Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss201-250

Internet Message Format | 1992-03-21 | 887KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12960;
          7 Mar 92 21:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25827
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24084
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:41 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 18:38:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #201

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Mar 92 18:38:38 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 201

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 (Jack Decker)
    Need Advice on Microwave Link (Gordon Letwin)
    Northern Telecom PBX (Joe Bell)
    Need Help Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Jonathan Lieberman)
    Zoom Faxmodems (Henry Mensch)
    Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted (Louis A. Mamakos)
    Physical Phone Security (Scott Coleman)
    Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Kath Mullholand)
    FSK Demodulator/Converter Wanted (John Huffman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:25:57 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92


The February, 1992 Michigan Bell bill insert "News & Views" contains
several items that may be of interest:

* The first item touts new "Circle Calling" plans available from
Michigan Bell.  Circle Calling 20 "provides seven hours of zone and
long-distance calling up to 20 miles away for just $20 per month.  A
30-percent discount applies to additional calls."  There are no time
of day or day of week restrictions, but the plan "is available to
every Michigan Bell residence customer" which I assume means "not
available on business lines."  However, the insert does not mention
that for many customers, the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan
(ordered by the Michigan Public Service Commission last year) may be a
better value, because it offers unlimited calling to adjacent
exchanges (to residential customers only) for only $15.00 per month.

Depending on the geographic position of an exchange relative to nearby
exchanges, the AETCP might actually offer greater coverage, no time
limit, and this at a cost of $5.00 per month LESS than Circle Calling
20.  As you might guess, Michigan Bell service representatives seem
very reluctant to volunteer any information about the AETCP, and you
could just about bet the mortgage money that if a customer calls the
business office asking about Circle Calling 20, he or she will NOT be
told about the AETCP even if it's a better value.

Another variation is "Circle Calling 30" which costs $3.00 per month
and "provides a 30-percent discount on zone and long distance calls up
to 30 miles, and also includes 30 minutes of zone and toll calling
each month.  Like Circle Calling 20, it also has no time of day
restrictions."  This more or less replaces a previous Circle Calling
service that cost $3.13 per month, and did not apply to calls placed
between 8 AM and noon on weekdays.

Nowhere in the bill insert does it mention that these plans apply to
intra-LATA calls only!  I would hope that customers are informed of
any cross-LATA calling restrictions that may apply if they call to
order the service, but the insert does not mention any such
restrictions.

[Side note ... as a personal opinion, I still think that it is wrong
and even possibly illegal for the FCC, Justice Department or whatever
to place restrictions on the local telephone company handling of
intrastate calls, especially in states where intra-LATA competion by
interexchange carriers is permitted.  For one thing it walks all over
the rights of states to regulate telephone service within their own
boundaries, and for another, it denies the full use of various calling
plans to those who make intrastate, interLATA calls.  I'm really
surprised that the local telcos haven't made a big issue out of this,
since the average citizen doesn't give a fig about whether a telco can
offer "information services", but could probably be made to understand
that certain savings on intrastate calls are not being made available
because of restrictions imposed by the mean old Justice Department.
Just trying to think like a telco public relations type ... :-) ]

* The availability of "Lifeline" discount telephone service to low-income
households.

* "Caller ID, the phone option that lets you know the number of the
person calling -- before you answer the phone -- will make its Michigan
debut on March 1." .....

"Initially, Caller ID will be available in parts of the greater
metropolitan Detroit area.  It should be available to about a third of
Michigan Bell customers next year.

"Because of this initial limited availability, and for technological
reasons, there will be instances when no phone number will be
displayed.  Caller ID will show the numbers of calls coming from
certain communities within the 313 area code. Currently, long distance
calls from other area codes will not be displayed.

"Also, some callers will opt to 'block' their phone number from being
displayed.  In that case, you'd simply see a 'P' for 'Private.'"

"Caller ID costs $6.50 a month for the first 300 phone numbers
displayed.  Numbers beyond 300 a month cost two cents each.  A
one-time start-up charge of $7.50 also applies, but that fee will be
waived for the first 30 days the service is available in a given
area."

"You may order Caller ID beginning Feb. 3, with service to take effect
as early as March 1."

I will just note that this service was offered following the
implementation of the new Michigan Telecommunications Act, a terrible
piece of legislation that prevents the Michigan Public Service
Commission from regulating any aspect of telephone service for which
regulatory authority is not specifically granted in the act.  I
believe that Caller-ID isn't mentioned in the act, thus Michigan Bell
didn't have to get MPSC approval to offer Caller-ID.  However, the act
automatically "sunsets" on January 1, 1996, and I suspect the reason
they decided to offer per-call blocking is because if they did not,
there would almost certainly be an outcry such that Caller ID *WOULD*
come under specific regulation in the 1996 revision of the Act.

* An item noting that in areas where Caller ID is available, free
per-call blocking is available by dialing *67 or 1167.

* Price increases for "premium operator-assisted calls."  "Effective
Feb. 1, the charge for collect calls, operator-dialed calls, calls
billed to a third number and request to the operator for the 'time and
charges' on a call is $1.65.  Calling card and operator-timed calls
from coin phones cost 65 cents, and person-to-person calls cost $3.
These prices are in addition to any applicable local or long-distance
charges."

Operator verification of a busy number now costs $1.40, and "if you
ask the operator to interrupt a conversation on a busy line, the cost
is $2.80."

"For years, prices for operator services were artificially low because
they were subsidized by other areas of our business -- particularly
long distance call.  But as we lower long-distance prices, these
offsets will go away.  Even with the increases, our operator services
are still a great value.  Our rates remain competitive and, in nearly
every case, well below what other providers of these services are
charging."

The above paragraph is quoted verbatim for your amusement.  Note that
although these charges began on February 1, we received the bill
containing the insert on March 4 (the bill was dated February 25).

The bill itself contains a note stating that "effective February 16,
1992, customers with flat rate service will be charged 6.2 cents for
each call they make beyond 400 calls per month.  These charges will
appear on your next bill.  Since our average customer makes only 150
calls a month, most customers won't notice any change in their bills."
(Why bother with the charge, then?  And isn't it nice that they
informed folks of this charge two and a half weeks AFTER it went into
effect?)

It then goes on to say that "Senior citizens (60 and older),
physically impaired individuals and people who make extensive use of
their home phone on behalf of certain charitable and veterans
organizations are eligible for an exemption from the monthly 400-call
allowance.  Customers who qualify for exemptions will receive a credit
if they are billed for calls that exceed the 400-call allowance.
Watch your mail for special information on how you can qualify for
these exemptions."

However, the Michigan Telecommunications Act (Public Act 179 of 1991)
does not restrict the exemption to "people who make EXTENSIVE USE of
their home phone on behalf of certain charitable and veterans
organizations." Instead, Section 304(7)(a) states in part that "A
person who has reached the age of 60 years or more, who is
handicapped, or who is voluntarily providing a service for an
organization classified by the internal revenue service as a section
501(c)(3) or (19) organization, or a congressionally chartered
veterans organization or their duly authorized foundations, is exempt
from the 400 calls per month limitation and may receive a flat rate
allowing unlimited calls per month.  A person 60 years of age or more
shall not be charged a rate greater than the flat rate charged other
residential customers for 400 calls.  The rates for persons who have
reached the age of 60 years or more, shall not be increased during the
period of January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1995."

I think this is an important distinction, since the new state law
makes it appear as though the exemption from the 400 call limitation
is intended to be a benefit for those who volunteer their services to
certain charitable organizations, whether those services involve the
use of the telephone or not.  But Michigan Bell apparently intends to
restrict the exemption not only to those who use their phones in the
volunteer efforts, but to those who make EXTENSIVE USE (whatever that
is) of their phones for such purposes.

Just thought you might find all this mildly interesting.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon LETWIN)
Subject: Need Advice on Microwave Link
Date: 06 Mar 92 00:36:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


I'm about to close on a ranch outside of Tucson, AZ., and have
discovered that the nearest phone service is about six miles away.  I
could use cellular service for casual phone calls but I am planning on
doing a lot of computer networking and would like multiple lines, a
high speed data circuit, etc.

I'm getting an estimate from the phone company for running a land line
to the property, but time is short and rumor has it that they might
want $130,000 for the run so I'm looking for alternatives.

What would the telecom gurus suggest?  I have line of sight into the
nearby small town of Green Valley, and about a 40 mile line of sight
into Tucson.  What about a point-to-point microwave link?  Worst case
I could buy a 10'x10' plot in town for my other endpoint and then have
the individual land lines run to there.

Is equipment for such kind of thing readily available?  I'd think that
equipment for a private T1 link would be pretty common; in any case I
need to mux/demux my lines into the microwave.  Perhaps I can
eliminate modems and go digital all the way into town and the phone
company hookup.

Where do I start on this?  Should I ask the phone company to bid this?
I'm concerned that they'll just lay out some brute force max dollar
approach and tell me that there isn't any other way.

Should I be talking to "data/telecom" consultants?  How do I find a
good one, the yellow pages?  Are there any buzzwords I should be
saying to these guys?

I'd appreciate any advice the that experts can give me.


Thanks.

gordon letwin

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

From: gasco![e-mail] (Joe Bell)
Subject: Northern Telecom PBX
Organization: NorthWest Natural Gas Company, Portland Oregon.
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 00:51:33 GMT


I am looking for roll-your-own software for a Northern Telecom PBX to
develop a capacity planning system for internal and external call
data. Please reply to [e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 14:35:20 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack


What I want to do is to play sounds (including dialing) from my
computer speaker out jack in to my phone. I have tried simply splicing
a phone cord and an audio headphone jack together.  The result is that
the line goes dead when I connect this.  I Also tried removing the
microphone from a normal handset and playing the audio out through the
phone and then into the line. This is not recognized by some
equipment, (though it does work for local calls).  I thought the tones
might not be clear enough or loud enough.

I have tried digitizing the tones with a microphone and a normal
handset (this again works some equipment but not all).  When I
attempted to amplify these sounds using a sound editor on my computer
they were recognized EVEN LESS well.  I also tried using the editor to
mix the tones myself, they sounded a little off to my ear but AGAIN
they worked for local calls but not for some other equipment.

Any ideas on improving the tonal quality or volume?  What is the
best way to play sounds from my computer in to the phone line (i.e.
what do I need to build in between the out jack and the phone to avoid
killing the line and to get clean sound).  THANKS.


Jonathan Lieberman     [e-mail]         No silly quote...

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:40:05 -0800
Subject: Zoom Faxmodems
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Zoom 9624's are on sale at Egghead again ... I was thinking of one for
home use.  Are they any good?  The price sure is right ... it didn't
work with netfax (the freeware from MIT) when we last tried it out,
but I would be using it on a PC (presumably with the software they
provide).

Any clues would be most welcome.


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <[e-mail]>

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

Reply-To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 22:57:24 EST
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>


I've been toying the the idea of getting a portable cellular phone and
have been looking at the OKI 900 and the NEC P300 and P200 phones.
Anyone have any comments, positive or negative about any of these
models?  Suggested alternatives?  Neat programming hacks?


Thanks,

Louie

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Physical Phone Security
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 13:33:01 GMT


I'm interested in hearing suggestions for physically securing one or
more residential telephone lines. As we know, those gray plastic
network interfaces are great for troubleshooting -- just unplug the
RJ-14 jack, plug in a test set, and away you go. Unfortunately, this
also allows anyone with a modular phone to walk up to your house,
unplug your phones, plug in his own, and make fraudulent phone calls.
In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many
burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security
system auto dialers.

What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone
lines?  Can the incoming lines be moved underground? Can the network
interface be moved inside the building, say to a panel in the
basement? Will the telco charge outrageous sums to perform this sort
of thing?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 12:28:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire


A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff
changes taking effect March 20, 1992:

1!  No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r).

2!  No more outWATs services.

3!  Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a month.

4!  In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan
    will be instituted.  Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15
    cents per minute evenings, and 10 cents per minute nights.  No
    minumum billing, and billing is PER SECOND.

    Volume discounts on daytime calling, apply to all customers, is
    15 cents per minute after 960 minutes, 10.5 cents per minute
    after 4800 minutes.

How many other LATAs have gone to this type of virtual charge plan,
rather than a mileage based plan?


Kath Mullholand        University of NH         Durham, NH


[Moderator's Note: Many readers would be interested in finding out
what real effect this has on your bottom line phone bill after a month
or two of experience with it. Please follow up for us, perhaps
sometime in May or June.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Huffman)
Subject: FSK Demodulator/Convertor Wanted
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 18:22:02 GMT


Since my last post about International Micropower Corporation, I have
received many requests for the phone number. I did not post it because
it is for orders only, and they point out that you will not get a
catalog by calling; who knows about by writing? Anyway, the number is
1 800 992 3511. Also, I have been looking for a XR-2211 FSK demodulator
and the converter and have had no luck. Can anyone tell me where to
get one?.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #201
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17588;
          7 Mar 92 23:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04248
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:49 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07039
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:40 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 20:48:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #202

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Mar 92 20:48:39 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 202

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Daily Texan via Ron Dippold)
    Cellular One/Chicago Screws Roamers Again (Phydeaux)
    Frequencies For Air Phones (Dan Schein)
    The World's Best, eh? (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Natural Monopoly Dying (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? (Andrew C. Green)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:37:06 GMT


It's hard to imagine the gall of these people ...

{The Daily Texan}  Friday, March 6, 1992  Page 3

               PHONE TAPPING PLAN PROPOSED
        Law Enforcement Agencies Would Have Easier Access
    ---
Associated Press
    ---

    WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration wants you to pay a
little more for telephone service to make it easier for the FBI or
local police to listen in on the conversations of suspected criminals.

    The Justice Department is circulating a proposal in Congress
that would force telephone companies to install state-of-the-art
technology to accommodate official wiretaps. And it would authorize
the Federal Communications Commission to grant telephone companies
rate increases to defray the cost.

    A copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press.

    Attorney General William Barr discussed the proposal last week
with Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce
Committee, which oversees the FCC according to congressional sources
who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Justice Department spokesman Paul McNulty refused to comment
on the proposal.

    The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in
response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it
difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations
between two parties on a telephone line.

    The Justice Department's draft proposal states that the
widespread use of digital transmission, fiber optics and other
technologies "make it increasingly difficult for government agencies
to implement lawful orders or authorizations to intercept communications
in order to enforce the laws and protect the national security."

    The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its
1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to
help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology.

    With the new technology that is being installed nationwide,
police can no longer go to a telephone switching center and put
wiretap equipment on designated lines.

    The advent of so-called digital transmission means that
conversations are broken into bits of information and sent over phone
lines and put back together at the end of the wire.

    The bill would give the FCC 180 days to devise rules and
standards for telephone companies to give law enforcement agencies
access to conversations for court-ordered wiretapping.

    The attorney general would be empowered to require that part
of the rulemaking proceedings would be closed to the public, to protect
the security of eavesdropping techniques used by law enforcement.

    Phone companies would have 180 days to make the necessary
changes once the FCC issues the regulations.

    The bill would prohibit telephone companies and private
exchanges from using equipment that doesn't comply with the new FCC
technology standards.

    It would give the attorney general power to seek court
injunctions against companies that violate the regulations and collect
civil penalties of $10,000 a day.

    It also would give the FCC the power to raise telephone rates
under its jurisdiction to reimburse carriers. The FCC sets interstate
long distance rates and a monthly end-user charge -- currently $2.50 --
that subscribers pay to be connected to the nationwide telephone network.

    Telephone companies will want to examine the proposal to
determine its impact on costs, security of phone lines and the 180-day
deadline for implementing the changes, said James Sylvester, director
of infrastructure and privacy for Bell Atlantic.

    Though no cost estimates were made available, Sylvester
estimated it could cost companies millions of dollars to make the
required changes. But rate hikes for individual customers would
probably be quite small, he said.

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

[Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved,
I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else
over the phone that this new effort has to be started? Yes, perhaps
digital transmission and other factors have made it harder to intercept
something in mid-stream between two places; but one can still quite
easily listen to almost any phone they want, especially with access to
the central office. The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in
the connection between the telephone user and his central office is
still usually just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to
monitor.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:04:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Cellular One/Chicago Screws Roamers Again


These guys seem to be out for as much money as they can find.  First
they tack on a $2/month "roamer administration charge" and now it
seems they have dropped their roaming agreements with all of the
Pactel systems in California/Nevada.  Of course, the Pactel systems
had roamer rates that were a small fraction of those of their
competitors, no daily charge, *and* they had better coverage.  It took
me three months to get Cell One/Chicago to admit that their agreements
were gone.  They insisted for the longest time that If I could not
access the Pactel systems it was because of 'fraud prevention.'  Of
course they will not let you talk to anybody who *knows* anything, so
you never get a straight answer about anything.  I guess it is time to
give Ameritech a call.  Of course, they're probably just as bad.  Is
this happening in other parts of the country too?  Are the 'B' band
carriers dropping roaming agreements with the 'A' carriers and
vice-versa?  Are all carriers this difficult to deal with?


-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: heimat!rehab1!rehab2![e-mail] (Dan Schein)
Subject: Frequencies For Air Phones
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 10:33:23 EST


John Rice ([e-mail]) writes:

> 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.

Pat the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I did not think 450-470 megs normally travelled
> over such a wide area, despite the height.   PAT]

Re: AirPhone's (those you pay for w/credit cards)

 Two bands of frequencies are used: 849 to 851 Mhz and 894 to 896Mhz.
These bands are divided into 310 6kHz channels, with from four to
eight channels available for each airplane, depending on seating
capacity. Communications from air to ground use channels in the higher
frequency band, while responses from the called parties on the ground
return over channels in the lower frequency band. Note these are AM
and not FM communications.

Re: Private aircraft mobile phones

Aircraft mobile phones are allocated 454.675-454.975 base, +5 MHZ
aircraft channel spacing is 25 KHZ.


Reading Rehabilitation Hospital
Dan Schein - Information Systems
RD 1 Box 250     Reading, PA 19607
[e-mail]   -or-   ....{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!rehab1!rehab2!dans

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 16:33:26 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: The World's Best, eh?


Here's another excerpt from the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
 Subject: "The World's Best," eh?

Once upon a time, when the U.S. telephone industry was largely
controled by AT&T, and local telephone companies had an
electromechanical plant, an outage of only seven minutes of a
telephone exchange was an incident reportable to New York
Headquarters.  It was a serious matter.

The local Bell telephone companies, proud of their independence since
1984, are quick to maintain the old cry that, "This is the world's
best telephone system."  They claim that their rush to change out the
old electromechanical plant has made them better than ever.

However, news that you don't get told puts much of that to the lie.
Here's a short summary from {Information Week} magazine that tells the
story a bit differently, indicating yet another Big Lie and another
way that America is losing its grip:

                        "CALL FOR RELIABILITY"

        "The pressure isn't letting up on the Federal Communications
Commission when it comes to network reliabilty.  Members of Congress
want the FCC to mandate phone service standards, following a House
Subcommittee report that detailed the lack of universal performance,
quality and reliability standards.

        "One indication: All told, the Baby Bells, GTE Corp. and
United Telecommunications" (The Big Ones of local telephone business
in the U.S.)  "reported 1,057 network-based service disruptions" (for
the half-year) "between April 1, and September 30, 1991.  The FCC says
it is requiring the phone companies to make more such information
publicly available than ever before."

<end of quote>

Well, maybe if they can't be as good as they were, at least they may
yet become honest and fess up to being far less than the perfect image
they want to hold forth.


WM v2.01/91-0073
 * Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 16:33:49 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Natural Monopoly Dying


The following message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echo:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
 Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dying

An ongoing line that the U.S. telephone companies like to drum and
drum on is the 1913 claim that the telephone business is a "natural
monopoly." They have told themselves and their employees this for many
decades.

But what they aren't telling anybody these days is that they
themselves don't feel that way when they leave the U.S. shores.  For
several years, England has permitted competition for not only long
distance, but also local telephone service, with technology already
developed there to use cable TV plant to connect local telephone
service to the user premises.

Just recently, the cable TV company owned by NYNEX in England was
reported as selling telephone service in direct competition with
British Telecom, the former British Post Office Telephones business.
Americans ran to purchase shares in British Telecom, which is facing
competition nationwide, because they could not comprehend that
telephone monopolies would ever tumble.  Now, there's news that U.S.
West has even joined hands with the U.S. cable TV giant, TCI, that is
headquartered in Denver, right in U.S. West territory back home.

The following report, excerpted from {TR International}, a newsletter
published in Washington, shows how far that competition to the
"natural monopoly" and mergers between telephone and cable interests
have already gone.  It raises the question: How long can the false
notion that monopoly telephone business is "natural" continue to be
foisted off on a gullible American public?

       "U S  WEST, TCI AGREE TO COMBINE U.K. CABLE TV/TELEPHONY UNITS

        "U S West Cable Communications and Tele-Communications, Inc.,
have agreed to combine their United Kingdom cable television and
telephone operations, creating a partnership with interests in
franchises including 2,900,000 homes."

        The president of U S West said, "The agreement underscores the
long-term committment of both companies to their U.K. cable and
telephone operations ..."  ... "we can more efficiently bring together
U.K. cable and telephony into a single business strategy, investment
plan and customer offering."

        The TCI president said, "... the joint venture `puts into
practice the real operating and commercial synergies between cable TV
and telephony -- a joining of forces which ultimately best serves the
consumer.'"

        "U S West's cable TV partnerships in the U.K have begun
providing telephone service in seven franchise areas, and it plans to
extend telephony to all its franchises.  The company said early
telephony sales results have been positive, with more than 13,000
residential and almost 1,000 business customers and nearly 20,000
lines in service."

        "The penetration rate for telephone lines sold is 22% for
residential service and 18% for business service, it said."

        "The U S West/TCI venture will control and operate cable TV
and telephone franchises for London South (Croydon, Kingston/Richmond.
Merton/Sutton), Edinburgh, and Avon and Thames Estuary (north and
south).

        "It will hold interests in and provide telephone consulting
services to the Camden, Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, and
Birmingham franchises.  It also will be negotiating ownership of the
Tyneside franchise in which U S West has an interest with U S Cable."

<end of excerpts from TR International>

So much for the "natural monopoly" that phone companies like to tell
you about.  Interesting how they see it differently in other than
their home market, isn't it?


WM v2.01/91-0073
 * Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

                              ------

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1992 10:50:44 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too?


I had a fascinating call last night from a telemarketing outfit hired
by AT&T to pitch some sort of home monitoring program. It started like
the routine irritation of typical telemarketers, then took a strange
twist.

The product involved some kind of autodialer linked to a central
office that would call 9-1-1 for you in the event of burglary, fire
and Help-I've-fallen-and-I-can't-get-up situations. A sweet young girl
(maybe 18 to 20 at most) called at 8:55 p.m. and I'm paraphrasing what
follows ...

AT&T: Hello, is this ... [pause to refer to list] ... Andrew Green?

Me: (sigh) Yes ...

AT&T: Good evening, Mr. Green, this is [don't remember] from AT&T Home
Security Services [or something like that]. How are you this evening?

Me: (rolling eyes) Could we get on with it, please?

AT&T: Mr. Green, I'm calling to tell you about a new service we are
offering [blah, blah, blah ... incredibly long-winded, non-stop
paragraph extolling the virtues of their system. Finally she came up
for air.] Mr. Green, our representative has an opening at 1:00 p.m.
tomorrow for a free home security evaluation, or would 3:00 p.m. be
better for you?

Me: That's quite a script they've given you, but I'm really not
interested and I --

AT&T: Oh, what was it about the script that you didn't like?

Me: Pardon?

AT&T: (genuinely hurt) Well, people always chew me out or hang up on
me, and I think you're the only who's let me read all the way through
without cutting me off. I was just wondering what was wrong with the
script that was making people so mad at me ...

At this point, all efforts to sell me this stuff had gone right out of
her head, and I found myself talking to a telemarketer of two weeks'
experience, as it turned out, who was trying desperately to keep her
head on straight.

Oh, boy, I thought; what would Telecom readers want me to tell her?
("GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK!") She wasn't getting mad at her customers'
abuse, just feeling hurt, and she seemed grateful to find someone who
wasn't yelling at her. I pointed out that her job of calling strangers
to sell them stuff would have this risk, and that she shouldn't take
it personally.  I also mentioned that inquiring about the customer's
health was both inane and risky -- what if the customer has cancer? --
and the non-stop paragraph following gave no one a chance to politely
decline. Non-interested parties had no choice but to interrupt or hang
up on her in midsentence. No wonder she was feeling miserable. I knew
she couldn't rewrite the script, but I suggested that she relay my
comments upstairs.

We chatted for about five minutes, after which she said they were
closing for the night. I wished her well; I should have suggested
another career opportunity such as McDonald's, but I guess she'll
figure that out for herself eventually.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #202
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21392;
          8 Mar 92 1:00 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07232
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01264
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:09 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 22:39:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #203

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Mar 92 22:39:04 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 203

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help! SCO Can't Talk to NCR Tower (Jean-Pierre Morant)
    Caller ID Product Idea (Jim Harvey)
    Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Andrew C. Green)
    EZ Phone Taps (Peter Wayner)
    Wierd Experiences With Bell Canada Calling Card (Louis Leclerc)
    Phone Phun (Steve DeLaney)
    Tug of WARC (Nick Szabo)
    CT2 Trial Fails in New Zealand (Thomas Farmer)
    Line Conditioners (Jesse W. Asher)
    Three Digit Information Numbers (Dow Jones News via Mathew Zank)
    Gardena, California Exchanges (Carl Moore)
    Roaming With No Home (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Jay Ashworth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: olbela![e-mail] (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Help! SCO Can't Talk to NCR Tower
Date: 6 Mar 92 14:39:20 GMT
Reply-To: olbela![e-mail] (USENET NEWS)
Organization: Olivetti n.v./s.a., Belgium


We're working with different brands of Unix machines (NCR, Nixdorf,
AT&T, Olivetti ... ) on a public x25 network. It generally works but
in one case: a SCO 3.2.2 machine with Software Forge's UUCP over x25
can't send big files to a NCR.

In detail: the connection is well opened; at the x25 level all goes
well during the complete dialog. At the UUCP level, the transfer is
initiated but, after a few K, everything stops. After a few minutes,
the line is released because of a time-out.

By the way, we've noticed the same phenomenon with a 3b2 and an
experimental software that speeds up the transmission between uucico
and the x25 interface.  Here again, we were able to talk with any
machine but long transfers with NCR Tower finally failed.

Has anyone meet this problem (and find a solution)? If yes, please
mail me your idea as I'm not reading news currently ...


Jean-Pierre Morant
UUCP e-mail: ...!ub4b!olbela!jpr

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Harvey)
Subject: Caller ID Product Idea
Date: 6 Mar 92 02:33:55 GMT
Organization: Michigan Information eXchange


I have an idea for someone to jump on.  Make an answering machine with
caller ID decode built in.  The machine could offer the following
features:

  1.  Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of
the tape message by a voice synthesizer.

  2.  The Detour garbage option.  Any call coming in with a blocked ID
is instantly routed to the tape.  Replay button will have a skip-to-
next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls.

Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming
calls and blocked calls.


Jim Harvey  WB8NBS   Amiga Person    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1992 12:07:46 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges


Our Moderator Notes:

> [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 believe you. I once tried to call home from a COCOT at the corner
7-Eleven store. I dialed my number (simply 818-xxxx) and the
flourescent display on the phone demanded $3.85 to complete the call!
The kicker was that I could look around the corner of the building and
SEE my home down the block. I was almost within shouting distance of
it. This was, I assume, some sort of programming error. Perhaps the
phone did not recognize 818 as a valid prefix in the local (708) Area
Code? (Hmmm, no, it must have; it responded after the seventh digit
was pressed.) (So how the heck could it possibly make ANY money that
way?)

Evidently it didn't. The COCOT has since been replaced with a real
payphone. Too bad; I kind of miss the gee-whiz light-up display.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Wayner)
Subject: EZ Phone Taps
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 18:18:38 GMT


{USA Today} in the March 6th edition reports that the Justice
Department would like phone companies to include new circuits that
would centralize phone tapping. The paper notes that this would
increase phone bills.


Peter Wayner  Department of Computer Science  Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14850
EMail: [e-mail]  Office: 607-255-9202 or 255-1008
Home: 116 Oak Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850  Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Please see the previous issue of the Digest today
for more specifics on this. What they seem to be missing is that
almost all phone tapping is EZ, yet they want more money to perfect
their efforts? In an issue Saturday overnight/Sunday morning I'll run
a message from Floyd Davidson on this ... he agrees it is a crock!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis LECLERC)
Subject: Wierd Experiences With Bell Canada Calling Card
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 08:08:14 GMT


Recently, when travelling on the West U.S. coast (mainly the San
Francisco Bay Area), I ran into problems making certain types of long
distance calls with my Bell Canada Calling Card.

When making long distance calls (10288-phone number-calling card
number) from Pac-Bell phones on AT&T (or MCI) I could complete long
distance calls successfully. There was no human operator intervention
to make these calls.

However, sometimes I was not able to call this way (ie. on a private
PBX) so I called 1-800-CALL-ATT to complete the call. After reading my
calling card number to them, AT&T said they couldn't complete my call
because the card was a Canadian one. I had the same problem with MCI
with their 1-800 number (the calls would not complete).

Why can I successfully make long distance calls with my Canadian
calling card when doing regular 1+ dialing from pay phones, but
calling the 800 access numbers for AT&T and MCI to make long distance
calls fails? (even when I try to explain my predicament to a human
operator) Are they using different databases than the 1+ database?


louis

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

From: ampex![e-mail] (Steve DeLaney)
Subject: Phone Phun
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:09:33 GMT


An interesting episode with Pacific Bell.

We live Ben Lomond, a small town just north of Santa Cruz in the San
Lorenzo Valley.  Besides being a heavily wooded area, due to some
geographic quirk this area consistently receives torrential downpours
when other communities are simply having a rainy day.  Consequently
there are frequent power outages because of downed trees, mudslides,
and other miscellaneous Acts of God.

Now that we've grown accustomed to these periodic PG&E outages, it has
become standard operating procedure to break out the flashlights
whenever we have a major storm.  Supposedly our alarm clock has
battery or capacitor backup but more often than not if the power goes
out in the middle of the night so do the time and alarm settings on
the clock.  Generally we wake up early am with or without an alarm, so
when we see that the power has gone out (mildly irritating 12:00
flashing display on the clock), rather than fumbling around to find a
wristwatch, we call Pac Bell time to figure out if it's time to get
out of bed or not.

BTW -- I use a mnemonic "POP-CORN" to remember the number, which is
767-2676.  Turns out that 767-whatever works, which means that this
must be a reserved prefix.

Anyhow, Thursday 3/5/92 was just such a morning, and when my wife
called the electronic voice informed her that it was around 5 AM --
which for us is time to get going.  We got up, went out into the
living room, and noticed that our battery operated analog clocks
showed one hour EARLIER.  We called again, and again confirmed the
time, which by Pac Bell standards was one hour LATER.  After some
discussion and minor confusion we figured that one way or the other we
were already up so we started our day, by that time convinced that we
were up an hour earlier than normal.  When my wife called the operator
to see what was going on we were informed that it "had already been
reported".

About an hour later our neighbor called to tell us in a somewhat
excited voice that our six year old, who walks to school with the
neighbor kids, was LATE for school!  Turns out she did the same thing
we did, called Pac Bell, but didn't think to double check the time.

I wonder how many other people got the wrong time that morning.  As it
turned out being up an hour early was a minor inconvenience, but what
if it had been an hour later instead?  Interesting that the time was
off, not by 25, or 38 minutes, but EXACTLY one hour.

This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on
technology.  Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being
one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in,
somehow refusing to accept the possibility that Pac Bell could be
wrong.  In fact, for the first few minutes we almost had ourselves
convinced that both OUR clocks were wrong, or that we had missed a
switch to daylight savings time, or that someone came into the house
in the middle of the night to play a practical joke on us by turning
back our clocks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Tug of WARC
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:35:48 GMT


National Public Radio reports that the U.S. and space have beaten out
Europe and the earth in the latest spectrum allocation for cellular
phone.  The World Administrative Radio Conference now meeting in Spain
decided to allocate enough frequencies for two or three Iridium-type
satellite systems, which have been proposed by various U.S. companies.
Although one proposal, Loral's Globalstar, has major European
participation, Europe was primarily promoting terrestrial cellular
phone towers.  It is now up to the U.S.'s Federal Communications
Commission to decide which of the ten U.S. proposals get the spectrum.


[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Farmer)
Subject: CT2 Trial Fails in New Zealand
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 08:23:59 GMT


There has been some discussion of the new CT2 technology in this
newsgroup. This is the poor man's cellular phone which can send calls
while close to a base station but cannot (generally) receive them.

New Zealand Telecom has been conducting a trial of the technology in
Wellington which has now come to an end.

The trial was designed to find out whether it was worth releasing CT2
to the general public. Approximately 400 people were given CT2 phones
and 40 base stations were set up in the Wellington area.

The trial has now come to an end and NZ Telecom has decided not to
progress with CT2 in its current form. They did mention that they
might try to market it as a portable phone for the office market.

The main reasons for not going ahead with a general release was the
cost of the technology and the poor phone usage rates by the
triallists.


[e-mail] [phone] (home)
[e-mail] [phone] (work)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Subject: Line Conditioners
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 15:09:17 GMT


Our local Unix user group has a Unix system we are using for news and
email.  Unfortunately, the lines are often very noisy and it makes
life frustrated for many of the members.  We've got a regular phone
line running to the system and I know that we can get a "dedicated"
line to the machine.  My questions are 1) Is the dedicated line really
better?  2) Is there any way of improving the line noise by putting
something like a line conditioner on the line?  3) Are most options
here going to be cost prohibitive?  4) Does anyone know any other
options?


Jesse W. Asher        NIC Handle:  JA268         Phone: [phone]
                  Health Sphere of America Inc.
          5125 Elmore Rd., Suite 1, Memphis, TN 38134
Internet: [e-mail]        UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea

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

From: [e-mail] (Mathew Zank)
Subject: Three Digit Information Numbers
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 07:04:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


News From {Dow Jones News Service}:

Bellsouth plans to offer three digit numbers for information services
provided by phone company competitors. Bellsouth will ask the FCC
about public interest aspects, and will ask the FCC to allocate the
numbers.  Bellsouth say it will use the numbers 211, 311, 511, and 711
in it's local calling areas.


Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Internet [e-mail] -or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 14:55:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gardena, California Exchanges


I went to a library and looked up a phone prefix list in the 1990-91
Greater Los Angeles directory, printed before the 213/310 split.  Here
are the prefixes I found for Gardena (no comment intended on prefixes
which I did not find):

Gardena -- 217,323,324,327,329,512,515,516,523,532,538,708,715,
           719,767,768,769,899,918

Los Angeles 9 (Gardena FX) -- 321,770

Given the terminology used, I assume that 321 and 770 stay in 213, and
that the other prefixes listed here go into 310.

I used a PacBell directory for this research.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 17:26:17 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Roaming With No Home


I need a cell phone three or four times a year for two to four days at
a stretch (max 12 days a year).  I can justify the cost of a used
phone for this purpose, but I can't justify the $25 per month service
charge.

My usage would most likely be in New England, but might go into other
areas.  I reside in Massachusetts in the 508 area code.

Since the number of calls will be minimal, I would not mind paying
roaming charges.

Is there any way I can be a romer without having a home base monthly
charge?

Is there any other cost effective solution to this problem?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390   UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 19:31:24 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


I have a simple suggestion: Two phones and a 12 volt car battery.
Actually, a transformer power supply will work too, but you'll have to
filter it into next _Tuesday_ to get an acceptable hum level.  As for
signaling? Hmmm ... how bout a button to bridge a 50VAC or so step down
transformer across the line.  You won't get a _proper_ ring, since the
frequency is too high, but you'll get something.  Just don't push it
while the phones are off hook ...


Cheers,

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth


[Moderator's Note: A 13.8 VDC filtered power supply from Radio Shack
such as is used to operate any communications equipment is fine. Take
two old 500 style phones, and wire them in series to each other and
the power supply using one pair. They should be in series to the power
supply, not in parallel.  Install a small buzzer in each phone wired
in parallel with a micro momentary push-on switch you put in a hole
you drilled on the front of the phone somewhere. This goes out on the
second pair of wires in series with the same buzzer/switch on the
other phone to the power supply. Push the button on either phone, both
buzzers sound.  Lift both receivers to complete the circuit for
talking. To get fancy, use three pairs and the set of contacts on the
phone network which are normally closed when the receiver is on hook.
When either receiver goes off hook, the buzzer sounds on the other end
continuously. When that side goes off hook, the buzzing stops.  Put
one of those things which make Christmas tree lights blink off and on
in the line to make it an intermittant buzz, like a 'real' phone
sounds.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #203
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26288;
          8 Mar 92 2:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00849
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04098
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:20 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:32:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #204

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Mar 92 00:32:19 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 204

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Oscar Valdes)
    Panasonic Voice-Mail/Complete Communicator Info (Steve Pershing)
    Re: Voice Mail For Panasonic KX-T1232 (John Boteler)
    Re: Guantanamo Base (Tim Tyler)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Floyd Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 17:26:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
Delong) writes:

> 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 frequencies, 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.

     No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big
trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19
specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the
Captain from giving permission.

    Also, it's not a function of the IF 'frequency' that's important,
but the frequency of the local oscillator in the receiver. For a two
meter hand-held radio operating at @146Mhz, the local oscillator could
be operating (and radiating rf) at @135Mhz, which is the high end of
the Air-Ground communications band.

  The following is from a recent post in alt.rec.aviation and will
provide some historical perspective on the law as it partains to
operating a Cellular Telephone in an Aircraft in flight. Surprisingly,
this is not a particularly "new" issue and was specifically addressed
by the FCC in 1984.

In article <[e-mail]>, olsen@
kailasa.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:

> Last year, some of you may recall seeing a discussion here about the
> legality of cellular phone use in aircraft.  The legal situation was
> murky then, but it has at last been clarified.

> In new regulations effective March 9, 1992, the FCC has ruled that:

>  - Cellular phone use while airborne is illegal.  This was the case
>  already, but the regulations now make it explicit, and allow
>  cellular phone companies to cut off service to violators.

Hmm ... I know I'll want to get a copy of that circular so I can use
it in place of the old one.  In any case, the _old_ FCC information
(which is weaker than the current one) was posted last April
(strangely enough, by Jim Olson ... Wild ... :-).  Recalling from the
last discussion that some people might (or will) need to see something
written, here is a couple of items from that previous discussion ...
[Note, this is a 1984 document and therefore (by definition) out of
date].

PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554

News Media Information 202/254-7674.
Recorded listing of releases and texts 202/632-0002.

          COMMON CARRIER PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES INFORMATION

             CELLULAR UNITS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR AIRBORNE USE

Report No. CL-142                                     October 11, 1984


The Mobile Services Division has received several inquiries regarding
the use of cellular mobile and portable units in airplanes and
helicopters.  The public should be aware that such use on cellular
units is _not_ permitted inder the Rules.  Use of a cellular unit
while airborne is likely to cause serious interference both within the
cellular system and in other cellular systems, because an airborne
unit will have a transmitting range much greater than the land-based
unit for which cellular systems are engineered.

Under the Commission's rules, airborne mobile units must be
individually licensed for air-ground service and may only communicate
through base stations licensed for the 450-MHz air-ground service and
may only communicate through base stations frequencies listed in
Section 22.521.  See also Sections 22.9(c), 22.15(i)(3), and 22.509.
There are no cellular frequencies available for air-ground service,
and persons owning, installing, or operating airborne cellular units
will be subject to enforcement action.

For further information, Contact Michael Ferrente on 202 653-5560 or
Claudia Borthwick on 202 632-6400.

  - FCC -

 _SEE_ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - CC Docket No. 88-411, FCC 88-278,
Released September 2, 1988, 3 FCC Rcd 5265 (1988).

And another comment from a Usenetter:

   Part 22 of the Combined Federal Regulations (CFR) covers common
carrier radio allocations. This part lists all frequencies available
for common carrier usage in airmobile operation. The cellular
frequencies are NOT authorized for common carrier airmobile use, and
thus usage of a cellular telephone in an airplane (of any shape or
size) is NOT AUTHORIZED and is therefore ILLEGAL. There is a 900 MHz
allocation for airmobile use, and this is what the AIRPHONE systems
use.

   Because this prohibition was not included in the regs specific to
cellular telephony, there was confusion as to the legality of
airmobile use. The FCC released Public Notice CL-142 on Oct. 11, 1984
clarifying that Part 22 rules DO prohibit the usage of cellular
telephones in airplanes while they are airborne. The reason for
issuance of this PN was because people were using cellular phones in
airplanes, and WERE causing interference.

   As a further clarification, and because of cellular and FAA
requests, new regulation was proposed. This is Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) CC 88-411, issued Sep. 2, 1988, and published in the
Federal Register Volume 53, page 35851, Sep. 15, 1988, and will
continue to make use of a cellular telephone in an aircraft while
airborne ILLEGAL. There was a concern about the usage of cellular
phones while on the ground, and about the installation of cellular
phones in aircraft. I don't know what the NPRM says on these two
topics but I got the impression that both of these will also be
prohibited, even though this is a gray area right now. The FAA is
opposed to installation and use in any aircraft at any time, because
of a fear that they will interfere with aircraft systems. The cellular
industry, suprisingly(?), is in FAVOR of installation and use.


Robert J. Granvin           School of Statistics
[e-mail]    University of Minnesota

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

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] (oscar Valdes)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: 7 Mar 92 15:46:52 GMT
Organization: Crusade to Eliminate Political Correctness


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ihor J
Kinal) writes:

> 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.

    Just a nitpick.  The radar detector emits at the same
frequency, not "some IF frequency other than the primary", as the
radar that is designed to detect.  Highway patrol reports on their use
of radar-detector detectors suggest 40% of truck drivers use radar
detectors.  I've never known a trucker who doesn't use a radar
detector during a trip and I suspect the police detectors are catching
improperly shielded radar detectors.

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

Subject: Panasonic Voice-Mail/Complete Communicator Info
From: [e-mail] (Steve Pershing)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 13:12:38 PST
Organization: Questor: Free Usenet News: Vancouver, BC: [phone]


marcal![e-mail] (Marc Veeneman) writes:

>  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.

Well, I have personally been using products from the Complete PC for
some years.  Recently, the old products were scrapped, and their
latest "The Complete Communicator" was installed.

It works flawlessly, allows for multiple mailboxes, does 9600bps FAX,
and has a 2400bps MNP5 modem built in.  In addition, it also has a
scanner port.

The hardware quality of the product is excellent; the software is very
easy to install and use (all menu-driven).  From my examination of the
board, it is easy to upgrade the data modem and well as the FAX modem
modules when newer technologies become available.

In addition, recently released ROMS and software allow for a great
convenience: The latest release can automatically distinguish between
voice and FAX, routing the call to the appropriate service without any
intervention on the caller's part.

Previous versions (like mine) would have to be set to default to FAX
or to voice.  (Mine defaults to FAX.)  When a call is received, a
voice instructs the caller to touch "any touch-tone key".  If this is
done, he goes to the voice-mail system; if it is *not* done, the FAX
turns on.  The negative side is that callers with rotary dial phones
always get the FAX.

The NEW software/ROM combination allows for auto-sensing.  It also
works with Windows.

For more info, contact the Complete PC Inc., at 408 434 0145, or write
them at 1983 Concourse Drive, San Jose, CA. 95131 ... and not, I'm not
affiliated with the company, just a *very* satisfied user of long
standing.


Steve Pershing, System Administrator
Internet: [e-mail]         : POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
Com:  Voice/FAX:  [phone] :       Vancouver, British Columbia
      Data/BBS:   [phone] :       Canada  V6E 4L2

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail For Panasonic KX-T1232
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 4:47:59 EST


marcal![e-mail] (Marc Veeneman):

> 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.

Why not simply hook up a standard loop interface voice processing
system to an unused station port?

I do not believe the Complete Communicator will expand to meet your
needs if you follow the usual course taken by many businesses once
they are tempted by the possibilities.  In other words, I believe you
will outgrow it shortly after installing it. I've seen this happen to
others, so it is not far-fetched.


[e-mail] (John Boteler)
NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE  Club updates, events, and info

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Guantanamo Base
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 20:30:19 EST
Organization: UMCC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert) writes:

>> 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.

   Tensions have been bad for years, but keep in mind that for
decades, Gitmo used Cuban locals for menial labor tasks.  Each
morning, they marched in through a gate, and marched out each night.
Due to security problems, and the fact that the Cubans working for the
'aggressive imperialists' were discriminated against by other Cubans
and the government, I believe the gate was closed, and all laborers
are now non-Cuban personnel.  Saying there is no access to Gitmo
except for via air or water is somewhat of an exaggeration.

>> 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.

   As a shortwave radio listener, I can remember the good old days of
the 1970s where Gitmo had HF (aka shortwave) circuits back to CONUS
(perhaps operated by AT&T) for health, morale and welfare use by
service people. I don't recall the specifics, as this was right when I
first started monitoring HF, and the HF system was replaced by a
commercial satellite circuit in the early 1980s.

  The HF circuits that I'm talking about were NOT part of the Military
Affiliate Radio System (MARS).

  Of course the HF circuits were supposed to be for non-official,
personal type phone patches, but if you monitored enough of the
conversations often enough, you'd inevitably learn a little
'sensitive' information.  At the time (I was about 13 years old), I
had more fun just listening to the horny Marines talk to their
girlfriends, etc!


Tim Tyler   Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443     Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI  48197-0443    PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 03:21:05 GMT


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

> It's hard to imagine the gall of these people ...

I certainly agree with you!

> The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in
> response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it
> difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations
> between two parties on a telephone line.

> [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved,
> I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else
> over the phone that this new effort has to be started? ...  PAT]

The whole thing sounds like a scam to me.  It may convince the "man in
the street" that the new technology makes a tap more difficult, but
that is only because the man in the street has no idea how it was done
before, or how is done now, or how it will be done in the future.  In
other words, it sounds good.

And it is a total crock.

It may be harder to do without everyone in the CO knowing about it!
And it may be harder to do without anyone knowing about it at all
(including a judge to make it legal).  Or, come to think of it, it may
be harder to do using the same equipment purchased in 1965 for that
purpose.

It is *much* easier to do with digital facilities.  But everyone in
the CO is likely to know it is being done, and it is getting much
harder to do illegal wire taps and not be found out.


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course theoretically, the taps are legal -- not
illegal -- since a judge okayed them being there. That still does not
prevent them from being seen and talked about. But there is nothing
particularly mysterious or difficult about installing one. You need to
keep the DC from getting past when the tapped phone is not off hook.
You probably need to amplify the audio a little, once you 'safely' get
it to your side of the tap. Tape record it at that point; send it all
over the USA. Send it to the CIA ... wherever ... who cares. If it is
digital, then you need to take care of that little problem by converting
it to what human beans will understand before you ship it off down a
wire pair to the Federal Bureau of Inquisition, the Secret Service,
the Chicago Police Special Investigations Unit, the postal inspectors
or the Infamous Revenue Stealers.

Look at the ease with which Cincinatti Bell spied on those politicians
a couple years ago. Like yourself, I think the FBI is just trying to
get more money, using technical mumbo-jumbo the legislators won't be
able to understand. Write your legislators if you agree.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #204
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28596;
          8 Mar 92 3:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32065
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02005
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:13 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 01:19:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #205

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Mar 92 01:19:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 205

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Steve Baumgarten)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Richard McCombs)
    Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Paul Houle)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Phil Howard)
    Re: Caller*ID Project Update (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Dave Levenson)
    Re: New 540 Scam (Carl Moore)
    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Carl Moore)
    Small Communications Program Sought (Michael B. Scher)
    Help Message For New Area Code (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 00:48:50 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees


AT&T has about 18,000 employees working as operators. A recent news
release said they will reduce this by at least one-third and perhaps
one-half during the remainder of 1992 and 1993 as an automated system
for handling collect, third number billing and person to person calls
is implemented.

The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some
local telcos including Illinois Bell. AT&T said they hope to have it
nationally implemented over the next 12-18 months. Callers will be
asked to press certain buttons if they wish to have the call handled
collect or billed to a third number. They will say their name on
request, and their name will be played automatically to the person who
answers the phone.

A caller will still be able to reach a live operator by pressing the
zero button again when requested to do so, but AT&T estimates the
majority of callers will be able to, and want to use the automated
response system instead. Rotary dial callers will receive operator
assistance as in the past.

AT&T has been reducing their work force -- once at about 325,000
employees -- at the rate of 1000 people per month on average for the
past several months. The reduction in the operator force will take
place the same way beginning later this year and continuing through
most of 1993.


PAT

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

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:39:40 EST
From: [e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


Regarding the Sweepstakes 800 number scam, an AT&T customer service
representative wrote:

> 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.

I wonder why, then, AT&T allows such deceptive behavior.  It's all
fine and well to be opposed to "anything that would deceive consumers
or violate the trust they have placed in 800 Service", but such a
statement is entirely meaningless in the face of AT&T's continuing and
unwavering support of exactly this kind of 800 number ripoff.

Since the inception of 800 Service, we've all been indoctrinated by
long distance companies and local service providers alike that calls
made to 800 numbers are free of charge to the caller.  Most of the 800
numbers in existence provide us with information; whether or not we'll
be charged for that information has never been in doubt -- until now.

A company that cared about its customers wouldn't allow the ruination
of one of the few aspects of our increasingly complicated telephone
system with which the public is both familiar and comfortable.

There are already far too many ways for unsuspecting or naive
telephone callers to be charged for the "information" provided by the
company at the other end of the line.  Why does 800 Service have to be
dragged into the act?  Does AT&T seriously believe they are doing even
one of their millions of customers a service by increasing the
confusion, uncertainty and apprehension that many people already feel
when it comes to using the telephone for anything other than ordinary
local or long distance calls?


Steve Baumgarten  /  New York, NY  /  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
From: [e-mail] (Richard McCombs)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 03:50:35 CST
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK


Just one question, Do you have to DTMF to use one of these sleazy 800
numbers?  If so then my grandparent's motel is safe unless a guest has
a pocket DTMF dialer because the rooms have 500 sets.


Internet(MX): [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,  {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, not always. Some have a provision to
'stay on the line for operator assistance' and others have a default
program they play such as the {USA Today} thing which gave you the
sports news if you failed to press any keys at all.  Sorry.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 22:24:02 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology


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

> I believe you. I once tried to call home from a COCOT at the corner
> 7-Eleven store. I dialed my number (simply 818-xxxx) and the
> flourescent display on the phone demanded $3.85 to complete the call!

    I might be the first person on telecom to ever have anything
good to say about a COCOT.  I was returning some videos and buying
some generic mac & cheese at the supermarket today when I came upon a
COCOT.  Now, I thought it would be really interesting to have my
fortune read, so I figured that I'd place a call to Mystic Marketing.
Anyway, I pick up the phone and dial the 800-number.  The phone
generated no touch tones and didn't even interupt dial tone until I
dialed about four digits.  I then waited about ten seconds and heard a
click and another dial tone.

    Naturally curious, I found that the tone dial now worked
properly (like my phone at home :-) and then thinking that I'd gotten
the COCOT to reset somehow, I dialed a local call and talked to a
friend.  For free.  I thought that this might be a fluke, so I tried
it again and it worked again.  I did some experimenting.  Once the
phone reset, it was possible to dial local, long distance and even
international calls.  One could dial both 0+ and 1+ calls.  (And even
reach AT&T by dialing 10288+ :-) This phone even had a custom calling
feature -- 900 number blocking from Mountain Bell!  It didn't once
talk to me in it's awful computer-sythesized ("Please insert Twenty
Five dollars and seventeen cents") voice asking for money.

    Now, mind you, I wasn't interested in making free telephone
calls, I was only being a good troubleshooter, testing the limits of
the malfunction.  Someone less scrupulous than I might have tried to
call Cuba or something.  In any case, this was the first time that I
saw a COCOT that offered me a better deal than a genuine bell phone,
or even than my home phone!  I guess it proves that COCOTs aren't all
bad.  But I still have a question ... can I still call it a 'pay'
phone?


[Moderator's Note: Do you recall the type of COCOT it was, and the
digits you dialed which caused the malfunction? Other readers will
want to test the instruments at their local 7-11 so that this
potential fraud problem can be stopped before it gets out of hand.
Is it still a pay phone? Someone will pay for it alright! :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 22:16:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] writes:

> 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]

If those who program the private switch determine that "9-11" cannot
be programmed in, let them tell you what is programmed in there that
begins with "9-11" or what is on the outside that they think begins
with "11".

I might suggest that they program "9-11" to go to a recording to say
something like "You need to dial 9 9 1 1 to reach emergency dispatch".
If they can do that, then of course they've been "caught".

BTW I'm planning an amateur radio phone patch which I will be trying
out at the university club station here.  One reason I want to use it
ON campus is because even though the controller can block any prefix I
want (up to four digits, and up to four unique prefixes) it always
bypasses "1-800" past all blocking no matter what.  I cannot block
"1-800".  However I certainly CAN block "9-1" which will include
"9-1-800".

The controller also has some sort of speed dial.  I can program
certain numbers to be resent as other numbers.  I am planning to
program "911" to send "9-911".  I hope having "9-1" block will not
defeat using "911" as a macro number this way.

I may end up having to design my own controller anyway, since there
seem to be quite a number of complications and I am already having to
add a VOX circuit, as well.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
members of the club would know about?    PAT]

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

Subject: Caller*ID Project Update
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 23:39:32 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Rob Bailey, WM8S) writes:

[about the MAX 232]

> 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).

For even more simplicity, consider the MAX 233.  It does all the 232
does, and needs _no_ external componants.  Good stuff, Maynard!  Sipex
and Analog Devices list similar chips, though I've never seen the AD.
(I've used the Maxim and Sipex)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Date: 8 Mar 92 04:46:36 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
Delong) writes:

> OK, time for some facts to go with the guesses:

> 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.

A few more facts follow:

What radiates is not the IF but the local oscillator.  For AM
broadcast radios, the local oscillator is normally 455 kHz above the
frequency to which the reciver is tuned -- in other words, it is not
at a fixed frequency, but at a frequency that changes every time the
user fiddles with the tuner.

> 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.

The primary domestic NAV/COM equipment is AM but it operates at
108-136 MHz -- quite a ways from the AM broadcast band.  While the
harmonics from the AM radio's local oscillator may extend that far, it
is un-likely.  The FARs are normally written conservatively, so AM
radios are forbidden anyway.

(Note that a secondary domestic NAV system operates at 200-400 kHz.)

The FM broadcast receiver, however, typically has its local oscillator
at 10.7 MHz above the frequency of the station it is tuned to.  Since
the FM broadcast band is 88-108 MHz, the local oscillator in an FM
receiver operates at 98.7-118.7 MHz.  No need for harmonics here!  The
local oscillator's frequency is right in the midst of the NAV portion
of the aircraft NAV/COM spectrum!

> 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.

No airline captain is allowed by the FAA to give such permission.
Two-meter equipment is close enough to the NAV/COM spectrum that
harmful interference is extremely likely, especially if the local
oscillator operates below the tuned frequency, as it does in some
handi-talkies.

As a general aviation pilot, I have granted such permission to
passengers who are hams.  It is a whole lot less expensive to use a
ham radio phone patch than it is to use the air/ground telephone at
about $1.00/minute for `airtime'.  It is a good idea, however, to
uncouple the autopilot from the NAV receiver before such radio
operation takes place.  When the course deviation indicator takes a
sudden swing full-scale-left, it's better if the aircraft doesn't try
to follow it!


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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:49:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 540 Scam


Is this 540-xxxx scam is being advertised just in 212, 718, 914, 516
areas?


[Moderator's Note: I'd hope by now those scammers would realize it is
not worth their effort to advertise elsewhere!  :)    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:46:24 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas


I wrote:

> I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for
> local within own area code.

And [e-mail] (Linden B. Sisk) replied:

> 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.

I said LOCAL within own area code.  I was not commenting on LONG
DISTANCE within own area code.  I say again: local calls within own
area code will still be just the 7D number, right?

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Scher)
Subject: Small Communications Program Sought
Date: 8 Mar 92 01:18:34 GMT


     I am looking for a comm program that occupies little disk space
for a laptop in the IBM PC family of computers.

     Necessary:

     VT-100/ANSI/VT320 emulation (any 1 will do)
     ZMODEM transferring
     SCROLL-BACK buffer (I have found this in NO small program)

     Currently, I am using Procomm +, which occupies about 330K of
disk space, stripped down.  If someone knows of a good alternative, I
would be most appreciative.  I have found some other programs that
ALMOST fit the bill (Lync among them), but each has lacked one of the
above items (in Lync's case the RAM scroll-back buffer).

Thanks,


Mike Scher   [e-mail]
Duke University -- Durham, NC:  Law and Cultural Anthropology

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 18:42:26 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Message For New Area Code


Because my office is currently part of a permissive dialing plan (i.e.
301 is still useable to reach places in 410), I have the following
message on display:

   301 is useable until Nov. 1, 1992, but please use
   410 as soon as possible. If 410 doesn't work, try
   another carrier, and if it fails the same way there,
   please inquire about the equipment where your call
   originates. We appreciate your doing this, as there
   sometimes are problems in reaching new area codes
   and/or prefixes.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #205
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08969;
          8 Mar 92 22:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28098
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00701
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:46 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:54:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #206

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Mar 92 20:54:47 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 206

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (John Higdon)
    Re: Gilbert Vernam (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary) (Joshua Lee)
    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Graham Toal)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Jim Rees)
    Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? (Barry Parr)
    Re: 911 and Politics (L. W. Danz)
    Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: 8 Mar 92 02:53:23 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten) writes:

> Regarding the Sweepstakes 800 number scam, an AT&T customer service
> representative wrote:

>> 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.

> I wonder why, then, AT&T allows such deceptive behavior.

Allows? Did you say "allows"? Try "actively encourages". My clients in
the IP industry report that the latest push from AT&T salespeople is
the concept of using 800 numbers as a replacement for the more or less
tainted 900 service. Notwithstanding a recent poster's great enlightenment
 from the {New York Times} which appeared to offer information to the
contrary, the 900 business IS dying and everyone in the business knows
it. (BTW, a tip: do NOT trust in the newspaper for information about
the telecommunications industry -- seek it rather from industry players.
This probably applies to other fields as well.)

AT&T has been doing its part to alienate IPs in its totally arbitrary
handling of billing and collections (not to mention arbitrary
disconnections) and is now doing its part to initiate and perpetuate
the 800 number scams that will eventually lead to the destruction of
that service as well. It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes,
and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that
Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case).

> A company that cared about its customers wouldn't allow the ruination
> of one of the few aspects of our increasingly complicated telephone
> system with which the public is both familiar and comfortable.

This is not about "caring", it is about money.

[e-mail] (Ted Marshall) writes:

> 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.

But long distance companies ALWAYS bill the line owner and they do it
from ANI data. What really makes this any different? Where is it
written that "only long distance charges may be billed from ANI data"?

I am somewhat amused that the same people who have been so indignant
about 900 services are starting up all over again on this "expanded
sleaze". Did people think that if the IPs were driven out of their own
sandbox (900 services) that they would just go away?

IPs have gotten smart. They have smelled the money. They will not make
the same mistakes twice. They WILL become "regulation savvy". If you
do not want to pay for IP wares, your only defense will be to become
informed. Government regulations will not be a cure-all on this
anymore.

Personally, I think that the idea of billing against ANI data on an
800 number is fraught with difficulty. Maybe that is why the charge is
so high -- to compensate for the massive uncollectables.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:24:40 -0800
Subject: Re: Gilbert Vernam


Perhaps I should have explained the Vernam cipher when I posted his
short bio a while back.  In paper tape Teletype operation a
transmitter-distributor is a machine that reads the tape in parallel,
one contact for each row of holes in the tape, and serializes it into
start-stop code.  The typical "faceplate" distributor is a disk of
insulating material set with two concentric copper rings.  The inner
ring is solid and is connected to the line.  The outer ring is divided
into seven segments (for 5-level code).  Five of these are connected
to the reader contacts.  One, the start segment is unconnected; and
the other, the stop segment, is permanently wired to the other side of
the line.  A rotating brush assembly connects the two rings together.
The tape reader is advanced while the brush is over the stop segment.
A clutch allows the brush to stop rotating and remain on the stop
segment when there is no tape to be sent.

Vernam's machine is a two-headed transmitter distributor.

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

From: ukelele![e-mail] (Joshua Lee)
Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)
Organization: GAU Technologies, Fairfax County, VA
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 07:21:19 GMT


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

> I wrote that in my opinion charging to "share costs" in forwarding

>> What impact will this have on FidoNet in Oregon, in your opinion?

> business.  I would hope that Fidonet can adjust to bear the costs
> better: return to the older practice of calling the destination city

That's fairly impossible, considering that echomail would be rather
unafordable if carried point to point, like e-mail. Netmail is still
direct, though informal routing schemes exist, so e-mail wouldn't be
impacted. The real problem is that Fidonet is a hobbiest network, and
the BBSs are mostly free. This is something that could change, and
severely impact echomail (which people usually only "run into" not go
shopping for)

> 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

You do pretty much for a Fidonet BBS, unless you're only into it for
the netmail, which is mostly only used for administrative purposes.

> Like I said, Usenet (with a much higher volume) manages to operate in

It does have a somewhat higher volume in messages, about 100 megs or
so to FidoNet's 10 - 40, but consider that Fidonet has to carry all of
this on dialup lines, and the ability of it to be offered for free as
a service is highly suspect to phone rates.

> this sort of environment. There are even companies making money
> selling full feeds of Usenet for as little as $75/month (including

"Only" $75 a month? It currently costs me $25 a year to help pay for
the LD feed of my hub. Some smaller nets have to pay $10 per month.
Considering that people have to stay online an hour or two at 2400,
it'd end up being too expensive to offer as a free service.

Perhaps we don't have the "right" to have conferences on free BBSs as
a hobby, but it certainly doesn't appear fair for RBOCs to have joint
ventures with Minitel, and simultaneously go around stomping on people
offering a free service to people out of their own pockets to people
who'd otherwise not have it, including the handicapped and schools.

Perhaps it's time that the BBS community start having events, like the
shortwave community does, to publicize what they do better, so the
news media will have information about the volunteer work we do.
Usually people outside of the BBS community only hear about it when
some teenaged hacker gets busted, or when a "virus threat" is
announced, and BBSs are said to be the easiest way to catch them.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 08:17:52 GMT


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

> 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.

> [Moderator's Note: Was any reason given for killing the services?  PAT]

Yes -- the chatline companies were supposed to pay a certain amount
into a fund which is used to reimburse families where the children ran
up massive bills unbeknownst to the parents.

The chatline companies did not contribute enough to cover the gross
misuse, so they were chopped.  Cut down by their own greed.

0898 pseudo-job-adverts may be targetted next ...


Graham

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 09:47:13 GMT


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

>     No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big
> trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19
> specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the
> Captain from giving permission.

FAR 91.19 does NOT specifically prohibit the 'Captain' (pilot-in-command
is a better term, since that is the term used in the regulations) from
giving permission. It DOES say that the operator is responsible for
authorizing usage, but DOES NOT say that the operator is prohibited
from allowing its pic's the discretion to authorize usage.

The only effect that 91.19 has is assigning the RESPONSIBILITY to the
operator. Thus, a pic cannot authorize usage without also attaching
liability to the operator.

> And another comment from a Usenetter:

I am so happy that people are quoting this unidentified Usenetter.
Just to set the record straight, I believe it was me. This text was a
summary of perusal of the CFR's, and a discussion with the FCC
personnel mentioned in the CL.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 17:56:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, atina!pccp!noli@uunet.
UU.NET (Manuel J. Moguilevsky) writes:

> In my country the telephone company sends noisy metering pulses over
> the line in long distance calls (only domestic calls, not
> international).

I love the idea of metering pulses, and I wish we could get them here
in the US.  In most of the world you can go into any bar and make a
phone call, then pay in cash at the end of the call.  It greatly
simplifies pay phones, too.

> The problem is that the metering pulses are so high so it is almost
> impossible to send faxes over the lines.

The actual delivery of the pulses is a crock, though.  They are
supposed to be inaudibly high frequency (or is it low frequency?), but
they are also high voltage, to drive mechanical meters.  So any
nonlinearity in the loop gives you audible artifacts.

In most places, delivery of meter pulses is an extra-cost option, and
you have to order it and pay a monthly charge for it.  Do they get
delivered by default in Argentina?


[Moderator's Note: The reason we do not allow paying for phone calls
at the end of the call in this country is because too many people
would run off and not pay. When they were finished talking, they would
just leave the receiver off-hook and walk away, particularly in the
types of establishments you mentioned, bars and restaurants, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Parr)
Subject: Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too?
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 18:06:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] writes:

> I had a fascinating call last night from a telemarketing outfit hired
> by AT&T to pitch some sort of home monitoring program. It started like
> the routine irritation of typical telemarketers, then took a strange
> twist.

> AT&T: (genuinely hurt) Well, people always chew me out or hang up on
> me, and I think you're the only who's let me read all the way through
> without cutting me off. I was just wondering what was wrong with the
> script that was making people so mad at me ...

> At this point, all efforts to sell me this stuff had gone right out of
> her head, and I found myself talking to a telemarketer of two weeks'
> experience, as it turned out, who was trying desperately to keep her
> head on straight.

I was intrigued by your experience with the poor AT&T home security
telemarketer who felt she had been treated so badly by her prospects.
I was also called by these folks a couple of weeks ago.  After I
politely told the fellow on the other end that I wasn't interested, he
hung up on me without a word.


Barry Parr    San Lorenzo, CA       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Did anyone see the 'Dear Abby' (or was it Ann
Landers) item in the Sunday papers from the woman who said she hung up
rudely on a telemarketer only to be called back seconds later by the
same telemarketer asking her why she couldn't be more polite in ending
the conversation?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Date: 8 Mar 92 15:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Question, when is 911 not 911?

>> Answer, when it is 9911!

Not all switches are programmed that 9 is an outside line.  And in
foreign countries (Japan for example), 9 is a local (hotel) operator,
and 0 is the outside line.  So, its easy for visitors anywhere to be
confused.

> I might suggest that they program "9-11" to go to a recording to say
> something like "You need to dial 9 9 1 1 to reach emergency dispatch".
> If they can do that, then of course they've been "caught".

It seems to me that if you have a local security office (most
universities and large businesses do), then 911 ought to go to that
office first.  9-911 could always force outside access.

> [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
> phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
> some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
> members of the club would know about?    PAT]

If the patch is private, it generally takes some secret incantation of
DTMF digits to get dial tone in the first place.


L. W. "Dan" Danz   WA5SKM         VOS Mail:  [e-mail]
Sr Consulting Software SE         NeXT Mail: [e-mail]
Customer Assistance Center        Voice Mail/Pager: [phone]
Telecommunications Division       Customer Service: [phone]
Stratus Computer, Inc. 4455 E. Camelback #115-A, Phoenix AZ 85018

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

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 02:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (was CLASS Services Interfering)


[e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)

> 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.)

No problem. Keep the 1A. If that is not possible, then it is DMS-100,
hands down. I base this on personal experience, conversations with
switchmen, and others' experiences. Audio quality is superior on a
DMS, particularly on three-way calls. DMS offers a "1AESS" emulation
package in an effort to keep feature implementation standard. Also,
the DMS has superior support for ISDN as applied to Centrex feature
phones.

My attitude on the 5ESS has not changed. No amount of futtzing around
by Pac*Bell has improved the audio quality since the switch serving my
lines was installed. It is still grainy and noisy. Since the rains, it
has a new annoyance -- hum. Both the 1ESS and the 5ESS lines in my
home now have hefty inter-digit hum. On the 1E, the hum goes away
after dialing. On the 5E, the remains at all times even while talking.

The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work
more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #206
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12010;
          9 Mar 92 0:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22288
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:14:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00768
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:13:54 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 22:13:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #207

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Mar 92 22:13:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 207

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Phil Howard)
    Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges (Paul Houle)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Phil Howard)
    Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Phil Howard)
    Re: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92 (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller-ID Project Update (Rob Bailey)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (John Higdon)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Graham Toal)
    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Linden B. Sisk)
    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (James Hartman)
    Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Steve Kass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:05:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Scott McIntyre) writes:

> 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.

> [Moderator's Note: Was any reason given for killing the services?  PAT]

These lines apparently are commonly used by pedophiles to first
anonymously befriend children who don't know any better, and then
later ...

I think better solutions COULD have been arranged to allow this kind
of service to continue WITH some security.  It would have had to
include a parental release and a private access code for each kid to
use it.  The process would require identification of the school the
kid attends and this would have to be checked before the access code
can be issued.  Hopefully that would filter most of the pedophiles.

I hope we can adopt something better here in the colonies.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the
services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles.
That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of
users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the
service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor
pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 18:06:28 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Bizarre First Minute COCOT Charges
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology


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

> it again and it worked again.  I did some experimenting.  Once the
> phone reset, it was possible to dial local, long distance and even
> international calls.  One could dial both 0+ and 1+ calls.  (And even
> reach AT&T by dialing 10288+ :-) This phone even had a custom calling
> feature -- 900 number blocking from Mountain Bell!  It didn't once
> talk to me in it's awful computer-sythesized ("Please insert Twenty
> Five dollars and seventeen cents") voice asking for money.

> [Moderator's Note: Do you recall the type of COCOT it was, and the
> digits you dialed which caused the malfunction? Other readers will
> want to test the instruments at their local 7-11 so that this
> potential fraud problem can be stopped before it gets out of hand.
> Is it still a pay phone? Someone will pay for it alright! :)   PAT]

    No, I don't recall what kind of COCOT it was, but I can check
it the next time I go by the supermarket. The malfunction seemed to
occur whenever I attempted to dial ANY number.  I didn't discover any
kind of 'secret code' -- although that would have been really nice.
Also, the phone was working perfectly today (dialing 1-800-555-1212
connected me to toll-free directory assistance, and it wanted money
for local and long distance calls) so it seems as if the phone was
either fixed or it reset itself.  So, I think it was just a fluke.

    Readers who want to try this at home would probably do best to
drop by the 7-11, the mall, the airport and the gas station as often
as possible, relying on Poisson statistics and luck.


[Moderator's Note: See the final message in this issue for an
interesting spin on the topic ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:15:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Scott Coleman) writes:

> What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone
> lines?

I saw just today on one of the "fix up your home" type shows (did not
catch the name) when they were discussing the security system of a
home being remodeled, they showed a radio transmitter that would reach
the security control center 20 miles away.  This was "because many
burglars are cutting telephone wires".  No mention of the frequency or
band used.  The antenna was long enough to be hi-band VHF, but could
have been a colinear on a UHF band, as it was incased in something
about 5-6 cm wide.


Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 01:32:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Jim Harvey) writes:

> 1.  Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of
> the tape message by a voice synthesizer.

I think it would be easier to implement it to record the number during
the time the caller is hearing "... at the beep please leave your ...".

I'd also want it to record the date and time and line number.

> 2.  The Detour garbage option.  Any call coming in with a blocked ID
> is instantly routed to the tape.  Replay button will have a skip-to-
> next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls.

> Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming
> calls and blocked calls.

It should simply let you program it to route the call to any place
that it can route it (tape 1, tape 2, phone 1, phone 2, back out on
line 2 dialing xxx-xxxx, etc.).  Are we getting fancy enough.  This
should be done on a number basis, with "Private" (blocked) and
"Unknown" treated as special cases.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: MI Bell Bill Insert and Notice - 2/92
Date: 8 Mar 92 02:06:12 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> Instead, Section 304(7)(a) states in part that "A
> person who has reached the age of 60 years or more, who is
> handicapped, or who is voluntarily providing a service for an
> organization classified by the internal revenue service as a section
> 501(c)(3) or (19) organization, or a congressionally chartered
> veterans organization or their duly authorized foundations, is exempt
> from the 400 calls per month limitation and may receive a flat rate
> allowing unlimited calls per month.

Well, it looks as though Michigan does not subscribe to the Moderator's
assertion that even though people may be doing non-profit endeavors,
they must still pay business rates if the use is in any way unusual,
or if it generates high volume, etc., etc. There it is in yellow and
black: the only people who have to pay extra for extra local traffic
are (apparently) your average people who may have found a recreational
use for the telephone.

