Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss251-300

Text File | 1992-04-06 | 949KB | 22,777 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24940;
          22 Mar 92 2:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02791
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07314
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:28 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:04:28 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #251

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 01:04:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 251

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy" (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (John W. Lydic, Jr.)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features (John Higdon)
    Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call) (Phil Howard)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Ken Weaverling)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls (Mark Phaedrus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: FCC Mandates "No Privacy"
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 03:36:28 GMT


> 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.

Is there any difference between this and putting a "pen register" (is
that the right term for a device which records all numbers called by a
particular line?) on every phone in the country and publishing the
results?  (OK, it probably doesn't include intra-lata calls).

The next few IXC's I expect to see are the marketing list divisions of
TRW, Trans-Union, and Equifax, plus the FBI, CIA, KGB, British Secret
Service, DEA, and an organization of 900-number information providers,
all so they can get access to the information.  Warrants?  Why bother?
How much do you have to do legally to become an IXC, anyway?  Provide
access to your own customer service lines?

I will probably be able to dial up Compuserve in a few years, and
search their database for all phone numbers that called mine (or any
other number I choose) last October, and find out in a few minutes.
It's much slower than Caller-ID, but it's unblockable, and you can get
the info on any line you want ...


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: Pen Registers record every digit dialed. Period.
Inter- or Intra-LATA of no concern ... even calls to 411, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (lydic)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: organization
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 03:35:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> disk![e-mail]
(tony) writes:

> Does the FBI monitor this newsgroup?  If they didn't already have a

It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all
Usenet transactions to the FBI every month.  I think they (UUNET) are
in McClean, Virginia (real close to various government agencies).


John W. Lydic Jr              lydic@ka8lvz OR osu-cis!n8emr!ka8lvz!lydic
                              jwl@ka8lvz   OR osu-cis!n8emr!ka8lvz!jwl


[Moderator's Note: Try to think this out: A tape of ALL Usenet 'trans-
actions' every month?  How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be,
even if the Bureau only grepped for a couple dozen keywords or phrases
of interest?  Usenetters are, after all, very -- uh -- prolific, to
say the least ... much ado about nothing, to paraphrase Bill Shakespeare.
And what possible difference could it make if they were in Virgina or
the Virgin Islands?  I telnet around the net daily in seconds.  Do you
really think the Federal Bureau of Inquisition sits there eagerly day
after day reading the ravings of a bunch of angry piss-ants on the warpath
whenever someone knocks over their hive?  Delusions of grandeur ... PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 12:38:59 GMT


> 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.

I'd like to suggest that if the FBI wants us to pay more for wiretaps,
then they should do it right.  Require the insertion of a valid
warrant before the tap can take place.  Monitor the validity of the
warrant so the tap gets yanked if the judge revokes it, dies, the
judge's term expires, the judge is impeached, or is declared mentally
incompetent, or if the agent executing the tap dies, is suspended,
retires, or quits his law enforcement job, or the time limit on the
warrant expires.  Taps should be yanked promptly if they are no longer
authorized for any of the given reasons.  Five minutes is probably
soon enough.

If contact between the judge's tap authorization system and the tapped
system is broken, or contact between the judge's tap authorization
system and his heart monitor is broken, taps should not be permitted
until contact is re-established.

Taps should not be permitted unless they can be logged (who authorized
it, who executed it, the warrant number, etc., not the contents of the
call) at law enforcement monitoring stations in every state.  This
prevents one law enforcement group from making unauthorized taps
without evidence in the hands of other law enforcement groups.

Sanitized information, such as the total number of currently-active
taps in a given state, updated hourly, should be available to the
public.  (Somebody want to make it available on a 900 number?)

If this starts to sound like the "fail-safe" system for the control of
launching nuclear missiles, then you're getting the idea, although it
doesn't have to be quite that elaborate.


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 10:40 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: A Reason NOT to Charge Customers For Spy Features


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> 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.

Indeed, work on a widely and freely available, backdoorless real-time
encryption has been going on in Europe. In Germany and The Netherlands
such a system is almost in place.

Unless our government is going to come right out and declare that
citizens do not actually have a right to privacy and somehow makes it
illegal to obtain and use secure encryption technology, intercepting
digital data flowing between two parties will become an exercise in
futility. And even if the use of encryption is proscribed, how would
it be enforced? As other repressive governments, past and present,
have discovered: you cannot ban ideas.

This has some interesting ramifications for ISDN. It is precisely this
technology that will put secure communications into the hands of the
public. Five will get you ten that somewhere in the dank halls of
gummit law enforcement this matter has been considered. And while I am
anything but a conspiracy buff ("JFK" WAS just a movie :-), one
wonders if perhaps at least some of the foot-dragging in the matter of
implementation might be from law enforcement influence.

> Of course the drug dealers and terrorists will join the privacy buffs
> in using this technology.

And this will be the government's excuse for wanting to curb the
technology. We will be told that in order to protect us from all of
those evil terrorists and drug dealers, we must give up yet another
right. Repressive governments do not like citizens communicating
privately. The FBI has really tipped its hand on this one and I hope
some people wake up while we can still do something about it.


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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 8:52:19 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call)


I do remember Integretel name appearing on some calls on my phone
bills (yes, through the local company); sometimes, I have made a
string of calls along a route I am driving, and some of these get
billed through the alternate operator services.

