modules (was Problem With Panasonic Phone)


Roger Cornelius, [e-mail] writes:

>> Is there any easy trick to disable the in-use light for the data line
>> so as to conserve the batteries?  I've taken the thing apart and
>> prefer not to do anything to the internal circuitry.  I also prefer to
>> leave both phones cords attached to the phone, i.e. unplugging the
>> data line from the phone isn't an option.

Jerry Durand, [e-mail] responds:

> Have you tried using an exclusion device in line with the telephone?

This won't help.  In fact, with a standard voltage-operated exclusion
module, the light will stay on all the time (whether or not the line
is in use) unless you provide bypass resistors around the exclusion
module.

This is because the module does not cut the line through to the user
until the user goes off hook, and the module determines that the line
is idle by checking to see that the line voltage is above some minimum
value.  The in-use light looks at the same voltage, and since the
module normally isolates the phone from the line, the lamp stays lit
all the time.  This can be remedied by bypassing the module with high
value resistors, so that the phone can see the line voltage, but even
then the in-use light will do its job ... remaining lit when in fact
the line is in use by the modem.

Better to use a battery eliminator for the phone for applications
where the lines are in use a lot.

Proctor & Associates has made a wide variety of automatic exclusion
modules since the late 1960's, used for isolating modems and to
provide privacy for phones.  Feel free to contact Proctor at the
address below for any application questions or information.


Paul Cook                           206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates           MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.              fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317      [e-mail]

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

Date: 3-MAR-1992 15:47:21.53
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Class Services at SNET


 From the "Carrier Watch" column in {Network World}, 24 Feb '92:

> Southern New England Telephone Co. (SNET) recently asked the
> Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control for permission
> to offer seven custom local-area signaling services.

The article goes on to give capsule descriptions of the seven CLASS
services being proposed, viz.: Caller-ID, Call-Again, Missed-Call-
Dialing, Call-Blocking, Priority-Call-Ringing, Priority-Call-
Forwarding, and Call-Tracing.

Through a call this morning (4 Mar) to SNET Customer Service, I could
only confirm that the permission request is really before the CT DPUC,
but could learn nothing of proposed pricing or implementation
timetable.

And I suspect my eager offer to serve as a beta-test site fell on deaf
ears.

Now if only someone who has gotten that Motorola CL-ID chip to do its
tricks would let me know what additional circuitry I'd need, ... :-) .


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

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

Date: Tue,  3 Mar 92 08:20:39 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Death of 900 Numbers Greatly Exaggerated


In a recent TELECOM Digest, John Higdon pronounced the death of the
900 service, dead as a result of too many sleazy operators.  Anyone
considering acting on this pronouncement might wish to read "For 900
Numbers, the Racy Gives Way to the Respectable" in the {New York
Times} Business Section for Sunday, 1 March (pg 8).  Their data
indicate that the 900 business is anything but dead; it was a $975
million dollar business last year.  It's grown every year since 1985.
It's true that 1991 showed a significant leveling off of growth; on
the other hand, we have been in a recession, and at the same time many
of the pioneers -- the sex lines -- have come under increased
pressure, and represent a shrinking percentage of the business.

A pie chart in the article divides up the revenues as follows:
Information, 35.6%; entertainment, 20.1%; messaging, 11.6%; ordering,
7.1%; sweepstakes (under increasing legal pressure as this has been
abused), 5.9%; fund raising, 5.4%; and polling, 3.5%.  That last
category includes things like CNN's "Newsnight Menu", which allows
viewers to vote (for $.75) on which of several stories should be
presented.

There's a 900-WEATHER service ($.95/minute -- "touch tone phone
required", according to the article's photo of a TV ad); a 900-DOCTORS
service giving medical advice; even a Consumer Reports 900 number to
get help on buying a used car.  Various kinds of financial information
(stock quotes and such) are available from several 900 services.

Several states, including Mr. Higdon's California, allow bettors to
buy lottery tickets over the phone through 900 numbers.  In Oakland,
residents can call a 900 number and get city documents like building
permits faxed to them.  Other cities are allowing people to pay
traffic tickets by 900 number.  In fact, one gets the feeling that all
sorts of government agencies are looking for ways to charge for
services they provide to citizens.

The feeling among those in the business is that the IRS's 800 numbers
will eventually become 900 numbers.  Talk about getting you every
which way: First they make the law incomprehensible; then they charge
you when you ask for clarification; and, to top it all off, they won't
even hold themselves to what they tell you.  (If you ask the IRS for
information, and what they tell you is wrong, you are still liable if
you act on it!)  All if this so YOU can pay THEM.


Jerry


[Moderator's Note: I saw recently where the Michigan Corporate Records
Information Department converted to a 900 number, instead of the 616
number they had been using to receive 100+ calls per hour from people
seeking information on who owns which company in that state.  And a
few public libraries now only give out telephone criss-cross book
information via 900 instead of their regular information lines.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mathew Zank)
Subject: FCC Gives OK For New Cellular Field Trials
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 07:46:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I just got this from {Dow Jones News Service}. The FCC has given it's
okay for a company called Qualcomm, Inc to have field trials for a
digital cellular phone system that will use the 1850-1990 MHZ band. It
is called Personal Communications Services, I know little about this
type of system. It is a type of cellular telephone with usage fees
about the same as land line telephones. Does anyone know more about
this system? I also know other companies are working on this type of
system also.


Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Internet [e-mail] -or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 07:51:15 GMT


Seems like these sleazoid COCOTs have a new trick.

Last month, early in the morning, I was awoken by the phone ringing.
The digitized voice announced that it has a collect call from <pause>
<faint grunt> <pause>.  To accept the call press something-or-other.
To reject press something-else.  Being in no mood to accept a prank or
otherwise unintelligible collect call I did the expedient thing of
simply hanging up.

I figured if it was important they could find a real phone with a real
operator.  I had no intention of paying COCOT collect rates, whatever
they were and I really didn't want to know.

Much to my joy and surprise, I did get a chance to find out exactly
what the COCOT rates really were.  I had indeed gotten a bill for this
very call.  It showed up as a one minute call via INTEGRETEL from
PINCKNEYVL IL 618 357 3254 for $2.90 + $.09 tax.  So far, I haven't
figured out who Integretel is, or where exactly the call came from.
(Perhaps its from a fortune-teller that has clairvoyantly determined
that I read comp.dcom.telecom? ;-))

I guess the new COCOT recipe for success is to intentionally design a
crappy low-cost system that doesn't really work.  Set it up so that if
there is any doubt as to what happened just send the bill anyway.
After all most folks will probably just pay it anyway.  If someone
does notice and complain, one can just shrug it off as a "computer
error."

Is there any blanket fix to this problem?  Can I somehow force
PAC-BELL to decline all collect calls for my lines from COCOTS?  Can I
send Integretel a bill (at some "industry standard" consulting rates)
for my time spent tracking down their billing mistake?


Wolfgang Rupprecht    [e-mail] (or) wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511


[Moderator's Note: Ask telco for the same service I have: Billed
Number Screening.  Collect and third party billing calls are NEVER
allowed on my lines. Provided the call comes via any Bell Company,
AT&T, Sprint, MCI, GTE and most independent telcos -- any of the
companies using a certain data base in common -- those calls will
always be rejected by the computer automatically. No charge for this
service from Illinois Bell.   PAT]

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

Subject: Need Help With Cobra Speakerphone
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 20:33:54 EST
From: Dave Ratcliffe <compnect![e-mail]>
Reply-To: compnect![e-mail]
Organization: Northeast Meadow Muffin Society


This past weekend I made what has turned out to be a pretty good
purchase.  At a local Computer/Hamfest I bought a Cobra 'Feature
Telephone' model ST-662 for a mere $5.  I figured it was probably
broken and good only for parts and playtime but I plugged it in and it
actually WORKS! This is a two line speakerphone with 52 number memory,
redial, LC display and even a call timer with alarm funtion. All
functions appear to work but I haven't the faintest idea how to
program the thing.

If anyone has any idea how to do it I would appreciate some help. This
will make a nice replacement for my current Radio Slack phone ;)


Dave Ratcliffe                      The Data Factory BBS  Harrisburg  Pa.
[e-mail]                      [phone]  [phone]
compnect![e-mail]                       Login: tdf
eds1!compnect![e-mail]           3/12/24/9600 Telebit PEP

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #192
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13750;
          5 Mar 92 4:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00296
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 02:31:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12094
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 5 Mar 1992 02:31:32 -0600
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 02:31:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #193

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Mar 92 02:31:28 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 193

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Integretel 800 Scam (ACUTA News via Kath Mullholand)
    Still Another 800 Scam (Neil Kruse)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Bob Miller)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Scott Fybush)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Jim Budler)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Jeff Sicherman)
    Interesting Reason For Having an 800 Number (Roy Smith)
    Re: 900-Number Congressional Bill (Robert M. Hamer)
    ANI in Arkansas (Carl Moore)
    Centel Likely to be Broken Up (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 11:34:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Integretel 800 Scam


 From the {ACUTA News}, March, 1992:

A new telecom scam -- apparently a 900 service masquerading as an 800
number - hit college and university campuses in October, but didn't
show up on bills until February.  The number, [phone], was shut
down on Saturday, Feb. 22.  The number answered on Feb. 24 with a
recorded message saying it was no longer in service.  But telecom
managers were cautioned that a similar operation could appear using a
new number.

**stuff deleted about specific schools**

Since the FCC has prohibited colleges and universities -- along with
other other "aggregators" -- from blocking 800 numbers, many ACUTA
members are unsure whether the bills they have incurred so far are
legal or what they may do to protect themselves from such abuse in the
future.  Callers who dialed [phone] got a recorded message
describing a variety of "ladies" with whom they could converse, if
they stayed on the line and pressed the keypad to select an option.
The hostess assured callers that billing would be "discreet" and the
nature of the call would not be revealed.

Once an option was selected, a "collect" charge was made to the
caller's line at $4.95 a minute.  When the bill finally arrived, it
reflected a "collect" call from "Entertain, Kansas," number (913)
338-1574.  (The 913 area code and 338 prefix indicate a Kansas City,
Kansas venue.)

A California firm known as Integritel [sic] issued the bills to local
exchange companies who included them on the monthly statement of the
line owner.  Intergritel, who said it had no knowledge of the
technical procedure used to collect and deliver the billing data,
asked for the "toll-free" service to be terminated.

Apparently, the call back -- made without termination of the original
call -- was able to bypass end-office, sent-paid screening.  A firm
called Call Transfer Services, which may not necessarily be the
ladies' employer, could capture the number of the caller's trunk line
and record the length of the call.  The call detail was then forwarded
to Integritel.

**discussion of call detail recording deleted.**

Harry Kyle, Telecom Manager at Oklahoma State University, has received
assurance from the state's Corporations Commission (which regulates
utilities) that the bills are not valid.  Kyle has filed formal
complaints with the Oklahoma Corporations Commission, the Kansas
Utility Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and his LEC,
Southwestern Bell.  Kansas officials also have advised him that the
bills are not legal.

One Ohio college, which cannot trace calls to particular stations,
reports that Integritel has indeed agreed to give it credit for the
call.  AT&T College and University Systems (ACUS) was recommending
that clients seek credit from Integritel.  Integritel can be reached
by calling [phone].  US West, the LEC in North Dakota and
Wyoming, has been sympathetic to its clients caught in this situation
and expressed concern about its own exposure.  If such a "collect
call" is billed to an LEC-owned payphone, the LEC could face an
uncollectable bill.

ACUTA has passed this information along to the Communications Fraud
Control Association, which included it on its Feb. 23 *Fraud Alert*.
At press time for the {ACUTA News}, a definitive legal assessment of
the situation -- and who would end up "holding the bag" -- was not
available.

**stuff detailing response of individual schools deleted**

Anyone wanting to influence the [FCC review] process [of this case]
should send a letter detailing the impact on their business to:

    Federal Communications Commission
    Enforcement Division
    Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries
    ATTN:  Kathie Kneff
    2025 M St. NW
    Suite 6202
    Washington, DC  20554


Kath Mullholand         University of NH          Durham, NH

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

Date: 4 Mar 92 16:23:00 +1600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: And Still Another 800 Scam


Since there was so much interest in the Mystic Marketing scam I though
I would pass along another one I heard about:

Sweepstake Sham -

My dad entered the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes (remember the
7000 commercials with Ed McMan?). Later he got this "Official Notice"
from Sweepstakes Clearinghouse.  It said he has won "something" and he
should "Call toll-free 800-422-4841" for complete instructions.  He
called it and they took his Sweepstakes Number.  In a few days he got
a bill from Audio Telecom. It LOOKS like a phone bill in format, has a
shadow picture of a phone, and even a little ad to buy an ATT phone.
It lists a charge for $12.50 (5 minutes at $2.50 per) for the "call to
800-422-4841"!!


Neil Kruse

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 11:49:18 PST
From: Bob Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


Pat,

I am surprised, you advocate strongly against the use of blue-boxes
and such and fear the warth of TPC.

*** BEWARE *** You are now toying with the supernatural.  Do not
expect that mere ANI is the only weapon of this magnificent foe.  Pay
homage to the Mystic Marketing Company before an evil fate befalls
you.