What I do not understand is: if you run a BBS, you will pay through
the nose. If you are blind (oops, sorry, visually challenged), deaf
(oops, aurally disadvantaged), or whathaveyou, you get a whopping
discount.  What is the justification for this? Is the assumption that
handicapped people are without means? But then, what about other
people that are "without means"?

And what does "60 years of age" have to do with anything? Most of the
people I know who are over 60 have a hell of a lot more resources than
I do.

This is one of the most blantant examples of non-market-oriented rate
diddling to come along in a long time. I know that we just assume the
the government runs everything these days. Why do we not just turn the
whole mess over to the Federal government and let the Post Office run
all the phones and stop this charade of a "privately owned and
operated network"? What a hoot!

> But Michigan Bell apparently intends to restrict the exemption not
> only to those who use their phones in the volunteer efforts, but to
> those who make EXTENSIVE USE (whatever that is) of their phones for
> such purposes.

Maybe Michigan Bell will monitor the lines of people claiming the
exemption.

> Just thought you might find all this mildly interesting.

And mildly depressing.


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

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

Date: 08 Mar 92 15:59:23 EST
From: "Rob Bailey, WM8S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Project Update


I got a lot of offers to convert a hard-copy to something machine
readable, which I can do. I wasn't sure, though, that this would be of
much use. Sometime this month (I've gotten very busy lately), I will
make every effort to scribble the schematic down and scan it in, and
put the resulting file on the lcs anon ftp site. I assure you, though,
that it would be a lot easier (and less prone to my errors) to hunt up
a copy of the specs for the 2211 and the 232 on your own.

In response to the question about where to find the 2211: Have you
really looked? I see an entry for them in every mail order catalog I
own, including (but not to endorse) JDR, Digikey, and Jameco.

Why didn't I use a MAX233 instead of a 232? Simple: I had 232's lying
around! The project would be better built with the '233, but they are
much more difficult to find mail-order.

Finally thanks for the suggestions for software features. The ones
that I got that I hadn't already thought of myself were support for
multiple COMn: port access (simultaneously), and lots of suggestions
for controlling other hardware (mainly speech cards) which I will
probably not add due to the nature of the intended market. The
software is meant to be run on the simplest XT with no additionaly
hardware.

Summary later -- thanks ... de Rob WM8S

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

Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 8 Mar 92 02:31:16 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (Ron Dippold) writes:

> The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in
> response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it
> difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations
> between two parties on a telephone line.

Isn't is a shame that technological advancements in telephony are
serving people rather than government bureaucrats? After all, what is
more important: people or the government?

> The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its
> 1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to
> help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology.

Heaven forbid that the people of this nation should expect to be able
to think for themselves without government looking over every
shoulder.  First we had encryption that had to be "breakable" by the
FBI. Now we have to make sure that our telephones are still
"tappable". Why, we would all wither and die if the FBI could not tap
any phone it wanted to when it wanted to. I cannot tell you how safe I
feel at night knowing that the FBI is on the job listening to all
those evil-doers plotting those nasty deeds.

> The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in the connection
> between the telephone user and his central office is still usually
> just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to monitor.  PAT]

Yes, it may be a pair of wires, but it is not necessarily simple
analog audio any more. It not so simple to do a nice, neat "drop and
insert" on digital entrance facilities. A number of firms now have
fiber entrance facilities which are even more difficult to "tap".

The laughable thing here is that no matter what the government may do,
encrypted data will be "impossible" to tap. And even if a law is
passed (the solution to everything is to pass a law), how would it be
enforced?  If I have a T1 coming in, I can theoretically put any kind
of (scrambled) data I choose on it. How will the FBI tell scrambled
voice from data?

Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 14:07:36 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved,
> I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else
> over the phone that this new effort has to be started?

My guess is we're seeing internecine warfare between the FBI and the
NSA.  I suspect only the NSA have access to built-in remote tapping
facilities at the central telco offices, and the FBI still have to
rely on old fashioned crocodile clip taps ...


Graham

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

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 21:30:15 CST
From: [e-mail] (Linden B. Sisk)
Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas


Summary: Oops ...

In relation to my note about the dialing changeover for calls in NPA
713, Patrick Humphrey, among others, was nice enough to point out that
the changeover involves dialing 1 + 713 + 7D for TOLL calls within
713, rather than ALL calls.  Locals calls within 713 will still be 7D.
Sorry about the confusion.  Which brings up the question in my mind as
to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL
calls, even local calls?  Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of
the form NXX?  It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch
should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are
dialed, a local call is intended.


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]


[Moderator's Note: Are you willing to sit there and wait for the
switch to time out before it processes the seven digits? One option
I've never seen discussed though is the use of # as a terminator when
dialing local and long distance calls as is done with international
calls and abbreviated calling card dialing. (When dialing the number to
which a calling card is assigned, one need only dia the four digit PIN
followed by the # to speed processing.)  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 03:11:43 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> I called my brother in Houston, and they still have 7D dialing for
> local within own area code.

Other people have to dial more than seven digits for local calls?
Jeez, I *MUST* live in a cultural backwater.  :-)

We DID, however, recently get an insert in the monthly bill telling us
that Real Soon Now (the exact date has escaped me), we'll have to dial
1+713+# to reach long distance but within the area code numbers.
Looks like they're cranking up the N1N/N0N exchanges ...


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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 13:21 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest


Thanks to TELECOM Digest for helping me out in an unexpected way.
Here I am at work checking up on a few things before heading out of
town, and I see this:

In Issue #205, Paul Houle ([e-mail]) writes:

> good to say about a COCOT.  I was returning some videos and buying
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, I forgot that I rented some videos yesterday, and this jogged my
memory.  I guess I'll have to swing by home on the way out.  And
there's a COCOT near my video store, too.  Hmm ... so thanks, Pat, for
saving me a few bucks in late charges!


Steve Kass, Math&CS, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940
[e-mail] (201)-408-3614


[Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving
you a few bucks having your fortune told.  :)   In case you lost the
number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that
number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #207
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15479;
          9 Mar 92 1:47 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18877
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:48:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26490
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:47:49 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 23:47:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #208

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Mar 92 23:47:49 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 208

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Mark Eklof)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Phil Howard)
    Re: What About CID and ISDN? (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Ken Kopin)
    Re: Phone Phun (Ken Kopin)
    Re: The World's Best, eh? (Terry Kennedy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 17:51:16 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Stonemarche Network Co-op
From: [e-mail] (Mark Eklof)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire


> A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff
> changes taking effect March 20, 1992:

    I have yet to get this month's bill from New England
Telephone, so haven't seen this flyer yet.  I did get a letter from
NETel about point 4, which I'll address then.  I assume that the
original poster is also an NETel customer, but am not certain.  New
Hampshire is very balkanised when it comes to LECs.  I know of four
LECs in this area, varying by town.  There's also wierd local calling
areas, which often put 'local' businesses in exchanges that are long
distance 'phone calls away.  There are many cases where the next town
over, or even parts of the same town, are long distance calls.

> 1!  No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r).

    ConTel (I think after GTE bought them, but before they changed
the name) did this about a year ago.  They had charged $1/month for
Touch-Tone (r), but did away with it.  In order to compensate for lost
revenue, they raised everyone's rate by $.80/month at the same time --
Gee, (no, GTE!) thanks!  I was surprised a few months ago when I moved
to a town that had NETel as its LEC that they still charged
($1.48/month) for Touch-Tone (r).

> 3!  Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a month.

    It was 23 cents, after 10 free calls per month.

> 4!  In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan
> will be instituted.  Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15
> cents per minute evenings, and 10 cents per minute nights.  No
> minumum billing, and billing is PER SECOND.

> Volume discounts on daytime calling, apply to all customers, is
> 15 cents per minute after 960 minutes, 10.5 cents per minute
> after 4800 minutes.

    I got a letter about this, since I subscribe to a discount
calling plan that is going away.  Granite State (sm) calling was
$12.47/month, and included two hours of non-local in-state calls
(billed by the minute).  Additional minutes (or fractions thereof)
were $.082.  It wasn't valid from 9:00AM-12:00PM and 6:00PM-9:00PM
(normal rates applied, then).

    This plan, and one other (Circle Calling Services) are being
discontinued.  In their place, NETel is offering the CallAround (sm)
603 Plan.  This is $6/month, including one hour of non-local in-state
calls billed by the second.  Additional minutes (again, billed by the
second) are $.095.  It isn't valid from 8:00AM-5:00PM.


Mark D. Eklof    White Pine Grange
Brookline, New Hampshire
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 04:31:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>> 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.

> But long distance companies ALWAYS bill the line owner and they do it
> from ANI data. What really makes this any different? Where is it
> written that "only long distance charges may be billed from ANI data"?

> IPs have gotten smart. They have smelled the money. They will not make
> the same mistakes twice. They WILL become "regulation savvy". If you
> do not want to pay for IP wares, your only defense will be to become
> informed. Government regulations will not be a cure-all on this
> anymore.

New laws or regulations can also become "sleaze savvy" if we want them
to be.  Let's characterize the problem:

We have TWO classes of costs being billed to line owners:

1.  the service provided by the common carrier
2.  the service provided by the connected party

Better laws/regulations could define these different classes of
billable costs, and specify restrictions on how and when the common
carrier may provide this service to the customer.

Recent laws/regulations specifically address "900 service" as opposed to
a "connected party service billed through common carrier" catch all that
it seems we now need.

It's obvious that we need to go back to Congress and rewrite that law
so that it is more generalized and cannot be circumvented by "creative
sleaze".

I want to be able to block billing (and hence delivery of service) of:

1.  service provided by the common carrier not originating on my line
    (e.g. collect calls, etc.)

2.  service provided by any connected company

Either the defaults should be #1 not blocked and #2 BLOCKED, unless
the order taking process specifically asks these questions at that
time.

Another possibility is "conditionally blocked".  The cost billing will
be blocked unless an access code is entered before the call being
placed to specifically authorize unblocking on this call.

> Personally, I think that the idea of billing against ANI data on an
> 800 number is fraught with difficulty. Maybe that is why the charge is
> so high -- to compensate for the massive uncollectables.

Does anyone know of an 800 with a small cost?  I want to see what my
phone company does when I try to get them to bounce a cost from an 800
number.

In the mean time, maybe I will go call AT&T about setting up a BBS
system on an 800 number which does ANI billing for services rendered
(at about $50 a minute).


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN?
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 04:30:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Brian Litzinger) writes:

> 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?

The Calling Party ID information element is optional in a SETUP
message -- my understanding is that you just omit it if you don't have
the information. Remember that even though the call may be delivered
to an ISDN line, it may have originated on a crossbar switch somewhere
in the boonies.


Peter Desnoyers

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 04:48:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
> phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
> some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
> members of the club would know about?    PAT]

<sigh> Several things are going on here. A group can just not tell the
general (ham) public the code.  The repeater typically mutes them on
the output, so a person trying to capture the codes would have to be
within direct receiving range of the calling ham.  Another security
feature is that the ham making the call must identify.  If the control
operator of the repeater doesn't recognize the caller, he may
interrupt the call or just tell the fellow to go away.  Then the codes
can be changed.

Some repeater codes are changed once a year, right after the deadline
to re-up with the club.

The bottom line is that the system runs mostly on trust, on good
behavior, and on a control operator who can turn the repeater off via
a back door in the event of emergency.  In any group of people there
will be bad apples, but in 16 years a ham, I've never heard an
autopatch abused.


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] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 21:43:41 GMT


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

> 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.

One can call the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
(formerly NBS).  Radio station WWV broadcasts 440 HZ accurate to 1
part in 10^12 or so (as accurate as its possible to be, using multiple
cesium beam atomic clocks), and the audio is available by phone.  The
radio frequencies are 20KHZ, 60KHZ, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 15, 20, 25 MHZ.  I
don't have the phone number, but it is in AC 303, Fort Collins CO.
Try calling the voice number 303 484 2372 (old info) and asking.


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028
voice  602_996_1717


[Moderator's Note: I think it is 303-484-7111.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Kopin)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Kopin)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 03:16:17 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Scott Coleman) says:

> I'm interested in hearing suggestions for physically securing one or
> more residential telephone lines. As we know, those gray plastic
> network interfaces are great for troubleshooting -- just unplug the
> RJ-14 jack, plug in a test set, and away you go. Unfortunately, this
> also allows anyone with a modular phone to walk up to your house,
> unplug your phones, plug in his own, and make fraudulent phone calls.
> In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many
> burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security
> system auto dialers.

> What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone
> lines?  Can the incoming lines be moved underground? Can the network
> interface be moved inside the building, say to a panel in the
> basement? Will the telco charge outrageous sums to perform this sort
> of thing?

  I don't have an answer to this but I DO have a story ...

 About two years ago, I noticed some new wires coming out of the
bottom of my Gray Box (The Network Interface) So I calls up Ma Bell
and said, "Gee, guys, could you come and look at this, it looks
broke."  The Ma-Bell guy comes out, and whips out what is basically a
3/8 nut driver, and opens the box. My jaw dropped. I had a LOCK on my
half of that stupid thing, and any idiot with a Socket Set can open
it?  He finds that someone had opened THEIR half of the box, and wired
into my line. As expected, I had a LOT of 1-900 calls on my bill the
next month, which I screamed about. Their answer was, "Well, we DO
have this program to waive the charges ... (for idiots who haven't got
a clue about pay services, like you) (Bracketed Text Mine)" Since I
wasn't going to have to pay, I agreed. Now I wonder if I am on some
kind of Idiot List. And they STILL haven't replaced that stupid thing,
(Although, they MIGHT have some trouble opening it on their end if
they try to. :)

The wires coming out of the bottom were only about two inches long.
They had cut their "new" connection with a knife.


Ken Kopin

Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet:   AA377%Cleveland.Freenet.Edu@cunyvm

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Kopin)
Subject: Re: Phone Phun
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Kopin)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 03:28:56 GMT


In a previous article, ampex![e-mail] (Steve DeLaney)
says:

> This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on
> technology.  Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being
> one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in,
> somehow refusing to accept the possibility that Pac Bell could be
> wrong.  In fact, for the first few minutes we almost had ourselves
> convinced that both OUR clocks were wrong, or that we had missed a
> switch to daylight savings time, or that someone came into the house
> in the middle of the night to play a practical joke on us by turning
> back our clocks!

   What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four
separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a
computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then
whatever time is colaborated by the most sources.


Ken Kopin

Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet:   AA377%Cleveland.Freenet.Edu@cunyvm

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

From: [e-mail] (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.)
Subject: Re: The World's Best, eh?
Date: 9 Mar 92 00:13:51 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

[text about lots of outages and problems deleted]

> Well, maybe if they can't be as good as they were, at least they may
> yet become honest and fess up to being far less than the perfect image
> they want to hold forth.

  Well, I use the phone a good deal in my job, and I have this to say
about the quality of the phone system today compared to pre-divestiture:

1) The quality of station equipment has become much, much poorer.
Pre-breakup instruments are treasures around my office.

2) Call routing speed and completion rates are much, much, better now.
If I dial a number, either local or long distance, I get a klunk
within a second of dialing the last digit and either an immediate ring
or busy. In the old days, I would hear a few seconds of clicks (if I
landed on a pulse trunk) or a string of MF, followed by four or five
seconds of waiting, and then a ring (which might change to a busy in
mid-ring if I was calling into a panel office).

3) In recent years (let's say the last five) I have _never_ received a
"we're sorry, all trunks are busy" or fast busy unless there was
congestion or trouble at the terminating office. In the old days, I
would frequently get those even if my office and the terminating
office had capacity. I suspect the improvement is due to both better
routing from the electronic control equipment and more trunks. The
latter (more trunks) is much easier to plan for with systems that have
electronic control. Have you ever tried to do traffic measurement in a
progressive control mechanical switch? I have, and it's _very_ hard.

4) In the "old days", if you didn't like AT&T, you could decide you
didn't want to make long distance phone calls. Period. Now you have a
wide variety of choices, from industry leaders to the scum of the
earth, at a variety of price and performance points. Even the local
monopoly shows signs of giving way to alternate providers over the
next few years.

5) It's a lot harder for the average phone customer to deal with the
phone company, both because of the "instrument/dial-tone" split and
because the companies have reduced staffing (and in some cases, staff
quality) in those service positions.

  I suspect that all of the above, both good and bad, would have
happened sooner or later without divestiture, but (as long as I can
keep my 2500 sets) I'm happier with the system now than I was then.


Terry Kennedy        Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]    St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #208
******************************






ISSUE 209 ARRIVED LATE AND FOLLOWS ISSUE 211.






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22577;
          10 Mar 92 2:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05654
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27278
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 00:17:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #210

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Mar 92 00:16:54 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 210

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 and Politics (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Tony Harminc)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Steve Howard)
    Re: 911 and Politics (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Neil Katin )
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Oscar Valdes)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (disk![e-mail])
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Andy Sherman)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Toby Nixon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 00:53:37 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics


> [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
> phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
> some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
> members of the club would know about?    PAT]

We (the college club, the local club, and two other clubs I belong to)
have no restrictions on the autopatch.  Anyone abusing it (the usual
example is ordering pizza, which has actually happened here) is talked
to, which has never failed to stop the problem.  We welcome
non-members to use the autopatch.

Until about ten minutes ago, we allowed any calls that the campus PBX
would pass, but now I've restricted it to seven digits (9 is
automaticaly prepended) so no billed 800 numbers show up on the SMDR
with our extension.

> [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]

911 and 9911 are both passed to the campus police dispatcher, who
leaves a lot to be desired when compaired to the city E911 operators.
Off campus dialing (9-NNX-XXXX) was real interesting for a few weeks
after the city brought E911 online but before AU cut over from centrex
to an SL-100.  You would dial 9 then have to wait for a timeout befor
getting a dial tone.  I don't know if this affected all centrex
custimers, or just AU.

Anybody know what centrex does to route 911, if anything.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 07:22:33 GMT


> [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?

When I was in college in the early 70's, some of the guys got excited
about discovering the "secret numbers" used by telephone installers.
When my phone was installed, the installer used two numbers from the
set 11[2-9].  I tried calling these numbers once, a human answered
without any particular identification, and I apologized for the wrong
number and hung up.  I'm guessing it was a number for a test board or
a dispatcher in the repair department.

11xx has the current use on many switches as being the way to dial *xx
if you don't have a touch-tone phone, but it works if you dial it with
touch-tone anyway.  I presume such features as "cancel call waiting"
shouldn't be needed on a PBX trunk, but what about "don't send
Caller-ID", assuming the PBX doesn't have the ability to pass the
extension to the central office?

On my home line, 11[0-6,8-9] give a busy signal, but 1175 starts
ringback (and nobody answers).


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:00:00 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [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?

We used to have a Toshiba PBX that did exactly that.  Our new Lexar
apparently lacks this feature (or it is not enabled).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 18:49:52 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics


[e-mail] wrote:

> 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?

I am aware of several companies here with NT SL/1 PBXs programmed
exactly this way.  I believe (but I'm not 100% sure) that we have
Centrex-III in our Montreal office with the same feature.  Of course 9
911 continues to work as well.


Tony H.

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

Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Date: 9 Mar 92 18:36:30 MST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Steve Howard)


I had the same problem here are the Breckenridge Ski Area with our
AT&T System 75.  We wanted our guests to be able to dial 911 from any
of our "Emergency Phones" which are located at various strategic
locations on our mountains.  We also wanted the 911 calls to go to the
closest, most appropriate dispatch point.  We could have used "Hot
Line" service for the phones on the mountains -- but then the phones
couldn't call anywhere else :-(.  We also wanted 911 available to
people in the offices -- Hot Line to 911 wouldn't work from the office :-).

I found two options:

1)  Change the dial plan so that 911 would be its own extension and
all calls would then go to that extension.

2)  Use abbreviated dial lists.  "9" to access the list and "11" for
the abbreviated dial code.

The problem with option #1 is that all 911 calls would go to the same
point.  Somebody reporting that their building was on fire might end
up getting a Ski Patrol dispatcher three mountains away.  This
wouldn't work.

I chose option #2.  The System 75 lets you assign abbreviated dial
lists on a "per-extension" basis.  Using this feature, each extension
was assigned a destination for abbreviated dial list #3 (with an
access code of "9").  Member "11" of the abbreviated dial list then
points to the correct destination.  All On-Mountain Emergency Phones
route to the closest Ski Patrol dispatch point which gives our guest
the fastest possible service.  Each office/building phone routes to
the county 911.  It works great!!

The biggest problem we encountered was that I had to change our
"outside line" code on our PBX from "9" to "8".  Although this was a
pain, almost everybody agreed that having 911 was very important --
Thanks to William Shatner :-)


Steve Howard   [e-mail]   Breckenridge Ski Corporation
Disclaimer=The opinions above do not necessarily represent those of my employer

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 18:18:06 GMT


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

  [Discussion of setting up a phone patch for a university radio club]

> [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
> phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
> some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
> members of the club would know about?    PAT]

The proper term for what Phil is describing is an Autopatch.  The
several autopatches I have used thru various repeaters require an
access code of one or (usually) more digits.  Depending on the type of
circutry in the repeater's controller (and there is a lot of CPU power
on those mountain tops :-) ), you either get a dial tone and dial the
rest of the call, or you just follow the access code with the phone
number and it is dialed by the controller.  Most such controllers have
toll restriction capability.  Whether or not the restrictions are
enabled is up to the owner of the repeater (radio club or individual).


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: Mon, 9 Mar 92 14:36:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (Neil Katin )
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On


> [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved,
> I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else
> over the phone that this new effort has to be started?...

I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace
cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available.


Neil Katin


[Moderator's Note: Why don't they have easy access? You take your
court order to the cell company and you say 'when  Mr. Townson makes a
call on his cellular phone, put the call through but send it by us for
a look-see-listen also.' So the tower sees my ESN and phone number and
it says 'aha, this call is to go out on trunk X which has that funny
wiring on it ... and I am also supposed to tell them which tower I am
and Mr. Townson's proximity to me as best I can tell.' There is bound
to be -- almost certainly -- a piece of metal in the connection
* somewhere*  for those alligator clips and capacitors.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (oscar Valdes)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 9 Mar 92 05:18:53 GMT


    I've been following the news and discussion on this topic with
a high level of interest. An angle to the subject nobody has discussed
is what the whole thing says about the competence of the FBI engineers
who are in charge of developing new and improved wiretaps.

    I've seen several ads placed by the FBI announcing job
openings for electronic engineers and technicians.  I would presume
part of their duties would be to do this type of work.  However, it is
probably cheaper to buy ready made devices instead of spending R&D
money and I suspect they just trying slow down or stop new
developments on the civilian side.  Although they don't say it,
probably because it would be too imitative of Iaccoca, the FBI just
needs time to catch up with the new standards of quality.

    In sum, I don't think it is a scam or a renewed attack on
civil liberties just a strong attack of chutzpah.

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

From: disk![e-mail] (tony)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 06:00:15 GMT


Does the FBI monitor this newsgroup?  If they didn't already have a
file on a person, will they open one up just because a person didn't
feel he should have to pay money out of his pocket to finance a scheme
the FBI dreamed up?

    My opinion is that I already pay more than enough in taxes --
if the FBI wants to finance a new project they should get the money
from the IRS, not additional money out of my pocket, ... isn't that
what TAXES are for?  Why should anyone have to give them more money
too?!!!  I'm against the idea too!


[Moderator's Note: The Federal Bureau of Inquisition doesn't 'monitor'
this Digest ... they subscribe to and read this Digest. I have three
or four Bureau staffers on the mailing list. I hope you are not
laboring under the assumption that any of the mostly insignificant
messages on Usenet in general or this mailing list in particular are
enough to warrant the time and clerical effort it would take to open a
file on someone ... let's not have delusions of grandeur here.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 07:17:04 EST


On 7 Mar 92 00:37:06 GMT, our Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues involved,
> I must ask what has become so difficult about spying on someone else
> over the phone that this new effort has to be started? Yes, perhaps
> digital transmission and other factors have made it harder to intercept
> something in mid-stream between two places; but one can still quite
> easily listen to almost any phone they want, especially with access to
> the central office. The subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in
> the connection between the telephone user and his central office is
> still usually just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to
> monitor.  PAT]

Ah, but what of all those PBXs out there, Pat?  They are not
necessarily connected to individual loops on the line side of the CO.
They may be connected to digital trunks.  Not only that, but with the
advent of Subscriber Loop Carrier, even your little one-line home may
wind up connected to the line side via a digital trunk rather than an
analog loop.


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: Well, what about 'all those PBXs'?  More than once
I've heard of instances where (when calls were being traced or tapped)
the trail led back to a PBX, or a cord switchboard, or similar. What
you do then is you take your legal service, warrant or whatever and
you go to see the proprietor of the PBX, or the chief operator or the
phone room manager and you serve them (give them the search warrant or
other legal papers) and then proceed to hook up your stuff to the
desired extension right there on the distributing frames in the phone
room. There will almost assuredly be a piece of metal somewhere in the
loop for those alligator clips which is unique to the telephone
instrument/user in question. Then you gather all the operators around
and lay it out: "Young ladies, you *will* all keep your traps shut and
just sit there plugging away with your calls ... or you'll go to the
penitentiary too, for obstruction of justice!"  They won't have to be
told twice. Of course it helps to go in when the operators are not
around, like late at night; hook things up and be gone before anyone
sees it. Obviously, the fewer people who see, the better it is.   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 9 Mar 92 11:53:05 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, our esteemed Moderator
noted on the ease of tapping phones:

[See previous message for quoted text.  PAT]

If only interoffice trunks were digital, then what you're saying would
be true. What they appear to be most concerned about are digital loop
carrier systems, in which the fiber may go right to the subdivision or
building.  If they're going to tap into the metallic loop, they'll
have to have a van sitting on the street in front of the alleged
criminals' house -- not exactly discrete.  And what if the alleged
crime is being conducted from a facility which is served directly by a
T1 trunk into a PBX?  If the PBX is digital, there may not be any
analog loop to tap into ANYWHERE in the system.

I'm not defending what they're trying to do, but simply pointing out
what they're up against.  Personally, I think it's marvelous that the
government is having a harder time tapping phones.  It seems to me,
though, that it really ought to be EASIER to tap in a digital
switching environment; all they need to do is replicate the
PCM-encoded bitstream to a file on disk or to a separate "tap trunk",
along with information on calling/called number, time, etc., and have
a high-quality digital recording of the entire conversation -- with NO
POSSIBILITY that the tap could be detected by the party under
surveillance (since the tap would be "output only").  Seems like just
a little bit of programming in the switch would take care of it, no?


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: Almost every modern PBX I've seen or read about has
'supervisory monitoring' built in. Either a supervisor can simply go
on the line in question to listen silently, or there may be some
access code which has to be dialed from extensions which have the
proper class of service to allow it. So the person doing the tapping
sets up an off-premises extension with the class of service required
to go in on any desired line.  Tapping phones really is easy!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #210
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24742;
          10 Mar 92 2:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19051
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12720
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:29 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:10:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #211

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Mar 92 01:10:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 211

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (John Rice)
    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Graham Thomas)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (David Singer)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Bob Clements)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (John Rice)
    Re: Encryption Help Needed (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Encryption Help Needed (Arthur L. Rubin)
    Re: What About CID and ISDN? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: What About CID and ISDN? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Peter Sleggs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 20:56:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
McIntyre) writes:

> 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.

   Sounds like they have their priorities somewhat out of order.


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] (Graham Thomas)
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 16:53:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator responded
to [e-mail] (Phil Howard):

> [Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the
> services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles.
> That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of
> users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the
> service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor
> pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone?   PAT]

The official reason given by the regulators, Oftel, is certainly that
some chatline companies were refusing to put money into the
compensation fund.  This fund (and a similar fund for one-to-one
premium rate services) was set up in 1989, in the wake of public
disquiet about chatlines and other PRS which culminated in an enquiry
by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.  (There were 'technical'
reasons why the MMC got involved -- basically, it was the only way BT
could cut off the chatline service providers if told to by Oftel and
not get sued for breach of contract.)

The fund is administered by ICSTIS (Independent Committee for the
Supervision of Standards for Telephone Information Services), who also
draw up and enforce the Code of Practice for chatline and message
services.  I'm not sure if service providers all pay the same amount
into the fund or if fees vary with revenue.  What is true is that the
sums are fairly hefty (25,000 pounds plus 5,000 a month was one figure
I've seen) and ICSTIS can raise them to match the amount it pays out
to complainants.  ICSTIS has become better-known recently (via an
insert in everyone's telephone bill) so I guess the number of claims
has risen sharply.  Nevertheless, some chatline companies are
complying with the Code and are paying into the fund.

The point about the pedophiles is a general accusation that's been
made about chatlines (and may be well-founded -- I don't know).  All
chatlines are supposed to be continuously monitored by a human
operator and continuously recorded.  In addition, ICSTIS can ring in
and check on any service at any time, and has a special piece of
equipment (called 'Big Ears') which can ring and record multiple
services automatically.  Of course, they can't be everywhere, and some
service providers seem to enjoy being on the edge of compliance with
the Code.

It's possible that some compromise will be reached before April 6th,
or that chatlines will return later.  They've been banned before (from
February to -- I think -- December 1989).  Chatlines seem to come in
for much more flak than pornographic recorded message services.


Graham Thomas

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

Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Singer)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 21:57:37 -0800
From: "David Singer" <[e-mail]>


The phone number for WWV is [phone].


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: My apologies are due for getting the exchange wrong
yesterday. The above is the correct number.   PAT]

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

Date: 8 Mar 92 09:01:28 PST (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


David W. Barts writes:

> 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.

I can see it now:

        1-900-440-TUNE


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin,  CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY | * Hi Mom! * | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 15:26:20 -0500
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] [which is a
bogus domain name according to the domain name servers] writes:

> Radio station WWV broadcasts 440 HZ accurate to 1
> part in 10^12 or so [...]

And the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I think it is 303-XXX-7111.   PAT]

True, but the 440 Hz tone is only for 45 seconds during one minute in
each hour, and is omitted one hour per day.  Specifically, it is
transmitted from xx:02:00 TO XX:02:45 for all xx from 01 through 23,
but not xx = 00, UTC ("Greenwich") time.

It is also transmitted from WWVH one minute earlier than from WWV.
Sorry, I seem to have left the WWVH phone number at home.

[My notes here at the office say WWV's number is 499-7111, not
484-7111, but that's from a 1973 publication so it may have changed.]


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: To repeat, I got it wrong. It is 499-7111.
Everything WWVH does is one minute or so earlier/later than its sister
station in Boulder. They both play the tones at the same time, but
when either one is talking about something, the other maintains
silence and repeats the same message after the other one finishes.
That's because there are areas in the west and midwestern United
States where the two signals walk on each other; that is, both can be
heard with equal ease.  I can usually hear them both here.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 05:03 EST
From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire
From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire
Date: 9 Mar 92 05:03:42 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> 1!  No more separate charge for Touch-Tone (r).

Interesting, the same NET&T recently got TT doubled here in MA.

> 3!  Directory assistance is now 40 cents, after five free calls a
>     month.

MA gets ten free.

> 4!  In place of all other outgoing toll plans, a virtual rating plan
>     will be instituted.  Two cents per call, 26 per minute daytime, 15

Well, it is cheaper than that by maybe 1/2 I think (without looking)
in the Eastern MA lata.

But if you get your service fron certain resellers (try First Phone),
your Eastern MA minutes are maybe 6 1/2 cents. N.B. that First Phone
still is paying NET&T for FG-D access and carries you through their
switch and is still making money. Wonder who the PIG at the trough
is ...

Wonder if First Phone in in NH? If you have T1 into ATT/MCI/SPRINT,
what do they charge for intra-lata service -- if they do it?

Another NYNEX child is getting either 3.xx or 4.xx for TT in NY --
ouch.

Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in
different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on
hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove
interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 92 21:17:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) writes:

> A flyer enclosed in each bill notifies NH customers of these tariff
> changes taking effect March 20, 1992:

> 2!  No more outWATs services.

Exactly what do they mean by this ? You can't call a 1-800 number ?


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: 1-800 is considered 'In-Wats'.  'Out-Wats' are bulk
rate long distance lines for outgoing calls.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 01:00:41 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
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.

That's curious, since I recall an article in a back issue of {Computer
Language} of about four or five years past discussing the DES
encryption standard.  While I don't have the magazine anymore, you
might try looking in there for a starting place.


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

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

Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 9 Mar 92 17:12:19 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@Think.
COM> writes:

> [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.

Encryption SOFTWARE is may be restricted (see discussions on
sci.crypt), but descriptions of encryption methods and software are
not restricted.  (And I don't know how the relevant US government
offices distiguish software from descriptions of software.)


Arthur L. Rubin
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
[e-mail] (work)    Beckman Instruments/Brea
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 20:10:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
mot.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes:

> [e-mail] (Brian Litzinger) writes:

>> 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?

> The Calling Party ID information element is optional in a SETUP
> message -- my understanding is that you just omit it if you don't have
> the information. Remember that even though the call may be delivered
> to an ISDN line, it may have originated on a crossbar switch somewhere
> in the boonies.

The Calling Party Number IE is indeed optional per T1.607, which is
the American National Standard for ISDN basic call processing.  That
means the delivery of the calling party number is not included in
American National Standard ISDN basic call setup; if any network
provider decides to provide it as part of normal call setup, that's
the network provider's option -- your statement that "CID information
is basically available on the D channel of an ISDN inbound call ..." is
not strictly correct in terms of the American National Standards.

Delivery of calling line information to the terminating customer, and
restrictions on the presentation of this information, is an ISDN
supplementary service.  The draft proposed American National Standard
for the Calling Line Identification Presentation (CLIP) (Yet Another
Acronym) supplementary service, which is the North American ISDN
version of calling party number delivery, just happened to have landed
on my desk today.  Per the CLIP (draft proposed) standards, if the
calling party number is unknown, the CPN IE is sent in the SETUP
message with a presentation indicator of "unknown" and no digits.  If
the calling party number presentation is restricted by the originating
party (e.g. by a *67 code, per-line restriction, or ISDN feature key
operation), the CPN IE is sent with no digits and a presentation
indicator of "presentation restricted".  For user interface
compatibility, presumably the ISDN CPE could translate these codings
to displaying an "O" or "P" respectively.

However, since this is still a draft proposed ANS, it is not
necessarily implemented in that way by any vendors or network
providers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: What About CID and ISDN?
Date: 9 Mar 92 23:04:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
Litzinger) writes ...

> 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?

You got it.  ISDN is simply a better way to deliver it.  If it's LEC-
provided ISDN, then if the state doesn't allow it, then it won't be
present.  That's especially annoying for data services which could use
it for security.  Interstate ISDN (PRI from AT&T et al) is not subject
to the state rules, though, and can deliver ANI.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date:     Mon, 9 Mar 1992 08:12:15 -0500
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Jim Harvey) writes:

> I have an idea for someone to jump on.  Make an answering machine with
> caller ID decode built in.  The machine could offer the following
> features:

>   2.  The Detour garbage option.  Any call coming in with a blocked ID
> is instantly routed to the tape.  Replay button will have a skip-to-
> next-beep option so you can quickly scroll past computer sales calls.

> Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming
> calls and blocked calls.

Why stop there?

I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate
message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not
accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it
off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect.

Is there a voice mail card out currently that can handle Caller-ID
with distinctive ringing detection as well?


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #211
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24875;
          10 Mar 92 3:00 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19223
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:57:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28883
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:56:22 -0600
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:56:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #209

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Mar 92 22:56:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 209

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Reach Out Commercials (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Telesleaze Machine Advertised (John Slater)
    Test of Tropez 900 Digital Cordless (Woody Ligon)
    How Can I Translate "Touch-Tones" Into Numbers? (Jeff Haferman)
    Fallback Switches For Modems (Philip Green)
    McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems (Michael S. Baldwin)
    No Response From RAM (Ken Jongsma)
    Touch One (??) Service in Texas? (Russ Latham)
    Caller-ID Availability? (Steven V. Christensen)
    Word as Part of Phone Number (Carl Moore)
    ESS#5 vs. DMS-100?  What Choice? (John Boteler)
    Telemarketer Behavior (Bill Berbenich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 11:12:28 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Reach Out Commercials


Folks,

These "we're constantly dreaming up new ways for our customers to
save" commercials from AT&T are really wearing thin on me. If they
really want to "put themselves in the customer's position" and let us
save, why not just introduce volume discounts on all calls at all
times, and not have to worry about all these various subscription
calling plans?

I suspect the anwers is simple greed as always:

1. With the Reach-Out-<mumble> plan I'd pay $3.00 per month whether I
   use it or not.

2. If I subscribe, I'll use the phone more ("The More you Spend, the
   More you Save" (tm) ), and certainly enough to avoid the "penalty"
   of $3.00.

Speaking for myself, I'll never sign up for such a plan since my
calling patterns on long distance are entirely random.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:34:31 GMT
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)
Subject: Telesleaze Machine Advertised


I saw this ad in the "business ideas" section of the {Guardian}
newspaper last week. I thought it might be of interest.

The caps are verbatim, as are the grammatical and punctuation errors.
Any typos are mine, but are probably an improvement on the original
style ...

It's a small display ad, with a blurred picture of the box itself.

Headline: "People can let you down, this telesales machine won't."

"The cost of your advertising, promotion and lead generation through
direct mail, newspapers, radio and television has dramatically
increased in recent years and your results have probably decreased.
Business has been badly hit. The prospects could be bleak.

Here is one solution:

We are the sole distributors of the CBC9000 Lead Generating System.

The system will:

* Make all your cold calls for you. Working unattended, IT MAKES UP TO
2000 CALLS PER DAY to give your sales message/presentation and
converts cold calls into HOT QUALIFIED LEADS!

* The CBC9000 carries on actual two-way conversations and records your
customer's answers.

* The CBC9000 ONLY records customers answers, therefore the results
from hours of dialing can be heard in minutes.

* The CBC9000 can be used for surveys, market research and other such
applications, PLUS, IT'S EXTREMELY EASY TO USE - JUST LIKE A TELEPHONE!

* IF YOUR BUSINESS NEEDS LEADS - YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT THE
MOST IMPORTANT BUSINESS MACHINE SINCE THE FAX ...

For more details telephone [phone].

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

From: [e-mail] (Woody Ligon)
Subject: Test of Tropez 900 Digital Cordless
Date: 9 Mar 92 13:14:14 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research and Devel.


With the help of someone else on the net, I have been able to get a
Tropez 900 digital cordless phone through B.A. Pargh, a large
wholesaler.

I purchased the phone for the extraordinary extended range which was
advertized.  However, it will not reach to the back of my garden
directly across the road which is no more than 500 feet, line of sight
with no obstructions.  It is nice that rather than getting noisy at
the limit of its range it just begins to intermittently cut out.  It
is also nice that the phone has a beeping out of range indicator.
However the "cut outs" start to occur before the out-of-range
indicator cuts in.  The phone is very quiet and it can be used at the
same time as conventional cordless phones on the same line with no
interference.  The phone uses the 900 MHz band.

Unless you really, really want your conversations to be encrypted,
this phone is no where near being worth the premium price being asked.
For example, it doesn't have a separate recharging cradle so it is not
practical to put the base unit in what might be the best possible
location for maximum range -- for example the attic.  Also my wife
hates it, because the handset is so small that it cannot be held
between the shoulder and chin for "no-hands" conversations.


Woody Ligon
Standard disclaimer applies

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

From: jlhaferman@t_ecn09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman)
Subject: How Can I Translate "Touch-Tones" Into Numbers?
Date: 9 Mar 92 16:10:30 GMT


Note that I'm a novice, so be easy with the parlance.

What do I need in order to convert the tones from a touch-tone phone
into the numbers that have been pushed?  For example, if someone calls
my phone, and enters a code, I would like to have a device that will
tell me at my end the code that has been entered.  I would like to do
this as cheaply as possible.  Thanks in advance.

Also, is there a service (I guess sort of similar to ANI), that I
could call, enter a number, and it will repeat to me the number I have
pushed in?


Jeff Haferman     internet: [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical Engineering     DoD 0186  BMWMOA 44469  AMA 460140
The University of Iowa   Iowa City, IA  52242

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:42:20 MST
From: [e-mail] (Philip Green)
Subject: Fallback Switches For Modems
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM


I am looking for a switch that will automatically fallback from a
leased line modem to a dialup when there is a leased line failure. I
have found several but the one feature we would like is a delay of at
least 30 seconds before switching to the backup line. I'll summarize
if anyone is interested.


Phil Green        [e-mail]
NRAO        505.835.7254

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

Date: Mon,  9 Mar 92 13:34:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Scott Baldwin)
Subject: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Well, I just got back from a week in Orlando, FL, taking along my
cellular phone with a newly-minted Cellular One number from northern
NJ (I used to have Bell Atlantic).  Both of those areas are part of
McCaw's new North American Cellular Network (NACN), which is supposed
to be better than the B carrier's Follow Me Roaming (FMR).  I found
out that it's nice, but it still has some big problems.  Here's my
report:

1. With NACN, you don't have to dial anything to register.
   Just turn your phone on in the roaming area, and that's it.
   With FMR, you have to dial *18 every day (!), and even then
   it takes up to 30 minutes to register.

   This is true, and it is very fast at registering.  It also
   automatically unregisters you if you have your phone off or
   out of range for a certain amount of time which seems to be
   about an hour.  Anyway, I turned my phone on and *immediately*
   called my home number.  Sure enough, it found me with little delay.

2. On NACN, all of your call features are preserved.  I assume that this
   means call waiting, call forwarding, no-answer transfer, and voice mail.
   On FMR, none of them are preserved.

   This is not true, at least not in Orlando.  Actually, I don't know about
   call waiting and forwarding, but my voice mail *never* picked up if I was
   registered in Orlando.  I would get "Welcome to Cellular One.  Your call
   cannot be completed as dialed.  Please check the number and dial again."
   followed by a reorder (fast busy) signal.  Talk about misleading!  As soon
   as I unregistered in FL, voice mail would work, but that's not surprising.

The automatic forwarding is buggy.  Sometimes, if I dialed my cellular
number, I would hear two rings in the handset and then silence.
However, my cellular phone would continue ringing forever.  No
intercept message, no voice mail.  At other times, after a few rings,
I would immediately get a reorder signal, and my cellular phone would
stop ringing.

Also, the coverage of NACN is significantly less than that of FMR.
While FMR is almost everywhere (*except* for northern NJ, strangely
enough), NACN is *only* here, FL, CA, WA, OR, Pittsburgh, and a few
other areas.  They say that many areas will be added this year.  We'll
see.  In areas that do not have NACN, you must use roamer access
numbers.  Even here in NJ, I can roam in places where I get home
airtime rates (Tri-State Advantage area, I think it's called), but I
can only be reached via roamer access numbers.  Bleah!

I'm interested in hearing about other people's experiences both with
NACN and FMR.  Does it work as advertised anywhere?  Is the forwarding
as buggy as I've found (FMR seemed better than NACN, but it also had
bugs)?


[e-mail]   AT&T Bell Laboratories   Tel: [phone]
Murray Hill, NJ  07974   FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: No Response From RAM
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 14:08:20 EST


Some of you may recall seeing a notice posted here in the Digest some
months back regarding a new service by RAM Mobile Data and Bell South.
The announcement stated that RAM was offering a two-way wireless data
service using a product called a Mobidem. This $1400 radio modem would
allow users to send and receive messages and small files via RAM's
nationwide paging network.

I was very interested in this product from both a business and
profesional standpoint, so I called the 800 number that appeared in
{Forbes Magazine}, and left my name and address. Two weeks later,
having received nothing from RAM, I called the local RAM office and
asked for some information. The local (Detroit) people informed me
that they offered no such service and suggested I call Radio Shack.
After faxing them a copy of the ad, they called back and gave me a
phone number in New York to call.

The number I was given apparently ended up in a PR office. I explained
that I wanted some technical information and was immediately connected
with RAM's Marketing Manager. He listen for a minute and asked me if I
would talk to the marketing rep for this area. I was connected with a
third person and went through the whole story again. He promised to
get the info out to me ASAP.

It has now been about two months since I started this quest and have
heard nothing from RAM other than a reprint of their {Forbes} ad. All
I wanted to know was:

  1) Coverage Areas
  2) Pricing
  3) Host End connection requirements. (Dialup or Leased Line)

I would have thought this was pretty easy to answer, but if RAM has
problems with this, I sure wouldn't trust my company's business with
them. I think I'll go talk to the McCaw Cellular people. I hear they
are working on a similar product.


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                  [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it pathetic that a company can be that mixed
up, advertising something they don't even offer, then not knowing what
to do with inquiries for the product, etc?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Latham)
Subject: Touch One (??) Service in Texas?
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 15:15:03 CST


Last week I received a call from a company called 'Touch One' or
'Touch Service' or something like that, and the person told me I could
sign up at no cost for their long distance service.  He then told me
that with the service, when I made a long distance call it would be
routed via the cheapest company, specifically stating either AT&T,
Sprint, or MCI.  He also said I would receive a calling card, and that
there was not an $0.85 surcharge for making a call on the card.

I asked him to send information about the service, and he said he
would, but started asking why I wouldn't try it since the switchover
would be free.  I asked about a 10xxx access code to try the service
first, and he said there was one but he would have to find out what it
was.  He then put me on hold, and when he came back, he said there was
not an access code and promptly told me thank you and hung up.

He said the billing would be with the monthly Southwestern Bell bill.

Is it a requirement that a long distance company like this have a
10xxx access code?  Is it something that a LD company doesn't like for
an individual to use?

Some of the sales pitch made me wonder if it was a scam, but since it
is billed with the regular SWB bill, I'm assuming it wasn't.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven V. Christensen)
Subject: Caller-ID Availability?
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 22:53:13 GMT


    I was wondering, is the Caller-ID information transmitted
between the first and second rings to every phone subscriber, or is it
something you have to request, and pay more for. I have a sample of a
Motorola CID chip, and am wondering if it's worth the trouble to
proto- type something. I'd hate to do it and find out I am not
receiving the CID information.


Steven Christensen            Dept of Electrical Engineering
[e-mail]        University of Cincinnati
(for the adventurous: [e-mail])


[Modertator's Note: It is only transmitted to subscribers who have
made specific arrangements to purchase the service.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:36:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Word as Part of Phone Number


Recently, I wrote of having found 1 + 7D still in use at Denver and
Adamstown, PA for long distance within 215.  This gets into timeout
scenario later if you need to call 1-N0/1X-XXXX.  Has anyone anywhere
advertised a phone number of the form N0/1-word, where "word" is more
than five letters and you must either not dial the extra letters or
depend on the equipment to "eat" them?

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESS#5 vs. DMS-100? What Choice?
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 2:56:29 EST


I must disagree with Mr. Higdon regarding the preferable digital
switch.

The ESS#5 is certainly closer in operation to the ESS#1A than that
Brand X hunk o junk from north of the border.  It certainly behaves
more intuitively than Brand X, if you can call the operation of either
'intuitive'.

I prefer to think of it somewhere between a trip to the dentist's
office and paying taxes.

And if you want to use Centrex, forget the DMS-100.  Most technicians
can't even figure out how to program it. Must use a different paradigm
than WeCo.

All in all, if you can't stick with a #1A, stay in the family and go
with the #5.


[e-mail] (John Boteler)
NCN Skinny => 703.241.BARE  Club updates, events, and info

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

Subject: Telemarketer Behavior
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 22:55:18 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The recent thread about the AT&T home security telemarketing employee
has brought to mind an annoying little trait that I have noticed from
what are undoubtedly telemarketers.

Who else has noticed that if you ask a telemarketer who they are, as
in "Who's calling, please?", they will quite often just hang up on
you?  I was annoyed the first few times that happened to me, but then
I realized that the volume and frequency of the calls were decreasing.

Anyone else care to try my method to see if it cuts down on your junk
calls, too? :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #209
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27456;
          10 Mar 92 3:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05402
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19463
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:11 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 01:47:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #212

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Mar 92 01:47:10 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 212

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated (Curtis Sanford)
    Re: Phone Phun (Frederick G. M. Roeber)
    Re: Phone Phun (Steve Thornton)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Julian Macassey)
    Small Communications Program Found (Michael B. Scher)
    Re: Small Communications Program Sought (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Need Advice on Microwave Link (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Zoom Faxmodems (Jim Langridge)
    Re: New 540 Scam (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Phone Service to Cuba (Joel M. Snyder)
    Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Re: News Flash: Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! (C. Moore)
    How To Disable Annoying Beep? (Christine K. Paustian)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Curtis Sanford)
Subject: Re: USA Direct Becomes Automated
Date: 9 Mar 92 22:26:11 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ole
J. Jacobsen) writes:

> 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.

The rollout of USA DIRECT's automated service appears to be gradual.
Last week I used it in the UK.  This week in France it hasn't been
available ... until this afternoon.  This morning I was getting the
(variously bored, chatty, machanical) operators, and this afternoon
things switched over to the automated system.  I'll see about Germany
next.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 08:40:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Phun


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

> What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four
> separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a
> computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then
> whatever time is colaborated by the most sources.

Over in comp.protocols.time.ntp, there have been a couple messages
from people who think the WWV time signal had the DST bit set wrong
for awhile several days ago.  They were feeding this time signal into
their computer as a time reference.  Also, at the turn of the year, at
least one of the authoritative ntp machines messed up because somebody
forgot to set the new year.

Shortly after the beginning of the year, some people who installed or
upgraded the software on their new VAX 9000s found that an
installation bug set the year incorrectly.

Last year, in the LEP/SPS (particle accelerators) control room, there
was a day when all of the computers were *seriously* wrong about the
time.  The problem was that the antenna for the radio-clock fell
down, and the confused, twisted way in which they all passed the
timing information around really stirred up the mess.

In short: don't trust the computers, either.  I'd suggest trusting a
sundial.

And if the sun's not up yet, it's too early to get out of bed!


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, 09 Mar 92 10:45:22 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Phun


Ken Kopin says in reply to Steve DeLaney:

>> This has served to illustrate just how reliant one becomes on
>> technology.  Even when TWO of our battery clocks showed the time being
>> one hour EARLIER it took a while for the realization to sink in,

>   What's the matter? Don't you have Cable TV? We have at least four
> separate channels with independant clocks. Plus, you probably have a
> computer with a battery clock? I trust the computer first, then
> whatever time is colaborated by the most sources.

I have on my wrist at this very moment a sophisticated piece of
technology that can reveal the time to me whenever I want. It is not
dependent upon Cable TV, Pac Bell, computers, mains electrical power,
or any other external source. It is almost perfectly accurate and
reliable. It's called a "watch".  I understand they've been around for
quite a while. You should look into it.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:38:08 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I love the idea of metering pulses, and I wish we could get them here
> in the US.

I agree.  It's one of those simple ideas that just makes so much
sense.  With meter pulses there is never any question of how much a
call will cost.  In Japan, for instance, pay-per-call services just
run the meter faster, and using a 00XX carrier code at a payphone
makes the pulses come a little more slowly than if one were to use the
default NTT.

Only "problem" is that a system based on X number of pulses at a fixed
cost can not easily implement $50 per call type numbers.


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 824-5454

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Date: 10 Mar 92 06:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> atina!pccp![e-mail]
(Manuel J. Moguilevsky) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 200, Message 9 of 16

> 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.

    You shouldn't be hearing the pulses. They are supposed to be
common to tip and ring and referenced to ground. I suggest you contact
your telco. Get them to fix the problem.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Scher)
Subject: Small Communications Program Found
Date: 9 Mar 92 16:52:43 GMT


  Well, thanks to everyone for their advice.  I was about to go with
the shareware Procomm v. 2.4.3, which I crammed into 170K or so of
disk space, about a 50% savings over the Procomm + on my desktop
machine.  Other programs recommended included Telix and Telemate, both
fine, but far too large for my space-saving purposes.

  Finally, someone recommended COMMO.  Well I was leery at first -- it
looked shoddy to say the least.  After a while, however, I realized
COMMO (v. 5.1) was the laptop user's dream program.  Stripped down it
occupies 50K, and the help file is configurable.  That 50K even
includes an internal editor.  The whole keyboard is configurable, and
the reprogramming only takes up as much space as the new instructions
(as opposed to Procomm+'s 34K keyboard file!).  In fact, that seems to
be the design attitude behind COMMO -- only as much power as you
program into it, and only as much space as you need for what you want
it to do.

 My compliments to Ed Greenberg, who led me to this catch, and to Fred
Brucker, its designer.  If I find nothing better in the next couple
weeks, I am going to register.


Mike Scher                      [e-mail]
Duke University -- Durham, NC:  Law and Cultural Anthropology

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Small Communications Program Sought
Date: 9 Mar 92 12:15:29 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael B. Scher) writes:

> I am looking for a comm program that occupies little disk space
> for a laptop in the IBM PC family of computers.

> Currently, I am using Procomm +, which occupies about 330K of
> disk space, stripped down.

Have you tried running Procomm through LZEXE?  LZEXE will compress EXE
code files into a form that self-decompresses as it loads into memory.
You can cut the amount of disk space required in half, but once the
program is in memory it takes as much space as usual and executes
identically to the uncompressed program.

For example, the Crosstalk Mk.4 main program file shrinks from 160K to
115K, and TAPCIS shrinks from 269K to 123K.  The programs load faster
because the speed of the decompressor is faster than the transfer rate
of a diskette drive, and of course you save a lot of space.

If you really like Procomm, then you might try compressing it and see
if it becomes small enough to suit your needs.  Mk.4 is certainly
powerful and SOUNDS small, but actually takes up more like 500K once
all of the various support files are included (but that's good enough
for me to use it on my laptop which has 720K diskettes).

LZEXE is available on CompuServe, and probably on many BBSes and
internet file servers around the country.


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] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Need Advice on Microwave Link
Date: 9 Mar 92 04:48:16 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gordon LETWIN) writes:

> I'm about to close on a ranch outside of Tucson, AZ., and have
> discovered that the nearest phone service is about six miles away.  I

There is regular licensed microwave, and now the unlicensed spread
spectrum radios are to be looked at. Normally the latter are for close
in iwith tons on multipath in a concrete and steel jungle, but ad a
high gain directional antenna and your link ins in. The FCC may change
some of the rules on these in a couple of yours and limit gain, etc,
but I think you would be grandfathered and ok forever.

Run a bigger licensed radio, run T2 or T3 and put in a slic-96 and
sell phone service to others near you.

No major roads in the way? One or 2 friendly ranchers own ALL the
land? Check out plowing in fiber the WHOLE way. Probably costs way too
much, but ask.

Unlicensed T1 spread spectrun radio about $8k per end. Try Western
Multiplex Corp. 415.592.8832

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:55:11 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Zoom Faxmodems


In Digest V12 #201 Henry Mensch Writes/Asks:

> Zoom 9624's are on sale at Egghead again ... I was thinking of one for
> home use.  Are they any good?  The price sure is right ... it didn't
> work with netfax (the freeware from MIT) when we last tried it out,

I recently became the proud owner of a 9624 Zoom thru the DAMARK
catalog ($85 including shipping).  It works although I kinda wish I
had saved up for a HAYES instead.  So far the only way I've been able
to use the MNP or V.42bis is with the software that came with the
modem (it is called MTEZ by Magicsoft).  The modem works fine in std
2400 mode with Procomm (tm) and Crosstalk(tm).


Jim Langridge    [e-mail]
Synetics Corp.    [phone]
24 Danube Dr.    [phone] (FAX)
King George, VA. 22485-5000

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:18:03 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 540 Scam
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Stephen J Friedl writes:

> 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.

This scam was being perpetrated in Berkeley, CA a couple of years ago,
but with 976 numbers.  $2 per call.  The signs only lasted a month or
so, and were not put up again, so I assume that it was not profitable
enough to maintain the "service."


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Service to Cuba
Date: 9 Mar 1992 10:39 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department


In article <[e-mail]>, I write:

> 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.

Canada.  Not Cuba.  Canada.  I hope to be able to tell the difference,
perhaps in a future life, when my dissertation is finished.  For now,
simply excuse the ramblings of a confused mind.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100?
Date: 9 Mar 92 12:11:21 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote:

> The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work
> more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS.

That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue
side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS
100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching
you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your
call ends up in the bitbucket).

It has a lot of VERY nice security 'features' though (but PAT wouldn't
let me tell you anyway).


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:01:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: News Flash: Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls!


Some of the calls I made from pay phones between Christmas and New
Years didn't show up on my phone bill until February.  Many of them
were via AT&T.


[Moderator's Note: Oh! You must have used that other special code
people use to make long distance calls for free, by prepending 10288
at the start of the number.   :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: How To Disable Annoying Beep?
Date: Mon,  9 Mar 92 04:38:31 PST


I've purchased a Panasonic KXT1455 'Easaphone' answering machine with
a two-way memo (two-way recording) feature.  This was done to
eliminate the need for *SIGNALS* Newsline callers to ring back in the
event someone from the staff answers the phone.  (The Newsline is used
for on-air greetings, pirate loggings, etc.)

This would work just fine -- EXCEPT -- that any conversation recorded
with the Memo button is peppered with a tone every fifteen seconds
(which indicates to the caller that he/she is being taped).  I don't
want the beep -- I can't use tape that has the beep.

My question: is there a simple modification that can be applied to the
answering machine to eliminate this 'feature' or should I just take it
back and get another machine?  And if the latter is the best option --
can someone recommend a machine that has this feature, is reliable and
easy to use for about the same $$??

Thanks!


Christine K. Paustian                    [e-mail]
The Radio Collection                 ...!apple!portal!cup.portal.com.ckp
Box 149, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
914/923-1862
            *SIGNALS* is a Signal You Don't Want to Miss!
               11:35pm EST, Saturday via WWCR 7435 kHz

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #212
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28706;
          10 Mar 92 4:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11559
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:21:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12961
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:20:58 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:20:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #213

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Mar 92 02:20:42 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 213

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (AT&T Today via Wm Sykes)
    Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Jan Maaskant)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Rice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (wts1)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Greensboro, NC
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 23:24:14 GMT


Pat,

I wish to make a small clarification to your posting about automated
operator services.  What's being implemented, at least as far as is
being told to the troops, is a voice recognition/response system. It
will pick out the words required to complete the transaction, such as
"yes, no, collect, operator" without the need to press TouchTone
buttons on the dial pad. See article from the {WSJ} and {Newark
Star-Ledger} as reprinted from our internal AT&T TODAY at the end of
this followup..

In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator <telecom@
eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

> AT&T has about 18,000 employees working as operators. A recent news
> release said they will reduce this by at least one-third and perhaps
> one-half during the remainder of 1992 and 1993 as an automated system
> for handling collect, third number billing and person to person calls
> is implemented.

> The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some
> local telcos including Illinois Bell. AT&T said they hope to have it
> nationally implemented over the next 12-18 months. Callers will be
> asked to press certain buttons if they wish to have the call handled
> collect or billed to a third number. They will say their name on
> request, and their name will be played automatically to the person who
> answers the phone.

> A caller will still be able to reach a live operator by pressing the
> zero button again when requested to do so, but AT&T estimates the
> majority of callers will be able to, and want to use the automated
> response system instead. Rotary dial callers will receive operator
> assistance as in the past.

> AT&T has been reducing their work force -- once at about 325,000
> employees -- at the rate of 1000 people per month on average for the
> past several months. The reduction in the operator force will take
> place the same way beginning later this year and continuing through
> most of 1993.


                              AT&T TODAY

              Friday, March 6, 1992 -- 11:30 a.m. EST

(All news sources are today's date unless otherwise noted.)

AT&T IN THE NEWS *** MORE ON NEW TECHNOLOGY -- Up to 6,000 people
will be replaced by a computer that can understand speech and
relay phone calls almost as easily as a human.  An AT&T video
demonstration shows a person singing a nursery rhyme to the
--> hearing computer:  "Mary had a little lamb -- collect -- whose
    fleece is white as snow."  The computer still recognized the word
--> "collect" and processed the call.  Computers that hear as well as
    speak already are replacing workers in dozens of tasks.

Businesses aren't the only ones interested in voice recognition.
Texas Instruments developed a voice system for the F-16 fighter jet so
that pilots -- whose cockpits are already full of buttons, gauges and
instruments -- can instantly activate systems by speaking.  A 1991
survey shows that as phone companies continue to replace people with
computers, service suffers.  It has a "tremendous impact," says
[Michael] Smith, professor at the University of Wisconsin.  AT&T
strongly disagrees.  "We would never bring on line a system if there
was any sense that the public would be confused or unhappy," says
AT&T's Herb Linnen.  [USA Today]

*** Five years ago, AT&T had 27,000 operators at 270 offices around
the country.  "The trend has been to fewer offices and operators,"
AT&T spokesman Burke Stinson said, "and there's no reason to think the
trend will stop.  The question is, will the voice recognition
technology speed up the trend?  It's too early to make predictions."
As for further consolidations in the number of offices,
telecommunications analyst John Bain of Raymond James Co.  said, "they
could do it today, with the technology they have."  A spokeswoman for
the Communications Workers of America also acknowledged that further
reductions were possible.  "Ultimately, we could see no operators,"
said Louise Caddell of the CWA.  "When technology benefits the
customer, such as direct- distance dialing, and enhances service,
people tend to use it," she said.  "But I'm not sure that (talking
computers) is it, she said.  AT&T's Stinson, however, pointed out that
young people are growing up with increasingly complex electronic home
entertainment systems and are comfortable with them. [Newark
Star-Ledger]

                              ----------

William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Greensboro, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 18:26:46 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sharing FidoNet Expenses (Was Oregon PUC Hearing Summary)


In TELECOM Digest, Vol. 12, Issue 198, Article 1, [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

>> 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

Our local NEC shells out an additional $50-$60 a month over the
sporadic contributions for the echomail expenses provided by the net.
Very rarely is a hub or star position going to see any kind of
monetary advantage.

> this is a dream situation for the echomail junkies, and while they

Actually, second tier net hub (me) is the dream situation.  No LD
expenses involved, no accounting, and often their echomail 'donations'
are waived.  (My contributions are _truly_ voluntary.)  There actually
IS a lot of work involved in being any sort of major mail hub.

> 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

It's not thankless.  Just expensive and time consuming and tends to
burn people out.

> must be some compensating benefits or they wouldn't do it (if they're
> at all sane!).

The same applies equally to running a non-pay BBS in the first place.
By your logic anyone who does so should be committed.  While there may
be some truth to this, it IS a hobby.  Logic and sense need have
nothing to do with enjoyment.  Nor should there be a requirement for
'residential' rates.

> 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

And the masses did dupe unto the net and great were the expenses
incurred and the wrath of those that paid the freight.  :-)

> 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!).

A fairly common bone of contention in the political arenas is the
concept of geography based topology and more appropriate alternatives.
Several of the other Fido Technology Networks (FTNs) have been founded
for this very reason.  Fidonet is not the whole FTN world.  I suggest
you check into some of the alternatives which are more relaxed.
TheNet, FamilyNet, Rbbs-Net, Eggnet, EchoNet, SigNet, BBSNet,
AlterNet, and EmergNet to name a few.

> 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

Fidonet and the majority of the other FTN's are based on and very
sensitive to cost considerations.  If you are not a local call to your
net you can petition to be given a unique net number and arrange an
out-of-state feed.  Just use the magic words FINANCIAL HARDSHIP in
your request.  Do not however expect a net to subsidize a long
distance caller pulling in mail.

> 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).

If it's not cheaper for you then you should certainly arrange your own
feed. It may be necessary to point off someone to absolve the
appropriate REC's and NEC's of the necessity to think, but that's one
of the reason's the option is there.

> 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

Someone needs to zonegate the echos.  It's inconvenient, but hardly a
major undertaking.  A petition for Zonegate status would likely be
granted without much fuss in a case like this.  If it wasn't then the
eternal option of pointing the echos out and ignoring non-hobby minded
people in a hobbiest network still exists.

> So because of petty politics and coordinators who are so impressed
> with their own importance that they stink to high heaven, these nodes

I don't know the details of Guantanamo bay, so I can't comment on
whether the people involved have washed recently or not :-)

> 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.

The regional stars could easily be local distribution sites only and,
in fact, almost always originate from such.  They also receive very
little more inbound traffic than local hubs.  What they do get is a
lot more _outbound_ traffic. Their systems spend a much greater
percentage (foreground or background) of their time processing and
delivering large outbound mail bundles.

> 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.

The current backbone traffic is 550 odd echos.  Any fraction of that
traffic (normally dependent on connect time considerations) costs only
a few dollars a month in a decent sized net.  There is however
 --==NO==-- requirement that you use the backbone mail distribution
system.  You are always welcome to start up an alternative
distribution system.  The reason so many people DO use it is that it
is both fast and cost effective in comparison to a chaotic catch as
catch can spiderwebbed distribution scheme.

> 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

If I make a call, and you pay for it, is that enough to make my phone
a business line?  If someone else won't split the price of that call
with you, is it a business now because I won't, by your request, tell
them what I found out during the call you paid for?

> Your opinions may vary, of course...  :-)

It happens.


Cheers,

Jan Maaskant - [e-mail] - 1:387/255 fidonet
(My employer doesn't share my opinions, but I'm working on it)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 14:50:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

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

>> No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big
>> trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19
>> specifically prohibits this operation and specifically prohibits the
>> Captain from giving permission.

> FAR 91.19 does NOT specifically prohibit the 'Captain' (pilot-in-command
> is a better term, since that is the term used in the regulations) from
> giving permission. It DOES say that the operator is responsible for
> authorizing usage, but DOES NOT say that the operator is prohibited
> from allowing its pic's the discretion to authorize usage.

> The only effect that 91.19 has is assigning the RESPONSIBILITY to the
> operator. Thus, a pic cannot authorize usage without also attaching
> liability to the operator.

>> And another comment from a Usenetter:

> I am so happy that people are quoting this unidentified Usenetter.
> Just to set the record straight, I believe it was me. This text was a
> summary of perusal of the CFR's, and a discussion with the FCC
> personnel mentioned in the CL.

Lets try this AGAIN (the comments quoted in the FIRST paragraph were mine).

FAR 91.91 reads in part

   (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
allow the operation allow the operation of any portable electronic
device on any of the following U.S. registered civil aircraft:

    (1) Aircraft operated by an air carrier or commercial operator; or
    (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to:
        (1) Portable voice recorders;
        (2) Hearing aids;
        (3) Heart pacemakers;
        (4) Electric shavers; or
        (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
            aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
            navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
            is to be used.

    (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by an air carrier or
commercial operator, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of
this section shall be made by the air carrier or commercial operator
of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the
case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in
command or other operator of the aircraft."

                 -----------

I think that paragraph (a) coupled with paragraph (c) makes it pretty
clear that the Pilot in Command (Captain) does NOT have the authority
to give permission, in the case of an air carrier. In the 70s (when
hams started to commonly carry hand held radios) this was clarified
again and again by the FCC and FAA.


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)   |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #213
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26323;
          11 Mar 92 2:46 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25569
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31639
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:33 -0600
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:44:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #214

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Mar 92 00:44:32 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 214

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 and Politics (Kath Mullholand)
    11? (Was: 911 and Politics) (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Roaming With No Home (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.)
    Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes (John Gilbert)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Mark Allyn)
    Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Origins of International Direct Dialing (Tony Harminc)
    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Jim Gottlieb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:11:19 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: 911 and Politics

[e-mail]  asks:

> Question, when is 911 not 911?

> Answer, when it is 9911!

Another acceptable answer: When it is * 9 1 1 !

The University of New Hampshire instituted 911 as *911, which allows
the calls to be routed to our on-campus dispatch center with ANI.  It
also allowed us to "ride through" dialing changes as they occur: form
four-digit to five-digit dialing, and to straight 911 when e911 ever
becomes available.

> I have always wondered why switches can not be programmed to make 911
> dialing really universal.  People that are familiar business and
> University calling patterns have no problem with this but visitors do.

PATs answer explained why the switch can't recognize it (unless we
change the off-campus access to 8+.  We could do that, but there are
other implications, some of them pretty costly.

We try to protect our visitors by posting a bright orange sticker on
every phone with * 9 1 1 on it, and with the star and every digit in a
box that resembles a button on a touch-tone keypad.

NOTE: Don't try this at home -- we can ensure that there are no rotary
phones, back-up *911 with a dialable 5-digit extension number, as well
as with operators at '0' and 9-0, in addition to supporting 9-911 and
9 + a seven-digit emergency number.

> If those who program the private switch determine that "9-11" cannot
> be programmed in, let them tell you what is programmed in there that
> begins with "9-11" or what is on the outside that they think begins
> with "11".

In theory, 911 could be routed the same way as 9-00, which goes
something like this:

9-go to Alternate Route Selection
0-wait for additional digits; if none are dialed route to LEC operator
0-wait for additional digits; if none are dialed route to IXC operator
This screens on digit two for 1 or 0, and on digit three for 1 or 0.

In reality, when the Definity G2 that we have sees the 9 1, it waits
for a valid area code or NXX.

There will be an upgrade available this summer that we think will
allow 911 dialing without the 9.

I'll keep you posted.


Kath Mullholand        University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 00:23:28 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: 11? (Was: 911 and Politics)


Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I was in college in the early 70's, some of the guys got excited
> about discovering the "secret numbers" used by telephone installers.
> When my phone was installed, the installer used two numbers from the
> set 11[2-9].  I tried calling these numbers once, a human answered
> without any particular identification, and I apologized for the wrong
> number and hung up.  I'm guessing it was a number for a test board or
> a dispatcher in the repair department.

Here in GTE California land (the South Bay neighborhoods of Los
Angeles), 114 gives you your number, and 112 gives you the Proctor
Test Set, which is a whole battery of tests: touch tone, coin tests
(if you're at a real GTE pay phone), ringback, etc.  If you've got
nothing better to do, it's quite fun.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 17:40:44 GMT


Re: Providing an intercom in church between the pulpit and the sound
    (or was it the lighting) board.....

The several suggestions that I have seen so far in the Digest all
suggest using standard (i.e. 500 series or similar) telephones for the
intercom.  I think that is just an example of tunnel vision.  The
Digest readers are mostly telephone professionals, so the solution is
a telephone.

How about simply going to the local Rat Shack and getting a (ta-da)
two station intercom system?  An unwired type that uses carrier
current transmission over the AC wiring.  Take them out of the box,
plug them in, push the button, and talk.

If cost is a prime consideration, and running a wire is not a major
problem, a wired intercom from the same source would cost even less.


 ---> 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.


[Moderator's Note: You have to consider that maybe the people involved
want the communications to be private, or at least not overheard by a
large number of people, as would happen with an intercom like you
describe. The wildest intercom set up I have ever seen was a number of
years ago in the Chicago Temple Building auditorium. At four or five
locations there were six-button, five line phones -- the type with the
first button on the left being for 'hold' -- and these phones each had
on the first line their own extension number from the building PBX;
the second line was a common talk path, always alive, always battery
on the line which connected all four or five of these sets; the third,
fourth and fifth line buttons had been converted to push button signal
use; along with a little auxilliary push button on the side of the
phone, any station could signal any of the other four then talk over
the common line. The lighting/sound booth was on the intercom, as was
the WNIB radio booth; the lobby host's station; backstage; and next to
the organist.  All except the lobby host had a headset jack in the
back of the phone, and the lighting/sound tech, radio station guy and
the organist could sit on the intercom and talk whenever they wanted.
I think this set up came from Illinois Bell.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Roaming With No Home
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1992 18:56:43 GMT


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

> I need a cell phone three or four times a year for two to four days at
> a stretch (max 12 days a year).  I can justify the cost of a used
> phone for this purpose, but I can't justify the $25 per month service
> charge.

> Is there any other cost effective solution to this problem?

How about just renting a cellphone by the day in what ever area you
will be in?  Seems to me that would be a much simpler solution for
your purposes.  Some car rental companies also will rent the car with
a cell phone.


 ---> 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: Mon, 9 Mar 92 16:28:58 est
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linden B.
Sisk) writes:

> Summary: Oops ...

> Which brings up the question in my mind as
> to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL
> calls, even local calls?  Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of
> the form NXX?  It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch
> should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are
> dialed, a local call is intended.

Why should that be an inevitable feature?