I also had a case where a call was billed and paid by me, and the same
call turned up on my bill about a year later.  I was able to have that
second charge removed.

Did your PacBell bill ever have any of those collect calls and/or any
calls billed via Integretel?

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: Integretel (was Mystery Computer Generated Collect Call)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 05:17:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


infmx![e-mail] (Diana Boyd) writes:

> 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?

They printed it up and mailed it to you, that's how.

This is an interesting tactic.  By waiting long enough, you might
forget (as you did) which calls you accepted and which you did not.

Refuse to pay until they can document which of the calls were billed
due to saying "yes" and which of the calls were billed due to hanging
up.  Of course since the problem is poor equipment, they won't be able
to.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Weaverling)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Date: 20 Mar 92 19:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


About ten years ago, I had a girl friend in England.  The monthly
phone bill could be quite a shock, so I started using pay phones to
"pay as I go" since the extra minutes over the three minute initial
fee were the same as the direct-dial rate.

The initial three minutes cost $5.85 from 13:00 to 18:00.  Apparently,
the phones could not hold more than $2.50 before the coins had to be
collected.

The sequence went like this. A call was placed direct, the operator
asked for an initial deposit of $2.50, then attempted to place the
call. If the party did not answer, my $2.50 was returned, else it was
collected, and the operator informed the called party to "hold on, you
have a call from the United States."  I was then instructed to insert
another $2.50, then it was collected, and finally the remaining 85
cents. If more than 85 cents was deposited, it was credited towards my
next time period.

I could talk for six minutes before being interrupted. At this point,
I owed them for three minutes, and I would have to deposit $3.15,
first $2.50, then 65 cents.  This continued every three minutes.

At the end of the call, the operator would call back and ask for the
money still owed (additional payments only bought me up to even, then
I was talking on credit again until another three minutes passed).

If I hung up at the end of the call, the phone would ring and the
operator would request the remaining money be deposited. I got in the
habit of just holding onto the line and waiting for the operator to
come on the line.

Calling from England to the U.S. from a payphone is much more
civilized.  You just deposit the amount you want and it is displayed
on an LCD display. When the call connects, the amount is decremented
as your talk.  You can deposit more money as you talk to bump the
figure back up. If it gets within 10 or 20 seconds of running out,
rapid "pip" noises are heard, reminding you to deposit more coins. If
you do not, you are disconnected as soon as the amount reaches zero.

It is actually possible to call from England to the U.S. for 10p (less
than 20 cents), but your connection will only last for a second or
two!

I have seen these BT pay phones in the U.S. as well, one in the Grand
Canyon and another at White Sands National Park.  I tried to deposit a
few bucks in it, which was credited to the display, and then made a
long distance call, but the money was immediately returned and an
operator prompted me to deposit money for the first three minutes.


Ken Weaverling    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 23:52 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: The Matrix


In article <[e-mail]> our Moderator responded to
this posting:

>> 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.

> 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]

In Ohio, several telco paystation tariffs are now in place that hold
the subscriber to a semi-public paystation liable for "walk-away"
charges.  Note that semi-public subscribers are paid a commission for
local calls once a certain number are placed.  No commission is paid
for sent-paid or credit call toll calls.  The cost of a semi-public
paystation is about $50/month (before commissions, etc) in Alltel
territory.  It is my understanding Ohio Bell is considering adopting a
similar tariff.

Public paystations do not incur either the liability or commission.
Of course, you must meet the definition of a "public" location in the
tariff to qualify.  There is no charge to the property owner/subscriber
for a public paystation.  There are no chargebacks for "walk-aways",
either, on a public paystation.

So ... the telco's are finding a way to get paid for those paystation
calls no matter what ...


Regards,

Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]


[Moderator's Note: It is the other way around here. PUBLIC coin phones
pay commissions to the business hosting them. SEMI-PUBLIC phones also
require coins but the business can list the number as their own and
have an extension back of the counter for the clerk to answer, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Phaedrus)
Subject: Re: Question Concerning Paying For Direct Payphone Calls
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 06:34:28 GMT


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

> 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.

     It's been my experience that this is also a pretty reliable way
of knowing whether you're going to be charged in advance for extra
time.  On pay phones that interrupt and ask for more money (like the
local Seattle pay phones), the coins usually dump into the box within
a few seconds after the connection is established; on phones that ring
back after the completion of the call, the initial collection is
delayed for the first three minutes, as Steve described.  So if you
hear the coins dump five seconds into the call, have that extra money
ready.  (Or just use your calling card and avoid the whole mess.)


Mark Phaedrus, Computer Science Major, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA
Work: [e-mail]        Play: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #251
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27178;
          22 Mar 92 3:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09501
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07659
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 01:52:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #252

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 01:52:39 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 252

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Phil Howard)
    Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Congestion Control (was Rock Concert) (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: MCI Customer Service Problem (John Higdon)
    Re: "Feature Phone" Question (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (Armando P. Stettner)
    Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:05:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem


[e-mail] (Scott Fybush) asks:

> 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?

I really hate to respond, as I am in complete sympathy with Brandeis.
However, the reference you are looking got is the Telephone Operator
Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-435, 104
Stat. 986 (1990) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 226).

Effective May 23, 1991, no aggregator may block 800 or 950 access.