[Moderator's Note: Has anyone seen the current issue of {Weekly World
News}?  There are at least a dozen different quarter or half-page ads
for seers, Tarot practitioners and the like this time. Big, flashy ads
but all of them used 900 numbers. Mystic was in there, along with some
others all out of the same Nevada area code. The ad Mystic ran in the
{Star} last week used the 800 number, however.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 17:36 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Number


I tried 800-736-7886 from behind the Brandeis PBX last night.  I got
the full menu, including the "bill to this phone" option.  The
returned ANI was [phone], which is Brandeis' main switchboard
number, rather than my own DID extension.  (This in itself is a
change; until a few months ago, ANI usually returned the trunk number,
generally a local Waltham number of the form (617) 89X-XXXX.  Now all
our LD connections are through dedicated T1's and there are no trunks
through telco's CO involved.  But I digress ...)  I did NOT "press 1 to
accept the charges;" I really didn't want to get stuck with a $120
call. :)

Today I went into the telecommunications office here to warn them
about the number and suggest some options.  They seemed entirely
unconcerned, on the grounds that they had set up 736-2000 to be
blocked from all charges.

Now then: Let's say I HAD pressed 1 to accept the charges.  Would
Brandeis then say to the IP involved: Sorry, that number is blocked;
you should have known better than to try billing to it?  Would Sprint
or the IP accept that answer?  How did all that work for 800-555-5555?
(I didn't ask that question to the telecom person here -- there are
some things I'd rather they didn't look at too closely ;) Anyone know
just what constitutes a "blocked line" and how telcos know not to try
to bill it?

On another Brandeis note, all the (Gen-yoo-wine New England Telephone)
pay phones on campus were finally switched from default Telesphere to
default AT&T last fall after Telesphere died.  I was thus appalled
today to look at the new payphone on campus and see an "ITI" card on
it.  Upon asking, I was informed that it was a telco installation
error and that the phone should have been -- and will soon be -- AT&T
default.  I feel a lot better.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail] -- Brandeis University, Waltham
 Massachusetts, USA -- These views are NOT representative of those of
 Brandeis University.  They don't know as much about telecom anyway.


[Moderator's Note: I have Billed Number Screening on all my lines, and
it does prevent collect and/or third party billing **provided the
carrier polls the common data base for advice.** COCOTs with their own
AOS operations can still slip through, as can stuff like the first
message in this issue. But at least AT&T, Sprint, MCI, GTE, all the
Bells and most independent telcos leave me alone.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 07:45:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: You're quite welcome. And for those who may have
> missed the original post, by calling 800-XXX-XXXX you can participate
> in a seance on the hour and half-hour each day, 6 AM to 3 PM Pacific
> Time. Or you may speak with fortune tellers and Tarot practitioners. A
> twenty-minute session is only $120, billed to the telephone you are
> using. Be sure and use a COCOT or Genuine Bell pay phone for your
> calls unless you don't mind having the charges on your own phone.  PAT]

Aaaargh! I read the original post, chuckled. Then I thought, "our
phone system at work has 900 blocked so people can't call dial-a-****
on the company nickle. This defeats that blocking entirely."

I can picture every "kid-at-heart" on Usenet dialing that number on
their company and/or University phone system.

I think I hear some legal screaming coming. And not just from the
COCOTs.

I X'd out the phone number above just so nobody could say I helped
propogate the virus.


You can reach me at:

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


[Moderator's Note: Unlike the {USA Today} thing, where no one from
telco or the newspaper ever encouraged anyone to dial the 800 number,
and where I suppose they have a right to be indignant about the calls
to the 800 line, Mystic Marketing *advertises and encourages* calls to
800-736-7886. They put their ads in the {Star} and {Weekly World News}
to name two publications. We know lots of people read those fine
publications, so lay off TELECOM Digest already. I discouraged calls
to the {USA Today} number because I thought and still think it was a
programming error which people chose to abuse. So what is Mystic
Marketing's defense ... all those advertisements were typographical
errors?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 00:21:43 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

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

>> Be sure and join a seance soon! And when you do, please be sure to use
>> a COCOT for the call [to the $120.00 800 number] ...

> Hmmn, I used to subscribe to a mailing list where there was a
> moderator of immense moral stature who told us naughty children to pay
> our bills for calls to 800-555-5555 rather than whining that 800 calls
> were supposed to be free or something like that.  But I'm relieved to
> see he's gotten over it.

> [Moderator's Note: If you use your own phone, expect to pay what bills
> show up, whether it is {USA Today} or some Tarot practitioners at
> 800-736-7886. I never said you had to pay the COCOT owner's phone bills
> for him also!  :) PAT]

  Real neat side-step, PAT. From this logic I assume that your are in
favor of perpetrators of criminal activity getting off on legal
technicalities and other ways of people avoiding responsibility for
their actions. If my thinking is faulty here, please explain the
ethical difference between the situations.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: The COCOT owner places his instrument in the public
way for use by the public. He is entitled to program it as he sees
fit, and collect fees for the phone's use as he sees fit. As a matter
of fact, the COCOT in the coin-op laundry across the street from me
now charges -- get this! -- $3.85 for the first minute on 800 calls. I
know, cause I tried to call the seers while my clothes were in the
spin cycle Sunday afternoon (wink!) ... as far as Genuine Bell is
concerned, let them refuse to provide ANI to the scum or advise the
called party no charges will be accepted at the time the connection is
made. The {USA Today} thing was an error, and the newspaper was the
victim. That is not the case with Mystic Marketing.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 09:55:34 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Reason For Having an 800 Number


    We recently had an AT&T 800 number installed.  AT&T sent us a
packet of materials which among other things, gave suggestions for how
to use your new 800 number.  One suggestion was that if you are a
business that has field people (salesmen, drivers, etc) who need to
call in often, have them use the 800 number.  Why?  Because from a pay
phone it's more convenient than feeding the machine coins, and because
they point out that it is difficult to use a calling card from some
public phones.  They don't specifically mentions COCOTS, but it's
clear that's what they are talking about.  I thought it was sort of
funny.  Then again, sometimes it's difficult to get through to an 800
number from a COCOT too!

    I wonder which generates more revenue calling from a pay
phone; using a calling card, or calling an 800 number?  I suppose it
depends on the type of 800 service you have.  We've got the most
basic, where we get charged $6/month plus about $0.30/minute,
regardless of where the call comes from.  With that type of service,
I'm sure calling cards are cheaper, but there are lots of different
service arrangments; are they all more expensive than calling cards
(assuming, of course, that you pay for the call either way).


[Moderator's Note: Eventually enough COCOTs will get burned by the 900
posing as 800 numbers they will block all 800 calls, making themselves
even more worthless ripoffs than they are already.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 09:18 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900-Number Congressional Bill


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

> than their {area code}) is restricted.  It would seem to me to be
> stupid to write a bill to restrict "900" numbers, when all some
> company would have to do is use a different set of three numbers to
> acomplish the same thing.

To which our Esteemed Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: What you are overlooking is that in theory at
> least, 900 numbers are unique in their operation, ie the charging of
> some fee for services other than the transport of the call itself.
> Even if only 900 numbers are singled out by the legislation, there
> will be considerable differences seen in the IP by phone industry.  PAT]

Pat, I still don't understand.  It's all software controlled at the
switch and in the long distance company.  They could all just
reprogram a new {area code}, say, "300" to just do what 900- numbers
did prior to the passage of the bill.  And what about 976/541/etc
whatever other kluges the RBOCs decide to implement?  And 900- numbers
aren't unique in charging for services other than transport, are they?
All these other exchanges I mentioned above behave the same way; just
"locally" rather than using an {area code}?


[Moderator's Note: Phrasing it that way, you are probably correct.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 16:24:15 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI in Arkansas


This follows up on a message of a few(?) months ago:

ANI in central Arkansas (Southwestern Bell area?) was given as
828-2222222 (yes, ten digits).  I find there was no 501-828 prefix in
1982.


[Moderator's Note: Maybe the folks in central Arkansas have lucked out
on a way to call Mystic Marketing and not get billed.  :)   PAT]

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

Subject: Centel Likely to be Broken Up
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 10:44:25 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that Centel, which has put itself on the auction
block looks likely to be broken up and bought mostly by neighboring
RBOCs.  Pacific Telesis has said it's interested in the Las Vegas
operations, and Ameritech wants the Chicago ones.  Each already is the
dominant LOC in the respective states.  The cellular operations have
generated more interest and will probably get lots of bids.


Regards,

John Levine, comp.compilers moderator
[e-mail] or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #193
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04500;
          6 Mar 92 3:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05987
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 00:42:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 00:41:36 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 00:41:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #194

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Mar 92 00:41:34 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 194

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Steve Forrette)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Carl Moore)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Ken Abrams)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Carl Moore)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Phil Howard)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Bruce Carter)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Tim Gorman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 03:08:43 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Number
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [Moderator's Note: I have Billed Number Screening on all my lines, and
> it does prevent collect and/or third party billing **provided the
> carrier polls the common data base for advice.** COCOTs with their own
> AOS operations can still slip through, as can stuff like the first
> message in this issue. But at least AT&T, Sprint, MCI, GTE, all the
> Bells and most independent telcos leave me alone.   PAT]

I was involved with a dispute a year or two back with Pacific Bell in
relation to their "One Number" card, which is like AT&T's Call Me card
that only allows calls to the number on the card.  The three main
IXC's would honor this restriction but ComSystems, which has 10XXX
access, does not.  Which means that anyone that knows my one-number
card and ComSystem's access code can bill any call to any number, from
any number, to my phone bill.  I tried a test call to a disconnected
number, and of course ComSystem billed for the call since they don't
(or didn't at the time) use hardware answer supervision.  It was
*only* $3.50 or some such amount, and showed up as a three-minute
call.

When I called to have the charges removed, the Pacific Bell rep asked
"If it was a disconnected number, why then did you stay on the line
for three minutes?"  I had to explain that ComSystems was lying to
them.  Another vulnerability is that Pacific Bell had no way of
knowing that the call had been placed with the One Number card as
opposed to my unrestricted card, which is on the same phone number but
with a different PIN of course.  But since she was able to verify that
the called number was out of service, the charges were removed.

So, wanting to press the issue, I ordered a One Number card for my
data line, which has no regular calling card, and placed a couple of
calls using this card.  This time when I called to complain, they
could see that the number in question had ONLY a One Number card, and
since the calls were to other than the billed number, that they were
bogus.  I was able to get the big-wig in charge of calling card
services for Pacific Bell tracked down, and finally after a couple of
weeks was able to talk to her.

This conversation was very enlightening.  Her position was that
handling the billing for all of the slime carriers (my term here!) was
a hassle, because such a high percentage of the charges generate
customer complaints and chargebacks.  But, the PUC has told Pacific
Bell that they MUST provide billing services to any IXC that wants to
pay for them.  But, Pacific Bell is allowed to require the IXC's
validate the calling card PINs with the database.  Any IXC that does
not validate PINs is not allowed to have their billing done by Pacific
Bell on people's regular phone bill.  A few years ago, it was common
practice for small IXC's to accept any four digit calling card PIN and
just bill the calling card number.  I'm glad that Pacific Bell put its
foot down on this.

ComSystems was indeed checking the PIN with the database, because any
PIN other than my unrestricted one or the One Number one would get
rejected.  The issue was that they were not honoring the "restricted"
bit that is returned by the database upon validation.  After
explaining this to her, and providing evidence (my phone bill) that
this was occurring, she was concerned, and promised to follow this up
with a letter to ComSystems telling them to fix the problem or risk
having telco billing suspended.

I checked up on this a couple of months later, and ComSystems had not
fixed the problem.  I don't currently have a One Number calling card,
so I can't test to see if this is still the case (anyone want to try
this and report the results?)  Also, note that I was NOT using this a
way to get around paying for calls that I should be paying for, but
was just trying to get the problem fixed so that I could safely give
out my One Number card without worry.  I eventually solved the problem
with personal 800 service.

The reason I bring this up now is that I would imagine that the
telco's, at least Pacific Bell, would have a similar requirement on
any carrier that wishes to have third number or collect billed calls
appear on people's "real" phone bills -- that the IXC must have
validated the number to make sure that it was not third number or
collect blocked.  Note that this would also protect the IXC, as this
database will also tell you if the number is a Bell payphone or a
COCOT, so that the IXC can decline to complete the calls in any of
these situations.  But of course access to the database costs money
that a lot of the slime are not willing to pay.  Especially at $120 a
call, they could have a very high rate of uncollectibles and still
make a handsome profit.

So, my advice for people that are worried about this is to sign up
with telco for third number/collect call blocking, and if any of these
calls appear on your bill, just dispute them with telco.  Apparently
any IXC that is not honoring your blocking is violating their
agreement with telco to bill to your telco bill, and I'm sure the
telco is equally interested in getting these problems solved with
their IXC's.  But you probably have to get several layers above the
Business Office before you speak with someone at telco that is
familiar with all of the issues.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 12:33:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


I tried 800-736-7886 from a payphone on 410-272 Aberdeen, Md.
exchange.  It mentioned the charge for the call (you already have
noted the 800) although when I reached the billing menu I got an
option to disconnect the call with no charge.  Good question(?): What
if I had accepted the charge to the phone I was using?  (The other
option would have been to charge to a credit card.)

Before I reached the point where the charge to the phone I was using
would be accepted, the system read back to me the number I was at, and
it was correct (even the 410 area code).  Now what's this about caller
ID not being able to pick up numbers which are out-of-area?


[Moderator's Note: I think it uses ANI, not Caller-ID.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:29:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> JONGSMA%OCEANA.decnet@
benzie.si.com (OCEANA::JONGSMA) writes:

> only would let me talk to an operator or enter in a previously
> generated PIN number. I called twice and it worked the same way. I
> figured that someone from Sprint realized what a mess they create by
> allowing this kind of billing and disabled the ANI billing.