When NXX area codes become standard in a few years, there should be
only three remaining dialing methods:

1)  NXX-XXXX        -- calls within local area code (or possibly
        across a border to an immediately adjacent
           area code, in the case of a few
        sparsely-populated NPAs that can afford to
        set aside exchanges so that they won't bump
        into each other).  Note that some NPAs allow
        seven-digit dialing for LD-within-NPA while
        others reserve 7D for local calls only.

2)  1-NXX-NXX-XXXX  --    calls to another area code, or long distance
        calls within the same area code (if the 7D
        dialing method (1) described above isn't used
        for that purpose).  This may also include
        local calls to another area code, unless
        method (3) (see below) is used for that
        purpose.

3)  NXX-XXX-XXXX    --    local calls to another area code.  Only a few
        metro areas (Dallas, Washington?, etc.) appear
        to use this method.  Note that such areas are
        usually set up to avoid using the other local
        NPAs as exchanges in the current NPA; this
        avoids ambiguity between local 7D calls and
        local 10D calls.

Note that the current method used by many areas for LD-within-NPA
calls (1-NNX-XXXX) will be ambiguous once NXX area codes appear, and
thus must be abandoned.  However, an NPA that doesn't currently have
any exchanges of the form NN0 could postpone this cutover for awhile,
because the first of the NXX area codes to be assigned are supposedly
all going to be NN0 codes.


Bob Goudreau        Data General Corporation
[e-mail]    62 Alexander Drive
[phone]        Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 19:31:31 GMT


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

> I have an idea for someone to jump on.  Make an answering machine with
> caller ID decode built in.  The machine could offer the following
> features:

>  1.  Incoming calls will have their caller ID tacked on to the end of
> the tape message by a voice synthesizer.

Good idea!  I would also like to see it say "we don't accept CID
blocked calls", and hang up.


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |     voice
      USA          | 602_996_1717__

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Revised Listing of Class Codes; Other Recent Notes
Organization: Motorola Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 23:26:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

>> *68  Computer Access Restriction Toggle

> Pardon my ignorance, but what does that code do?

As I understand it Computer Access Restriction is available so that
owners of analog PSTN modems can program which directory numbers are
allowed to call into their modem pool.  Up to 31 numbers can be
programmed into the list of numbers that are approved to talk to the
modems.  If you call the modem pool, but are not on the list you can
either be routed to an attendant (with caller id), a recording, or
another telephone line.  Numbers are user programmable, just as they
are for Selective Call Acceptance. (The feature seems to be similar to
Selective call acceptance, but designed to work with a larger allowed
number list).


John Gilbert  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois [e-mail]

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

From: sleepy![e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring
Date: 9 Mar 92 22:24:38 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos
so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what
percentage is cars?


Mark Allyn

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 02:11:39 GMT


Our esteemed (well, more often than not) Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving
> you a few bucks having your fortune told.  :)   In case you lost the
> number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that
> number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886.   PAT]

Pat, I really have to take issue with your behavior in regards this
800 number.  Agreed, the Mystic Marketers are slime.  Agreed, they
should not be able to do what they are doing.  Agreed, something
should be done.

However, encouraging readers of the Digest to call the number from
COCOTs is contemptable and may well be actionable.  You got really
steamed about people who bitched about the 800/900 mixup last month
and now you are advocating that people go around putting charges on
other peoples (COCOT owners) phone bills.

Outraged COCOT owners may not have a case against the STAR because the
STAR may well be able to claim they had no knowledge of any impropriety.
You, on the other hand, do not have that defense.

Not all COCOT owners are slime.  And just because some people are
slime, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself to their level.


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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 18:59:04 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Origins of International Direct Dialing


Scott Fybush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 think the question you've asked is probably not the one you meant to
ask.

The first international direct dialing in the world was between Canada
and the US.  This started in the late 1950s, and direct dialing
between major cities in the two countries was common at a time when
many smaller or more remote comunities in each country could not be
direct dialed even from within the country.

What I imagine you meant to ask about was direct dialing using country
codes.  This is incorrectly called IDDD in the US.  In Canada it is
referred to as Overseas Dialing, though Mexico and arguably South
America are not overseas from Canada.

This form of calling was available between some European countries
around 1970, and between New York and London in the early 1970s.  Most
of western Europe had direct dialing to North America long before we
had it to Europe.  The simple reason is that while the designers of
the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) decided right from the
beginning that numbers of other than seven digits would not be direct
dialable, most European countries developed forms of DDD that would
cope with numbers of variable length.  In practice this means timeouts
on some calls.

Country codes are assigned by the CCITT, which is an agency
(ultimately) of the United Nations.  A number of multilateral
agreements were struck outside the CCITT framework (e.g. the old 37
for the DDR (East Germany) was subject to all sorts of political
wrangling because assigning a new country code might be seen as
lending political support to the country).


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 04:32:39 GMT


>> BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing payphones.

> What happens is that the phone switches from pulse to tone dialing
> when then number 144, and a few others are dialed.

I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
digits after a number make the call free?  Wouldn't this be more
easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware
kludge to every payphone in the country?  What am I missing?


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 824-5454

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #214
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27992;
          11 Mar 92 3:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01874
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10935
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:01 -0600
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 01:20:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #215

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Mar 92 01:20:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 215

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Physical Phone Security (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Three Digit Information Numbers (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Alan Barclay)
    Re: Encryption Help Needed (Michael Salmon)
    Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Marty Brenneis)
    Re: Phone Phun (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (David Niebuhr)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: News Flash: Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls! (K. Mullholand)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 08:55:12 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I saw just today on one of the "fix up your home" type shows (did not
> catch the name) when they were discussing the security system of a
> home being remodeled, they showed a radio transmitter that would reach
> the security control center 20 miles away.  This was "because many
> burglars are cutting telephone wires".  No mention of the frequency or
> band used.  The antenna was long enough to be hi-band VHF, but could
> have been a colinear on a UHF band, as it was incased in something
> about 5-6 cm wide.

A couple of years ago, I was researching monitored alarm services in
the SF Bay Area, and almost had one installed by Bay Alarm, which from
what I'm able to determine is the premier monitored alarm company in
that area.  They had three methods to communicate with their central
office: dialup, one-way radio, and two-way radio.  My questions about
the radio system quickly surpassed the sales person's knowledge, so
they let me talk to the engineer in charge of the radio system.  He
was very informative, and invited me to their office for a tour of the
radio and other facilities.  I was quite impressed with their setup,
and the integrity that the radio monitoring could bring to an alarm
system.

Their one-way radio system consisted of a transmitter connected at the
customer site that would broadcast the alarm status every 60 seconds
or so.  In the event of an alarm condition, the radio would broadcast
immediately with limited information (burglar, fire, holdup, etc.),
and the conventional dialup would use the landline to modem in more
detailed information, such as which zone the alarm was in, etc.  Also,
the radio module would monitor the phone line, and if the telco
battery went away (such as would happen if someone cut the line or
unplugged the modular at the demarc), it would signal this event to
the dispatch center over the radio link.  Also, if someone tampered
with the radio module, the system would dial over the landline to tell
the dispatch center that this happened.  If both the landline and the
radio were deactivated, then the central system would know after a
minute or two anyway when it stopped receiving the "all okay"
transmissions that happen every 60 seconds or so.

The two-way system was similar, except that the local unit also
received data from the central office.  It would respond to status
requests, etc.  Also, Bay Alarm had several transmitter sites around
the bay area, such that each customer was within range of two or three
sites.  Each site was on its own frequency, so that if one of their
transmitters went out-of-service, your system could still communicate
with their CO through one of the alternate transmitters that was
within your range.

All of the radio equipment, including the stuff in the central office,
was made by Ademco, which should be a familiar name to people who know
about alarms.  I would imagine that since all of the radio stuff was
made by Ademco, that there would be companies in any major area that
had the equipment and could provide the monitoring service.  If you
can't find one yourself, I'm sure that Ademco would be pleased to
provide you with a reference to one of their customers.

I think that using some sort of radio backup to dialup for alarm
monitoring is essential to providing a secure system.  It may seem a
bit paranoid to be worrying about someone cutting your phone lines,
but you wouldn't be getting an alarm in the first place if you weren't
paranoid, now would you?  :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 03:23:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Three Digit Information Numbers
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mathew
Zank) writes:

> Bell South plans to offer three digit numbers for information services
> provided by phone company competitors. Bellsouth will ask the FCC
> about public interest aspects, and will ask the FCC to allocate the
> numbers.  Bellsouth say it will use the numbers 211, 311, 511, and 711
> in it's local calling areas.

   As I pointed out in a yet-to-be published article, the FCC is not
the official administrator of numbers.  Bellcore is the North American
Numbering Plan Administrator, and they say (in their proposal on the
"Future of Numbering" letter:

   "Spare N11 formatted codes (211,311, etc.) may be appropriate for
this application [new NPAs for 800-like services], as NPA codes with
full 10-digit dialing.  The potential for assignment of the remaining,
and potentially recoverable, N11 codes for an appropriate nationwide
abbreviated 3-digit dialing application, is remote."

   Bell South would have an easier time using *XX codes for such
applications, but Bellcore is trying to get those standardized also.
And what will Bell South do if there are hundreds of information
service providers?  What's wrong with seven-digit numbers in each NPA??


Al Varney - AT&T, but the above aren't AT&T's words.
I want my own nationwide three-digit number!!!


[Moderator's Note: Would you settle for a nationwide 950 number like
Domino's Pizza?   PAT]

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

From: Alan Barclay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:08:01 gmt


> [Moderator's Note: Well in the last issue, blame was placed on the
> services for not putting enough money in reserves for uncollectibles.
> That made sense ... now you say the problem with is a category of
> users gaining the undeserved trust of the intended users of the
> service. So one vote for the deadbeats, and one vote for the poor
> pedophiles ... any other suggestions, anyone?   PAT]

According to Oracle*, the 'not enough money in the pot' is the correct
answer. Also they said that strict new rules are to be introduced to
try and elminate bogus job adverts, with an expected ban if the IP
don't follow the guidelines, and also new rules about cost warnings at
five minute intervals on interactive services.

*= Oracle is an information service, broadcast using extra bandwidth
on Independent TV transmitters. The BBC has an equivilant service,
CEEFAX.


Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England
[e-mail], ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:[phone], VOICE:[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 12:35:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Robert L. McMillin writes:

>> 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.

> That's curious, since I recall an article in a back issue of {Computer
> Language} of about four or five years past discussing the DES
> encryption standard.  While I don't have the magazine anymore, you
> might try looking in there for a starting place.

About three years ago there was an article in {Dr. Dobbs} describing
the DES and providing en/decrypting code. I didn't check to see if
{Dr.  Dobbs} made it available on disk as they usually do but to me it
demonstrates the ludicrous position that the U.S. government takes. My
Sun doesn't have crypt because it is illegal but I can buy a copy of a
magazine, type in the code and compile. If I had done so would I have
broken any laws and would {Dr. Dobbs} been a conspiritor?


Michael Salmon
#include    <standard.disclaimer>
Ericsson Telecom AB    Stockholm

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 09:18:42 PST
From: kerner![e-mail] (Marty the Droid)
Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers
Organization: The Kerner Company


What Bob proposes is all well and good for people who know about
numbers and can understand modern technology. You must remember that
all these systems must be geared for the most common denominator.
There are still many people who have no idea why they should care
about who their LXC is and think that all phone service comes from
"The Phone Company".

A 900 number is the simplest way to make a pay-per-use call for the
simple minded folks out there. This is a marketing decision.


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ([e-mail])
Industrial Magician    [phone]   KC6YYP

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:06:00 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Phun
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> Frederick G. M. Roeber
writes:

> Over in comp.protocols.time.ntp, there have been a couple messages
> from people who think the WWV time signal had the DST bit set wrong
> for awhile several days ago.  They were feeding this time signal into
> their computer as a time reference.

Would this not explain the Pacific Bell voice time reader being one
hour off a few days ago?  Perhaps Pacific Bell uses this signal to set
their clock.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 12:36:16 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire


In <telecom12.211.6> [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Another NYNEX child is getting either 3.xx or 4.xx for TT in NY --
> ouch.

In New York, NYTel charges $1.92 for Touchtone (tm) and NO free
directory assistance allowance.

> Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in
> different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on
> hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove
> interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view.

Actually, the costs could be different due to a lot of things, taxes
and fees imposed by one state as opposed to another.  Sales tax comes
to mind, along with the various surcharges.  Some are recouped through
rates and others by direct assessment.


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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:40:53 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On


> Like yourself, I think the FBI is just trying to
> get more money, using technical mumbo-jumbo the legislators won't be
> able to understand. Write your legislators if you agree.  PAT]

I'd like to write -- did anyone get the bill number?


Kath Mullholand        University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 14:15:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neil
Katin ) writes:

> I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace
> cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available.

This proposal has very little to do with cellular phones since
software already has been developed to allow bugging at the switch of
cellular phone calls.  A trunk is assigned to the phone number in
question, which means remote monitoring by the government.  That's all
I know about this ...


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

Date:  Tue, 10 Mar 1992 10:27:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: News Flash:  Special Code Operators Use to Place Free Calls!


> 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 access code, then got their bill with no charges, and assumed
> that charges would never arrive, and then spread the good news.

Another example of how the FCC and the US Congress knows what's best
for people that are pretty ignorant about telephone services.  No, I
don't feel too sorry for people who thought they were getting free
calls -- it is theft, after all -- but I think the opening up of 10xxx
was undertaken hastily and without proper preparation.  Shouldn't they
first have required that carriers bill in a timely manner?  That
carriers resolve screening issues?  That carriers must subscribe to
credit card databases (databasi?)?


Kath Mullholand         University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 11:17:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


[e-mail] (John Higdon)  writes:

> It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes,
> and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that
> Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case).

But wait!  The US Congress and the FCC, in their infinite wisdom, have
made it illegal for COCOTs and Hotels (and Universities 8-)) to block
800-calls.  The penalty is $10,000 a day.  AND, in the same bill, it
is illegal for us to charge for 800-access, so we have no way to cover
for OUR uncollectables.

I agree that regulation won't save us, but perhaps good and timely
information from the net will help us hold the line until someone
somewhere decides that standards can control greed, and that greed
should be countered with fines, levies, and lawsuits.


Kath Mullholand        University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 14:03:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(wts1) writes:

> I wish to make a small clarification to your posting about automated
> operator services.  What's being implemented, at least as far as is
> being told to the troops, is a voice recognition/response system.

I work on part of this product; I'm not in the voice end of it
however.  The newspaper accounts are pretty accurate; I'll mention
some things customers will see that the papers haven't printed yet.

First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+
call.  At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the
bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T.
Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while
and an operator will assist them.  If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get
an AT&T operator.

The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
number, person, calling card, or operator now."  Then it waits for a
response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as
well.  Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all
these scripts ...

Instead of asking for the operator by voice you may press 0 or you may
flash the phone hook.

You may say your choice immediately without having to wait for the
whole menu of choices.

If the customer doesn't say anything or says something unintelligible
they are prompted a second time.  If that doesn't take then an
operator will handle the call.

I cannot reveal any performance statistics, so please don't ask.

>> The new voice/touch tone response system is already in use by some
>> local telcos including Illinois Bell.

In fact, Ohio Bell Northern Telecom switches handle collect calls via
an automated operator already.

> A spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America also
> acknowledged that further reductions were possible.  "Ultimately, we
> could see no operators," said Louise Caddell of the CWA.

I appreciate the CWA's concern; however, "no operators" is something I
wouldn't bet money on.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #215
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29688;
          11 Mar 92 3:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25368
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:13 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08119
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:02 -0600
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 02:02:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #216

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Mar 92 02:02:01 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 216

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? (Michael Rosen)
    Mystic Marketing Oddity (Clive Feather)
    AT&T Public Phone 2000 (Tony Harminc)
    Need Help With Project: Nationwide Cellular Pricing (Allen Gwinn)
    Texas Instruments Switchboard (Michael Rosen)
    ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be (Nigel Roberts)
    Telemarketer Avoidance (Matt Simpson)
    Ham Phone Patches (Was: 911 and Politics) (Phil Howard)
    Georgia PSC and CLID (Bill Berbenich)
    Pac*Bell Calling Cards (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Southern Exposure :-) (Dennis Blyth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 05:33:51 GMT


I lost the message from a little bit back, but someone mentioned
something about the Mystic Marketing ANI reading back the wrong number
I think?  Anyway, if anyone recalls, I had posted an ANI number that I
found in {2600 Magazine} (and why do we use these brackets anyway?
what's wrong with underlining? :).  This ANI number would read back
the number 202/994-1000, our university operator phone number.  My
phone number is on the 994-xxxx exchange.  However, dialing the Mystic
Marketing phone number reads back to me the following number -
202/775-2040.  Now, a friend of mine who has Caller*ID has told me
before that when calling him, my number shows up as a certain 775
number, I'm sure this is it.  He told me it's an imaginary number that
doesn't work upon trying to call it.  An imaginary trunk number, I
believe.  What exactly is this number?  Which number doesn't exactly
exist?  Is the 775 number an internal phone number for our school's
phone system or is it the local telco's number to manage our system?


Thanks,

Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Mystic Marketing Oddity
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 7:33:19 GMT


I had someone in area code 206 try the Mystic Marketing number. They
got:

"This is the ACI operator. Can you please tell me the 800 number you
dialed."

<approx ten seconds silence>

"Thank you"

<approx ten seconds silence>

<click, then dialtone>

Two other 800 numbers (Delta Airlines and our own office) worked normally.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom


[Moderator's Note: I think its nice you have a friend, 'someone in
area 206' to try those numbers for you. Without someone there to help
you, you'd need to resort to dialing that number another telecom
newsgroup has been publishing which I've refused to print. You know,
206-xxx-xxxx where it answers and returns dial tone. (innocent blink
of eyes!). Summpin tells me the mess is gonna hit the fan soon on that
one!. Glad I didn't print it here!  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 23:52:36 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Public Phone 2000


I recently came across an AT&T Public Phone 2000 in the lobby of the
Hilton in Anaheim, California.  This is a wall mounted phone with a
colour screen and a small keyboard.  As well as the usual types of
voice calls, this phone allows data calls (using an internal modem or
the user's own device plugged into an RJ11 underneath), and access to
various services such as weather maps.

I decided to try using the terminal, and chose that option.
(Curiously, you select menu items using the dialing pad keys, but use
an ENTER key mounted to the right of the screen.  The alphameric
keyboard is not active at this point).  A second menu allowed
configuring of the speed (300, 1200, or 2400), parity and start/stop
bits, and VT100 (vs some other unspecified) mode.  Half vs full duplex
(local echo) apparently cannot be changed.

Using the terminal costs USD 2.50 for the first ten minutes, and 1.00
for each additional ten.  The phone call itself is charged as well at
normal rates.  The phone accepts AT&T and LEC calling cards and (I
think) major credit cards.  There is a warning that the card reader
will probably be unable to read the magstripe on LEC cards, but that
they *are* accepted and the number can be entered manually.

I tried my Telecom Canada calling card (old format: ten digits plus
four digit PIN) and it was read with no trouble and validated.  This
took a little over five seconds and then it said to go ahead and dial
the data number.

I dialed the local Tymnet 2400 number, heard the answer tone, and then
the screen told me to hang up in order to proceed.  I did, and got the
Tymnet prompt on the screen, connected through to Datapac, and on into
the McGill VM system.

Well -- a couple of comments and questions:

First -- it's a nice idea, and in my case it was genuinely useful.  I
didn't have a portable with me and I really did want to check my mail.

The pricing seems not too unreasonable -- I can't think of any other
way I could have read my mail from the hotel for even close to that
price.

The human factors aspects leave a few things to be desired however.
The unit is mounted on the wall at the same height as the other phones
in the row.  The screen is easy to see when standing but then the
keyboard is too low to reach.  Sitting down, the keyboard is a little
too high and the screen is way too high.  The menu system seems
unnecessarily complex and slow.  It also forgets all the setup choices
as soon as the call is over.

Questions: why would there be a problem reading the magstripe on some
LEC calling cards?  Why would my Canadian card be readable?  There is
no similar warning on the other AT&T phones with card readers.

I use my calling card routinely in AT&T and LEC (and even COCOT)
phones in the US, and it works just fine.  Validation is very fast
(typically a second or two), so presumably there is a shared database
somewhere.

How will the use of this device show up on my phone bill?  I am not
aware of any mechanism for a US carrier to send arbitrary billing data
to a Canadian telco (Bell Canada in my case).  Will they perhaps show
it as a cheap call from Anaheim to Toronto, or an expensive call from
Amaheim to Anaheim?

Obviously I'll find out when the bill arrives, but I'm curious if
anyone knows how it might work.


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Gwinn)
Subject: Need Help With Project: Nationwide Cellular Pricing
Organization: sulaco
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 12:30:49 GMT


Greetings.  I am part of a group that is examining nationwide cellular
service pricing.  We need pricing information on both A and B carriers
in all parts of the country.  We would like to see the following:

- General "public" service plan pricing for both A and B carrier
(including rates per minute, times of day that rates vary, and length
of service committments)

- Special "corporate" service plan pricing for both (with all of the
above information)

- Price of service features such as custom calling, voicemail, etc for
both A and B carrier.

- Other charges billed to the consumer (such as the new "roamer admin
fee") [Note: we are also interested in the date that this "roamer
admin fee" became effective in your area as well] for both A and B
carrier.

- Date of any noticable rate increase/decrease for both A and B
carrier.

Although this project deals mainly with pricing, we are interested in
other similarities between the two carriers serving your area, and
would gladly accept any other comments that anyone wants to provide.
We will post the results of this project to the net at completion.

Please mail responses to [e-mail] or sulaco!cellular.

All responses are greatly appreciated.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Texas Instruments Switchboard
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 06:36:53 GMT


Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today.
I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday).  I
forgot who I spoke to (Pete?  sorry, if I got your name wrong), but he
is a reader of the TELECOM Digest and found the information for the
switchboard here as did I.  We were both curious as to whether TI
advertised this anywhere else besides over the computer networks?

As for the system itself ... I call in and choose to have a
conversation (makes me think of the Monty Python sketch, to tell the
truth :) and the system tells me the topic of conversation.  It then
goes to call another party for me to be connected with, giving me time
to think about the topic a bit.  Once someone has been found, we have
the opportunity to get acquainted before the recording begins.  When
ready, I (being the one who called) hit "1" to begin recording.  We
speak for about five minutes until the system tells us to wrap it up.
Our conversation tonight was on recycling.  I recommend this to anyone
who hasn't signed up, it's pretty cool and harmless.  Who knows, maybe
you can meet someone over the phone ...


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:06:32 PST
From: Nigel Roberts <"eddf13::roberts"@frocky.enet.dec.com>
Subject: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be


Graham Thomas wrote:

> The fund is administered by ICSTIS (Independent Committee for the
> Supervision of Standards for Telephone Information Services), who also
> draw up and enforce the Code of Practice for chatline and message

My opinion, based on personal experience of talking with ICSTIS is
that they are nothing more than apologists for the 0898 industry.

I called them to complain about the fact that I was not able to block
0898 calls from my phone in the 0206 STD area and basically their
response was "So what? If BT haven't provided the facility on your
exchange, then tough. Why are you calling us?"

Upon asking them whether or not they were really the "chatline
watchdog" as they are described as in the press, he basically admitted
they were funded by the chatline/recorded message providers and they
just pay phone bills when people have been caught out by 0898 sleaze.
(My words.) They were not interested in taking up the issue of 0898
blocking at all.

Nice to know they are on the side of the consumer, isn't it?


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:15:37 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketer Avoidance


Someone posted previously about the effect of asking telemarketers
"Who's calling, please?", which usually results in hang-ups. I've got
an amusing twist on this. Recently, I've started answering my phone
during telemarketing prime-time with a deep "Goood Eeeeevvening." This
frequently results in a confused pause, followed by an unfamiliar
voice timidly asking for Matt Simpson. The reply to this request is
"May I tell the master who's calling?" in the same deep Addams Family
voice.  This usually gets rid of them, though I did have one young
woman from AT&T who bravely identified herself, at which point she was
told that "The master does not converse with sales creatures."

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Ham Phone Patches (Was: 911 and Politics)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:53:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Rich Greenberg) writes:

> The proper term for what Phil is describing is an Autopatch.  The
> several autopatches I have used thru various repeaters require an
> access code of one or (usually) more digits.  Depending on the type of
> circutry in the repeater's controller (and there is a lot of CPU power
> on those mountain tops :-) ), you either get a dial tone and dial the
> rest of the call, or you just follow the access code with the phone
> number and it is dialed by the controller.

I believe the term does not apply for patches not a part of a
repeater.  I've posted a couple times on rec.radio.amateur.[misc|policy]
of the type of phone patch I am planning, which has no repeater.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:02:06 MST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Subject: Georgia PSC and CLID


The Georgia Public Service Commission is having an administrative
meeting this morning (Tuesday, March 10) which includes discussion of
Southern Bell's "Caller ID" tariff.  Many of you may recall that the
GA PSC gave Southern Bell approval for a one-year trial period,
beginning Feb. '91.

More word here as I am made aware of the proceedings.  I did not find
out about this meeting until today -- but in all fairness I had not
seriously been pursuing the issue as closely as all that.


Bill

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:07:29 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Calling Cards


Here is a copy of a letter I sent today in response to an elaborate
flyer I received from Pac*Bell. It would appear that these people
simply don't understand, and continue to push bogus products on their
unsuspecting customers (so what else is new? I hear Higdon saying):


Ole J. Jacobsen
San Francisco, CA


                                              March 10, 1992

Mr. Keith Haydon
Product Manager, Calling Cards
Pacific*Bell


Dear Mr. Haydon,

I am writing in response to your information packet regarding
Pacific*Bell Calling Cards which I received yesterday. While I
understand your company's desire to offer "one card for all your
calling needs," I wish to point out several problems with the kind of
card you offer.

As you must know, the original 415-xxx-yyyy+PIN scheme (which you are
continuing to use) has been abandoned by AT&T for a very simple
reason: Other long distance companies *do* accept this number and may
bill you at their own rates rather than AT&T's. I've been hit by this
myself several times, in particular when calling from hotels. In one
case the rate charged was a whopping four times that of AT&T! However,
AT&T's new number system for calling cards, while admittedly being
less convenient to remember, offers "AT&T Guarantee" in the sense that
other carriers cannot and will not honor these cards since they do not
have the billing mechanism to do so.

Your further claim that your cards are so wonderful since they are
"...based on your home phone number" should also be examined
carefully. With only a four digit PIN, it is not too difficult to
imagine some enterprising individual "cracker" committing phone fraud
by picking someone's phone number and attempting "PIN cracking." Your
"helpful" practice of printing the PIN *on the card* also makes a lost
or stolen card a real liability.

In conclusion, I find your advertisement bordering on deception in
light of all the problems associated with your calling cards.

I look forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely,


Ole J. Jacobsen,
Telecom Manager
Editor and Publisher
ConneXions--The Interoperability Report


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please share his answer with us if you receive one
 from him or someone else there.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:01:01 -0500
From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southern Exposure :-)


Previous story -- in another USENET newsgroup -- mentioned a Burdines
advertisement in which there appeared to be a male with his pants
unzipped and private parts showing. This was a response from another
e-mail person, whom I quote in entirety:

Quotation begins:

Subject: Re: Southern Exposure

One of the funniest examples of this I've ever seen in my professional
life, was a phone-book cover printed some years ago, at a very large
company I used to work at.

You've seen those pictures that look like one thing when you look at
them one way, and another when you change your perspective?  Well, the
graphic artist who produced the cover for this phone book managed to
work an "invisible" penis into the cover.  It was soon discovered by
the male employees, amidst much chortling and guffawing.

Word around the company was that the artist was terminated shortly
thereafter.

End of quote

I wonder what telephone company published that phone book?  Or is this
an apocraphal story?

Enquiring minds want to know !!

"anonymous buckeye"


[Moderator's Note: From reading the above, I get the impression it was
a large company with an internal telephone book -- not a phone
directory as such from a telco.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #216
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28088;
          12 Mar 92 3:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11036
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14190
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:00 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:23:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #217

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Mar 92 01:22:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 217

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers (Lars Poulsen)
    Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? (Dan Pearl)
    Cold Call Directory (Willie Smith)
    The First Phone Call (Robert L. McMillin)
    Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (W. Burstein)
    Does 706 Work Yet? (Michael A. Covington)
    How Do I Use 10288 and My Calling Card? (John V. Zambito)
    Ring Supression (Eric Jacksch)
    DBase For Telecom Equipment ([e-mail])
    COCOT Question (Kamran Husain)
    Acronyms List Wanted (Michael Robinson)
    Fax Monitor Wanted (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Switched 56, Pipe Dream of USOC? (Ross Porter)
    Seeking Address of Telecom Association (Jim Bennet)
    What's a Baud? (Doug Barr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:27:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
writes:

> 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.

This week's {Network World} has an article about this. Judge Greene
says that 800 numbers must be portable by 1993, but the LECs want to
postpone the date.

In order to make 800 numbers portable, the long distance tandems must
be SS7-equipped. In some RBOC territories, most of them aren't and
won't be in time for the change. US West is way behind -- only about
40 percent of its offices are up to date enough to do this.

The RBOCs are suing the FCC, claiming that the FCC does not have the
authority to force them to install this expensive new stuff, and they
would like to be allowed to wait until 1996 to implement the changes.

I wish they would get this settled soon, so they can start building
the databases.


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


[Moderator's Note: The next message in this issue, written by Donald
Kimberlin and forwarded to us from FIDO discusses this in more
detail.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:08:55 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers


 Original From: Don Kimberlin
 Forwarded from the Fido network.

Some of the many "changes" that phonecos said they would be "offering"
have proved by now to be items they don't really want to change.  In
the area of Inward Wide Area Telecommunications Service (INWATS), more
commonly known as "800 numbers," considerable dependence on the
ability of local phone companies (who charge the interstate companies
dearly for INWATS number support, as well as sell intrastate INWATS
themselves) has been a problem with "number transportability."  What
that means is that certain "central office codes" are assigned to each
common carrier, and become an intrinsic part of routing calls to a
given 800 number to its proper destination.

Several years ago, at the behest of large buyers of 800 numbers, the
regulators asked the local phone companies if they could accomodate
"number transportability," meaning could the local phone companies all
arrange to read all the digits of every 800 call and set up routing
tables to send any call to any terminating exchange regardless of what
its central office prefix was.

In the attitude local phone companies have always had that they could
accomplish anything in telecommunications because they see the public
as a willing bottomless pit of money, the local phone companies told
the regulators they could, by March of 1993.

Now, it seems like reality is setting in, and the local phonecos are
waffling about meeting that time frame.  Here's a report from
{Information Week} magazine for March 2, 1992:


                      "USERS DIAL 1-800-STUCK"
    "Telcos are reneging on their promise to offer portability
                  for 800 numbers by early 1993"

        "When it comes to 800 service, you still can't take it with you.

        "Almost since the birth of competition in the long-distance
market, coporate users have been pressing for the day when their
toll-free 800 numbers would be portable.  Currently, to switch
long-distance carriers, a firm must change its 800 numbers,
sacrificing whatever dollars it has spent promoting those numbers (and
often their wacky acronyms).

        "Toll-free 800 service is one of the last areas of business
service where corporate users have little choice.  Indeed lack of
portability has enabled AT&T to maintain more than 80% of the market.

        "`Portability will unshackle a customer's tie to any one
carrier.'  says Frank Diaz, president of Kemper Service Co., which
provides telecom to parent Kemper Financial Companies Inc.  When Diaz
recently switched several of his nearly two dozen 800 numbers fomr MCI
Communications Corp. to AT&T, he had to spend $25,000 to reprint
internal directories.

        "It looked like true 800 competition was nearing when
regulators mandated a March 1993 deadline for the Bell companies to
upgrade their networks to allow portability.  Slowly but surely,
however, the Bells have been reneging on their promise.

        "This week, five of the seven Bells will tell the Federal
Communications Commission that they miscalculated the time and money
needed to install the technology to route 800 calls to any
long-distance carrier.  One Bell has even gone to court to challenge
the FCC's authority to mandate 800 portability.

        "The FCC set the March date based on the Bells' own estimates,
so users have little patience with the telcos' request for extensions,
says Diaz.

        "Jim Lewis, MCI VP of regulatory affairs, thinks the FCC will
stick by the March `93 deadline."

                                        --Mary E. Thyfault

<end of quote from {InformationWeek}>

So, we see just one more area in which the local phonecos can't really
perform to their belief that they can be All Things To All People,
thus justifying their claim to being a "natural monopoly."  Some
things are too much, even for the Baby Bells to take on.


WM v2.01/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:14:33 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dan Pearl)
Subject: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone?


I'd like to get a replacement touch-tone keypad for an old "1A Key"
Western Electric phone.  This is a multi-line phone with one red
button, and five clear buttons on the bottom strip.  There is one
thick cable coming out of the back of the phone terminating in an
Amphenol connector of some sort.

The keypad has 11 leads.

If necessary, I'll replace the phone.  Does anyone have any idea where
to get the part?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:30:14 EST
From: [e-mail] (Willie Smith)
Subject: Cold Call Directory


We've been getting more telemarketing calls lately, including the
remains of some robot ones on our answering machine.  My wife answered
the phone the other night and asked them where they had gotten our
number.  The droid answered "from a cold call directory".  Is this
something new, or just a new way of describing a "phone book"?


Willie Smith   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A Cold Call Directory could be just a phone book or
a criss-cross (cross reference) type directory, or it might be a list
of prospects prepared based on someone's idea of a group of people who
might be interested in the product or service being offered even
though there was no specific request for information from the party
being called upon.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:03:23 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: The First Phone Call


 ... And today in history, Alexander Graham Bell made the first phone
call, on March 10, 1876.  It's been a long way to T1, hasn't it?


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


[Moderator's Note: rlm's message did not reach me in time to be
included in an issue of the Digest on March 10.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service
Date: 11 Mar 92 00:00:29 GMT
Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel


Translated from {Ma'ariv}, 2/28/92, notes in parenthesis are mine.

Bezeq (the Israeli telco) is about to begin to use 'computerized voice
warning' for customers who are behind on their telephone bills.

A customer who has not paid his bill by the due date will receive a
call to his home or office, and a computerized voice will suggest that
he hurry up and pay in order to save himself the trouble involved in
disconnecting the line. (What trouble?  The trouble is reconnecting.  I
know, this happened to me when they sent my bill to the wrong address).

The computer will also be glad to inform the customer of the amount of
the bill.  If the computer doesn't catch the customer on the first
try, it will try again two hours later.

This new service will use equipment manufactured by Digital, and it
will be directly connected to Bezeq's central IBM computer, from which
it will receive the details of those who owe money.

Thirty thousand lucky customers will benifit from this improvement
while Bezeq tests it during April.  Aftwards, the service will be
extended to the entire country.  Incidently, Bezeq will continue to
send out overdue notices by mail.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 19:52:48 EST
From: Michael A. Covington <[e-mail]>
Subject: Does 706 Work Yet?


As you know, area code 404 (northern Georgia) is being split so that
all counties outside the immediate Atlanta area will have the new area
code 706.

Today's newspaper says that dialing 706 is permitted beginning today.
Care to tell us whether 706 is working from your part of the country,
folks?  A good number to try would be 706-542-8813, which is a BBS run
by our College of Education, or 706-542-MEAL, which gives a recording
of dining hall menus, or 706-54-TABLE, which gives the time of day.


[Moderator's Note: As of early Thursday morning, 706 is not yet working
from Chicago-Rogers Park. (312-262, 312-465, 312-764, etc).   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 13:49:51 EST
From: [e-mail] (John V. Zambito)
Subject: How do I Use 10288 and my Calling Card?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John V. Zambito)
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY


If I'm at a phone and I want to use my AT&T calling card, how do I use
the 10288 sequence?

If my number is [phone] do I dial 10288-0-315-597-1234; wait
for the bong then dial my four digit code?

If I'm calling somebody other than my home would I dial my whole
number and four digit code after the bong?

My wife called home from her sister's house collect and I got a Sprint
bill. Should I use this 10288 sequence from the COCOTs when I have to
use them? I don't like them having my four digit code.


[Moderator's Note: Your methods above are correct. 10288 will force
the call to AT&T. If dialing the number assigned to the calling card,
dial just the four digit PIN after the number, followed by #. For any
other number, dial 10288-0-number called (wait for bong) then the
entire card number including PIN.   PAT]

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

Subject: Ring Supression
From: [e-mail] (Eric Jacksch)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 17:49:39 -0500
Organization: Insomniacs' Guild, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada


I'm using some weird switching equipment on my line and want to
supress the first ring (i.e. stop the phone from ringing until the
second ring comes down the line.)  Does anyone happen to have any
schematics?


Thanks,

Eric Jacksch, [e-mail]  (UUCP: aficom!insom!jacksch)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: DBase For Telecom Equipment
Date: 11 Mar 92 06:35:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Does anyone know a good DBase program specialized in telecommunica-
tions equipment with graphics environment if possible?. I need it for
PC's. Cost doesn't matter. I'd appreciate any reference.  Thanks in
advance.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kamran Husain)
Subject: COCOT Question
Date: 11 Mar 92 20:08:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products


This came up when I didn't have my AT&T card and used lots (!) of
quarters at a payphone for a long distance call.  How does an operator
(or repairman) at the central office know that we did put in a coin
(or more) when asked ... (What's the signalling protocol)?  Does it
actually specify the dollar amount entered in back to the switch
(and/or an operator)?

        ***OR***

Are the smarts to determine the cost of the call in the payphone
itself (implying that rate hikes for long distance calls require
downloading new tables)?


Thanks in advance.

kamran   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do not confuse COCOTS (privately owned payphones)
with actual telco payphones. The former generally keep track of their
own rates and coin collections, etc.  The telco payphones signal their
collections back to the operator (or the computerized operator).  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Robinson)
Subject: Acronyms List Wanted
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 09:41:02 GMT


I am doing research into cellular phone technology, as well as PABX,
general switching technology and radio telephone systems.  If you have
a list of acronyms which are used in this field or even the broader
field of telecommunications, could you please forward it to me via
E-Mail.

Thank you in anticipation.


Michael Robinson     [e-mail].


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives has three acronym files
available by anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Fax Monitor Wanted
Date: 11 Mar 92 0:29:51 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


Does anybody know if there is a company that markets a faxline-monitor
to see what other people are faxing?


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Off hand, I don't know. But there are easy to build
devices which could be used by folks who want to listen to what you
talk about on the phone ... if you don't object to them listening,
without a warrant or other formalities, that is.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 17:48:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ross Porter)
Subject: Switched 56, Pipe Dream of USOC?


I would very much appreciate answers to a few questions relating to a
recent {PC Magazine} article:

    ..Amazingly, Switched 56 monthly service charges are often
    exactly the same as those for a regular voice telephone line.

    ..the termination equipment that links your PC or LAN ... to the
    Switched 56 circuit typically cost less than ... V.32bis modems

                PC Magazine, March 17, p.292

Our particular need is to link two SPARCs at fixed locations in
metropolitan Philadelphia.

 -the local telephone company can't be of much help without the
Univsersal Service Order Code (USOC) for Switched 56.  Anybody know
this part number?

 -is Switched 56 service/equipment really this cheap?

 -is Switched56 <-> ethernet/IP interfacing easy?  Or is V.35 the only
available interface?

If interest warrants, I will post a summary.


Many Thanks,

Ross Porter   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 07:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bennet)
Subject: Seeking Address of Telecom Association


I am looking for the address of the national telephone coop office
located in Washington D.C.

If you have it could I get it and its phone number?


Thanks,

Jim Bennett

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

From: [e-mail] (BARR DOUG)
Subject: What's a Baud?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 23:31:25 GMT


I have what is probably a fairly simple question.  What is a baud?
Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation?  This
came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #217
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28999;
          12 Mar 92 3:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26626
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03572
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:07 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 01:58:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #218

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Mar 92 01:58:05 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 218

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How do Amateur Radio Operators Access Autopatch Lines (Ken Sprouse)
    Re: Phone Phun (Jeff Woolsey)
    Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: No Response From RAM (David Lesher)
    Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Declan McCullagh)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Phil Howard)
    Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service (Wm R. Franklin)
    Re: Telemarketer Behavior (Graham Toal)
    Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Warren Burstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: How do Amateur Radio Operators Access Autopatch Lines
Date: 10 Mar 92 13:26:46 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (Ken Sprouse)


> [Moderator's Note: I have always wondered how amateur radio clubs with
> phone patches prevent non-members from using the patch. Do you add
> some sort of additional security digits in the dialing that only
> members of the club would know about?    PAT]

     Most of the phone patch facilities in the Pittsburgh area are
closed to club members.  There is an access and a dump code that
connects/disconnects the phone line from the repeater system.  Many
parts of the country have "open" autopatches.  Dialing an * gets you
dial tone and # disconnects you after you have completed your call.
Most open patches restrict toll and long distance calls and as a
matter of routine there is a control operator monitoring while the
call is in progress.

Some systems tape the audio of all calls to satisfy FCC requirements
that you log third party traffic. (Persons who talk over the air but
are not licensed amateurs.) Amateur radio phone patches (manual or
automatic) are not permitted to carry business calls and there has
been much (sometimes heated) debate in the ham community as to what
calls are legal.  Most repeater owners consider calling to order a
pizza a business call and prohibit them.  Clubs are very careful to
inform users that they are not offering or selling phone service and
the the money collected is used to support the operation of the entire
repeater system of which the phone patch is just another feature.

     Many of the repeater controllers are now microprocessor based and
offer bells and whistles like auto-dialing.  The user enters the
access code followed by a two or three digit code that calls a
preprogrammed number.  Some have various police and emergency numbers
on speed dial so you only have to know the three digit code for your
area to get help.  There has been a lot of talk about allowing 911 to
bring up the patch and dial either 0 for operator or 911 but so far no
one has implemented it.  There are the usual problems of "who should
the 911 code call" and worries about it being abused.  It wouldn't
take very many occurrences of someone mashing the PTT button and
pressing 911 then going away before the repeater owner would be
receiving a call from the local telco and emergency agencies involved.
Sad that it might happen but a fact of life.

     A friend of mine who has fallen in love with the 6502 processor
and hex code built his own repeater controller.  Among the other neat
features he programmed into it he gives each user of the system
her/his own access code to the autopatch and a common single digit
dump code.  Each time someone makes a call the controller logs the
user number, date, time, duration, and number called on a printer.
This is probably more that you wanted to know about autopatches. :-)


Ken Sprouse / N3IGW       [e-mail]      Oakmont, Pa.
GEnie KSPROUSE - Compu$erve 70145,426 - Packet radio n3igw@w2xo.#wpa.usa.noam

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 13:26:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Woolsey)
Subject: Re: Phone Phun


In article <[e-mail]> ampex![e-mail]
(Steve DeLaney) writes:

> Anyhow, Thursday 3/5/92 was just such a morning, and when my wife
> called the electronic voice informed her that it was around 5 AM --
> which for us is time to get going.  We got up, went out into the
> living room, and noticed that our battery operated analog clocks
> showed one hour EARLIER.  We called again, and again confirmed the
> time, which by Pac Bell standards was one hour LATER.  After some
 .....

> I wonder how many other people got the wrong time that morning.  As it
> turned out being up an hour early was a minor inconvenience, but what
> if it had been an hour later instead?  Interesting that the time was
> off, not by 25, or 38 minutes, but EXACTLY one hour.

Bingo.

What I found amusing was a report on the news that morning that
several hundred people had called Pac*Bell to report the problem.
There was speculation that it was caused by all the rain we were
having that morning!

In fact, it was no such thing.  When I got home the evening before I
looked at my Heathkit GC-1000 (WWV-slaved) clock and remember thinking
that I thought I had gotten home earlier than the clock said, that I
had not wasted any more time than usual, and my trip home had not
taken an inordiate amount of time.  Then why was it so late?  All of
the other clocks in the house read an hour earlier than the Heathkit
clock.  By this time I'd surmised what was going on.  Someone at NIST
had bumped the DST toggle switch.  Disabling DST correction on the
clock showed the correct time.  (Flipping the clock over to get at the
switches disconnected my antenna, and the clock had not reset before
the unrelated PG&E power failure the next day, so I don't know how
long it was before NIST flipped the switch back.)

This happens once or twice per decade, I'm led to believe.  (Sometimes
they're just late or forget to flip the switch on time.)

In any case, it should be obvious by now that Pac*Bell runs their
time service slaved to WWV.


Jeff Woolsey            800 950 5554    [e-mail]
Microtec Research, Inc.         [phone]    [e-mail]
Nothing like a three-address mailer....        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100?
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 22:06:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rop
Gonggrijp) writes:

> [e-mail] (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote:

>> The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work
>> more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS.

> That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue
> side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS
> 100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching
> you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your
> call ends up in the bitbucket).

I've been either working on or next to DMS switches for ten years, and
I've never heard of the above characteristics being a particular
problem where the switch is properly maintained (ahem, and is NOT part
of the autovohn switching network ...).

I can't compare the quality of an ESS switch to a DMS because there
are no ESS switches within a few thousand miles ...

> It has a lot of VERY nice security 'features' though (but PAT wouldn't
> let me tell you anyway).

Try him.  I haven't got the slightest idea what such 'features' are,
but I'll bet that PAT would be delighted to have an article describing
them.  I would sure be interested in reading it.


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


[Moderator's Note: If the article can describe some of these features
without getting too specific -- no actual phone numbers necessary --
then perhaps something can be done with it here.   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Response From RAM
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:31:19 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> Some of you may recall seeing a notice posted here in the Digest some
> months back regarding a new service by RAM Mobile Data and Bell South.

{tale of woe deleted...}

> [Moderator's Note: Isn't it pathetic that a company can be that mixed
> up, advertising something they don't even offer, then not knowing what
> to do with inquiries for the product, etc?    PAT]

Well they came in and gave us the spiel. The marketing droid came all
the way from Orlando {to the District}.  They did have a demo, but I
had to be elsewhere at the time.

But RAM just got bought by Bell South. Gee, us old-timers remember
dealing with pre-divestiture Ma. Sounds about the same.  (Stand by --
Moderator flames en-route ...)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: No flames this time.  I quite agree with you. There
were problems in the past and there are problems now. Just the names
of the players have changed.   PAT]

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

From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 11:46:48 EST


Michael Rosen writes:

> Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today.
> I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday).

> We were both curious as to whether TI advertised this anywhere
> else besides over the computer networks?

Ed Holliman of TI's Switchboard Project told me:

> No, we have limited our publicity to Internet and a few bulletin
> boards. Our response from our Internet posting has been very positive
> and will, most likely, give us the number of callers needed to
> complete our study.

They're also trying to "limit all their callers to males for
statistical reasons."  However, female would-be participants can
submit an application in case TI might need female voice samples.

I just sent in my application a few days ago; I should have my PIN
soon.  All TELECOM Digest readers should request an application today!
Send applications to your friends ...

DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with TI in any way except as a
            voice sample contributor.


Declan / [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 19:52:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Kath Mullholand) writes:

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

>> It will not be long before COCOTs, hotel PBXes,
>> and businesses start blocking 800 numbers to avoid the very thing that
>> Mystic Marketing is doing (though not with AT&T in this case).

> But wait!  The US Congress and the FCC, in their infinite wisdom, have
> made it illegal for COCOTs and Hotels (and Universities 8-)) to block
> 800-calls.  The penalty is $10,000 a day.  AND, in the same bill, it
> is illegal for us to charge for 800-access, so we have no way to cover
> for OUR uncollectables.

> I agree that regulation won't save us, but perhaps good and timely
> information from the net will help us hold the line until someone
> somewhere decides that standards can control greed, and that greed
> should be countered with fines, levies, and lawsuits.

I seems to me that a simple law could handle this:

Telcos shall be able to block, and offer this service it all its
customers, any call to a number which can bill back to the calling
line any charges.  Unless requested by the customer otherwise and in
writing, this blocking shall be in effect for calls to numbers in
"area code" 800.  Calls allowed to be placed due to a failure by the
telco to block properly shall not be billable.  This blocking shall be
distinct from blocking of collect and second number type billing.

Of course it will have to be phrased with a lot more detail and
specifics in the real law.  This blocking does not mean the call
cannot be placed, but it means that the callee cannot bill to the
line, and of course can refuse to accept the call because it is
blocked for billing, or can prompt for an alternative billing (e.g.
credit card).

There is an article in the {WSJ} today about a scam in which people
were asked to call an 800 number for information on their "winnings".
They are asked, at least for ONE of their billing options, to enter a
number on their card (they got in the mail).  The number identifies
them and their address.

I don't see this as being much different (except for the sweepstakes
sleaze promotion aspect) than the 800 numbers I call up to order stuff
using my credit cards (which I do frequently).


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: Re: Vandals Strike Cellular One/Chicago - Disrupt Service
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 00:52:51 GMT


Nothing directly to do with Telecom, but an interesting story:

In article <[e-mail]> on 5 Mar 92 22:10:58 GMT,
[e-mail] (Phil Howard  writes:

> 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.

Not all vandals.  About ten years ago, a vandal tried to topple a
giant Saguaro cactus near Tucson by towing it with his car.  The
cactus fell on the perp.  He didn't survive the experience.  (Natural
justice.)


Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail]                     Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Telemarketer Behavior
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 23:21:21 GMT


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

> Who else has noticed that if you ask a telemarketer who they are, as
> in "Who's calling, please?", they will quite often just hang up on
> you?  I was annoyed the first few times that happened to me, but then
> I realized that the volume and frequency of the calls were decreasing.

In Britain they are obliged to answer this question or they will be in
deep trouble with BT and Oftel.  The code of practise for
telemarketers in the back of BT phonebooks is well worth reading.  In
fact, I've photocopied it and keep it next my phone.

Unfortunately, if they *don't* identify themselves, we have no CLID to
nab them with, to report them to BT.


Graham

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack
Date: 11 Mar 92 03:23:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 201, Message 4 of 9

> Any ideas on improving the tonal quality or volume?  What is the
> best way to play sounds from my computer in to the phone line (i.e.
> what do I need to build in between the out jack and the phone to avoid
> killing the line and to get clean sound).  THANKS.

    Very simple. You need a transformer. Something like 600 Ohm to
8 Ohm. Most electronics parts stores carry these. Radio Shack has
something that will work for $1.69. It is part number 273-1380 - Audio
output transformer, 1000:8 Ohms.

    Connect the high impedance end of the transformer to the
telephone line and the low impedance end to the speaker output. You
may need some connectors. Soldering skills are handy at times like
these.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 01:34:30 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack


I'd try an audio transformer, something like 8 ohms on the speaker
side and 1K on the phone line side.  Don't worry if values are not
exact or even very close.

At least that's what they used in plans for a build-it-yourself
answering machine in some electronics mag from before it was possible
to buy one in a store and take it home.  I never built it, but this
sounds reasonable to me.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #218
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01640;
          12 Mar 92 4:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18084
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15955
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:14 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 02:50:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #219

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Mar 92 02:49:36 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 219

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: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Phil Howard)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Will Martin)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Rolf Meier)
    Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest (Mark Phaedrus)
    Re: Small Communications Program Found (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Jim Dunne)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Gary Segal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 07:32:24 PST
From: Nigel Roberts <eddf13::[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service


Jim Gottlieb wrote:

>> I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
>> even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
>> digits after a number make the call free?

I don't know, but it did. Even today, because of this, you can't buy a
DTMF tone pad on its own in a BT Phone Shop. (The last BT Business
Catalogue I saw had them with the legend "Only sold with answering
machines") This is no big deal, Tandy (Radio Shack) is quite happy to
sell you a tone pad as are other companies.

The phraud apparently worked on new digital exchanges which are the
only ones to offer TouchTone dialing. I say apparently, because I
never saw it in action. (We don't expect to see tone dial in my area
for years to come ...)

My guess is that it was probably a test patch or something which got
forgotten. It COULD have been a bug in the hardware design, I suppose.
I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone who knows why reads
this group and cares to enlighten us.

>> Wouldn't this be more easily solved with a software patch to the
>> C.O. switch than a hardware kludge to every payphone in the country?
>> What am I missing?

Don't know. There was a lot of publicity in the tabloids about it at
the time, and BT didn't exactly go out of their way to explain the
technical background. If you ask BT about it today, they will give the
impression that the situation (of no tone dial from payphones) was all
the fault of the phraudsters.

However, last time I spoke to BT, someone did say they thought that
tone dial should be re-instated some time soon. Sure it will. I know a
way to get tone dial at payphones now. Use a Mercury payphone.

TouchTone is a trademark of British Telecom in the UK.


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[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: Wed, 11 Mar 92 20:26:36 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb) writes:

> I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
> even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
> digits after a number make the call free?  Wouldn't this be more
> easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware
> kludge to every payphone in the country?  What am I missing?

These are not free calls. The number is the access number, for a
remote billing. Next you enter your ID code and the number you want to
call.  The cost of the call then winds up on your bill, the only way
in which it is free is that you don't have to put cash into the
payphone.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 19:22:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+
> call.  At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the
> bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T.
> Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while
> and an operator will assist them.  If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get
> an AT&T operator.

So for those of us who have "NONE" as the LD carrier, who always dial
10288 [01] to go through AT&T, we will not get access to this valuable
service?  :-) Kinda makes you want to call AT&T to be signed up.

> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  Then it waits for a
> response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
> completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
> have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
> to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as
> well.  Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all
> these scripts ...

So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it
or not, yes, you got the answer machine again.  I'm not at home so
        ---
leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ...
BEEP!"  then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost?

What if the called party in a collect call fails to say anything that
the computer can figure out.  Does it automatically switch to a real
operator or does the caller have to hang up and place the call again
and get a real operator to do it?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 13:14:28 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call


Hi!

I was most interested to read your Telecom posting. (Sorry for the
delay in responding; I was out sick for a while.) I wanted you to know
that these "Integretel" scum have been pulling this same scam for
improper collect charges from payphones when the callee hangs up for
well over a year now; I append below a posting from Aug '90 in which I
described the exact same thing happening to me.

I see other notes in TELECOM Digest that this same firm is pulling an
800-billback scam, too.

It appears that "Integretel" is an oppositely-named company -- their
actions have absolutely nothing to do with "integrity". A hive of
subhuman vermin, I would say.

Here's my Telecom posting on my experience:

 Date:     Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:23:49 CDT
 From:     Will Martin  <[e-mail]>
 To:       [e-mail]
 Subject:  Bit by the COCOT collect call

Just to add to the database of COCOT bad news. Back in June, I had
a one-time, first-ever call from one of those COCOTs that does
automated-voice collect calls. What I heard when I picked up the
phone was a synthesized voice saying "You have a collect call from
<unintelligible noise>" and then, as it began to tell me to answer
"yes" or press a number or whatever, I hung up the phone. The call had
awakened me anyway, and the unidentifiability of the caller added to my
annoyance, so I figured that if it was a for-real call, and not a wrong
number, I'd get another call. Never did, so I figured it was a wrong
number or random dialling by some idiot, and forgot about it.

Well, on the phone bill from SW Bell that arrived yesterday was a
tacked-on-the-back page from a company called "Integretel, Inc." for a
1-minute collect call from [phone] at a rate of $2.25, plus 7
cents federal and 13 cents state/local tax, for a total of $2.45. The
really insane thing was that it is listed as being from "Ladue, MO". I'm
in St. Louis City, and Ladue is a suburb well within the local calling
area. A 25-cent call. (It also has a reputation of being a hoity-toity
area of rich people, and I don't know anybody who lives there, being a
real person myself ... :-)

Anyway, I called the SW Bell billing office this morning, and the
helpful lady there had no hesitation about removing the improper charge
from my bill. She, too, seemed surprised by the "Ladue" originating
location. I wouldn't be surprised if bad billings from this "Integretel"
company were common -- having a name somewhat like "integrity" is a real
misnomer, I think; wonder if it would count as false advertising? :-)
(She did try to sell me a second line as we concluded the business; I
guess that's their current promotion. I didn't need one, and she wasn't
pushy, so no problem there.) I think I'll include a letter to SW Bell
with my bill, mentioning that she was helpful, and suggesting that it is
not in SW Bell's best interest to act as the billing agent for
sleazebags like this COCOT firm -- it reflects badly upon their own
reputation and image to be associated in any way with AOS and COCOT
firms who engage in this sort of underhanded business practice, and
whatever small amount they make by doing this is far outweighed by the
bad PR effect of SW Bell being identified with these actually-independent
ripoff firms.

I just called the [phone] number, and it rang for about 6 - 8 times,
and then answered, and a synthesized voice said "Thank you" (at least I
*assume* it said "thank" :-) followed by some rapid tones -- I think
DTMF. Then nothing until it disconnected. Anybody out there who feels
like calling this and reprogramming that COCOT to burst into flames or
allow free calls to anywhere, please feel free to do so... :-)

Anyway, I'm posting this as a caution -- even if you hang up immediately
on these collect-calling COCOTs, it looks like they will try to stick
you with the bill. Maybe the best solution is to find such phones and
use them to make collect calls to other such COCOTs, so that the
companies bill themselves, and each other, for those calls. A few million
such uncollectible billings will do wonders to their viability ...


Regards,

Will Martin

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 11:39:06 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA


Hi!  Thanks for the note about Integretel.  Somehow I'd suspected
they'd pulled this trick before. ;-)

I did chuckle about their name too.  Ever notice that if a
manufacturer has to go out of their way and say "longer lasting" etc,
on the box, it's most likely not very long lasting.  I figured
Integretel fit that mold perfectly.

I wonder which regulatory agency would be interested in hearing about
this shady business practice?  With AT&T getting into computer the
generated collect call business, it would seem like now is the last
chance to influence the the regulators.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 13:08:30 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> The actual delivery of the pulses is a crock, though.  They are
> supposed to be inaudibly high frequency (or is it low frequency?), but
> they are also high voltage, to drive mechanical meters.  So any
> nonlinearity in the loop gives you audible artifacts.

Meter pulses are either 50 Hz longitudinal at about 30 VRMS or
metallic 12 kHz or 16 kHz out-of-band signals at about 2-5 VRMS.

The high level of these pulses means that usually some sort of filter
is required to isolate the meter from the telephone.  This should be
part of the metering equipment.  However, the 50-Hz type (old style)
probably relied on line balance to prevent disturbance of the audio.
For obvious reasons, the 12/16 kHz pulses are generated by the newer
exchanges.

Yes, the 50 Hz pulses could be confused with induced AC.  The
true meter pulses are applied with more power than the expected
induction, however.


Rolf Meier   Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Phaedrus)
Subject: Re: Unexpected Help From TELECOM Digest
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 07:24:49 GMT


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

> Our esteemed (well, more often than not) Moderator notes:

>> [Moderator's Note: I thought maybe you were gonna thank me for saving
>> you a few bucks having your fortune told.  :)   In case you lost the
>> number and can't find your copy of the {Star} for last week, that
>> number being advertised by Mystic Marketing is 1-800-736-7886.   PAT]

> Pat, I really have to take issue with your behavior in regards this
> 800 number.  Agreed, the Mystic Marketers are slime.  Agreed, they
> should not be able to do what they are doing.  Agreed, something
> should be done.

> However, encouraging readers of the Digest to call the number from
> COCOTs is contemptable and may well be actionable.

     Am I missing something, or is the word "COCOT" not even mentioned
in the Moderator's Note you're quoting?  This was indeed semi-suggested
a couple of times in the past, but you could at least pick a Note to
quote that demonstrates the point you're talking about.

     The only thing I can think of to complain about concerning this is
mentioning the 1-800 number without mentioning the hefty charge that comes
with it ...

     (I must confess I was sorely tempted to try this number out the
other day, when I ran into a newly-installed COCOT that tried to
charge me $4.85 for a call from one side of Seattle to the other ...)


Mark Phaedrus, Computer Science Major, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA
Work: [e-mail]        Play: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Small Communications Program Found
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 23:56:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Mike Scher writes about COMMO which I recommended.  I've obtained
permission to post COMMO on an FTP site, so if anybody would like to
offer one, I will.

One place I may put it is on irisa.irisa.fr, which is the HP95 spot,
since there is a special HP95 mode.  I would like a USA spot too.

COMMO is really useful for laptops and palmtops, since it is small.
It's also readily extensible, since it has a powerful macro mode. It's
shareware at $30.


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 18:35:14 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Dunne)
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring


In article <[e-mail]> sleepy![e-mail].
boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes:

> Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos
> so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what
> percentage is cars?

The vast majority of the sensors are on interstate and major state
highways, thus no bicycles allowed.  Such sensors have a hard time
detecting motorcycles, so bikes are right out.  (Don't you hate it
when your m'cycle won't trigger a stoplight?)  Incidentally, the AM
radio transmissions can be a little fuzzy, and the digitized voice
tiresome; but it's a valuable service.  I usually listen to the
commercial stations myself.


 Jim Dunne   Motorola Cellular   [e-mail]    ...uunet!motcid!dunne

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Segal)
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:29:25 GMT


sleepy![e-mail] (Mark Allyn) writes:

> Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos
> so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what
> percentage is cars?

We don't need fancy sensors to determine the amount of bicycle
traffic.

It's zero.

You'd have to have a death wish to ride anything smaller than a large
motorcycle on the highways that are monitored in and around Chicago.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #219
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01483;
          13 Mar 92 3:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16055
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02016
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:06 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 01:33:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #220

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Mar 92 01:33:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 220

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CPSR Letter on FBI Proposal (Dave Banisar)
    Big Brother and The Phone (Jack Decker)
    Where Ma Stands (AT&T News Summary via Andy Sherman)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Mark Allyn)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Graham Toal)
    Attorney on Both Sides of the Litigation? (Bob Ackley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: CPSR, Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 16:03:20 EDT
Subject: CPSR Letter on FBI Proposal


CPSR and several other organizations sent the following letter to
Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the FBI's recent proposal to undertake
wire surveillance in the digital network.

If you also believe that the FBI's proposal requires further study at
a public hearing, contact Senator Hollings at the Senate Committee on
Commerce.  The phone number is 202/224-9340.

Dave Banisar,
CPSR Washington Office
====================================================


March 9, 1992

Chairman Patrick Leahy
Senate Subcommittee on Law and Technology
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Leahy,

      We are writing to you to express our continuing interest in
communications privacy and cryptography policy.  We are associated
with leading computer and telecommunication firms, privacy, civil
liberties, and public interest organizations, as well as research
institutions and universities.  We share a common concern that all
policies regarding communications privacy and cryptography should be
discussed at a public hearing where interested parties are provided an
opportunity to comment or to submit testimony.

    Last year we wrote to you to express our opposition to a
Justice Department sponsored provision in the Omnibus Crime Bill, S.
266, which would have encouraged telecommunications carriers to
provide a decrypted version of privacy-enhanced communications. This
provision would have encouraged the creation of "trap doors" in
communication networks.  It was our assessment that such a proposal
would have undermined the security, reliability, and privacy of
computer communications.

      At that time, you had also convened a Task Force on Privacy
and Technology which looked at a number of communication privacy
issues including S. 266.  The Task Force determined that it was
necessary to develop a full record on the need for the proposal before
the Senate acted on the resolution.

    Thanks to your efforts, the proposal was withdrawn.

      We also wish to express our appreciation for your decision to
raise the issue of cryptography policy with Attorney General Barr at
his confirmation hearing last year.  We are pleased that the Attorney
General agreed that such matters should properly be brought before
your Subcommittee for consideration.

      We write to you now to ask that you contact the Attorney
General and seek assurance that no further action on that provision,
or a similar proposal, will be undertaken until a public hearing is
scheduled.  We believe that it is important to notify the Attorney
General at this point because of the current attempt by the
administration to amend the Federal Communications Commission
Reauthorization Act with provisions similar to those contained in S.
266.


      We will be pleased to provide assistance to you and your staff.


Sincerely yours,

Marc Rotenberg,
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

David Peyton,
ITAA

Ira Rubenstein,
Microsoft

Jerry Berman,
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Michael Cavanaugh,
Electronic Mail Association

Martina Bradford,
AT&T

Evan Hendricks,
US Privacy Council

Professor Dorothy Denning,
Georgetown University

Professor Lance Hoffman,
George Washington University

Robert L. Park,
American Physical Society

Janlori Goldman,
American Civil Liberties Union

Whitfield Diffie,
Sun Microsystems

John Podesta,
Podesta and Associates

Kenneth Wasch,
Software Publishers Association

John Perry Barlow,
Contributing Editor, Communications of the ACM

David Johnson,
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering


cc:     Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr
    Senator Hank Brown
    Senator Ernest F. Hollings
    Senator Arlen Specter
    Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Don Edwards
         Attorney General Barr
      Chairman Sikes, FCC

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:07:56 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Big Brother and The Phone


The following is a composite of two messages that appeared today in
the Fidonet FCC conference.  At least one had its origins in the
Internet, so you may get additional copies of this message, though
perhaps not with the added comments by the person who posted it to the
FCC echo.  The reason I say this is a composite message is because the
comments came from one message, which partially quoted the text of the
Associated Press article.  The second message offered a more complete
version of the AP article, but without the commentary:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: Big Brother and The Phone

Don't bet on the Feds being your savior about things to do with the
local phone.  Here's some news about a "tax that's not a tax."  The
"Access Charge" now piled on your local phone bill; authorized by the
FCC to supposedly "compensate the poor local phone companies" who rake
in billions in per-minute charges from the interstate long distance
companies anyway -- is about to ALSO become a tax to pay for equipment
to help the local phoneco become a snoop arm of the government.

After you read this one, you may decide it's time for yet another
letter-writing campaign:

[As mentioned, I'm inserting here a copy of the article as posted by
[e-mail] (Jyrki Kuoppala) in several newsgroups, because it is
more complete than the copy that appeared in Mr. Kimberlin's message:]

The Daily Texan
Friday, March 6, 1992
Page 3

                           PHONE TAPPING PLAN PROPOSED
                Law Enforcement Agencies Would Have Easier Access

   ---
Associated Press
   ---

        WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration wants you to pay a
little more for telephone service to make it easier for the FBI or
local police to listen in on the conversations of suspected criminals.

        The Justice Department is circulating a proposal in Congress
that would force telephone companies to install state-of-the-art
technology to accommodate official wiretaps. And it would authorize
the Federal Communications Commission to grant telephone companies
rate increases to defray the cost.

        A copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press.

        Attorney General William Barr discussed the proposal last week
with Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Commerce
Committee, which oversees the FCC according to congressional sources
who spoke on condition of anonymity.

        Justice Department spokesman Paul McNulty refused to comment
on the proposal.

        The bill was drafted by the FBI and the Justice Department in
response to dramatic changes in telephone technology that make it
difficult for traditional wiretapping methods to pick up conversations
between two parties on a telephone line.

        The Justice Department's draft proposal states that the
widespread use of digital transmission, fiber optics and other
technologies "make it increasingly difficult for government agencies
to implement lawful orders or authorizations to intercept
communications in order to enforce the laws and protect the national
security."

        The FBI has already asked Congress for $26.6 million in its
1993 fiscal year budget to help finance a five-year research effort to
help keep pace with the changes in telephone technology.

        With the new technology that is being installed nationwide,
police can no longer go to a telephone switching center and put
wiretap equipment on a designated lines.

        The advent of so-called digital transmission means that
conversations are broken into bits of information and sent over phone
lines and put back together at the end of the wire.

        The bill would give the FCC 180 days to devise rules and
standards for telephone companies to give law enforcement agencies
access to conversations for court-ordered wiretapping.

        The attorney general would be empowered to require that part
of the rulemaking proceedings would be closed to the public, to
protect the security of eavesdropping techniques used by law
enforcement.

        Phone companies would have 180 days to make the necessary
changes once the FCC issues the regulations.

        The bill would prohibit telephone companies and private
exchanges from using equipment that doesn't comply with the new FCC
technology standards.

        It would give the attorney general power to seek court
injunctions against companies that violate the regulations and collect
civil penalties of $10,000 a day.

        It also would give the FCC the power to raise telephone rates
under its jurisdiction to reimburse carriers. The FCC sets interstate
long distance rates and a monthly end-user charge -- currently $2.50
-- that subscribers pay to be connected to the nationwide telephone
network.

        Telephone companies will want to examine the proposal to
determine its impact on costs, security of phone lines and the 180-day
deadline for implementing the changes, said James Sylvester, director
of infrastructure and privacy for Bell Atlantic.

        Though no cost estimates were made available, Sylvester
estimated it could cost companies millions of dollars to make the
required changes. But rate hikes for individual customers would
probably be quite small, he said.  <end quote>

[Back to Mr. Kimberlin's message:]

Obviously, there are at least two points here:

1.) Scary stuff about Big Brother, both national and local, having
nice automated technology to park on anyone's line;

2.) Making what started out as a "reimbursement" to the local phonecos
for long distance business operations into a tax that buys capital
equipment for the government's use.

And, of course, you friendly local phoneco will play Phoneco Hymn
Number 19-B, "We're sorry to have to charge you for this, but The Law
requires us to."  (At the usual profits for handling the cash and
charging the government for being its willing handmaiden in "operating
and maintaining it."

Well, folks, are we gonna roll over and play dead about this one, too?


WM v2.01/91-0073
 * Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)


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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Where Ma Stands
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:57:08 EST


Quoted from an AT&T news summary.

SNOOP -- The FBI ... says the digital technology in new telephone
networks is so complicated ... that agents can't capture
conversations.  So, the agency wants a law requiring phone companies
to re-engineer their new phone networks so the taps work again.  But
the phone companies warn that the proposals could raise ratepayers'
monthly bills. ... "We have grave concerns about these proposals,"
said AT&T spokesman Jim McGann.  "They would have the effect of
retarding introduction of new services and would raise prices. ...
Washington Post, C1.

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

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: sleepy![e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 11 Mar 92 18:45:04 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


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

> Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up?

Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers?
Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries
and staff to screen his office calls.

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 23:26:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: The Federal Bureau of Inquisition doesn't 'monitor'
> this Digest ... they subscribe to and read this Digest. I have three
> or four Bureau staffers on the mailing list. I hope you are not
> laboring under the assumption that any of the mostly insignificant
> messages on Usenet in general or this mailing list in particular are
> enough to warrant the time and clerical effort it would take to open a
> file on someone ... let's not have delusions of grandeur here.  PAT]

I think you're far too trusting.  It would be an interesting experiment
for you to ask for your FBI file under the FOIA, just to see how much
of it is blanked out, as in "we cannot release this information because
it would reveal our top-secret intelligence-gathering techniques".

I'd do it for myself except I'm not a citizen and I don't think they're
obliged to ...


Graham


[Moderator's Note: You'd do what? Pull your file under the FOIA or
pull mine? I don't know if they have a file on me, and I don't really
care. What could I do about it in either case? Anyway, this Digest is
available for public consumption, and the last I heard, FBI employees
were members of the public. Unlike many of the privacy freaks all over
Usenet, I don't discriminate or hold a grudge against people who
happen to be involved in law enforcement. In fact I welcome them as
readers here.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 08:23:15 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Attorney on Both Sides of the Litigation?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a message of <26 Feb 92 11:23:02>, Bob Ackley (11:30102/2) writes:

> 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.

> [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]

  Believe it, Pat.  His name is William F. Baxter.

"There is evidence in the record before the House Subcommittee that
shortly after the case was filed, Baxter had been retained by IBM to
review some part of it.  Later, there were some communications between
IBM's counsel and Baxter seeking to retain him for advice in some
aspect of one or another of the private damage actions brought against
IBM.  Nonetheless, the House Subcommittee made no further inquiry
about them."

Richard Thomas DeLamarter, Big Blue, IBM's Use and Abuse of Power.
1986, Dodd Mead & Co.  P.366.

There's an interesting but short discussion of the intention of IBM
to use delaying tactics ad infinitum in order to wear down the
prosecution, same book, page 25.


msged 1.99S ZTC     Bob's Soapbox,  Plattsmouth Ne  (1:285/2.7)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #220
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02516;
          13 Mar 92 4:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02859
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:04:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03720
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:03:57 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:03:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #221

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Mar 92 02:03:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 221

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Protest Action (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    MCI Customer Service Problem (Kevin Houle)
    Gilbert Vernam and His Cipher (Jim Haynes)
    Book Excerpt: Gilbert Vernam, The Codebreakers (Bob Ackley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 22:04:21
Subject: AT&T Protest Action


AT&T OPERATORS FIGHT FOR THEIR JOBS;
CWA NATIONWIDE JOB ACTION PROTESTS PLANNED LAYOFFS
12 March 1992

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "AT&T operators around the country took the fight
for their jobs into their own hands today," said Communications
Workers of America President James Irvine.  "They took the extra steps
necessary to provide quality customer service, and they thanked the
customers for using a live operator."