A cautionary note: The Operator Services Act does not apply to you if
you are an employee using staff phones provided at Brandeis' expense.

Also, this may not mean that EVERY 800- number must be unblocked.  The
FCC has been supportive in the past of assisting aggregators in
reducing fraud, and since this problem is before them, they may allow
this.

You would contact the FCC enforcement division whose address should be
available "on or near" your phone if you are, indeed, a qualifying
user of the aggregator equipment.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.


[Moderator's Note: If his university telecom people are smart, they'll
agree to immediatly make it available to him upon receipt of his
deposit for $120 ... or perhaps $240 if they think he might use the
service twice.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 05:24:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Scott Fybush) writes:

> 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?

> [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]

If they did decide to impose a $120 deposit (which of course would
only cover just ONE such call), wouldn't they have to impose this
deposit requirement for everyone fairly?  Under what circumstances
could they determine some people do have to deposit and some do not?
How much they complain about 800 numbers?


Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  [e-mail]   |   "The problem with |


[Moderator's Note: Of course ... impose it on all students. When there
is a complaint, they can refer to Scott *by name* saying he is the one
who tipped them off to how much such a call might cost. Then they
could offer to waive the $120+ deposit requirement if the student
agrees to waive his/her rights to fully unblocked 800 service.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 22:13:54 GMT


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

> 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

> 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?

> [Moderator's Note: Don't push your luck on this. They have to unblock

NO! Please DO push this!  Cause as much grief as you can to everyone
involved especially the regulators, etc.  Let's not let this slowly
creep into reality.  Stop it now!


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances


[Moderator's Note: In a way, I sort of agree with you, but I can't see
it helping Scott's individual situation any. He and other students
will have to pay a hefty deposit. If he wants to be a martyr to this
cause, that's fine, I guess.  How about you doing it, Vance?  :)  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:11:23 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Congestion Control (was Rock Concert)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

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

>> [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind) writes:
>> 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:

   EXCUSE ME!  Those aren't excuses you hear -- it's reality ...

>> 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
      Per David Lewis, ^^^^^ is a "trunk group"
>> 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.

While such a technique is "feasible", congestion isn't always at the
originating switch.  To be effective, every tandem switch (and
InterLATA carrier's switch) would require a list of all in-progress
call destinations, searched on every outgoing/tandem call.  If a large
tandem supports around 50K simultaneous calls, either the search is
expensive in real-time or huge hardware support would be required.
Some switches use on the order of CPU 7000 cycles to completely handle
a call (total of setup, billing and disconnect).  Such a search for
such rare problems is not cost effective.  And it still doesn't solve
the much harsher problem of dealing with events that generate large
call volumes to many numbers (earthquakes, etc.).

> 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
> incidentally, 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 ...]

Ditto.  But I should point out that LEC switches typically can deal
with NPA-NXX-XXXX call gaps (manually placed) as well as the NPA-NXX
versions.  And SS7 will probably evolve to support some form of
automatic notification of the need for "up-stream" gaps.  The proposed
implementation of "portable" 800 numbers supports a notification
(manually or automatically initiated) to switches to gap calls to
specific 800 numbers, for example.

>> 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.

(Or display "BUSY" on ISDN sets.:-) ) Yes, this works well for both
cases of "user busy" and for "no circuit available" from intermediate
switches.  While efficient on a per-call basis, it also has the side
effect of allowing even MORE unsuccessful attempts per hour over the
same number of circuits.  So, by itself, this capability of SS7
doesn't reduce the impact of either form of call congestion.


Al Varney -- my opinions; AT&T hasn't approved them.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 11:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service Problem


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> And why would AT&T not use this in their advertising?

My guess is that since advertising is aimed at the lowest common
denominator, it would be a waste of money. It would be presumed that
telecom knowledgeables and professionals do not make decisions (pro or
con) based on advertising. Advertising is designed to produce an
emotional response that will result in sales; it not meant as a source
of information.

I would venture to say that only a minority of even this non-represen-
tative group would be involved with the industrial services that I had
originally mentioned. The people who buy and uses these offerings
probably will make final decisions based on clear-cut technical and
finacial considerations.

There are two types of advertising: hard-sell and institutional.
Before divestiture, AT&T ran institutional advertising much as
companies such as IBM and TRW used to do. The current wave of long
distance promotion, however, is entirely hard-sell. The long distance
companies, including AT&T, are out there to get the maximum share of
the consumer's phone dollar. The ads are not designed to inform, they
are designed to SELL.

Interesting note: In light of the above, one wonders what Pac*Bell is
attempting to accomplish with its Centrex advertising. The commercials
are full of emotionalism and distortions that would be blatant to even
the most naive of telecom administrators. Example: "In the past year
we grew from 30 stations to over 100 stations which would have
required the buying of two more switches without Centrex." Two
switches to serve sixty lines? What kind of crap is that? Who is it
aimed at?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: "Feature Phone" Question
Date: 21 Mar 92 13:40:48 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kamran Husain) 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.

The phone draws loop current from the telephone line, through passive
circuits on the internal modem board.  It does not draw power from the
computer's power supply.

If your internal modem board was adjacent to another board, and if it
moved slightly as a result of your inserting the phone plug, and if it
shorted against the adjacent board, that might have shorted a power
supply line.  Otherwise, the occurrence of the power supply failure in
the computer after you plugged in your phone was probabably coincidence.