   Maybe so, maybe not.

> But! I called back this morning from work and did get the ANI option!
> So what's going on here?

There was a minor technical hurdle to overcome with the final
implementation of the order to force COCOTs to allow 10XXX dialing.
The LECs needed to arrange to have the COCOTs calls uniquely
identified when they are sent to the LD carrier.  Armed with this
unique identity, the carrier can give special treatment to the COCOTs
(similar to the treatment of a "real" coin phone).  Some areas may
have completed this already.  If Sprint is using this unique identity
to disable the ANI option, the little "hole" that Pat discovered may
close nation wide soon.  We were told the change should be complete by
3/16/92.

However there might be an even easier explanation for the difference.
It's possible that the mall works out of a C.O. that doesn't forward
the ANI (ie, an independent telco that is not equal access).  In some
areas, there still are quite a few non-equal access switches left.


Ken Abrams         nstar!pallas!kabra437
Springfield, IL    [e-mail]    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 15:21:49 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Organization: Rolm Systems


A week or two ago we had a posting which suggested to send mail to
AT&T to try to prevent this 800 scam (my choice of word).  I did just
that, and thought Telecom readers would be interested in reading the
response I got back today.  Note that I didn't actually place any
call, though the author apparently thought I had.  (I never stated
that I had nor did I mislead.)  But it's just an unimportant mistake
anyway.


Mickey Ferguson -- Rolm Systems -- FergusoM at scrvm2 -- [e-mail]

 From: [e-mail]
 Date: Thu Mar  5 10:02:57 EST 1992
 Phone: [phone]
 Subject: Sweepstakes Clearing House

     This responds to your inquiry regarding the charges you incurred
when you called the Sweepstakes Clearing House of Dallas.

     We would like to emphasize there is never an AT&T charge to
callers for an 800 call.  It is a toll-free call paid for by the
receiving party who subscribes to AT&T's 800 Service.  However,
through the use of alternate billing services, certain companies who
subscribe to any carrier's 800 Service are able to charge callers for
information or services provided on an 800 call, but not for the 800
call itself.

     AT&T must provide its services to all customers who request them.
AT&T is however, opposed to anything that would deceive consumers or
violate the trust they have placed in 800 Service.

     The alternate billing service for the sweepstakes promotion out
of Dallas should be contacted directly regarding any charges.  The
telephone number is listed on their statement as 214 905-3866.  AT&T
is not affiliated in any way with either U.S. Audiotel or Audio
Telecom.

     Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.


Sincerely,

Thomas E. Kolibab
District Manager
Customer Service Center

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Number
Date: 5 Mar 92 19:28:29 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) writes:

> I tried 800-736-7886 from behind the Brandeis PBX last night.  I got

> about the number and suggest some options.  They seemed entirely
> unconcerned, on the grounds that they had set up 736-2000 to be
> blocked from all charges.

The DHP (USOC Code) terminating call screening and DHP for 0+ can't be
sent paid are NOT tariffed in MA for PBX trunks. You can get them for
a station line.

For a trunk, you have to go through special assembly. You need
something like DHL at least to be safe for 10xxx compliance. One would
thing NET&T would have tariffed servvices that everyone complying with
the new federal law NEEDS.

OTOH maybe there is some BETTER kind of screening the found. Can you
find out what exactly they have?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 8:43:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


[e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:

> The digitized voice announced that it has a collect call from <pause>
> <faint grunt> <pause>.  To accept the call press something-or-other.
> To reject press something-else.  Being in no mood to accept a prank or
> otherwise unintelligible collect call I did the expedient thing of
> simply hanging up.

> I had indeed gotten a bill for this very call.  It showed up as a
> one minute call via INTEGRETEL from PINCKNEYVL IL 618 357 3254 for
> $2.90 + $.09 tax.

I found this interesting.  It isn't just COCOTs that have this
recorded collect call processing, NYNEX (or at least New England
Telephone) instituted this last year sometime.  Theirs is a voice
response system, where you reply "yes" to accept and "no" to decline.

The University has recently been billed for many, many prank collect
calls, made from local pay telephones to campus room phones, and the
students *swear* they didn't accept the charges.  We thought perhaps
the *calling* party was saying "yes" and beating the system.  Now I
wonder if in hanging up something is going awry.  Thanks for the tip!


Kath Mullholand            University of NH          Durham, NH

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 9:57:35 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


I take phone prefix place names and correlate them with zipcodes where
possible.  Your bill showed 618-357 at Pinckneyville, Illinois; that
matches a post office with zipcode 62274 in Perry County.  It doesn't
necessarily mean that 618-357-3254 is at a Pinckneyville mailing
address.  618 serves the southernmost part of Illinois.  Did anyone
try calling that number on the Pinckneyville exchange to find out what
it is?

I have made calls from numerous pay phones on trips I have made, and
some of these end up being billed via alternate operator services,
such as Integretel.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 22:00:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:

> I guess the new COCOT recipe for success is to intentionally design a
> crappy low-cost system that doesn't really work.  Set it up so that if
> there is any doubt as to what happened just send the bill anyway.
> After all most folks will probably just pay it anyway.  If someone
> does notice and complain, one can just shrug it off as a "computer
> error."

Quite many "rip off schemes" are designed around the concept of paying
back (or cancelling the charge) of anyone who complains.  After all,
the profit margins are usually enormous anyway, and complaints as high
as 25% might make you rich in this approach.  I see these phone schemes
as just the high tech version.

What is needed for these schemes in general is for PENALTIES to be
slapped on whenever false charges are made, above and beyond the
refund or cancellation of the cost.  That should substatially lower
the complaint ratio acceptable to make a profit.  The penalty should
be the larger of: $250 or twice the charged amount seems fair to me.

> [Moderator's Note: Ask telco for the same service I have: Billed
> Number Screening.  Collect and third party billing calls are NEVER
> allowed on my lines.

I want to be able to continue receiving collect calls from people I
know.  Maybe those "call home only" cards might work?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A personal 800 number would work a lot better. PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:50:17 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


In a posting TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Ask telco for the same service I have: Billed
> Number Screening.

I just called U.S. West to ask about this sort of service, and they
charge $12.00 to set it up, and $2.00 per month ...  *sheesh*.  I
settled for the free 900/976 blocking for the time being.


Bruce Carter, CBI Product Development           [e-mail]
Simplot/Micron Instructional Technology Center  amccarte@idbsu (Bitnet)
Boise State University, Boise, ID  83725        [phone]@phone


[Moderator's Note: A monthly fee for it? That's incredible! IBT gives
it away for free ... gladly ... they wish everyone had it.   PAT]

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

Date: 05 Mar 92 13:40:25 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


[e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes in TELECOM Digest
V12 #192:

> Last month, early in the morning, I was awoken by the phone ringing.
> The digitized voice announced that it has a collect call from <pause>
> <faint grunt> <pause>.

It is my understanding based on a recent {Wall Street Journal} article
that AT&T is going to go to one of these systems by 1994. Significant
personnel savings are anticipated. I believe we (SWBT) have implemented
something similar in both Missouri and Texas.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*


[Moderator's Note: IBT uses it here also.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #194
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08359;
          6 Mar 92 4:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03044
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 02:01:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22618
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 02:01:36 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 02:01:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #195

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Mar 92 02:01:20 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 195

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Gary Delong)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Phil Howard)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (John Gilbert)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Jack Decker)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (John R. Covert)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Joseph Chiu)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Name Game in the CIS (Jim Budler)
    Re: On the Road Again ... (Steve Kass)
    Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes
    Origins of International Direct Dialing (Scott Fybush}
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: 4 Mar 92 13:54:40 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> There's a common mis-conception that the Captain can authorize use
> of a two-way radio in flight, and while I've heard of it being done,
> FAA regulations do not allow for that and the Captain could be held
> liable if there were a problem.

According to FAR part 91, the `operator' of the aircraft is the one
legally entitled to authorize the use of a portable electronic device
aboard the aircraft when the aircraft is being operated under
instrument flight rules.  For FAR part 121 and 135, (e.g. airline)
operations, the operator is the airline company, and their delegate
for this purpose is not the captain.  For other (e.g. general
aviation) operations, the pilot in command does, in deed, have the
authority to approve the operation of such devices aboard the
aircraft.

This does not, however, authorize the pilot in command (or anybody
else aboard the craft) to violate the FCC regulations and operate a
cellular telephone while airborne.

The AirPhone systems are installed aboard the aircraft, tested for
interference with the NAV/COM systems, and specifically approved for
in-flight use.


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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 12:30:28 EST
From: Gary Delong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground


In <[e-mail]> was written:

> Last year, I made a call from a phone that was provided on-board,
> while flying from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.  What is the dif-
> ference with this phone and the cell phones which cannot legally be
> used while in flight?

> [Moderator's Note: I presume part of the difference is the frequency
> atr which the radios operate, and the transmission characteristics.
> The one is deemed harmful under the circumstances, and the other is
> not.   PAT]

OK, time for some facts to go with the guesses:

First Re: The Moderator's Note, The correct response would be that one
has been designed for use on board aircraft then studied and found not
to cause problems, the other is an unknown.

The original basis for the FAR is that any receiver (as well as
transmitter) emits RF.  The most commmon frequency and strongest
emited RF is that of the IF osc. (which in most AM radios is 455kHz)
and its products.

Almost all of the aviation NAV/COM equipment was/is AM.  It is
therefore quite probable that the aviation NAV gear could detect the
IF emissions and their products producing random results.

You can demonstrate this type of interference by using two simple AM
receivers, tune the first receiver to a fairly weak signal in the
middle of the band.  Then turn on the second receiver (leave its
volume turned down so you can hear the effect on the first) and tune
it from about 500KHz below to 500KHz above the station your listening
to on the first radio.  You will probably find at least two spots
where you can obscure the signal heard.  The tone you will hear is the
result of mixing of the two signals.

There could be a lot more detail here, but I think I've explained the
basics.

An additional note, it used to be common for ham radio operators to
request and obtain permission from the captain to use two meter (144MHz)
handheld radios in flight. Even though these radios operated very
close to aircraft frequecies, they were FM so their IFs were in the
10MHz range and quite safe to use.  More recently, I think primarly
just to avoid the "why can he use his if I can use mine" problems,
almost no captain will give permission to operate.


Gary

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 23:35:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] writes:

> Not to mention the fact that it's illegal to use a cell phone from
> an aircraft in the air (be the aircraft commercial or private -- still
> illegal).

The next generation should be designed to work from the air.  It would
recognize that it is in the air and utilize special wide range cells
that have a separate set of channels.  Call should be handed off
properly even when going between ground and air.

The interference issue would be separate.  But this would certainly
allow for cell phone use in private planes.

It's just a thought.

[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> Last year, I made a call from a phone that was provided on-board,
> while flying from Philadelphia to Los Angeles.  What is the dif-
> ference with this phone and the cell phones which cannot legally be
> used while in flight?

The phones installed in the plane can (and I am sure do) utilize an
outside antenna.  Devices radiating inside the plane can affect
everything else inside, and not much of it gets out.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:40:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.
MCGILL.CA> writes:

> John R. Covert <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The case with Cuba has nothing unique about it.  It is just as illegal
>> for someone in Canada to route calls from the U.S. to Cuba as it would
>> be for someone in the U.S. to route calls from Canada to England
>> (saving about $1.00 per minute, I might add).

I just called the ATT international operator and she said that she
could attempt to place a call to Cuba ($3.47 first minute + $1.08 each
additional minute).  She said that it is very difficult to get
through, but it is possible and legal to call there.

I thought this was the case.  A few years ago I met a technician for
ATT who maintained the U.S. side of the radio link that connects the
U.S. to Cuba.  This conversation occured several years ago, so things
could have changed in the meantime.

At the time I spoke with this technician, a troposcatter link in the
800-850 MHz area using analog FDM was used to link between a site in
South Florida and Cuba.  The equipment was 1950's or 60's vintage if I
recall correctly.  The technician complained about the problems of
maintaining such old equipment and about the technical competence of
his counterpart at the other end of the link.

The Cubans absolutely refused to update the equipment, even when ATT
offered to supply it free. The system was severely capacity limited.
No money was allowed to be transferred between the two countries, so
the Cubans busied out circuits to equalize the flow of traffic
originating from Cuba and originating from the States.  The system was
FCC licensed prior to the use of the band for cellular and trunked
mobile radio systems (it was UHF TV when first installed).  Having
such a high power system share frequencies with the low power cellular
mobiles was quite a problem, but ATT had no other option.


John Gilbert   KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Astro Systems Development  Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:24:50 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


> There's a big difference between hooking up an extension telephone
> and providing a service to route calls through a third country.

> Hooking up an extension telephone only involves the agreement between
> a telephone company and a single customer.

> Routing calls through a third country involves international treaties
> between governments.  Telephone administrations are jealous beasts,
> and they tend to do things like threaten to cut off all service between
> two countries when violations of the treaties exist.

> And the CCITT Recommendations suggest doing just that.

I understand that, but I think you missed my whole point (perhaps my
fault for not making it clear enough) which is that if the person
doing it is intelligent enough to not shoot their mouth off, nobody's
going to find out about it.  I won't even go into the fact that the
Canadians REALLY resent it when the U.S. tells them what to do; that
may not make a difference since only the telephone companies might be
involved at the outset.  But I was mainly pointing out that if a
person sets up a private arrangement for their own personal use, and
if they are discreet about it, they could probably do it for years
with no one finding out ... just as the Chinese send faxes in and out
of their country without their government being able to detect or put
a stop to it.