The operators are angry about AT&T's plans to layoff 6,000 telephone
operators and replace them with "voice recognition call processing"
technology.

Thousands of operators in AT&T offices nationwide stood up at their
stations for 15 minutes today at 11:00 am Eastern Time, coinciding
with a meeting between AT&T and CWA on the operator layoffs.  And the
operators began a program of thanking customers for using AT&T and a
live operator, a practice they will continue beyond today.

As part of the protest, operators refused to use an automated process
that requires them to divert calls to a computer, minimizing operator
contact with customers.  In so doing, operators were able to provide
more customized, personal service to each customer.

Operators in 27 offices that are slated to close were also supported
in the action by operators in non-closing offices. CWA's early results
this afternoon show excellent participation rates in the action.

"Operators are furious with AT&T for initiating layoffs and office
closings in the middle of the worst recession in decades to replace
people with machines," Irvine stated.  "There is plenty of good,
productive work in AT&T that operators are qualified to do, but the
company refuses to allow them access to those jobs.  That means
operators, many of them single parents or veteran employees with years
of service, will be left without a means of supporting their families
in these difficult times. It's just not right, and they're fighting
back."

CWA represents over 100,000 AT&T workers.  There are 18,000 union
operatiors nationwide at AT&T.

CWA represents over 800,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United
States and Canada.

 ---> CWA News - 12 March 1992
      Jeff Miller, Press Contact
      Gaye Williams Mack, Press Contact
      Communications Workers of America
      [phone]
      [phone] telefax

                            --------

Phillip M. Dampier    [e-mail]

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

Subject: MCI Customer Service Problem
From: lunatix!iowegia![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 00:06:07 CST
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, [phone]


The company I work for purchases MCI 800 numbers, and then resells
them to our customers. A part of this process, the part I see, is a
monthly 800 service magnetic tape being sent from an Ohio MCI office
to our office in Iowa. Well, yesterday I was told to find someone
within MCI who could answer detailed questions about the contents of
that tape, because we were having problems with the originating ANI
number field. Fair enough. Our usual contact, person #1, within MCI
told us to contact our customer service rep for that kind of help. The
fun begins.

My only lead was a transmittal letter which accompanied the tape.  At
the top of the letter, it said to call our customer service
representative with any questions, or to call the MCI customer service
800 number. Well, since the letter gave us no more information than
person #1 about who that customer service rep might be, I tried the
800 number.  It was a customer service center in Chicago.  I told
person #2 I needed to speak with someone who could answer detailed
questions about an 800 service tape. It wasn't him. I gave him our
account number, from the transmittal letter, and he put me on hold.

Now, during this holding period, I got a good sampling of MCI holding
music. It was broken occationally by such helpful messages as, "All
of our customer service representatives are busy. Please have your
account number available for the first available representative. We
WILL be right with you.". And a little free advice on the side. "All
of our customer service representatives are busy. Please hold the
line. Do not hang up and call again, as calls are processed in order
and calling back will just delay your call being handled." Thanks for
the tip.

Ten minutes later, person #2 tells me it will take some digging to
find the representative for our account. I give my name and number to
be called back. At 3 PM the next afternoon, I have yet to hear back
from person #2, so I call the 800 number again.  Enter person #3. I
give him the account number and here we go again.

This guy first thinks I am talking about microfiche of a paper bill.
No, a magnetic tape ... with 800 service information on it.  Your
number is on the transmittal letter! Ok, so now he understands I mean
a magnetic tape. Then he thinks I am talking about my personal 800
line.  I've just called someone who knows nothing about my problem, or
our account. It took me ten minutes to convince him we resell 800
numbers purchased from MCI to our customers. Then something clicked in
his mind, and he put me on hold, where the valuable tips heard the day
before were reinforced.

He comes back on the line with person #4. She tells me the name of
person #5 who will contact me regarding the problem. She stresses that
person #5 is local, as if that would help us determine what kind of
information is on our tape. 30 minutes later, person #5 calls. I
explain we are having a problem with the originating ANI numbers on a
800 service tape. She stops me and says she may not be the person to
talk to, but she thinks she knows who can help.  Someone in Chicago.
Hm. That's were persons 1-4 were. Back on hold.

She comes back on to say she will find the contact I need, and have
them call me. *sigh*.  An hour later, I get a call from Chicago.
Person #6. I explain myself again, and am told I need to talk to (can
you guess this one?) person #1 !! In a measly two days, I managed to
make the complete cycle through MCI's customer service jungle and get
back to where I started from.

I suppose there is one good thing that can be said. I got to talk to
humans the entire time.


Kevin Houle   :   iowegia![e-mail]    [e-mail]
      System/News Admin., Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Subject: Gilbert Vernam and His Cipher
Date: 11 Mar 92 19:37:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Perhaps I should have explained the Vernam cipher when I posted his
bio earlier.  In Teletype terminology a transmitter-distributor is a
machine that reads paper tape with a contact for each row of holes
(transmitter) and serializes the signal into start-stop for the line
(distributor).  A typical "faceplate type distributor" is a disk of
insulating material set with two concentric copper rings.  The inner
ring is solid and connects to the line.  The outer ring is divided
into seven segments (for 5-level code).  Five of these connect to the
sensing contacts of the tape reader.  One, the start segment, is
unconnected; and the other, the stop segment is connected to the other
side of the signal line.  A rotating brush assembly connects the two
rings together.  The tape is advanced while the brushes are over the
stop segment.  A clutch allows the brushes to be held at the stop
segment when sending is not desired.  So as the brush rotates it opens
the line for the start segment, sends the signals from the character
in the tape one after the other, and then closes the line for the stop
pulse.

Vernam used a "two-headed" transmitter distributor; there were two
tape reader mechanisms on the same shaft.  For transmission one of
these read the clear-text message tape; the other read a key tape of
(hopefully) random bits.  The contacts of the two readers were wired
together so that the signal reaching the distributor was the
exclusive-OR of the bits read from the two tapes. (Or maybe it was the
inverse-exclusive-OR; doesn't matter.)  At the receiving end the
encrypted signal was punched into tape with a reperforator, a machine
which receives a start-stop signal and punches the characters into a
new paper tape.  This encrypted message tape was put into a two-headed
reader along with a key tape that was an exact copy of the one used
for sending.  The result was to undo the encryption applied at the
transmitting end, producing a clear-text signal that could be printed
on an ordinary printer.

If the key tape is absolutely random and is never re-used then the
cipher is absolutely unbreakable; it is equivalent to the "one-time
pad" method of encryption.  The Vernam cipher, when it could be used,
was a great convenience.  Otherwise the clear-text message would have
to be enciphered by a code clerk using a cipher machine, and then a
Teletype operator would have to punch an encrypted message tape trying
not to make any errors in all the gibberish.  Then at the receiving
point the encrypted message would be printed and another code clerk
would have to decrypt it in a separate process.

One drawback to the Vernam system is the need to have as much key tape
as there is traffic to be exchanged, and to get the two copies of the
key tape to the two points where it is to be used.  Key tape could be
reused, at some risk to security since that makes it no longer a
one-time system; enough re-use permits the code to be broken.  Another
problem is that the message and key tapes have to be exactly
synchronized; if a few stray characters should be received in addition
message characters the result would be gibberish from that point on.
So the receiving operator might have to try repositioning the key tape
from time to time to restore decryption.  Stray characters are
especially a problem in radio transmission where there are fading
signals and static crashes.

I have no idea how key tapes were produced and distributed; maybe some
other reader can tell us that.  One observation is that in a sense you
don't want the key tape to be completely random, because a random tape
could contain (with low probability) a long run of all-0s or all-1s
characters that would let clear text through unchanged.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 09:50:06 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bob Ackley)
Subject: Book Excerpt: Gilbert Vernam, The Codebreakers
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a message of <26 Feb 92 10:13:41>, Bob Ackley (1:285/2.7) writes:

> [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?

   Okay (I not only read it, I *have* it - hard cover and 2.25 inches
thick!).  There are a *bunch* of people mentioned in the book, did you
have any specific 'others' in mind?  On to Gilbert Vernam:

        A native of Brooklyn, Vernam was gradrated from the
Massachusetts college, where he had been president of the Wireless
Association and had been elected to Tau Beta Pi, the engineering
honorary society, in 1914, after having spent a year working.  He
immediately joined A. T. & T. and, a year later, married a Brooklyn
girl, Alline L. Eno.  They had one child.

        He had the rare type of mind that can visualize an electrical
circuit and put it down on paper without having to try it out with
wires.  He did so well in the telegraph section that its head,
Ralzemond D. Parker, assigned him to a special secrecy project.

        The project had begun during the summer [of 1917], a few
months after war had been declared, when Parker directed some of the
telegraph section members to investigate the security of the printing
telegraph.  Would its very newness, the fact that the enemy might not
have developed such means, guard its messages?  The secrecy group soon
found that it did not.  The fluctuations of the current could be
recorded by an oscillograph and the messages read with ease.  Even
multiplexing offered no real security.  The group discussed altering
the connections inside the printing telegraph mechanism but the
engineers realized that this offered no real secrecy and did not
pursue the matter until Vernam bounded in with his idea [in December
of 1917].

        It was based upon the Baudot code, the Morse code of the
teletypewriter.  In this code, named for its French inventor, J. M. E.
Baudot, each character is allotted five units, or pulses.  Each unit
consists of either an electrical current [mark] or its absence [space]
at a given time.  There are, consequently, 32 different combinations
of marks and spaces.

        Vernam suggested punching a tape of key characters and
electromechanically adding its pulses to those of the plaintext
characters, the "sum" to consitute the ciphertext.  The addition would
have to be reversible so that the receiver could subtract the key
pulses from the cipher pulses and get the plaintext.  Vernam decided
upon this rule: If the key and plaintext pulses are both markes or
both spaces, the ciphertext pulse will be a space.  If the key pulse
is a space, and the plaintext a mark, or vice versa - if, in other
words, the two are different - the ciphertext pulse will be a mark.
Decipherment is unambiguous.

        No longer did men have to encipher or decipher a message in a
separate step.  Plaintext went in and plaintext came out, while anyone
intercepting the message between the two endpoints would pick up
nothing but a meaningless sequence of marks and spaces.  Messages were
enciphered, transmitted, received and deciphered in a single operation
 - exactly as fast as a message in plain English.  The advantage was
not the mechanical enciphering and printing of the message, rather it
was the assimiliation of encipherment into the overall communication
process.  Vernam created what came to be called "on-line encipherment"
to distinguish it from the old, separate, off-line encipherment.  His
great contribution was to bring to cryptography the automation that
had benefited mankind so much in so many fields of endeavor.

        Vernam applied for a patent on Friday, Sep 13, 1918.  Patent
number 1,310,719 was granted on July 22, 1919.  He continued
developmental work at A. T. & T. for several years.  He improved his
own system, invented a device for enciphering handwriting during
telautograph transmission, and came up with one of the earliest forms
of binary digital encipherment of pictures - another precocious
development.  He was so good that he was grabbed off at a substantial
raise by International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation's
cryptographic subsidiary, International Communication Laboratories,
where Parker Hitt was president.  Four months later the stock market
crashed.  Vernam, with no seniority, was soon out.  He went to Postal
Telegraph Cable Company, which merged with Western Union.  His
inventive spark flared from time to time, and he was granted 65
patents in all, among them such important noncryptologic items as the
semiautomatic torn-tape relay system, the push- button switching
systems, and finally the fully automatic telegraph switching system,
all for the Air Force's 200,000 mile domestic network.

       On Feb 7, 1960, after a long bout with Parkinson's disease, the
man who had automated cryptography died in obscurity in his home in
Hackensack, New Jersey.

        Excerpted from The Codebreakers, by David Kahn.  1967, MacMillan & Co.
Typos are mine alone.


msged 1.99S ZTC      Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth Ne  (1:285/2.7)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #221
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05693;
          13 Mar 92 5:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14143
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31455
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:36 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:58:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #222

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Mar 92 02:58:36 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 222

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Digital Cordless and CT2 (Vance Shipley)
    Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill (Carl Moore)
    Question About RS-422/RS-485 (Jim Miller)
    Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Michael Rosen)
    AOS, APCC and Other Slime (John Higdon)
    Telephone Pioneers (Tom Streeter)
    Caller-ID Approved in New York (David Niebuhr)
    Terminal Server Query (Martin Tanner)
    ATT Direct Automated From NZ Now (Lawrence Chiu)
    Routing International Collect Calls (Aninda Dasgupta)
    Terminal Server Vendors in Belgium (Herman Van Uytven)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Digital Cordless and CT2
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1992 14:20:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Woody Ligon) writes:

> With the help of someone else on the net, I have been able to get a
> Tropez 900 digital cordless phone through B.A. Pargh, a large
> wholesaler.

> Unless you really, really want your conversations to be encrypted,
> this phone is no where near being worth the premium price being asked.

At a trade show in Taipei, Taiwan two weeks ago I saw two cordless
phones that could be of interest to those seeking privacy better than
standard cordless phones.  The first was a Motorola analog cordless
phone that inverted the signal to make eavesdropping very difficult
indeed.  This handset looked very much like the small cellular set
they make.  The second was also by Motorola, this was a personal CT2
system.  The regular digital CT2 handset and a personal base station
handling one line.  The handset can access eight different base
stations and the base station can access eight different handsets.

While in Hong Kong last week I visited a retail outlet for Hutchison
Telecom who are running a CT2 service there.  The handsets were going
for about 2600 Hong Kong dollars and the personal base station was
about 2400.  That works out to about $670 US.

Also shown at the show was Northern Telecom's PCN product.  It is
based on the Norstar technology, it has the same wall mount plastic
housing with the removable (upgradable) software cartridge.  It also
supports Norstar telephone sets wired to the KSU.  The antennas are
connected to the same TCM digital loops as the sets.  The Motorola
handsets were being used for the demonstration although I saw an
Errickson handset used also.  The guy said that a handset from a
company called Shea in U.K. would also show the callers name (a
standard Norstar feature).  The computer interface card for the
Norstar would also work in this product allowing third party software
development.  A Unix based "Mobility Manager" was described that would
be used to tie many of these together.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 9:53:33 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill


On December 10, I sent myself a test message via the Message Express
(800-477-0334), which I believe I saw advertised on some pay phones in
Baltimore.  The test message was to my own office telephone number,
and I goofed by using the old area code 301, which still works.  The
call has now appeared on my March phone bill; for place called from,
it says "MSG XPR, GA [sic]" and shows telephone number 301-276-1234
(301-276 is in eastern Baltimore city and is moving to 410).  The cost
is 75 cents plus 2 cents federal tax.

The Message Express service was billed via Telecom*USA, and is lumped
into my bill from the local phone company.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:48:52 EST
From: "Jim Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About RS-422/RS-485


Hello everyone,

   I recently acquired two dual-port serial cards for the IBM AT which
have RS-422 outputs on them.  My question is, will the RS-422 port
work with RS-232 devices?  I know that RS-422 uses a balanced pair for
send and another pair for receive, in addition to ground line. Could I
tie the negative of each of these pairs to ground, and attach the
positive line of each to SD and RD of the 232 device?

I am visualizing using these boards for directly attached terminals to
an SCO UNIX system, so I am NOT looking for either high-speed (any
greater than 19.2 KB/sec) or long distance cable runs, both of which I
understand are the advantages of RS-422.

I have managed to find a specification page for these boards, which
says "Balanced RS-422 or RS-485 differential driver and receivers".
What is RS-485?  The pinout diagram of the connector lists "Auxillary
Input+/- and Auxillary Output +/- lines".  Is this analogous to the
secondary data channel of RS-232?

E-mail or digest responses are fine, I am one of those people who
actually reads EVERY message in EVERY digest (Hi PAT! :-)


Thank you very much,

Jim Miller


[Moderator's Note: Hello! And thanks for being a loyal reader.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 02:49:40 GMT


Ok, I'm sure some of us here have made direct long distance calls from
payphones once or twice.  Now, when you hang up, almost all the time
the phone rings back requesting that you deposit more money.  Now, is
this legal?  I mean, it is after the fact, they should tell me what I
owe while I am on the phone, not after I've hung up.  When it tells me
to deposit so much money every minute it should cover the time up
until the next request.  And if there is no request and I hang up,
then I've paid for the allotted time.

If you hang up, the phone will ring back with a live operator
requesting payment.  What's to stop me from walking away?  What are
they going to do to me, I'm at a payphone?  I've heard that sometimes
operators threaten to charge the called party; now, that is definitely
illegal.


Mike

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


[Moderator's Note: Don't be silly. What do you want the operator to
do, interrupt your call every minute and ask for more money?  When you
eat in a restaurant do they come around to get the money after each
item you have eaten or wait until you finish completely?  Telco
attempts to be courteous by allowing you to complete your conversation
without barging in -- perhaps overhearing something private -- then
they tally up the total you owe, less your initial deposit and ask you
to pay. What's to stop you from walking away leaving the call unpaid?
Nothing really; customers do it all the time, leaving telco holding
the bag for an unpaid call. The operator will then *ask* the party at
the other end if they are willing to pay since you 'forgot' to do so
when you left ... if the other end says no, then that's that. The
operator does have the authority to cut in at intervals and collect if
she feels the customer is a slimeball who will run off afterward.  PAT]

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

Subject: AOS, APCC and Other Slime
Date: 12 Mar 92 01:28:05 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


I have really tried to sit on my hands but I cannot stand it anymore.
The March, 1992 issue of {Telecom Gear} contains an article that slams
AT&T's Card Issuer Identifier calling card and talks about how the
American Public Communications Council (APCC) has filed with the FCC
to stop further marketing and distribution of the card.

Calling the CIID card "anti-competitive", the APCC explains that only
by skimming off 0+ traffic from AT&T have its members been able to
"grow and offer innovative features". The organization claims that the
introduction of this card threatens to return us to pre-divestiture
monopoly status.

Now let me see if I have this right. The APCC claims the god-given
right to skim off AT&T customers, charge four and five times the going
rate for a call and pocket the money. AT&T apparently does not have
the right to issue a calling card to its customers that gives them
some assurance that they will only do business with their carrier of
choice.

The APCC also points out that with the CIID cards in the hands of the
telephone public, dissatisfaction with payphones that will not accept
them will cause the phones to be replaced by the old LEC payphones and
will hurt APCC members (the public payphone owners). If that is true,
then I say, "halleluja". And it may be, since I have observed that
Pac*Bell payphones are returning in force. There has been a definite
decline in COCOTs in the past year.

All I have to say to the APCC (Bottom Feeding Scum Association) is: Go
ahead and issue your own calling cards. You do not have the right to
AT&T's customers for your inflated-rate 0+ calls. If anyone is stupid
enough to obtain a ComSystems or Integratel calling card, then you
certainly have the right to his money. On the other hand, if someone
obtains a CIID AT&T calling card because he wants to use AT&T as his
long distance carrier, he certainly has that right as well. But by all
means do not go whining to the FCC as you did on February 10 and
declare that the CIID card "threatens to reverse all the progress the
independent payphone industry has made."

What progress? And just what do I get for a call that costs five times
as much as an AT&T call? If I could believe that AT&T's CIID card
threatens the existence of AOS scum, the company can count on me to go
door to door on my own time for free promoting it.

The CIID card may be the greatest contribution to the art of telephony
in the last ten years. I certainly have mine!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Telephone Pioneers
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 20:37:53 GMT


I'm trying to locate a Telephone Pioneer's chapter in the Asheville,
NC area (if one exists).  We've checked the area phone books with no
success.

Any North Carolina chapter information would be appreciated.


Tom Streeter                                |   [e-mail]
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 12:48:59 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Caller-ID Approved in New York


Today's {Newsday 3/12/92} had an article that the New York Public
Service Commission had approved Caller-ID for the state after a
shake-down period in certain sections of the state.

The article said that Caller-ID along with both types of blocking
(per-line and per call) would be available.  No mention was made of
any of the other features such as Call Trace and Call Return.
Blocking would be free during an introductory period and $5 for
implementation thereafter, if wanted.

Caller-Id boxes were mentioned and the article stated that they would
run between $30 and $90.

According to a representative of NYTel, there is a program called
Smart Phone which does offer these options but no mention in her
literature about Call Screening.

The head of the State Consumer Protection Board has many reservations
about this, including the ability of the police agencies to determine
the location of calls.  I'm assuming that blocking will be overriden
for them as well as for various help agencies/shelters.

Implementation will take place over the next two years and of ourse
there is no target date for the local exchanges.

Those are the sketchy details as of today.

I feel that some of the impetus comes from the New Jersey Bell side
of the Hudson where Caller-Id is available and there are ads on the
local TV stations praising its virtues.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Tanner)
Subject: Terminal Server Query
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 18:06:05 GMT


We currently own a Datability VCP 1000 terminal server which we are
very unhappy with -- the server crashes four or five times per week.
We are interested in suggestions for a replacement for this terminal
server.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 21:44:59 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Chiu)
Subject: ATT Direct Automated From NZ Now


ATT USA Direct is now also automated from New Zealand. However
interestingly I tried to call 800-366-6993 (in NYC) and kept on
getting an automated message "We're sorry your call cannot be
completed due to circuit congestion -- please try again later 20902)"
or words to that effect.  Eventually I dialled the ATT operator and
asked what the problem was and was told that the 800 number was not an
ATT one and therefore could not be dialled by myself or by her for
that matter. She was puzzled why I didn't get a clearer message than
the one I received.  Perhaps someone with access to the 800 database
can tell us who this number is supplied by.


               Laurence Chiu
           Principal Consultant
     GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
           Tel: [phone]
Internet:      [e-mail]
Compuserve:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Aninda Dasgupta)
Subject: Routing International Collect Calls
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:06:24 GMT


Here is something that has intrigued me for a while:

Scenario:

We have AT&T as our long distance carrier.  My housemate uses 10xxx to
use MCI for her long distance calls. My cousin calls me collect from
India.  I am assuming that all international circuits from India leave
India at Bombay and "enter" the USA at some switching center someplace
(say X) on the east coast.

Questions:

1) How does the switching center at X know over which company's (AT&T
or MCI) circuits the collect call is to be routed from X to my home in
Troy NY?  In short who gets my money? Do all such international
switching centers keep a database of which long distance carrier I
have or is this determined during call setup?  If it is determined
during call setup, then which circuits are used for this initial
negotiation?

2) Do AT&T and MCI and Sprint all have their own lines to India (or
other Asian countries)?  Or do they share the cable/satellite links
already laid out?  In particular, since the collect calls from India
have an Indian operator direct dialing from India, which company
carries the call?

3) When my parents call me, they direct dial from their home in India.
In that case, which company gets their business? I must mention, in
India the telephone system is government controlled.

As you can probably tell, I am a telecom novice.  Any answers will be
greatly appreciated.


Aninda DasGupta  ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: On outgoing calls as you noted, you select the
carrier. If the requested carrier does not have circuits to the
country in question then they usually hand the call off to AT&T. This
is all transparent; you see or hear nothing of it. On incoming calls,
if the telephone administration in the other country has an agreement
with other carriers here such as MCI to give them some of their
business, then the calls are routed by whatever forumula they use.
Some will come via AT&T, some will come on other carriers. If the
telephone administration allows their customers to choose a carrier
like we do here, then the carrier chosen would get the call.   PAT]

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

From: Van Uytven Herman <[e-mail]>
Organization: K.U.Leuven (Belgium)
Date: Wednesday, 11 Mar 1992 11:51:49 +01
Subject: Terminal Server Vendors in Belgium


We are looking at the possibility to install terminal servers.  I
would like a list of vendors who sell in Belgium.  Also some
experiences with terminal servers would be welcome (we will use them
mainly to connect to the IBM mainframe with VM and MVS, and to connect
to UNIX machines).

The terminal servers must at least have the TN3270 option, and if it
exists they should also be able to emulate a 3279 graphics screen.

Thanks,

Herman Van Uytven              e-mail: [e-mail]
Academic Computing Center              [e-mail]
K.U.Leuven                     Tel: (+32) (16) 286611 local 2225
Willem De Croylaan 52-a        Fax: (+32) (16) 207168
B-3001 Heverlee (Leuven)
Belgium                        postmaster for cc1.kuleuven.ac.be

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #222
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01824;
          14 Mar 92 3:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02038
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03568
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:45 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:58:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #223

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 00:58:43 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 223

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phoneco Winds of Change (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted (Todd Inch)
    Matching LEC's to RBOC's (John R. Ruckstuhl, Jr)
    Looking For Articles on Telco Line Tests (Aydin Edguer)
    AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From France (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
    Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones (Bryan Montgomery)
    Status Report: Telecommunications in Thuringia, Germany (Richard Budd)
    US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers (Gregg E. Woodcock)
    410 Area Code Billboard Reminder (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 16:08:26 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phoneco Winds of Change


Here's another interesting message that I found in the Fidonet FCC
echo.  Perhaps Pat would care to comment on the accuracy of this
report, since it's talking about his home turf:

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
 Subject: Phoneco Winds of Change

There's quite a bit of news your local phoneco would rather you did
NOT know.  Not the least of these is that their monopoly over local
telecommunications services is eroding in lots of ways in lots of
places. One of those places is Chicago, where one might say "local
fiber company" business began with Chicago Fiber Optic Company in the
mid-1980's.  Such local "alternative access vendors," one of their
common names, are proliferating nationwide, but they are also
multiplying in the major cities and, as the following story tells, are
beginning a spread to suburbia:

<Quoted from {Information Week} magazine for March 2, 1992. p. 15>

               "LOCAL PHONE SERVICE WINDS OF CHANGE

        "A cable company's decision to stake out the Chicago suburbs
for its rapidly growing local phone service has pushed the Windy City
one giant-step closer to a competitive marketplace.

        "Englewood, Colorado-based Jones International Ltd., the
parent of Jones Intercable, plans to offer local, private-line service
within Chicago's suburban commercial meccas via Jones Chicago
Lightwave, in which Jones holds a 50% interest.

        "`We're targeting the suburbs because we haven't wanted to
compete head-on with other providers,' says Del Guynes, network design
director for Jones' telecommunications operations.  Indeed, Chicago is
the third suburban market Jones has targeted.  It turned up local
service in Atlanta last week and will add Tampa, FL in two months.

        "The push into the suburbs comes on the heels of a flurry of
pro-competitive activity in Chicago.  Last week, Jones, Teleport
Communications Group, Metropolitan Fiber Systems Inc., and other met
to devise ways to strike down the biggest barrier to competition:
Illinois Bell's monopoly on local switch-access services."

Linda Perry

<end of quote from {Information Week}>

For those who are interested, the "others" also already in operation
in central Chicago include Diginet, which actually has a plant
reaching from Chicago to Milwaukee and Digital Direct of Chicago,
owned by Jones' major competitor in the nationwide cable TV ownership
business, TCI Cablevision of Denver.

As to "striking down" the Illinois Bell "barrier" of monopoly dial
tone, the Illinois utility regulators have openly welcomed that,
stating they want to see Chicago become a "free trade zone for
telecommunications."

In New York, Teleport has already been providing another source of
dial tone for almost two years now, and the NY regulators would like
to see it expand.

When will you have a choice of suppliers of dial tone?  Perhaps not
all that soon, but one thing is certain.  The local phonecos have
persisted in methods and means that have now clearly brought the
regulators around to letting their monopoly erode, opening the
once-sacrosanct dial tone itself to free market economics.

Permit me a bit of fortune-telling here, but I see it all washing out
such that within about a decade, most of us will have a choice of who
we buy a dial tone from ... and I expect at a lower price than today.
The amount that present local phonecos _could_ reduce their prices is
nothing short of amazing, once they find out what _real_ competition
is.  The only thing that could keep this from happening would be if
the cablecos get entrenched as the major competitors, a move they
clearly are now set to try.  However, offsetting that is a large crop
of individually-owned local Alternative Access companies that are
cropping up nationwide, perhaps faster than the cablecos can contend
with.

All in all, the phonecos have a lot of hard thinking to do that they
may already be too late in starting.  It won't be monopoly business as
usual for phonecos much longer.


WM v2.01/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, those companies are operating here. I don't
personally know anyone using their services.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: 1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 22:00:39 GMT


I stumbled across a 1A2 KSU that GTE had just ripped off a wall in one
of our business park's phone room, which they planned to throw away.

I have about 15 of the appropriate 5-line 25XX sets that I picked up
for about $5 each at a garage sale and have been using in my home as
two-line totally-featureless sets for the last three years.  I want to
make these phones hold/blink/wink/buzz/intercom/etc.

Critics: Yes, this is antique.  Yes, I have salvaged 25-pair cable
wiring laying around in my garage.  If you've got a complete solution
for a 2x14 key system or PBX for under $400 including sets, let's hear
it!

For the uninitiated: The 1A2 system uses those old-fashoned phones
that look like standard desk units except they add a red HOLD button
and five clear buttons that light up, blink, wink, etc.  You know the
ones.  KSU = Key Service (System?) Unit -- the guts of a key telephone
system.  The KSU is usually hidden inside a huge beige box on the wall
in a phone closet.  Very mechanical -- lots of relays -- very reliable.
This was the standard for business and government offices for years.

The KSU chassis has a swing-out rack containing a "backplane" for the
model 400-ish line circuit cards, which has three of the 25-pair
(RJ21X?)  cable connectors and an "interrupter" mechanical motorized
lamp and bell flasher/winker attached.

I figured out the following sequence for the cable connectors:
  CO Tip
  CO Ring
  Station Tip
  Station Ring
  A
  A1  (common)
  Lamp Ground (common)
  Lamp
  High-voltage ringer (common)
  Common Audiable Ringer out

(I may have the A and Lamp mixed up a bit here -- they're "standard"
and I've got them working correctly all over the kitchen table right
now :)

It took me a while to realize the ringing wasn't working because the
detector is from Tip or Ring to ground [bridged?] and doesn't detect
the ring voltage BETWEEN T and R [superimposed?].  I hooked up the
ground on the power supply and voila!

But -- I can't figure out where to hook in the music-on-hold (aka
ASCAP/BMI revenue generator).

These particular line cards (oops -- left the model number at home)
say "music on hold" on their fronts under the model number, but don't
appear to have any transformers and I couldn't find any likely-looking
connections on the backplane/rack or pairs on the cable connector.
The cards each have 8 punch-block-like clips to program ringing and
blinking.  All of it is made by GTE/AE except the Elgin Electric power
supply.

If anyone could tell me how/where to hook up MOH, or even the
appropriate pins on the line cards, I'd appreciate it greatly, even if
I have to connect my own external isolation transformers, since I'll
only be using two or three CO trunks.

I don't have the Intercom module, but am contemplating using a line
card with talk battery connected (via resistor) to the CO inputs and
either hacking it to buzz all station buzzers when hold is pushed or
adding a tone detector for that purpose.  I don't really need
individual station signalling, just a common buzzer that can to
"manual distinctive ringing" -- e.g. 1 buzz = wife, 2 = me, etc.

Also, legally, does my ROC care if I connect this thing to the line?
The SX-20 salesperson (below) seemed shocked that I might NOT need
special "trunk" lines to connect the SX-20.  Obviously I don't want to
pay monthly charges for the unnecessary.  Should I mention it at all?

My defense would be "Gee -- I've tried to give them the FCC ID and REN
for all my premise equipment in the past eight years and they've not
cared and/or not known what I was talking about, so I stopped trying."
(But, this 1A2 has no FCC ID or REN listed, it's just a few years too
old.)

MITEL STORY STARTS HERE: I made the mistake of buying a used SX-20 PBX
which the salesjerk swore would do everything I could ever think of.
I wanted to use it in my home with plain-old phones.  It IS a nice
system, except the generic is the "hotel/motel" package and not the
business package, so some basic features like "hold" are missing.

The killer for me was that you can only program each CO line to ring a
single station and you must punch in a pickup code to pick up a
ringing line, so it's not too practical for home use.  (I figured we
had to be able to at least phone home to the babysitter and expect
him/her to figure out how to answer.)  This salesperson is no longer
being considered for the purchase of our company's new system -- BTW --
it was also a "buy it now or never" high pressure sales deal which I
should have avoided.

But -- it does seem to work and is configured for (I believe) about
four lines and 24 extensions.  The generic (firmware) is removable and
upgradeable to the business generic.  I paid $300 and would like to
get about that much for it.  Includes all manuals (programming,
wiring, operation) except attendant console operator's guide and
includes the attendant console, which, ironically, is a ten-button 1A2
desk set with reassigned key button definitions.  It would be nice for
a small business or even as an intercom and is upgradeable to
something like eight lines and 96 extensions.

Please send e-mail if interested.  I may be willing to swap for other
telecom or PC goodies, especially a Panasonic KSU or possibly an AT&T
Partner KSU, which are what I really wanted but couldn't find.

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

From: [e-mail] (John R Ruckstuhl Jr)
Subject: Matching LEC's to RBOC's
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 05:51:56 GMT


Will some kind person(s) send me a list of LEC's matched to RBOC's?
If I remember correctly, there are 22 LEC's owned (if that is the
right word) by seven RBOC's.  Direct me to the archives if appropriate;
I !can! ftp.


Thank you, and best regards,

John R Ruckstuhl, Jr             [e-mail]
Dept of Electrical Engineering   [e-mail], uflorida!ruck
University of Florida            [e-mail], sphere!ruck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 20:28:27 -0500
From: Aydin Edguer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Articles on Telco Line Tests


    Once, a couple of years ago, there was a document in the
telecom archives on the different tests that the phone company could
run to test a line, what the expected results should be, and how to
ask for the tests.  It no longer seems to be a separate document and I
am unable to locate it in the index for vol.9-10-11.

    Do you know which issue this came from or where it can be found?


Thank you,

Aydin Edguer


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunately I do not remember the articles.
Perhaps a reader will recall them and point them out to you.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 09:00:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From France


AT&T's USA Direct is now automated from France.


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: Fri, 13 Mar 92 11:22:14 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones


I believe (if my memory seres me well -- which I often doubt), that
someone talked about a device similar to this requirement.

The requirement:

                 I currently have two lines, the primary one is
connected to the dial out line and house phones. What I am after is a
device that will switch the phones to the alternate phone line if a
ringing signal is detected AND the primary line is on-hook (ie not
being used). This relay(?) will remain switched as long as the
alternate line is ringing or off-hook when answered. At the completion
of the call, it will then revert to the primary line.

  Would such a device be able to be powered from the phone lines, or
would I need an alternate power supply? Any help would be most
gratefully received.  Thanks.

P.S. A friend in the US was asking me about a device that would detect
the MF tones of the local fire dispatch centre and switch a speaker
into the circuit/activate a recording system. Is such a system
currently available?  If not how can one find out the tones used and
the specs (duration/delay etc)?


Bryan Montgomery

[e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 08:15:12 EST
From: "Richard Budd" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status Report: Telecommunications in Thuringia, Germany


The {New York Times} had an article on 3/11 about Germany's TELEKOM
and its effort to upgrade the telephone system in eastern Germany.
Officials expect when the renovation is complete in three years that
telecommunications in eastern Germany will be among the best in the
world with greater opportunities for subscribers than either western
Germany or France.  The article mentioned the possibility of a service
similar to Minitel being offered there.

This tied in to an advertisement about a professional building complex
under construction near Suhl in the state of Thuringia.  Besides being
within 100 kilometers of Frankfurt/Main, the article mentioned that
the telephone company offered ISDN service and networked data center
service.  I regret I do not have the advertisement with me.  It was in
German and I did not have enough time to do a word for word translation.

The Times article also mentioned that the Premier of Thuringia was
able to convince Japanese businessmen to invest in his state by
successfully contacting his home office on the first try over his
portable phone.


Richard Budd                    Internet: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer             Bitnet: [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest, NY          Phone: [phone]

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

From: Gregg E. Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 08:38:32 -0600


I was reading one of the computer magazines (Antic?) and ran across a
somewhat unconventional add for SPRINT.  The new incentive to switch
over is two FREE computer games!  The way it works (I called and
switched over from MCI for fun/research) is you switch over and Sprint
pays your switch fee.  After there is billable activity on the acount
(they wouln't want to give you something for nothing!) they send you a
coupon book that you can use to select one free game.  I could not get
details on what computers the games would run on but the offer is
co-sponsored by Sierra (King's Quest, etc) and will be only their
games.  If you stay with them for six months and have $30+/month for
at least three months (it may be $20 ... I am fuzzy on the figure) you
will get another coupon book to order a second game.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 9:45:52 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder


Along U.S. 40 at Havre de Grace, Maryland, is a billboard saying
"There are 410 men for every single woman in Maryland.  (Just
kidding)".  It's a reminder about the 410 area code.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #223
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03490;
          14 Mar 92 4:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10215
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01808
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:22 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:59:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #224

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 01:59:21 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 224

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Heathkit Now Sells Phone Gear (Julian Macassey)
    Call for ISDN-Newsgroup (Michael Alexander)
    Call Progress Tones (Pete Holsberg)
    Alternate Automated Billing System (AABS) (John V. Zambito)
    Senate Committee on Commerce Wants Your Input (Matt Holdrege)
    MCI Offers Grace Period (Gregg E. Woodcock)
    Radio Contest Lines (Kath Mullholand)
    The Kansas Connection (Kath Mullholand)
    Myth Busting (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Re: Caller ID Product Idea (Eric J. Johnson)
    Re: Caller ID Product Idea (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Heathkit Now Sells Phone Gear
Date: 14 Mar 92 04:35:04 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


    I have just received my latest Heathkit catalogue. They don't
sell build it yourself kits anymore. They now are in the "Home
Automation" business. In English this means thermostats, remote
control and burgler alarms.

    On page 31 of the catalogue the telephone stuff starts with a
Call Screening device. The caller has to enter a code to alert the
caller that a legit caller is calling. Just the job when the
telemarketers get relentless. They also have amplified handsets,
Caller ID boxes, 900 call blockers, selective ringing detectors. All
the usual gadgets that get asked about here so often.

    They even have a phone that digitally masks your voice. Now
all this stuff is made by various manufacturers, not Heath. Besides
the phones, there are lots of neat gadgets for sale. If you want a
catalogue call [phone]. Overseas try +1 616.925.4914. Fax (616)
925-4876.

    There is a Compuserve Heath On-line catalogue I beleive. Type
GO HTH .


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]
N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA
90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Alexander)
Subject: Call for ISDN-Newsgroup
Date: 13 Mar 1992 21:55:27 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


ISDN is preparing for rapid growth due to the introduction of new
products in Europe as well as in the U.S. There are a variety of
issues ranging from protocolls to country-specific ISDN -- trends and
products to be discussed in the future moderated newsgroup alt.isdn.

Please send your votes with a short yes (other forms of agreement --
acknowledgements are welcome) to [e-mail].


Cheers,

Michael F. Alexander      University of Southern California
Ma-Bel-Network:    [phone]  MVS: [e-mail]
VM-Bitnet: [e-mail]   UNIX: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Holsberg)
Subject: Call Progress Tones
Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 22:28:09 GMT


I have before me a product spec sheet for a "call progress decoder."
It mentions "dial, audible ringback, busy signal and reorder" tones. I
know about dial and busy, but what are the others?


Thanks,

Prof. Peter J. Holsberg      Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800          Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
FAX: [phone]            1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: [e-mail]       Trenton Computer Festival: April 11-12, 1992

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

From: [e-mail] (John V. Zambito)
Subject: Alternate Automated Billing System (AABS)
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:32:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is completed,
> then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they have a collect
> call from "..." will they accept the charges?  Say yes to accept the
> charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as well ...

We also have a product like this called "Automated Alternate Billing
System". If you're at a touch tone phone you can also press 1 to
accept the charges. The inmates at a prison where this is installed
found out that if they held the 1 down when they were suppose to say
their name, it would cause the charges to be accepted due to the
side-tone. (Side-tone is the portion of the signal received from the
phone which comes from the transmitted signal to the phone.)

To eliminate this we look for the DTMF '1' tone while we record the
name. If there is one present we tell the caller to repeat his name.
If it is there again we put a 110dB tone out the earpiece :) (I wish
we could. Actually, we pass the call to the operator.)  If there is a
bug or anomaly in these systems the prisoners will find them. What
else do they have to do?

We have AABS at Southern Bell, Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, and
GTE and maybe others I don't know about.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 18:14 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: Senate Committee on Commerce Wants Your Input


I called the Senate Committee on Commerce at the number provided in
Telecom #220: 202-224-9430.

A receptionist took my message and said I would get a call back. About
a half-hour later a gentleman named John Windhausen called from the
committee. He asked what my concerns were over the FBI proposal. I
talked to him about the topics discussed here in the TELECOM Digest.
He seemed to understand and agree with everything I said.

The topic that he truly seemed interested in was how digital lines
were tapped, and especially if it was easier for authorities to tap
digital lines rather than analog. He said that everyone in his area
was asking these questions. I replied that this was the main reason
for a public hearing.

He said that he needed some written information regarding digital
tapping.  He asked me to send him some information. I said that I
would and that I would ask some of my more knowledgable collegues (you
all) to write also.

His address:     John Windhausen
                 227 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
                 Washington, DC. 20510

I hope that some of you out there with a real handle on the technical
concepts will write to him. He seems eager to present the facts to the
committee.


Matt Holdrege     Internet: [e-mail]    Voice: 714-229-2518

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

From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Offers Grace Period
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 12:01:19 -0600


After months and months of throwing out my MCI bills because I almost
never made calls (monthly bills), my message has gotten through!  I am
not about to spend 25% of my bill just on postage to pay it (not to
mention the cost/waste of the check).  MCI, via a printed message on
the bill, now offers a(n indefinite?) grace period that allows you to
defer payment until your bill accrues to an amount over $5!  This may
not seem like a big deal but it is in these "little" perks/services
that the big three will win their battles.  I called Sprint and they
won't "officially" allow this.  Way to go MCI.


[Moderator's Note: AT&T also allows this, at least on the direct
billing they do for cellular phones from their Florida billing center.
They do put a three month limit on the grace period, however.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 10:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Radio Contest Lines


A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those
contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!")  that *some*
radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still
counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and
had to be answered.  At his radio station, however, he had to pick up
each call (he told the caller what number they were to keep track
easier) and hang up so that more callers could get through.  They were
limited to five incoming lines at a time on what sounds to me like a
call director of some sort.

I can also visualize that some stations might let the "wrong" callers
ring away and pick up only that line that is the correct number.

So, the question is this.  Is there equipment that returns a busy, as
he described?  How does it work?  Does it return the busy and then
disconnect, leaving the line free for additional calls?  Or is there a
CO arrangement that would allow the radio station to count 16 callers
and only let the 17th through, so that they don't have to have 17
lines?

I know some of you are into broadcast radio, and thought you might
have some insight.  This has puzzled me for a few years.


kath mullholand       university of new hamphshire       durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 10:00:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: The Kansas Connection


I just noticed on the reverse of one of our Sprint bills is this
"Notice of Jurisdiction":

"Pursuant to KSA 60-308 (b) (11), as a business customer, you may be
subject to jurisdiction in Kansas for any dispute relating to your
telephone service with Sprint.  This is because you have arranged for
or continued to receive phone service managed, operated or monitored
in the state of Kansas."

Since the latest scam uses "Entertain, KS" as a billing location, this
led me to wonder about what kind of jurisdiction KS retains over these
companies and customers.

I'm assuming the Sprint notice isn't there because I may one day make
calls to or from Kansas on my bill, but because Sprint has corporate
offices in Kansas.

Any thoughts?


kath mullholand       university of nh        durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer.


[Moderator's Note: You might want to aquaint yourself with the
applicable portions of the Uniform Commercial Code, to which both
Kansas and your state are signatories. It allows for suit to be
brought in the vendor's jurisdiction if desired, meaning you'd have to
get a lawyer in Kansas to represent you rather than them getting a
lawyer in New Hampshire to sue you over a delinquent bill.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 16:29:32 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Myth Busting


Here's yet another message from the Fidonet FCC echo.

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
 Subject: Myth Busting

Here's another bit of telephone myth-busting.

One of the misconceptions many people carry is that Alexander Graham
Bell was such a superhero that he developed the whole concept of the
telephone, replete with jangling bell, switchboard and even the
fabricated word "Hello" for a greeting.

In fact, it was L.M.Ericcson in Sweden who added a bell to the
telephone, while others developed the concept of a switchboard, and
Thomas Edison seems to have been the true "inventor" of the word,
"hello."

Few people know that there was fierce competition in the early years
of telephony; as well, that Edison was one of Bell's prime
competitors.  Edison's notion of the telephone did not include a
switchboard at all, as he conceived it was merely to be a permanent
"open line" between two places.  The following article from the New
York Times reveals that AT&T had an Edison letter in its archives
about the origin of the word, "hello:"

          "AHOY! HERE'S HOW WE ENDED UP SAYING "HELLO"
                       By William Grimes

        "Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.  But Thomas
Alva Edison coined the greeting.

        "The word `hello,' it appears, came straight from the fertile
brain of the wizard of Menlo Park, N.J., who concocted the sonorous
syllables to resolve one of the first crises of techno-etiquette: What
do you say to start a telephone conversation?

        "Two contemporaries of Edison credited him with the word, but
too vaguely for Allen Koenigsberg, a classics professor at Brooklyn
College who has a passion for early phonographs and their history.

        "Resolved to sort out the `hello" mystery, Koenigsberg
embarked on a tortuous seach five years ago that led him, finally and
triumphantly to the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. archives in
lower Manhattan, where he found an unpublished letter by Edison.

        "Dated August 15, 1877, it is addressed to T.B.A. David.
President of the Central District and Printing Telegraph Co. in
Pittsburgh, Pa. David was preparing to introduce the telephone to that
city."  (Note that Edison was promoting his own telephones in
competition to Bell, which leads one to puzzle on how this letter
wound up in the AT&T archives!)

        "At the time, Edison envisioned the telephone as a business
device only, with a permanently open line to parties at either end.
This setup raised a problem.  How would anyone know the other party
wanted to speak?  Edison addressed the issue as follows:

        "`Friend David,

        "`I don't think we shall need a call bell as Hello! can be
heard 10 to 20 feet away.  What do you think?

        "`EDISON'

        "It was a word of destiny.  Over at the laboratory of Edison's
rival, Bell was insisting that `Ahoy!' as the correct way to answer
the telephone.

        "It was trounced by `hello.' which became the standard as the
first telephone exchanges, equipped by Edison, were set up across the
United States and operating manuals adopted the word.

        "The first public telephone exchange, opened in New Haven on
January 28, 1878, wavered between "hello" and the fusty "What is
wanted?" in its manual.  By 1880, "hello" had won out.

        "Like the telephone, the punchy "hello" was a liberator and a
social leveler.

        "`The phone overnight cut right through the 19th-centry
etiquette that you don't speak to anyone unless you've been
introduced.' Koenigsberg said.  And "hello" was the edge of the blade.

        "`If you think about it,' he said. "why didn't Stanley say
hello to Livingston?  The word didn't exist.'"

So, now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the Rest Of The Story; just
another one your friendly local phoneco doesn't think you need to
know. After all, didn't Bell do everything that was worth doing?


 WM v2.01/91-0073
 * Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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


[Moderator's Note: I thought the word used to open a telephone call
was 'Hold'.   :)    PAT]

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

From: null![e-mail] (Eric J. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea
Organization: U S WEST Communications
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 21:09:55 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter
Sleggs) writes:

> [e-mail] (Jim Harvey) writes:

>> Even better would be a machine with separate tapes for normal incoming
>> calls and blocked calls.

> I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate
> message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not
> accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it
> off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect.

I use my Natural Microsystems Watson card with a MHE Caller*ID
interface to do just this.  People who call me wishing to enforce
their version of privacy (*67) find themselves presented with a
message that they have chosen not to reveal their number, I have have
chosen not to take their message.  They are then disconnected without
a message being taken.


Eric J. Johnson    UUCP: [e-mail]
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in
no way reflect the will of Landru.  (or U S WEST Communications)

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Product Idea
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 3:11:16 EST


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters wrote:

> I want one that when it sees 'private' switches to an alternate
> message and goes into announce only mode, with a message of 'we do not
> accept calls with blocking, If you wish to contact us please turn it
> off and call again, thank you.' and disconnect.

> Is there a voice mail card out currently that can handle Caller-ID
> with distinctive ringing detection as well?

As I mentioned last month in this column, I already did this, without
the distinctive ringing detection.

I suppose a suitable application of Ring Leader or useable equivalent
would make this a reality.

In fact, I'm going to get one myself for exactly this use. I'll let ya
know :)

I sure hope somebody besides defunct MHE Systems makes a decent
CLID->EIA232 decoder, or else the whole deal is off.


data:  [e-mail] (John Boteler)
voice: 703.241.5692

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #224
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00411;
          14 Mar 92 17:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03818
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:08 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:04:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #225

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 15:04:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 225

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Paul Schmidt)
    Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (John Rice)
    Re: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted (Mark Lottor)
    Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines (Clive Feather)
    Re: Telemarketer Avoidance (Gerald A. Flotta)
    Re: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Roaming With No Home (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (John R. Covert)
    Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (C. Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: tijc02![e-mail] (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 13:41:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, kerner![e-mail]
(Marty the Droid) writes:

> A 900 number is the simplest way to make a pay-per-use call for the
> simple minded folks out there. This is a marketing decision.

This may not be the best thing today on a network with alot of UUCP
users.  As a caller of UUNET'S 900 number to download some files, I
could take this as an insult.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 900 Scam and an Alternative to 900 Numbers
Date: Wed 11 Mar 1992 09:21 -0500


I'm mainly arguing for uniformity. If people want to use 900 service,
it could be provided as an option when they get their telco service.
They can then be asked for a credit card number.  If they don't have
one and telco wants to act as their banker, they can issue them a
separate credit card number of some sort. RBOCs as charge card
issuers?  But with 900 numbers they already are, at least make it act
more like the charge card it is than just another phone call.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 14:07:45 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) writes:

>> 2!  No more outWATs services.

> Exactly what do they mean by this ? You can't call a 1-800 number ?

> [Moderator's Note: 1-800 is considered 'In-Wats'.  'Out-Wats' are bulk
> rate long distance lines for outgoing calls.   PAT]

I knew that. (Except for about 10min while I was reading the
message).<sigh>


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: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 16:30:31 PST
From: "Mark Lottor" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Cell Phone Recommendations/Comments Wanted


[e-mail] (Louis A. Mamakos) wrote:

> I've been toying the the idea of getting a portable cellular phone and
> have been looking at the OKI 900 and the NEC P300 and P200 phones.
> Anyone have any comments, positive or negative about any of these
> models?  Suggested alternatives?  Neat programming hacks?

I wrote a review of some portable cellphones a year ago.  I still feel
the OKI 900 is the best one.  It has more features than most other
celphones.  I've had mine for a year now.  It is also resold by AT&T
with a different front-panel layout, but the same software.

The support from OKI is also excellent.  I dropped my phone a few
weeks ago from about four feet onto a hard tile floor.  The battery
pack popped off and broken the little tab that holds it in.  I called
OKI and ordered some spare tabs (about $2 each).  They already had a
redesigned version of the part that won't break as easily, and they
sent me the new parts for free (of course your typical consumer won't
repair his own phone, but they would fix it for free if I sent it to
their repair center).  The phone has a three year warranty.

I've also spent a lot of time "working" on the phone lately.  I have
built an RS-232 interface to it that lets you control the phone from a
PC or other system.  It also lets you access the external audio in/out
signals.  I have some software that lets you maintain your 200
alphanumeric memories on the PC and download (or upload) them to the
phone.  It can also plop the phone into its ROM debugger mode and do
some pretty interesting things.  My company will probably start
selling this as a product in a month or two.


mkl

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: UK Telephone Watchdog Bans Chat Lines
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 16:24:19 GMT


In 12.211.2 Graham Thomas writes:

> ICSTIS has become better-known recently (via an insert in everyone's
> telephone bill

This was the first I'd heard of ICSTIS, and I thought I was
telecom-savvy! The leaflet stated that "premium call barring" (i.e.
barring of *all* premium rate lines, whether sex, chat, or weather)
was provided free by BT. This was the first I'd heard of a free
barring service.

I promptly cancelled the (paid) selective call-barring service I had
subscribed to in favour of free barring.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 10:33 EST
From: gaf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketer Avoidance


   I myself do not currently have a problem with telemarketers but,
given a chance here are my suggestions. :-)

1.  After identifying the caller as a telemarketer, start in with your
*own* sales pitch for raffle tickets, support for the school band by
buying hoagies, ask for donations to the Pittsburgh Aviairy, invite
them to your garage sale, bake sale, car wash, church bazzar etc.
Just have a nice long list.

2.  If you have an answering machine, try to get an outgoing recorded
message of a call from a *pay phone* as your greeting.

Telemarketer - Ring...  Ring... Answer.

Your message - "Please deposit fourteen dollars and ninety-five cents
for the first one minute".

     While the above fooling around may be fun a more effective solution
is to announce that you do not conduct business on the phone, or simply
just hang up.


Bitnet...gaf@pittvms     412-624-6407          University of Pittsburgh
[e-mail] (Gerald A. Flotta)       600 Epsilon Drive
My opinions are just that.                     Pittsburgh Pa.   15238-2887

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 09:43:02 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: McCaw's North American Cellular Network Has Problems


Here's an account of my experiences with McCaw's "National Network"
which connects their Cellular One cities.  Right now, it covers the
entire west coast (including British Columbia), as well as Pittsburgh,
and Florida.  They plan to eventually connect to other A carriers'
switches.

It is advertised as something that allows all of your calls and
features to follow you to any of the cities on the network.  They
claim that it works quite well, with the exception of no-answer
transfer to voicemail not being available when roaming in LA (this is
from the perspective of a Seattle customer).  Some of the advantages
are uniform control codes for features, as well as automatic
registration so that you don't have to do anything but turn on your
phone in the roaming city for it to instantly recognize you.

Unfortunately, every time I have used it, I have had problems of one
sort or another.  Some were minor, but others were serious limitations
if you relied on your cellular number as a reliable way to reach you
(I do - since Cellular One of Seattle offers call forwarding/no answer
transfer/busy transfer at no per-minute charge, I just give out my
cellular number as my only contact number.  Then, I have it no-answer
transfer by default to voicemail, or to a landline phone that I may be
at.  This can present problems if there's a Cellular One problem, as
then nobody knows how to reach me).

My first experience was a business trip to Pittsburgh.  When I arrived
at the airport, I took out my portable (still off), and proceeded to
set up a calling card call to my Seattle cellular number from a
payphone.  Just prior to entering the last digit of my calling card
PIN, I turned on the phone.  In less than ten seconds, the cellular
was ringing.  Needless to say, I was quite impressed, having been on
the other side of the country, and less than ten seconds of power-up
and without dialing any codes, I was receiving my incoming calls to my
regular number.  All my experiences of the McCaw National Network have
been great with respect to instant registration of location as well as
custom calling feature changes being instant.

The previous poster was correct in saying that once it knows where you
are, the system will silent-page your phone every ten minutes or so.
If you miss a few consecutive pages, it will clear out your entry such
that it won't even try to find you when a call comes in (this happens
even if you are in your home system).

My first problem in Pittsburgh happened during the time between
turning off the phone and the system resetting my number after several
missed pages.  During this time, incoming calls would be greeted with
everlasting dead silence.  No "out of range" message, no transfer to
voicemail, nothing!  Checking with Customer Care revealed that "the
National Network still has some bugs in it."  Of course they did not
tell me this when they were hyping its wonders.  But they told me that
I could dial *35 to enable "Do not disturb" which effectively
disconnects you from the National Network, causing voicemail, no-answer
transfer, or an error recording to function normally.  So, I had to
dial *35 just before powering down each time, and *350 upon power-up
to reconnect me.  This problem wasn't resolved in the two days I was
in Pittsburgh.

Oh yeah, one nice thing about McCaw's voicemail is that if you
unconfigure yourself by enabling no-answer transfer to some other
number, you can re-enable voicemail by entering something like *52, so
you can mix their voicemail with something else of your own without
having to call them each time to reactivate voicemail as the poster
from NY had to.

One glaring hole with the voicemail is that if you are not in your
home system, no-answer transfer to voicemail will not work during the
period between power-down and your number being reset between missed
pages.  So, no voicemail for about an hour after each power-down,
unless you enter the *35/*350 codes each time.  Customer Care didn't
see why this wasn't acceptable.  :-( For one thing, it doesn't work
"just like it does at home" as advertised.

Then in February, me and a buddy took a trip down to Lake Tahoe and
Sacramento.  He had his phone that has service in Portland, and I had
mine from Seattle.  Our first problem was caused when Customer Care
explained the *35/*350 codes using the wrong polarity, such that we
disconnected ourselves when we intented to be on, and vice-versa.  Of
course this was not discovered for over a day, until we missed a
connection with someone because they couldn't reach us.

The real problems we had were from Sacramento.  The Portland phone did
not get its voicemail when its own number was dialed, and we didn't
know the back door number.

The other one was very strange: The Seattle phone could not reach the
Portland phone by dialing its home number.  The Portland phone could
be reached from Portland, or from Sacramento by using a landline.  The
only combination that didn't work was calling from one cellular to the
other.  And the Seattle cellular phone could call any other number in
Sac, Portland, or Seattle just fine.  The error message was generated
by the Portland switch.  By placing the call using a calling card, the
call would go through, since by the time the call arrived at the
Portland switch, the information that the call originated from another
roaming cellular was lost.  Customer Care was unable to resolve this,
partly because they could not understand our description.  We
explained it at least five times, then they told us that there was no
problem because they had just called the number and it worked.  Of
course, since they weren't calling from a roaming phone in the same
city as the destination roaming phone, they were not testing using the
same conditions.

One intriguing possibility is that the network was trying to complete
the call without the use of a long distance trunk.  When my Seattle
phone called the Portland number, an SS7 message got sent to Portland.
When the Portland switch gets the called number and realizes that it's
roaming in the same place as the originating number, it could send
this information back down to Sacramento, which could complete the
call locally, as if I had used the roamer port.  If this is indeed the
way this works, this would be really nice, as it would save everyone
the long distance charges.  Of course, the cellular carriers would
probably still charge each party for the long distance and pocket the
excess profits themselves, but the customer would still benefit from
faster call setup times.  In any event, whatever it was trying to do
was not working, and we were never able to get it resolved.

A couple of weeks after I got back, I called back to Customer Care to
try to explain the roamer-to-roamer problem.  Since two weeks had
passed, they were not interested in hearing of it.  "Call back if it
happens again."  Since we had gotten the run-around when we did call
in at the time, I guess we'll just have to be firm about requiring an
immediate solution, since they are unwilling to look into it after the
fact.

To summarize, the National Network is great when it works, with
auto-registration, full custom calling features (except for
voicemail), and instant registration of custom calling changes.  Just
don't be surprised if you have occasional problems.  Actually, as long
as you don't use their voicemail, and just no-answer transfer to your
own, it works quite well, as the no-answer transfer always works
correctly.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 17:01:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: Roaming With No Home


My last post asked if it was possible to pay roaming charges without
having a home base where I paid monthly fees.

The consensus seems to be that this is not possible.  However, I have
found information which appears helpful.

1.  Some cell companies offer an emergency use service with a very low
    monthly rate and a very high per minute rate.

2.  You don't have to reside in a company's service area to have service
    with them.

3.  When roaming, you pay local roaming rates, not your home base rates.

This leads me to believe that I can find a company somewhere in the
country with very low monthly fees that I can use as my home base.

I am interested in finding the names and phone numbers of any companies
that offer service for $10 per month or less.

If the information that I have is incorrect, please correct me.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:46:00 PST
From: John R. Covert  12-Mar-1992 1345 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet?


> Today's newspaper says that dialing 706 is permitted beginning today.

Although there may be some exchanges in the Atlanta area that have
already programmed 706, the Bellcore date -- the one that matters for
the rest of the country -- is not until 3 May 92.  The permissive
period extends from that date until 3 August 92.


/john

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:03:44 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service


As for a bill going to the wrong address: If your bill customarily
arrives by a certain date each month, you might want to give the phone
company a call if it doesn't show up on time.  For example, I always
get my bill around the 10th of each month.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #225
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02423;
          14 Mar 92 18:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19096
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:12 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10103
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:03 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:58:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #226

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 15:58:03 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 226

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Bill England)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley)
    Re: What's a Baud? (John R. Levine)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Carl Moore)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Michael Salmon)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Dave Weitzel)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Ron Dippold)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Jeff Hollingsworth)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill England)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Stephen Software Systems Inc., Tacoma/Seattle, [phone]
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:32:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [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).

Actually I can't find it written in the FAR's that using a cellular
phone in an aircraft is illegal.  It does say that you may not use any
device that interferes with navigation.

I would like to know of any FCC regulations regarding using cell
phones (if you could quote the article and section number it would
help) in aircraft?


Thanks,

Bill England,  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 06:44:10 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
> ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

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

>>> No, actually, the captains found that they could get in Big
>>> trouble in allowing the HAMs to use their radios. FAR 91.19

> Lets try this AGAIN (the comments quoted in the FIRST paragraph were
mine).

And the comments in the FIRST paragraph were attributed to you.

> FAR 91.91 reads in part

There is no FAR 91.91. FAR 91.19 (which you based your first posting
on) has nothing to do with electronic equipment. It covers carriage of
drugs.

However, 91.21, does say, in part (after corrections to your post):

>   (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
> may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
> allow the operation of any portable electronic
> device on any of the following U.S. registered civil aircraft:

> (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
> carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
> determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
> made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device
> is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be
> made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft."

> I think that paragraph (a) coupled with paragraph (c) makes it pretty
> clear that the Pilot in Command (Captain) does NOT have the authority
> to give permission, in the case of an air carrier.

I think that paragraph (a), coupled with paragraph (c), pretty well
rules out ANYONE allowing the use of electronic equipment. Paragraph
(a) specifically prohibits the operator from making the decision that
paragraph (c) specifically says the operator is allowed to make.

(a) ... nor may any operator ... allow the operation ...
(c) the determination ... shall be made by that operator ...

Of course, this all ignores the very first qualifier to 91.21(a) --
"Except as provided in paragraph (b)...". And paragraph (b) does not
specify WHO in the operator's organization is responsible for the
determination of non-interference. Nothing in 91.21 says that it can't
be the PIC, acting as a representative of the operator. The only
effect of 91.21 is that the PIC cannot act on his own; his action must
be on the behalf of the operator, and that attaches responsibility to
the operator.


[Moderator's Note: There, everyone! Is this now completely clear (as
mud) to all of you?   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 12 Mar 92 11:31:00 EST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


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

> What is a baud?

It's a state change in a communication line.  With simple schemes like
DC or FSK signalling, it's the same as the bits per second, but at
1200 bps and up groups of bits are encoded together, e.g. the usual
2400 bps modems run at 600 baud because they encode four bits at a
time.  As an extreme example, Telebit PEP passes about 14000 bps at
88.26 baud by encoding up to 511 parallel groups of up to six bits per
baud.

> Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation?

It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer.  In
1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs
using the five bit code which bears his name.  The original version
had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the
appropriate keys for the code for each letter.  The system worked
synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the
correct time, clocked by a ticker.  The machine sent the five bits
serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the
multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important
practial advantage.  (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia
Britannica.)

Even though 30 wpm is quite slow by later standards, it's still about
three characters per second, so I imagine that the combination of
having to memorize the letter combinations and operate in precise sync
with the clock required highly skilled operators.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 10:09:21 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?


 From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd college edition:

baud -- after J. M. E. Baudot (1845-1903), French inventor

1. a unit of signaling speed in telegraphic code
2. the number of bits per second that can be transmitted in a given
   computer system

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 08:07:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(BARR DOUG) writes:

> I have what is probably a fairly simple question.  What is a baud?
> Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation?  This
> came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet.

One baud is a unit of data transmission corresponding to one possible
change of state of the signalling system per second. Let me illustrate
that with a couple of modem examples, I'm not so familiar with Bell
modems so I will use the CCITT definitions. First the plan old 300
baud, 300 bit per second modem. It transmits a 1 with a tone and a 0
with another and hence if we transmit a continuous pattern of
alternating 1's and 0's we have 300 changes in state (0 tone to 1 tone
or vice versa). The V22 modem is however different in that it can
transmit 600, 1200 or 2400 bits per second (if we include V22 bis) but
it is always 600 baud. This is acheived by transmiting 1, 2 or 4 bits
respectively at one time thus maintaining a maximum of 600 state
changes per second. As a side effect the modems are always
synchronous, when operated as pseudo-asynchronous they delete stop
bits if the data comes too fast. That of course has nothing to do with
baud. As to where it comes from, I vaguely recall hearing that it was
someone's name but I don't recall many details. I believe that he was
involved in the early days of telegraphy.


Michael Salmon    #include    <standard.disclaimer>
Ericsson Telecom AB    Stockholm

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 12:39:28 EST


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(BARR DOUG) writes:

> I have what is probably a fairly simple question.  What is a baud?
> Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation?  This
> came up when we were comparing the bandwidth of ISN to ethernet.

 From Tanenbaum's 2ed "Computer Networks" p. 54:

"The time T required to transmit the character depends on both the
encoding method and the signaling speed [the number of times per
second that the signal changes its value (e.g., its voltage)].  The
number of changes per second is measured in *baud*.  A B baud line
does not necessarily transmit B bits/sec, since each signal might
convey several bits.  If the voltages 0 - 7 were used, each signal
value could be used to convey three bits, so the bit rate would be
three times the baud rate. ...."  Any basic telecommunications book
usually convers this in the first few chapters.  As for the term
itself, my bet is that it is named after Mr. Baudot of encoding fame
and not an acronym.  Can anyone interject some facts on this?


Dave Weitzel 'standard disclaimer applies'


[Moderator's Note: Re interjecting of facts. That's what we're doing
in this issue, Dave. :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Date: 13 Mar 92 19:50:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


Baud refers to the inverse of the minimum signaling interval.  That
is, if it takes 1/1200 of a second to send a signal, then the
siganling rate is 1200 baud.

That's NOT the same as the bit rate!  A single signling interval may
carry one or more bits.  (It's one bit on RS-232, but modems often
encode several bits into one complex waveform.)  So a bog-standard
9600 bps "fax" modem (V.29) or its dial-up big brother (V.32) both run
at only 2400 baud, across the phone line, but encode four bits in each
signaling interval.

The term is in homage to telegraph pioneer Louis Baudot, for whom
Murray also named the five-row teleprinter code.


    fred (Instructor, Telecommunications Transmission Techniques,
       Northeastern University.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:32:30 GMT


[e-mail] (BARR DOUG) writes:

> I have what is probably a fairly simple question.  What is a baud?
> Also, does anyone know what it stands for or its derivation?

I waited a day to make sure that we weren't flooded by responses ...
It's derived from the name of J.M.E. Baudot, who was a French pioneer
in printing telegraphy.  Basically, a baud is a transition of the
waveform used to transmit the data.  What a transition is depends on
what you're interested in.  Each transition can carry multiple bits of
information.  For example, in a V.32 modem, each baud carries four
bits of information.  Six for V.32bis.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:53:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  Then it waits for a
> response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
> completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
> have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
> to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as
> well.  Anyway, you get the idea and I'm not going to write out all
> these scripts ...

Does this mean that if my answering machine has the word yes before
the word no on the out going message, it can be used for third party
toll fraud?  Will there be an option to block automated third party
calls, but let operator assisted third party calls go through (maybe
for a higher fee)?


Jeff Hollingsworth                    Work: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]                Home: [phone]
X.400: <pn=Jeff.Hollingsworth;ou=cs;o=uw-madison;prmd=xnren;c=US>
Home: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 09:25:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


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

> [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+
>> call.  At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the
>> bong-tone, and the spoken phrase "AT&T" so they know they're on AT&T.
>> Then the customer can enter their calling card number, or wait a while
>> and an operator will assist them.  If you dial 10ATT0 you'll still get
>> an AT&T operator.

> So for those of us who have "NONE" as the LD carrier, who always dial
> 10288 [01] to go through AT&T, we will not get access to this valuable
> service?

Sure you will; if you dial 10ATT0-ten_digit_phone_number you'll get
the bong tone, and if you wait long enough you'll get our system,
assuming you are in an area where this is installed of course.
Presently it's only in the Dallas area.  At first it was only in DFW
airport, but we've expanded tremendously since then.

> So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it
> or not, yes, you got the answer machine again.  I'm not at home so
          ---
> leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ...
> BEEP!"  then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost?

We ran into false yes's and no's on answering machine a few times but
it was very uncommon.  What we found is that the calling customer
would almost always hang up when an answering machine was reached.

One thing we found while testing is that some customers would abuse
the system by speaking a message such as, "I'll be home at 7:00",
instead of their name.  We know who you are!  :-)

Some would even speak nonsense to confuse it.  I guess they have
nothing better to do :-)

Some people, especially kids, seemed to like the system a lot.

Some people spoke their PIN instead of using the touch-tone pad; the
technology to accept digit strings as reliably as we want is still in
the lab.

Others immediately flashed or pressed 0 for the operator since they
didn't want to deal with a machine.

Others said things like, "I don't want an operator."  And they are of
course immediately connected to an operator!

> What if the called party in a collect call fails to say anything that
> the computer can figure out.  Does it automatically switch to a real
> operator ...

Yes [in the first version of our system].

> or does the caller have to hang up and place the call again
> and get a real operator to do it?

No [in the first version of our system].

What I described in my previous note was the first version of the
system and what was in the newspapers.

Because of the difficulties in dealing with answering machines [how do
you know a talkative person picked up or if you got an answering
machine, or if it was a wrong number, or a digital pager, or who knows
what] we abandonded using automation on that part of the call.  If
these problems can be overcome we'll go for it.  The newspapers got
that part wrong ...

In the present version if you want to make a collect call, a person to
person call, or a third number call an operator is immediately bridged
on to handle billing acceptance.

Here is an article from the {San Fransisco Chronicle} discussing the
new system:

HI-TECH -- AT&T offices in Tacoma, Wash., and Jacksonville, Fla., are
slated to be the first to receive the new computer equipment, which
recognizes and responds to human voice.  AT&T officials said the new
technology gives customers more choices and keeps costs down.
However, Val Afanasiev [president of CWA's Mountain View, Calif.-based
Local 9409] claims that the system doesn't always work.  CWA officials
in the state of Washington say operators there have begun pointedly
thanking customers for using a "live" operator, and are asking them to
continue demanding a human instead of a computer to complete calls.
An AT&T spokeswoman said the company "cannot condone" any action by
employees that impedes service.  MCI plans to make the "human factor"
a selling point against its larger rival.  "We feel our customers
enjoy hearing a human voice," an MCI spokeswoman said.  "We're staying
with live operators. {San Fransisco Chronicle}


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #226
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04137;
          14 Mar 92 18:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13480
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:09 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 16:59:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #227

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 16:59:11 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 227

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Alan Barclay)
    Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers (David G. Lewis)
    Re: ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted (Ken Burgess)
    Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call (John Higdon)
    Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line (Jeffrey J. Carpenter)
    Re: Ring Supression (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit (Andrew C. Green)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan Barclay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:01:54 gmt


Jim Gottlieb said:

> I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
> even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
> digits after a number make the call free?  Wouldn't this be more
> easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware
> kludge to every payphone in the country?  What am I missing?

BT has a mixture of different switches, include electomechanical,
analog and digital switches. To change all the different switches
would require quite a lot of work. To change the payphone just
requires one change, repeated several thousand times.

In another post someone else asks how the tone dialing created a
security problem? The answer is poor design. The phone used the keys
pressed to identify how much to charge for the call. If you used an
external DTMF dialer then the phone didn't realize that you had made a
call, and consequently it didn't charge. If BT had designed a DTMF
decoder into the phone then there wouldn't have been a problem.


Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England
[e-mail], ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:[phone], VOICE:[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100?
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 15:03:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rop
Gonggrijp) writes:

> [e-mail] (John Higdon @ Green Hills and Cows) once wrote:

>> The DMS lines we have from Contel sound better and the features work
>> more intuitively. If you have a choice, opt for the DMS.

> That's a load of crap. The DMS may be a nice switch on the analogue
> side, but the digital part of it gets very confused very often. DMS
> 100's are notorious (even out here where there is none) for switching
> you into other people's conversations. It also 'hangs' too often (your
> call ends up in the bitbucket).