Electrolytic capacitors sometimes fail in a manner that causes the cap
to develop an internal short, draw lots of current, and then ignite or
melt down.  This failure happens most often in equipment which has
been powered down for very long periods of time, but can happen at any
time.  Capacitors are usually used in parallel with the power supply,
where they are not stressed by loads.


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] (Armando P. Stettner)
Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:48:09 GMT


Making wakeup calls is an unusual use of ring back.  However, there is
and I have used 976-WAKE in Boston once.  It works.  A recording steps
you through the necessaries (phone number to call and time).  The
recording goes on to say that there is (or will soon be?) a 900 number
offering the same service.


aps.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 20:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B.
Whiteman) writes:

> 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:

And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that
live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the
defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the
extremely poor audio quality.

> 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)

These phones wanted $0.10 for an 800 call, $0.95 for a 950 call, did
not allow 611 at all, and the telco operator was inaudible.

> For local calls there is a maximum of 20 cents per 15 minutes.

How about $0.80 for a local call?

> Non local calls paid by coin may not be charged more than ten cents
> above the AT&T or local carrier rate.

The phones wanted double the going rate.

> All intra-LATA calls must use the local carrier.

All calls were scooped up by the AOS (ComSystems).

> Inter-Lata calls not paid for with coins may not be charged more than
> 10 percent more than the approved AT&T rate.

Double the rate.

> A toll free number must be available to obtain the rates of any call.

There were no indications of any kind on the phones indicating
ownership or even the serving phone number. In essence, you took what
these phones dished out or did without -- without the opportunity to
complain.

One can only hope that AT&T's CIID card will hasten the demise of
these abominations.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #252
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29442;
          22 Mar 92 5:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17947
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16212
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:14 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:10:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #253

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 03:10:15 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 253

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Released From Prison (TELECOM Moderator)
    Metro Mobile Uses *28/*29, NY Too (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    A Positive COCOT Experience (Steve Howard)
    Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones (David Leslie)
    Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (David E. Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 02:35:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Rose Released From Prison


Mr. Rose has now paid his debt to society. There may or may not be
some additional time to serve on federal probation; I've not been
informed.  In any event, the criminal actions of which he was
convicted and sent to prison have been avenged by the government; he
is free to begin his life anew with a clean slate. I hope people will
leave him alone and not unnecessarily remind him of what is past.

His life as a free person will not be easy at first; I am told he
intends to come to the Chicago area to seek employment since his
family and several friends are in this region. Jobs are scarce here
right now, and the baggage he carries with him will not make his job
search any easier.

For the past three years his situation has been discussed in great
detail at one time or another here in TELECOM Digest. At this point as
the saga winds down, I simply wish him the best in whatever direction
the events of the future may lead him.

He'll come back to Chicago in the midst of the worst winter storm
we've had in a couple years: technically now in the spring season, we
had almost a foot of snow dumped on us Saturday.  I suspect though for
Len, the city couldn't have looked nicer.


PAT

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

Date: 19-MAR-1992 19:13:41.01
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metro Mobile Uses *28/*29, NY Too


For those of you blessed enough to be served by Metro Mobile, here's
another rate increase (err ... "service enhancement" in Metro-babble)
for you.

As has been reported in the Digest previously, Bell Atlantic, the "B"
(landline) carrier serving the Mid-Atlantic states, recently purchased
Metro Mobile for something like $300 per customer. (I think that's
potential customers, not actual ones.) Metro Mobile was $800,000,000
in the red (Gee! I wonder why??? ;) ), so they took the offer
immediately.

Normally, most readers would probably yawn at this point and say "so
what?", and with Metro, very little anyone does to the company has any
appreciable difference in their sloppy performance. (Again, they CAN
be technically quite proficient, but otherwise, quite lazy and close-
minded.)

However, since they are now owned by a "B"/landline system, they are
obligated to follow the holdings and stipulations regarding Divestiture,
the MFJ, interconnect, and "stuff" like that.

This means that they can no longer pass off calls outside of the
CT/Springfield area without charging TOLL rates (along with the standard
airtime rates) to customers outside this area.

Thus, if you are in the Franklin County, MA area (north of Springfield,
touching the Vermont/MA line), and you receive a call there, you will
pay whatever your airtime charges will be, PLUS a TOLL charge for every
minute you talk.

To most people with systems which use FMR or Nationlink (Roam America?)
this is nothing new, yet Metro customers NEVER had to pay these charges
before.

Metro Mobile calls this new "feature" Equal Access, and allows you to
select what carrier will handle your toll calls, both outgoing and now
incoming.

I wondered why they would be offering something new without charging
for it; well, I guess I spoke too soon! In all fairness, though, this
is mandated by the Feds and Green's pals down on the DC judicial
circuit or wherever, and I don't think Metro would have done this on
it's own. (Although it sounds like one of their "soak the customer"
schemes.)

Note that this new TOLL/incoming call charging scheme will also hold
for RI customers, Pittsfield customers and Southeastern Mass (508)
customers. They have a chart available which describes which customers
will pay a toll charge in which area they are roaming in. Take a look
at it -- they make it too complicated, but it is correct.