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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 05:03:16 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba


> Moderator's Note: How do you suppose calls get through to the Navy base
> down there now?

Definitely not via 53-07 or any other routing through Cuba.

+53-99-xxxx works _only_ from the U.S. -- not from Canada or any other
country.  The calls go via satellite directly into the PBX on base.


/john


[Moderator's Note: So how *do* calls from other countries get to the
military base? If 53-99 only works from the USA, and nothing is routed
through Cuba to the base, how does a Canadian, or an Australian reach
the base, for example to speak with a relative in the US military
there? And can military personnel at the base make any 'local' (but
off-base) calls at all without having to double back through an
international operator in the USA and have the call manually
connected? How does the base call out to *anywhere*? Is their sole
telephone connection to the USA?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Chiu)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 00:26:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Oren HaberSchaim) writes:

> Is a pure tone transmitted with unaltered frequency on a normal voice
> telephone line?

> I want to check if a friend's piano is tuned to a 440 hz "A", as is my
> cello, so I won't have to do major retuning when I get there.  The
> plan would be to just listen on the phone and compare with my tuning
> fork or my instrument.

Yes, that should not be too hard.  The phone equipment is designed to
handle 300 hz - 3700 hz with near-uniform transmission.  Audio below
and above that band is attenuated by the Telcom equipment.

> Since phone lines were basically designed for verbal communication
> where a uniform frequency shift of a few percent would not affect
> intelligibility at all, I wonder if this freedom is made use of in all
> the signal processing apparently done today, or if pitch accuracy is
> reliable to .5% which is good enough for my purposes.

If I understand the design constraints correctly, there should be no
change is pitch ... you do get some 'noise' introduced into the
transmitt audio, though.

Good luck.


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] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 09:21:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Oren HaberSchaim) writes:

> Is a pure tone transmitted with unaltered frequency on a normal voice
> telephone line?

The specs for individual circuits are plus or minus a whopping 5 Hz!

However ... in fact it never ever gets that bad without some other
problem which would cause the circuit to be out of specs.  I wouldn't
expect to see anything as high as a tenth of one Hz in long term shift
on a normally functioning circuit.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Name Game in the CIS
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 07:28:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
UDAYTON.EDU (Jason Childers) writes:

> Now that the Soviet Union (USSR, CCCP) is non-existent, the republics
> have decided to change the names of some of their cities back to their
> pre-Soviet titles.  Here is a list of names which {Time Magazine}
> published last month, some of which are stated in the Telecom Archives
> file ZONE.7 as having city codes:

> Old name            New Name        Code

Shouldn't that be:

Old name                       Older Name                Code

or

Old name                       New Old Name              Code

or

Soviet name                    Historic Name             Code


You can reach me at:

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


[Moderator's Note: Well whatever ... :)   Our IDDD list-compilers
should be having a great time with it about now ... maybe a new zone 7
listing will be available in the archives sometime soon.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 07:43 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: On the Road Again ...


In Issue 190, David E. Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> AT&T Reach Out America Plan with 24 Hour and Calling Card Options:
> Cost: $10.70

Note: This is $2 more than ROA 24-hour plan W/O the credit card
option.

> New AT&T Calling Card Calls:

> With the New AT&T Calling Cards (number is random string of digits) only:
> 1-15 New AT&T Calling Card calls in a month -- $2.00 cash back.
> 16 or more New AT&T Calling Card calls in a month -- $5.00 cash back.

> Cash back is paid quarterly by coupons for AT&T long distance.

A little different than the way I heard it, but ... the bottom line is
that if you use your New Calling Card once each month for a nighttime
call -- make any one of your out-of-state LD calls even from home as
10288-0+, the extra $2 for the Calling Card Option comes back to you.
So the bottom line is that if you use a calling card ever, add the
Calling Card option.

Whaddaya wanna bet that AT&T doesn't market it this way -- I think
they should.  It would be a clever way to get people used to using the
card.  But then again, somebody might notice the conflict with they're
new (stupid) anti-MCI adds which say "We offer you savings, and you
don't have to work for us."


Steve Kass, Math&CS, Drew U, Madison NJ 07940, 2014083614,
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes
Date: 3 Mar 92 04:29:07 GMT


krfiny![e-mail] writes:

> Here's my update to John Gilbert's list (posted/distributed as Volume
> 12, Issue 124, Message 1 of 11).

> *68  Computer Access Restriction Toggle

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that code do?


Steven S. Brack               [e-mail]
2021 Roanwood Drive           [e-mail]
Toledo, Ohio      43613-1605  [e-mail]
[phone]               MY OWN OPINIONS | [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 17:40 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Origins of International Direct Dialing


We've all managed to get an idea by now of the origins of the American
area code system and the birth of direct dialed long distance within
the US.  But ... does anyone know when international direct dialed
long distance was first available, and where?  And how were country
codes initially assigned, by whom, and when?

I don't recall ever seeing anything about these here, and I'm suddenly
curious.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail] -- Brandeis U., Waltham MA USA
  I doubt Brandeis cares about IDDD, but these aren't their views anyway.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #195
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26617;
          7 Mar 92 1:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05025
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:15:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05379
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:14:52 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:14:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #196

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:14:52 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 196

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (David W. Barts)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Tom Gray)
    Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Paul Cook)
    Re: Encryption Help Needed (Monty Solomon)
    Re: How to Distinguish Different Rings? (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: New Telecom Legislation in Canada (Norman Soley)
    Re: Panasonic KX-T123211D (Robert Jesse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 00:40:06 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


In article <[e-mail]>, tim gorman <71336.1270@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> [e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes in TELECOM Digest
> V12 #192:

>> Last month, early in the morning, I was awoken by the phone ringing.
>> The digitized voice announced that it has a collect call from <pause>
>> <faint grunt> <pause>.

> I believe we (SWBT) have implemented something similar in both
> Missouri and Texas.

> [Moderator's Note: IBT uses it here also.  PAT]

Pac*Bell uses it here in California.  I've played around with
recording the DTMF "1" on my answering machine to accept the call.
Interestingly enough, it seems to want a voice to say "Hello" or
something similar before it starts talking.


Maxime Taksar    KC6ZPS     [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 02:40:53 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I just called U.S. West to ask about this sort of service, and they
> charge $12.00 to set it up, and $2.00 per month ...  *sheesh*.  I
> settled for the free 900/976 blocking for the time being.

> [Moderator's Note: A monthly fee for it? That's incredible! IBT gives
> it away for free ... gladly ... they wish everyone had it.   PAT]

I get it free from US West in Washington State, but perhaps the
tariffs in Idaho are different.  You may want to call back and verify
this with someone else. I know that some RBOC's used to be quite
miserly with this feature, as they felt it would reduce revenue
generated from the collect and third number billed calls.  But now
that most people who need them have calling cards, the attitude has
changed.  I know that I got several stories from US West here about
consolidated billing.  At first, they told me that it would cost me
$20 to set up and $2 per month to have my two residence lines on one
bill, so I said "no thanks."  The second time I called, I was told "of
course there's no charge!" and now that's what I have for free.

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

> I found this interesting.  It isn't just COCOTs that have this
> recorded collect call processing, NYNEX (or at least New England
> Telephone) instituted this last year sometime.  Theirs is a voice
> response system, where you reply "yes" to accept and "no" to decline.

I'm surprised that an RBOC would do it in such an error-prone way.
The way the Pacific Bell system works is that it tells you to press 1
to accept, or hang up to reject, or stay on the line for an operator.
So, touchtone recipients can signal with abosolute reliability to
accept, anybody can just hang up to reject, and rotary folks get
transferred to a human.  Last time I heard, 60% of homes have
touchtone (probably a lot higher in Pacific Bell's California), so
collecting answers from only the tone subscribers still saves about
2/3 of the labor, without compromising at all in accuracy.


Steve Forrette   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 8:14:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


> [Moderator's Note: A monthly fee for it? That's incredible! IBT gives
> it away for free ... gladly ... they wish everyone had it.   PAT]

New England Telephone in NH charges us $1.07 per line, no set-up fee.
I don't know if it's the same for residential lines.  And it's not
perfect by a long shot.  *Most* of the hole-in-the-wall carriers don't
use the screening and charge us for all kinds of bizarre calls.

The most common mis-billing is for them to bill third party calls to
numbers that we subscribe to but which aren't (and never have been)
activated in our PBX.


Kath Mullholand         University of NH       Durham, NH

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 13:07:47 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


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

> In a posting TELECOM Moderator notes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Ask telco for the same service I have: Billed
>> Number Screening.

> I just called U.S. West to ask about this sort of service, and they
> charge $12.00 to set it up, and $2.00 per month ...  *sheesh*.  I
> settled for the free 900/976 blocking for the time being.

> [Moderator's Note: A monthly fee for it? That's incredible! IBT gives
> it away for free ... gladly ... they wish everyone had it.   PAT]

NYTel (as per a representatinve I talked to less than five minutes
ago) also offers Billed Number Screening as free for the taking, no
charges for setup and/or monthly fee.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kath
Mullholand) writes:

> I found this interesting.  It isn't just COCOTs that have this
> recorded collect call processing, NYNEX (or at least New England
> Telephone) instituted this last year sometime.  Theirs is a voice
> response system, where you reply "yes" to accept and "no" to decline.

The NYTel portion of NYNEX has this also.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Stupid COCOT Tricks
Date: 4 Mar 92 14:02:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Now for the COCOT problem.  My wife was trying to call Summit, NJ
> (which is on the 908 side of the split) from Livingston, NJ (which is
> in 201 and is a local call to/from Summit) from a COCOT.  Following NJ
> Bell instructions (at the time), she pushed only the seven digits and
> got "an area code is required" message.  So she then tried again,
> pushing 1-908-etc., and got the same message.

> Just one question -- WHY?  What was wrong with what we had?  The only
> thing it did was work correctly and perform as expected.

I have a possible explanation: the COCOT was not dialing into the
local Livingston, NJ central office.  If it had been doing that, the
522 + 4D would have worked.  It may have been talking to a more
distant switch, from which 908-522 + 4D did require an area code.  The
COCOT programming was probably throwing away the 908 despite the fact
that it was needed in this case.


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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 13:23:16 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line


Regarding the discussion about sending 440 Hz over a telephone for
piano tuning purposes, I seem to recall that a number of years ago
there was a telephone number in Vienna, Austria that one could dial to
get a pure 440 Hz tone.  It was provided explicitly for the purpose of
tuning musical instruments.

This would appear to indicate that the idea is a feasible one, at
least for local calls.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 08:07:23 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Oren HaberSchaim) writes:

> Is a pure tone transmitted with unaltered frequency on a normal voice
> telephone line?

> I want to check if a friend's piano is tuned to a 440 hz "A", as is my
> cello, so I won't have to do major retuning when I get there.  The
> plan would be to just listen on the phone and compare with my tuning
> fork or my instrument.

This would be a problem only if the signal was carried on an obsolete
frequency division multiplexing scheme. Even in that case the tone
would be well within the 0.5% tolerance which was specified in the
original post.

With modern digital equipment, the frequency tolerance can be derived
from the worst case clock deviation allowed for digital carrier. This
is about 40 parts per million which is well within the tolerance
specified.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 17:09 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit


[e-mail] (Timothy R. Wilhite) writes:

> I need suggestions on a intercom circuit.  In our church, my pastor
> would like to talk to our soundboard man via a phone from the
> platform.  The purpose is to make adjustments concerning sound etc.
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.

If you don't need ringing, this is very simple to do.  Just take a
pair of wires, put any old phone at each end, and hook a battery or
other DC power source (from about 12-48 vdc) across the pair of wires.
It is very important to put chokes (inductors) in series with each
side of the battery so that your voice signal does not disappear into
the low impedance of the battery.  For a balanced circuit, these
chokes should be the same value, but the value is not critical; just
enough to block AC at voice frequencies, but allowing some DC current
to power the phones.  A good rule of thumb is to use enough voltage so
that the phones are each drawing 25 ma of current at the very least,
although many phones will work with less.

If you need ringing, use a single Proctor 46220 Ringdown circuit.  It
has two modular jacks, and you just run a pair of wires to each phone
from these jacks.  As soon as one goes off-hook, the other one rings.
The 46220 provides 48 vdc battery in each direction, enough to power
phones over miles of cable.

Contact Proctor via one of the addresses below for more information.


Paul Cook                          206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates          MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.             fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 16:53:27 EST
From: Monty Solomon <roscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed


[e-mail] wrote:

> I have a presentation to do on DATA ENCRPITION for the third year of my
> computing course.

> If anyone can give me any infomation, or even example programs ... I
> would probably think you're god!

Encryption software is considered an export-controlled technology by
the U.S.  Commerce and State Departments and is restricted from being
distributed outside of the U.S.


Monty    roscom![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: How to Distinguish Different Rings?
Date: 3 Mar 92 04:17:34 GMT


Just a small piece of trivia ...

Back when my grandparents first got phone service, the good old days
when you could pick up the phone and ask for CHErry-7647, their old
number BTW, it was common practice that any incoming call that was not
local (not sure how they decided then) would be announced by one
continuous ring.

Now, my question: "way back then," 8) would ring be generated by a
human operator on such calls?

Also, if anyone can provide me with information on how long distance
was handled in the pre-digital era, especially direct dialed LD, I
would be much appreciative.