Mr. Higdon says "sounds better and the features work more intuitively"
and you claim that statement is "a load of crap" and offer as proof a
claim of digital switching glitches.  Thats what I like -- good
constructive criticism :).

In article <[e-mail]> John Boteler <bote@access.
digex.com> writes:

> I must disagree with Mr. Higdon regarding the preferable digital
> switch.

> The ESS#5 is certainly closer in operation to the ESS#1A than that
> Brand X hunk o junk from north of the border.  It certainly behaves
> more intuitively than Brand X, if you can call the operation of either
> 'intuitive'.

One should not be suprised that AT&T's digital switch emulates their
#1A more accurately than Northern Telecom's.

> And if you want to use Centrex, forget the DMS-100.  Most technicians
> can't even figure out how to program it. Must use a different paradigm
> than WeCo.

And what concern is it of yours?  You order it and THEY provision it.

In my humble opinion, the DMS is a wonderful switch.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 9:07:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire


In <telecom12.211.6> [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Curious what the same carrier says is the cost of the same service in
> different locations. Regulators from one state should sit in on
> hearings in other states served by the same LEC. Might prove
> interesting or embarassing depending on your point of view.

and Dave Niebuhr adds:

> Actually, the costs could be different due to a lot of things, taxes
> and fees imposed by one state as opposed to another.  Sales tax comes
> to mind, along with the various surcharges.  Some are recouped through
> rates and others by direct assessment.

Another thing that makes a (big) difference is the number of digital
switches (lower personnel costs), and New Hampshire will be 100%
digital by year-end '93, according to the NET spokesman on the radio.


Kath Mullholand        University of New Hampshire        Durham, NH

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 11:35:01 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring


sleepy![e-mail] (Mark Allyn) writes:

> Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos
> so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what
> percentage is cars?

(Apologies in advance; I know we are veering from the land of Telecom ...)

I assume you're not serious here, but I can think of a test which
might tell if bicycles are detected at all. Find a traffic-light
intersection with a left-turn lane. You will probably see two or three
detector loops embedded in the pavement (three or four feet in
diameter, circle or rounded square shape, tar-covered slits with leads
running off in the direction of the controller box nearby).  If no car
is present, the left turn arrow is not activated. Ride your bicycle
over a loop when the light is red and see if you get the turn arrow if
no cars join you in line.

This is all based on my assumption that the left-turn loops are the
same design as the traffic speed sensor loops, of course. There's a
mighty good chance that I'm completely wrong. :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: Chicago Traffic Monitoring
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 19:54:15 GMT


sleepy![e-mail] (Mark Allyn) writes:

> Do these traffic sensors pick up and distinguish bicycles from autos
> so they can tell what percentage of traffic is bicyclists and what
> percentage is cars?

There was quite a bit of discussion on this topic on rec.bicycles a
few months back.  We're getting a bit off telecom, but many streets in
the Maryland suburbs of DC have signal loops to trigger lights or
activate left-turn phases.  If they're properly adjusted, they should
pick up a bicycle's presence, since a bike is a legitimate vehicle.
Some of the sensors in California are actually marked to show where a
bike should stop to trigger the system!  Since the method of operation
is inductive rather than weight-based, unless your bike is all
aluminum, it should work.


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland
                       -- [e-mail] --

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: 'Portable' 800 Numbers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:42:28 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
> writes:

>> I'm trying to get a feel of when/if 800 numbers are going to be
>> transferable from one long distance carrier to another...

> In order to make 800 numbers portable, the long distance tandems must
> be SS7-equipped. In some RBOC territories, most of them aren't and
> won't be in time for the change.

If memory serves correctly, it's not solely the access tandems that
must be SS7-equipped, it's down to the end office level.

As I recall it, the story is something like this.  For 800 number
portability, the originating LEC must query a Service Control Point
with the ten-digit dialed 800 number to determine the proper routing
(IXC for IXC-provided 800 service, or network routing for intra-LATA
800 service provided by the originating LEC).  If it's IXC-provided
800 service, the IXC must then also query its database to determine
the proper routing.

These two queries both take a certain amount of time.  The total
response time, including the time taken for signaling information to
be passed from the originating EO to the Service Switching Point
(access tandem, usually), and the time taken for the signaling to be
passed to the IXC, is unacceptably long (but don't ask me for numbers;
I don't remember them) if the EO-SSP signaling and the SSP-IXC
signaling are inband MF.

The solution to this which is at the control of the LEC is to deploy
SS7 to the end office level.  Recognizing that SS7 to the EO level
will take a very long time to reach 100% deployment, the court used
some threshold (in the 75-85% ballpark), and said essentially that
when SS7 deployment reaches x% of EOs, number portability would be
mandated.

Disclaimer: This is all based on recollections from various conversations
over the past two years.  Corrections of inaccuracies gratiously accepted.

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

From: Ken Burgess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN - Ethernet Gateway Information Wanted
Date: 6 Mar 92 16:14:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


Hewlett-Packard sells one, it comes from a division in France.  It is
a PC with up to three ISDN cards and an ethernet connection.  It acts
as a gateway, try calling an HP sales guy ...

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

Subject: Re: Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call
Date: 12 Mar 92 11:24:00 PST (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> It appears that "Integretel" is an oppositely-named company -- their
> actions have absolutely nothing to do with "integrity". A hive of
> subhuman vermin, I would say.

Integretel is just one of many AOS companies that COCOT-owning slime
use to extract money from your pocket by any means possible. The APCC
( (A)ssociation of (P)ocket-picking (C)OCOT (C)rud ) is currently
foaming at the mouth before the FCC complaining that AT&T (the leader
in 0+ traffic) has had the nerve to move away from LEC-based calling
cards in favor of private in-house ones (known as CIID).

Note that Sprint, MCI and others have always had private calling
cards, but it is the AT&T traffic (and its high volume) that the COCOT
slime have been used to skimming. By the APCC's own admission, it is
the stealing of this traffic that has been the backbone of the AOS
industry.

Since the phone-number-imbedded LEC-based cards are the only ones that
the AOSes can verify and collect from, you can imagine that they are
up in arms about AT&T's very wise move. Of course, the COCOT owners
and AOS companies could issue and promote their own cards, or even
participate in the promotion of LEC cards, but riding on the back of
AT&T is much cheaper and easier.

Can you imagine the promotion for such a card? "Now you can pay truly
exhorbitant sums for bad connections. Get your SlimeBucket card now.
Good only where you see crummy Brand-X phones."


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:32:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Frequency (Pitch) Shifts on Phone Line


> [My notes here at the office say WWV's number is 499-7111, not
> 484-7111, but that's from a 1973 publication so it may have changed.]

WWVH is 808 335 4363.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Ring Supression
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:17:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
on.ca (Eric Jacksch) writes:

> I'm using some weird switching equipment on my line and want to
> supress the first ring (i.e. stop the phone from ringing until the
> second ring comes down the line.)  Does anyone happen to have any
> schematics?

Back in the late 1970's, I built a 'tweedler' to produce a high/low
warble instead of the standard phone bell -- this was in the days
before deregulation, cheap phones, and electronic ringers.

Included in my design were four panel toggle switches, into which you
could set the number of rings which were to be silent. I am still
using the device, as a ringer for both my lines (different warble
tones for each) and as a doorbell (it 'rings' both lines when the
doorbell button is pushed - a truly horrific combination through which
even Rip van Winkle could not sleep.) The output of the 'tweedler' is
speaker-level 400 mw audio and 12vdc. The 12vdc is used to operate
relays which disconnect all stereo speakers in the house and put them
across the tweedler output. So, no matter how loud I'm playing the
stereo, I can't miss the phone or the doorbell -- unless I want to!

The design:

The individual phone lines are ring-detected using NE-2 glowtubes and
photoresistors, packed into heat-shrink tubing. (This is a cheap way
to ring detect with no bridge, no unpolarized capacitor, no opto-
isolator.)

Schmidt triggers followed by half-monostables condition the
ring-detect into a short pulse used to down-count a preset counter
(which is preset with the value in the four panel switches). When the
counter counts down to zero, it enables a set/reset flipflop which
enables the tone generators (they're 555's).  A missing-pulse detector
is used to recognize that leading edges of rings have stopped coming
in, and this commands a system reset (reloads the counter with the
switch values) and resets the flipflop.

I'll send you a Xerox of the schematic if you want.

You could use a similar circuit to load-down the phone line so that
the regular phone ringers wouldn't see enough voltage to ring, then
remove the loading-down resistance once enough ringing signals had
been seen.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 11:32:47 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Help Wanted Wiring Intercom Circuit


[e-mail] (Rich Greenberg) writes:

> How about simply going to the local Rat Shack and getting a (ta-da)
> two station intercom system?  An unwired type that uses carrier
> current transmission over the AC wiring.  Take them out of the box,
> plug them in, push the button, and talk.

> If cost is a prime consideration, and running a wire is not a major
> problem, a wired intercom from the same source would cost even less.

I had bad experiences with the cordless R.S. intercoms either picking
up tons of interference or not hearing each other at all; the squelch
adjustments could not set a happy medium. (This is not a slap at R.S.
in general; it's just that my environment was too noisy.) On the other
hand, a wired intercom was a major pain because of the distance and
architecture involved (I wanted the wire in the wall, not on it).

POTS to the rescue! The house only used one pair of internal phone
wires; the other were dead. After checking to ensure that the second
pair had no connections to the outside or to any installed phones, I
just hooked up the wired intercoms to the unused pair at the wall
jacks, and they worked like a charm. I forget whether this enables you
to hang more than two wired intercoms on the system or if their plug
polarities are reversed (e.g. one listens when the other talks; I know
that one was designated "master", the other was "remote"), but I
believe the wiring diagrams came with the units, and they're dead
simple to mess around with as required. Cheap, too, and often on sale
for even less. My 1989 catalog lists them as Part 43-222, $14.95/pair.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #227
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06022;
          14 Mar 92 19:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21027
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22147
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 17:45:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #228

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:44:58 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 228

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (Carl Moore)
    Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service (Wallace Colyer)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.)
    Re: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone? (Dave Strieter)
    Re: The Codebreakers (David Ofsevit)
    Re: Seeking Address of Telecom Association (Toby Nixon)
    Re: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be (Graham Thomas)
    Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it? (Mike Koziol)
    Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam (Wall Street Journal via Andy Sherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 10:29:51 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> First of all, this service only comes into play when you make a 0+
> call.  At the present time when making a 0+ call the customer gets the
> bong-tone, and ...

> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  ...

Oops, the bong tone is still played by the switch; we only start
talking if the customer times out by doing nothing after so many
seconds.  If our system starts talking you can still enter your card
number and the call will go through as before.

Sorry about any misunderstandings.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard
Date: 12 Mar 92 17:49:55 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
unc.edu (Michael Rosen) writes:

> Well, I received my information and PIN for the TI Switchboard today.
> I made my first call at around 11:00 EST or so tonight (Monday).  I
> forgot who I spoke to (Pete?  sorry, if I got your name wrong), but he
> is a reader of the TELECOM Digest and found the information for the
> switchboard here as did I.  We were both curious as to whether TI
> advertised this anywhere else besides over the computer networks?

I've participated in about seven conversations on the system so far.
Roughly half of them were people who found out about it on the
Internet (one who recognized me from c.d.t.), and the others found out
about it through local organizations in the Dallas area (volunteer
groups).  I got the impression that some groups were having their
members participate with the payments going to the group rather than
the individual.

I agree that the system is pretty slick -- works well, good user
interface, etc.  Should be a successful project for them.
Interestingly, most of the people I've spoken with so far have agreed
with my libertarian views!


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: Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:07:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet?


I have gone to an Aberdeen, Md. pay phone (C&P on 410-272, with 301
still displayed) and failed to connect to the 706-542-MEAL (6325)
number, with me using 0+:

AT&T, the default carrier, gave a fast busy.

10222 (MCI) said "your international call cannot be completed as
dialed" (does it STILL think 706 is in Mexico?)

10333 (Sprint) gave an error message (something like "cannot be
completed...") and gave number 44-220 if I remember properly.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 18:56:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Wallace Colyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Wonderful New 800 Service


I would make the law a little more absolute.

Under no circumstances shall use the information derived from the
phone number originating a call, whether received from CallerID, ANI,
or any other service, be used for billing purposes for services other
than the cost of the phone call except on exchanges or special numbers
designated for service billling (ie, 900, 976, 555-1212).


Wallace

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

From: [e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:48:21 GMT


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

> Their one-way radio system consisted of a transmitter connected at the
> customer site that would broadcast the alarm status every 60 seconds
> or so.  In the event of an alarm condition, the radio would broadcast
> immediately with limited information (burglar, fire, holdup, etc.),

A simple tone broadcast on 121.5 MHz should bring helicopters
scrambling to your home, as this is the downed aircraft emergency
beacon frequency, which rings bells at all control towers, however the
powers that be may frown on this :-) :-).

(However, in a REAL emergency, this could be useful anyway).


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028
voice 602 996 1717

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: Where to Get Parts For Obsolete Phone?
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:22:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dan Pearl) writes:

> I'd like to get a replacement touch-tone keypad for an old "1A Key"
> Western Electric phone.  This is a multi-line phone with one red
> button, and five clear buttons on the bottom strip.  There is one
> thick cable coming out of the back of the phone terminating in an
> Amphenol connector of some sort.

> The keypad has 11 leads.

> If necessary, I'll replace the phone.  Does anyone have any idea where
> to get the part?

I don't know if they list a source for *parts* but there's an outfit
called {Telecom Gear} ("The National Marketplace to Buy and Sell
Telecommunications Equipment") that publishes a 100+ page catalog
that's really a collection of advertisements for telecom-gear
refurbishers/brokers.  Perhaps somewhere in there is an ad for a parts
supplier.  Their address is 15400 Knoll Trail, Dallas, TX 75248.
Phones are 214-233-5131, 800-967-4327.

I have never used this source so there's no recommendation implied;
just a tip.


Dave Strieter,  AG Communication Systems,  POB 52179,  Phoenix AZ 85072-2179
*** These are not my employer's opinions.  They're my opinions, not my advice.
UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 06:17:50 PST
From: 13-Mar-1992 0918 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Codebreakers


Several years after this tome was published, David Kahn put out an
abridged paperback version.  He kept most of the historical and
biographical information and cut down on technical details.  I have a
copy at home; I have no idea whether it's still in print.


David Ofsevit
Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton, MA
(Affiliation given for identification only)

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Seeking Address of Telecom Association
Date: 13 Mar 92 11:55:01 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> I am looking for the address of the national telephone coop office
> located in Washington D.C.

> If you have it could I get it and its phone number?

Are you thinking of the Telecommunications Industry Association?  They
can be reached at:

    Telecommunications Industry Association
    2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800
    Washington  DC  20006
    202-457-4912


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] (Graham Thomas)
Subject: Re: ICSTIS: Not What They Appear to Be
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 15:01:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, by eddf13::roberts@frocky.
enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts):

> My opinion, based on personal experience of talking with ICSTIS is
> that they are nothing more than apologists for the 0898 industry.

This is the sort of argument that can be levelled against any
industry-funded regulatory association.  In the case of ICSTIS, I
think it's a bit harsh.  See below.

> I called them to complain about the fact that I was not able to block
> 0898 calls from my phone in the 0206 STD area and basically their
> response was "So what? If BT haven't provided the facility on your
> exchange, then tough. Why are you calling us?"

BT is obliged to provide free call barring of premium-rate service
calls wherever it can be done easily, i.e. wherever there are digital
local exchanges.  Over half the exchanges now are digital; the rest
should be by 1995, if BT are to be believed (and I think they're if
anything ahead of schedule).  Only Oftel, not ICSTIS, could force them
to provide call barring on analogue exchanges.

> Upon asking them whether or not they were really the "chatline
> watchdog" as they are described as in the press, he basically admitted
> they were funded by the chatline/recorded message providers and they
> just pay phone bills when people have been caught out by 0898 sleaze.

All funding for the running of ICSTIS comes from the network operators
(currently only BT, Mercury and Racal-Vodafone offer PRS), and not the
premium rate service providers.  (As the operators and the service
providers share the revenue, you could argue about how much difference
this makes.)  Chatline operators should pay into the compensation
fund, which has separate accounts and a separate administrator.  There
are no service providers on the ICSTIS Board (there used to be one
member who was, but this was changed to increase the organisation's
independence).  I don't think there are any operator representatives
on the Board now, either (though this is from memory - I could be
wrong); most members are lawyers or reps of consumer organisations or
unions.

There have been several occasions when ICSTIS has recommended that
service providers be cut off, and BT has complied.  Maybe ICSTIS could
be more energetic, but I don't think they should just be branded as
apologists.  Their real problem is that growth in services and
complaints has happened so fast that they're swamped with work.

(I should maybe add that I'm not connected with ICSTIS, BT or any
service provider: I'm just studying the area right now.)

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 15:30:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Texas Instruments Switchboard


[e-mail] (Declan McCullagh) writes Ed Holliman of TI's
Switchboard Project told him:

> They're also trying to "limit all their callers to males for
> statistical reasons."  However, female would-be participants can
> submit an application in case TI might need female voice samples.

This is interesting -- I passed on the posting to all the eligible
males I could find ;-) and one of them has participated in seven
conversations already.  He was surprised that one of the conversations
was with a woman named Jackie.  An error because of her androgynous
name, perhaps?


kath mullholand       university of new hampshire        durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not my employer.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 06:45:18 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Returns Mystery Number: What is it?


     When you dial 9 for an outside line on our sysytem, the switch
picks one of our outgoing trunks and "send" the call out. The trunk
line number is not related in any way to the on campus extention that
are using. If you dial one of these trunk numbers, it rings and never
answers. It's a bit confusing to folks who use calling cards because
the number that you called from showing on your bill is one that you
won't recognize.

     The DEA called our Campus Safety office not too long ago and us
to tell them where a phone number was located on campus. They only had
the outgoing trunk number and we couldn't help them out.

     When someone on campus dials 9-911 it goes to the area 911
center. On their ANI display it shows the RIT campus, Accounting
Office and gives the outgoing trunk number as the originating phone
number. If the caller hangs up (no talk call) the 911 operator tries
the call back number on their display. Since it will continue to ring
with no one answering, a couple of sheriff's cars are dispatched. Then
they notify the Campus Safety Department to respond as well.

     When they call we try to explain that we are unable to tell where on
campus the call is originating from. Most of the operators understand
this as they have dealt with this before (the headquarters and
manufacturing facilities for Kodak in the area are the same way) and
cancel the patrol cars. The newer operators keep the cars coming. When
they arrive the deputies want to go see our accounting office (billing
address for the trunk lines, the address appearing in Rochester
Telephones database). Of course nothing is found. I had the occasion
to escort four deputies and two state troopers (it was a quiet
afternoon) to the office one day for a no talk call. The office staff
was a bit surprised to see all of these law enforcement types walk
into their office.

     There have been some very preliminary discussions about routing
9-911 calls to the Campus Safety office first. I would like to know if
anyone has done this (or decided not to) recently. E-mail please.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 11:12:21 EST


This is a summary of a {Wall Street Journal} article which appeared in
an internal news summary:

Attorneys general in three states are attempting to stop a marketing
company from billing sweepstakes winners who make what they think are
toll-free phone calls to find out what they've won.  Sweepstakes
Clearinghouse, run by Allied Marketing Group Inc. operates by sending
postcards promising recipients prizes ranging from $10,000 in cash to
$200 savings certificates.  Winners are instructed to dial a toll-free
800 number to claim their prize.

A recording gives them two choices -- either mailing in the postcard
or punching in a 13-digit code for an immediate response.  Consumers
who choose to wait for an answer will then be billed [$3.90 a minute]
by Audio Telecom Inc. for the call.  Mike Twomey, an assistant
attorney general in Florida, says that the Audio Telecom bill "is made
up to look like a regular phone bill."  And Audio Telecom inserts an
AT&T sales catalog for consumer phones into the billing envelope.
AT&T spokesman Monty Hoyt said his company has demanded that Allied
Marketing stop sending the catalog and that the company has agreed to
comply.  "I think it is disturbing that what has been built up over 25
years in terms of public trust of 800 service is being eroded," Hoyt
said. [WSJ]


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #228
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12820;
          14 Mar 92 22:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05074
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17433
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:07 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 18:45:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #229

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 18:45:06 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 229

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Contest Lines (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (Phillip Dampier)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Jim Thomas)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (David Lesher)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill (Phil Howard)
    Re: Telephone Pioneers (Nigel Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:34:19 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand) says:

> A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those
> contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!")  that *some*
> radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still
> counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and
> had to be answered.  At his radio station, however, he had to pick up
> each call (he told the caller what number they were to keep track
> easier) and hang up so that more callers could get through.

WRUW-FM, where I work, is a 1000-watt, very eclectic, college/community
radio station, so this isn't exactly experience from the top-40 world
of call-in contests.  Our programming tends to go from, say, polka to
heavy metal to folk to jazz in one day.  We do run the occasional
giveaway for tickets to local music events, but we usually take about
the third caller, as not to take all night with the contest.  Right
now, we have three lines coming in arranged in a rotary through the
university centrex.  The programmer on the air will answer each call,
and maybe even talk with the person if no one else is calling yet.
There are times when it's the same person all three calls!

BTW, anyone in Cleveland who's familar with installation and diagnosis
of 1A2 systems and has some time on their hands?  We could use a
little help adding another KSU box for our next phone line ...


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland
                       -- [e-mail] --

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: Device For Switching Ringing Line to Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 17:22:01 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (eb4/91/92) says:

> A friend in the US was asking me about a device that would detect
> the MF tones of the local fire dispatch centre and switch a speaker
> into the circuit/activate a recording system. Is such a system
> currently available?  If not how can one find out the tones used and
> the specs (duration/delay etc)?

I presume the tones are being sent over the radio.  The signaling
system is probably a Motorola two-tone pager format, or perhaps a
five-tone format, which I've seen used in MODAT systems.  Information
on the standard tones could probably be gotten from Motorola.  There
is an off-the-shelf solution; Motorola, as well as a few other
companies, makes tone/voice pagers which will decode an appropriate
pair of tones and activate the speaker as well as beeping while the
last tone is sounding.  In the two-tone format, the Minitor II will
also allow you to monitor the channel without the pager having been
activated i.e. it includes a squelch circuit.  Pagers like the
Dimension IV, Pageboy III, and so forth will activate, and switch over
to static once the transmission is completed.  The Minitor II runs
about $375 new from Motorola.


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland
                       -- [e-mail] --

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 23:18:36
Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem


lunatix!iowegia![e-mail] writes:

> I explain myself again, and am told I need to talk to (can you guess
> this one?) person #1 !! In a measly two days, I managed to make the
> complete cycle through MCI's customer service jungle and get back to
> where I started from.

The biggest fault I have with MCI is that EVERY SINGLE plan, service,
option, or concept they come up with has its own 800 number with
customer service agents that don't have a clue about anything outside
of their respective service area.

I noticed an advertisement for MCI Fax, so I called the 800 number and
asked about several of the features they offered, such as telex to
fax, speed dialing, Broadcast Fax, etc. "Marge" on the other end told
me to get a pad and then gave me different 800 numbers for every one
of those options.

The frightening part about it was that when I went to the Broadcast
Fax Department, I talked with "Trish" for over ten minutes about their
FAX SERVICE, how I would like to have information FAXED to me, and
she, after ten minutes of talking about this, actually asked me if I
had a fax machine!

Pretty soon we'll have "Friends & Family/Florida" or something and if
you are male, between the ages of 25-30, have an even numbered zip
code and are bald, you'll get your own MCI Customer Service 800
number.

Another confusing example: MCI Preferred apparently is not MCI's plan
but belongs to one of the companies they merged with. So while MCI
Commercial at 1-800-444-2222 gets you "David" with a country accent,
it's only a few minutes before you are told to call a different 800
number, 1-800-727-5555, which turns out to be in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
except after hours when the call is forwarded to who knows where.

When asking about MCI Preferred on MCI's Commercial customer service
number, I made the mistake of asking for information on MCI Preferred
to be sent to me. My fax machine cranked out six copies of the same
material from different offices and personnel.

Then I called the local MCI office and got a local service rep to cut
through the nonsense.  This was the best thing I've done.


Phillip M. Dampier   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 23:20:16 -0600
From: jim thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Northern Illinois University


In article <[e-mail]> sleepy![e-mail].
boeing.com (Mark Allyn) writes:

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

>> Does anyone know when Hollings' term is up?

> Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers?
> Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries
> and staff to screen his office calls.

Try: Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
     125 Rayburn House Office Bldg
     Washington, DC 20510
     Voice (main office): [phone]
     Fax: [phone]

The Moderator notes:

> Moderator's Note: You'd do what? Pull your file under the FOIA or
> pull mine? I don't know if they have a file on me, and I don't really
> care. What could I do about it in either case? Anyway, this Digest is
> available for public consumption, and the last I heard, FBI employees
> were members of the public. Unlike many of the privacy freaks all over
> Usenet, I don't discriminate or hold a grudge against people who
> happen to be involved in law enforcement. In fact I welcome them as
> readers here.  PAT]

It is a substantial error to assume that those concerned with routine
monitoring and information gathering have a grudge against law
enforcement. There are several reasons to be concerned about whether
law enforcement collects files on private citizens who are neither
under investigation nor involved criminal activity. One of the most
compelling reasons is simply that there is overwhelming historical
evidence of abuse. Red Squad files, political surveillance, COINTELPRO
and the FBI's "Black Bag" tactics (that forced the removal of a former
FBI director) are but a few examples that reflect abuse of covert
monitoring.

There is a fundamental difference between observing public action and
monitoring/dossier-collecting. The issue isn't whether law enforcement
reads a given Digest, but what is done with the information once read.
Consider this example: A group meets to discuss the legalization of
marijuana. LE agents scour the parking lot taking down license numbers
of identify owners. The owners then have files begun on them as
"potential drug users." We have seen from past experience that such
information is shared with both public and private sector. LE agents
have every right to be in the parking lot, but there is concern when
they begin police-state tactics that subvert constitutional rights of
speech and assembly. Although the drug-use example here is merely
illustrative, there is considerable evidence that LE has used this
(among other) strategies in targetting political dissent and other
legal actions of which they disapproved.

To paraphrase Camus, "It is not that I like law enforcement less, but I
respect the constitution more."


Jim Thomas


[Moderator's Note: To paraphrase Townson, "It is not that I don't like
the constitution, but I like peace and quiet and a community of law-
abiding citizens better." And to paraphrase James Russell Lowell, if
new occassions teach new duties and time makes ancient good uncouth,
then don't be reluctant to amend that constitution if that's what it
takes to bring a charming 18th century document in line with 21st
century truth.  And from Townson again, "We've already amended it a
couple dozen times; I can suggest a few more good amendments."   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 20:11:01 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


> Does anyone out there have Hollings' office and home phone numbers?
> Especially the home phone numbers since he probably has secretaries
> and staff to screen his office calls.

I'm sure the FBI does.  Why not ask them ;-?


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 13 Mar 92 13:25:55 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Neil Katin ) writes:

> I believe that a key piece of the proposal is to be able to trace
> cellular phones, which do *not* have easy-to-access pairs available.

> [Moderator's Note: Why don't they have easy access? You take your
> court order to the cell company and you say 'when  Mr. Townson makes a
> call on his cellular phone, put the call through but send it by us for
> a look-see-listen also.' So the tower sees my ESN and phone number and
> it says 'aha, this call is to go out on trunk X which has that funny
> wiring on it ... and I am also supposed to tell them which tower I am
> and Mr. Townson's proximity to me as best I can tell.' There is bound
> to be -- almost certainly -- a piece of metal in the connection
> * somewhere*  for those alligator clips and capacitors.  PAT]

I think our Moderator has answered his own question.  He explains how
with some _special_ software feature, a _special_ field in the per
subscriber translations database, and a _special_ metallic trunk, it
should be trivial for a cellular service provider to comply with a
court-ordered trace of a specific cellular phone!

What the rest of us are discussing here is how much should all of the
subscribers pay for all of that _special_ stuff the cellular provider
must add to the local MTSO?

Note, also, that in this day and age, the only piece of metal between
the RBOC and the cellular provider's MTSO is probably the metalic
conductors in a T1 circuit.  It's probably a timeslot, rather than a
twisted pair, that conveys the call from the LEC to the cellular
switch, and another timeslot that conveys it from the cellular switch
to the cell site currently handling the call.  In the not-too-distant
future, it will be a timeslot rather than a dedicated radio frequency
that conveys it to the subscriber set.

Not impossible to trace, but something a bit more costly than
allegator clips might be needed to sort it all out!  The FBI merely
wants the rest of the telephone users to pay for this overhead in the
network.  I suppose they'll want us to buy our own telescreens, next!


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] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 03:31:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> On December 10, I sent myself a test message via the Message Express
> (800-477-0334), which I believe I saw advertised on some pay phones in
> Baltimore.  The test message was to my own office telephone number,
> and I goofed by using the old area code 301, which still works.  The
> call has now appeared on my March phone bill; for place called from,
> it says "MSG XPR, GA [sic]" and shows telephone number 301-276-1234
> (301-276 is in eastern Baltimore city and is moving to 410).  The cost
> is 75 cents plus 2 cents federal tax.

> The Message Express service was billed via Telecom*USA, and is lumped
> into my bill from the local phone company.

Does this work from a pay phone?

Back to amateur radio phone patches ... this really means we need to
block 800 numbers.  COCOTS and other phone service providers need to
do so accordingly.

One catch is that apparently most of the phone patch controllers on
the market have firmware that passes "1800" numbers even if "1" is a
blocked prefix.  One company tested their unit for me, by explicitly
setting up "1", "18", "180", and "1800" as blocked prefixes (maximum
number of digits was 4) but the calls went through anyway.  I gave
them the number for Mystic Marketing :-) Now for Message Express.

Maybe I need to set myself up as a COCOT to operate a phone patch for
amateur radio access?

Actually, Message Express seems like a very useful service, and there
is no smell of slime yet.  But it should have been set up in two
different ways: as a 900 number for billing back to the calling
number, and as an 800 number (maybe they could get the same seven
digits in both number spaces) for billing to credit cards.

 From TV ads I see AT&T offers something similar with "*123".  I
assume I can get this with "10288*123".  I probably will try it out
tonight.

Will these services wait through an A/M announcement to get the
message recorded?  I guess I will find out :-)


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thus far, 10288*123 does nothing here.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone Pioneers
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Tom Streeter ([e-mail]) was trying to get in touch with
the local chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America, but couldn't
find the group listed in his telephone directory.

If you are trying to get in touch with the Telephone Pioneers and
cannot find a listing for the group in the phone book, call the main
number for your local telephone company and ask for the Telephone
Pioneers office.  Usually, a Telephone Pioneers group will receive
free office space from its sponsoring telephone company, and will
receive telephone service through the company's PBX.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #229
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10503;
          14 Mar 92 21:47 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21598
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06766
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:02 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 19:36:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #230

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 19:35:51 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 230

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Giles D. Malet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 09:38:43 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L. Varney)
Subject: Re: Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713/Texas
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linden B.
Sisk) writes:

> ... changeover involves dialing 1 + 713 + 7D for TOLL calls within
> 713, rather than ALL calls.  Locals calls within 713 will still be 7D.
> Sorry about the confusion.  Which brings up the question in my mind as
> to how many places, if any, is it necessary to dial 1+NPA+7D for ALL
> calls, even local calls?  Is this an inevitable feature of NPA's of
> the form NXX?  It seems to me that it shouldn't be, that the switch
> should be smart enough to realize that if only seven digits are
> dialed, a local call is intended.

Our Moderator noted:

> [ Are you willing to sit there and wait for the switch to time out
> before it processes the seven digits? One option I've never seen
> discussed though is the use of # as a terminator when dialing local
> and long distance calls as is done with international calls and
> abbreviated calling card dialing. (When dialing the number to which a
> calling card is assigned, one need only dia the four digit PIN
> followed by the # to speed processing.)  PAT]

This is a good place to recommend that anyone REALLY interested in the
LONG-TERM dialing plan for the USA (actually World Zone 1) should read
and comment on the following:

"North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The Future
of Numbering In World Zone 1", Jan. 6, 1992, published as an
Information Letter from Bellcore.  Since the document was "... widely
distributed with the telecommunications sector (industry entities,
associations, affiliated agencies, regulatory bodies/committees,
forums throughout WA1) for review and comment.", I'm sure everyone has
already seen it. :-) Comment cycle ends April 30, 1992.  The timeframe
examined in the document is year 1995 through 2025.  [IL-92/01-013,
comments should be forwarded to Fred Gaechter at:

   NANP Administration
   Bellcore - Room 1B234
   290 West Mr. Pleasant Avenue
   Livingston, NJ 07039

Since the document may be freely copied and distributed, you should
check if your organization's Bellcore interface has received a copy
before writing Bellcore for a copy.]

Anyway, on the #-to-end-dialing and seven-digit-intra-NPA issues, the
letter contains some proposals.  Since there are other issues of
interest as well, I'll quote several fragments from the letter
(assuming this falls under the "freely distributed" guidelines).  I'd
type it all in, but it's 41 dense pages!

 -- Review of "... Future of Numbering ..." Proposal follows --

Major headings:
   Introduction - A history and perspective on telephone numbers
   Development of the Proposal - Assumptions/Principles/Scope
   Proposed Allocation of Resources after Interchangeable NPAs
   Long-Term Goals and Predictions - Eventual NPA exhaust, etc.
   Proposal Effectiveness - Capacity, Compatibility, etc.
   Evolution of Numbering in WZ1 - Universal 10-digit dialing
   Capacity Perspectives, NANP Advisory Council, Action Plan
   Appendices A through J

Introduction has a short history of the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP), beginning with DDD introduction in Englewood, NJ on Nov. 10,
1951.  Featured a ten digit number, with seven digits for intra-NPA
calls.  In 1960, 0+ dialing was introduced.  Between 1952 and 1971,
non-SXS offices could allow NNX-XXXX for TOLL intra-NPA calls, but
many areas (particularly those with lots of SXS) used 1 + NNX-XXXX for
all TOLL calls.  Areas that allowed NNX-XXXX for TOLL could also allow
N0/1X-NNX-XXXX calls (1+ optional).

Year 1970 saw 011 and 01+ international dialing introduced.  Year 1972
introduced Interchangeable Office Codes, and the use of 1 + NPA-NXX-XXXX
for intra-NPA TOLL calls.  Interchangeable NPAs (NXX format) begins in
1995, but will not stop/alter the "Toll Alert" use of 1+.

NANP is does not apply to geographical North America, but rather to
what CCITT Recommendation E.164 calls the World Zone 1 area.  Mexico
is not in NANP (but had/has access via what looked to me like
NPAs ...).  Example areas in NANP are Canada, Grenada, Saint Lucia,
etc.

  -----

Development ... indicates that 1995 will see the addition of 640 new
NPA codes.  The short term goal is the appropriate allocation of these
codes.  Long term goals include the eventual evolution to more digits
(beyond 2025).  ... No segment of the industry or public should be
intentionally advantaged or disadvantaged by the NANP.

  The seven-digit format for intra-NPA dialing should continue. ...
If a dialing distinction is to reveal the "toll/local" status of a
call, it has been traditional (due to SXS switching) to associate
seven-digit dialing with "local".  1 + HomeNPA-NXX-XXXX is available
for intra-NPA "toll" calls.  Failure to place a call in the
appropriate format is now seen as a cause for call rejection in areas
using toll alerting.  It follows that seven-digit dialing will be
encountered both with and without toll alerting.  Numbering planners
have long considered it good practice for switches to accept and
attempt to complete any call originated with a valid ten digit address,
INCLUDING HOME NPA CALLS FOR WHICH SEVEN-DIGIT DIALING COULD SUFFICE.
[Caps are mine -- ALV]

Non-decimal digits will not be used in WZ1 or CCITT. ... The NANP will
allow coexistence of Geographic and Non-geographic numbers. ... NANP
resources (NPAs, etc.) will be administered for the overall public
good, and will not be "owned" by entities or users. ... No portion of
the ten-digit NANP number will be assigned for the primary purpose of
identifying telecommunications entities OR CARRIER NETWORKS.  [I think
the document suggests the use of prefix codes to identify special call
requirements, such as #56 for Switched 56Kb services. -- ALV]
Forecasts suggest a 79% NPA code usage by 2025, and the need to
consider eventual expansion.

   ---

Proposed Allocation of Resources after Interchangeable NPAs ... looks
at the pre-allocation of blocks of the 640 new NPAs to various
purposes:

    300 reserved for geographic NPA codes (each NPA could split
         twice on average),
    80 reserved for Personal Communications applications,
    10 reserved for Service Access Codes (ala 700, 800, 900),
    80 reserved for expansion/transition beyond ten digits,
    170 reserved for unanticipated uses.

"Seven-digit national numbers" -- DDD assumed seven-digit numbers
had ten-digit equivalents.  There is no loss of numbering capacity
with this assumption.  FG-B (with 950-WXXX access) changed the
assumption, as an interim means of evolving to "equal access".  The
intent was that supplementary dialing would be needed to reach the
called party.  There were only 1,000 XXX codes.

With the current requirement to expand to 950-XXXX, there are 10,000
possible 950- assignments available within the U.S.  However, each
such dedicated NXX assignment removes seven million numbers from the
640 NPA numbering plan, and is not considered an efficient use of NANP
resources.

Short (seven-digit) numbers have long been considered attractive for
purposes not consistent wiht DDD planning.  Such numbers with national
(or WZ1) significance would have clear commercial advantages.
However, means for providing such numbers in an even-handed manner to
all applicants, given the 10,000 possible subscribers nationwide, have
yet to be found.  ... There must be compelling reasons to assign a
seven-digit number to serve one nationally-oriented subscriber when
the same resource could label hundreds of subscribers.  As custodians
of a shared resource, the NANP Administrator must not confer
advantages on a few while burdening the many.  Thus SEVEN-DIGIT
NATIONAL NUMBERS ARE NOT ENDORSED. [Their boldface] ...  The "950"
usage remains an exception, and is not a precedent.  ... the ten-digit
assignment view is technically realistic and fair to all users.

    ---

Long-Term Goals and Predictions ... examines the eventual NPA exhaust,
and other issues.  ... By time "T" (about 1997), CCITT Recommendation
E.165 allows international numbers to expand to 15 digits, and
suggests up to six digits may be used in routing international calls.
 ...  The industry should study the feasibility of integrating the
numbering plan and the various dialing plans of WZ1.  [A "dialing
plan" is separate from the numbering plan and covers such things as
carrier selection (10XXX or 101XXXX), *XX{X} services, 011 access, 0
or 00 for operator assistance.]  The lack of standards in this area
results in complexity in the network and confusion to the user public.

Overlay NPAs should be studied.  First application is 917 in New York
City, 1/1/92.  ...  Telecommunications industry should evolve to
ten-digit dialing for all station-to-station calls, including local.
Such a uniform dialing plan would reduce the user confusion
encountered with non-standard plans.  The traveling public is
particularly subject to confusion by such plans. ...  This would also
eliminate the need for the 1+ prefix on 10-digit calls.  Use of 1+ as
a toll indicator is at best a concession to a concern better met by
the advance knowledge of the approximante cost per minute of a call.
 ... alternatives for providing call charge information outside the
dialing/ numbering plans should be studied (tone warning?).  Call
rejection should not include local calls dialed with 1+NPA.

    ---

NANP Advisory Council ... suggests a council to advise the current
NANP Administrator on issues.  Several numbering issues have remained
unresolved.  This is a result of the lack of a forum willing to
discuss ALL aspects of a numbering issue.  This standing council could
be situated between the industry and the FCC (US) and DOC (Canada)
agencies.  ... first issue should be the method of funding the ongoing
administration of the NANP.

---

 From Appendix D, " ...until the last rotary dial is retired, basic
services ... will remind us that the old yields to the new, but not
easily nor quickly nor completely."

This appendix is the only place I saw a mention of # as an
end-of-dialing indicator, which prompted the quote above.  There was
no discussion of time-out (good or bad) as an option in such cases.
The possibility of CPE to CO protocols other than DP and DTMF is
mentioned, with one advantage being the possibility of "en-bloc"
transmission of the entire number string.  While this sounds a lot
like the method used by cellular phones (dial, then SEND), I don't see
why # with DTMF is any different (from the dialer's viewpoint).


Al Varney - AT&T, but the above are not AT&T's words.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 06:57:50 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Don't be silly. What do you want the operator to
> do, interrupt your call every minute and ask for more money?  When you
> eat in a restaurant do they come around to get the money after each
> item you have eaten or wait until you finish completely?  Telco
> attempts to be courteous by allowing you to complete your conversation
> without barging in -- perhaps overhearing something private -- then
> they tally up the total you owe, less your initial deposit and ask you
> to pay.

I guess you haven't made many direct calls from payphones?  Of course
they cut in and ask for money every minute.  Not a live operator, an
automated operator, asking for so many cents for the next minute.  I
haven't timed it exactly, so I don't know if this occurs after exactly
one minute or not.  Since this is the case, they should not call back
and ask for more money as they have already requested money for the
time I have been on the phone.


Mike


   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


[Moderator's Note: I note you are in a university town, and it may be
the local telco has gotten burned so often on students stealing phone
service from pay stations that telco chooses to collect every minute.
I can assure you in many (most?) places that is not the case. IBT
collects the deposit for three minutes and interuppts at three minutes
to announce the initial time period has expired ... 'please flash when
your call is finished ...'. After about five or six minutes they may
ask for additional money. Hanging up or flashing brings the automated
operator back to the line, followed by a live operator if there is no
response, ie. coins being deposited. If you don't have the right
change and overpay, they give credit for overtime. I can't count the
number of times I have walked past a ringing pay station, answered it
and had an operator ask for more money for the call just completed.
I've also seen many pay stations left off hook. When I hang them up,
they ring almost immediatly with an operator on the line asking for
money.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 23:37:58 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> Original From: Don Kimberlin

> Several years ago, at the behest of large buyers of 800 numbers, the
> regulators asked the local phone companies if they could accomodate
> "number transportability," meaning could the local phone companies all
> arrange to read all the digits of every 800 call and set up routing
> tables to send any call to any terminating exchange regardless of what
> its central office prefix was.

  One question is: why does it have to be routed directly to the
assigned IXC at the LEC level?  It would seem to be logistically
simpler and less expensive for the 800 service providers to establish
the database and hand off the calls which were no longer assigned to
them to the proper carrier. The FTC and FCC could waive any antitrust
problems which might arise out of this interconnection and
arrangement. Financial considerations might be another matter: I doubt
the IXC's want to carry calls, even if only for setup purposes, that
they don't get any compensation for. A small (per call) surcharge on
the 800 service by the new provider (with the non-assigned prefix)
could be used to reimburse the original carrier (the owner of the
prefix) for the extra routing activity. It would also act as a small
incentive for the customer to switch the 800 number to the new
carrier's prefixes.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: shrdlu![e-mail] (Giles D Malet)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 22:25:53 -0500
Reply-To: Giles D Malet <shrdlu![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  Then it waits for a
> response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
> completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
> have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
> to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as
> well.

And now for the obvious question -- what if it is not a person that
answers, but an answering machine? Especially one with a message that
contains something that sounds like `yes'?

Does the caller then get connected to said answering machine, to be
greeted by silence if the msg has rolled past? All of course paid for
by the unfortunate callee (?) who might find a few `hello ?`s on their
machine, and a confusing bill at the end of the month.

Sounds like fun.


Giles D Malet  [e-mail]    Waterloo, Ont, Canada  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: See an earlier issue of the Digest today for an
explanation by the original author of how these situations are handled
by the new equipment, although I agree there is a potential for
trouble here.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #230
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12736;
          14 Mar 92 22:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31633
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31936
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:05 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:23:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #231

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Mar 92 20:22:59 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 231

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Kapor Testifies in DC on NSFNet and NREN (Gerard Van der Leun)
    Telemarketing and Privacy (Reason Magazine via Larry Rachman)
    FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Privacy Journal via David Gast)
    Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (David B. Whiteman)
    Area Code 516 Grid Available (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Caller-ID Approved in New York (Richard Budd)
    Now That We Know What a Baud is, Who Was Murray? (Jim Haynes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Kapor Testifies in DC on NSFNet and NREN
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 21:03:16 GMT


KAPOR TESTIFIES ON NSFNET POLICIES AND FUTURE OF THE NET

In his capacity as the President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) and the Chairman of the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX),
Mitchell Kapor testified last Thursday before a House Committee on the
current operation and management of NSFNet, and the future of the NREN
and computer-based communications.

The testimony took place in Washington, D.C. before the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The committee was
examining the present and proposed policies of NSFNet, the government
body which currently handles the funding for and sets the operating
policies for much of the Internet.

The key items that Mr. Kapor was asked to address at the hearing were:

     To assess the NSF's efforts to provide support to the
        communities of science, education, engineering and research.

     To comment on the current plan the NSF to resubmit
        the award of operation of the NSFNet backbone for competitive
        bidding.

     How Congress can help ensure a successful evolution of the
        Internet into the NREN.

     To relate his vision of what the NREN might be and become.

     To define the roles of public and private sectors in
        realizing such a vision.

     To suggest specific steps for Congress and federal agencies
        that would help the goals of the NREN to be achieved.

A full text of his testimony will be available in comp.org.eff.news
sometime this weekend as well as available thereafter via ftp from
eff.org.

                      ===================

NOTES ON TESTIMONY BY M.KAPOR TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE
AND TECNOLOGY RE: NSFNET AND FUTURE OF THE NREN (3/12/92)

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.  I am here today
in two capacities: As President of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
a public interest advocacy organization promoting the democratic
potential of new computer and communications technologies, and as
Chairman as the commercial Internet Exchange, or CIX, a trade
association of commercial internetworking carriers, which represents
one-third of the several million user Internet -- or interim NREN as
it is becoming known.  As you may know, I am also the founder of Lotus
Development Corporation and the designer of Lotus 1-2-3, which has
played a seminal role in the emergence of the 100 billion dollar
personal computer industry.

To frame my remarks, let me begin by saying that we fully support the
NREN legislation which is designed to develop computer networks which
will link research and education institutions,. government, and
industry.  Among the chief goals of the NREN are:

     Expanding the number of users on the network, avoiding the creation
     of information have and have-nots;

     Providing enhanced access to electronic information resources
     supporting the free flow of ideas;

     Promoting R&D for the purpose of developing commercial data
     communications;

The Internet, as it evolves into the NREN, serves a vital testbed for
the eventual development of a ubiquitous national public networking.
In that context, the problems I wish to address today should be seen
as the normal growth pains of an experiment which has already succeeded
far beyond the wildest imagination of its creators.

Problem #1:

The NSF-imposed Acceptable Use Policy is hindering the developing of
information services which would serve the R&E community and others.

The AUP attempts to define limitations on the type of traffic which
can flow on the network.  However, there is no agreement in practice
about how to apply the AUP.  Businesses which might wish to operate on
the net to provide services however are reluctant to do so because
they perceive restriction and uncertainty.  Users should be able to
order technical and books and journals on-line from publishers and
vendors.  Users should be able to consult commercial on-line databases
to aid in their research.  Until there is a stable climate in which
providers can be secure that they are not violating policies, they
will stay away.

Therefore, the NSF should be directed to modify or drop the AUP to
permit innovation in information services to develop at its maximum
course through the commercial sector.

Problem #2:

The current arrangements between NSF, Merit, and ANS, while
well-intentioned, have created a tilt in the competitive playing
field.

ANS enjoys certain exclusive rights through its relationship with NSF
to carry commercial traffic across the NSFNET.  This has introduced
significant marketplace distortions in the ability of other
competitive private carriers to compete for business, as you have
heard.

The Science Board should therefore be directed to reconsider its
decision to extend the current arrangement by up to 18 months.  The
arrangement by which ANS simultaneously provides network services for
NSF and operates its own commercial network over the same facility
must be brought to an orderly, but rapid, close.

Problem #3:

The current basic approaches to funding of network services by NSF and
to network architecture as a whole have ceased to be the most efficient
and most appropriate methodologies.  The time has come to move on.

The historical and current funding model has been to subsidize network
providers at the national and regional level.  We need to move to a
situation in which individual education and research institutions
receive funds through which they purchase network services from the
private sector.

The historical network architecture model has operated through a
centralized, subsidized backbone network.  We no longer need this for
the day-to-day production network which serves the overwhelming
majority of users of the system.  Instead we should move to a system
of interconnected private national carriers.

If industry knows that there is an open and fair opportunity to
compete to provide network connections and services to the research
and education community, it will supply as much T-1 and T-3
connectivity as is needed, more cheaply and more efficiently than
through any other method.

Finally, let me urge that the entire process be kept open.  Industry
needs to be more involved in the overall process.  Decisions ought to
be made in the market-place, not in Washington.

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

Date: 14 Mar 92 11:31:52 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing and Privacy


I came across the following in the April, 1992 issue of {Reason
Magazine} (p 30), and though it might be of interest to the TELECOM
crowd:

"In November, Congress approved legislation that requires the Federal
Communications Commission to maintain a list of people who say they
don't want to receive telemarketing calls. Marketeers are forbidden to
call anyone on the list. Thus, in the name of privacy, the government
will keep a central record of people with certain attitudes. How long
will it be before a bureaucrat decides that taxpayers who are
expecially concerned about privacy are also more likely to be hiding
income from the IRS?"

 ... just something to think about.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX           74066,[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: {Reason Magazine} -- I am also a subscriber -- has
a way of being very unreasonable at times. If such a list is to be
kept for the convenience of people who do not wish to receive such
calls, who does the magazine feel should keep it ... as association of
telemarketers, perhaps?  Would the potential for abuse of the list be
greater that way?  And the magazine's leap from the one situation to
their conclusion that the IRS will make assumptions about people on
the list is nonsense. This thread will continue in the Telecom Privacy
Digest ([e-mail]) for interested readers rather than
here.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 00:41:35 -0800
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: FCC Mandates "No Privacy"


In recent years there has been much discussion about the extent to
which telephone records are private or public.  The ECPA specifically
states that transactional information may be disclosed to non-government
agencies.

The FCC has gone further. It actually mandates the disclosure.  (Why
could not any of the readers of the IXCs tell us this information?)
As one might expect, their reasoning is fallacious.

A short article in the {Privacy Journal} (Feb 1992) says:

The FCC requires telephone companies to provide the numbers of long
distance calls you make TO THEIR COMPETITORS [sic] so that competing
companies may analyze your calling patterns and sell you their
services.  This [sic] is called Customer Proprietary Network
Information (CPNI).  Large companies have made known their objections
to this dsiclosure of sensitive information, but the views of
individual consumers are rarely heard in Wahsington.  Now the FCC is
proposing that telephone companies get prior authorization before
releasing these numbers, BUT ONLY FROM TELEPHONE CUSTOMERS WITH MORE
THAN 20 LINES.  Without consulting consumers, the FCC staff gave glib
lip service to privacy concerns of residential and small-business
subscribers and said competitive considerations are more important (57
"Federal Register 4373, Feb. 5, 1992).

Two notes, then a comment.  1) All emphasis (caps) was in the
original.  2) The first [sic] refers to the grammar.  The sentence as
it reads means `calls to their competitors.'  I believe the intent
(without the dangling modifier) is IXCs must disclose to their
competitors all long distance calls.

The comment is that I am opposed to the disclosure of my calls for any
reason.  I am dismayed, but not surprised that once again their will
be one law for the large (and powerful) and a different law for the
rest of us. (Wasn't Jefferson known as a supporter of conglomeracracy? :-))

Specifically, I think that the FCC justification is full of excrement
since I believe that disclosure does not result in lower prices, but
higher prices.  If there were hundreds or thousands of IXCs with
approximately equal market share (the competitive model), I might
agree with their analysis.  Since the big three control approximately
90% of the market, I believe that sharing information about calling
patterns helps them raise prices rather than forcing them to lower
prices due to competitive pressure.  (Just look at the facts, long
distance prices are rising, not falling, for the residential customer
calling in off-peak hours).

Regardless, the big three have decided to spend millions on
advertising, money that could go to lower prices.  If the companies
involved were inclined to engage in price fixing, sharing data
provides a mechanism for enforcement among themselves.  The sharing of
data provides a means for informal price fixing.  (Highway signs no
longer provide in most locations the cost of the project because the
public display of the contract amount was a means of enforcing price
fixing agreements).


David


[Moderator's Note: This thread should be continued in the Telecom
Privacy Digest ([e-mail]) by interested readers.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David B. Whiteman)
Subject: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 10:18:11 GMT


I found these rates from a newspaper article about COCOTs.  These are
the maximum rates allowed to be charged by COCOTs in California by the
California Public Utilities Commission -- these rates only apply to
calls within California:

Free access to 411, 611, 911, all 800 numbers, local operators, 950
numbers of long distance companies (except in areas where the local
phone company does not have 950 services)

For local calls there is a maximum of 20 cents per 15 minutes.

Non local calls paid by coin may not be charged more than ten cents
above the AT&T or local carrier rate.

All intra-LATA calls must use the local carrier.

Intra-Lata calls not paid for with coins may not be charged more than
ten cents above the local carrier rate; however another 25 cent
surcharge may be imposed on operator assisted calls <as opposed to a
computer assisted call? This was not clear to me.>

Inter-Lata calls not paid for with coins may not be charged more than
10 percent more than the approved AT&T rate.

A toll free number must be available to obtain the rates of any call.

Only 900 and 976 numbers are allowed to be blocked.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 07:52:29 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Area Code 516 Grid Available


I've just finished compiling a cross-reference of the various phone
exchange numbers to the community names and also by regional calling
area for the 516 area code (Long Island) and will make these available
to anyone who is interested.

Also available is a grid showing which exchange is in what calling
region and a table explaining the abbreviations used.

This list is up-to-date as of March 1, 1992 and was compiled from
various sources: phone books, the telephone company, local knowledge,
etc.

Those interested can e-mail me at either address below and I'll
forward the information as soon as possible.


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 07:57:59 EST
From: "Richard Budd" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Approved in New York


David Niebuhr writes in TELECOM DIGEST #222:

> The article said that Caller-ID along with both types of blocking
> (per-line and per call) would be available.  No mention was made of
> any of the other features such as Call Trace and Call Return.
> Blocking would be free during an introductory period and $5 for
> implementation thereafter, if wanted.

> Caller-ID boxes were mentioned and the article stated that they would
> run between $30 and $90.

There is a more detailed article about Caller-ID in NY on the front
business page of the {New York Times} 3/13/92 edition.  Our exchange
in Poughkeepsie will receive Caller-ID first.  Blocking is included.
Consumer advocates in NY vow to fight ANI/Caller-ID as an invasion of
privacy.

> I feel that some of the impetus comes from the New Jersey Bell side
> of the Hudson where Caller-Id is available and there are ads on the
> local TV stations praising its virtues.

It was, particularly in New York City.  Unfortunately, it will
probably not get Caller-ID until after the Hudson Valley and Long
Island because of the state of the communications system.

Sorry to write on a thread I normally stay away from.


Richard Budd                    Internet: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer             Bitnet: [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest, NY          Phone: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 16:07:17 -0800
Subject: Now That We Know What a Baud is, Who Was Murray?


I've always heard that the five-unit code we call Baudot is in fact
not Baudot's code, and is actually the Murray code.  This is
International Telegraph Alphabet #2, so maybe #1 is Baudot's code or
something else.

Now there's also the type font used on Teletype machines, which I have
heard called the Murray style.  Is this the same Murray?  This is a
type style in which vertical strokes are bowed: on letters like V and
W and A and N they are bowed outward.  On H the vertical strokes are
bowed inward.  I've heard this design minimizes the type getting
packed with mud from the combination of ribbon ink and paper dust.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #231
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13255;
          14 Mar 92 22:47 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19770
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:47:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05551
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:47:18 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1992 20:47:18 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Second (and Final) RFD on rec.radio.broadcasting


Bill Pfeiffer, a regular reader of TELECOM Digest has proposed a news
group for persons involved with or interested in radio broadcasting.
An RFD was posted a couple weeks ago, and this message is a reminder
to interested parties to participate in the discussion of same in the
news.groups area on Usenet. If sufficient interest is generated during
the discussion, then a call for votes will be given, probably late
this month or early in April.  All responses to the following message
should go to news.groups and/or Mr. Pfeiffer via email.

PAT

  From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
  Subject: Second (and Final) RFD on rec.radio.broadcasting
  Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
  Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 10:14:43 GMT

This is a second request for discussion on the creation of the new
newsgroup called 'rec.radio.broadcasting'.  The initial RFD went to
press on February 24, 1992.  Since that time I have received many
responses from interested parties, the vast majority of whom were
overwealmingly favorable to the proposal, making comments like '...
it's about time we had a broadcasting newsgroup ...' and similar
comments. These letters have come from broadcast professionals,
students, and listeners alike.

The few dissenting voices I did receive, were basically supportive of
the new group, but took issue with it's proposed moderated status.  I
have responded to every person who has written, pro or con, and saved
their comments for future reference if needed.  Below I will reprint
portions of my original RFD, and excerpts from a post I made to
'news.groups', on the subject of moderation.  The file is a bit
lengthy, so perhaps, if interested, you might wish to download it for
'off-line' review.

My personal E-mail address (regardless of the header info) is:

William Pfeiffer    -- [e-mail] --   Please send
any corespondance to the above address to expidite receipt.
I welcome your comments, ideas and critique of this proposal.

Begin quoted text;  (original RFD file)

This is a request 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 fielding 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, abusive or 'grossly off topic' messages, and (where possible)
   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, equipment, and willingness to
dedicate to such a project.

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 (and larger) 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.
8) Aiding those seeking employment in the industry.


*** RATIONALE ***

Since rec.radio.noncomm is the only Usenet group pertaining to (US)
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 late March, 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.

**** END OF ORIGINAL RFD ****


 ================================= MODERATION ==============================

I understand that to many, moderation of a newsgroup suggests that
some control is taken away from the poster/reader and put into the
hands of one person.  While technically this may have some truth in
it, and while some moderators are rumored to have abused this power,
my position on moderation is quite different.

Here is an excerpt from a recent post to news.groups where I discuss
the moderation question.

Words enclosed in [ ] tie together truncated sentences for brevity and
clarity.  Anyone wanting to see the entire article, write me here and
I will e-mail it to you.  ([e-mail])


*** Begin quoted text ***

> ...  bclement\@cavebbs.gen.nz (Bruce Clement) writes:

In article <d-ws2bk\@rpi.edu> wdp\@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:

I want to stress ... [that I do not] ... see the the moderators role
as one of 'guru', or 'answer (wo)man'.  I envision the role of
modertator as simply a buffer and, occasionally, (as stated before) a
traffic director. I have no interest in being a censor. For the most
part, I would remain semi-invisible to the poster/reader.

The end product [of this group] will be determined by those who choose
to post, **not** by the moderators whim.

My intent is to fill a Usenet vacancy with a quality product ...

Bruce> As for moderation, can any one person, no matter how great their
Bruce> experience in their home market, really have the necessary
Bruce> experience to moderate a newsgroup of this one's proposed scope?

It is the very scope that you speak of which lends it's self to
moderation.  A well moderated group provides a final product which is
generally more readable and concise, with fewer flame wars and more
'real' information exchanged.

 ... [plus] I would not be producing product, only overseeing it.  I
would offer answers (if I had them) where needed, but that would not
be my primary puropose in moderating this group.

I have seen many a fine, unmoderated, newsgroup turn into a flame
throwing and name calling session, thus diminishing the value of the
ensuing discussion. I have never seen this happen in a moderated
group.  It would be my goal to offer a forum for all points of view,
but not to foster unbridled attack and warfare. ...

 ... I would never censor an article unless it was severely off-topic,
unwarrantedly abusive, or one of many repeated answers to a question.
In the latter case, I would print several of the answers and try to
post credit lines to all others who submitted answers.  This is not
censorship, it is conservation of net bandwidth.  I would also reply
(or auto-reply) to every submission I receive.

Also remember that it is easier to remove a bad moderator than it is
to install [a moderator] in a previously un-moderated forum.  However,
I don't believe such action would be neccessary in this case.

Lastly, I am close friends with a gentleman who moderates one of
Usenets more successful and respected newsgroups.  He has taught me
quite a bit about moderation for which I am most grateful.  Between
his counsel, and my experience in, and dedication to, the field of
broadcasting and communication, this project WILL, [pending net
approval] indeed, be a success.

**** END OF QUOTED TEXT ****

Besides the reasons stated above, such as; improved signal/noise
ratio, better readability (fewer flame wars and more information) I
have the following at my disposal.

1) My own dedicated Unix system (airwaves.chi.il.us)
2) A dedicated (direct) mail feed
3) A dedicated moderator :-)
4) Plenty of time and patience
5) A deep affection for broadcasting
6) A lifelong involvement in media and communications
7) A very liberal editorial policy (i.e. no censorship)
8) The assistance of others on the net and in the broadcast
   industry who have already pledged their support in
   producing a fine, balanced, and informative net product.

I don't think you will be disapointed in my work.  If you have had
some bad experiences with moderators in the past, rest assured I am
not like that.

My pledge to the net is that I will give this my all.  It is not a
power game for me, it is a labor of love.  I would like to see r.r.b
become a popular, informative, fun, and above all 'civilized' group
where people can exchange information and ideas, even argue and
bicker, but hopefully not dive into a free-for-all-flame-fest :-).

These are the reasons I want this group (loosely) moderated.  I have
received quite a bit of mail on the subject, most of it favorable.  I
hope those with minor disagreements (such as this moderation question)
will choose to vote YES anyway.  If it turns out, after a period of
time (say 6 to 12 months) that the net feels I am unqualified or have
not lived up to my proposed charter and promises, I would step down as
moderator and either give the reigns to another person or revert the
group to unmoderated status.

I am confident that, unless you are someone who LIVES for flame wars
:-), you will be quite satisfied with my moderation of
rec.radio.broadcasting.  If you are a flame war fiend :-), there are
plenty of talk.politics.etc.  groups to keep you happy :-).


           *  *  *  *          ~~~~~~~~~~ + ~~~~~~~~~~   *  *  *  *
             *  *  *             ~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~        *  *  *
           *  *  *  *          ~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~~~~   *  *  *  *
                                          |
                                         / \
                                        /   \
So it is up to all of you.  If you      |***|
vote this proposal in, I will           |***| ######          COMING SOON
be at your service.  If not, then I     |***| #    #
thank all who did express their         |***| #    #             TO A
support.  Almost ALL of the replies     |***| ######
I received said such a group is         |***| #   #            TERMINAL
"long over due" on Usenet.              |***| #    #
                                        |***| #     # EC.      NEAR YOU!
I hope you will give it (and me) a      |***|
chance to live up to your best          |***|
expectations.                           |***|       ######
                                        |***|       #    #
Thank you.  If you have any questions,  |***|       #    #
write to me at the following            |***|       ######
address:                                |***|       #   #
                                        |***|       #    #
[e-mail]                  |***|       #     #  ADIO.
                                        |***|
Respectfully                            |***|            #####
                                        |***|            #    #
William Pfeiffer                        |***|            #    #
                                        |***|            #####
                                        |***|            #    #
                                        |***|            #    #
                                        |***|            #####  ROADCASTING!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14695;
          15 Mar 92 14:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03508
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 12:30:48 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01026
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 12:30:41 -0600
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 12:30:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #232

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Mar 92 12:30:40 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 232

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Conrad C. Nobili)
    AT&T Introduces New Calling Card (System Administrator)
    Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000 (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Radio Contest Lines (Jonathan Bradshaw)
    Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (B Clement)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Gabe M. Wiener)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 05:04:40 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

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

>> So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it
>> or not, yes, you got the answer machine again.  I'm not at home so
           ---
>> leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ...
>> BEEP!"  then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost?

> We ran into false yes's and no's on answering machine a few times but
> it was very uncommon.  What we found is that the calling customer
> would almost always hang up when an answering machine was reached.

Did you run into any problems with false yes's and no's from humans?

Looking in the 1992 Boston NYNEX White Pages (617) I find the following:

     No Dust Mop Rental Serv Inc      427-1268
     No Frills Aerobic Factory The    876-2700
     No Kidding                       739-2477
     No-Name Restrnt                  338-7539
     No Name Restaurant               423-2705
     No Name Stores Inc               623-9137
     Yes Glen Will Print              421-9797

I have included the numbers because I imagine some of the readers who
regularly look stuff up in directories and make calls and report the
results here may wish to investigate whether these businesses answer
their phones with "yes" or "no" as one might guess ... I would
suspect that these numbers might be answered by a yes or a no whether
by a human or a machine ...

So, while these falses were probably "very uncommon" to AT&T, I would
not be surprised if they would be regular occurrences for some
(in)appropriately named businesses.  And isn't it somewhat common for
people to answer the phone "Yes?"?  Can this give a false positive?

> One thing we found while testing is that some customers would abuse
> the system by speaking a message such as, "I'll be home at 7:00",
> instead of their name.  We know who you are!  :-)

Yes, I *like* this feature!  Makes it even *easier* to pass
information across your overpriced network for free!  No potential
embarassment with a human operator, so there is no need to encode
one's message in a plausible-sounding name ... just state your
business right up front!

I grant that you know who we are, but what can you do about it?  I
mean all you know is who the *called* party is.  I suppose you could
threaten that party or its service.  I suppose you could install some
feature so that if a party refuses more than some threshold of
automated collect calls over some length of time, that service is
magically disabled.  Any such calls to that party after that time
could be handled by an operator perhaps. (Reorder might be a bit too
drastic -- it might suffice to force the deadbeats back to their
somewhat less unabashed code with the human operators.)

And it is likely that the first thing that the party would do in
response would be to change all its long distance service to Sprint!
I don't know if that is much of a risk for you guys though, as any
significant loss of revenue would have to be from a business doing
this.  And I would guess that any business that would be trying to
pass free messages in this way may already be using Sprint ...  ;-)

And would there be a potential for weirdos (or even disgruntled ex-
operators) to make lots of totally anonymous annoyance calls through
this service.?  I would expect that the set of people who find it fun
to pester an operator (the stereotype of which is *still* an old
biddy) is a subset of the set of people who might get amusement out of
your new system.  I can see it now ... MCI telemarketers going to
payphones to make automated collect calls to Sprint telemarketers via
this new AT&T service, breathing heavily into the handset at the
bong! ...

> Because of the difficulties in dealing with answering machines [how do
> you know a talkative person picked up or if you got an answering
> machine, or if it was a wrong number, or a digital pager, or who knows
> what] we abandonded using automation on that part of the call.  If
> these problems can be overcome we'll go for it.  The newspapers got
> that part wrong ...

Hmmm ... I think there are some problems here that mere technology
will not easily overcome.  But go for it. I think it will increase
the bandwidth of the free signalling possibilities of which our
Moderator so heartily disapproves ... might even make it worth
writing some code to test it out.

How long does one get to record one's name?  I would guess three to five
seconds?  It's probably much longer than that to allow for the startled
caller to realize what to do.  So let's say five seconds.  Let's use
USRobotics' new 16,800 bps modulation as a yardstick.  This should
work.  The quality of the connection should be clean, as it is sure that
the "voice" is stored digitally.  And there should be no need for fancy
echo cancellation, as one of the main points of the automated collect
call is that it is half-duplex to prevent bursts of free information being
exchanged by live people ... I get over 8KB when I do the math ...
Methinks this might be the perfect way to transmit the messages to
those new text pagers from anywhere for free ... (well, free to the
caller and the callee, that is.)  ;-)

Then again, I suppose that, since the data is being stored digitally
and then played back some long time later, there is plenty of time for
you to introduce all sorts of nasty phase hits and frame errors.  This
would be ok since the data is *supposed* to have been transduced human
voice which is *supposed* to be demodulated by another human.  The
human audio-perceptual system far exceeds current DSP and modem
technology in its ability to handle line noise. Oh well, maybe
you'll get away with it, but it would be a wonderful hack if someone
could design a new modulation that would be robust to your fiddling.
Lots of FEC would be necessary.

I await the time you decide to "go for it" with fiendish glee!  Until
then I am happy enough to be able to turn my computer on instantly
from anywhere in the world for free.

Well, I am sorry to all for the length this has reached.  I hope
people know where to add any ;-)s I left out by accident.  I should
especially note that I am a satisfied customer of *all* of AT&T,
Sprint and MCI, and in no way mean to impugn any of them -- just
irreverently using names of real companies for our mutual amusement.

And sorry PAT if I have dredged up the free low-rate signalling stuff
again which you dislike so much.  I just thought there was an
interesting new twist on it here ...  ;-)


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT


[Moderator's Note: I quite agree with you. Although it is just a type
of petty fraud, I think people will learn how to do it, depriving AT&T
of revenue. A question would be will the savings in payroll offset the
loss due to a new surge in toll fraud. Local telcos like IBT have been
using a variation on this for a couple years (a combination of pushing
buttons in response, and recording your 'name' for the called party).
I don't know what their experience has been. AT&T might like to inquire.
Further, not only will phones answered with 'yes' or 'no' in their
name be in jeopardy, but so will those that *sound like* yes or no,
such as 'yesterday', 'Hess', 'Nome' (as in Alaska) and others.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (System Administrator)
Subject: AT&T Introduces New Calling Card
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 06:16:29 GMT


The following article was found in America Online's {NewsBytes}:

AT&T Intros New Calling Card 03/13/92

BASKING RIDGE, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A., 1992 MAR 13 (NB) -- AT&T announced
a new Custom Calling Card which accesses only up to ten numbers.
Parents can give the card to children for calling home, or employees
on the road can be given the card for calling the home or office.

The card is free to existing accounts. If $30 is billed on the cards
in any three-month period, ten percent discounts are offered in the
form of certificates at year-end. Regular savings plans like the Reach
Out America residential plans are also covered by the card.

The new card could also be a big help in reducing calling card fraud,
a $1.2 billion dollar problem according to AT&T. Many criminals hang
out at train, plane and bus terminals, sometimes using binoculars to
spy calling card numbers as people make calls, or listening as people
read the numbers off to operators. If people at airports or bus
stations use the new cards, they can only reach a few numbers, and
criminals would not be able to get much from stealing the numbers.
Still, AT&T is putting up posters warning of fraud near public phone
booths in high-crime bus and plane terminals at New York, Chicago,
Houston, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles and Atlanta.

Beyond offering new types of calling cards, AT&T is also trying to
take cards out of service when a surge in international calling is
detected. Many criminals take the card numbers and stand at other pay
phone locations, offering calls for cash. Frequently, these overseas
calls are untraceable calls to drug dealers overseas. AT&T has also
produced print ads and broadcast public service announcements for use
on TV and on airline flights, as well as Spanish-language warnings.
The ads warn people not to use calling cards as identification for
purchases, not to give out their numbers over the phone to people
claiming to be phone company representatives, and urge people who
think they've lost their card or had the number stolen to call for a
new card at 1-800-CALL ATT.

In other news involving AT&T, the company said it won an order from
the Polish PTT, known as Telekomunikacja Polska, for optical fiber
cables. AT&T International will install a network of 875 miles of such
cables, worth $26 million, and make them in Lublin, Poland, 150 miles
southeast of Warsaw.

(Dana Blankenhorn/19920313/Press Contact: Paul Provost, AT&T Network
Systems, 201-606-2826, Andrew Myers, AT&T, 908-221-2737)

                             ----------

UUCP: crash!pro-gallup!samp           |  pro-gallup   300 - 14,400 bps
ARPA: crash!pro-gallup![e-mail]  |  All MNP Levels  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: AT&T Public Phone 2000
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 14:46:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Tony Harminc <[e-mail].
CA> writes:

> I recently came across an AT&T Public Phone 2000 in the lobby of the
> Hilton in Anaheim, California.  This is a wall mounted phone with a
> colour screen and a small keyboard.

I have tried using one of these in the Dallas-Ft.Worth airport.

> I tried my Telecom Canada calling card (old format: ten digits plus
> four digit PIN) and it was read with no trouble and validated.  This
> took a little over five seconds and then it said to go ahead and dial
> the data number.

I was unable to use my Bell Canada calling card number (I don't carry
the actual card but have the number memorized).

> I dialed the local Tymnet 2400 number, heard the answer tone, and then
> the screen told me to hang up in order to proceed.  I did, and got the
> Tymnet prompt on the screen, connected through to Datapac, and on into
> the McGill VM system.