If you do NOT wish to pay toll charges to receive calls, you can
supress call delivery by hitting (guess what?) *29. To turn it on
again, hit *28.  Some readers (and CA based mobile users) may
recognize this as the SAME system which the California B side has been
using for a while. The CA B systems are also EMX (Motorola) based (for
the most part), and thus Metro seems to have started using the same
software/hardware to allow them to do what the CA "B" systems do.

You can use *28/*29 in any system where your calls will be delivered
to. That is: CT, RI, Southeastern Mass, Franklin County Mass, Pittsfield
Mass, and New York Metro.

Metro Mobile SAYS that you won't be able to use the roam ports any
more to reach Metro Mobile or "automatic roaming" customers (from RI,
or NY). However, this can't be unless they re-arrange their ports.
Presently, when you dial ANY Metro Mobile roam port from a landline,
you will get their Rhode Island port.  They started this about eight
months ago, after NY went to Ericsson (reasons ommitted).

So, let's say you have a Cell One/NY 212 number. You go to RI (which
is not connected to NY as of yet), and you want to get calls. If they
blocked the CT ports (which is really the RI port) for all 212
NY-based numbers, then there would be no way to get calls while in
Rhode Island and Southestern Mass.  (Well, there is -- use the Boston
port, but that's cheating! :) ). So unless they re-arrange the way
their ports work, you should still be able to use the ports to call
customers out of their home system, and not have the mobile
subscribers incur a toll charge. I'll have to do some more testing on
this.

What was that "Mystic" 800 number again? Maybe I can dial it from
Metro's system and give them some REAL $100-per-shot toll charges to
worry about! :)

Metro also says that this new *28/*29 system will "allow" thew to
interconnect to more systems in the future. (Boston is a good bet).
I'd like to see all the EMX systems, including Vermont connected, but
they don't seem in much of a rush to do this, compared to McCaw which
seems to be racing to set up interconnection schemes.

Other Notes:

 - I posted recently on Cell One/VT's whining about having to use AT&T
0+ services due to the new AT&T card. Well, just went there yesterday,
and it is already in place. Looks like they even allow 01+ (international
calling card) calls now.

 - Above I mentioned that you can use *28/*29 in Cell One's NY system
to turn on/off call delivery from CT. This more broadly indicates that
the new "Protocol Converter" is in place (for the most part), and that
CT-based and other Northeast EMX-based customers can use all of their
call-forwarding features in NY.

I tried out *71 (No Answer Transfer), *72 (Unconditional forward), *74
(busy transfer) and *70 (cancel tranfer, not *73 as eslewhwere). It
all works fine, and sends the instructions immediately to my home EMX
for proper processing.

Hence, my post from a few weeks ago dealing with the oddities of how
the PC Converter worked is no longer correct, as the full implementation
of the converter has eliminated such oddities.

New York and Ericsson has done a great job at getting these services
restored in the past few months (although it was a mess over the
summer). Maybe if you don't mind having a NY number, you can dump your
CT service with Metro and get an account with Cell One/NY. At least
there won't be toll charges for call-delivery to nearby systems, and
you will get competant people to serve you. (SNET is also not bound by
FTC rules, and does not charge toll for call delivery to NY, but that
means ypu have to use NYNEX, which is OK if you don't mind lots of
dropped calls, busy circuits, and high roam charges! ;) )

I'll post more about the Protocol Converter in NY and its interface
with the rest of the Northeast once I get a better handle on how it
works.

Anyone still awake? :)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Howard)
Subject: A Positive COCOT Experience
Organization: Breckenridge Ski Corp., Breckenridge, CO
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:25:14 GMT


[ No, there is not a typo in the Subject: line :-) ]

I have had a positive experience with a local COCOT company, and I
thought that I would share it with the rest of the telecom community.

At the Breckenridge Ski Area we have had US West payphones for many,
many, years.  Early in the ski season I called US West and asked about
getting additional payphones installed for our guests.  US West is
happy to install additional payphones (at my cost) and will charge me
monthly for them :-( .  They do not want to install phones at their
cost due to the seasonal nature of our business (i.e. they want to
make money all year long).  I also wanted to find a way for our
international guests to make calls.  (Try to make a *reasonably
priced* international call without a card issued by a US or Canadian
long distance company).

I get calls every few weeks from COCOT companies wishing to install
their phones at my locations.  After realizing that US West wouldn't
help me, I was forced to talk to them :-(.  Sure enough, within a few
weeks I got a call from a company based in Denver.  I agreed to test
one of their local phones, and if it passed my tests they would here
from me.  They failed miserably (typical scum -- what a suprise :-) ).
They misrouted 10222, 10333, cut off intercept too soon, etc.  A month
later I got a call from another payphone company, I told them the same
thing.  They passed the test almost completely!  (They couldn't
recognize failed supervision on numbers that didn't have SIT tones :-)).

We met to discuss their phones and what they could do.  I insisted on
several things:

1) Service to our guests is the highest priority -- they must not be
overcharged -- rates must not be higher than AT&T or US West -- If one
guest gets overcharged and doesn't come back to Breckenridge, it isn't
worth installing a single COCOT.

2) The phones must be connected to our PBX.  Calls within the PBX must
be free.  (Our extensions all begin with "7".  No local exchanges
begin with "7" -- I want any number dialed that begins with "7" to be
passed to the PBX).

3) The phones must accept AT&T non-subscriber cards.