Steven S. Brack          [e-mail]
2021 Roanwood Drive      [e-mail]
Toledo, Ohio  3613-1605  [e-mail]
[phone]   MY OWN OPINIONS   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is likely that "way back then" there was no
direct dialing of long distance calls. Calls were patched manually
between operators in various cities, with the 'inward opertor' in the
called party's community completing the final part of the connection.
The operator could ring manually from a cordboard as well as simply
letting the equipment to do the ringing.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: New Telecom Legislation in Canada
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  4 MAR 92 14:36:20


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A.
Okapuu-von Veh) writes ...

> Here are some excerpts from the {Montreal Gazette} of Feb. 28, 1992:

> "Consumers would be able to block unwanted telephone sales pitches and
> cable-television companies would be allowed to enter telecommunications
> under long-awaited legislation unveiled yesterday.

> "Under the new legislation, cable companies will be allowed to provide
> any telecommunications service they want without any regulation. "That
> gives them the power, in theory, to offer local telephone service --
> something that's already happened in the U.S.

> "But it's more likely Canadian cable companies will first introduce
> so-called interactive television. Such a system could allow viewers to
> make purchases from home-shopping channel through a cable-TV converter.

> "The most immediate change for consumers is a measure giving the CRTC
> power to block unsolicited phone calls and fax messages. Details
> aren't complete, but a Communications Department official said
> telephone companies may be required to register customers who don't
> want sales pitches or junk faxes.  Both human and computerized
> solicitations are covered by the ban."

This new act, which is a replacement for the Railway Act of 1908, is
intended to take juristiction for intra-provincial communications away
from the provinces and place it under federal control (specifically
the CRTC) this has a number of advantages, some of them highlighted
above, it also has problems.

Quite clearly the government is trying to put some spin on this,
centralization of powers is a very big issue up here right now. The
government is concerned that if this is seen as a power grab it will
never fly.

So although the main reason for a new act is to force the provincally
controlled telcos to finally allow interconnect, control over
telesleaze is a side benefit that they figure will sell better with
the great unwashed so that's the message they are pushing.

For watchers of Canadian politics this will be an interesting one as
this act relates in very real terms to the current constitutional
wrangle.


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital
Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

From: oracle![e-mail] (Robert Jesse)
Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T123211D
Organization: Oracle Corp.
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 05:11:59 GMT


monty@roscom (Monty Solomon) writes:

> I have several non-EMSS two-line Panasonic phones that I am using as
> extensions with the Panasonic KX-T123211D EMSS.

> All of these Panasonic two-line phones have line buttons/indicators
> which are illuminated when the line is in use.  For some reason these
> phones think that both lines are always in use even when they aren't.
> Why does this happen?

Most electronic KSUs use 24 volt battery instead of the 48 volt
battery used for the usual home or business local CO loop. In both
cases, this is nominally the voltage seen on the line when no
instruments are off-hook.

The Panasonic telephones probably look at this voltage.  When it's
"high" they think the line is not in use, when "low" that it is. If 24
volts were considered low, that would explain the behavior you're
seeing.


Bob

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #196
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29492;
          7 Mar 92 2:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30246
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:05:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13644
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:04:53 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:04:53 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #197

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Mar 92 23:04:33 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 197

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Mark Evans)
    Re: FCC Gives OK For New Cellular Field Trials (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (AT&T Responds) (Seng-Poh Lee)
    Re: Death of 900 Numbers Greatly Exaggerated (Paul Schmidt)
    Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (Phil Howard)
    Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS? (Jack Winslade)
    Re: ANI in Arkansas (Dale Miller)
    Re: ANI in Arkansas (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 05:24:21 PST
From: Nigel Roberts  04-Mar-1992 1410 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service


Seeing that somewhere along the road half of the previous posting got
eaten, here it is again, intact. (Well, I did correct a couple of my
mistakes like obvious typos and unclear grammar.)

Incidentally, FWIW it seems that it was a line consisting of nothing
but a full stop (period) which cause the message to be truncated.

  \nigel

Ole Jacobsen wrote:

>> However, I could not find a single pay phone so equipped, so my
>> portable Radio Shack tone dialer came very handy. Apparently, some
>> payphones used to have tone, but this was removed since for some
>> reason having to do with phone fraud.

No BT payphones have tone dialing anymore. This is because there was
an error somewhere, either in the exchange or on the phone itself
which allowed you to make free calls by using a portable dialer and
adding a couple of extra digits to the number. This happened a couple
of years ago.

BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing from payphones.

HOWEVER BT's own 144 automated credit card service would not work
without a tone pad, so what to do?  BT Payphones have come up with a
kluge which I'm only just beginning to appreciate the enormity of.

The payphone seems to switch into DTMF mode in two circumstances:

   o when the call supervises and charging begins (which of course
     doesn't happen on a call to USA Direct).

and/or:

   o when a short tone of a particular frequency is sent
     by the other end of the connection. The payphone _then_
     seems to report its telephone number(*)  using in-band DTMF
     and switches the keypad into DTMF mode.

     (*) If you knew the frequency of the tone, you might be able
     to build a 'Caller-ID' box for payphone-originated calls using
     a 555 chip to generate the tone, and a DTMF to RS232 converter!!!)

Incidentally, I'm interested to know whether or not your RS tone
dialer worked during the first 30 seconds of your payphone calls.
I haven't been able to get mine to control my answering machine unless
I wait for 30 seconds or so. I have a strong suspicion that there's an
active DTMF filter coupled with a timer in these payphones, as well.

>> stupidly responded that I didn't think I'd qualify, not being a UK

You don't need to be a UK resident -- just have a U.K. telephone number
that it can be billed to :=(.

Well, we are a few years behind.


Nigel Roberts   [phone] / [phone]    FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 12:54:07 GMT


> No BT payphones have tone dialing. This is because there was an error
> somewhere, either in the exchange or on the phone itself which allowed
> you to make free calls by using a portable dialer and adding a couple
> of extra digits to the number. This happened a couple of years ago.

> BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing payphones.

In fact some BT payphones do have tone dialing; these are the ones
with blue plastic buttons.  What happens is that the phone switches
from pulse to tone dialing when then number 144, and a few others are
dialed.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: FCC Gives OK For New Cellular Field Trials
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 17:24:46 GMT


[e-mail] (Mathew Zank) writes:

> I just got this from {Dow Jones News Service}. The FCC has given it's
> okay for a company called Qualcomm, Inc to have field trials for a

Okay, here's our official press release on this. Propoganda mode on:

OTC  03/02 0917  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTS QUALCOMM ...

SAN DIEGO (MARCH 2) BUSINESS WIRE - The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has granted QUALCOMM Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) an
experimental license to conduct field trials and studies in the
1850-1990 MHz band.

   The company will utilize its Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
technology in these experiments to demonstrate the feasability of
using its CDMA digital cellular system for personal communications
services (PCS) in the 1850-1990 MHz band.

   The FCC has indicated that it may open up portions of 1.8-2.2 GHz
band for the new PCS services.  Numerous studies of this band indicate
that there is unused spectrum and the intent of much of the 1.8-2.2
GHz PCS experimentation is to determine the level of coexistence that
can be accomplished between existing 1.8-2.2 GHz users and new PCS
providers.

   Existing forms of PCS include cordless telephones, paging services
and cellular telephones, each of which is identified by its own
telephone number.  Expanded forms of PCS using CDMA would provide
subscribers with a single, hand-held communications unit with a single
telephone number that could be used in a variety of environments
including the home and the office in conjunction with a wireless PBX,
or for vehicular and pedestrian mobile public telephone services.

   QUALCOMM has an existing CDMA cellular system consisting of five
cell sites and eight sectors that was used to validate the numerous
technical aspects of CDMA technology in large-scale validation field
trials conducted in San Diego in November 1991.

   The 1.8-2.2 GHz tests will be conducted in three phases within a
50-mile radius of the company's headquarters in San Diego.  Phase One
will involve the basic coverage and transmission parameters.  Phase
Two will investigate methods of locating and utilizing vacant or
lightly congested spectrum in the 1.8-2.2 GHz band for the CDMA
waveform. Phase Three will investigate interference parameters with
other users.

   During the testing, QUALCOMM will also verify that the performance
features achieved by CDMA in the cellular band will also be available
to 1.8-2.2 GHz system users.  Performance at 1.8-2.2 GHz for PCS
applications will benefit from CDMA, especially from the extremely
large system capacity, excellent voice quality during severe
multipath, fading or interference conditions, and the extended
portable range.

   QUALCOMM develops, manufactures, markets, licenses and operates
advanced communications systems and products based on digital wireless
technology.  QUALCOMM's principal product is OmniTRACS, a
satellite-based, two-way mobile communications and tracking system
that provides data transmission and position reporting service for
transportation companies and other mobile users.

   QUALCOMM's primary development program focuses on the
implementation of Code Division Multiple Access technology for use in
digital cellular telephone systems and products.

   The company also develops and markets a range of VLSI devices and
is developing signal processing components for HDTV.  With
headquarters in San Diego, QUALCOMM is a public company.

   CONTACT:  QUALCOMM Inc., San Diego
    Harvey White, 619/597-5212
               or
    McQuerterGroup, San Diego
    Gwen Carlson, 619/450-0030.


OTC  03/02 0925  MATSUSHITA COMMUNICATIONS SIGNS CDMA SUPPORT ...

SAN DIEGO (MARCH 2) BUSINESS WIRE - QUALCOMM Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) Monday
announced that Matsushita Communications Industrial Co. Ltd. has
signed a support agreement for QUALCOMM's Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) technology.

   Under the agreement, Matsushita will have access to QUALCOMM's
technology in order to respond to industry requests for CDMA cellular
phones and the opportunity to join industry leaders as an early
licensee of CDMA technology.

   "We're delighted to announce our association with Matsushita," said
Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs, president and CEO for QUALCOMM.  "Advanced
communications companies such as Matsushita will help to ensure the
availability of CDMA-based wireless products to users everywhere.

   "This represents another step in establishing broad industry
support for the company's technology among equipment manufacturers."

   QUALCOMM has previously entered into agreements with AT&T,
Motorola, Northern Telecom, OKI Electric, Alps Electric, Clarion,
Nokia and Sony Corp.

   QUALCOMM has successfully completed a large-scale field test of
digital cellular technology, verifying technicl feasibility and
performance characteristics.  Results of these tests were publicly
presented in December 1991 at the CTIA Field Trial Results Conference
in Washington, D.C.

   In addition to showing improvements in capacity ranging from 10 to
20 over the current analog system, the results showed improvements in
both quality and service.

   As a result of the company's successful CDMA validation test, the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association recently initiated a
standards process for wideband digital applications.

   QUALCOMM develops, manufactures, markets, licenses and operates
advanced communications systems and products based on digital wireless
technology.  QUALCOMM's principal product is OmniTRACS, a
satellite-based, two-way mobile communications and tracking system
that provides data transmission and position reporting service for
transportation companies and other mobile users.

   QUALCOMM's primary development program focuses on the
implementation of Code Division Multiple Access technology for use in
digital cellular telephone systems and products.

   The company also develops and markets a range of VLSI devices and
is developing signal processing components for HDTV.

   CONTACT:  QUALCOMM Inc., San Diego
    Carroll McHenry, 619/597-5135
                 or
    McQuerterGroup, San Diego
    Gwen Carlson, 619/450-0030.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 15:05:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Subject: Re: Can't Call (201)-380 From Connecticut (AT&T Responds)
Organization: University of Syracuse


Following up on my inability to dial (201)-380-ROAM from a (203)
number, I just received a call from AT&T long distance repair. They
called yesterday, but missed me. They called back today, twice.
Anyway, the resolution was that they said a routing misconfiguration
in my switch caused that problem, and that I could now dial that
number. Sure enough, I could, but like John Covert said, after I get
the second dial tone, I am unable to enter any numbers, i.e.  receive
only. So, AT&T is essentially forcing me to use MCI or Sprint to reach
that roaming port.


Seng-Poh Lee   <[e-mail]>

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

From: tijc02![e-mail] (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Death of 900 Numbers Greatly Exaggerated
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 19:38:54 GMT


One use of the 900 number was fund raising.  Alternate parties to the
Republicans and Democrats could use this as a way of having
self-funding T.V. commercials.  Now which parties are trying to
eliminate 900 services?


Paul Schmidt


[Moderator's Note: A very nice use of 900 here is to solicit money for
our Public Television (WTTW Channel 11) station. A certain 900 number
thanks you for your ten dollar donation, asks you to confirm that you
do indeed wish to give the money, then charges it to your bill. I
believe both the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Lyric Opera are also
using 900 numbers this way, for ease in making donations.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 22:10:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> Because there had been rain and strong winds Friday afternoon, there
> was some conjecture that the tower had fallen on its own; but federal
> investigators on location Friday evening pointed out what they termed
> the 'clean way in which the metal had been cut', and noted that in an
> act of nature (strong winds) 'the results would have been a lot more
> crude'; that is, the evidence would have shown the tower to have
> probably been yanked up and tossed aside by the wind.

One possible scenario is for the damage to be done partially, and
"finished" by the high winds.  Legally it's still the same thing, but
technically the winds played a role.  You don't want to be standing
next to a tower at the time it falls; I would guess even vandals would
figure that out.

However, tower collapse entirely caused by wind is not substantially
different.  It would take an enormous impacting gust to yank up and
toss aside a tower.

> Once the original tower had been removed from the road so that
> automobiles could pass by, Cellular One crews set about restoring
> service. By working all night, and all day Saturday in shifts, the
> cell site was back on line late Saturday evening.

> Federal investigators repeated their claim that Vandals were to blame,
> but no leads had developed in the investigation as of today. They
> pointed out that 'more than one person had to be involved from the way
> this came off'.