I had a problem here.  The bank of modems that I dial into to access
my home machine for mail are Telebit T1000's.  These answer first with
the PEP sequence.  What happens consistently with this phone is that
when the tones start it decides it has encountered a busy signal and
drops the call.  This is something that sometimes happens with modems
that are set up to recognize BUSY (X4 command).

> How will the use of this device show up on my phone bill?  I am not
> aware of any mechanism for a US carrier to send arbitrary billing data
> to a Canadian telco (Bell Canada in my case).

I had asumed that this was why my card number was rejected.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines
Date: 15 Mar 92 02:15:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
writes:

> In a previous article, [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
> says:

>> A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those
>> contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!")  that *some*
>> radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still
>> counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and
>> had to be answered.  At his radio station, however, he had to pick up
>> each call (he told the caller what number they were to keep track
>> easier) and hang up so that more callers could get through.

At the station I work for (WNDU-FM) we generally take the 10th caller,
we have four lines running in in two pairs. 239-3893 rolls over to
239-3894 and our other request line 674-8851 rolls over to 674-8852
(This is to allow local calls for everyone in our listening area). We
take our contests manually and answer each call in order "U93, your
caller number #, hang up and try again."  Since the lines are position
on the phone in: 3893, 3894, 8851, 8852 your best bet is 239-3894!
However, since not all lines are active it actually works out pretty
even.


Jonathan Bradshaw | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
Purdue University | WNDU-AM/FM/TV South Bend, IN  | Forsythe Computers,  Inc.
Prodigy:  XMSN02B | Whovian/Trekker/Red Dwarf/Quantum Leap/Blakes 7/DGIF#9588

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Clement)
Subject: Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service
Organization: Children of Ingle-Frey
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 23:20:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Warren Burstein) writes:

> Translated from {Ma'ariv}, 2/28/92, notes in parenthesis are mine.

> Bezeq (the Israeli telco) is about to begin to use 'computerized voice
> warning' for customers who are behind on their telephone bills.

> A customer who has not paid his bill by the due date will receive a
> call to his home or office, and a computerized voice will suggest that
> he hurry up and pay in order to save himself the trouble involved in
> disconnecting the line.

NZ Telecom are already using this, or a very similiar, system.

While it is probably effective when the phone is answered by the account
owner, it can cause problems for users with Auto answer modems, or even
answering machines.

If your phone is answered by your answering machine, the warning is
sent down the line by the computer while your out-going message.
Telecom then "believe" that the message has been delivered.

If your phone is answered by a young child, the message goes to them.
Same problem. I understand that one Bulletin Board was put "off the
air" when the machine didn't even have the wit to recognise a modem
attempt-to-connect sequence.

None of the above is intended to encourage the nonpayment of phone
bills, but telecom services have a responsibility to understand
telecommunications and not just assume that everyone actually answers
their phone in person for every "answered" call.


Bruce Clement

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 02:43:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Carl Moore (VLD/VMB)
<[e-mail]> writes:

> 2. the number of bits per second that can be transmitted in a given
> computer system

I was always taught that a baud is not a bit, but a state change, so
the higher modem speeds are technically-speaking only half the rated
baud rates since they employ more than two states.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.   [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles     72355,1226 on CI$

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #232
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19883;
          15 Mar 92 16:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10439
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 14:37:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24361
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 14:37:00 -0600
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 14:37:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #233

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Mar 92 14:37:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 233

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam (John Higdon)
    Re: Mystic Marketing Oddity (Clive Feather)
    Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Ring Supression (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100? (John Higdon)
    Re: Now That We Know What a Baud is, Who Was Murray? (Dik Winter)
    Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Phil Howard)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Oscar Valdes)
    Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY? (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67 (Gary Sanders)
    Switched 56 Summary (Ross Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 800 Sweepstakes Scam
Date: 14 Mar 92 18:34:59 PST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) quotes from the {Wall Street Journal}:

> AT&T spokesman Monty Hoyt said his company has demanded that Allied
> Marketing stop sending the catalog and that the company has agreed to
> comply.  "I think it is disturbing that what has been built up over 25
> years in terms of public trust of 800 service is being eroded," Hoyt
> said. [WSJ]

We are dealing here with a company (AT&T) that is so huge that the
right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth, or we have a company
that gives new meaning to the term "hypocracy". One of the latest
pushes by AT&T sales reps to their customers is the use of 800 numbers
for just this type of "direct billing" enterprise. Granted, when you
call one of these numbers you must always assent to being billed
before you are charged, but the concept of billing based upon ANI data
from an 800 number is something cooked up within the hallowed walls of
AT&T itself (or at least if the idea was not invented there, it is
certainly being propagated).

I can understand AT&T not wanting its catalog sent out with billing
for some slimy scam, but all of these protestations about how the
"toll-free 800 system is being misused" -- come on now! AT&T: If you
don't like it, stop pushing it!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Mystic Marketing Oddity
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 10:53:33 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I think its nice you have a friend, 'someone in
> area 206' to try those numbers for you. Without someone there to help
> you, you'd need to resort to dialing that number another telecom
> newsgroup has been publishing which I've refused to print. You know,
> 206-xxx-xxxx where it answers and returns dial tone. (innocent blink
> of eyes!). Summpin tells me the mess is gonna hit the fan soon on that
> one!. Glad I didn't print it here!  PAT]

I don't understand your reasoning here, Pat. I have heard of this
number through a UK Usenet group, but it was described as only being
able to access 800 numbers. Ignoring for the moment the issue of
charging back through ANI (like MM are doing), what is wrong with a
number that provides such a service ? In other words, what is your
objection/worry -- what 'mess is gonna hit the fan soon'.

Those of us in the rest of the world have no official way to reach
NANP 800 numbers, and many such numbers are advertised without a POTS
number as well. Suppose that my understanding of 206-xxx-xxxx is
correct, and it only allows calling 800 numbers. Who loses out if I
use it ? I pay the normal rate to the USA/Canada, which is what I
want. The callee pays the rate he or she expects to for a national
call. The telco collects both ways, so they're even happier. I don't
understand why some enterprising telco doesn't provide such services
as a marketing ploy.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom


[Moderator's Note: My belief is the number we are discussing is the
property of some company which uses it as a WATS extender or similar
service within their company. It may well be a telco test line used as
a loop around for some purpose. In any event, I do not believe it is
there as a public service for people from other countries to use in
reaching 800 numbers in the USA. People spreading that rationale, that
the number 'is intended as a way to call 800 numbers' are mistaken.
Mistaken on purpose, perhaps ... I think the organization which owns
it will sooner or later crack down on its use. I doubt seriously it is
being used *only* to call 800 numbers either. Maybe some telco should
offer the service, but I doubt this is it.  If anyone can bring me
factual information; ie who owns this number and that its purpose is
the way it is purported elsewhere, I'll print the article here.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Message Express Appears On My Phone Bill
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 16:03:01 GMT


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

[Re: charges appearing on phone bill for services provided by calling
an 800 number.]

> ... this really means we [phone autopatch providers] need to block
> 800 numbers.  COCOTS and other phone service providers need to do so
> accordingly.

A ham phone autopatch could probably do this, as it's explicitly
private and restricted to a select group of users; however, a COCOT,
telco coin/coinless phone, shared tenant service, or other provider
could run afoul of the FCC order that callers must be able to access
any LD provider via whatever of 10XXX, 950-WXXX, or 1-800 dialing are
supported by the LD provider.

> From TV ads I see AT&T offers something similar with "*123".  I
> assume I can get this with "10288*123".  I probably will try it out
> tonight.

I don't work on this service, so any knowledge I have is peripheral;
however, as I recall,

  (a) the code is #123
  (b) it only works once a calling card (0+) call has been placed and
      reached a ringing or busy state

It's called (internally) "0+ Access to Voice Messaging"; I don't know
what the name under tariff is or what the promotional name is.
Basically, it allows a caller to redirect the call to the VoiceMark
(TM) messaging service on a 0+ call.  You can't simply dial
10288-0-#123, but you can directly reach the VoiceMark messaging
service by calling an 800 number.  I don't know how billing works when
you dial an 800 number (I'm guessing it would prompt for a calling
card number).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Ring Supression
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 15:09:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
on.ca (Eric Jacksch) writes:

> I'm using some weird switching equipment on my line and want to
> supress the first ring (i.e. stop the phone from ringing until the
> second ring comes down the line.)  Does anyone happen to have any
> schematics?

I have a cheap phone that does this on it's own.  It seems that it
needs one ring to collect enough energy to drive the ringer!


Vance Shipley   [e-mail]
[e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

Subject: Re: Do I Want a 5ESS or a DMS-100?
Date: 14 Mar 92 18:15:51 PST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Vance Shipley  writes:

> One should not be suprised that AT&T's digital switch emulates their
> #1A more accurately than Northern Telecom's.

Actually, regardless of other comments, there are two truths here. The
first is that the DMS-100 is the one (NOT the 5ESS) that offers a
"1AESS Feature Emulation" option. The second is that I have both 1ESS
and 5ESS switches serving my home. The feature implementations could
not be more dissimilar. If anyone tries to tell you that the features
on the 5ESS even remotely resemble the features on the 1A, walk away.
This is from experience and first-hand observation, not theory.


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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 09:00:57 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Now That We Know What a Baud is, Who Was Murray?


> I've always heard that the five-unit code we call Baudot is in fact
> not Baudot's code, and is actually the Murray code.  This is Inter-
> national Telegraph Alphabet #2, so maybe #1 is Baudot's code or
> something else.

This is exactly right.  CCITT #1 is Baudot, CCITT #2 is Murray.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy"
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 07:37:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> Moderator's Note: This thread should be continued in the Telecom
> Privacy Digest ([e-mail]) by interested readers.  PAT]

What is the cooresponding UseNet newsgroup names?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly there is no associated newsgroup at
this time. Telecom-Priv is operated as a mailing list from the above
address, or more specifically from [e-mail].
Dennis Rears (the Moderator) is attempting to get the mailing list
gatewayed to a newsgroup, and that may be happening soon.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Oscar Valdes)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Date: 15 Mar 92 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: Crusade to Eliminate Political Correctness


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (jim
thomas) writes:

> It is a substantial error to assume that those concerned with routine
> monitoring and information gathering have a grudge against law
> enforcement. There are several reasons to be concerned about whether

[examples of inappropriate uses of wiretaps by law enforcement]

> To paraphrase Camus, "It is not that I like law enforcement less, but I
> respect the constitution more."

    Our infamous Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: To paraphrase Townson, "It is not that I don't like
> the constitution, but I like peace and quiet and a community of law-
> abiding citizens better."

    An interesting comment that conveniently ignores an important
issue.  Namely that in a free society the necessary information
gathering performed by law enforcement agencies must be conducted with
proper consideration of the citizen's civil liberties.

    Our Moderator (I can't call him noble anymore) conveniently
dismisses Jim's statement that the FBI has used wiretaps for
exclusively political purposes.  Although most people, including
myself, will agree law enforcement agencies must be given the
necessary authority to conduct wiretaps it is also true the civil
liberties that make a society free must never be compromised, not even
in a situation of national emergency.

    Let me point out that Townson's idea is quite attractive at
first sight.  After all, who wouldn't want to live in peace in a
community in which everybody is a law abiding citizen?  However, I
grew up in a country that uses Townson's philosophy as an instrument
of national policy and I had the chance to take a closer look at how
the idea works when applied in the real world.

    The main problem, in my view, with Townson's philosophy (to
which our Moderator so happily subscribes) is that it assumes that law
enforcement agents never make mistakes.  It might work as intended in
a world where law enforcement officials are always correct, every
suspect is guilty and every wiretap is justified.  Reality, however,
is quite different: law enforcement agents are human beings and
sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes suspects are innocent and, as
Jim pointed out, sometimes wiretaps are used for political purposes
rather than to monitor criminal activity.

Comments are welcome.  Assuming, of course, our infamous Moderator
agrees to publish this post.


[Infamous Moderator's Note: Why shouldn't I publish your posting?
Unlike my competitor Kay Graham with her two publications, {Washington
Post} and {News Weak}, I actually try to present as many sides of an
issue as possible. Unlike the many liberal bigots you see on the net,
my conservative philosophy and ethics as an Infamous Moderator require
that I give as many people as possible a chance to speak, myself
included.

You are of course correct that law enforcement officers make mistakes.
Sometimes through a combination of circumstances, the courts fail to
recognize or correct the mistakes of law enforcement. A great tragedy
is the erroneous conviction of an innocent person ... but the world is
full of great tragedies these days; would you have it that the few
remaining vestiges of civilization left in the United States be tossed
aside in the hopes a few more rights for a few more people might be
salvaged? The problem with that is a few would have more rights while
others of us would lose still more of ours in the process.  I'm not
saying my answer is perfect, only that it is pragmatic, the best we
can expect in the USA today.

The bottom line, ie. the most freedom and liberty for the greatest
number of people at any given time is my only concern. If I have to
live with anything, I'd rather live with a reasonable margin of law
enforcement error; I don't see other viable choices given our present
constitution. I'm not sitting here clapping my hands with glee over
the rotten place the USA has become in the last thirty years. To amend
the Bill of Rights section of our constitution is unthinkable, you
say?  In a few years, it will become 'thinkable' by more and more
people ... maybe even yourself. And then, it will be too late. Can't
you see the collision course we are on even now in society?  And by
the way, if you think *I* am infamous about what I will and won't
print here, try the {New York Times} sometime.  Arthur O. Sulzberger's
wastebasket overflows with mail from sincere people who disagree with
that paper's position on social issues. Let's continue in telecom-priv
if you wish.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY?
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 02:51:27 GMT


Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have
follow-me roaming at this point?

Also, I know Cellular One just put in a brand-spankin'-new Ericcson
switch.  Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the audio quality
of their switch compared to NYNEX?

Aw, let me just get it over with.  Who is the "better" carrier?
Prices for local service are similar ... how do roaming charges
compare between the two carriers?  I'd be interested in hearing from
anyone who has used both carriers.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
N2GPZ in ham radio circles    72355,1226 on CI$

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67
Organization: HAM BBS, 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/v.32/pep)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 10:43:49 GMT


Does anyone know of a "box" that can be placed inline with a POTS line
that will intercept touch tones, then prepend or postpend additional
tone along with the entered tones?

WHY? Now that it looks like Ohio Bell is going to offer free per call
CID blocking I dont want to have to enter the block code each time I
call someone; I would like to do it automatically.


Gary W. Sanders n8emr![e-mail], 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JVY (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Porter)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 12:17:43 EST
Subject: Switched 56 Summary


One week ago, I asked for pointers to switched 56 information.  For PA
residents, Bob Garten [phone] really knows what he's talking
about (thanks to Bill Dripps for the pointer).  For those in the Bell
Atlantic region, Bob may be able to send you to the right representative.
For those of you not in the Bell Atlantic region, you might try talking
to someone in the small business group of your local carrier.

Specific information:

1.  Is switched 56 service available in my dialing prefix?

    Switched 56 service is available in pretty much any prefix,
    provided you are no more than 18,000 feet from your local
    switching station.

2.  How much?

    $150/month + $0.14/min.  Termination equipment (V.35 interface)
    is an up-front $1500.  Rates will, of course, vary.


Ross

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #233
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09459;
          16 Mar 92 0:49 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27387
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 23:00:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23783
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Mar 1992 22:59:58 -0600
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 22:59:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #234

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Mar 92 23:00:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 234

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Ronald Oakes)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Warren Burstein)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Radio Contest Lines (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From Israel (Warren Burstein)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Alan L. Varney)
    Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard)
    Low Cost Phone With LCD? (Ken Mandelberg)
    Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Bryan King)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ronald Oakes)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 13:14:08 CST


> [Moderator's Note: I note you are in a university town, and it may be
> the local telco has gotten burned so often on students stealing phone
> service from pay stations that telco chooses to collect every minute.
> I can assure you in many (most?) places that is not the case. IBT
> collects the deposit for three minutes and interrupts at three minutes
> to announce the initial time period has expired ... 'please flash when
> your call is finished ...'. After about five or six minutes they may
> ask for additional money ...

This differs from my experience.  Last November, my father was flying
from Washington D.C. back to Albuquerque, NM, and came through O'Hare.
Since his lay over was only an hour or so, there was not enough time
for me to practaclly visit, so he called me.  After a few minuets, the
automated operator interrupted and asked for more money for the next
minute.  Since I also heard this message, I asked him if the phone was
an IBT phone, and he said it was.  We ended the call after the operator
again asked for more money.

Now, I suppose that O'Hare may be at a greater risk of people not
paying there pay phone charges than other parts of the metro area, so
that's the only place where this occurs. (My father was startled since
he figured that O'Hare to the suburbs should be a local call, and in
Albuquerque local calls on pay phones still costs $0.25 per call,
period.  But thats a different subject.)


Ronald B. Oakes


[Moderator's Note: Well, O'Hare is handled as you mention, as are the
Bus Terminal phones. Many suburban calls from O'Hare *do* cost 25
cents and are treated as local calls; it depends on the suburb.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Date: 15 Mar 92 13:29:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael Rosen) writes:

> Ok, I'm sure some of us here have made direct long distance calls from
> payphones once or twice.  Now, when you hang up, almost all the time
> the phone rings back requesting that you deposit more money...

> If you hang up, the phone will ring back with a live operator
> requesting payment.  What's to stop me from walking away?

I once worked in the office of a summer camp, part of my job included
operating the mechanical switchboard.  One day the operator rang to
say that someone from our camp had gone to a pay phone somewhere out
on the road, made a call, and had not deposited the requested money at
the end.

I don't recall if there was any way that they could demonstrate that
the call was in fact placed by one of our people, or what they
expected me to do about it.  Maybe when the phone rang someone
answered and told the operator that it was someone with a "Camp <X>"
T-shirt.

We did have a pay phone in the camp, if the perpetrator was from the
camp he or she might have decided to go elsewhere to avoid detection.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Maybe the operator was hoping you could identify
the person (saw them coming back; knew someone likely to do that,
etc). When I was in seventh grade, the phone exchange was manual. A
pay phone in the cafeteria at school was subject to abuse. It was one
of the old-fashioned three-slot models, with straight cloth -- rather
than armored cable -- to the handset, and no trap door on the coin
return. The rate was five cents, and depositing the five cent coin
brought the operator with 'number please' on the line. The principal
caught some of us using a bent coat hanger to retrieve our coins from
the collection shelf before the operator could hit the collect button
on her end to tip the shelf in the direction of the coin box. While we
stood there mortified, he made a call:

Deposit coin ... presently operator answers ...
"Number please?" "Give me the Business Office." "Surely, thank you".
The coin returns, as this was a free call. He asked for someone by
name, and chatted briefly. The essence of the conversation was that
the culprits had been caught in the act. The Business Office person
must have flashed the hook, because the operator came back on the
line. The three of us had to ante up all our five and ten cent coins;
between us probably two dollars in coins with one lad in possession of
a twenty five cent coin ... the principal made us dump all our coins
in the phone, then told the operator, "Okay, that's all the change
they have among them ... go ahead and collect it." <ker-chunk>. We
were told we 'got off lucky this time' ... :)     PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 19:07:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Conrad C. Nobili) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> We ran into false yes's and no's on answering machine a few times but
>> it was very uncommon.  What we found is that the calling customer
>> would almost always hang up when an answering machine was reached.

> Did you run into any problems with false yes's and no's from humans?

No, because we don't listen for the yes/no response until they've been
asked if they will accept charges for the call.

> And isn't it somewhat common for people to answer the phone "Yes?"?
> Can this give a false positive?

No, see above.  What do you think we are ?  Amateurs ?  :-)

> I grant that you know who we are, but what can you do about it?  I
> mean all you know is who the *called* party is.

You can believe that if you want, but it's wrong.

 From certain originating lines where such abuse is likely to happen,
e.g., prisons, or schools [hint!], the system can be configured to
route collect calls [or whatever type] immediately to an operator.
However, at present the system routes all collect calls to an
operator.

> Hmmm ... I think there are some problems here that mere technology
> will not easily overcome.

I suspect the same, but then, the same thing was said about the light
bulb.

> How long does one get to record one's name?  I would guess three to
> five seconds?

I believe it's programmable by the telco customer, but that's probably
typical.

TELECOM Moderator then noted:

> A question would be will the savings in payroll offset the loss due
> to a new surge in toll fraud.

The dollars in labor savings I heard has nine digits ... the petty
fraud is in the noise, in my opinion.  But it will be addressed as
needed.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 00:35:14 GMT


> response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
> completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
> have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
> to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as

I'd like to suggest that at this point, the system ought to detect
"f---", "sh--", and "damn", and treat them as a NO.  The same goes for
"hell", if it can be reliably distinguished from "hello", and dial
tone, just in case someone isn't handling supervision properly.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: Maybe what they should do is reprint the notice
which used to appear on the front cover of the Chicago phone book back
in the 1920's Chicago Telephone Company (predecessor to IBT) era:
"Subscribers are requested to address our operators in the same
courteous manner they would have the operator respond to them. Our
operators don't use profane language when responding; we ask our
subscribers not to use it either."  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 18:01:54 GMT


[e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper) writes:

>> A few years ago, a DJ told me that when radio stations have those
>> contests (you know, "Be the 17th caller and WIN!!!")  that *some*
>> radio stations had equipment that returned a busy signal, but still
>> counted the call, so that only the 17th caller got a ringing tone and

> university centrex.  The programmer on the air will answer each call,
> and maybe even talk with the person if no one else is calling yet.
> There are times when it's the same person all three calls!

This is a major problem for many stations, especially in the large
markets.  48 Hours recently did a show on gambling, and included
"contest pigs" who spend all day listening to several stations and run
three (or more) phone lines on speed dial, trying to win. In the case
on the show, an LA station knew one fellow was calling ... had about a
half dozen lines to choose from, and still got nailed when the "25th"
call was punched up.

Of course, with some contests at $1000 a pop, it can be a living. Or,
can it be called living?  8-)


Barry

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: AT&T's USA Direct is Now Automated From Israel
Date: 15 Mar 92 13:30:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


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

> AT&T's USA Direct is now automated from France.

Israel, too.  Love that bong.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 15:17:04 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) writes:

[In a discussion of why LEC "costs" might be different in various
areas controlled by the same RBOC ...]

> Another thing that makes a (big) difference is the number of digital
> switches (lower personnel costs), and New Hampshire will be 100%
> digital by year-end '93, according to the NET spokesman on the radio.

   In most cases, the savings in 'personnel costs' come primarily from
replacement of "electro-mechanical" COs and analog trunk circuits.
Where these were replaced with No. 1 ESS(tm) or No. 2 ESS switches in
the 1970's, there were substantial savings.  The more capable enhanced
versions, (the No. 1A ESS and No. 2B ESS switches), offered even more
savings in that "card-writing" as a backup of office data was avoided.
Later enhancements allowed remote retrieval of AMA (billing)
information from those switches (avoiding the daily pickup of tapes).

   Combined with newer D4 Channel Bank and integrated Digital Carrier
Trunk (DCT) technology in the No. 1A ESS switch, the actual day-to-day
operations, administration and maintenance costs of these switches is
not likely to be as different from a comparable digital switch as one
might believe.  While a modern switch might incur somewhat lower
costs, it's unlikely to be the "(big) difference" you indicated.  The
major savings are in initial costs, floor space, quantity of spare
parts, and the ability to offer services not available in an analog
switch.


Al Varney - My opinions, not necessarily ATT's

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 08:10:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Can I get one single cell phone number assigned to two different cell
phones?  Suppose I want to own a portable cell phone (likely to be a
low power transmitter model) and a car mounted one (high power with a
properly mounted roof antenna for reliable operation even when moving
around).  I'd like to have just ONE phone number for people to call me
and have either phone ring me, whichever one is on.

Assuming the above can be done, what if I have both phones on?  Can I
actually make two separate outgoing calls, or make one while an incoming
is in progress?  Can I even get two incoming calls?

I don't have a cell phone yet, but I am thinking about it now.  I am
thinking mostly in terms of how useful it is to me.  I chose to ask
these question here, rather than calling sales droids, because I
wanted accurate answers.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The answer in each case is no. You cannot have the
same number on two different cell phones at the same time. Others can
send you mail explaining in detail why not, but briefly, it has to do
with the security procedures cell phones use involving the ESN
(electronic serial number) built into each phone.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: Low Cost Phone With LCD?
Date: 15 Mar 92 22:17:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


Does anyone know of a low cost phone (<$40) that has an LCD display
that shows the number you are dialing? I only seem to see this in
expensive units coupled with other features (answering machines,
second line, etc ... ).


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]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 18:55:03 -0500
From: bxbmts.dnet!mrgate.dnet!"bxb::msbcs::am_msbcs::king"@msbcs.enet.dec.com
Subject: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service


On a recent Sunday morning, I tried calling out on my phone at home
but got a fast busy on all calls made outside of the local exchange
including the operator.  I live in an area served by exchange (508)264
which is in Acton, Massachustts.  The telephone company is New England
Telephone and their equipment in Acton is a 2BESS (analog SPC).

When I finally did get through to the operator = hour later, to report
the problem, she asked me if I was calling Ticketron or Teletron.
Apparently U2 tickets had just gone on sale in either Worcester or
Boston and all the lines were jammed by people calling the ticket
agencies to buy tickets.  I thought this was bizzarre as not only
could I not call numbers in adjacent towns such as Maynard, but I
could not dial any 800 numbers or reach the operator by dialing zero
either.

I never followed up on this because after I got through to the
operator, the problem cleared up.  She suggested logging a trouble
call but I got frustrated with their maze of voicemail menus.

Now suppose I had to make an emergency call and could not get through?
Certainly this seemed to be a possibility, as reaching operator did
not work.  I assume though that calling the local police and fire
would have worked, their numbers are in an adjacent exchange in the
same CO, 263.

Shouldn't New England Telephone have hardware safeguards in place to
prevent this type of thing from happening or at least have available
more lines in an outgoing trunk?


Thanks,


Bryan King    Digital Equipment Corporation   VSS System Management


[Moderator's Note: Telco does have specific prefixes set aside called
'choke exchanges' which constrict the flow of traffic as needed to
prevent the congestion you mentioned. But if a subscriber is not on a
choke exchange and suddenly has a huge volume of calls, telco is more
or less helpless. A non-blocking network would be tremendously
expensive and of little value most of the time. Most exchanges are set
up to deal with a maximum of about 10-15 percent of their subscribers
at any one time ... the peak calling time each day. During off-peak times,
perhaps five percent of the subscribers are using the phone at the
same time. The percentage of subscribers who can be serviced at the
same time has increased with newer switches, I understand, but it is
still no where near 100 percent.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #234
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17227;
          17 Mar 92 3:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25351
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 00:52:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25077
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 00:52:13 -0600
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 00:52:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #235

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Mar 92 00:51:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 235

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners (Gerard Van der Leun)
    Phone Lines and v32 (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    Beware Fax Glitches (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Caller ID Dilemma (was Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67) (Phil Howard)
    Voicemail Message Indicator (James Santos)
    Using Telnet/Tymenet Services (Joel A. Rybolt)
    Fiber Optics Manufacturers (Tony Hong)
    Ring Back Wumber Wanted For NJ (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    RAM Mobile Data (Ken Jongsma)
    Hotel Telephone Service (Dick Rawson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 23:19:58 GMT


ENGELBART, KAHN, WARREN, JENNINGS AND SMERECZYNSKI
NAMED AS FIRST WINNERS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S PIONEER
AWARDS

Cambridge,  March 16,1992

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five
winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial
contributions to the field of computer based communications.  The
winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont, California; Robert Kahn
of Reston, Virginia; Jim Warren of Woodside, California; Tom Jennings
of San Francisco, California; and Andrzej Smereczynski of Warsaw,
Poland.

The winners will be presented with their awards at a ceremony open to
the public this Thursday, March 19, at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in
Washington, DC, beginning at 5:15 PM. Most winners are expected to be
present to accept the awards in person.  The ceremony is part of this
week's Second Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy that is
taking place at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in D.C.

Mitchell Kapor, President of the EFF, said today that: "We've created
the Pioneer Awards in order to recognize and honor individuals who
have made ground-breaking contributions to the technology and culture
of digital networks and communities."

Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national and
international computer-communication systems from November, 1991 to
February 1992.  Several hundred nominations were received by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the final winners were selected by
a panel of six judges.

The criteria for the Pioneer Awards was that the person or
organization nominated had to have made a substantial contribution to
the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.

                   The Pioneer Winners

Douglas Engelbart is one of the original moving forces in the personal
computer revolution who is responsible for many ubiquitous features of
today's computers such as the mouse, the technique of windowing,
display editing, hypermedia, groupware and many other inventions and
innovations. He holds more than 20 patents and is widely-recognized in
his field as one of our era's true visionaries.

Robert Kahn was an early advocate and prime mover in the creation of
ARPANET which was the precursor of today's Internet. Since the late
60's and early 70's Mr. Kahn has constantly promoted and tirelessly
pursued innovation and heightened connectivity in the world's computer
networks.

Tom Jennings started the Fidonet international network. Today it is a
linked network of amateur electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs)
with more than 10,000 nodes worldwide and it is still growing. He
contributed to the technical backbone of this system by writing the
FIDO BBS program as well as to the culture of the net by pushing for
development and expansion since the early days of BBSing.  He is
currently editor of FidoNews, the network's electronic newsletter.

Jim Warren has been active in electronic networking for many years.
Most recently he has organized the First Computers, Freedom and
Privacy Conference, set-up the first online public dialogue link with
the California legislature, and has been instrumental is assuring that
rights common to older mediums and technologies are extended to
computer networking.

Andrzej Smereczynski is the Administrator of the PLEARN node of the
Internet and responsible for the extension of the Internet into Poland
and other east European countries.  He is the person directly
responsible for setting up the first connection to the West in post-
Communist Middle Europe.  A network "guru", Mr. Smereczynski has
worked selflessly and tirelessly to extend the technology of
networking as well as its implicit freedoms to Poland and neighboring
countries.

This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Dave Farber of the
University of Pennsylvania Computer Science Department; Howard
Rheingold, editor of The Whole Earth Review; Vint Cerf, head of CNRI;
Professor Dorothy Denning Chair of George Washington University's
Computer Science Department; Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0,
Steve Cisler of Apple Computer, and John Gilmore of Cygnus Support.

For more information contact:
Gerard Van der Leun
Director of Communications
Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second Street   Cambridge, MA 02141
[phone]      Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Phone Lines and v32
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 18:57:16 GMT


I'm trying to understand some finer points of v32 and phone lines.

I have never been able to make v32 work reliably from a particular
location using a T2500 or T3000-> variety.  My impression is that if
v32 is this sensitive to line conditions, it has no business being a
standard.

The central office is four miles away.  When I called USWest, They
said I'm connected to a "1E" (what is that?), there's no problem with
the line, and nothing they will do.

PEP has always worked fine at the expected high data rates.  When
looking at the line profile from the T2500, it shows a slight dip in
the midrange frequencies but good frequency response on the line from
300-3000Hz.  Does the dip imply some kind of peaking coil on the line?
There is no noticeable noise on the line.

v22bis works fine, so clock slips are unlikely.

Are there some rules of thumb on what kinds of switches/lines that v32
works with?  What particular kind of degradation is likely to render
it useless? What are the solutions? Do slight errors in mu (a) law a/d
converters cause problems? Is four miles too long for the echo
canceller to work properly?

Are there formal standards for line quality that telco's can test to
and that v32 is guaranteed to work with?

Thanks in advance.


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 | USA  voice 602 996 1717

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

From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beware Fax Glitches
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 02:11:16 GMT


   Earlier today I faxed some tax data to my accountant, using a small
communal tabletop fax machine in our laboratory.  An hour later I got
a phne call from an unrelated firm saying, "Hey, this is interesting
stuff but we don't want it."  There's quite a lengthy sequence of
local ID + 9 + 1 + area code and number + a university authorization
number that has to be keyed in on our machine, including PAUSE buttons
at appropriate points, and so far as I could tell everything had gone
totally normally when I sent the fax.  It had been transmitted,
however, to a vendor often faxed to by another individual in this lab,
apparently by the machine remembering the number from an immediately
preceding transmission, though I don't believe the machine is designed
to do that.

Caveat Faxor.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Caller ID Dilemma (was Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 04:19:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Gary Sanders) writes:

> Does anyone know of a "box" that can be placed inline with a POTS line
> that will intercept touch tones, then prepend or postpend additional
> tone along with the entered tones?

> WHY? Now that it looks like Ohio Bell is going to offer free per call
> CID blocking I dont want to have to enter the block code each time I
> call someone; I would like to do it automatically.

Does anyone have a "box" that will not let the phone ring through to
whatever I have attached to it, unless the Called ID data is comes
through with a number?

Actually I don't really want such a box.

But it does seem that there are people wanting to go one way and other
people wanting to go the other way regarding the privacy of Caller ID
and the blocking thereof.  Such people will not be able to communicate.

Maybe Caller ID was a conspiracy to keep all the privacy buffs from
talking to each other :-)

I wonder how many people will BOTH want to block their number data on
all their outgoing calls while refusing to accept blocked incoming calls.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I always do that! Star Sixty Seven everything, yet
watch my display gleefully on all incoming calls ... :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Santos)
Subject: Voicemail Message Indicator
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 16 Mar 92 12:59:55 GMT


Hi,

    Here at work, we use a voicemail system which appears to be
similar to the one used by Ameritech (made by Tygon Corp).  A small
number of the phones have an indicator light on them to let you know
when messages are left for you on the voicemail system.  Is there a
simple modification that can be made to a basic touchtone phone that
would allow such an indicator light to be retrofitted to it.  I can't
believe that it is very complex.

Please respond via e-mail, if possible.

Thanks.


Jim Santos    Bull Worldwide Information Systems   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel A Rybolt)
Subject: Using Telnet/Tymenet Services
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joel A Rybolt)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:06:17 GMT


This may be a FAQ but I will ask it anyway.  Where I live it is
long distance to my university when trying to do remote work.  But the
city I live in has both a Telnet and a Tymenet node.  Can I call this
telnet node and access my university (from the university I have
"telneted to other organizations").

When I call the telnet node I can get a HOST prompt but can not seem
to access the university host (iastate.edu).  I could use this to
access a commercial host such as Compu-U-Serve.  Any suggestions are
appreciated.  I am currently using an Apple MacIntosh so any software
must run on this computer.

Please E-Mail me direct:    [e-mail]

OR If you would like to talk with me direct try:  800-369-6337 Mon or Wed after
2:00pm Central time.


Thanks,

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are mistaken in the service you are connecting
with. It is not an uncommon error to a person first becoming familiar
with it. Telenet (with an /e/ in the middle) is not the same as 'telnet',
a procedure for remotely logging into one site from another site. The
former is a a public data network now actually known as SprintNet. It
has dialup lines providing local connections to about 9000 telephone
exchanges in the USA alone. Telenet (with an /e/) connects numerous
computers thorugh a public switched network, much like AT&T or Sprint
connect telephones around the nation. Your university may in fact be
accessible through Telenet (as well as being available for people who
telnet to it from other academic institutions), but you'd need to know
the Telenet network address, and unless you have an account with the
SprintNet people (703-689-6000) your university would need to accept
your connection 'collect'; in other words, pay the charges for the
call.  Tymenet is a service similar to Telenet/SprintNet.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 10:20:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tony Hong)
Subject: Fiber Optics Manufacturers
From: [e-mail] (Tony Hong)
Subject: Fiber optics manufacturers
Date: 16 Mar 1992 10:20:43 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Hi, I'm trying to compile a list of fiber optics manufacturers.  Who
are the best and/or largest manufacturers of fiber?

I would appreciate any e-mailed responses. Thanks very much!


Tony ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 14:09 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ


I searched the archives, but couldn't find the test number to dial to
get a ringback on phones in NJ Bell (Bell Atlantic) territory.  I did
find 958, which is automated ANI announcement.  Anyone know the
ringback or other interesting tests here?

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: RAM Mobile Data
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 14:02:23 EST


I keep forgetting about the wide distribution that the Digest has ...

Some of you may recall my earlier post regarding the problems that I
had getting information for RAM Mobile Data regarding their two-way
wireless modem.

This morning, I had a message on my answering machine from Mr. Carl
Aron, the CEO of RAM Mobile Data. Mr Aron assured me that RAM was
committed to customer service and that he would ensure that I received
the data I had requested. Also on my desk this morning was a Fed Ex
package with some marketing material.

I have been in touch with a person from RAM's technical department who
has promised to get my technical questions answered and am also
expecting some material from Anterior, a company that provides store
and forward mail and data services using RAM's network.

My preliminary research shows that RAM has a potentially exciting
product here. They provide a small box that attaches to the serial
port of any computer (including laptops) that can send and receive
small files and messages. Anterior will provide an Internet style
address for your computer, enabling you to send Internet mail and even
receive the Digest on the road. They cover the top 30 MSAs (major
cities) now and plan on covering the top 100 by 1993.

Their main number is [phone]. The Midwest Sales Director is
Tony Esposito.


Ken Jongsma                      [e-mail]
Smiths Industries            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
Subject: Hotel Telephone Service
Date: 16 Mar 92 21:48:32 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)


I've grumped about holding T1S1 standards meetings in hotels that have
greedy telephone service practices.  The March, 1992 meeting was a nice
change.  We were at the Stouffer Concourse Hotel near Denver's
Stapleton airport.  An information card labeled only "STOUFFER Hotels
& Resorts" said:

  There is no charge by the hotel for these calls:
    - Credit card calls
    - Collect Calls
    - 800 number calls

  There is an $.80 charge for these calls:
    - Local calls (Plus any local telephone company message unit
      charges, if applicable.)
    - Local directory assistance calls
    - 950 number calls

    If possible, you should use the toll-free 800 number provided by your
    alternative long-distance service.  Use of the 800 number eliminates
    the local call charge.

  There is a $2.00 charge for these calls:
    - Long-distance calls--Intrastate, Interstate and International
      (Plus the AT&T day-time operator-assisted rate and any applicable tax.)

  Charges for sending and receiving facsimiles:
    - There is no charge to receive a facsimile
    - A flat $5.00 will be charged for a domestic facsimile and a flat $10
      for an international facsimile which includes the telephone line
      charges.

I don't remember if the hotel said what long-distance carrier to expect,
but it was AT&T.

A long-distance call charged to my room would be pricey (so I didn't
do that!).  Otherwise I liked the situation.  But I wonder why the
charge for 950 access, since the INTENT seems to be not to charge for
long-distance access ...


Dick Rawson, 408-922-6545

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #235
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17767;
          17 Mar 92 3:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10788
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 01:26:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27754
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 01:26:07 -0600
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 01:26:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #236

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Mar 92 01:26:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 236

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (David G. Lewis)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Karim R. Alim)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Bill Squire)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (John Higdon)
    Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67 (Jon Sreekanth)
    Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack (Bill Squire)
    RE: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Kath Mullholand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:11:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (David G Lewis)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: AT&T


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> One thing we found while testing is that some customers would abuse
>> the system by speaking a message such as, "I'll be home at 7:00",
>> instead of their name.  We know who you are!  :-)

> Yes, I *like* this feature!  Makes it even *easier* to pass
> information across your overpriced network for free!

Maybe if there were less fraud, our network wouldn't be quite so
overpriced ... ;-)

> How long does one get to record one's name? ... let's say five
> seconds.  Let's use USRobotics' new 16,800 bps modulation as a
> yardstick.  This should work.  The quality of the connection should be
> clean, as it is sure that the "voice" is stored digitally ... I get
> over 8KB when I do the math ...

However, as you sort of get to later on, since the system thinks it's
storing voice, it will likely be using compression algorithms
optimized for voice.  You're therefore going to probably lose some
data, and since retransmission isn't an option, if you want reliable
data transfer, you'd need to use forward error correction.  So divide
your number by a factor of two to three ...

> [Moderator's Note: ... Local telcos like IBT have been using a
> variation on this for a couple years (a combination of pushing buttons
> in response, and recording your 'name' for the called party).  I don't
> know what their experience has been. AT&T might like to inquire.

Our Esteemed Moderator is somewhat naively optimistic about the
willingness of telcos to share this type of information.  Except for
possible articles published in the technical press (of which I don't
recall seeing any, and I watch all the biggies), they'd be about as
likely to tell us how well their stuff works as is Macy's to tell
Gimbels ...


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


[Moderator's Note: Interestingly enough, Macy's does tell Gimbels in
matters of concern to both, ie shoplifting and fraud control. And I've
heard a couple times that the telcos will work together on matters of
mutual concern, toll fraud being a substantial problem for all.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 09:59 GMT
From: "Karim R. Alim" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees


In Volume 12, Issue 234 [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
writes:

> I'd like to suggest that at this point, the system ought to detect
> "f---", "sh--", and "damn", and treat them as a NO.  The same goes for

This neglects to address the possibility of someone responding "F---
yes!"  which I believe would an appropriate response to the query,
"Will you accept a collect call from ... Rebecca de Mornay."


431-5252           MCI Mail                     |  If I were currently employed
[e-mail]  interim NREN (aka Internet)  |  then this would not be my
PJGW00A            Prodigy (PRODIGY???)         |  employer's opinion


[Moderator's Note: Cute. I can see the potential for a thread coming
from this similar to the now famous 'greatest hits' awhile back.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Date: 16 Mar 92 14:29:49 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb @ Info Connections, West Los
Angeles) once wrote:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> I love the idea of metering pulses, and I wish we could get them here
>> in the US.

> Only "problem" is that a system based on X number of pulses at a fixed
> cost can not easily implement $50 per call type numbers.

And that's why we don't have "screw" lines in Europe!  Metering pulses
are a very good idea aren't they?

        I have found there are three different ways to deliver
metering pulses (usually just called ticks where they are used).
There is the low frequency system where a few cycles of 50Hz are
placed latterally (that is on both lines equally, in respect to
ground) at a level of about 50VRMS.  This system assumes there is good
longitudinal balance (common mode rejection) all phonelines.

        The most common system is a high frequency tone between 12 and
18kHz (varies with country).  While in principle this is filtered and
inaudible, any nonlinearity in the phone device or phoneline (like a
"diode" created by a corroded connecting point,etc) will cause the
signal to be rectified and become audible.  It should be noted that to
get these signals to the suscriber, they are transmitted VERY loud and
at an impedance (150 ohm) that is more suited for this frequency on
twisted pair.  If you connect a phone line with these to your hi-fi
without a good L/C filter expect to loose your tweeters!  The signal
can be as loud as +25dBm, while voice on the phone averages -10dBm
avg. or less!

        The most bizaare type is what is used to signal payphones in
Japan.  Each tick is indicated by a reversal in line polarity!  I know
little about the exact method this is done, but suspect the reverse is
a half sine at some frequency below 50Hz, and there must be a
capacitor in the phone to keep the battery up thru the zero-crossing
point!  Please E-mail me the spec or tell me where to get it!


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 14:40:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bxbmts.dnet!mrgate.dnet!
"bxb::msbcs::am_msbcs::king"@msbcs.enet.dec.com writes:

> On a recent Sunday morning, I tried calling out on my phone at home
> but got a fast busy on all calls made outside of the local exchange
> including the operator.  I live in an area served by exchange (508) 264
> which is in Acton, Massachusetts.  The telephone company is New England
> Telephone and their equipment in Acton is a 2BESS (analog SPC).

> When I finally did get through to the operator = hour later, to report
> the problem, she asked me if I was calling Ticketron or Teletron.
> Apparently U2 tickets had just gone on sale in either Worcester or
> Boston and all the lines were jammed by people calling the ticket
> agencies to buy tickets.  I thought this was bizzarre as not only
> could I not call numbers in adjacent towns such as Maynard, but I
> could not dial any 800 numbers or reach the operator by dialing zero
> either.

I'm not a NET network traffic engineer, but I would say it is very
likely that the majority of traffic destined outside of your local
exchange goes through a tandem.  While some traffic to adjacent
exchanges may go through HU (High Usage = direct) trunks, most
intra-LATA interoffice, as well as all inter-LATA and operator traffic
probably goes to a tandem.

As Pat noted in his Note:, the network is designed to handle a certain
busy hour load; abnormal peaks such as a concert announcement can
overload this.  In this case, it's likely that the trunks to the local
LATA tandem and access tandem (which may in fact be the same switch)
got overloaded; you therefore get reorder on inter-LATA, operator, or
any intra-LATA calls which are not destined for exchanges with HU
trunks.

> Shouldn't New England Telephone have hardware safeguards in place to
> prevent this type of thing from happening or at least have available
> more lines in an outgoing trunk?

There exist various kinds of network management controls available to
throttle traffic; however, I would guess that the 2B is a sufficiently
old and memory/realtime-limited switch that there aren't many installed.

A slight correction to Pat's note; your description of the problem
(hitting reorder) is not due to hitting a switch capacity limit per se
(that would cause dial tone delay or excessive post dial delay);
instead, the subscribers in your exchange overloaded the interoffice
trunks to the tandem.  Same principle, though -- the trunk groups are
sized for average busy hour busy season, not for the rare event which
will cause a large fraction of the subscribers to attempt interoffice
calls.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 17:50:16 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Telco does have specific prefixes set aside called
> 'choke exchanges' which constrict the flow of traffic as needed to
> prevent the congestion you mentioned. But if a subscriber is not on a
> choke exchange and suddenly has a huge volume of calls, telco is more
> or less helpless. A non-blocking network would be tremendously
> expensive and of little value most of the time. Most exchanges are set

Pat ---

I can tell you that many stations go around the nominal "choke"
exchanges because the telcos often try to charge a large fee for what
they call "contest lines."  Also, as an example, in Tucson, they also
charged a mileage fee for stations located outside the one CO that
handled the exchange, (880- here).

So, stations will often get numbers that are in several exchanges not
only for caller convenience in message unit cities (we are flat rate
here), but to avoid the costs of the choke exchange. Result is that in
some places, overload can occur during contests or concert ticket
sales, especially teen oriented ones.

Maybe the kids need more homework to keep them off the phone? ;)


Regards,

Barry

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

Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem
Date: 13 Mar 92 12:23:00 PST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


lunatix!iowegia![e-mail] writes:

[ regarding an MCI problem]

> I suppose there is one good thing that can be said. I got to talk to
> humans the entire time.

Well, you got more than I have. I have been twiddling my thumbs all
this past week waiting for MCI to get its act together regarding some
800 numbers that were supposedly turned up LAST Friday. It is pretty
run-of-the-mill stuff: 800 trunks delived via T1 to the customer
location supplying DNIS and ANI.

Well, first they were simple 4WFXS. Two days of voicemail jail ("I'm
sorry ALL of our technicians are in a special training class.") People
did not return calls. Everything was died upon. Finally we got trunks
that supplied DNIS but no ANI. Last night (Thursday) we were finally
informed that to supply the service we had requested (in December),
the T1 would have to be backhauled to the Rialto switch (adding
another two weeks).

At this point the customer got on the phone and within a short time
had a rep AT THE SITE. Calls were made to various people in
Washington, D.C. and other places and as of very late last night, we
were promised that the backhaul installation would be forthcoming
immediately. I think it was the threat of moving the business to AT&T
that had a significant role. (Last month, I made a cut to an AT&T T1
that was smooth as glass. The only problem was a defective NIU that
belonged to Pac*Bell.)

The long and the short of it is that you are very lucky to find anyone
at non-AT&T carriers that seems to know anything about which he
speaks.  Most of the people we spoke to had not a clue concerning DNIS
or ANI.  I'll say it again: If you want industrial long distance, give
AT&T serious consideration.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67
Organization: The World
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:32:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
Sanders) writes:

> Does anyone know of a "box" that can be placed inline with a POTS line
> that will intercept touch tones, then prepend or postpend additional
> tone along with the entered tones?

> WHY? Now that it looks like Ohio Bell is going to offer free per call
> CID blocking I dont want to have to enter the block code each time I
> call someone; I would like to do it automatically.

Instead of creating yet another phone hack box, why not just program
one of the memory buttons on your phone to do *67? If you're like me,
your phone has a zillion number memories, most of them unused or
outdated numbers.

If you had to make a gadget, it might be worthwhile making it be in
parallel to other phones, rather than inline. You could have something
that monitors the line for offhook (not caused by incoming ring), and
put out the *67 tones. Then you could use it from any phone in the
house; you'd pick up the phone, wait a couple of seconds while your
gadget sends out tones, then dial your desired party. To get fancy,
you'd need some way to stop it from sending out *67 for the next call,
if desired.


Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.     |  Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140   |  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Help Needed Dialing Phone From Computer Audio Jack
Date: 16 Mar 92 13:41:11 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


        Your best bet is get a 600/600 ohm transformer to couple to
the phone.  To really do this right you must place a resistor in
series of the primary which is 600 ohms minus the resistance of both
the primary and secondary.  You may capacitively couple the secondary
to the phone if the transformer is either too small to handle the loop
current or you do not want this device to take the phone offhook.

        If you know a little electronics, get an opto that has about a
1:1 transfer ratio (4N35), a bridge rect(4X1N4148) and a couple
resistors and a capacitor.  Bias the diode of the coupler for 5-10mA
at the C-E of the transistor with one of the resistors.  With a
capacitor (4.7uF...observe polarity) and a resistor (say 470 ohm to
start with) feed the audio in.

        Words to the wise: place a zener of about 15V across C-E to
protect the transistor of the opto and switch the unit out when not in
use!  Also be kind to other users of the phone system by not grossly
exceeding one milliwatt (very loud!) into the phone with either
circuit!

        The second approach has usually worked better, and saves me
over 80% on the cost of a high quality audio transformer!

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 9:18:42 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy"


Although you asked us to continue this on Telecom Privacy Digest I
thought this bit might be telecom-related:

[e-mail] (David Gast) writes:  (stuff deleted)

> The FCC requires telephone companies to provide the numbers of long
> distance calls you make TO THEIR COMPETITORS [sic] so that competing
> companies may analyze your calling patterns and sell you their
> services.  This [sic] is called Customer Proprietary Network
> Information (CPNI).  Large companies have made known their objections
> to this dsiclosure of sensitive information, but the views of
> individual consumers are rarely heard in Wahsington.

Just for grins, I called my local New England Telephone Residential
Business Office, and asked to have CPNI put on my home phone line (we
have it on our University lines, and requested it from NYNEX, I
think).  Anyway, the very-nice phone answerer said she had never heard
of such a thing and put me on hold for several minutes while she
checked with her supervisor and with another business office.  She
came back and said I'd have to request it from my long distance
carrier.  Then she blew it by saying that NET has no access to my long
distance calling records at all and couldn't provide calling pattern
information if they wanted to.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for sending this. So who is correct?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #236
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17983;
          17 Mar 92 3:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17828
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 02:09:40 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31226
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Mar 1992 02:09:27 -0600
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 02:09:27 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #237

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Mar 92 02:09:25 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 237

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Contest Lines (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: Phoneco Winds of Change (David W. Barts)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (David Lemson)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Michael Rosen)
    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Martin Harriss)
    Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service (Gonggrijp)
    Re: Line Conditioners (David Ptasnik)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Toby Nixon)
    Re: US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers (John Holman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 20:57:40 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind) says:

> [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper) writes:

>> There are times when it's the same person all three calls!

> This is a major problem for many stations, especially in the large
> markets.  48 Hours recently did a show on gambling, and included
> "contest pigs" who spend all day listening to several stations and run
> three (or more) phone lines on speed dial, trying to win. In the case

> Of course, with some contests at $1000 a pop, it can be a living. Or,
> can it be called living?  8-)

That's not quite the case here!  Considering that we're likely to be
giving away donated tickets, or maybe once in a while a record album,
no way is anyone going to make a living off university radio
(including the staff :-) ).  We might get the same person because we
only have one listener who feels like calling in, or even worse,
because we only have one listener.

Obviously, commercial radio is a different story.  Just about everything
works differently, but I enjoy what I'm doing with noncommercial.

Followups to rec.radio.noncomm?


 _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, Wheaton, Maryland
                       -- [e-mail] --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 15:46:38 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phoneco Winds of Change


[Aside from the {Information Week} article, I don't know who wrote
what here; [e-mail] (Jack Decker) is forwarding
something posted to Fidonet by Don Kimberlin but I don't know who
wrote the comments at the end of the article.]

> For those who are interested, the "others" also already in operation
> in central Chicago include Diginet, which actually has a plant
> reaching from Chicago to Milwaukee and Digital Direct of Chicago,
> owned by Jones' major competitor in the nationwide cable TV ownership
> business, TCI Cablevision of Denver.

> As to "striking down" the Illinois Bell "barrier" of monopoly dial
> tone, the Illinois utility regulators have openly welcomed that,
> stating they want to see Chicago become a "free trade zone for
> telecommunications."

That's nice for those who live in the downtown Chicago business
district, which has the subscriber density to support competing
carriers.  What about those of us who don't live in the central core
of a large city?

> In New York, Teleport has already been providing another source of
> dial tone for almost two years now, and the NY regulators would like
> to see it expand.

Once again, the urban core of a large city.

> When will you have a choice of suppliers of dial tone?  Perhaps not
> all that soon, but one thing is certain.  The local phonecos have
> persisted in methods and means that have now clearly brought the
> regulators around to letting their monopoly erode, opening the
> once-sacrosanct dial tone itself to free market economics.

> Permit me a bit of fortune-telling here, but I see it all washing out
> such that within about a decade, most of us will have a choice of who
> we buy a dial tone from ... and I expect at a lower price than today.

If we live in the central core of a large city.  Otherwise, it's
third-rate service ... take it or leave it.

> The amount that present local phonecos _could_ reduce their prices is
> nothing short of amazing, once they find out what _real_ competition
> is.

And once they jack up the prices in non-competitive service areas to
subsidize the competitive areas.

> The only thing that could keep this from happening would be if
> the cablecos get entrenched as the major competitors, a move they
> clearly are now set to try.  However, offsetting that is a large crop
> of individually-owned local Alternative Access companies that are
> cropping up nationwide, perhaps faster than the cablecos can contend
> with.

Where will the money for all these separate wire plants (NOT cheap!)
come from?  Either from higher rates or increased debt (probably the
latter in the short term, then the former in the long term as the debt
comes due and sinks all but a few of the providers, who then jack up
prices to pay for the wild party of competition.  Except in this
party, its not the party-goers that wake up with a hangover, its the
ratepayers.

Either that or they'll just forget about the suburbs entirely and the
suburbs will be stuck with a duopoly (until the deregulated Cable Co.
buys out the deregulated LEC or vice versa).

> All in all, the phonecos have a lot of hard thinking to do that they
> may already be too late in starting.  It won't be monopoly business as
> usual for phonecos much longer.

A few months ago, I posted a few articles on why I think all this LEC
deregulation jazz we've been hearing is less than realistic.  A lot of
posters pounced on my for saying what I said (to be honest, I expected
as much), and some actually started coming up with plausible schemes
to meet some of my doubts.  (Although I'm still less-than-enthusiastic
about the idea, to put it mildly).

Sadly, most of what I've heard about *real world* local dial tone
competition falls far short of even a rudimentary attempt to address
the problems that will occur.  The general attitude seems to be "It's
the Free Market(tm).  You don't have to understand it; It's Magic."

Sorry, but I stopped believing in magic a long time ago.


[Moderator's Note: You mention everything happening in the inner city,
which is true. But that's how MCI got started: skimming the cream and
leaving the losers to AT&T. I've yet to see a competitor of AT&T or
the local telcos start out from scratch, like the Bell System had to
do over a century ago.  No wonder they can give such cheap rates.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 02:44:20 GMT


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> Can I get one single cell phone number assigned to two different cell
> phones?  Suppose I want to own a portable cell phone (likely to be a
> low power transmitter model) and a car mounted one (high power with a
> properly mounted roof antenna for reliable operation even when moving
> around).  I'd like to have just ONE phone number for people to call me
> and have either phone ring me, whichever one is on.

> [Moderator's Note: The answer in each case is no ... (deleted stuff)]

Maybe the carrier can set up your two cellular lines into a hunt
group, with a 'preferred' line, and ring-over into the second if there
is no answer?  I've never heard of it being done for cellular, but
it's certainly within the capabilities of the CO switches, I'd
imagine.  Of course, with this scenario, you'd of course have to pay
your monthly minimum on both lines, plus any extravagant charges your
RBOC decides to levy for the hunt group service. (Which happens to be
Illinois Bell for Phil, so maybe one of the many Chicago-dwellers has
seen such a thing, which might be applicable for down here.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 03:11:21 GMT


I realized what they may be doing the other day. If I make a direct
long distance call, I am asked to deposit $2.10 for the first minute;
this would be my deposit in case I decide to run away after the call.

 From then on, I assume that after the one minute paid for and one
more minute I am prompted to deposit money for the previous minute.
You pay for each minute, or fraction thereof, as they pass.  I still
find it annoying when the phone rings back after hanging up.  The next
time I make such a call, maybe I'll try flashing instead of hanging up
and see if it prompts me for the extra money.  It's a pain to wait
there for a second to see if it will ring back or not and have the
people nearby wondering whether you're crazy or not ...:)


Mike


   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


[Moderator's Note: Aren't you glad we here at the Digest don't have to
wonder about it?   :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 15:57:57 GMT


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

>>> BT's answer -- disable all tone dialing payphones.

>> What happens is that the phone switches from pulse to tone dialing
>> when then number 144, and a few others are dialed.

> I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
> even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
> digits after a number make the call free?  Wouldn't this be more
> easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware
> kludge to every payphone in the country?  What am I missing?

It's nothing to do with the CO. It's all in the payphone.  The keypad
isn't enabled until you put money in. (Except for emergency and
operator access.)  If the CO accepts touch-tone (known as "MF4" to BT,
by the way) you can dial with an external tone keypad.  When the meter
pulses come back to the phone, it has no knowledge of a call being
made and ignores them.  The quick fix: change the CO class of service
of all payphones so they don't accept MF4.  The *correct* fix: (they're
probably working on this?) fix the phones so if meter pulses come back
without dialing, the call is dropped.

And you don't believe BT could screw up this badly? Boy, do I have
some stories for you!!


Martin Harriss    uunet!bdsgate!martin


[Moderator's Note: Do tell us more stories!  Love hearing 'em!  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 9:48:44 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Tariff Changes in New Hampshire


[e-mail] (Alan L Varney) writes:

[In a discussion of why LEC "costs" might be different in various
areas controlled by the same RBOC ...]

> In most cases, the savings in 'personnel costs' come primarily from
> replacement of "electro-mechanical" COs and analog trunk circuits.

(stuff deleted)

> Combined with newer D4 Channel Bank and integrated Digital Carrier
> Trunk (DCT) technology in the No. 1A ESS switch, the actual day-to-day
> operations, administration and maintenance costs of these switches is
> not likely to be as different from a comparable digital switch as one
> might believe.  While a modern switch might incur somewhat lower
> costs, it's unlikely to be the "(big) difference" you indicated.  The
> major savings are in initial costs, floor space, quantity of spare
> parts, and the ability to offer services not available in an analog
> switch.

We are probably both right here -- on looking over the list of CO's
scheduled to be upgraded, it was my impression that all of them were
electro-mechanical, but I definitely could be wrong.  I have to admit
that I *assumed* they were because they couldn't support touch tone.
There was a step switch replaced in our area about two years ago, and,
at that time, it was not the last one in the state.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Re: Israel: Electronic Notification of Disconnection of Service
Date: 16 Mar 92 17:9:21 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


Here in Holland a friend of mine was half-disconnected. In the first
phase they still allow incoming calls. Whenever he tried to dial out
he got a recording telling him that his phone had been disconnected
and instructions to dial a PTT number for more info. If he dialed the
first five digits of the number and then a different sixth digit ...
boom, recording again.

Sooooooo ... he called the number and said he had been connected to
the wrong extension (PBX). He was then connected to the PBX operator
who gladly gave him an outside line. Reality beats fantasy every once
in a while.


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 08:26:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Conditioners


[e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher) wrote:

> Our local Unix user group has a Unix system we are using for news and
> email.  Unfortunately, the lines are often very noisy and it makes
> life frustrated for many of the members.  We've got a regular phone
> line running to the system and I know that we can get a "dedicated"
> line to the machine.  My questions are 1) Is the dedicated line really
> better?

If it's not you can complain about it.

> 4) Does anyone know any other options?

One thing that we often try is demanding that the circuit be placed on
a different cable pair coming out of the CO.  This will cause the
whole circuit to be placed on different copper and run through a
different circuit within the switch.  What I have done when the CO
balks at this is to order a number change.  The telco changes the
programming in the switch so that the copper that used to carry (say)
321-1234 now carries 321-2345.  321-2345 moves to where 321-1234 was.

You will then have to move the cross connects around at your site to
put the lines back where you want them, but you will have gotten the
noisy circuit out of your modem pool and (presumably) have made it a
voice line.  Now if you hear audible static you can complain, and not
got into the "we don't guarantee data transmissions" argument.

Re-reading this, I understand it, but I do this kind of stuff all the
time.  If this is not clear to anyone who might want to try it, write
to:

[e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Date: 16 Mar 92 13:53:56 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> It's a state change in a communication line.  With simple schemes like
> DC or FSK signalling, it's the same as the bits per second, but at
> 1200 bps and up groups of bits are encoded together, e.g. the usual
> 2400 bps modems run at 600 baud because they encode four bits at a
> time.  As an extreme example, Telebit PEP passes about 14000 bps at
> 88.26 baud by encoding up to 511 parallel groups of up to six bits per
> baud.

PEP is the protocol; DAMQAM is the modulation scheme -- and it
actually runs at about 7.4 "baud" (symbols per second).  Each symbol
is transmitted for 128 milliseconds, with seven milliseconds of "guard
time" between symbols.  Each of the carriers can carry 0, 2, 4, or 6
bits per symbol.


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: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 11:44:33 CST
From: John Holman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Ads Target Computer Gamers


Gregg E. Woodcock writes:

> the offer is co-sponsored by Sierra ...

Talk about sleeze!  Sierra is the creator of Leasure Suit Larry :) I
wonder if they have him commissioned in their free software to enroll
your friends for clues!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #237
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28355;
          18 Mar 92 2:46 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27017
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:41:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29202
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:41:02 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:41:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #238

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Mar 92 00:40:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 238

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Physical Phone Security (John Eaton)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Mustafa Soysal)
    Re: 1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers (Bruce Ferrell)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Conrad C. Nobili)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Mark Phaedrus)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Phil Howard)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Toby Gottfried)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Tom Gray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Date: 16 Mar 92 15:32:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA, USA


> In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many
> burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security
> system auto dialers.

Neato new product idea.

Make a device that monitors the inside phone line and switches on a
lamp if it is lost. Might scare away anyone trying to break in or
steal service.

Better yet, attach a 20 foot chain to your network interface and then
attach an adult German Sherpard to the other end. Works great.


John Eaton    !hp-vcd!johne

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

From: [e-mail] (Mustafa Soysal)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Organization: Cyberspace Communications/GREX Public Access Unix [phone]
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 15:44:55 GMT


The previous reply gives a pretty good decription of radio connection
option, I would like to add that there are also companies using
cellular service for alarm hookup, in which case distance becomes not
so important, and channel availability is probably much better.

Another option in Michigan would be scan-alert, which seems to be a
watchdog on your phone line, and if it is disconnected, that causes a
notification of your favorite phone numbers.  It is kind of expensive.


Mustafa Soysal

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: 1A2 Help and Mitel SX-20 Buyer Wanted
Date: 17 Mar 92 01:44:24 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
writes:

> I stumbled across a 1A2 KSU that GTE had just ripped off a wall in one
> of our business park's phone room, which they planned to throw away.

> This was the standard for business and government offices for years.

Still IS in many homes and offices. Can't beat the $0 maintainence
cost.

> The KSU chassis has a swing-out rack containing a "backplane" for the
> model 400-ish line circuit cards, which has three of the 25-pair
> (RJ21X?)  cable connectors and an "interrupter" mechanical motorized
> lamp and bell flasher/winker attached.

Probably a 584 B or C - holds 13 cards?

> I figured out the following sequence for the cable connectors:
> CO Tip
> CO Ring
> Station Tip
> Station Ring
> A
> A1  (common)
> Lamp Ground (common)
> Lamp
> High-voltage ringer (common)
> Common Audiable Ringer out

Five of these on two cables and three on the other. Other wires on the
third cable MAY be in use various ways. It is silly to describe it all
here. What make and model do you have? Some nice soul might even zerox
a print set and mail it to you.

> It took me a while to realize the ringing wasn't working because the
> detector is from Tip or Ring to ground [bridged?] and doesn't detect
> the ring voltage BETWEEN T and R [superimposed?].  I hooked up the
> ground on the power supply and voila!

Lucky YOU didn't provide that path while it was ringing ...

> But -- I can't figure out where to hook in the music-on-hold (aka
> ASCAP/BMI revenue generator).

(I doubt you are planning to pay :-) )

The hold resistor, the BIG one, has one end to one side of the line
(and so is available externally), and the other end of that resistor
may be permanently or more probably through a jumper connected to one
of the normally unused pins (that IS used for A battery on a 401
manual ICM card) and is thus brought outside.

The MOH card itself had individual transformers or many isolated
secondaries each of which was wired across one line card's hold
resistor. When not on hold, the music simply warmed the resistor, but
was inaudible across T & R.

> Also, legally, does my ROC care if I connect this thing to the line?
> The SX-20 salesperson (below) seemed shocked that I might NOT need

They stopped actively playing those nasty games years ago. The
equipment is doubtlessly grandfathered. The less you say the better,
though.

If they do seem to get bent out of shape, find some old Cook line
cards.  Hi-Z opto isolated ring detect baffles test board! The
isolator is a black shrink-tube covered blob made by Sigma that looks
like an egg case from a skate that one finds on the beach.

The test board used to ring one place I had them and be totally
puzzled why someone would answer a line with NO bells they could see.
ALITS testing in wee morning hours may cause momentary ringup. Adding
a normal phone ringer across the line should fix that, and keeps the
test board happy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Ferrell)
Subject: Re: Phones, Lies and 800 Numbers
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 07:18:14 GMT


There seems to be a basic misconception on who pays for termination of
800 calls.  The IXC pays the LEC for all traffic carried on access
facilities.  It is up to the IXC to generate sufficient billing to
cover the "cost of carriage."  So even "free" calls that are delivered
to, say MCI or Sprint, are billed to MCI or Sprint.  They in turn bill
the "owner" of the 800 number for the use of carriage facilities.

My personal feeling (especially remembering back to the '86-87 time
frame) is the real problem isn't the LECs; its the IXCs who don't want
to give up "control" of the customer (no I don't mean the guy that
makes the call) :-}

I really do feel the thought that a customer might decide to switch
carrier without giving the sales dweebs a shot at arm twisting gives
the IXC industry a galopping case of the heebie-jeebies (rightly or
wrongly).

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 03:04:20 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Conrad C. Nobili) writes:

>> I grant that you know who we are, but what can you do about it?  I
>> mean all you know is who the *called* party is.

> You can believe that if you want, but it's wrong.

What do you do, use SAS to run cross-tabulations on calls?  I don't
suppose you'll say ... I doubt that whatever you do would identify
*callers* in a scam with, say, a large mobile sales force calling a
message delivery service from different hotels or payphones all the
time.

> From certain originating lines where such abuse is likely to happen,
> e.g., prisons, or schools [hint!], the system can be configured to
> route collect calls [or whatever type] immediately to an operator.

I can take a [hint!], but please note that *not* all people with .EDU
in their e-mail addresses are students!  I hope you didn't have me
pegged for a student (or some other unsavory sort) likely to engage in
phone phraud!  ;-(

> However, at present the system routes all collect calls to an
> operator.

Yeah, you said this in your earlier post.  I was responding to the "If
these problems can be overcome we'll go for it." part of your
message ...

And no, of course I don't think you're amateurs!  I'm very impressed
with much of your technology ...

I guess I should have made it more clear that I was not entirely
serious about my "proposal". It was (very) late and I thought the
(remote) possibilities were amusing.  You're probably safe, but I'll
bet that if some devious minds worked at it they could get some
serious (ab)use out of your future system.


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Phaedrus)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 08:19:12 GMT


     If you think radio contests can jam phone exchanges, just try
living in the University District of Seattle during registration
periods.  The University of Washington uses a computerized telephone
registration system, with classes for the most part being
first-come-first-served; freshmen get two days to register, then
seniors, then juniors, then sophomores.  As a result of this system,
at 6 a.m. on the morning registration opened each quarter, well over
6000 freshmen would hit the phone lines simultaneously, trying to get
through to the relatively tiny number of registration lines, and
redialing every six seconds or so until they eventually got through.
Two days later, over 6000 seniors would join the fray, and so on.  As
you can imagine, it was quite an adventure trying to complete a call
into or out of the U-District during this period, let alone get
through to the registration system.

     Recently, the University apparently got tired of hearing the
complaints from students and from businesses whose phone service was
disrupted, so they split each class for registration purposes; now
only half of each class gets to register on the first day of that
class's registration period, with the rest having to wait until the
second day.  This has reduced the telephone congestion to at least
tolerable levels, and seems to be popular with everyone except the
people forced to wait an extra day to register (and they'll get to go
first next quarter).


Mark Phaedrus, Computer Science Major, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA
Work: [e-mail]        Play: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 21:20:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Barry Mishkind) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Telco does have specific prefixes set aside called
>> 'choke exchanges' which constrict the flow of traffic as needed to
>> prevent the congestion you mentioned. But if a subscriber is not on a
>> choke exchange and suddenly has a huge volume of calls, telco is more
>> or less helpless. A non-blocking network would be tremendously
>> expensive and of little value most of the time. Most exchanges are set

> I can tell you that many stations go around the nominal "choke"
> exchanges because the telcos often try to charge a large fee for what
> they call "contest lines."  Also, as an example, in Tucson, they also
> charged a mileage fee for stations located outside the one CO that
>handled the exchange, (880- here).

> So, stations will often get numbers that are in several exchanges not
> only for caller convenience in message unit cities (we are flat rate
> here), but to avoid the costs of the choke exchange. Result is that in
> some places, overload can occur during contests or concert ticket
> sales, especially teen oriented ones.

To start out with, I don't know how the switches work so I don't know
what can be done, or what excuses programmers of them might use, but
the following concept seems simple enough:

Simply set a maximum number of calls that can be placed to a single
number over a given trunk, as a percentage of that trunk capacity
regardless of the ultimate capacity for the phone number.  A
reasonable percentage might be 25%.  Thus for a trunk with a capacity
of 80 calls to the exchange where the number is going, the 21st call
will get either a busy signal or be delayed if the switch can deal
with delaying it.  Then it would take more than one such number to
overload the trunk just from the mass calls.  Percentages might differ
for different exchanges.

I would bet a large number of those calls get a busy signal anyway
when they reach the ultimate exchange.  It seems a waste of trunk
capacity to reflect a busy.

Is it possible for the target exchange to signal the source exchange
that the line is busy, so the busy signal sound is generated from the
callers own exchange and free up the trunk line immediately?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:07:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (Toby Gottfried)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Don't be silly. What do you want the operator to
> do, interrupt your call every minute and ask for more money?

That is exactly what happens in the UK, except there is no operator.

Coin calls work as follows:

    . Dial the number (local or long distance).
    . Ring ring ... ring ring
    . Other party answers
    . After just a couple of seconds, loud klaxon-like noises
      are heard on both ends which can be turned off by
      inserting coins.  It is impossible to talk over the noises.

      You put in as much money as you want, which buys a
      certain amount of time, depending on the distance of
      the call.  For example, approx. 25c buys a few minutes
      of local calling.

      When the time runs out, the noises recur, and you
      have the options of hanging up or putting in more
      money.  After a short time, the call disconnects.
      I think you can put in more money at any time,
      extending your call uninterrupted.

      If you hang up early, there is no refund.

You can also use a card which has "electronic money" on it.  The phone
automatically deducts the cost of the call.  The cards are sold in
shops in roughly 1, 2, and 5 pound denominations.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 11:22:50 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Squire) writes:

> The most bizaare type is what is used to signal payphones in
> Japan.  Each tick is indicated by a reversal in line polarity!  I know
> little about the exact method this is done, but suspect the reverse is
> a half sine at some frequency below 50Hz, and there must be a
> capacitor in the phone to keep the battery up thru the zero-crossing
> point!  Please E-mail me the spec or tell me where to get it!