4) They must accept VISA/Mastercard and American Express for any type
of call.

5) Call cost will appear on LCD display while the call is in progress.

6) They must allow free calls to 950-XXXX, 10XXX numbers, and 800
numbers.

7) They must set up SNOW or some other code to allow guests to get a
free snow report.

I figured that they would walk out -- especially since they would have
to charge AT&T rates :-) .  Much to my suprise, they said that most of
the items would be no problem!  They would charge AT&T rates; connect
the phones to the PBX (due to technical limitations -- they would have
to set up *1 followed by extension number for free PBX calls); they
would handle the AT&T proprietary cards (!!), RBOC, and major credit
cards; they couldn't do call cost on the display -- however, *0 would
give the guests a rate quote, and they would allow the 950, 800, and
10XXX calls.  And they would pay 20%-50% commission!

I really didn't believe it.  They offered to loan me a "test" phone.
We played with the test phone for several weeks.  There were a few
bugs initially, but everything got worked out.  I was still skeptical.

(Side note: If you put an AT&T non-subscriber, i.e. proprietary, card
into the phone, it dials 10288-0-dialed-number, waits for the "bong"
and then outpulses the calling card number read from the magnetic
stripe.  The guest inserts his/her card, dials the number, then hears
"Thank You for using AT&T", without any dialing hassles -- Very
Impressive).

The next step was to talk with US West.  Placing COCOTs on a PBX was
really unheard of.  US West decided that it was permitted -- provided
that all local calls are routed via PAL lines (Public Access Lines,
i.e. no flat rate - only measured or messaged.  Take your pick!).  I
thought that this was an expensive, but reasonable compromise.

I also talked to several other locations in town that used this COCOT
service.  They all spoke highly of them.  (A COCOT Service? --
unbelievable!).

We spent the next several weeks testing the phone and writing the
contract.  After some minor changes in the contract, everything was
worked out.

The initial installation went fairly well.  They initially installed
nine phones, followed by two more later.  Initially, there was some
misprogramming in the rates.  They charged $1.50 for local calls
charged to a credit card.  US West charges $.85 -- when this was
brought to the COCOT company's attention they changed the rates in all
phones, corrected all previously placed credit card calls, and sent me
a printout of all calls for my verification.  (Of course I compared
this list to the SMDR from the PBX to be sure that no calls were
"forgotten" :-) ).  All of the long distance rates that I tested were
correct.  (Actually, most international rates were *less* than AT&T!!).

The phones used are manufactured by Intellicall.  I have been very
impressed.  It would appear that these phones can be very user
friendly, if the owner desires to program them this way (Too bad that
most owners don't :-( ).

If anybody would like the name/number of the COCOT company, feel free
to send e-mail, and I'll be happy to send it to you.

Side Note #2: The SMDR from my PBX for these phones has been very
interesting.  A very large number of people manually dial 10288-0-xxx ...

A much smaller percentage uses 950-XXXX, 10XYZ ...

This leads me to believe that either: 1) AT&T's marketing efforts with
re: to dialing 10288 are *very* effective; or 2) A large percentage of
the population has been "burnt" by COCOT's in the past and has learned
the hard way to use 10XXX dialing :-(.

At the end of the ski season I will calculate the percentage of calls
dialed using 10XXX, 950, etc. -- if there is any interest, I'll post
it.


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


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please! An actual breakdown of AT&T, Sprint,
MCI and other OCC calls would be quite interesting.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Leslie)
Subject: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones
Date: 19 Mar 1992 17:50:42 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


    I just saw a screening of a soon to be released film. I guess
I won't say which one, so as not to spoil anything. Anyway, there is a
crucial moment in the film where a guy is trying to call his
wife (cellular) as she is driving home, but she is talking to her
office. After getting a busy signal, he calls the operator, and asks
for an emergency interrupt.  The operator asks if it is a mobile
phone, then says an Emergency Interrupt is impossible. I was just
wondering if that was accurate. Also, what about cellular call waiting?


David Leslie      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Cellular call waiting is available.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Date: 20 Mar 92 08:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,  Batavia, IL,  USA


I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.  I found
this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes.  I will be writing
an angry letter to the management, but I don't expect a whole lot of
results.  Anyone else been bit?


David E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      Phone: [phone]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510  USA    E-Mail: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #253
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00347;
          22 Mar 92 5:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24245
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24423
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:01 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 03:51:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #254

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 03:51:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 254

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers (FIDO via J. Decker)
    Virginia Car Theft Hot Line (Virginia Atty General via Nigel Allen)
    Sprint Management Ethics to Be Reviewed (CWA News via Phillip Dampier)
    Silly Telco Customer Service Quote of the Week (Steve Forrette)
    Hosed by MCI (John Higdon)
    Call USA/USA Direct (Bryan Montgomery)
    Ignorance is Bliss? (Bryan Montgomery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:21:57 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers


[The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:]

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
       Subject: Local Database Services Control Access to 900 Numbers

Orlando, January 28 | Northern Telecom today announced the
introduction of Local Data Base Services (LDBS) on its DMS-10 central
office switching system.  The services will enable subscribers to
better manage outgoing toll calls from their telephones.  The services
will be demonstrated for the first time at the National Telephone
Cooperative Association Annual Meeting and EXPO this week.