I would tend to have doubts about what comes from someone claiming
that a simple windstorm can yank up a tower (even though that was not
the case in this incident).


Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 11:56:20 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: What Areas Still Have X-Bar and SxS?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I >WAS< going to speak up and say that I knew of an office in NYC that
was still crossbar, but I haven't called it for several months so I
called it to be sure.  Nope, it is now a DMS.  I remember it
distinctly because the busy tone from it (the old, raucous BAAAAAA -
BAAAAAA - BAAAAAA) would not show as busy on one of my modems.

For those who care, this was the switch serving the 567 and 569
offices (nee LOrraine 7 and 9) in upper Manhattan.  That was the last
urban electromechanical switch I knew of.  Maybe Higdon knows of one
still around.


Good day.        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS   Feb. 29th.  Go take a flying leap.  ;-)   (200:5010/666.0)

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

From: "[e-mail]"@UALR.EDU
Subject: Re: ANI in Arkansas
Date: 5 Mar 92 09:00:24 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> This follows up on a message of a few (?) months ago:

> ANI in central Arkansas (Southwestern Bell area?) was given as
> 828-2222222 (yes, ten digits).  I find there was no 501-828 prefix in
> 1982.

So far as I know, there is STILL no 828 prefix.  The ANI number is the
only use I have seen using that sequence.  Note that I am NOT a TELCO
person, but at a university with lots of badly (or un-) marked lines
who often needs to know what number I am using.  I have no idea how
SWBT has implemented the ANI but suspect the central Arkansas switches
have something special set up for that prefix.  I also have suspicion
(unfounded rumor) that there are other "things" on that prefix for use
by SWBT internally.  I have not tried the ANI number from the nearby
GTE switch, but I will when next in the area.


Dale Miller     [e-mail]
University of Arkansas at Little Rock

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:27:52 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI in Arkansas


> [Moderator's Note: Maybe the folks in central Arkansas have lucked out
> on a way to call Mystic Marketing and not get billed.  :)   PAT]

Apparently a joke; I merely happened to get around to checking 501-828
at the same time these Mystic Marketing articles have appeared.


[Moderator's Note: Yes Carl ... it was a joke. You can laugh now!  :)
And remember, Mystic Marketing is advertising for callers to their
fine service (Tarot, seances by phone, etc). Call 1-800-736-7886, and
charge the very modest, very reasonable charge of $120 to the phone
you are using.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #197
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01881;
          7 Mar 92 2:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25224
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:56:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00784
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:56:07 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 23:56:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #198

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Mar 92 23:56:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 198

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (Jack Decker)
    Re: Elevator Phone Spooked Man (Steven Leikeim)
    Re: Caller-ID Project Update (Graham Toal)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Joel M. Snyder)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Bill Squire)
    Re: Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:25:34 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)


> In Telecom Digest, Vol. 12, Issue 175, Article 5, [e-mail]
> (Peter da Silva) writes:

>>> Now, if we are dealing with FidoNet and sharing of expenses
>>> by SysOps: Are you or would you then support the notion
>>> that a FidoNet HUB must resign him/herself to paying
>>> business rates simply because he/she is compensated for the
>>> cost of forwarding mail into FidoNet at whatever cost?

>> Yes. People who charge ("sharing costs") to forward Usenet
>> do.

> What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion?
> What impact would this have on FidoNet throughout the US if all
> FidoNet HUBs being compensated for forwarding mail and files in the US
> were required to pay business rates on their BBS phone lines, in your
> opinion?

Personally, I think one effect it might have is to make folks think
twice about "volunteering" to be a large mail hub so that they can
receive somewhere around 500 echoes per day while being reimbursed for
their expenses by those whom they feed.  I've said in the past that
this is a dream situation for the echomail junkies, and while they
tend to do a lot of moaning about how much work it is and what a
thankless job it is to be an echomail hub, the fact remains that there
must be some compensating benefits or they wouldn't do it (if they're
at all sane!).

The problem is that most sysops in Fidonet never asked for echomail
distribution to evolve in this way.  Three or four years ago, getting
an echo was fairly simple, you found a BBS that carried an echo you
wanted and asked if you could get a feed there.  Now you are only
allowed to go to the "Echomail Coordinator" serving your net or region
(unless you can get a form of "special dispensation" that may require
permission from as many as FOUR different coordinators), and this is
all based on geography (apparently the feeble minds in the Fidonet
hierarchy can't cope with the concept of network topology unless they
can overlay it onto a map!).

So you get situations where a node in one net might only pay $1 a
month for echoes while another sysop, who may live out in the boonies
and have to make a toll call to pick up echoes, is forced by policy to
make an expensive intrastate or intraLATA call to the Echomail hub
serving that geographic area, and the operator of that hub is pretty
much free to charge whatever he wants for echomail, so long as it
doesn't appear that he's making a profit (but there's no real
incentive for him to try and cut his phone costs, either).

The geographic monopoly leads to absurd situations, like a recent case
in which some nodes in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (a U.S. naval base) were
told they would have to be in Zone 4 (Latin America) rather than Zone
1 Net 275.  The latter serves the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia, and
apparently there are direct phone lines between Norfolk and Guantanamo
Bay.  In fact, according to the article in Fidonews that brought this
situation to light,

  "...Gitmo Bay is a navy base belonging to the US,
  built on the island of Cuba. But all of the phones at Gitmo Bay
  are connected directly to Norfolk Naval base, home of the
  Atlantic Fleet, and part of net 275. Gitmo Bay is a local call
  for net 275, thanks to the leased lines the navy uses.

  "As far as geography, Gitmo is as far from Cuba as was East and
  West Berlin before the wall came down. This is not a geographical
  boundary. It is a political barrier."

So because of petty politics and coordinators who are so impressed
with their own importance that they stink to high heaven, these nodes
that serve our forces and the civilians employed at Guantanamo Bay
(and there are many of the latter ... I understand there's even fast
food restaurants like McDonald's on the base) cannot "legally" use the
lowest cost method of obtaining echomail feeds (I say "legally"
because there are ways around everything, and my bet would be that
those nodes are not going to Zone 4 for their feeds, but it's really
too bad that such arrangements cannot be made out in the open).

I'm not a person who is normally given to using gratuitous profanity,
but I cannot use the language I'd like to use in describing these
echomail coordinators (especially the ones at the "Regional" level)
who either invented or are helping to perpetuate this system.  But it
is my opinion that they ought to be paying business rates at the very
least.  They like to make everyone think they are performing a public
service, but what they are really doing is getting a vast number of
echomail feeds either for free, or for a fraction of what it would
cost them if they were paying the expenses out-of-pocket.

 And lest you think they are a necessary evil, prior to the inception
of this system, there were in fact some informal echomail hubs that
provided feeds of echoes to BBS's all over the nation, many using
company WATS lines and the like to cut costs.  Most of these hubs were
either told that they could no longer be echomail hubs, or that they'd
have to limit their activities to a particular net.  Many of the
"free" hub operators simply refused to put up with the B.S. and
dropped out of Fidonet altogether.

If I were writing the tariff, my rule for charging residential vs.
business rates on a BBS would be that if you charge for ANYTHING,
including a "donation" that gets the donator something in exchange
(more access time, access to other "levels" of the system, conference
feeds, etc.) then you pay business rates.  If you run a completely
free BBS, or accept "donations" but don't reward those donations in
any way (other then perhaps something of minimal value, such as
listing the donator in a public online list of contributors), then I'd
say that residential service rates are appropriate.

Your opinions may vary, of course...  :-)


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


[Moderator's Note: I especially appreciate your discussion of phone
service to < == > from the naval base in Cuba, since that has also
been a topic here in recent issues with messages from John Covert and
others. John will say more on this in the next issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Re: Elevator Phone Spooked Man
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1992 05:49:46 GMT
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada


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

[ story about man being phoned by elevator deleted ]

Our Esteemed Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Did anyone say why this was occurring?  PAT]

Sorry, I typed in the entire article as it was. There is no more
information on this that I am aware of.

What was interesting was that I received a phone call from a John
Oakley with CFRB radio in Toronto, Ontario wanting me to talk on his
radio talk show about this story. Unfortunately, I was unable to help
him as I didn't know anything more. He was under the impression that I
was the originator of the story or that I was somehow involved. I
didn't get a chance to ask him how he got my name and/or the article
so I have no idea how this information got to him.


Steven Leikeim    University of Calgary
Department of Electrical Engineering
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Project Update
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 22:55:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Rob Bailey, WM8S) writes:

> I got more requests for the schematic for my Caller*ID interface than
> I did ideas for the software (so far -- I'm getting some good ideas in
>  -- keep up the help!). I'm not sure how to provide the schematic
> on-line and I can't possibly keep up with a bunch of paper requests,

I assume you don't have a drawing package to turn it into postscript,
or a scanner.  So here's a suggestion.  Find someone with a fax-modem
and fax the schematic to them, and they can turn it into a PCX/GIF/TIFF/
whatever/postscript bitmap file, which they can uuencode and send back
to you by email.


Graham

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

Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
From: [e-mail]
Date: 6 Mar 1992 10:49 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department


I'm sorry to step in without being able to read the whole thread, but
my news server doesn't have all of the messages in re: Cuba.  However,
I just got back from there on Sunday, so some of this is fresh in my
mind.  It's possible that this whole thread was started by some new
information that I don't have; please feel free to correct me.

The connection to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay doesn't pass
through the lines connecting Cuba to the US (or any other country).
It's done via separate circuits, which may be either radiotelephone or
satellite based.  The whole point of the base is to present a
political thorn in the side to Castro, not to actually have a useful
military presence -- one can see that it's there mostly to be there,
not to do anything interesting.  In any case, the political situation
means that cooperation between the Cuban PTT and the US to handle the
base is zero.

The line between the US and Cuba is in very poor shape, and has less
than 100 circuits.  Calling over that line is almost impossible, but
is allowed.  The economic embargo ("Trading with the Enemy", 31 CFR
515) governs transactions over that line.  You may charge calls as
follows:

 - charge to a US phone company only when in the US (i.e., you
   cannot use your AT&T card while in Cuba.)

 - call collect only when in Cuba (i.e., you cannot call collect
   to Cuba.)

There is a new line in place, some fiber, I expect.  My notes show
that it has not been placed into service yet, again for political
reasons, involving the percentage of half-circuits which will get paid
for by the US AT&T company vs. the Cuban PTT.  (Some readers may have
newer information; feel free to correct me).

In practice, the Cubans do not call the US, because it is almost
impossible to do so.  Their Usenet connection used to go through Costa
Rica; now it passes through Cuba, [Mod. Note: ?? Cuba ??] where they
are able to make connections quite nicely.

Regarding a passing reference to transferring calls from Canada to the
US.  The restriction placed on US transactions is an ECONOMIC one.
The goal is to isolate Cuba economically and deprive it of income.  If
the arrangements made for moving calls from Canada to the US do not go
against the spirit of the embargo, then such a setup or system would
be entirely legal.  In any case, one could consult the Chief Counsel
in charge of such things in Treasury in the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (which I have as [phone]) for an opinion.

If you believe that there the US Embargo is restricting your company
from making money in the Cuban market, then you should let your
Congressman know such things.  There is a substantial anti-Cuban lobby
in Florida, and not much pro-Cuban sentiment anywhere else (largely
because of disinterest).  Nevertheless, [and here I step out of
Telecom information and into the Economic/Political arena] there is a
substantial market for US goods and services in Cuba, and you might
consider suggesting to your Congressman that the US is not in a
position to put up its nose at making income from a country only 30
miles away.

In a related, but not entirely relevent note, readers might be
interested to know that I was able to make a data connection back to
Tucson, via the following routing:

X.25 connection from Havana to Moscow (satellite to VNIIPAS);
(X.25/X.75) from Moscow to Vienna;
(X.25/X.75) from Vienna through unknown cities to Reston;
(X.25/X.75) from Reston, VA to Columbus, OH;
(X.25/X.75) from Columbus, OH to Tucson, AZ (U of A telecom center);
 from U of A Telecom over 56K DECnet circuit to my U of A office;
 from my office over 9.6K DECnet circuit to VAX next door;
over Ethernet (DECnet) from VAX next door to VAX in my home office;

And it wasn't so bad.


Joel M Snyder, 627 E Speedway, 85705  Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
The Mosaic Group, Dep't of MIS, the University of Arizona, Tucson
BITNET: jms@arizona  Internet: [e-mail]  SPAN: 47541::telcom::jms


[Moderator's Note: You criminal, you! Imagine, transitting to Arizona
by way of Moscow and Vienna ... I assume you meant the ones in Russia
and Austria respectively, or did you mean the ones in Idaho and Virginia,
here in the USA?  If the former, I'm afraid we have to turn you in to
the Committee ...  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Date: 6 Mar 92 20:8:37 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson @ University of Alaska
Institute of Marine Science) once wrote ...

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Oren HaberSchaim) writes:

>> Is a pure tone transmitted with unaltered frequency on a normal voice
>> telephone line?

> The specs for individual circuits are plus or minus a whopping 5 Hz!

> However ... in fact it never ever gets that bad without some other
> problem which would cause the circuit to be out of specs.  I wouldn't
> expect to see anything as high as a tenth of one Hz in long term shift
> on a normally functioning circuit.