This is a very common method for sending metering information on
trunks.  It is used to convey metering (cost) information from an
office capable of doing billing back towards the originating office.

Consider it this way. Someone originates a toll call. The local CO is
not capable of doing billing. Instead it forwards the call to a
billing office which determines the proper metering rate. The billing
office will send the metering information back to the originating
office as reversals of loop current The local office will tranfer
these pulses to the subscribers set with one of the convenetional
metering methods..

This is called an MOJ (metering over junction) system. With junction
meaning an interoffice trunk.

There are special techniqies required to keep these reversals
inaudible to the subscriber. The pulses are described a "bathtub"
shaped. The edges are very slow so that there is no sharp click at the
reversal time. As you suspected, the edges take several 10's of
millisconds to complete.

This technique is used throughout the world with the exception of
North America.  It has a great similarity to the CAMA office system
which is now being replaced here in North America.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #238
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05659;
          18 Mar 92 6:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15417
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 04:24:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30463
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 04:24:12 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 04:24:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #239

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Mar 92 04:24:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 239

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Access to AT&T's Card/Operator Services (A. Alan Toscano)
    Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Cincinnati Bell's Centrex90 ISDN Call Forwarding (Nagaraja Rao)
    Those Pesky FBI Spies (David Ptasnik)
    A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features (Phil Howard)
    Telnet/Telenet Access (Charlie Mingo)
    US Post Office Bar Codes (Tony Harminc)
    213-718 Prefix (Carl Moore)
    Dialing Methods (was Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713) (Carl Moore)
    Wake-up Call Loop (Carl Moore)
    Report on Telecommunications: Globe and Mail, 17 March 1992 (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Mar 16 17:07:12 CST 1992
Subject: 800 Access to AT&T's Card/Operator Services


Now, from many areas of the US, AT&T customers MAY PLACE THEIR OWN
CALLS from "blocked" Touch-Tone telephones by dialing 1 800 CALL ATT,
and then selecting option 2+1 from the menu. As of this writing, the
service is still being phased in across the country, so it may not yet
be available in your area. If it's not yet working in your area,
you'll be connected to AT&T's Public Phone Assistance Center, instead
of the automated system.

This fully-automated service appears to function almost identically to
the fully-automated USA Direct service that's been discussed in the
Digest during recent weeks. You can also reach a true Operator in your
region through this interface.

Please note that AT&T would still prefer that you dial 0+ or 10ATT-0+
if possible.

Unfortunately, rotory callers will still need to place calls through a
Customer Service Representative, as before, instead of talking
directly to an Operator, since they're unable to select the menu
option to reach this interface, and the menu's time-out default is to
Customer Service. This should affect very few callers, as I've never
seen a rotory-dial COCOT in my life. Most likely, I would think, only
those calling from either rotory phones which are behind a 10XXX-ignorant
PBX, or from COCOTS which cut off the DTMF pad, will continue to be
inconvenienced in this way. Maybe AT&T will eventually offer a direct
800 number that doesn't require menu navigation.  Just the same, this
new interface is certainly a great improvement over what we had last
week!)

AT&T also announced today, AT&T World Connect Service, which allows
callers to place calls between 34 selected countries. Calls are placed
through the USA Direct Service. The service is scheduled for 4/29/92
availability pending FCC approval.


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

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

Date: 17-MAR-1992 05:00:35.49
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card


I for one am glad that AT&T introduced it's new calling card which can
only be used on the AT&T or LEC networks.

Cell One/Vermont forces all of its customers (home and roamers) to
place 0+ calls (out of LATA) with Sprint.

Besides that fact that I personally don't like Sprint all too much
(sloppy billing, poor customer service, and a general preference for
AT&T and the Bells), if I were to use my LEC card via Sprint I would
NOT get the AT&T ROA discount. (And yes, I do still get the ROA
discount with my LEC card when used over AT&T.)

Moreover, there was no 01+ dialing. Since 011+ was blocked as well
(for home customers and roamers), there is no way to make interna-
tional calls. If you dialed 0 + USA/Canada number, and hoped that once
you got a Sprint operator that s/he could complete the call, well,
forget it. They would only process the call you dialed in. So, if you
hit 0 + 213-555-1212, they could only put through the call to that
number, and not substitute an international one for you.

I called in December to complain about this, and they couldn't care
less.  The usual "fraud" story. When I asked them why we were forced
to use Sprint, they said "Sprint is cheaper", to which I said "You
mean cheaper for you -- you get a kickback or something of that
nature."

I called again two weeks ago to complain about a related problem, and
mentioned that AT&T card holders could no longer use Sprint, even if
they wanted to. After a few less-than-knowledgeable customer service
types tried to tell me how "correctly enter" my card number, I spoke
with someone at tech support.

He said that MANY people had complained about this, and that as a
result of AT&T changing its card format, Cell One/VT would "have to
spend the extra money and get full trunks from AT&T".

Aww ... isn't that just too bad? They will be required to provide
access to the LD service which the majority of their customers wish to
use, but were previously blocked from doing so. Don't you feel sorry
for them?

I initially didn't like the idea of an AT&T card in a non-LEC format.
But if the new AT&T card can force companies such as Cell One/VT to
allow access to the AT&T network, or as others have reported -- cause
COCOT aggregators and AOS firms to suddenly lose their slimey form of
business, well, more power to them! The faster these people are forced
to provide access to AT&T (and to anyone else for that matter) the
better.

AT&T should be commended for its decision!


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 11:27:44 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Nagaraja Rao)
Subject: Cincinnati Bell's Centrex90 ISDN Call Forwarding


In CBT's Centrex90 User Instructions manual, the call forwarding
feature activation is a two-step process.  First, the user dials the
access code 190 followed by the forwarded-to number.  After that, the
user can activate and deactivate the forwarding by pressing a call
forwarding feature key.

Does anyone have any experience with this feature? And, is the
activation sequence applicable to all types of CF (CFDA, CFBL, CFV) or
is it just for CFV?  Any information is appreciated.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 08:15:42 -0800 (PST)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Those Pesky FBI Spies


On 7 Mar 92 00:37:06 GMT, our Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Without commenting on the privacy issues
> involved, ... the subscriber loop -- that is, the final link in the
> connection between the telephone user and his central office is still
> usually just a pair of wires; easy to splice into; very easy to
monitor.  PAT]

Andy Sherman responded:

>> Ah, but what of all those PBXs out there, Pat?  They are not
>> necessarily connected to individual loops on the line side of the CO.

> [Moderator's Note: Well, what about 'all those PBXs'?  More than
> once I've heard of instances where (when calls were being traced or
> tapped) the trail led back to a PBX, or a cord switchboard, or
> similar.  ... There will almost assuredly be a piece of metal
> somewhere in the loop for those alligator clips which is unique to the
> telephone instrument/user in question. Then you gather all the
> operators around

Most of the newer stuff seems to digitize right at the set.  This is
even true of many key systems.  About the only place to put your
alligator clips are on the handset, and that is a little obvious :).
The problem is made worse by the lack of standards from manufacturer
to manufacturer. They do not have standard for their digitization of
the conversation. Most seem to use proprietary systems.  No one
decoder will work. The only exception to this is probably the link
from the CO to the switch/KSU.  Even if this is a T-1 or other digital
connection, the conversion to and from digital to analog is probably
standardized.  The problem is finding only the conversation you want
from that rather wide data stream.  Of course networked PBX's could
well use proprietary signaling end to end, passing those proprietary
signals thru the CO without converting them to telco standard.  In
this case the CO is just being used as a pipeline.  If the CO doesn't
have to switch it and send it to an analog set somewhere, then the CO
doesn't need to understand what is being passed along.

I can sure understand the FBI's concern.  I don't think that they are
dealing with the problem in an appropriate way, but a better solution
(for them) is not obvious to me.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 21:42:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Here is a reason NOT to allow charging customers for the equipment
needed for inquistition agencies to monitor phone lines.

Such equipment is doomed to be obsolete very soon.  We are reaching
the point where it is practical to utilize encryption technology on an
end to end basis (and eventually thereafter I am sure even from pay
phones).  First digital, then voice and fax.

The high tech taps will get them the encrypted data.

Of course the drug dealers and terrorists will join the privacy buffs
in using this technology.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 12:27:26 -0500
Subject: Telnet/Telenet Access


[e-mail] (Joel A Rybolt) writes:

 > This may be a FAQ but I will ask it anyway.  Where I live it is
 > long distance to my university when trying to do remote work.  But the
 > city I live in has both a Telnet and a Tymenet node.  Can I call this
 > telnet node and access my university (from the university I have
 > "telneted to other organizations").

 > [Moderator's Note: You are mistaken in the service you are connecting
 > with. It is not an uncommon error to a person first becoming familiar
 > with it. Telenet (with an /e/ in the middle) is not the same as 'telnet',
 > a procedure for remotely logging into one site from another site. The
 > former is a a public data network now actually known as SprintNet.

    I just thought I'd mention that there is a public data network
designed to connect with Internet hosts (even from Sprintnet):

[canned blurb follows]

*************************************
PSI's Global Dialup Service (GDS)
*************************************


Throughout the United States are local phone numbers that enable
individuals desiring 24hour/day access to Internet hosts
in an inexpensive manner through telnet/rlogin. GDS is an answer to
that need.

These dialups are available for 300/1200/2400 baud[*] access and
provide a reliable, error free, inexpensive method
for remote staff, remote facilities, or travellers to access
Intenet connected systems.  They are located in PSI's Points
of Prescence (POPs) normally co-located in telephone company
facilities, providing significant reliability and security.[**]

This service costs $39/month, with an initial $39 registration fee.
If you choose to use your mastercard/visa for payment then you are billed
monthly.  Personal checks and money orders are also accepted, but you
are then billed on a quarterly basis.  Access is available 24hours
per day, 365 days per year.


To determine if your area is currently served by the dialups send
electronic mail to:

        [e-mail]

An automatic response will be returned.

If you are interested in ordering this service, an on-line registration
form can be sent to you by sending email to:

        [e-mail]

This registration form is in PostScript so you will need a PostScript printer
to print.

Alternatively you can contact

        [e-mail]

With complete contact information (such as USMail address) so that we can
send you the form via the Post.

Or you can contact:

        PSI
        Global Dialup Service (GDS)
        Box 3850
        Reston, VA  22091
        +1.703.620.6651

An order form and brochure will be sent to the address that you supply.

[You will need to complete this step as no human has seen your message]

Copyright 1991 Performance Systems International Inc. All rights reserved.

Rev: 9/14/91

============

[*] Note that many areas also have v.32 and PEP dial-ins.

[**] There is no PSI POP in Iowa, but another listing notes that:


International access is available through X.25 "PAD" access
at the following X.121 Address:  31106070013602.   US
TELENET/SPRINTNET Access is also available through the same  address.

                           ------

[Disclaimer: I have no contact with this organization, except that I
have sent in an application for GDS.]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 23:33:19 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Post Office Bar Codes


These bar codes were discussed here at some length a couple of months
ago.  Lately I have noticed that some mail arriving here (Toronto)
from the US has the US bars on the envelope.  By chance I came across
a description of the bar code format, and decoded it to 00101-2404.

Does anyone know if this is perhaps a dummy ZIP code used for routing
mail to Canada?  Is it possible that the OCR scanners in US sorting
offices are capable of reading Canadian postal codes and substituting
an appropriate ZIP code that is in the general direction the mail
should go?  There are roughly 17 million codes in the Canadian ANA NAN
format code space, so conceivably these could all be covered by the
larger US nine digit scheme.  The Canadian format bar code (UV
fluorescent ink) also appears on the envelope overlapping the US one.
Presumably neither would interfere with reading of the other, since
the formats are so different.

My postal code is M4S 1E2, just in case anyone sees an algorithm at a
glance that relates it to 00101-2404 :-)


Tony H.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 9:56:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 213-718 Prefix


The 213-718 prefix, apparently used for cellular, is a Gardena prefix
but apparently NOT reachable in 310.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 16:43:16 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Methods (was Still Seven Digit Local Calls in 713)


I have inserted some comments in brackets:

> Between 1952 and 1971, non-SXS offices could allow NNX-XXXX for TOLL
> intra-NPA calls, but many areas (particularly those with lots of SXS)
> used 1 + NNX-XXXX for all TOLL

[ intra-NPA?] calls.  Areas that allowed NNX-XXXX for TOLL could also
allow N0/1X-NNX-XXXX calls (1+ optional).

> Year 1970 saw 011 and 01+ international dialing introduced

[I have July, 1973 for N0X/N1X prefixes in 213, with 1 + NPA-NXX-XXXX
for intra-NPA toll not appearing until 1986/1987 in 214 and late 1987
for 301 and 703; DC suburbs had had NPA+NXX-XXXX for toll within 301
and 703.]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 17:11:10 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wake-up Call Loop


I stayed in a hotel in the New York City area very recently.  I
scheduled a wake-up call there (actually woke up ahead of it), and
when I got the call I noticed it was playing a computer version of
"Greensleeves" which seemed to loop back and repeat indefinitely.  Is
there any limit to how many times this loop would occur?

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 00:20:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Report on Telecommunications: Globe and Mail, 17 March 1992


Today's {Globe and Mail} had its semi-annual Report On Telecommunications
with articles on competition (including features on resellers such as
Call-Net, and how U.S. and U.K. companies are getting footholds in the
Canadian market by resale). Other news of note was Northern Telecom's
purchase of STC in the UK, an article on computer-assisted
telemarketing and more. Check for the {G&M} for 17th March 1992.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #239
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08287;
          18 Mar 92 7:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07487
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 05:23:34 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29525
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Mar 1992 05:23:15 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 05:23:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #240

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Mar 92 05:23:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 240

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call Return and Hunt Groups (Mark Brader)
    Harassed by Mystery Modem/Fax Calls (Uwe Hagendorf via Conrad C. Nobili)
    Re: Encryption Held Needed (Bruce Perens)
    Re: MCI Offers Grace Period (Stephanie da Silva)
    Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (Phil Howard)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard)
    Re: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Phone Lines and v32 (Bill Nickless)
    Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY? (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 02:58:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Call Return and Hunt Groups


I live in Toronto, which is Bell Canada territory.  I have Call
Return, which here means that if I dial *69 (or 1169) the system first
tells me what number last called me, and then allows me to return the
call by dialing 1.  (As was pointed out here a while ago, in most
places *69 just returns the call and it's a mystery where you're going
to reach.)

Together with this feature, Bell packages the ability to re-call the
last number that _I_ dialed, by dialing *66 (or 1166).  With either a
*69 or a *66 call, if the number called is busy, the system monitors
the line and if it becomes free within the next 30 minutes, my phone
is rung with a distinctive ring, and if I pick it up, the number is
re-called.  (Or else a synthesized voice says, "The line was free, but
it has just become busy again."  Anyone know if this restarts the
30-minute timer?)

Now, here's the thing.  I have found out by experimentation that if
the number I'm calling with *66, and presumably with *69 also, is on a
_hunt_group_, then only the _individual_line_ is rung or monitored.
For example, if I call my wife at her office using the usual number
(first line of hunt group), and later call her again using *66, the
call does not go through until the _first_ line is free again.  If I
redial the call manually, of course I can reach any line.

This seems counterintuitive to me.  Is there a human-factors sort of
reason for it that I can't think of, or a technical reason, or is it
simply a bug?  (I don't know what switch is in use, but both our house
and my wife's office are in area code 416, prefix 488.)


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


[Moderator's Note: It all depends on how the calling hunt group
identifies itself when making the call. For example, every single line
in my office, regardless of its actual number is billed under the main
listed number for our switchboard. Therefore any *69 calls will go to
the main listed number of the switchboard. If that line itself is
busy, inbound *69 calls will hunt by whatever formula calls to that
number would otherwise hunt, as a function of the hunt group -- not
something special *69 is or is not doing. Likewise, attempts to screen
calls from my office always result in all lines being screened with
the screen results being given as the main listed number.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 04:23:05 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


This was rescued from comp.dcom.modems (where it had appeared a week
or so ago in German ;-) ).  Thought maybe someone here could help, as
this topic had come up a little while back.

I think I'm glad I don't live in Germany!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Uwe
Hagendorf) writes:

I posted this questions in a German modem newsgroup already, but I
didn't get lucky. Somebody told me to try it in comp.dcom.modems, so
here I go:

For more than four weeks now I get calls all around the clock, about
10-15 times in 24 hours, day and night.

When I pick up the phone, I hear a "piiiiip"-sound for about a second,
then a break for another second, then another "piiip"-sound and so on,
ten times. When that is over, the caller closes the connection after
sending a "krk-krk-krk-krk-krk" kind of noise.

This whole thing is repeated two or three minutes later, the next two
calls are done 15 to 120 minutes later. My modem (9600 baud, V.42bis)
doesn't connect, neither does a fax machine. It doesn't seem to be a
PEP modem either. German Telecom says it's a "data transmitter", and
that they can't do anything in this case. They say the last chance is
to have the Telecom try to trace the call, but that's at my expense
and would cost 20,-DM a day. Is that really my last chance?

Any help is appreciated!


Uwe

                           ----------

Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT


[Moderator's Note: I do not know the rules about telecom in Germany,
but in the USA the telco owes him the right to the peaceful and normal
use of his telephone as per his contract with the company, and
tariffs, etc. Here the calls could be treated as an annoyance or
harassing in nature. Telco would trace the connection. If the
Bundespost insisted on charging him for the cost of tracing the calls
and ending the problem he could probably agree to to pay; have them do
it; then go to the person or company responsible and demand payment
from them for the cost involved in tracking them down to end the
problem. He'd probably prevail.  Telecom may not understand exactly
what he wants. He should go back to them defining the matter only in
terms of receiving harassing calls from an unknown source and ask them
to investigate and correct the problem.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 00:00:54 GMT


A few anecdotes regarding encryption:

It's a good idea to compress your data before encryption. A shorter
plaintext provides less information for the code-breaker than a longer
one. A compressed plaintext has less redundancy, which also can make
it harder to break. Compression hides patterns that would otherwise be
visible. An optimally-compressed signal is indistinguishable from
noise (I think Nyquist was the first to say that). Compression is
generally faster than encryption/decryption, so it increases bandwidth
if it is done in a pipelined fashion with encryption. The down-side of
compressing is that a poorly-chosen compression scheme can itself
produce a predictable pattern in the data stream, which makes it
easier for the code-breaker.

I have heard that U.S. Federal law requires that we provide government
investigations with the encryption key (including the algorithm) on
demand.

There is a federal law that specificaly prohibits cracking the DES.
This law is used/abused by video-satellite cipher operators to
increase the liability of those who decode their transmissions without
a license.

The DES is a trailing-edge technology for encryption. In fact, the
original specification of DES was harder to break than the version
that was finally adopted. The adopted specification has a narrower
word-width in some part of the algorithym. It is said that this is to
make it possible for government agencies to break the DES within a
reasonable amount of time using a supercomputer.


Bruce Perens

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: Re: MCI Offers Grace Period
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 12:11:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, "Gregg E. Woodcock"
<[e-mail]> writes:

> After months and months of throwing out my MCI bills because I almost
> never made calls (monthly bills), my message has gotten through!  I am
> not about to spend 25% of my bill just on postage to pay it (not to
> mention the cost/waste of the check).

Don't you know how to get around that?  Just send them a check for $10
or so and that way, you'll end up with a credit balance and you don't
have to worry about it!  I do this with Sprint, since we don't use
them very often.  I'll also send in two or three month payments on
small bills, like the one the cable company sends me (it's only
$15/month).

This not only saves you money, but also had the added advantage of
halping to conserve the environment, since you're using less paper.
Unfortunately, the businesses still waste paper by sending multi-page
bills out -- Sprint gets my vote as the bill with the highest number
of superfluous pages in it.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 20:23:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> The long and the short of it is that you are very lucky to find anyone
> at non-AT&T carriers that seems to know anything about which he
> speaks.  Most of the people we spoke to had not a clue concerning DNIS
> or ANI.  I'll say it again: If you want industrial long distance, give
> AT&T serious consideration.

And why would AT&T not use this in their advertising?

Overall I have found AT&T "front end" people more knowledgeable than
their counterparts at other companies.  In fact I found a few years
ago that MCI was almost "blatantly incompetent" and over a matter not
even dealing with phone technology, but over a simple billing matter.
Of course it might have been some data processing incompetency.  They
were not able to account for a $10.65 overcharge on my bill.  I
refused to pay it until they could produce the bill for the one month
it it showed up on which never arrived.  When they did send me bills,
it was never for the correct month.  I'm guessing they failed to
microfiche that month.  When they sold the uncollectible to an agency,
I write to that agency and told them I would pay the original amount
only if and when documentation was produced for the charge, which MCI
had failed to do.  The agency soon quit sending me their weekly nasty
letters.

Obviously to MCI and their collection agency, a $10 item was not worth
spending staff time researching to justify.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 21:07:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> Can I get one single cell phone number assigned to two different cell
> phones?  Suppose I want to own a portable cell phone (likely to be a
> low power transmitter model) and a car mounted one (high power with a
> properly mounted roof antenna for reliable operation even when moving
> around).  I'd like to have just ONE phone number for people to call me
> and have either phone ring me, whichever one is on.

An Ameritech Cellular technician I spent the last 20 minutes talking
to suggested that an adequate work around would be to use the
immediate forwarding feature, and turn that feature on each time I
turn off the phone I won't be using (such as the car phone when going
portable).

I could not find anyone at Cellular One that knew anything about the
features.  They suggsted I call back between 4:00 and 4:15 PM when a
technician will be available.

We discussed many features including how those features behave when
roaming outside my home area.  However I forgot to ask how this one
will behave that way.

Is it possible to sign up with a home area different than the one
you live in, such as perhaps the one you frequently travel to?

Apparently one of the problems is that the cell site is either not
able to tell if my phone is turned off for a period of three rings, or
is not able to act on the fact that it is turned off for that time.
Ideally, if it forwarded the call to another number permanently
programmed, if any of these conditions exist:

    phone is on and does not answer in N rings (N choosable)
    phone is on but busy (immediate action)
    phone is not on (immediate action)

Unfortunately the A.C. technician was going back and forth over
features that made it uncertain if this could be done, though
leaning heavily towards NOT being able to be done.


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder
Date: 18 Mar 92 03:09:14 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> Along U.S. 40 at Havre de Grace, Maryland, is a billboard saying
> "There are 410 men for every single woman in Maryland.  (Just
> kidding)".  It's a reminder about the 410 area code.

This advertisement may have been produced by the same company who did
a similar campaign here in NJ when 908 was introduced.  I remember
following a bus in Newark, and noticing a yellow sign on its rear end
that said: "Keep Back 908 Feet (just kidding)".  Another bus had a
sign on the side which read: "Warning: 908-pound gorilla on board
(just kidding)".  A radio spot: (railroad noises in the background)
"Somebody on this train hasn't taken a shower in 908 days! (just
kidding)".  I suppost Bell Atlantic has a standing order with some ad
agency for these!


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] (Bill Nickless)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 04:25:12 GMT


I have had some bad experiences with Telebit T2500 modems and v.32.
You would think that two modems from the same vendor would work better
together than two modems from different vendors.  Well, when I use a
Telebit T2500 to dial into the T2500 modem pool at work using v.32,
the connection freezes as soon as 30 seconds but not more than about
60-180 minutes later.

I just got a Multitech v.32 modem at home five days ago.  It has been
connected with a single connection, no freezes, since.  This is to the
same Telebit T2500 modem pool at work.

Go figure.


Bill Nickless  System Support Group  <[e-mail]>  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY?
Date: 18 Mar 92 03:32:40 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have
> follow-me roaming at this point?

Not that I know of.

> Also, I know Cellular One just put in a brand-spankin'-new Ericcson
> switch.  Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the audio quality
> of their switch compared to NYNEX?

> Aw, let me just get it over with.  Who is the "better" carrier?

I have subscribed to Cellular One (formerly MetroOne) in the NYC area
since 1985 or so.  I drive through much of Northern NJ and New York
City and my phone works well enough that people usually don't realize
that I'm mobile unless I mention it.

A customer of mine subscribes to NYNEX cellular service, and has for
about as long as I've used the A carrier.  He drives all over NYC and
Northern NJ, also.  He calls me in the office four or five times a
day, usually from his car.  We get cut off, or switched into a channel
with loud and plainly audible crosstalk, or lots of hiss, on almost
every call.  We _always_ get dropped when he's headed West from Newark
on I-280 though the Oranges.  We _always_ get dropped when he's on the
Brooklyn-Queens Expressway near the Long Island Expressway.  We
_always_ get dropped when he's on I-80 a little West of the George
Washington Bridge, and again when he's in the Patterson, NJ area.

It might be his phone ... but he's loud and clear when he's not
getting dropped!  I visit the same locations, and my phone just keeps
on working.  It might be the service provider.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #240
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20701;
          19 Mar 92 2:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29567
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:56:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13237
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:55:46 -0600
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 00:55:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #241

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Mar 92 00:55:45 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 241

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Physical Phone Security (Jim Redelfs)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Tom Wardel)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Todd Inch)
    Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies (John Nagle)
    Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies (Bruce Ferrell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 21:13:05 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Ken Kopin wrote:

> I noticed some new wires coming out of the bottom of...The Network
> Interface...The Ma-Bell guy...whips out what is basically a 3/8 nut
> driver, and opens the box. My jaw dropped. I had a LOCK on my half of
> that stupid thing, and any idiot with a Socket Set can open it?

Our buried cable closures have, from the beginning (and continue to
be) secured with the SAME type of bolt, although a COMMON socket will
usually NOT fit -- requiring instead a THIN-walled socket.  They are
RARELY tampered with.

Admittedly, though, someone with a 3/8" socket (nut driver) CAN open
the TelCo side of the SNI.  This was changed within the last two or
three years. The SNIs now used by US WEST Communications are
manufactured with a bolt that requires a special wrench -- a type not
commonly found.

> He finds that someone had opened THEIR half of the box, and wired
> into my line...The wires coming out of the bottom were only about two
> inches long. They had cut their "new" connection with a knife.

As you can see, your case did NOT involve plugging-in to the RJ11C
jack within YOUR side of the box at all (original poster Scott
Coleman's concern), rather a "hardwired" tap, presumably accessed with
a "butt" set (or variation thereon).

Protector boxes have been mounted on the OUTSIDE of premises for
decades, the last two of which saw the practice become the rule.  As a
repair tech, my contention is that the addition of a JACK to the
assembly has not SIGNIFICANTLY increased the incidence of theft of
service, wiretap or interruption of service.

It DOES, however, give you cause to THINK about some "bad guy" hanging
around your house in the shadows, calling 1-900-DIAL-SMUT !

Scott Coleman wrote:

> I'm interested in hearing suggestions for physically securing one or
> more residential telephone lines.  As we know, those gray plastic
> network interfaces are great for troubleshooting -- just unplug the
> RJ-14 jack, plug in a test set, and away you go. Unfortunately, this
> also allows anyone with a modular phone to walk up to your house,
> unplug your phones, plugin his own, and make fradulent phone calls.
> In addition, the wiring is highly vulnerable to vandalism, and many
> burglars will cut phone lines as a matter of course to defeat security
> system auto dialers.

As an installer/repairman (residential) for the local RBOC, I have
encountered numerous customers over the years with the same concerns
that you mention.  They are unwarranted, IMHO.

To defeat a home-style security system's autodialer, one needs to
simply dial the intended victim's number and lay down the receiver --
leaving it ringing while they do their dirty deed.

In the eight years since SNIs (Standard Network Interface) were
introduced, I have encountered THREE that had been secured with a
padlock by the customer.  I have NEVER encountered one that had
EVIDENCE of unlawful entry.  The ONLY Theft Of Service case I have
been involved in was where a customer, formerly denied service for
non-pay, had run a "hink-wire" into our cable closure.  He went
"downtown" in handcuffs and I appeared in court over the incident.

The ONLY vandalism I have encountered AT THE HOUSE (only a few
instances) was caused by malicious [soon to be EX] husbands.  No joke.

I contend that, if "they" are going to tamper with your phone service,
they will do so REGARDLESS if the service is terminated in a SNI or
old-style protector housing.  Adding alligator clips to a cheapie-chirper
phone is no great accomplishment.

> What sorts of measures can a homeowner take to protect his phone lines?

Just as you would do well to keep landscaping (shrubs, etc) from
obscurring ground-level windows, you would do as well (and do the
phone techs a favor) by keeping such plantings away from the SNI *AND*
any ground-level phone terminal closure(s).  If they are visible from
the street and/or neighbor's house, it is unlikely that anyone is
going to tamper with them.

Put a padlock on the SNI.  Deadbolt locks are just as effective in
convincing a bad guy to go ELSEWHERE where there ARE none as they are
in actually SECURING the door, so too is a lock on the SNI.  Sure, the
box is plastic but, unless they have PHONE TECH tools, they'll have to
smash it to bits to get it open - and that will make noise they are
not inclined to make.

> Can the incoming lines be moved underground?

Sure, assuming that they are NOT already -- and you are willing to pay
the COST of burying them.  But the company will likely INSIST that
they be terminated on the OUTSIDE of the home (in a SNI) anyway.

> Can the network interface be moved inside the building ...

Not likely.  In my (reasonably considerable) experience, I have
installed THREE in such a manner -- all done with MAJOR "kicking and
screaming" on the part of The Company and myself!

Nobody is home anymore!!  Your phone goes out, you go to work to
report it, and I can't isolate the trouble any further than the cable
terminal if the other end of the drop is INSIDE!  The electric utility
won't put the meter box inside and I feel we should not have to hide
OUR interface, either.

> Will the telco charge outrageous rums to perform this sort of thing?

Probably.  Our charges are considered by most as "outrageous" even
though they are (initially) no higher than other service providers
such as heating and air conditiong firms, etc.

I suggest that you take the above (landscaping, SNI-securing, etc)
suggestions and don't worry about it.  Good exterior lighting, good
locks and good neighbors are going to do INFINITELY more for home
security (IMHO) than having your telephone service terminated INSIDE.
A security system is just another level of protection that will,
hopefully, convince the bad guy to go elsewhere.


JR    --- Tabby 2.2  MacNet Omaha
402-289-2899   macnet.omahug.org (1:285/14)

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

From: Tom Wardle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Date: 18 Mar 92 12:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


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

> Neato new product idea.

> Make a device that monitors the inside phone line and switches on a
> lamp if it is lost. Might scare away anyone trying to break in or
> steal service.

Such devices already exist.  One that I know of is made by Adcor
Electronics.  The phone line's voltage is constantly monitored, and if
the voltage disappears for longer than a pre-set time ~30s, it will
close a relay which could, for example, switch alarm transmissions to
a back-up media such as cellular or other RF channels.  Yes, you could
also attach a lamp, buzzer or some other signal device to alert the
occupants of the premises that the telco line has become inoperative,
or even open the electric lock on the dog house with the shepard in
it.

Just my .02,


Tom Wardle / KA3LPS         | [e-mail]
8033 Bennett Street         | [e-mail]
Pittsburgh, PA  15221       |
[phone]               | * How's that for an information.only .sig?

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 21:08:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott
Coleman) writes asking about security issues regarding drops to
residences, the demarc box on the outside of the building which
contains modular jacks, autodialing alarms, etc.

Well, personally I never worry much about it.  But, if I were truly
worried I'd probably put my own locking steel box right over top of
the demarc and a piece of pipe or steel conduit over the cable from
the demarc to the earth/sky, which should probably "legally" be done
without disconnecting the telco's wire from their side of the demarc.
(Hmm - that beige institutional "Wiremold" (TM) stuff might work well
since it comes apart to slide over existing wires, but then it may not
be secure enough.)  Ground that conduit well if it's an overhead drop
in case of lightning.

If you ask "officially" (and actually find the person in the telco who
knows what you're talking about AND knows something about the tarriffs
 :-) I'm sure they'll tell you no, no, and no.

But, as long as the repair technician can get to his/her stuff easily,
they (the technician) probably won't care, especially if you're
friendly, provide coffee/doughnuts, ask about relevant horror stories,
etc.

IMHO -- overhead drops are more secure than underground.  Those
semi-buried green pedastals used on underground are far from secure --
I've seen quite a few left with the screws loose or the cover
completely off -- if I were to steal service from others, that's how
I'd do it.  Also -- people tend to notice people on poles more than
people working on the ground.  (Slipping alligator clips back into
pocket: "Oh, I noticed this cover loose and thought I'd just have a
peek before I tightned it up for them.")

Most decent autodialing burgalar alarms have a "loop cut" detector --
simply look for no voltage (or more sophisticated voltage/current
monitoring) for more than a few seconds.  The best the circuit can do
is sound the local alarm bell/siren (or maybe use a cell phone? :-)
when the line is cut, but that's better than nothing and gives the
burgalar even less time to "work".

For real security you could lease a line and send a voltage/signal
to/from a private alarm company that could not easily be faked by
simply connecting an alternate power source prior to snipping.  I
would imagine that banks do something similar.

If you are worried about monitoring your calls, an encryption/
decription unit is the only real solution.  If you're worried about
someone making calls on your line, I would think that the local telco
would help you catch the thief if/when you got a bill indicating there
was a problem.  Long distance bills usually show the called party's
number, and that party could be contacted to ask "who called you on
xx/xx at xx:xx for xx minutes", or law enforcement could get the
actual billing records.

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 12:14:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> David Ptasnik <davep@u.
washington.edu> writes:

> Most of the newer stuff seems to digitize right at the set.  This is
> even true of many key systems.  About the only place to put your
> alligator clips are on the handset, and that is a little obvious :).

That may be the only place to put alligator clips if they are attached
to a buttset ... but who really supposes they use a buttset for a
wiretap?  A few dozen test equipment companies make all kinds of fancy
boxes that monitor any kind of digital telephone line.  I'm sure the
FBI can buy them just the same as you and I and the telco can ...

> The problem is made worse by the lack of standards from manufacturer
> to manufacturer. They do not have standard for their digitization of
> the conversation. Most seem to use proprietary systems.  No one
> decoder will work. The only exception to this is probably the link
> from the CO to the switch/KSU.

But where else would a wiretap be put?  Just as clipping to the
handset is a bit too obvious, so is any where near the target's own
PBX.

> Even if this is a T-1 or other digital connection, the conversion to
> and from digital to analog is probably standardized.

If it is digital, it is definitely going to be a standard digital
signal.

> The problem is finding only the conversation you want from that
> rather wide data stream.

That is a smoke screen argument.  Take a look inside a cable junction
box and see how easy it was to find the conversation you wanted with
analog equipment (try a 600 pair junciton box for example!).  You ask
the phone company which one its on.  Same thing with digital.  Now
they give you a pair and a time slot instead of just a pair.  No
difference.

> Of course networked PBX's could well use proprietary signaling end
> to end, passing those proprietary signals thru the CO without
> converting them to telco standard.  In this case the CO is just being
> used as a pipeline.  If the CO doesn't have to switch it and send it
> to an analog set somewhere, then the CO doesn't need to understand
> what is being passed along.

Basically you mean encrypted data.  No wiretap is going to work with
encrypted data.  The proposed legislation won't help at all.  Which is
all the more reason the whole proposal is silly.

> I can sure understand the FBI's concern.

I can not understand the FBI's concern, at least as it relates to the
arguments presented.  Every argument they presented is bogus.  It is
true they need to invest in slightly more that a butt set.  Big deal!
I plug "monitoring" equipment into circuits every day and can't see
just why the FBI is going to have any more problem than I do.

> I don't think that they are dealing with the problem in an
> appropriate way, but a better solution (for them) is not obvious to
> me.

What they are asking for isn't the ability to place a wiretap or not.
They are asking for a means to efficiently control wiretaps with a
computer in exactly the same manner that the telco monitors and
attaches equipment automatically for testing.  And not only would that
be extremely efficient, it would also be uncontrolled and untraceable.
No paper trail and no witnesses.  Think about the potential for abuse!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 18:21:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:

> Most of the newer stuff seems to digitize right at the set.  This is
> even true of many key systems.  About the only place to put your
> alligator clips are on the handset, and that is a little obvious :).
> The problem is made worse by the lack of standards from manufacturer
> to manufacturer. They do not have standard for their digitization of
> the conversation. Most seem to use proprietary systems.  No one
> decoder will work.

       Tektronix is now offering a digital "butt set" that offers ISDN
compatibility and plug-in modules for other systems in a convenient
hand-held package.  Other vendors offer various test gear for field
use, but not in such a nice package.  Read "Telephone Engineer and
Manager" magazine to see ads for such gear.  The FBI's argument in
this area is somewhat thin.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Ferrell)
Subject: Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 05:06:58 GMT


Every PBX I've ever seen that used a digital interface to the "world"
has used a T-1.  T-1 is a very standard format and really quite simple
to interface to (at the money levels we're talking about).  Absolute
worst case would be equipmet known in industry jargon as D/I Mux (drop
and insert multiplexer ... it sounds worse than it is).  Even a pair
of back to back channel banks would serve for this.  I think the FBI
is either using this as some kind of bargaining chip, or has been
speculated they want to continue to be able to engage in their illegal
tapping practices ... after all two extra channel banks that just
appear in a CO is rather noticeable ... to put it mildly!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #241
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21988;
          19 Mar 92 3:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12392
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 19 Mar 1992 01:33:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18213
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 19 Mar 1992 01:33:44 -0600
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 01:33:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #242

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Mar 92 01:33:37 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 242

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67 (David Ptasnik)
    Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67 (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Voicemail Message Indicator (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Encryption Help Needed (John Nagle)
    Re: A Reason Not to Charge For Spying (Eric W. Douglas)
    Re: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Date: 18 Mar 92 16:55:18 GMT


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

> I'm not a NET network traffic engineer, but I would say it is very
> likely that the majority of traffic destined outside of your local
> exchange goes through a tandem.  While some traffic to adjacent
> exchanges may go through HU (High Usage = direct) trunks, most
> intra-LATA interoffice, as well as all inter-LATA and operator traffic
> probably goes to a tandem.

Could overflow calls be routed through these HU trunks to another
tandem?  Of course, I don't know that it would be the best way to
handle things, but surely 911 and operator could be routed so that you
can actually reach help.

Also, isn't it generally a provision in the phone company's contract
with you that if your telephone use adversely affects their network,
they can disconnect you?  Is that done in situations like this?


Steven S. Brack                  [e-mail]
2021 Roanwood Drive              [e-mail]
Toledo, Ohio      43613-1605     [e-mail]
[phone]  MY OWN OPINIONS [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 09:44:44 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> I grant that you know who we are, but what can you do about it?  I
>> mean all you know is who the *called* party is.

You can believe that if you want, but it's wrong.

 > >What do you do, use SAS to run cross tabulations on calls?  I
don't suppose you'll say ...

Sorry, I don't understand your reply.  What's SAS?

The calling number, the called number and the billed number, are saved
for billing purposes.  To detect fraud on uncompleted calls, which is
what you are describing, we can save all phone numbers and a lot of
call information for every call that goes thru the voice response
system.  At present it is not used for fraud detection but it's not
impossible.

In your scenario, there would be records with the calling and called
phone numbers and fields indicating a collect call was made and that
the call was terminated at a certain point and by which party.  If it
happens several times for the same pair of numbers then ...

Too, someone else pointed out the way we record the voice is not
compatible with data transmission.

>> From certain originating lines where such abuse is likely to happen,
>> e.g., prisons, or schools [hint!], the system can be configured to
>> route collect calls [or whatever type] immediately to an operator.

> I can take a [hint!], but please note that *not* all people with .EDU
> in their e-mail addresses are students!  I hope you didn't have me
> pegged for a student (or some other unsavory sort) likely to engage in
> phone phraud!  ;-(

Of course not, no insult intended.

By the way, it's been reported in the press so I can say it now ...
Our recognition rate is 95%.  That is 95% of the time if someone
speaks a valid response we will match it correctly.  And 95% of the
time if someone says an incorrect response we know it's garbage.  I
don't believe this number is correct with non-North American speakers.


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 15:11:08 GMT


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

> I live in Toronto, which is Bell Canada territory.  I have Call
> Return, which here means that if I dial *69 (or 1169) the system first
> tells me what number last called me, and then allows me to return the
> call by dialing 1...

> Together with this feature, Bell packages the ability to re-call the
> last number that _I_ dialed, by dialing *66 (or 1166).  With either a
> *69 or a *66 call, if the number called is busy, the system monitors
> the line and if it becomes free within the next 30 minutes, my phone
> is rung with a distinctive ring, and if I pick it up, the number is
> re-called...

> Now, here's the thing.  I have found out by experimentation that if
> the number I'm calling with *66, and presumably with *69 also, is on a
> _hunt_group_, then only the _individual_line_ is rung or monitored.

> This seems counterintuitive to me.  Is there a human-factors sort of
> reason for it that I can't think of, or a technical reason, or is it
> simply a bug?  (I don't know what switch is in use, but both our house
> and my wife's office are in area code 416, prefix 488.)

Given that it's Bell Canada, it's more than likely a DMS-100.

Disclaimer: I don't know the inner workings of the DMS-100, but there
is a draft proposed American National Standard for this service, and
the operation of the service per the standard would fit your
description, so I'll work from that.  For the sake of discussion, call
the service "Call Completion to a Busy Subscriber", or CCBS.

CCBS works by having the terminating switch monitor the busy/idle
state of the line and, when the line goes idle, sending a message to
the originating switch telling it of that condition.

A hunt group doesn't have a busy/idle status; individual lines which
are hunt group members may, but the hunt is a function of the
termination attempt, not the line.  When the switch receives a request
to monitor a given line's busy/idle status, it doesn't "know" that the
line is a hunt group member; the request to monitor line status is
*not* the same as an attempt to terminate a call, and therefore does
not use the hunt group logic.

The answer to your question, therefore, is "that's the way the service
is designed".

It would certainly be technically feasible to change the service so
that it monitors for any idle line on a hunt group, but it's not clear
that that's the desirable functioning of the service.  Consider for
example a call center with 50 agents on a hunt group; if agent #34
calls you with a question about your order and your auto-recall
attempt goes to agent #12, who doesn't know what you're talking about,
there seems to have been a general loss of utility.

> [Moderator's Note: It all depends on how the calling hunt group
> identifies itself when making the call. For example, every single line
> in my office, regardless of its actual number is billed under the main
> listed number for our switchboard. Therefore any *69 calls will go to
> the main listed number of the switchboard. If that line itself is
> busy, inbound *69 calls will hunt by whatever formula calls to that
> number would otherwise hunt, as a function of the hunt group -- not
>something special *69 is or is not doing...]

Not necessarily; as I said above, if the service functions in the same
way as CCBS, the line is monitored by the switch for busy/idle status,
which is not the same as an attempt to terminate the call.

Whole picture: A, who is a hunt group member, attempts to call B.  B
is in the shower and can't get to the phone in time, so, after drying
off, uses *69 to call back A.  The call will go, as Pat said, to
whatever line was identified by A's originating switch in the original
call setup request.  If the hunt group is CO-based and the lines are
e.g. Centrex, it will go to the particular line that originated the
call (independent of billing arrangements -- calling party number and
billing number are not necessarily one and the same).  If, however,
the entire hunt group is busy (or all the lines "below" the attempted
line in a non-circular hunt group are busy), and CCBS is invoked, the
terminating switch will *only* monitor the individual line called,
*not* any other members of the hunt group.

Whew.


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 08:51:22 -0800 (PST)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67


[e-mail] (Gary Sanders) wrote:

> Does anyone know of a "box" that can be placed inline with a POTS line
> that will intercept touch tones, then prepend or postpend additional
> tone along with the entered tones?

Try the SMarT-1 dialer from Mitel.  It is available from supply houses
at about $100 per line.  It will screen every call you make, and will
dial *67 when you want it to.  For example, you can put in a (large)
list of numbers that it will forget to dial *67 in front of (friends,
family, John Higdon :) anyone who won't answer a blocked call.  It
WILL dial *67 in front of every other call.  You can also program in a
dial code that will let you dial a call without the *67.  It can be
programmed to not dial *67 in front of long distance calls.  It has
1000 speed dial numbers, and lost of other goodies.  It can be
challenging to program.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67
Date: 19 Mar 92 01:55:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
Sanders) writes:

> Does anyone know of a "box" that can be placed inline with a POTS line
> that will intercept touch tones, then prepend or postpend additional
> tone along with the entered tones?


    Why not check out a Zoom Telephonics "Hotshot". It will
deliver a number when dialtone is pulled, or dial when certain digits
are dialed.

    This device is most often used for "Lift the handset for help"
type installations -- Elevators, cab service etc.

    Put the thing before the protector and every phone in the
house will have the same feature.

    The Hotshot costs about $50.00


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Voicemail Message Indicator
Date: 18 Mar 92 15:07:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]30.
bull.com (James Santos) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 235, Message 5 of 10

> Here at work, we use a voicemail system which appears to be
> similar to the one used by Ameritech (made by Tygon Corp).  A small
> number of the phones have an indicator light on them to let you know
> when messages are left for you on the voicemail system.  Is there a
> simple modification that can be made to a basic touchtone phone that
> would allow such an indicator light to be retrofitted to it.  I can't
> believe that it is very complex.

    This is very simple. You need two componants. Radio Shack will
sell you both. Simply you need an "NE2" Neon bulb and a 180 - 220 Kilo
Ohm resistor. The NE2 is Radio Shack part number 272-1101, but you can
get an NE2 with the resistor included part number 272-1100. Cost will
be under a dollar. Radio Shack also sells neons in a plastic lamp for
a spiffy proffessional look, but these will cost more than a dollar --
part numbers: 272-710, 272-707, 272-712, 272-705.

    How does this sophisticated high tech system work? Well, the
message waiting signal is either a 100Hz 90V signal or these days a
90V DC signal. Place the call waiting assembly (Neon and resistor in
series) across the line. When the phone rings or you have a message
waiting the neon will flash.

    You can build these into the phone, or attach one to a line
cord with a modular plug on one end, using an adaptor plug it and you
phone in the jack. This latter solution will prevent the telecom
gestapo from accusing you of vandalising their phones.

    By the way, Comdial sell 2500 sets with the call waiting neons
already installed.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Encryption Help Needed
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 18:13:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Bruce Perens) writes:

> I have heard that U.S. Federal law requires that we provide government
> investigations with the encryption key (including the algorithm) on
> demand.

       Wrong.  Some European countries do require something like that,
but not the US.  You can buy crypto boxes in the US and use them as
much as you like.  You just can't export them.  There was an attempt
to enact something like that last year in Senate Bill 266, but,
pressured by the computer community, Congress refused to enact it.

> There is a federal law that specificaly prohibits cracking the DES.
> This law is used/abused by video-satellite cipher operators to
> increase the liability of those who decode their transmissions without
> a license.

       Wrong.  There are penalties associated with intercepting
certain types of radio communications in the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, but this is not related to encryption.

> The DES is a trailing-edge technology for encryption. In fact, the
> original specification of DES was harder to break than the version
> that was finally adopted. The adopted specification has a narrower
> word-width in some part of the algorithym. It is said that this is to
> make it possible for government agencies to break the DES within a
> reasonable amount of time using a supercomputer.

       Wrong.  Recent developments in differential cryptanalysis have
shown, much to the suprise of many people in the field, that when NSA
modified IBM's Lucifer into DES, they made it stronger.  A technique
has been discovered that will crack Lucifer, but not DES.  This has
been discussed extensively in sci.crypt.

       Breaking DES by brute force with a supercomputer is not yet
feasible, although building special-purpose hardware to do the job is
quite practical if you have a few million to throw at the problem.


John Nagle

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 12:13:13 PST
From: [e-mail] (Eric W. Douglas)
Subject: Re: A Reason Not to Charge For Spying


> Here is a reason NOT to allow charging customers for the equipment
> needed for inquistition agencies to monitor phone lines.

> Such equipment is doomed to be obsolete very soon.  We are reaching
> the point where it is practical to utilize encryption technology on an
> end to end basis (and eventually thereafter I am sure even from pay
> phones).  First digital, then voice and fax.

> The high tech taps will get them the encrypted data.

This is already commercially available ... I saw a program on
Discovery where a small company is already making boxes which are
inserted inline between your phone and wall plug, and at any time
during the conversation, you can flip a switch and punch in a code,
and your conversation is encrypted. The other party must have the same
box (or one using a similar protocol) and they must enter the same key
code.  Once the encryption has taken place, extensions on the same
line also only hear the encrypted conversation.


eric [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 9:50:18 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 410 Area Code Billboard Reminder


Oops, I think I should have said "to" instead of "for".  Another
billboard says (just kidding) that there are 410 crab species in
Chesapeake Bay.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #242
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06764;
          20 Mar 92 2:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15385
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:45:37 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16937
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:45:26 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:45:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #243

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Mar 92 00:45:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 243

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Congestion Control (was Rock Concert) (David G. Lewis)
    DECT Standards (Michael Robinson)
    Dialback Software For SUN (Armin Brunner)
    Caller ID Question (Protection from Telemarketing) (Anthony E. Siegman)
    "Feature Phone" Question (Kamran Husain)
    Automatic Callback on System 85 With Audix (Mike Neary)
    What's the Status of HR3515?? (John Palmer)
    Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) (Diana Boyd)
    Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Joe Konstan)
    The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (John R. Covert)
    Looking For Pager Tones (Jim Hutchinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Congestion Control (was Rock Concert)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 14:40:33 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind) writes:

>>> [Moderator's Note: ... But if a subscriber is not on a
>>> choke exchange and suddenly has a huge volume of calls, telco is more
>>> or less helpless. A non-blocking network would be tremendously
>>> expensive and of little value most of the time...]

>> I can tell you that many stations go around the nominal "choke"
>> exchanges...

> To start out with, I don't know how the switches work so I don't know
> what can be done, or what excuses programmers of them might use, but
> the following concept seems simple enough:

> Simply set a maximum number of calls that can be placed to a single
> number over a given trunk, as a percentage of that trunk capacity
> regardless of the ultimate capacity for the phone number.  A
> reasonable percentage might be 25%.  Thus for a trunk with a capacity
> of 80 calls to the exchange where the number is going, the 21st call
> will get either a busy signal or be delayed if the switch can deal
> with delaying it.  Then it would take more than one such number to
> overload the trunk just from the mass calls.  Percentages might differ
> for different exchanges.

Switches generally deal with trunk groups, not individual trunks, but
I think that's basically what you meant.

Aside from the fact that per-number control would be considerably more
expensive (and of less utility -- explanation later), this is essentially
the procedure used for "call gapping", a common traffic control procedure.

There are several varieties of call gapping.  Manual call gap controls
are installed by network operations personnel when an overload condition
is observed; automatic call gap controls are, as the name implies,
automatically activated by the network.

When call gap controls are activated in a switch (either manually or
automatically, by the number of calls to a given NPA-NXX in a given
time period exceeding a preset threshold), the switch will
automatically provide reorder (fast busy) to some percentage of call
attempts to that NPA-NXX, without attempting to complete the call.
Percentages can get as high as 49 in 50 (one in 50 calls attempts to
complete).

Call gapping on NPA-NXX can be more valuable that gapping on an
individual DN, because it then allows for overload controls during
natural disasters and other events causing a large number of call
attempts to a given area, as opposed to just a given DN.  For a slight
loss of precision, the capability is more generally useful and, not
incedentally, probably costs considerably less.

[Disclaimer - this does not necessarily represent the implementation
of call gap controls in AT&T's network or products or those of any
other vendor ...]

> I would bet a large number of those calls get a busy signal anyway
> when they reach the ultimate exchange.  It seems a waste of trunk
> capacity to reflect a busy.

It's also a waste of switch processing resources at the originating
and terminating exchanges and any transit exchanges, and a waste of
signaling network resources (for calls using common channel
signaling).

> Is it possible for the target exchange to signal the source exchange
> that the line is busy, so the busy signal sound is generated from the
> callers own exchange and free up the trunk line immediately?

This is done with SS7.  When the terminating exchange determines that
the terminating DN is busy, it sends a RELease message in the backward
direction with cause = user busy.  This releases the reserved trunk
and indicates to the originating switch to apply busy tone inband.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Robinson)
Subject: DECT Standards
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 10:27:02 GMT


Can anyone tell me what standards have been set for DECT?  Where can I
obtain this information?  Has CCITT said anything yet?  Who is doing
research in this area?


Thank you.

Michael Robinson

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

From: [e-mail] (Armin Brunner)
Subject: Dialback Software for SUN
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 16:14:39 GMT


Hi folks,

I am searching for (public domain) dialback software running on SUN.
The system should handle at least two incoming and ten outgoing modems.

Many thanks for any pointer and experience.


Armin Brunner                 INET: [e-mail]
RZ, ETH-Zentrum               UUCP: ..!mcsun!ethz!abrunner
CH-8092 Zurich         SPAN/HEPNET: chgate::ezrz1::abrunner
Switzerland                 VAXPSI: psi%022847931149400::abrunner
Tel: +41-1-256'3538          X.400: C=ch;A=arcom;P=switch;O=ethz;
Fax: +41-1-261'5389                 OU=id;OU=ks;S=brunner

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

From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Question (Protection from Telemarketing)
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 17:04:00 GMT


   My personal objective is freedom from telemarketing.  If Caller ID
comes to my area, I can buy a box that rejects incoming calls that
aren't Caller-ID'ed, or sends 'em to an answering machine. But can't
the telemarketer Caller-ID his call from a number that can't be called
back, or at least is never answered?  How can I protect myself
_automatically_ from telemarketing?


[Moderator's Note: The only way you can automatically protect yourself
and assure you won't be called is to get your phone turned off ... but
in another message in this issue, John Covert describes a new law
going into effect soon which will be very helpful.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kamran Husain)
Subject: "Feature Phone" Question
Date: 18 Mar 92 18:41:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I hooked up a feature-rich Panasonic phone (w/ LED display, full
memory, alpha keypad, etc.) to the phone jack of my internal modem and
my computer's power supply sputtered twice and blew a cap!! It's
smoking now ... and has to be replaced.

Do these phones draw that much power through the phone line? ... I
cannot think of anything else that could have caused it since I cannot
find any shorts on the motherboard.

I would appreciate any help on this.


Thanks,

Kamran

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 11:36:59 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Automatic Callback on System 85 With Audix
Reply-To: [e-mail]


At work, they've installed this "Definity System 85" (System Generic
2).  They instlled Audix to replace all our answering machines.  I've
got a 7401 instrument.

One of the features that I supposedly have is "Automatic Callback",
where the system will keep watch on a busy extension and call me back
as soon as it's free.  Our telecom department assures me that this
feature is installed, and is working.  All we have to do is punch "F6"
as soon as we hear the busy signal.

The problem is: No extension ever returns a busy signal, because
everyone is forwarded to Audix!  Is there a way to say "do not forward
this call to Audix" so that I can actually *get* a busy tone, punch
F6, and be put through to the real person as soon as they drop the
handset?


Mike    replies to:  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Whats the Status of HR3515??
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Clinton Township, MI
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 04:49:29 GMT


Whats the status of HR3515 (The Telco Anti-Monopoly Bill that all of
the RBOC's (via the USTA) are getting upset about.

Will we soon be able to get our local phone service from different
firms. I am so pissed off at Michigan Bell. In the nine business
service installations that I've ordered for myself or clients (as
simple as one line or as complex as multiple T3's), they have royaly
screwed up each order.

Before getting off the phone with their complaint department the last
time, I announced: "Boy I can't wait for the local phone monopoly to
get broken up by congress". The air-head on the other end of the line
didn't understand what I was talking about ...


CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[phone] (USR HST)      | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.
[phone] (TELEBIT PEP)  | 800-736-5984  FAX: [phone]

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

From: infmx![e-mail] (Diana Boyd)
Subject: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call)
Reply-To: infmx![e-mail]
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 21:09:19 GMT


Well, I'm at a loss. I don't really know how to handle this one.

Yesterday I got a bill in the mail from VRS Billing Systems, under
that it says "on behalf of INTEGRETEL, Inc.".

It is for eight collect calls made in April, 1991! Yes, almost a year
ago.

Now, I *did* get some computer generated collect calls last year, I
thought it was one or two I accepted, not eight, I know I refused
some, too.

I also thought these were paid through my PacBell Bill.

Even if I got the records from a year ago, I'd never remember which
calls I accepted and which I refused or how many.

Any suggestions, the total bill is only $25.01 but I am very angry;
how can they do this?

Thanks for your help.


Diana    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 16:42:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles


On a completely different topic ...

Can anyone explain this phenomenon:

Often, when I'm watching TV (most recently a broadcast station,
through cable) I find an annoying buzz (sounds like poorly grounded
equipment) whenever there are superimposed titles (e.g., captions,
names, etc.).

I recall that I've seen this on and off in the past and have a couple
of guesses:

1.  This is an equipment problem at the broadcaster.

2.  This is a problem closer by (cable or my set) due
    to interaction with close-captioning (which I do
    not have).

If the former, I'll give the station a call to see what's up, though
I've heard this on several stations.


Joe Konstan    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 17:38:46 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"


Public Law 102-243 was passed last year by the 102nd Congress and
signed by President Bush on 20 December 1991.

Some excerpts from it:

Findings:

Over 30,000 businesses ..., more than 300,000 solicitors call more
than 18,000,000 Americans everyday.

Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers.

Banning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home,
except when the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when
such calls are necessary in an emergency situation affecting the
health and safety of the consumer, is the only effective means of
protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy
invasion.

Restrictions:

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended ...

Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States --

  (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes
  or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using
  any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
  voice --

    (i) to any emergency telephone line;

    (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a
      hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment;

    (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular
      telephone service, ..., or any service for which the called party
      is charged for the call.

  (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using
  an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior
  express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for
  emergency purposes ...

  (C) ... to send an unsolicted advertisement to a telephone facsimile
  machine; or

  (D) to use an automatic telephone dialling system in such a way that two
  or more lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously.

 ...and so on for nine pages.

A brief summary of the rest:

The next section allows the FCC to establish exemptions for
non-commercial purposes, or commercial purposes where the commercial
purpose will not affect the privacy rights intended by the law and
where the commercial purpose is not an unsolicited advertisement.

The subsequent section orders the FCC to develop rulemaking to
determine how to protect subscribers from receiving _the_rest_of_
the_solicitations_ ...  the non-automated ones.  It tells them to
"compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures (including
the use of electronic databases, telephone network technologies,
special directory markings, industry-based or company-specific `do
not call' systems ...)"

The law then specifies a whole bunch of rules that will apply if the
Commission decides to go with the database approach (the FCC considers
this micro-management by Congress).  The Commission's rules must
"specify a method by which the Commission will select an entity to
administer the database", to run it at no cost to the subscriber, to
"prohibit any person from making or transmitting a telephone solicita-
tion to the telephone number of any subscriber included in such database",
to specify how solicitors will access the database and the cost to the
solicitors -- which must cover the cost of running the database, and
"prohibit the use of such database for any purpose other than compliance
with the regulations".

In a section on fax machines, it makes it unlawful to transmit a fax
which does not include either a cover page or information on each page
which identifies the origin of the fax and provides either the
originating fax number or a number at the business or entity sending
the fax.

It provides actions, both by States and Individuals that would provide
fines of $500 per call for calls in violation of this law.

The FCC must develop regulations within nine months of 20 Dec 1991;
the requirements of the law go into effect one year after 20 Dec 1991.

Your Christmas present for 1992 is no more automated calls, as already
prohibited in the law, and the regulation out of existence of almost
all other telephone solicitation.  I mean, who would _not_ have their
number in the free no-solicitations database, other than those afraid
of misuse of the database?


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Hutchison)
Subject: Looking for Pager Tones
Organization: Qualcomm Incorporated
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 02:18:39 GMT


I'm fiddling around with tones and am looking for the specification of
the three tone sequence that pagers emit when they are called, and as
confirmation of a received number: (-> to ear, <- to remote):

    -> beep-beep-beep
    <- 5551121#
    -> beep-beep-beep

I have EIA/TIA-464A (PBX), Bell Tech Report TR-TSY-000064 (Intersystem
AC signalling), the old AMPS spec, and the new EIA/TIA-553.  Even the
official name of this tone sequence would be a big help.


Thanks in advance,

Jim Hutchison    {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!qualcomm!hutch or [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  I am not an official spokesman for Qualcomm

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #243
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08581;
          20 Mar 92 3:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17303
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:24:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18002
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:23:44 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:23:44 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #244

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Mar 92 01:23:41 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 244

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CFP Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecom Systems (Nancy Griffeth)
    Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Lawrence Chiu)
    FMR Now Available in NY/NJ (David E. Sheafer)
    Unfairness at the Ranch (Steve Forrette)
    Customer Service (Part 2): BT (Nigel Roberts)
    Ringback Code for Chicago 708-215-xxxx Wanted (Rich Szabo)
    Hey, My Name's in the Phone-Book; My Check is Good! (Richard McCombs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: nancyg@banshee..bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: CFP Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecom Systems
Reply-To: bellcore![e-mail] (Nancy Griffeth)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 20:23:20 GMT


            Call For Participation

        INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON FEATURE INTERACTIONS
        IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE SYSTEMS

       St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, December 3-4, 1992


                 DESCRIPTION

This workshop is planned to encourage researchers from a variety of
computer science specialties (software engineering, protocol
engineering, distributed artificial intelligence, formal techniques,
and distributed systems, among others) to apply their techniques to
the feature interaction problem that arises in building telecommun-
ications software systems.

The feature interaction problem has been a major obstacle to the rapid
deployment of new telephone services. Telecommunications software is
huge, real-time, and distributed; adding new features to a telecommun-
ication system, like adding new functionalities to any large software
system, can be very difficult. Each new feature may interact with many
existing features, causing customer annoyance or total system breakdown.
Traditionally, interactions were detected and resolved on a feature by
feature basis by experts who are knowledgeable on all existing
features. As the number of features grows to satisfy diverse needs of
customers, managing feature interactions in a single administrative
domain is approaching incomprehensible complexity. In a future market-
place where features deployed in the network may be developed by
different operating companies and their associated vendors, the trad-
itional approach is no longer feasible. How to detect, resolve, or
even prevent the occurrence of feature interactions in an open network
becomes an important research issue.

The feature interaction problem is not unique to telecommunications
software; similar problems are encountered in any long-lived software
system that requires frequent changes and additions to its function-
ality. Techniques in many related areas appear to be applicable to the
management of feature interactions. Software methodologies for
extensibility and compatibility, for example, could be useful for
providing a structured design that can prevent many feature
interactions from occurring. Formal specification, verification, and
testing techniques, being widely used in protocol engineering and
software engineering, contribute a lot to the detection of inter-
actions. Several causes of the problem, such as aliasing, timing, and
the distribution of software components, are similar to issues in
distributed systems. Cooperative problem solving, a promising approach
for resolving interactions at run time, resembles distributed planning
and resolution of conflicting subgoals among multiple agents in the
area of distributed artificial intelligence.  This workshop aims to
provide an opportunity for participants to share ideas and experiences
in their respective fields, and to apply their expertise to the
feature interaction problem.

We welcome papers on preventing, detecting, and/or resolving feature
interactions using either analytical or structural approaches.
Submissions are encouraged in (but are not limited to) the following
topic areas:

      - Classification of feature interactions.
      - Modelling, reasoning, and testing techniques for detecting
        feature interactions.
      - Software platforms and architectures for preventing or
        resolving feature interactions.
      - Tools and methodologies for promoting software compatibility
        and extensibility.
      - Environments and automated tools for related problems in other
        software systems.

                FORMAT

We hope to promote a dialogue among researchers in various related
areas, as well as the designers and builders of telecommunications
software. To this end, the workshop will have sessions for paper
presentations, including relatively long discussion periods. Panel
discussions and a short tutorial on issues in the feature interaction
problem are being organized.

                  ATTENDANCE

Workshop attendance will be limited to 75 people. Attendance will be
by invitation only. Prospective attendees are asked to submit either a
paper (maximum 5000 words) or a single page description of their
interests and how they relate to the workshop. About 16 -- 20 of the
attendees will be asked to present talks. We will strive for an equal
mix of theoretical results and practical experiences. A set of working
notes will be provided at the workshop. Papers with the highest
quality will be considered for publication in a special issue or
section of a research journal.

                 SUBMISSIONS

Please send five copies of your full original paper or interest
description to:

    Nancy Griffeth
    Bellcore, MRE 2L-237
    445 South Street
    Morristown, NJ 07962-1910, USA
    E-mail: [e-mail]
    Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]

               IMPORTANT DATES

     1 June 1992: Submission of contributions.
      1 August 1992: Notification of acceptance.
  15 September 1992: Submission of camera-ready versions.

               WORKSHOP CO-CHAIRPERSONS

    Nancy Griffeth (Bellcore, USA)
    Yow-Jian Lin (Bellcore, USA)

              PROGRAM COMMITTEE

 chair: Hugo Velthuijsen (PTT, The Netherlands)

    E. Jane Cameron (Bellcore, USA)
    Steven Harris (BNR, Canada)
    Gerard J. Holzmann (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)
    Michael Huhns (MCC, USA)
    Luigi Logrippo (University of Ottawa, Canada)
    Harm Mulder (PTT, The Netherlands)
    Jan-Olof Nordenstam (ELLEMTEL, Sweden)
    David Notkin (University of Washington, USA)
    Akihiro Shimizu (NTT, Japan)
    Yasushi Wakahara (KDD R&D Laboratories, Japan)
    Pamela Zave (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 03:19:24 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Chiu)
Subject: Call Waiting Disable Kludge


I have been reading with interest all the so-called Class services
North Americans have available from then various phone companies --
presumably with the various WE switches they use.  Here in New Zealand,
although the majority of the exchanges are now digital, we do not have
access to those features, probably because they have not been pro-
grammed yet. Most of our switches are from NEC with the NEAX 61E being
a common model. Although they did come with some software, much
additional software development is being performed locally to provide
enhanced features -- Centrex comes to mind.  What irks me the most is,
although call waiting is freely available, there was no apparent ready
way to disable the feature for a call -- essential if you use your
phone for modem traffic (the call waiting tone almost invariably
causes your modem to drop the line). Finally I hit upon subscribing to
Telecom's call forwarding service also. Initially I thought about
forwarding to my office number where a machine would pick up but that
might confuse people so I had another idea.

Apparently call forwarding takes precedence over call waiting so if I
program my line to forward calls to myself (we designate numbers to
forward by entering 181 to 189 followed by the number to forward to
and wait for a dial tone. Then 161 to 169 will cause your phone to be
forward to the corresponding 181 number and 160 disables the feature),
the caller receives a busy signal. It's a kludge but it works and it
only costs US$1.50/month - worth it for the peace of mind I now have
when starting a large download.


                  Laurence Chiu
              Principal Consultant
          GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
               Tel: [phone]
     Internet:             [e-mail]
    Compuserve:          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer)
Subject: FMR Now Availaible in NY/NJ
Date: 18 Mar 92 21:53:40 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


In the latest issue of Accessability (Nynex Mobile's newsletter) It
mentions that there is no FMR and automatic call delivery in New York
and New Jersey.

SNET and the NYNEX service area in New York/New Jersey Metro Area have
connected their networks.  SNET customers traveling in the New
York/New Jersey area will now automatically receives calls without
having to do activate FMR in addition NYNEX New York/New Jersey
customers will automatically receive calls well traveling in the SNET
service area (Conneticut and Springfield MA).

In addition NYNEX Mobile now has FMR (thru the use of *18) in Central
New York, Western New York, and the Albany/Capital District Region.

They have also started us *711 for Roamer info (and they don't charge for
the call).

As I'm a NYNEX Boston customers none of these enhancements effect me
but they say this the first step for cellular enhancements to their
system.

Hopefully that means that they will soon have automated call delivery
for Nynex Boston customers traveling in the SNET and NYNEX NY/NJ
service area.

As it is now, we now have the entire state of MA (except for
Springfield), RI & Southern NH with automated call delivery and FMR
(thru *18) for SNET in CT with no daily surcharge and .75 minute.

But as of now NYNEX Boston customers still can only receive calls
through the roaming number when traveling in NYNEX's NY/NJ metro
service area.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 00:54:39 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unfairness at the Ranch


I just stumbled upon an interesting Pacific Bell fact: at least one of
the prefixies that their Bishop Ranch facility in San Ramon, CA is
served by, namely 823, appears in BOTH the 415 and 510 area codes.
Keep in mind that the permissive dialing period for the 415/510 split
is over.

Upon further checking, I've discovered that:

 - Calls will be completed to the 823 prefix by dialing the prefix as
either 415 or 510, whereas calls to other 510 prefixes get intercepted
as they should since permissive dialing is over.

 - 415-823 and 510-823 both come back with "Bishop Ranch, CA" as the
place-name, whereas other prefixes that have moved to 510 come back as
"unassigned" in 415.

Now, is this playing on a level field?  I would imagine that many of
the Pacific Bell offices in the Bishop Ranch facility are for the
unregulated products they offer, but they are able to take advantage
of their monopoly position that no other service provider has access
to in that their numbers are still accessible in both area codes, and
probably will be for the indefinite future.

Also, note that this is not being done with some sort of "foreign
exchange" service with a separate 823 prefix being created in 415 that
forwards over to 510, as the place-name is the same for both prefixes.
San Ramon is definately east of the bay!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.


[Moderator's Note: Some cellular exchanges here are handled as 312 in
Chicago even though they are in the suburbs.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:13:45 GMT-1:00
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Service (Part 2): BT


I referred obliquely in an earlier contribution to the Digest of my
opinion that in terms of customer service, BT's UK Direct doesn't
match up to similar Home Country Direct services operated by US LD
companies. The other day I had renewed proof (not that I needed it) of
my view that BT is still largely in the grip of the "We don't care; we
don't have to" mentality.

I've used UK Direct heavily over the last week, calling the UK from
Germany on the [phone] toll-free number. In my view, most of the
operators seem surly to the point of rudeness. (There are exceptions,
but they seem to be in the minority).

They answer the phone in a totally random manner:

    "International Operator",
    "London",
    "United Kingdom",
    "British Telecom"

are the most common of some of the odd greetings I've had.  (Whose
international operator, what company in London or the United Kingdom?,
what department of BT? I ask myself.)

You know what I never heard?  "BT, UK Direct, this is <whoever>, how
may I be of service". That's what I never heard. (They don't say
"Thank you for using BT" either.)

They often seem unable to tell which trunk the call is coming in on as
they usually ask me "What is the number in _France_ you are calling
from?" or even (on one occasion) "Which city in JAPAN are you calling
from?" ?!?!?!? I do hope my bill doesn't show calls from Germany as
calls from Japan!

They seem to have a fetish for knowing the number you are calling from
and although they seem thave been told that Continental payphones
(unlike the UK and the USA) -- usually -- can't receive incoming calls
and therefore don't display a number, they give the distinct impression
that it's your fault.

Once when calling from a PABX (but not knowing the DID number) I told
the operator that I was unable to give him the number. When he learned
I was not at a payphone he became exceedingly angry and refused to
complete the call unless I gave him the number. (I hung up, and upon
trying again got a different operator who was in a better mood).

But what happened the other day takes the biscuit.

I had some problems with my BT Chargecard, and wanted to report them.
I called UK Direct from Germany, and asked for a call to [phone]
which is BT's 24 hour a day helpline.

"Sorry", said the operator, "I can't connect calls to that number".

"Why on earth not" says I.

"Because I can't connect calls to 0800 numbers".

"Wait a minute, I've got a problem with my BT calling card. And you
can't connect me to anyone who can help?"

"Not unless you give me a real telephone number"

After a minute or so of this treatment, she was almost shouting, so I
politely asked for a supervisor and got put on hold. I held.  After a
couple of minutes silence, I gave up.

Yesterday, I tried again. This time I simply said to the UK Direct
operator: "I want to report a lost BT Chargecard" thinking this should
get more attention. "Just one moment" said the polite operator (one of
the few). (Comes back on line). "I'll connect you to a freefone number
where you can report it.".

So asked: "This wouldn't be 0800 345144 would it?"

"Yes, that's the number," says she.

                ---

[What happened after I got through is another story, which I will
relate at a later date. Suffice it to say that if you are going to
lose your BT Chargecard, better make sure you lose it when you are in
the U.K.]


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer        [e-mail]
Tel. [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 07:13:23 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rich Szabo)
Subject: Ringback Code For Chicago 708-215-xxxx Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Could someone please mail me the ring-back procedure for Chicago's 708
area code, 215 exchange, if it exists?  Thanks!