"The easy-to-use Local Data Base Services offer subscribers protection
against unauthorized 900 and other toll calls placed from their
telephones, and allows name-based dialing without the need for
additional customer premises equipment," said John Beagley, vice
president, Marketing Operations, Northern Telecom Inc.  "Since
subscribers can now control outgoing toll calls with their own
authorization code, they will no longer need to go through their
telephone company to place restrictions on outgoing calls."

Subscribers use the same authorization code to control all three LDBS
features.  The code allows subscribers to establish a list of 900
numbers to be blocked or allowed access from their telephones, and
allows subscribers to turn access to all 900 numbers on or off from
their keypad.  For one-plus restriction, the authorization code must
be dialed before any one-plus toll call will be completed.  Third, the
authorization code is used to program a speed-call list using a
four-letter dialable name or word to dial numbers up to 14 digits.

"Local Data Base Services are ideal for businesses and households that
want to control their outgoing toll calls," Beagley said.

At the NTCA EXPO, Northern Telecom will demonstrate LDBS features on
telephones connected to a DMS-10 switching system, all housed in the
company's show trailer.  Inside the trailer, visitors can test the 900
and one-plus blocking features on the telephones and program the
telephones for speed calling by entering a name on the keypad.

To add LDBS features, a telephone company installs an LDBS-2000 system
in its DMS-10 system equipped with Custom Channel Signaling No. 7
(CCS7) hardware and software.  The Signaling Relay Point (SRP) and
Service Switching Point/Enhanced 800 Services (SSP/E800) software
packages are also required to support LDBS.  A PC XT-compatible
computer with a ten-megabyte hard drive is needed to support software
updates and subscriber data backup.  LDBS software is available via
patch in DMS-10 generic 404.40 now and in 405.10 in June, 1992.  LDBS
software will be integrated into the DMS-10 405.20 generic software
release in November, 1992.  An additional feature, one-plus bulk
restriction which allows the subscriber to turn all one-plus dialing
on or off from his or her telephone, will be added with the 405.20
generic.  Local Data Base Services are undergoing trials at
Mid-Missouri Telephone in Pilot Grove, Mo., and Mollala Telephone
Cooperative in Molalla, Ore.


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

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Virginia Car Theft Hot Line
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Here is a press release I saw from the Virgina Attorney General's
Department and the Virgina State Police.


 Attorney General Terry, State Police Announce Car Theft Hotline
 To: City and State desks
 Contact: Deborah Love-Bryant of the Office of the Attorney
          General, 804-786-2435,
          or R.H. Perry III of the Virginia State Police,
          804-323-2333

   RICHMOND, Va., March 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Attorney General Mary
Sue Terry and Col. W.F. Corvello, superintendent of the Virginia State
Police, announced today that a statewide, toll-free "hotline" is now
operational for citizens to provide law enforcement with tips on car
thieves and "chop-shops" (garages that illegally take apart stolen
vehicles and distribute the parts).

   Persons who have information may call 1-800-947-HEAT.  Staff at the
Virginia Criminal Intelligence Center (VCIC) in Richmond will answer
calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Rewards of up to $10,000
will be made for information leading to the conviction of auto thieves
and chop-shop operators.

   The Virginia General Assembly established HEAT, the motor vehicle
"tip" reward program in its 1991 session through passage of Senate
Bill 870, which was introduced by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw of Springfield
at the request of Attorney General Terry.  The first funds for the
program became available on March 1, 1992.

   "State crime statistics reveal that auto theft is steadily
increasing in Virginia," Terry said.  "That affects not only state and
local law enforcement efforts, but also every driver in Virginia who
pays for comprehensive auto insurance coverage.  The HEAT program,"
she added, "provides an opportunity for citizens, law enforcement and
the insurance industry to work together to halt the growth of this
expensive crime."

   The program behind the hotline operates in much the same manner as
other tip and reward programs.  Staff at the VCIC will evaluate each
tip called in to the hotline and pass information on to the
appropriate local law enforcement agency for action.  The Auto Theft
Unit, operated jointly by the State Police and the Department of Motor
Vehicles, will be available to help local agencies with cases that
involve multi-jurisdictional operations or conspiracies.  In turn,
police departments and sheriffs' offices, acting on tips from the
hotline, will report back to VCIC on the outcome of investigations and
prosecutions so that rewards may be made.

   A rewards committee will evaluate all tips leading to convictions
and recommend reward amounts.  The committee includes representatives
of the statewide Crime-Stoppers Association, the insurance industry
and at large members appointed by Corvello.

   Rewards, as well as HEAT's overall operation, are funded by
automobile insurers who write comprehensive insurance coverage in
Virginia.  Their annual assessments equal one-quarter of one percent
(.25 percent) of total comprehensive premiums written in Virginia, or
less than 25 cents for each car insured.

   "Virginia's HEAT program is based on Michigan's highly successful
auto theft tip hotline," Corvello said.  "The FBI Uniform Crime Report
listed Michigan third in the nation in motor vehicle thefts before
Michigan's HEAT program went into effect.  Since implementing the HEAT
program, Michigan has dropped completely out of the top ten," he said.

   Although Virginia has not been ranked among the top ten, auto theft
has been on the rise, according to Assistant Special Agent in Charge
R.H. Perry III, HEAT program administrator.  "It is a growing problem
nationally, except in states like Michigan that have an aggressive
program," Perry stated.