        It all depends on what circuits you call!  I find the error
can actually be a few Hz off at EACH LINK in analog connections.
Routing calls to WWV ([phone]) and using a device that
accurately can generate the WWV tones (and route the calls!) I have
been able to observe errors over 10 Hz. I can route over TAT8 and it
is right on the money, since AT&T seems to provide quality digital
equipment to complete international calls coming from digital lines.
Since the average telephone user cannot (or dares not) take control of
the routing, I would make a few test calls before tuning any
instrument.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 17:51:51 EST
Subject: Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI


On 3 Mar 92 17:26:20 GMT, [e-mail] said:

(After delineating a bunch of other reasons for changing his PIC
 from Sprint to MCI.)

> And the major reason for the MCI switch: Northwest frequent flyer
> miles!

Boy this is one I'd love to understand.  I've seen this come up in
market research and it always baffles the hell out of me.  As I
understand it, MCI gives one mile per dollar spent, right?  Since
frequent flyer programs generally need at least 20,000 miles for a
domestic round trip ticket, that's $20,000 worth of long distance per
ticket.  Does anybody (other than Higdon) burn up $20,000 on
residential LD in a short enough time to make this work?????


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


[Moderator's Note: If you relied only on phone charges it might take
awhile, but you combine the points from various programs. Steve Elias
responds in the next message.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Long Time Sprint Stooge Switches to MCI
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 15:09:22 PST
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] wrote:

On 3 Mar 92 17:26:20 GMT, [e-mail] said:

> Boy this is one I'd love to understand.  I've seen this come up in
> market research and it always baffles the hell out of me.  As I
> understand it, MCI gives one mile per dollar spent, right?

Five miles per dollar spent ...

> Since frequent flyer programs generally need at least 20,000 miles
> for a domestic round trip ticket, that's $20,000 worth of long
> distance per ticket.  Does anybody (other than Higdon) burn up $20,000
> on residential LD in a short enough time to make this work?????

Last year my LD bills were $300 per month, for a few months.  now they
are down to $50 to $100 per month.  I'll take those frequent flyer
miles any way I can get em.  Also, if you bill your MCI through your
Northwest Visa card, that gives you six miles per LD dollar spent.  I
haven't done that yet though.


/eli

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #198
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10650;
          7 Mar 92 5:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18914
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 02:43:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14985
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 02:43:09 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 02:43:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #199

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Mar 92 01:43:03 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 199

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Guantanamo Base (John R. Covert)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Martin McCormick)
    Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes (Phil Howard)
    Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (Patton Turner)
    Re: 911 and Politics ([e-mail])
    Re: 911 and Politics (Tim Gorman)
    Billed Number Screening (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Linden B. Sisk)
    What About On the Mountain? (was Cellular Phones in Planes) (G Chartrand)
    Southwestern Bell's Customer Dis-Service (Mark Earle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 13:37:11 PST
From: John R. Covert  06-Mar-1992 1618 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guantanamo Base


> [Moderator's Note: So how *do* calls from other countries get to the
> military base? If 53-99 only works from the USA, and nothing is routed
> through Cuba to the base, how does a Canadian, or an Australian reach
> the base, for example to speak with a relative in the US military
> there?

Canadians must be connected with the Canadian overseas operator in
Montreal who will contact the AT&T operator in Pittsburgh to put the
call through.  It's certainly the same from any other country.

> And can military personnel at the base make any 'local' (but
> off-base) calls at all without having to double back through an
> international operator in the USA and have the call manually
> connected?

The base is quite unwelcome there.  There isn't any reason for anyone
there to ever make a 'local' call.  There is no way to get physically
onto or off of the base except by plane or ship.

> How does the base call out to *anywhere*? Is their sole
> telephone connection to the USA?   PAT]

Probably.  I would suspect they have the lines to AT&T for non-
military use, and AUTOVON lines for military use.


/john


[Moderator's Note: An interesting message in the last issue discussed
the phone calls made from Fido BBSs on the base and said the circuits
seem to run from the base to Norfolk, VA. Does that agree with your
understanding of the situation? If you are correct, then it would be
impossible for the Fido sites there to follow Fido regulations regards
their 'zone', would it not?  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 15:37:46 -0600
From: [e-mail]


I remember around 1972 or 1973, there was still an AT&T shortwave radio
link between the United States and the Guantanamo Naval Base.  It was
the exact same type of multichannel single sideband system which was
the workhorse of radio-based over-seas telephone carriers in the 60's
and early 70's before satellite links and better undersea cables made
these systems obsolete.

     The systems were full-duplex with each transmitter on the other's
receive frequency.  There seemed to be four voice channels, two lower
and two upper sideband, with some sort of audio compansion scheme
which turned voice level into a frequency-shifted subcarryer.  When
somebody spoke, one could hear a whistle which changed frequency with
the loudness of the voice.  At the other end, there was an audio level
expander which would listen to this changing carryer and turn that
information back into level changes in the received voice.  This had
the effect of reducing background noise.  It seemed that the Cuban end
of the connection was to the PBX at the base and one could hear the
base operator dialing numbers on what sounded like a step-by-step
centrex system.  You could hear the dial-tone, the clicking as the
operator dialed, and the ring signal which had a really sharp sound
like an electric saw.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 800 vs. 10xxx Codes
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 21:40:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Alan L. Varney) writes:

> "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a long distance company
> access code for the number you have dialed.  Please hand up and
> try your call again."

Actually I was hoping for an announcement with English text that was
more semantically correct, such as:

"We're sorry, a long distance company access code may not be used with
the number you have dialed.  Please hang up and try your call again."

> I cannot believe anyone would want to allow 10XXX as an ignored
> prefix on 800 calls; imagine the arguments:

> "... Telco failed to follow my explicit instructions and
> arbitrarily routed the call to another carrier."

Certainly not.

> [Moderator's Note: I can tell you that unless it is merely a
> programming error in my local CO, calls from IBT to 800 numbers simply
> are completed based on the 800 - XXX rather than the 10-XXX number.

Mine definitely rejects the calls.  I've tried it.

And beggars (people who place 800 in-wats calls) can't be choosers :-)


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 00:34:42 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service


Phil Howard writes:

> One possible scenario is for the damage to be done partially, and
> "finished" by the high winds.  Legally it's still the same thing, but
> technically the winds played a role.  You don't want to be standing
> next to a tower at the time it falls; I would guess even vandals would
> figure that out.

Power companies in several states have had problems with vandals
stealing aluminum structual members off of high voltage tranmission
line towers.  When the winds got high enough the tower would fail.  I
suspect with the use of open span towers for cell sites, it is only a
matter of time before this becomes a problem for the cellular
industry.  Vandals might also steal feedline much as they do buried
radials at AM transmitter sites.

BTW aluminum is used mainly when the towers are flown in by a
helicopter, otherwise steel is used.  Portable or temporary cell sites
would probally use aluminum also.


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

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

Date: 05 Mar 92 11:24:43 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics


Regarding the March 3 posts by Mr. Varney and Mr. Kaufman on E911:

Mr. Varney explains the enhanced 911 system pretty well. Only two
clarifications required.

We have several E911 tandem systems in Kansas. It is not necessary to
use ESN functionality in these, however.  No one using the tandems has
elected to contract for the use of ESN's to route customers to the
proper PSAP. The primary reason is the costs associated with keeping
the ESN database posted and accurate. In essence, everyone gets the
same ESN. I suspect the same thing applies to Houston. Mr. Varney is
right about the served agencies funding the system and not the
telco's, and that is exactly the problem.

Also, I believe that in addition to the central office using the ESN
for routing the call to the right PSAP it is ALSO passed to the PSAP
for its use in routing the call to the right dispatch point. I'm not
sure this was clear in the explanation.

As far as I know, the telco billing database is not used to keep the
telco switch updated for the ESN number/telephone number relationship.
This is kept in a separate 911 database. That is part of the
administrative cost that the contracting governmental agency would be
expected to pay for. This database would have to have either a manual
or automated link into the central office switch or into a mechanized
update system to get ESN routing information to the E911 tandem
switch. It would also need an automated or manual link to the service
order processing system to be notified when new service is being
installed.

I suspect that if Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto are properly routing
calls among governmental agencies then they have the full E911 tandem
system with the use of the ESN capability. I assumed from the original
posting, perhaps wrongly, that this was not the case since the posting
said the PSAP's routed misdirected calls to the proper PSAP. The
governmental agencies involved in these systems must have decided that
the cost to contract for this service was worth it. That is their
decision to make, just as it is for those who decide not to take
advantage of the capability.

Concerning towns, rate centers, switch information, etc:

How you are translated in a switch is normally based on two items.
Your rate center (billing area, or whatever) and your calling scope.
Follow an order for new service through the system. You call the
business office and they get your address. From this they determine
your rate center. For instance, I have a Topeka address but I am in
what is called the Pauline rate center (used to be a little town the
city swallowed up) for billing purposes. Please note that I am not
actually in Topeka or Pauline, I am actually in Shawnee county outside
any city boundaries (but closest to Pauline). I am also served by a
rural fire department; not the Topeka or Pauline Fire Deptartment We
are also served by the County Sheriff not a local police force.

Your address also determines which central office switch(s) you will
be assigned to. These two factors determine which NXX you will be
assigned to, in my case 862. Thus, when I make a long distance call,
the accounting bureau knows from my NXX just what my V&H is and how to
bill distance sensitive calls.

Now, the assignment people get the service order.  They know my
switch, telephone number, and what type service I ordered (residence,
business, measured rate, flat rate, hotel/motel, etc. -- another
billing item!). Their automated assignment system therefore knows what
line class code to assign me to. Since I have a local calling scope
(known by telephone number-rate center) I get assigned to the standard
line class code used by Topeka, Pauline, etc. customers.

It just so happens that my switch also serves the town Carbondale. It
is a separate rate center and does not have local calling scope to
Topeka (it is actually a remote switch). The rate centers of Pauline
and Carbondale have a common boundary although the towns do not.
Carbondale customers get assigned into a different NXX associated with
their rate center. Based on their NXX the assignment system gives them
a different line class code than mine. It should ( :-> ) be one set up
to handle their routing properly.

None of the automated systems processing your service order care about
what governmental bodies provide your services. For an E911 system
using ESN's, your service order would have to be sent to yet another
system which would determine (either automatically or via manual
lookup) what ESN you should be assigned to. This system would then
generate an update to the E911 tandem to update the ESN routing tables
to get you to the right PSAP.

If anyone has ever had the business office ask for your police, fire,
or ambulance center, I would be interested in knowing about it.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Date: March 5, 1992
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Whitewater


Question, when is 911 not 911?

Answer, when it is 9911!

I have always wondered why switches can not be programed to make 911
dialing really universal.  People that are familiar business and
University calling patterns have no problem with this but visitors do.
Does anyone have an explanation as to why switches do not have a 911
programable feature?


[Moderator's Note: Are you suggesting the private switch should be
programmed so that dialing 9-11 with nothing following would get
translated into 9-911 and sent to the emergency agency?  It might not
be a bad idea provided nothing in the phone network otherwise begins
with '11', which is probably correct. If anything starts out '11' then
the private switch would have to time out for lack of any further
digits before processing the call to 911.  Might be interesting.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 17:03:21 EST
From: Monty Solomon <roscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Billed Number Screening


> [Moderator's Note: I have Billed Number Screening on all my lines, and
> it does prevent collect and/or third party billing **provided the
> carrier polls the common data base for advice.** COCOTs with their own
> AOS operations can still slip through, as can stuff like the first
> message in this issue. But at least AT&T, Sprint, MCI, GTE, all the
> Bells and most independent telcos leave me alone.   PAT]

New England Telephone used to have Billed Number Screening.  They now
offer Terminating Number Screening which prevents any charges for
operator-assisted calls only.  It costs $7.60 to turn it on plus
$0.97/month.


Monty Solomon / Roscom / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
roscom![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linden B. Sisk)
Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas
Organization: Texaco EPTD
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 15:11:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for
> local within own area code.

He won't for long.  I forget what the exact date for the changeover
is, but the note for it was included in my last telephone bill, and I
think it is March 8th.  I am sure it is this month, anyway.


Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk        | Voice: [phone]   Ham: AK5N
Research Electrical Engineer  | Fax:   [phone] Bix: lbsisk
Texaco, Inc.  P.O. Box 425    | MCIMail: lbsisk    CIS: 72047,2645
Bellaire, TX 77402-0425       |        Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Chartrand)
Subject: What About on the Montain? (was Cell Phones in Airplanes)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 19:51:41 GMT


What happens when I drive up Pikes Peak and pull out my cellular phone
to call the family and tell them about the view? I know from operating
amateur radio from up there, I can communicate for a long long way
down the road. Line of site must be many miles. Does this not create
the same problem if I were in an airplane?

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 08:50:41 GMT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell's Customer Dis-Service


Recently I needed to change an aspect of my residential service, and
so called the number listed in the directory. Since my last call,
they've implemented a call router. Press * if TT phone. 1 for changes,
to report harassing calls, new service. 2 for billing questions. If
rotary 1 for all of the above. Anyhow, after pressing * then 1, it
made some very obnoxious clicks (which they noted would happen) and
then busy.  Call back later, all reps are busy serving customers.
CLICK disconnect.  Most unsatisfactory -- no hold que, nothing. I
tried for over five hours to get through to a rep, using my modem and
a script. Finally, I called the SWB operator (no easy feat from behnd
our campus PBX!) and insisted (after two levels of supervisors) that
they put me through to someone other than that call router.

This took another ten minutes, but finally the supervisor was able to
fulfill my request. Once connected to a rep, my transaction took less
than one minute to complete.