Rich Szabo    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Hey, My Name's in the Phone-Book; My Check is Good!
From: [e-mail] (Richard McCombs)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 02:24:32 CST
Organization: The Red Headed League; Lawton, OK


Here at the motel, we usually only take personal checks from people
who are active military, because if we have at least a fair chance of
collecting the bad ones. Anyway I just had an older gentleman who
wanted to pay with a check and when I was reluctant to accept it he
said, "I'm listed in the phone book ... my check is good."


Internet: [e-mail], [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,  {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #244
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11030;
          20 Mar 92 4:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20913
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 02:30:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20894
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Mar 1992 02:30:02 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 02:30:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #245

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Mar 92 02:29:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 245

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury (Nigel Roberts)
    Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (Mark Cheeseman)
    Reach Out and Rob Someone! (Andrew C. Green)
    800 Number Blocking Problem (Scott Fybush)
    RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Patton M. Turner)
    911 Source Identification (Paul M. Wexelblat)
    One Number Service in Washington DC Metro Area (John L. Shelton)
    When do New Equal Access Rules go Into Effect? (Stan Krieger)
    Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia (Nigel Burnett)
    CFV For comp.society.privacy (Dennis G. Rears)
    Voice Mail on DMS-10 (Dan Rudiak, FIDO via Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:55:17 GMT-1:00
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury


Digest readers will have noticed that I have been very pro-Mercury of
late. It's not difficult to be that way. I'd probably even use British
Rail if they were in the LD business (actually it is a possibility)
simply because they are not BT. [Your calls would get to the right
place, just half and hour late :-) ]

But Mercury's not perfect. I'd been trying to get on to Mercury for
literally years. Finally at the end of January, it was possible.

But wait, first of all they refused to issue me with an account
because I used a PO Box address on the application form (P. O. Box 49,
MANNINGTREE, Essex). I do this for privacy, mainly to avoid junk mail
at home.  They absolutely insisted that had to send the bills to a
"real" street address for some reason. (I've no idea why -- residential
Mercury service is all done through indirect access).

I complained. They were adamant. So I reluctantly gave them my street
address.

Then a few days later, I was looking through my correspondence with
Mercury, I noticed what THEIR postal address is:

    Mercury Communications, P. O. Box 49, BIRMINGHAM.

I subsequently pointed this out to them, and then they agreed to send
the bills to MY P.O. Box address!


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer          [e-mail]
Tel. [phone]     FAX [phone]

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

From: Mark Cheeseman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link
Organization: Your Computer Magazine, Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 11:10:00 GMT


I have observed an annoying problem when talking to my sister in South
Africa from Australia (where I am!). It sounds as if there is some
sort of voice-operated relay in the line -- it drops out when you stop
talking, and there is a noticeable delay before the voice circuit
re-opens, which chops off the first syllable of the next word. Most
disconcerting for monosyllabic (sp?)  words!

What is likely to cause this sort of behaviour, echo cancellers? I
can't say if it's a cable or satellite link across the ocean, but my
gut feeling says its cable (no delays between question and answer)?

More to the point, is there anything I can do to stop it? If it's an
echo canceller, would sending something like a modem's guard tone
work? Does a guard tone have to be sent continuously, or does it
permanently disable the echo cancellers with a single burst?

I appeal to the collective wisdom of TELECOM Digest readers ...


Mark Cheeseman, Technical Editor, Your Computer. [e-mail]
packet: [e-mail]     [This space intentionally blank]
Phn: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  Fido: 3:712/[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 09:59:24 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Reach Out and Rob Someone!


This one was too good to not pass on to Telecom. I can't wait for this
idea to spread to the telemarketing industry. I quote the {Chicago
Sun-Times} on Wednesday, March 18th, 1992 in its entirety:

        The latest: phone holdups

MIDWEST CITY, Okla. (AP) -- A thief held up a sandwich stop by
telephone, ordering a paper bag full of money and then dropping by to
pick it up.

A man called the shop in suburban Oklahoma City on Monday night [Mar.
16] and ordered two teenage staffers to put the money next to a flag
pole in front of a nearby grocery store, said police Lt. Brandon
Clabes.

"He said, 'If you don't, I'll come put a bullet in your head,'"
according to Clabes.

The girls complied, but called police. When officers arrived, the
money was gone. No arrests had been made by Tuesday.

Clabes said the robber tried the same scheme earlier in the evening at
a shoe store, but the clerk hung up on him.

                        -------

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 13:00 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Blocking Problem


I made the mistake of mentioning the Mystic Marketing 800 number
(which may or may not be 800-736-7886 :) to the telecom folks at
Brandeis University.  Their initial response to me was that there was
nothing to worry about on their end, since the Mystic Marketing ANI
reads back from any campus phone as 617-736-2000 (the main number for
the campus) and Brandeis has arranged to have 736-2000 blocked from
any charges.

Apparently they've decided there IS something to be worried about.
Last night I tried calling that wonderful number (just to see if it
was still working, mind you!) only to find it blocked.  After the last
"6", the Brandeis switch cuts in with an intercept message.  As far as
I can tell, 800-736-7886 is the ONLY number that's blocked that way
(800-CALL- ATT still works, fortunately!) -- adjacent numbers such as
736-7885 work just fine.

Well, I asked Denise Gabbay, Brandeis Telecom's technical manager,
about it today, reminding her that it is ILLEGAL to block ANY 800
number, and her response was that the number would be dialable if I
had paid them $25 a semester to enable 900 service from my phone.  She
seemed to think this made the whole thing legal.  While I agreed with
her that a reverse-charging 800 number like this one is a serious
billing problem, I told her that I didn't think Brandeis' solution was
legal.

So now I turn to you all for help.  Can anyone cite me the SPECIFIC
piece of law that could make them unblock that number?  (or tell me
what agency I need to talk to to take action?)  It's not that I really
want to spend $120 to have my fortune told, but if they can get away
with blocking this number, what's to stop them from blocking 800-950-1022
or 800-CALL-ATT next?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.  I'll post any results I get.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Don't push your luck on this. They have to unblock
the number, and they are allowed to charge a deposit for service to be
rendered. Maybe the deposit should be at least $120 from now on, eh?
If they can demonstrate that a call can cost at least that much -- and
of course the evidence is plainly in their favor -- then they can ask
for a deposit in that amount or more ... and they would be perfectly
within their rights doing so, and shutting your phone off entirely or
severely limiting your service until you came up with the deposit.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 12:11:58 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: RS-232 Breakout Boxes


I am going to purchase a RS-232 breakout box and am wondering if
anyone has any suggestions.  I guess what I really want to know is
what advantages the more expensive models have over the $100 models,
and if anybody has had problems with the line powered models.  Also
does anybody sell the quality BOB's cheaper than Jensen, SPC and the
like.

I would like to avoid the 50 LED models as I plan to use the lines w/o
LED's to patch lines in RJ-45 jacks.  Please post or email, I will
post a summery if there is enough interest.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul M. Wexelblat)
Subject: 911 Source Identification
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 19:06:41 GMT


I was in my local police station this morning and got into a
discussion with the dispatcher about impending 911 service.

I have a phone line that appears in two places within the exchange
((508) 635-xxxx).  I asked what address did they expect to appear on
the screen if that number initiated a 911 call. They do not seem to
have thought of that and they didn't know.  Does anyone else?  (could
they get both?, could they really determine which site initiated the
call (about ten miles apart, with the switching center between)).  Has
this issue been addressed?

(I don't know what system we have in town, but it is Acton, MA, and
just the other day I read a posting from somebody from DEC (about the
U2 concert ticket SNAFU) who did identify the system.)

Should I cross-post this to RISKS?  8->


Wex

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 07:28:09 -0800
From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Subject: One Number Service in Washington DC Metro Area


I heard from a friend last night that Bell Atlantic/C&P Telco will
soon offer one-number service to customers in the DC metro area.  With
this service, you can give your callers a single number that rings you
at home, office, car, etc.  You will be able to program your
one-number to forward to different locations depending upon time of
day, no-answer, and other parameters, and be able to change the
programming as desired.

I don't have facts on this (and not likely to get them in California)
but it sounds like a great idea.


=John=

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 10:17:07 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Organization: Summit NJ


As a reminder to me and others, when are COCOTs required to begin
supporting 10xxx, and when do all LD companies (meaning AT&T) need to
provide 800 or 950 access?


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] (Nigel Burnett)
Subject: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 17:07:58 -0500
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario


I'll be travelling to Japan next week and to Hong Kong, Beijing,
Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok.  Will my nifty
North American portable 832 channel phone work in any of these
countries?

Thanks in advance for any help.


Nigel Burnett:  business: 3030 Orlando Dr., Mississauga, Ont.,  416-672-2100
Send e-mail to [e-mail], uunet.ca!isgtec!nigel, or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 16:19:37 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CFV For comp.society.privacy


  The attached is the Call for votes fro the comp.society.privacy
newsgroup.  If the voting is successful I plan to change the name of
telecom-privacy to comp-privacy and gateway it into the newsgroup.  I
have about 400 subscribers to the telecom-priv list now.  If enough
telecom-priv readers object I will keep the two lists separate.  I
would rather have only one forum.

  Remember votes go to [e-mail] not to telecom-priv.


Dennis

CALL FOR VOTES TO CREATE NEWSGROUP

Name:     comp.society.privacy
Status:  moderated
Moderator:  Dennis Rears <[e-mail]>

Charter:

   This newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion on the effect of
   technology on privacy. All to often technology is way ahead of the
   law and society as it presents us with new devices and
   applications.  Technology can enhance and detract from privacy.
   This newsgroup will be gatewayed to an internet mailling list.

Votes:

  Votes should be sent to the address:

                     [e-mail]

  and may be (but do not have to be) sent by replying to this message.

  Votes should state explicitly whether they are "for" or "against"
  the creation of comp.society.privacy.  Ideally they should contain a
  subject line to the effect of:

   SUBJECT:  I vote YES to comp.society.privacy as proposed
   SUBJECT:  I vote NO to comp.society.privacy as proposed

  The wording does not have to follow these examples precisely but
  it must be unambiguous and unconditional.

  The following will render a vote INVALID:

      - sending it to an address other than the one given above
      - sending it after the voting deadline has passed
      - sending it by a medium other than e-mail
      - posting it to the net
      - qualifying it with a conditional statement such as "I will
        vote for comp.society.privacy provided that..."
      - voting for a proposal with a name or charter other than
        the precise one listed here
      - voting by proxy for someone else

  In the case of duplicate votes from a single user, only the LATEST
  one will be counted.  You may therefore annul a previous vote by
  mailing a new one.

Voting period:

  Votes must arrive at the vote-taker's address before 05:00:00 GMT,
  13 April 1992.

Other information:

  Repeat Calls for Votes and mass acknowledgments of votes received
  to date will be posted periodically during the voting period to
  news.announce.newgroups and  news.groups.

  The final results of the vote will be posted directly after the end
  of the voting period.  In order for comp.society.privacy to be created
  there must be at more "yes" votes then "no" votes AND at least 100 more
  "yes" votes than "no" votes.

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

[TELECOM Moderator's Note: Do *not* REply to this here. You must send
email ONLY to the address shown above ... not to Telecom Digest.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:21:35 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail on DMS-10


[The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:]

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
       Subject: Voice Mail on DMS-10

920128 VOICE MAIL ON DMS-10 FOR RURAL CUSTOMERS

Orlando, January 28 | Northern Telecom today introduced a complete
Voice Mail package for rural customers.  The package includes the
DMS-10 Voice Mail System (VMS) manufactured by Northern Telecom,
software to support it for telephone companies, and marketing services
to help them effectively sell Voice Mail to subscribers.  The
announcement was made at the National Telephone Cooperative
Association Annual Meeting and EXPO.

The Voice Mail software, called Simplified Message Desk Interface
(SMDI), is a standard interface to both voice messaging and/or voice
storage and forward systems, and will interface with virtually any
voice mail system currently on the market.  Northern Telecom's VMS is
provided in a separate floor-mounted cabinet placed in the telephone
company's central office.  It can serve as many as eight DMS-10
switching systems.

"The DMS-10 Voice Mail System provides a number of unique benefits to
residential and business subscribers alike," said John Beagley, vice
president, Marketing Operations, Northern Telecom Inc.  "It handles
multiple incoming calls at the same time, takes calls even when the
line is in use, and has easy-to-follow voice directions."

The Northern Telecom Voice Mail System offers many configurations to
tailor individual needs, such as an 8-port unit for as many as 397
subscribers and a 12-port unit for as many as 720 subscribers.  It is
expandable up to 64 ports to serve as many as 5,840 subscribers.

Adding Voice Mail to the DMS-10 requires additional software and
hardware.  DMS-10 Voice Mail is offered with 405.10 software generic,
available in June 1992.  The hardware changes include a standard
RS-232 link and cable, a circuit pack for data interface, and line
cards in a hunt group for the voice links to the VMS.  In addition,
the VMS requires a dedicated Visual Display Unit (VDU) and printer for
administration and maintenance.  The VMS operational measurements and
error messages are sent to the local printer.  To accommodate the
Voice Mail system, the call waiting feature on the DMS-10 now gives
the subscriber the option to ignore the call waiting tone without
losing the call.  After a specified number of ringback tones, the
second caller will automatically be forwarded to the subscriber's
voice mailbox and will receive the normal Voice Mail instructions to
leave a message.

As part of its 10 Plus marketing support programs, Northern Telecom
will help telephone companies market Voice Mail to their subscribers.
The program will provide assistance in developing a Voice Mail tariff,
telemarketing, direct mail information, advertising and training.

The DMS-10 Voice Mail System will undergo trials in April, 1992 at
Geneseo Telephone in Geneseo, Illinois.


 --- Blue Wave/RA v2.05 [NR]
* Origin: The Computer Connection BBS, HST/DS, 1-403-246-4669/74(1:134/68.0)

                            --------

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #245
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04286;
          21 Mar 92 2:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21568
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:25:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30258
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:25:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:25:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #246

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:25:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 246

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Terminal Server Query (Bill Garfield)
    Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too? (Todd Inch)
    Re: Mystic Marketing Oddity (Clive Feather)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Steve Forrette)
    Re: US Post Office Bar Codes (Rich Wales)
    Re: Phone Lines and v32 (Dave Levenson)
    Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service (Michael Bender)
    Re: Wake-up Call Loop (Julian Macassey)
    Re: MCI Offers Grace Period (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: yob![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Terminal Server Query (Bill Garfield)
Date: 17 Mar 92 10:48:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


> We currently own a Datability VCP 1000 terminal server which we are
> very unhappy with -- the server crashes four or five times per week.
> We are interested in suggestions for a replacement for this terminal
> server.

Martin, my company has three of these Datability VCP 1000's and
although I do not speak for them, it appears to me that yours is an
isolated situation.  To my knowledge, we have never had one crash in
just over a year of service.

Have you looked into the possible causes for the server crashing?
Ours are powered by a big Liebert UPS, which probably contributes some
to the reliability.  Most communications gear I've come into contact
with has one thing in common ... it all prefers a clean, temp-stable,
properly grounded environment.  Heat and power line surges are hard on
electronic equipment.

Also, as a hedge against disaster, the folks responsible for the
maintenance/programming of these have written huge script files in
ProComm Plus v2.01 to allow us to quickly recover all parameters in
less than a minute.

What has your vendor had to say about the problem?  Chances are if
there's some distinct cause for the crashes, any replacement device
would likely suffer equally.

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: AT&T Telemarketers Have Feelings, Too?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 21:12:41 GMT


A small telemarketing firm recently moved into our building in the
business park and shares a hallway and restrooms with us.  Except for
the two management people, I seldom recognize a face -- they
apparently have a phenomenal turnover rate.  My wife lasted one day
when she attempted telemarketing just after graduating from college.
Not an enviable position.

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Mystic Marketing Oddity
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 12:25:13 GMT


> I think the number is not what you expect it to be. I think it is the
> property of some company which uses it for its own internal purposes
> and allows it to be dialed into (for example, by employees out of the
> office, etc).

So it is not 800-only. This explains your viewpoint, and I can
understand it.

> Why would such a service only have one line incoming?

How would I know this ?

> Simple -- it is not for public use.

Indeed. My original questions were: who is harmed by its use for 800
access, and why are you hiding the number?  You have answered the
second to my satisfaction, though not the first.

> I agree with you it is hard for people in other countries to call
> 800 numbers here ... my conclusion is the business places here with
> 800 numbers are not interested in paying for calls from overseas,
> otherwise they would make those arrangements.

I don't want them to pay for it. I want to talk to them *somehow* when
they don't specify an address or POTS number. If I want to buy
something, I can organise payment by Visa and the USA address of a
friend or our office, but *I* need to communicate with them first.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom


[Moderator's Note: I have since been contacted by the institution
which *owns* various 206-xxx-xxxx numbers which have been abused by
international (and domestic) callers in the way you described. My
contact said that thanks to the messages here, they had discovered the
'service for reaching 800 numbers' came about as the result of a
programming error on several of their Merlin systems. The trouble is,
they have about 300 Merlin systems, and are hoping people who have
used them will send a message -- anonymously if they wish -- to me
here at TELECOM Digest stating which number 'their friend in area 206'
is using. No recriminations, no punishment ... they just want to avoid
having to check all 300 systems if they can help it. They found the
error on nine systems of the first dozen or so checked, but correcting
the error takes awhile. So messages on this to me in private please,
and I will forward the phone numbers only to the institution.   PAT]h

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 16:13:10 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> It's a pain to wait there for a second to see if it will ring back
> or not and have the people nearby wondering whether you're crazy or
> not ... :)

It has been my experience that when the initial interval expires (used
to be three minutes), that you hear the initial deposit dump into the
coin box.  So, if the coins don't dump until you go on-hook, then the
call is completely paid for.  If you hear them dump while you're still
talking, then expect the operator to ring back when you go on-hook.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: US Post Office Bar Codes
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 00:27:37 GMT


Tony Harminc wrote:

> Lately I have noticed that some mail arriving here (Toronto)
> from the US has the US bars on the envelope.  By chance I came
> across a description of the bar code format, and decoded it to
> 00101-2404.

> Does anyone know if this is perhaps a dummy ZIP code used for
> routing mail to Canada?  Is it possible that the OCR scanners
> in US sorting offices are capable of reading Canadian postal
> codes and substituting an appropriate ZIP code that is in the
> general direction the mail should go?

There are roughly 17 million codes in the Canadian ANA NAN format code
space, so conceivably these could all be covered by the larger US nine
digit scheme.  The Canadian format bar code (UV fluorescent ink) also
appears on the envelope over-lapping the US one.  Presumably neither
would interfere with reading of the other, since the formats are so
different.

My postal code is M4S 1E2, just in case anyone sees an algorithm at
a glance that relates it to 00101-2404 :-)

Well, as far as I'm aware, no valid US ZIP code starts with 001, so
what you suggest is certainly possible.

Most likely, the pseudo-ZIP code is encoding only the first three
characters of the Canadian postal code (in your case, M4S).  This
portion of the code is sufficient to route the mail to the appropriate
central sorting facility; from there, it's up to Canada Post.

I'd definitely like to try my hand at cracking this system, provided I
could get some more sample data.  A few years ago, I managed to figure
out 90% or so of the Canada Post bar code system (and later got the
rest filled in with info from Canada Post).  The Canadian coding
scheme is =much= more complex than that used by the USPS, by the way.

There are, in fact, only 7.2 million possible Canadian postal codes.
Six letters (D, F, I, O, Q, and U) are never used -- presumably
because they look too much like other letters/digits.  Also, W and Z
are never used as the =first= character of any code.  This leaves 18 *
20^2 * 10^3 (7,200,000) possibilities.

By the way, Canada Post incorporates US-bound mail in its own bar code
system.  US ZIP codes (first three digits only) are mapped into a
Canadian pseudo-postal code of the form "X9Z xxx" (no Canadian
location has a postal code starting with X9Z).  Occasionally, I've
seen mail from Canada with a bar code corresponding to X9Z 0Z0 (i.e.,
ZIP code 000xx); since no valid US ZIP code begins with 000, this
apparently means the mail is US-bound but the ZIP code couldn't be
read.


Rich Wales <[e-mail]> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32
Date: 18 Mar 92 23:56:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hoyt A.
Stearns jr.) writes:

> I have never been able to make v32 work reliably from a particular
> location using a T2500 or T3000-> variety.  My impression is that if
> v32 is this sensitive to line conditions, it has no business being a
> standard.

We have used V.32 for a little over a year with no difficulty.  We are
connected to a 1ESS (or it might be a 1A-ESS) which is about six miles
away.  Our lines pass through a digital multiplexor between here and
the C.O.  The 1ESS is a family of analog switches that probably have
no real impact on the signals they pass.  They tend to be connected to
each other over digital trunks, where clock slips are a possibility.

The only time we have any difficulty is when we attempt to use V.32 to
talk from our GVC modems to Telebit modems.  It would seem that
Telebit wants to discourage the use of V.32 and encourage the use of
PEP by making modems that don't work well with V.32.  This would serve
their purposes well, but not the customers'.  The nice thing about
standards is that they tend to be supported by multiple vendors, so
users are not locked into a single source.

Try a _real_ V.32 modem before you give up on the standard!


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 17:58:05 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BT Payphones and Automated Credit Card Service


>> I just can't believe all this I'm reading!  A company like BT can't
>> even get their payphones to work correctly?  How could dialing extra
>> digits after a number make the call free?  Wouldn't this be more
>> easily solved with a software patch to the C.O. switch than a hardware
>> kludge to every payphone in the country?  What am I missing?

> It's nothing to do with the CO. It's all in the payphone.  The keypad
> isn't enabled until you put money in. (Except for emergency and
> operator access.)  If the CO accepts touch-tone (known as "MF4" to BT,
> by the way) you can dial with an external tone keypad.  When the meter
> pulses come back to the phone, it has no knowledge of a call being
> made and ignores them.  The quick fix: change the CO class of service
> of all payphones so they don't accept MF4.  The *correct* fix: (they're
                                              ^^^^^^^^^
> probably working on this?) fix the phones so if meter pulses come back
> without dialing, the call is dropped.

That's not the correct fix -- the CORRECT fix is to design the CO
switch so that it recognizes a payphone line and doesn't allow call
completion except to a certain few numbers such as operator, emergency
and the like.  I hardly think that it's the fault of the payphone.


mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Wake-up Call Loop
Date: 19 Mar 92 02:18:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 239, Message 10 of 11

> I stayed in a hotel in the New York City area very recently.  I
> scheduled a wake-up call there (actually woke up ahead of it), and
> when I got the call I noticed it was playing a computer version of
> "Greensleeves" which seemed to loop back and repeat indefinitely.  Is
> there any limit to how many times this loop would occur?

    Until either party hangs up or the nasty little $0.30 chip
burns out.

    I hate these things. They are the number one music on hold
provider in Japan. I believe the chips are made by Epson. The most
popular is Greensleeves -- hard for the ASCAP reptiles to collect for
a Tudor King who died in the late 16th Century. I have also heard
Jingle Bells and other generic copyright free stuff. European PBXs
also sometimes sport these things. In a major marketing blunder a few
years ago, Panasonic introduced a three line phone with hold. Yes, you
guessed it, Greensleeves on hold. To really infuriate, there was no
way to turn it off. Panasonic's Service Department was inundated with
requests to just kill the music.

    As I recall the Panasonic key systems had the option of
Greensleeves or real music on hold. I think you could choose silence
too.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Subject: Re: MCI Offers Grace Period
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 18 Mar 92 21:51:49 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


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

> Sprint gets my vote as the bill with the highest number of
> superfluous pages in it.

I don't know -- I like the extra pages in my Sprint bill.  It gives me
some idea whether I'm using the right calling options.


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 18 Mar 92 21:53:33 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


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

> Overall I have found AT&T "front end" people more knowledgeable than
> their counterparts at other companies.  In fact I found a few years
> ago that MCI was almost "blatantly incompetent" and over a matter not
> even dealing with phone technology, but over a simple billing matter.
> Of course it might have been some data processing incompetency.  They
> were not able to account for a $10.65 overcharge on my bill....

Sprint and $21.25 for me.  I think they said it was for a calling card
call.  It went to the collection agency and the agency gave up after I
sent them copies of two consecutive bills which didn't add up. (Previous
balance on the second was greater than final balance on the first.)


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Date: 15 Mar 92  07:37:55
Subject: Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> Moderator's Note: This thread should be continued in the Telecom
> Privacy Digest ([e-mail]) by interested readers.  PAT]

What is the cooresponding UseNet newsgroup names?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom


[Moderator's Note: At present, there isn't one. But as you probably
noticed in a Digest on Friday, Dennis Rears, Telecom-Priv Moderator is
attempting to merge the mailing list into a new newsgroup. Watch for
details over the next month as the vote is taken.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #246
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06122;
          21 Mar 92 3:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22820
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:58:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19051
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:57:57 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 00:57:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #247

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:57:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 247

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Physical Phone Security (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Physical Phone Security (Bud Couch)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Karin R. Alim)
    Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (Carl Moore)
    Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 11:54:12 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security


Todd Inch writes:

> Well, personally I never worry much about it.  But, if I were truly
> worried I'd probably put my own locking steel box right over top of
> the demarc and a piece of pipe or steel conduit over the cable from
> the demarc to the earth/sky, which should probably "legally" be done
> without disconnecting the telco's wire from their side of the demarc.

Try U Guard, available from your local outside plant supplier, and
secure it with tamperproof bolts.  This is the stuff used to protect
the first six or so feet of cable as it runs up a pole.  The lock box
isn't a bad idea, but unless you will be sure to be around to unlock
it, put a breakaway padlock on it. A pretty good hammer blow is
necessary to break them.  They are generally available from industrial
safety supppliers.  Be sure to put a note on it telling the repairman
he can break it to save you from being charged for an extra service
call.

> IMHO -- overhead drops are more secure than underground.  Those
> semi-buried green pedastals used on underground are far from secure --
> I've seen quite a few left with the screws loose or the cover
> completely off -- if I were to steal service from others, that's how
> I'd do it.  Also -- people tend to notice people on poles more than
> people working on the ground.  (Slipping alligator clips back into
> pocket: "Oh, I noticed this cover loose and thought I'd just have a
> peek before I tightned it up for them.")

I haven't seen too many peds that are tight.  Usually they are left
loose for the next person.  The correct tool to open one is called a
can wrench, and is avaiable from most any supplier, as well as from
Jensen, SPC and similar mail order datacom suppliers.


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

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

From: kentrox![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Physical Phone Security
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:00:45 GMT


I remember someone making a spread-spectrum-over-telephone-pairs
system about eight or nine years ago. It was suppose to allow for
remote meter reading, alarm monitoring, etc, all completely
non-intrusively. The only effect was to raise the idle noise on the
line by about 4 dB. If the line was typical (in the 18 dBrnC0 range)
it was completely inaudible. If the signal went away, the alarm
company was alerted.

Anybody know what happened to the company that was pushing this, or the
technolgy?


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 09:44:01 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> I'm not a NET network traffic engineer, but I would say it is very
> likely that the majority of traffic destined outside of your local
> exchange goes through a tandem.  While some traffic to adjacent
> exchanges may go through HU (High Usage = direct) trunks, most
> intra-LATA interoffice, as well as all inter-LATA and operator traffic
> probably goes to a tandem.

   Dave, I'm not a traffic engineer either, but I deal with their
mistakes often.  Some areas (higher density) use "direct" trunks for
the majority of intra-LATA calls, particularly within a metro area.
Tandem switching of such calls is useful only to carry unusual peaks
(e.g., high outgoing traffic peaks to/from one switch to many others
that is not during peak times elsewhere) or to save on some long
facility routes (e.g., cross-LATA trunks may be more expensive than
the cost of a few more tandem trunks + added tandem costs).  It's a
non-trivial engineering problem to trade off the cost of added tandem
capacity and two short circuits used XX% of the time with a longer
direct circuit used YY% of the time.

Steven S. Brack wrote:

> Could overflow calls be routed through these HU trunks to another
> tandem?  Of course, I don't know that it would be the best way to
> handle things, but surely 911 and operator could be routed so that you
> can actually reach help.

   One could certainly route overflow calls indirect through any
number (within reason) of other COs.  Modern End Offices (COs) can
tandem calls and overflow in fairly complex ways.  BUT one must keep
in mind that the "focused overload" on a single number is a relatively
rare occurrence, compared to the "mass overload" that natural
disasters, etc. can generate.  For example, if the switch was smart
enough to overflow calls to HU trunks, how would it "know" that a
high-volume number wasn't to route that way also?

   And the last thing you want to do in a "mass overload" is try
multiple alternate routes to reach destinations that are busy or
un-reachable.  Since the two types of overload look the same to a
given switch, it can only respond in a manner designed to handle the
more severe "mass overload" situation.  Network Management's job is to
assess the true cause of overload and inform the COs of the proper
response -- this could include "gapping" calls to a particular DN, or
NPA, or NPA-NXX at a high percentage, such that most are quickly
rejected at the originating CO.

   Your suggestion that 911 and operator traffic be routed in a
different manner is a good one.  In fact, in many LECs, specific
circuits are dedicated to 911 calls -- this is both a necessity to get
full "E911" functionality and a reasonable means of allocating the
"costs" of 911 service.  LEC operator access is also usually over
dedicated circuits, but in many cases unsuccessful callers to a
particular "concert ticket" number will attempt to use the LEC
operator to complete the calls.  So those circuits get busy as well.
In addition, the ability to reach an operator may not help if the
operator's access to the desired number is through the same set of
switches undergoing the circuit overload.

> Also, isn't it generally a provision in the phone company's contract
> with you that if your telephone use adversely affects their network,
> they can disconnect you?  Is that done in situations like this?

   As usual, the size/power of the "affecting user" can influence the
type of actions available to an LEC.  A large university with
disconnected service would cause lots of PR problems for all those
involved.  In these situations, a series of discussions with the
university would usually lead to a reasonable solution -- such as
managing the load by staggering it in time.  Or, if the calling
population is restricted to a small area, "call gapping" or other
network management controls could be activated in advance in the
affected switches.


Al Varney -- my own opinions, not AT&T's

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Rock Concert Stars Jam Local Phone Service
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 15:54:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> [e-mail] (david.g.lewis) (tha's me) writes:

>> I'm not a NET network traffic engineer, but I would say it is very
>> likely that the majority of traffic destined outside of your local
>> exchange goes through a tandem.  While some traffic to adjacent
>> exchanges may go through HU (High Usage = direct) trunks, most
>> intra-LATA interoffice, as well as all inter-LATA and operator traffic
>> probably goes to a tandem.

> Could overflow calls be routed through these HU trunks to another
> tandem?  Of course, I don't know that it would be the best way to
> handle things, but surely 911 and operator could be routed so that you
> can actually reach help.

In theory, yes; in actuality, the signaling over any HU trunks would
be standard MF, whereas signaling to the tandem for OSPS and
inter-LATA calls would be EAMF (sending ANI and II digits to the
tandem).  Calls could conceivably be completed via another EO, but
without the ANI information.

Plus, there's a high probability that any other EO which has high
enough traffic to the EO in question to warrant HU trunks would
subtend the same tandem.

> Also, isn't it generally a provision in the phone company's contract
> with you that if your telephone use adversely affects their network,
> they can disconnect you?  Is that done in situations like this?

I don't think I've ever heard of this being applied in a situation
like this.  If I hooked up a bank of 100 Demon Dialers, maybe; but I
think a telco would be hard pressed to claim that someone repeatedly
trying to make a legitimate phone call would constitute "adverse
affect" ...

Disclaimer: see above ... anything I claim to know about this stuff comes
from general telcoish knowledge, not any inside information ...


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

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

Date:  Wed, 18 Mar 1992 11:32:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card


Let me say up front that I like Sprint, so you can psychologically edit
my comments from that point of view.

[e-mail] (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

> I for one am glad that AT&T introduced it's new calling card which can
> only be used on the AT&T or LEC networks.

It's actually past due -- every other phone carrier had to do it, why
not AT&T?  AT&T was getting a lot of business from RBOC or LEC phone
cards that predated divestiture (and probably post-divestiture too,
now that I think of it) that the other carriers couldn't participate
in.  I couldn't make a PIC on my phone card as I could on my phone
line.  Why should AT&T automatically get my business?

> Moreover, there was no 01+ dialing. Since 011+ was blocked as well
> (for home customers and roamers), there is no way to make interna-
> tional calls.

That sounds like a problem with your cell company, not with Sprint.
We were using Sprint for international even when the local CO couldn't
handle IDDD, over direct access lines.  They have trouble getting us
to places like Siberia and other non-direct-dial access countries, but
everything else goes through fine!

> If you dialed 0 + USA/Canada number, and hoped that once
> you got a Sprint operator that s/he could complete the call, well,
> forget it. They would only process the call you dialed in. So, if you
> hit 0 + 213-555-1212, they could only put through the call to that
> number, and not substitute an international one for you.

If I were the company subscribing to fraud-resistant services and that
company let you extend a dialed call to another number, I'd drop the
service.  Yes, it's inconvenient for you, but fraud mounts up fast if
you have determined phreakers breaking in.  I would bet AT&T will have
the same rules.

> I called in December to complain about this, and they couldn't care
> less.  The usual "fraud" story. When I asked them why we were forced
> to use Sprint, they said "Sprint is cheaper", to which I said "You
> mean cheaper for you -- you get a kickback or something of that
> nature."

There are probably kickbacks, and in volume Sprint's prices are pretty
competitive, but they also may like Sprint because their "hospitality"
network (set up for hotels and universities, and probably for cellular
companies, too) is very well-thought out and, IMHO very professional.
Every call that comes in is identified with our University's name, and
Sprint will tell our students how to dial on-campus calls, how to
reach the police or an ambulance, and provide other customer services
specific to our location, such as blocking all third party calls from
our exchange to our exchange.  When asked, these features weren't
available from anyone else.

> Aww ... isn't that just too bad? They will be required to provide
> access to the LD service which the majority of their customers wish to
> use, but were previously blocked from doing so. Don't you feel sorry
> for them?

And if they have to do the same for the carrier of choice for every
customer, how long do you think it will be before your rates reflect
the cost?  I question your comment "... which the majority of their
customers wish to use ..." As from my experience, the vast majority of
people carry RBOC cards and would prefer to continue using them.
Yeah, if questioned, most people have *heard* of AT&T, but I'll bet
when they make a call, what they really care about is that the call
goes through at a competitive price, and beyond that who cares who
carries it?  AAMOF, I'd like to see the RBOCs given permission to
carry calls in their entire area (for instance, give NYNEX permission
to carry calls between New York, Mass, NH, Maine, etc.)

> AT&T should be commended for its decision!

I don't believe the decision was AT&T's, but part of the divestiture
requirements that continue to seep down as technology improves to
separate AT&T from the RBOCs.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 21:09 GMT
From: "Karim R. Alim" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment


In Volume 12, Issue 234 [e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> Can I get one single cell phone number assigned to two different cell
> phones?  Suppose I want to own a portable cell phone... and a car
> mounted one....  I'd like to have just ONE phone number for people to

The Moderator noted:

> The answer in each case is no.  You cannot have the same number on two
> different cell phones at the same time.

On 3/16 Bell Atlantic announced plans to make available a "One Person,
One Number" service intended to obviate the need for one person to
have multiple phone numbers for cell phones, office/home land lines,
pagers, etc.  Bell Atlantic is buying some software from "Access Plus
Communications, Inc." in Bellevue, WA.  I believe I read somewhere
that Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems will have exclusive rights to this
software in the area serviced by Bell Atlantic.  The press release
specifically says "cellular phones" [plural] so I assume it can deal
with the scenarios you mentioned (more than one cell phone is turned
on).

Of course, this could be nothing more than a fancy-schmancy call
forwarding scheme, but I think it will probably be a little more
sophisticated than that since Bell Atlantic plans to price the service
between $15-$25/month "depending on various features," whatever THAT
means.

Planned availability is "this summer" in the Baltimore-Washington market.

Bell Atlantic is also testing a Motorola system designed to provide a
single phone number for multiple phones.

Prodigy users can [JUMP]: COMPANY NEWS and enter "BEL" as the ticker
symbol or "BELL ATLANTIC" as the company name for more info.  Or you
can just call Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems ...


431-5252           MCI Mail
[e-mail]  interim NREN (aka Internet)
PJGW00A            Prodigy (PRODIGY???)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 11:44:58 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch


Also, there was the note from me about 213-718 Gardena NOT being in
area 310.  It's apparently cellular, too.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 17:32:06 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch


Yes, from what I understand, all of the 213 cellular prefixes are
staying in 213.  When the 415/510 split happened, all cellular stayed
in 415, with new cellular prefixes being opened in 510 and a free
number change to anyone who wanted a 510 number.  This does not affect
the "location," though, as the Bay Area has a special arrangement for
cellular in that the cellular prefixes are local calls from just about
anywhere in the area.  Also, there's really no fixed service address
for a cellular subscriber that could be used to determine on which
side of the split they belong.  I know there are several instances of
a prefix staying on the "wrong" side of a split, but this is no quite
the same case as what Pacific Bell has done with their Bishop Ranch
numbers -- that prefix is still in BOTH area codes even though
permissive dialing is over.  No other prefix has this feature to my
knowledge.  The cellular ones are not like this -- they all stayed in
the old prefix.


Steve Forrette

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #247
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01510;
          21 Mar 92 15:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01431
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 01:38:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29415
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 01:37:57 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 01:37:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #248

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Mar 92 01:38:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 248

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: Caller ID Dilemma (was Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67) (Jack Decker)
    Re: Radio Contest Lines (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Metering Pulses (Bud Couch)
    Re: Wake-up Call Loop (Bud Couch)
    Re: US Post Office Bar Codes (Robert L. Ullmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 09:53:26 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


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

> [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
>> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  Then it waits for a
>> response.  For a collect call we ask for their name, the call is
>> completed, then the person [hopefully it's a person!] is told they
>> have a collect call from "..." will they accept the charges ?  Say yes
>> to accept the charges or no.  They may say yes/no at any point here as
>> well.

BTW, the billed party can ask for the operator here by voice, pressing
0 or flashing the phone hook.

> So if some poor sucker has an answering machine that says "Believe it
> or not, yes, you got the answer machine again.  I'm not at home so
>         ---
> leave your name and number and I'll call you back when I return ...
> BEEP!"  then I can call collect and leave messages at his cost?

Back again to this old post.  Yes, we're automating billing
acceptance.  At one point this feature was not used, I assumed it was
turned off for good but that was incorrect ... sorry for that
confustion.

Our system does have answering machine detection built into it.  If it
determines the billed party is actually an answering machine we return
to the calling party and report that the call can't be completed.
However, answering machine detection isn't ever going to work 100% of
the time, so what you describe could happen, but the calling party
almost always hangs up on an answering machine.  No screams from the
studio audience please :-)


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies
Date: 19 Mar 92 10:20:18 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> What they are asking for isn't the ability to place a wiretap or not.
> They are asking for a means to efficiently control wiretaps with a
> computer in exactly the same manner that the telco monitors and
> attaches equipment automatically for testing.  And not only would that
> be extremely efficient, it would also be uncontrolled and untraceable.
> No paper trail and no witnesses.  Think about the potential for abuse!

They're asking for more than that!  According to Mitch Kapor
(yesterday at the 2nd Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy,
from which I write), the proposed legislation calls for the DOJ and
FCC to be able to conduct PRIVATE meetings to establish standards for
digital signalling, to be able to LICENSE manufacturers to produce
legal (tappable) equipment, and to impose fines of up to $10,000 PER
DAY for use of non-tappable equipment.

The fundamental purpose of the nation's telecommunications
infrastructure is NOT the facilitation on criminal investigations, but
communications between people. Do we really want the government to
have the power to approve every proposed change to telecom technology?
To slow advances down to glacial, bureaucratic speeds? to allow people
to be fined into bankruptcy on the basis of secret laws?  What kind of
society do we want?  Sure, wiretapping is a good way to catch
criminals, but let's not make wiretapping the overriding purpose of
the telecom system and let government get its tentacles into every
nook and cranny of the telecom system in the process.


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]
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 23:45:57 GMT


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

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

> There is no FAR 91.91. FAR 91.19 (which you based your first posting
> on) has nothing to do with electronic equipment. It covers carriage of
> drugs.

> However, 91.21, does say, in part (after corrections to your post):

>>   (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
>> may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
>> allow the operation of any portable electronic
>> device on any of the following U.S. registered civil aircraft:

>> (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
>> carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
>> determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
>> made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device
>> is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be
>> made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft."

>> I think that paragraph (a) coupled with paragraph (c) makes it pretty
>> clear that the Pilot in Command (Captain) does NOT have the authority
>> to give permission, in the case of an air carrier.

> I think that paragraph (a), coupled with paragraph (c), pretty well
> rules out ANYONE allowing the use of electronic equipment. Paragraph
> (a) specifically prohibits the operator from making the decision that
> paragraph (c) specifically says the operator is allowed to make.

> (a) ... nor may any operator ... allow the operation ...
> (c) the determination ... shall be made by that operator ...

> Of course, this all ignores the very first qualifier to 91.21(a) --
> "Except as provided in paragraph (b)...". And paragraph (b) does not
> specify WHO in the operator's organization is responsible for the
> determination of non-interference. Nothing in 91.21 says that it can't
> be the PIC, acting as a representative of the operator. The only
> effect of 91.21 is that the PIC cannot act on his own; his action must
> be on the behalf of the operator, and that attaches responsibility to
> the operator.

> [Moderator's Note: There, everyone! Is this now completely clear (as
> mud) to all of you?   PAT]

OK, OK, I admit it, I 'typo'd' the FAR Number, but you found it
anyway. Since paragraph (b) was lost in the string of >quotes, I add
it here, again.

    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to:
        (1) Portable voice recorders;
        (2) Hearing aids;
        (3) Heart pacemakers;
        (4) Electric shavers; or
        (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
            aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
            navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
            is to be used.

No, paragraph (b) doesn't specify WHO in the operators organization is
responsible for the determination. But paragraph (c) makes it pretty
clear that it's NOT the pilot in command.

Somewhere lost in the shuffle (and I can't find a copy now) I also had
posted some other supporting data which made clear the FAA/FCC
interpretation of the issue. The bottom line, though, is "You can't
use a Cell Phone in a commercial aircraft in the air". "The Pilot
can't give you permission"."The operator (air carrier) won't give you
permission". DON'T DO IT.



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, IA


[Moderator's Note: Also I should point out that when Mr. Stanley's
message appeared some confusion here caused additional > marks to
appear where they should not have.  Whenever possible, hold direct
quotes to a minimum in REplies, particularly recursive (>> and >>>)
ones; paraphrasing in a line or two when appropriate. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 18:16:54 GMT


> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Uwe
> Hagendorf) writes:

> For more than four weeks now I get calls all around the clock, about
> 10-15 times in 24 hours, day and night.

And the TELECOM Moderator noted:

> but in the USA the telco owes him the right to the peaceful and normal
> use of his telephone as per his contract with the company, and
> tariffs, etc. Here the calls could be treated as an annoyance or

Unless the calls are coming from some misprint in a computer magazine
or on a BBS about a new BBS close to Uwe's number. If you've ever had
a slew of calls from someone asking about the car you supposedly were
selling, you know what I mean.

Possible solutions:

  1. Hook up a modem and ask a caller where he got the number .. then
          seek a retraction from that source.
  2. Explain to a telco supervisor what happened, and if you are not
          taking your frustrations out on them, they will often help.
  3. Wait it out ... even by now, most of the potential callers
          probably realize its not a BBS.

  4. Take the phone off the hook for a year, and go on vacation.

Now, imagine someone has gotten the pager number of a night employee
inverted, and you get calls at all hours about "be sure to cover Dan's
place." You quickly have to become a detective, or change your pager.


Barry

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:22:44 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Dilemma (was Pre-dialer Wanted to Add *67)


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil
Howard) writes:

> I wonder how many people will BOTH want to block their number data on
> all their outgoing calls while refusing to accept blocked incoming calls.

 ... and Pat (the Moderator) notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I always do that! Star Sixty Seven everything, yet
> watch my display gleefully on all incoming calls ... :)    PAT]

If I were in an area where Caller ID were available at a flat rate (I
doubt I will ever buy it as long as the bogus charge for each number
delivered is in effect), I would do exactly the same thing.  Why?
Because I want to KNOW who's collecting my number.  If someone refused
my call because I had Caller ID turned off, then I'd have the option
to decide whether to place the call again without the blocking.  I
might decide NOT to do that if, say, I was calling a business and I
felt there was a high probability that my number might be added to a
telemarketing list.

It's like the difference between someone asking for my name and
address and me giving it to them voluntarily, and someone sneaking a
peek at my wallet or private papers when I'm not looking.  If someone
wants my number, I'd at least like to KNOW that they want it, and make
the decision whether to give it to them myself!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Radio Contest Lines
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:24:41 GMT


> "contest pigs" who spend all day listening to several stations and run
> three (or more) phone lines on speed dial, trying to win.

Here's what I did several years back (the statute of limitations has
run, hasn't it?):

A station here in L.A. had both L.A. and Orange County numbers.  By
experimenting, I found that the O.C. lines were just call forwarding
to some number in L.A., but not to the number they give out to people
in L.A. (that was step and this ring was crossbar).

I called the switchroom of the C.O. for the Orange County lines and
conned the switchperson into giving me the number that these lines
were forwarding to.

When I felt like winning contests, I would make the forwarded-to
number busy and call the O.C. line twice (using two lines or
three-way) to busy out both of their Remote Call Forwarding paths.
Now, anyone calling that number would get a busy.  But I could still
get through to the station by calling the L.A. number that these lines
forwarded to.  In that way no one but me was able to get through to
the lines meant for people in Orange County.  So at that point I had a
50% chance of winning; for every four calls they answered (two L.A.
lines and two for O.C.), two were me!

It sure helped to have five lines in my house to help pull this off.
But that was back in high school.  Now I earn an honest living; I run
900 numbers.


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 824-5454

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

From: kentrox![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Metering Pulses
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:12:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Tom Gray) writes:

> There are special techniqies required to keep these reversals
> inaudible to the subscriber. The pulses are described a "bathtub"
> shaped. The edges are very slow so that there is no sharp click at the
> reversal time. As you suspected, the edges take several 10's of
> millisconds to complete.

And those techniques are not documented *anywhere*. When I worked at
Lenkurt we had a contract with TAS (Singapore) for some PCM systems.
We spent a lot of time quieting down the "pops" generated by the
required MOJ circuitry.

We wound up negotiating a change of spec with the customer -- we
exempted the reversal periods from the 21 dBrnC0 idle noise requirement.
I think we managed to keep them under 35 dBrnC0, though.  I use the
"we" in the editorial sense here, I was in Singapore tap-dancing with
the customer. Stan Lee actually did the test and design work.


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

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

From: kentrox![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wake-up Call Loop
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:38:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> I stayed in a hotel in the New York City area very recently.  I
> scheduled a wake-up call there (actually woke up ahead of it), and
> when I got the call I noticed it was playing a computer version of
> "Greensleeves" which seemed to loop back and repeat indefinitely.  Is
> there any limit to how many times this loop would occur?

You were on an AE PBX. The "tune" is actually in ROM, so there is no
limit as to the number of times it will loop. That is why it sounded
like a "computer" version -- it was! (As to how long you can stand
listening to it ...)

There were about five tunes available, if I remember correctly. The
only other one I can think of off the top of my head was _The
Entertainer_ -- the Scott Joplin tune used as a theme for the movie
_The Sting_.

One of the other things I remember about it was that all of the
melodies used were in the public domain, just to avoid the kind of
hassles from ASCAP and BMI that were discussed here recently.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert L Ullmann)
Subject: Re: US Post Office Bar Codes
Organization: The World in Boston
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:18:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Tony Harminc) writes:

> My postal code is M4S 1E2, just in case anyone sees an algorithm at a
> glance that relates it to 00101-2404 :-)

Sure: 00101 is Canada, 24 is 10 + 1 + 13 (M is 13th letter), 04 is 4.
This routes it to the region in Canada. (The PO there actually
structures the code M4 S1 E2, with each pair identifying a level. Or
so I was told. :-) The 3/3 break is just to make it "easier" to write.


Robert Ullmann   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #248
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20486;
          22 Mar 92 0:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05239
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:54:13 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18055
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:54:05 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:54:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #249

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Mar 92 22:54:07 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 249

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phoneco Winds of Change (Jack Decker)
    Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (Tony Safina)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Armando P. Stettner)
    Re: Voicemail Message Indicator (Bob Nelson)
    Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (John Higdon)
    Re: "Feature Phone" Question (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Reach Out and Rob Someone! (B. J. Herbison)
    Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Rich Holland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:23:08 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phoneco Winds of Change


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

> [Aside from the {Information Week} article, I don't know who wrote
> what here; [e-mail] (Jack Decker) is forwarding
> something posted to Fidonet by Don Kimberlin but I don't know who
> wrote the comments at the end of the article.]

All of the comments were in the original article; I didn't add
anything at the end.

> [Moderator's Note: You mention everything happening in the inner city,
> which is true. But that's how MCI got started: skimming the cream and
> leaving the losers to AT&T. I've yet to see a competitor of AT&T or
> the local telcos start out from scratch, like the Bell System had to
> do over a century ago.  No wonder they can give such cheap rates.  PAT]

I'd like to comment on this.  I live WAY up in the boonies and when
"Equal Access" was implemented (in 1985), our only "choice" was AT&T
(I felt that was the WRONG choice, so I pressed the matter and finally
had my line set up with NO carrier.  That worked fine until they
loaded a new version of the software that blew away my access to 800
numbers, so the local switch technician had to temporarily re-enable
my "dial 1" access to AT&T until the buggy software was replaced).

In any case, the Michigan Public Service Commission decreed that any
interexchange carrier operating in the state of Michigan had to be
licensed, and that one of the conditions of licensing was that the
carrier had to offer service statewide by (I think it was) 1991.
However, they later discovered that under federal law, they had no
authority to regulate non-facilities-based carriers, so the statewide
service requirement only applied to AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.  So,
sometime in early 1991 they lifted the requirement, saying that it had
been substantially complied with (the only holdouts were some small
exchanges served by independent telcos, and in most cases it was the
telco that was the holdout).

I think that the big thing the law accomplished was that it put
everyone on notice that statewide service was expected.  I think it
might have caused Michigan Bell to upgrade their facilities in the
Upper Peninsula, in order to provide enough circuits to meet the needs
of the alternate carriers.  In any case, in early 1991 the additional
circuit capacity became available (you could tell the difference; all
the noise and hiss on toll calls went away!) and suddenly it seemed
like everybody was up here... MCI, Sprint, ITT Metromedia, and even
some regional carriers.  Oh, I will grant that we don't have the
number of choices that someone living in lower MIchigan would, but
there are still plenty of carriers to choose from.

But even prior to 1991 (back in the mid '80's), an Upper Peninsula
carrier called Superior Telecom began operation using local access
numbers, and later on, 950 access numbers.  Now they also offer Dial 1
access, but I'm not sure how competitive they are with the big
carriers.

My point is this: First, it appears that the bottleneck to the
offering of additional choices was Michigan Bell.  They had to upgrade
their facilities to provide enough circuits for the other carriers
(actually, MCI and Sprint did have a limited number of circuits into
the area starting in about '87 or '88, but they were quite noisy,
frequently out of service, and definitely substandard.  You could use
them if you really wanted to by dialing the carrier's 10XXX code, but
"officially" service from those carriers wasn't available here until
the new circuits were available).

Second, even the carriers that weren't required by law to offer
service here have done so.  And you have to realize that the Upper
Peninsula only has something like 3% of the population of the state of
Michigan, so it's not as though there is big money to be made here.

So when you talk about local competition and say that the local
carriers will "cherry pick" the most profitabile areas, I'm sure that
will be true ... at first!  But these carriers will want to acquire
more customers, and my guess is that if the legal restrictions went
away, there would be enough frustrated phone phreaks that would like
to own their own phone company that would start up smaller firms out
in the hinterlands.  And, you can discourage "cherry picking" by
specifying mandatory service areas (perhaps an entire county, or LATA,
or a minimum service area of n contiguous square miles, within n years
of obtaining a license to operate).

Who would have thought that when MCI started using Microwave service
to interconnect companies with high traffic volumes that only 15 years
later I'd be able to pick up my phone in the boonies of upper Michigan
and place a long distance call using their facilities, at a cost of
less than half of what AT&T would have charged if there were no
competition?  Think about that, and then think about what might be
available to us in, say, 2007, if our regulators will only let it
happen.  Personally, I'd love to have free Touch-Tone and Custom
Calling Services, a flat rate for local calls, and a 25 mile wide
local calling area.  My local Bell company COULD offer that, but they
won't NOW ... let some real competition into the market, though, and
just see what happens!


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

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

From: disk![e-mail] (tony)
Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 02:27:24 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I searched the archives, but couldn't find the test number to dial to
> get a ringback on phones in NJ Bell (Bell Atlantic) territory.  I did
> find 958, which is automated ANI announcement.  Anyone know the
> ringback or other interesting tests here?

    I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know I once
had the number for ringback in Louisville.  I had asked the phone
operator for the number and she said there was no such number.  I
short time later I found out she lied to me because the procedure for
eliciting ringback in my area was posted on a local BBS.

As I see it, ringback can only be used by a phone company subscriber
on the same line as he/she places the call from. What is the big deal
 -- if a subscriber who PAYS for phone service finds a particular
service useful, why doesn't the phone company bend over backwards to
provide the asked for information?  I don't know why other people have
an interest in ring-back -- I have *absolutely* no idea what kind of
mischief can be caused with the use of ringback.

My interest in ringback is as a wakeup -- many people are hard to
rouse from a deep sleep, but if a phone rings they'll wake up fully
alert and ready to engage in meaningful conversation (at least half
the time).  Well, when I need to wake someone I like to use ringback
to make our phone ring (or whoseever phone wherever I might be).  Of
course ... since the phone company didn't acknowledge they had ringback
available I have only used it extremely sparingly cause maybe it's
illegal.

Actually, THAT is exactly what I want to know.  Is using ringback
legal?  If it is I will probably start using it frequently.  If it's
not I'll quit calling it and go back to my old practice of calling the
operator and telling her I want to adjust the loudness of our phone's
ring.  Unfortunately many operators won't do this any more unless you
get a real sweetie, or unless you lie and say a partially deaf
relative just moved in with you.  But if the phone company is going to
lie to you, what's wrong with lying to them?  Unless, of course, using
ringback is illegal ... and that's what I hope this message will
resolve.


Tony Safina    disk!tony@uunet!uu!net


[Moderator's Note: Using 'ringback' is not illegal. That function is
however for testing procedures only by telephone technicians and is
not tariffed for use by the general public. I find your excuse for
using it to be a little strange however. Since there is no such thing
as a time-delayed ringback (i.e. enter it now and get ringback eight
hours from now), you obviously cannot use it to wake yourself. If you
prefer to take the trouble to dial the ringback code and sit there
letting it ring until some sleeping person wakes up to 'answer the
phone' as opposed to simply shaking them or calling them then that's
your business, I guess. You could however use various 'store and
forward' type services which *would* allow a delayed message delivery
until the time specified, then call and deliver a wake up message. Of
course you'd have to pay for using those.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Armando P. Stettner)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 04:28:32 GMT


It has been asked whether or not it is possible to have two different
cellular phones answering to the same phone number.  Pat (the
ever-present Moderator) has said the answer is no.  In general, I
believe this to be correct.  I believe the problem, however, is an
oversight in the design of the mobile telephone switching office
systems, specifically, the database which does the lookups to verify
the correct associations.

Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned, etc.?


armando    [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 13:03:54 CST
From: Bob Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voicemail Message Indicator
Organization: Interphase Corp., Dallas


The answer is yes, BUT. The light is neon and is powered from the line
card. Voltages vary but it's around or above 65VDC. The BUT is most of
the work has to be done on the line card and data base. What I'm
trying to say is the switch has to be able to handle message waiting
or it won't work.  The mod to the phone is one resistor and a neon
lamp.

Hope this helps.


Bob   I don't speak for INTERPASE and INTERPHASE doesn't speak for ME.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 02:14 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes (after apparently waking up
from a deep sleep :-):

> Now, is this playing on a level field?  I would imagine that many of
> the Pacific Bell offices in the Bishop Ranch facility are for the
> unregulated products they offer, but they are able to take advantage
> of their monopoly position that no other service provider has access
> to in that their numbers are still accessible in both area codes, and
> probably will be for the indefinite future.

Is this the first example of "taking advantage of a monopoly position"
that you have observed from Pac*Bell? This company pushes its status
as "The Phone Company" at every twist and turn.

The big one, of course, is Centrex. How many equipment vendors do you
know of that can be reached with a three-digit number (such as 611)?
This applies to Pac*Bell voicemail including the Message Center as
well. Also, how many vendors are entitled to use the 811-XXXX numbers
that are used toll free within California?

For many years, one could call any Cellular One (PacTel/McCaw) number
FOR FREE from any Bay Area Pac*Bell payphone. GTE Mobilnet did not
have such access. When I finally enquired at length about this and
demanded to see applicable tariffs and rate structures, the "feature"
disappeared.

As long as we have ignoramuses such as Hollings spewing forth rotten
telecommunications laws, we will have the Sisters Bell scrambling for
every dollar that can be extracted from the public via that prized
monopoly position.


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

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: "Feature Phone" Question
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 15:26:25 GMT


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

> I hooked up a feature-rich Panasonic phone (w/ LED display, full
> memory, alpha keypad, etc.) to the phone jack of my internal modem and
> my computer's power supply sputtered twice and blew a cap!! It's
> smoking now ... and has to be replaced.

> Do these phones draw that much power through the phone line? ... I
> cannot think of anything else that could have caused it since I cannot
> find any shorts on the motherboard.

If the phone shorts the second pair out to signal to a key system
(like many office phones do), and the modem provides power on a second
pair for some reason, something like this can happen.


scott

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 08:09:05 PST
From: B.J.  20-Mar-1992 1108 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reach Out and Rob Someone!


> The latest: phone holdups
> This one was too good to not pass on to Telecom. I can't wait for this
> idea to spread to the telemarketing industry. ....

What do you mean, `spread to the telemarketing industry'?  I suspect
that the thief learned this trick from observing telescum!  At least
the thief shows up in person rather than just impersonally taking
credit card numbers.


B.J.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:08:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lawrence Chiu) writes:

> enhanced features -- Centrex comes to mind.  What irks me the most is,
> although call waiting is freely available, there was no apparent ready
> way to disable the feature for a call -- essential if you use your
> phone for modem traffic (the call waiting tone almost invariably
> causes your modem to drop the line). Finally I hit upon subscribing to

Almost all modems can, with appropriate Hayes commands, be told how
long the carrier must drop before they throw up their hands and drop
the line.  If you set this register (standard Hayes usage is S10) to a
value much bigger than S9 (the carrier detect response time), then the
bleep from call waiting will not drop the line. It might lose some
characters but the line will still be up.


[Moderator's Note: The problem with your solution is you still have to
consider the modem *on the other end* of your connection. It also
expects to hear a constant carrier, and if it loses the carrier for
some period of time it will hang up; your carrier will be lost while
the call-waiting beep is out there. Both ends have to cooperate on a
long period without carrier from the other end.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Holland)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Date: 20 Mar 92 17:43:58 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University


[e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

>> The new system will speak the phrase "AT&T.  Say collect, third
>> number, person, calling card, or operator now."  ...

> Oops, the bong tone is still played by the switch; we only start
> talking if the customer times out by doing nothing after so many
> seconds.  If our system starts talking you can still enter your card
> number and the call will go through as before.

What about regular toll-calls?  If the customer fails to drop his
quarters into the COCOT after a given amout of time, they'll get the
bong tone and an operator.  With the new system, will they get a
recording, or a person?


Rich Holland             | INTERNET:  [e-mail]
419 Marlatt Hall         | BITNET  :  holland@ksuvm
Manhattan, KS  66506     | UUCP    :  ...rutgers!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!holland


[Moderator's Note: Not true. Most COCOTS look like regular phone lines
to the telco; and regular lines don't get demands for payment every
minute or two. It is up to the COCOT to collect the money and control
the connection.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #249
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22374;
          22 Mar 92 1:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31102
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:58:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30700
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:59 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #250

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Mar 92 23:58:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 250

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Kenneth R Crudup)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Sidney Marshall)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles ([e-mail])
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Michael G. Katzmann)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Colin Plumb)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Conrad C. Nobili)
    Re: Myth Busting (Bob Morris)
    Re: Customer Service  (Part 2): BT (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 16:05:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) says:

> Can anyone explain this phenomenon:

> Often, when I'm watching TV (most recently a broadcast station,
> through cable) I find an annoying buzz (sounds like poorly grounded
> equipment) whenever there are superimposed titles (e.g., captions,
> names, etc.).

What's happening (not the most technical explanation, but will work)
is that the captions are usually white, or anyways, very high
intensity. Since the picture part of TV is reverse A(mplitude)
M(odulated), the large swing between the sync tips and the captions
works its way past the limiters in the FM audio part, which rides on
as a subcarrier 4.5 mHz above the video carrier. Hence the 30Hz buzz.

It's usually the fault of the recieving equipment.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    [e-mail]
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home [phone]     Home Fax [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 09:40:40 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles


Television pictures are transmitted by vestigial sideband amplitude
modulation with black being high power (90%) and white being low power
(10%). Sound is transmitted as a frequency modulated signal with a
carrier frequency 4.5 MHz above the picture carrier. Most TV sets
demodulate the AM picture and then detect the sound as a 4.5 MHz
signal in the video signal. If the level of the picture carrier drops
too low then the sound carrier is affected and will cause a "buzz".

Generally TV stations monitor their signals to conform to FCC
requirements (one of them being to radiate at least 10% video carrier
at all times (not talking about certain problems with the color
subcarrier)) so the problem is probably with your set. Generally this
buzz shows up with pictures containing a lot of white. If the video
carrier sits on the wrong part of the IF bandpass then the video
carrier can disappear. You might be able to reduce the buzz by
adjusting the fine tuning control (if these still exist on modern
sets).

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

From: "USENET News System" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Date: 20 Mar 92 19:20:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


The "buzz" you hear sometimes when graphics are superimposed on an
otherwise "quiet" picture is due to overmodulation of the video
signal; you can think of it as the video signal overrunning the audio
signal.

It's probably caused by transmission equipment from the station or
cable company; not your set.

If the station is indeed overmodulating video, then an all-white
screen should generate similar "buzz."  Otherwise, it was probably
"recorded" when they added the graphics.


Rudy    [e-mail]   University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania    USA

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 06:39:27 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles


It's more likely in your TV and is (if I remember my digital
electronics course correctly) and overdrive of the audio section which
gets fed into the video circuit (horizontal, I think).

Unfortunately, I don't have the text anymore :-(.


Dave

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

From: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Date: 21 Mar 92 18:36:12 GMT
Reply-To: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


It is a tunning problem with your set. The 'inter-carrier' sound
system used by your receiver puts the whole video+audio signal through
a meat grinder and out comes the mixing products, one of which is the
difference of the sound carrier with the vision carrier (4.5MHz). The
vision carrier is amplitude modulated (negetively), that is Sync Tip
is maximum amplitude and peak white minimum amplitude. If the tunning
of your system is off then the 'intercarrier' mixing doesn't work as
well and this is evident during captions because they are peak white
(and thus minimum carrier).  It is not the fault of the broadcaster
(and certainly not of the closed caption people!).



Michael Katzmann      Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV      opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 12:52:22 -0500
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


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

> As an extreme example, Telebit PEP passes about 14000 bps at
> 88.26 baud by encoding up to 511 parallel groups of up to six bits per
> baud.

Minor nit: A Telebit normally operates at 7.something baud (I think
it's 7.355 baud, 1/12 of the rate you quote above), sending 2, 4, or 6
bits per baud on each of 511 frequency bands from (almost) DC to 4
kHz.  I think it's 4 kHz exactly (corresponding to the 8 kHz exactly
sampling rate of phone lines), a multiple-of-512-point FFT, and the DC
part is dropped.  That would make the bands 7.8136 Hz wide.

When traffic is light, they go to a faster baud rate (since no data
can be transmitted in less than a baud) and wider frequency bands, but
the overall bandwidth goes down.

But yeah, it is fun to realize that PEP *lowers* the baud rate to
achieve higher throughput.


Colin

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 16:48:10 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?


[e-mail]  asks:

> As a reminder to me and others, when are COCOTs required to begin
> supporting 10xxx, and when do all LD companies (meaning AT&T) need to
> provide 800 or 950 access?

Short answer:  they'd better already.

 From the FCC News dated July 11, 1991:  (liberally paraphrased)
All carriers must provide an 800 or 950 number by January 11, 1992.

All pay phone providers must unblock 10xxx sequences by January 11, 1992.

Aggregators with non-payphone equipment that will selectively process
10xxx must unblock 10xxx sequences by January 11, 1992 or upon
installation of such equipment (whichever comes first).  Aggregators
(with non-payphone equipment) whose equipment will not selectively
process 10xxx must install equipment to do so by January 11, 1993 if
the cost of such equipment is less than $15.00 per line, and by April
17, 1997 if the cost is greater than $15.00 per line.  All aggregator
equipment installed, manufactured or imported on or after April 17,
1992 must have 10xxx unblocked upon installation.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 04:55:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

[details of attributions deleted -- posts from lvc (l) and me (c)]

c> I grant that you know who we are, but what can you do about it?  I
c> mean all you know is who the *called* party is.

l> You can believe that if you want, but it's wrong.

c>What do you do, use SAS to run cross tabulations on calls?  I
c> don't suppose you'll say ...

l> Sorry, I don't understand your reply.  What's SAS?

A mainframe statistical analysis package.  Big.  Nasty.

This comment was prompted by a possibly-confused story a college
friend of mine told me once.  He was poking around with the wiring in
his apartment, looking for a way to run a connection from the living
room to his bedroom for his terminal.  In the process he found an
extra pair *which had dial tone*.  He was very pleased, needless to
say, and used this to dial in to the computer center with his modem
all nights.  Eventually, his roomies got curious how he was able to do
this without interfering with their phone service and he had to fess
up about the *extra* line.  So, these people started using the free
phone, getting more and more audacious as there was no evidence that
anyone knew about it or that there would ever be a bill for it.

Anyway, they did eventually get a call from the telco types, who
claimed to have figured out who was using the line by doing *traffic
analysis*.  Of course, the only calls to my friend's roomies' parents
were from *two* different numbers in Somerville.  Telco had billing
information for one of these numbers, and the (undoubtedly high)
statistical correlations with the traffic on the mystery line must
have led them to the answer.  The story goes that the telco person was
somewhat proud that they had tracked it down, as they had been trying
to do so for months.  I don't recall why they had such a hard time
with this.  There was something strange about the location of the
wires in the story which might have explained something ...

My guess was simply that you might have to do this kind of analysis if
you don't know who the *caller* is.  Which, BTW, you *don't* from a
payphone ... it struck me that if you were doing this on any kind of
scale you would be using SAS on a mainframe ...

l> In your scenario, there would be records with the calling and called
l> phone numbers and fields indicating a collect call was made and that
l> the call was terminated at a certain point and by which party.  If it
l> happens several times for the same pair of numbers then ...

Yeah, of course ... I was presuming that you never had the same *pair*
of numbers twice, as people trying to beat the system would always be
changing one end or the other. Specifically, in the instance of the
mobile sales person checking in with a home base messaging service,
you would probably figure out pretty quickly that the home base gets
and rejects an inordinate number of collect calls.  But you would have
a hard time identifying the remote caller(s).

I think I see a source of potential confusion.  I had proposed a scam
for one-way transmission of a modicum of data on, say, a nightly
basis.  The model is that of the peripatetic salesperson calling her
sales results in to the home office each day.  From a (different city
and a) different phone each time ... seemed like a pretty realistic
scenario to me when it popped into my head.  I mean I didn't exactly
have to wrack my tiny little brain to come up with this ... you are
right that a setup with both stations at fixed numbers, exchanging
data over the course of several rejected collect calls, would be very
easy to detect and stop.

And I don't see how you stop disgruntled (ex-)operators from going to
all of their favorite payphones and recording unpleasantries with your
system and having them delivered by it for free to any of their least
favorite (ex-)employers at AT&T.  All for free of course.  ;-(

The beauty (or horror) of these different types of abuse is that they
can work in concert.  The owner of a base station in the messaging
scam can simply claim that he is being harassed by "these strange
hissing sounds" left instead of a name in bogus collect calls.  If you
just route suspicious calls to humans as your defense mechanism, then
you may be doing exactly what the other nasty example may be trying to
achieve -- the preservation of human jobs ...  ;-)

l> Too, someone else pointed out the way we record the voice is not
l> compatible with data transmission.

Huh?  Aren't *all* ways of recording voice compatible with data
transmission?  If you are referring to the posting from David G.
Lewis, I think all he said about this was that I might have guessed a
bit high about the *amount* of data one could transmit in a call.
I still don't know what the proper estimate would be, accounting for
compression, encryption (who would want to get caught?), and FEC.  But
I am sure that someone could demonstrate transmission of some
reasonably useful amount of data with your system for free.  Sounds
easy to me.  I guess I didn't see anything showing your system to be
incompatible with data transmission.

l> Of course not, no insult intended.

Sorry, man.  I didn't intend to sound unhappy in that last post.  It's
these damn ascii-graphic emotions :-| that confuse things!  Not very
expressive or accurate and I'm not very good with them.  :-( ;-)

> By the way, it's been reported in the press so I can say it now ...
> Our recognition rate is 95%.  That is 95% of the time if someone
> speaks a valid response we will match it correctly.  And 95% of the
> time if someone says an incorrect response we know it's garbage.  I
> don't believe this number is correct with non-North American speakers.

That sounds pretty good.  I take it that by "valid response" you mean
that you can recognize a fixed vocabulary of meaningful things, but
*not* valid names.  You can get "yes" and "no" and "collect" and
things like that 95% of the time.  But can you screen out the phrases
that the Bart Simpsons of the world would record when calling Moe's
Tavern?  I doubt it ... ;-)

I hope nobody is taking this whole thread *too* seriously ...


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT


[Moderator's Note: If I were a telco person investigating the misuse
of this system and you said to me "I am being harassed when I answer
the phone by these strange hissing sounds", my response would be "so
is that the reason you made those 'strange hissing sounds' back at me
when I called on your other line just a minute ago? ... were you
trying to get even with whoever is 'harassing' you? ..."  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Morris)
Subject: Re: Myth Busting
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 23:17:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> The word `hello,' it appears, came straight from the fertile
> brain of the wizard of Menlo Park, N.J., who concocted the sonorous
> syllables to resolve one of the first crises of techno-etiquette: What
> do you say to start a telephone conversation?

In Italy, they use the word 'pronto' to start a telephone conversation.
An American concluded that this must mean 'hello', so upon being intro-
duced to an Italian woman, he greeted her with 'pronto'.

While nursing the red handprint on his cheek, he learned that 'pronto'
means 'ready'.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 23:16:25 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Service  (Part 2): BT


Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]> wrote, discussing BT's UK
Direct service:

> They answer the phone in a totally random manner:

>   "International Operator",
>   "London",
>   "United Kingdom",
>   "British Telecom"

> are the most common of some of the odd greetings I've had.  (Whose
> international operator, what company in London or the United Kingdom?,
> what department of BT? I ask myself.)

I've found the most common answer to be: nothing.  Just silence (or
rather the background chatter of operators talking to each other).
They wait for the caller to say "hello?" before they bother to
interrupt their conversation to say anything.  If the caller says
nothing they just disconnect.

Just another reason I use Mercury if at all possible when in the UK.


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: In some phone rooms, having a headset plugged into
the console tells the system that the position is attended, but idle
and waiting for a call. If the operator goes away for a minute (to the
bathroom, on coffee break, etc) and forgets to *unplug the headset
 from the console*, the system keeps right on tossing calls to that
position. The mystified caller hears a click; he is on line with an
unused headset and nothing else. He hears the ambient room noise, but
of course an operator never does respond. Finally the caller decides
to try again. He abandons the call; the position becomes idle again
and within a second or two, there is another seizure and another poor
soul on the abandoned headset.  And so it goes ...  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #250
******************************