This is progess, and service? I've got a letter ready to mail to SWB
and the PUC detailing my experiences. Someone who has a job without
direct access to an office phone would really be in a catch 22; they
only accept residential orders from 8:30 through 4:30 p.m. and if my
experiences is any indication, one would be hard pressed to get to a
rep. Must be an opportunity for someone here to come along and handle
the order taking for SWB? :-) Like maybe the local TV cable company? :-) :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #199
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16953;
          7 Mar 92 22:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26465
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 17:52:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00966
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 17:52:09 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 17:52:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #200

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Mar 92 17:52:03 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 200

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    No Dial Tone on ESS (Steven S. Brack)
    MCI Mail New Foreign Access (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
    Gilbert Vernam (Bob Ackley)
    Telephone Economics (Bob Ackley)
    I Need Help Replacing a Demon Dialer (Derek Andrew)
    Connecting Two Remote Networks (Ramon F. Herrera)
    UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Scott McIntyre)
    Adaptive Computer Control For Physically Handicapped (John Rossiter)
    Metering Pulses (Manuel J. Moguilevsky)
    Help Needed With Call Control (Ian Spare)
    US West and BBSs (Puget Sound Computer User via Peter Marshall)
    Customer Service: AT&T Praised (Nigel Roberts)
    No Second Dial Tone on Outside Calls (Carl Moore)
    New 540 Scam (Stephen Friedl)
    News Flash:  Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! (S. Forrette)
    What About CID and ISDN? (Brian Litzinger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: No Dial Tone on ESS
Date: 3 Mar 92 05:22:00 GMT


At various times, usually in the morning, I get no dial tone delivered
from my local CO (the 47 West exchange, an ESS).  It generally takes
about 10 tries to get dialtone.  On every try, I get loop current and
can hear other background conversations.

What kind of situations can prevent a CO from presenting dialtone?

Some details of my service: I have POTS, with nothing fancy, not even
DTMF.  I have reported line noise several times (clock slips) which
Ohio Bell insists aren't there.  In all other respects, phone service
is entirely normal.

I would like to have some ideas about what's happening before I call
and report the problem, as Ohio Bell is *very* reluctant to
investigate anything but the subscriber loop for any and all problems.


Steven S. Brack       [e-mail]
2021 Roanwood Drive   [e-mail]
Toledo, Ohio   43613-1605   [e-mail]
[phone]   MY OWN OPINIONS  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 00:45 MEZ
From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Subject: MCI Mail New Foreign Access


Being a MCI Mail customer for many years here in Germany, I had to use
either a packet switching service like our domestic DATEX-P of Telekom
or dial direct to the U.S.

As of February 2, 1992 this is no longer neccessary. MCI Mail
installed 27 nodes in countries with most expected customers, like the
UK, Australia, France, Germany. The charge is 50 cents per minute in
30 second increments, one minute minimum. Some countries like
Australia even offer a toll-free number, others, like Germany, got
their node in a center city (Frankfurt). No access above 2,400 Baud is
available, but MNP5 is offered usually.


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Theodor-Koerner-Weg 5, 2000 Hamburg 61, Germany
Phone: [phone]***Fax: [phone]***MCI Mail: 241-2526
Internet:[e-mail]**Bang:..unido!mcshh!wrs**[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 04:13:41 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Gilbert Vernam
Reply-To: [e-mail]


   Mr. Vernam's accomplishments and inventions re: online telegraph
encryption of text are covered in the 1968(?) book 'The Codebreakers'
by David Kahn.  I think it's still available, but cost is > $50.00.


msged 1.99S ZTC    Bob's Soapbox   , Plattsmouth Ne  (1:285/2.7)


[Moderator's Note: If you read the book, will you please give us a
little more detail about Vernam, and others mentioned in the book?  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 05:23:02 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Attorney on Both Sides of the Litigation?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a message of <20 Feb 92 11:06:30>, David Gast (11:30102/2) writes:

> And don't forget, 1. AT&T and the Justice Department
> settled out of court.  2. The same day the out of court settlement was
> announced, the anti-trust case against IBM was dropped.

   Note that the Justice Department person who decided that the 13 or
so year old antitrust suit against IBM 'had no merit' began his law
career on the team defending IBM against that same suit.


msged 1.99S ZTC   Bob's Soapbox,  Plattsmouth Ne  (1:285/2.7)


[Moderator's Note: I find this hard to believe. Attornies change from
one firm to another all the time, and from the public to the private
sector and vice-versa. But nearly always if their new employment or
affiliation places them on the opposite side of litigation they were
involved with previously, or in a position where a perception of
unfairness could exist, professional ethics require them to recuse or
disassociate themselves from the case. I can't imagine the Justice
Department letting a former IBM attorney work on the IBM case.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: I Need Help Replacing a Demon Dialer
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 23:43:24 -0700


Recently I lost my Demon Dialer due to a break in at my home.  I can
get a replacement, but I do not have a clue as to where to get it.
Would some kind soul out there in netland that has a supplier please
mail the address to me?

Thank you most kindly for your help.


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: Ramon F Herrera <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connecting Two Remote Networks
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 03:20:58 GMT


I am trying to connect two networks using a T1 or 56K digital link.
The phone company is offering a service called DDS-56 (and T1) but
very little information.  If I go with T1, the process is
straightforward because I can use a pair of remote bridges that
connect the T1 to Ethernet.  My problem is with the 56K option.  Is
there a 56K <-> Ethernet box?  The T1 service includes a CSU/DSU with
a V.35 interface but they didn't know what kind of interface the 56K
service has.  Somebody told me it would be an RS-232.  Is that
correct?

If that's the case I suppose the phone company is giving me a long
virtual serial cable?  (That I could use with SLIP/PPP).  So I don't
need any modems or other devices?? True?  If that long-serial-cable is
all I get, how come the phone company gives me 56K but the serial
ports on most computers and terminal servers have a maximum speed of
only 38.4K?

Please reply directly.


Thanks,

Ramon Herrera     Conicit, Venezuela    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott McIntyre)
Subject: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Date: 4 Mar 92 10:23:33 GMT
Organization: NeXT Campus Consultant


Starting next month, the code of practice issued to 0898 chat line
numbers here in the UK will be revoked, essentially disallowing
Mercury Communications and British Telecom from providing telephone
service to these companies.

The decision by OFTEL (the UK telephone watchdog) does not cover the
disputed sex lines.  These lines will continue to operate, yet the
kiddie chat lines and jokes and so on will cease to exist.

Any comments?


[e-mail]        Scott A. McIntyre, Cornwall House
[e-mail]        St. German's Road, Exeter, Devon, UK
[e-mail]            NeXT Campus Consultant.


[Moderator's Note: Was any reason given for killing the services?  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 11:08:50 EST
From: John Rossiter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adaptive Computer Control for Physically Handicapped

Hello!  I am working on a grant for Kent State University.  We are
cuurently working on a research and development project in which a new
type of switch is bneing utilized to control the computer (the
computer, as we envision it, will not only be able to do computer
applications, but also will be able to control other devices such as a
TV, CD player, and possibly a telephone or answering machine).  The
switch that interfaces with the computer is connected to a microphone,
which is then placed on the person's skin.  Thee person operates the
switch by flexing whatever muscle he/she can -- the sound of the
folding of the skin is what activates the switch.  So, if anyone has
any information or has adapted hardware or software for this purpose,
please send it to JROSSITE@KENTVM.  Also, we would like to start a
dialogue with concerned individuals.  Any assistance or other people
to contact would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

John Rossiter     Kent State University

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 10:44:01 ARG
From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <atina!pccp![e-mail]>
Subject: Metering Pulses


In my country the telephone company sends noisy metering pulses over
the line in long distance calls (only domestic calls, not
international).

The problem is that the metering pulses are so high so it is almost
impossible to send faxes over the lines.

The noise sounds like: troc... troc... troc...  and it is rated from 6
to 54 pulses per minute. (BTW, it is U$S 0.05 per pulse).

Any clues?


Manuel J. Moguilevsky
Buenos Aires, Argentina
FAX: [phone]   FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ian Spare)
Subject: Help Needed With Call Control
Organization: The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1992 15:40:33 GMT


I would like to know of anyone using or developing products under the
following areas:

1. X21 call control especially at speeds over 64K.
2. RS366A Call Control.

Thank you in advance.


Ian Spare , iT , Barker Lane , CHESTERFIELD , DERBYS , S40 1DY , GREAT BRITAIN
C=gb; ADMD=cwmail; PD=uk-post-office;  | [e-mail]
O=it; OU=qtmd; OU=tiu; OU=unix ;       | voice : 44 246 214296
SN=spare; GN=ian                       | fax   : [phone]

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

Subject: US West and BBSs
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 10:08:35 PST


 From "BBS Controversy Brews Close to Home," {Puget Sound Computer
User}, 3/92:

In a case before the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, US West is
maintaining three phone lines connected to a free-access BBS in a
residence should be billed at business rates. Because of the
similarities in tariffs from state to state and US West's position
in the case, many are predicting that if US West prevails, the
company will be authorized to raise all Oregon BBS lines to business
rates and try to raise rates for BBS lines in US West's remaining 13
states.

The case started when Tony Wagner, a Portland system operator,
received a letter from US West in October, 1991. In the letter,
Communications Consultant Sandi Ouelette said "Bulletin board services
are considered a business, therefore, subject to business rates ..."

One Seattle attorney interested in telecommunications said these
attempts by the phone companies to raise rates for BBSs are "just
another attempt to swipe people's communication."


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 08:09:40 PST
From: Nigel Roberts  04-Mar-1992 1658 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Service: AT&T Praised


I'm sure that readers of the Digest expect intelligent and responsive
customer service as a matter of course when they call their long-
distance or local telephone company.

Sadly, in Europe this has not always been the case, and though things
are changing -- especially in the U.K -- they aren't changing fast
enough. (Try making a UK Direct call sometime if you don't believe me.
But that's another story.)

Being European, I don't automatically expect the levels of customer
service which are taken for granted in the USA. So even though I know
intellectually that US companies attempt to fall over backwards to get
my (relatively insignificant) business, I am still amazed by the way I
am treated when dealing with certain US companies.

AT&T for example.

I called AT&T just a few minutes ago, and spoke with the USA Direct
operator. I asked her if she knew of the number where I could report a
problem with USA Direct service from the UK. After consulting whatever
internal directory system they use, she offered to transfer me to Long
Distance Repair at [phone].

There I spoke with Jim Knudson, who was courteous, efficient and
extremely knowledgeable. I reported the problem of not being able to
use the new automated USA Direct system from BT payphones, as earlier
reported to the Digest by Ole Jacobsen and myself. Jim took the time
to listen, and more importantly to UNDERSTAND the problem symptoms.
He agreed with me that it was almost certainly a BT problem, but
thought it worthy of escalation to the appropriate department in AT&T.
(Of course, it DOES make the shiny new automated USA Direct system
useless from most payphones in the UK ...). He also gave me a trouble
ticket number.

Jim was an example of the real meaning of the expression "Customer
Service". I know a number of AT&T people read the Digest, and I hope
they will pass on my comments to the appropriate people.

Certain European phone companies could learn a lot from people like
Jim.

I'll report back to the Digest on the progress of this problem, if
it's of interest.


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer              "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]     FAX [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 10:27:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Second Dial Tone on Outside Calls


If I am calling from my office to outside, I start with 9, which
is commonly used in office systems.  But in my case, I do NOT get
a second dial tone; I merely punch in 9 + the number sequence.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: New 540 Scam
Date: 4 Mar 92 15:59:37 GMT
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


The latest issue of {2600 Magazine} shows a new kind of scam for 540
numbers in New York.  It is a traditional "Apartment for Rent" sign
complete with handwritten "540-xxxx", and except for the "$3.50 per
call" note at the bottom, looks completely legitimate.

The caption:

"By putting these signs on telephone poles, the people behind this
scam stand a good chance of snagging a few unspspecting clods who
can't read the fine print as they drive by."


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin,  CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY | * Hi Mom! * | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 03:26:33 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: News Flash:  Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls!


Here's a story you may find amusing:

I have a friend who's dad is a long-time RBOC engineer.  My friend's
sister recently went away to college.  Her dorm was served by Centrex
phone service from the RBOC.  She got wind, over the dorm grapevine,
of a "special code" that "the phone company operators used in order to
place calls for free."  Needless to say, she and her roommate used
this code to place calls all over the country, to distant friends at
many different universities.  What is this magic code that the
operators use to place free calls?  Why, you simply prepend 10999 to
every call, then dial 1 + area code + number!  :-)

When my friend told me the story and before the code was revealed, I
asked " This code wouldn't happen to start with 10, would it?"
Needless to say, when the bill arrived, there were a large amount of
charges (around $500) for all of these free calls.  When dad heard the
explanation about the secret code, the you-know-what hit the proverbial
fan.

 From what I'm able to gather, the charges didn't appear until the
month after they should have.  My guess is that someone had used the
10999 acces code, then got their bill with no charges, and assumed
that charges would never arrive, and then spread the good news.  But
they didn't account for the fact that third-banana IXC's often are
late with their billing.  I'm sure ITT/Metromedia got an unexpected
windfall of calls from that dorm that month!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Litzinger)
Subject: What About CID and ISDN?
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 09:17:02 GMT


It is my understanding that CID information is basically available on
the D channel of an ISDN inbound call, so ... whats the deal with CID
and ISDN?

In states that ban CID, is ISDN not going to carry this information to
the dmark?  Wouldn't killing this information cause all sorts of havoc
with the functionality of ISDN at the subscriber's end?

Or is CID on ISDN just called something else, and thus exempt from
state laws dealing with CID.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #200
******************************