   "I am enormously pleased that the General Assembly saw fit to
create the HEAT program," said Attorney General Terry.  "It is now up
to citizens to join with our law enforcement officials to ensure that
the program is successful in reducing auto theft and, indirectly, the
cost of auto insurance in the commonwealth."

   A statewide public awareness program will begin later this spring
to inform Virginians how they can "put the HEAT" on auto thieves.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 00:42:34
Subject: Sprint Management Ethics to Be Reviewed


SPRINT MANAGEMENT ETHICS TO BE REVIEWED; CWA MEMBER COMPELS BOARD TO
FORM SPECIAL COMMITTEE

March 19 (CWA) -- Sprint Corporation has adopted a shareholder
proposal to review its management ethics submitted by a member of the
Communications Workers of America.

Sprint Corporation, formerly United Telecommunications, Inc., formed a
Special Committee of its Board of Directors to review the
Corporation's ethical policies and guidelines and to report back to
stockholders.

The company's action was taken after CWA member Gerald Day and his
wife Janet Day filed a shareholder proposal for inclusion in Sprint
Corporation's 1992 proxy statement.  In their Statement of Support for
the resolution, the Days stated that despite the efforts of the
company to build a reputation of honesty and integrity, "there were
two pending lawsuits which allege that management personnel have
engaged in ethical misconduct."

One of the lawsuits alleged that the Chairman of the Board and two
high level officers of the company had violated antifraud provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act.  The other lawsuit alleged in part
that Sprint management personnel had "illicitly obtained ...
proprietary cost and/or pricing information" from its competitors in
connection with its bid for government contracts and that Sprint had
presented "false and fraudulent claims for payment under its
contracts ..."

The Days expressed satisfaction that they were successful in
compelling Sprint Corporation to take this action.  "It's unusual for
a company to accede so readily to a shareholder proposal," they said.
"It would appear the company's action was taken because of the
likelihood of substantial shareholder support for this resolution."

"These allegations may prove to be unfounded," the Days added, "but
whether or not they are found to have merit, we believe that it is
prudent for the Board to establish this Committee to review the
adequacy of the Company's ethical guidelines and policies, not merely
with reference to the pending allegations, but to minimize the
possibility that the Company efforts to build a reputation for honesty
and integrity will be undermined by allegations of ethical misconduct
by management in the future."

"We and all shareholders are looking forward to the report by the
Special Committee," the Days said.

CWA represents 4,000 workers at Sprint Corporation.

                                ###

Communications Workers of America
Contact:  Jeff Miller
          Gaye Williams Mack
          [phone]

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

[e-mail]    Phillip M. Dampier

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 23:55:09 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Silly Telco Customer Service Quote of the Week


I called AT&T to order one of those new calling cards that you can
restrict to only allow calling to a finite list of up to ten numbers.
(BTW, I found out that if your account is billed directly, and not
through your local phone bill, that you can have only one allowed
number per restricted card, but that it can be any number.  Now I can
finally have a one-number card for my cellular phone number.)

In any event, I complained that I had not been asked for my password,
and that I had requested one to be put on my account the previous two
times I had called.  The rep paused, then told me that they "usually"
don't put passwords on accounts.  So, I asked in what cases they did,
and was told "none."  When I asked why this was, here's the response I
got:

(pause) "Sir, what if you went into a coma, and one of your relatives
had to call to make some change to your account?  We wouldn't want to
prevent them from doing so just because they didn't know a certain
word on the account."

A coma?  Give me a break Mother!  I will give them credit in that when
I called back and asked for a supervisor, that he thought this was as
amusing as I did and promised to add the password to my account.
Also, he made it a point to give me his full name and encourage me to
call him back personally if I had any further problems.

The "coma" rep also reminded me of the need to always push for more
security from merchants for your accounts.  After I read her my card
number and name (both of which are embossed on the card and would be
readily available to anyone who found it), she proceeded to recite my
home address, and asked if it was still current.  :-(


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Hosed by MCI
Date: 13 Mar 92 15:40:42 PST (Fri)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


In an earlier message, I pointed out that we have been beating on MCI
to make a circuit due a week ago work as ordered. We were told that it
might require a backhaul to actually make it work.

It turns out that it will take five more days to set up the backhaul.
And this is considered an "emergency" (normally it would take weeks).

Observations:

1. MCI is a "sales company" as opposed to an engineering or technically
driven operation. It has a lot of people in suits who know a lot of
buzzwords, but I have yet to speak to anyone that seems to really
understand the technical level operation required to solve our
problems.

2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have
any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did,
"emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to
route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not
days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company.


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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 12:43:52 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call USA / USA Direct


I've been meaning to send some details of the MCI Call USA scheme, and
the AT&T USA Direct scheme. As mentioned in earlier postings, I have
cards for both. I must also state how impressed I am with them both.
Very!

I predominantly use CI as it is cheaper but the AT&T card does look
quite pretty and has the advantage of automated service from the U.K.
As mentioned before, Friends and Family is suported by the MCI card
and can offer a quite substantial 20% discount. Actually, there was a
Friends and family insert in this months bill. The basic rates are as
follows:

                        MCI        AT&T
   Card surcharge      $2.00      $2.50   \
   First minute        $1.20      $1.43    > Any and every time of day/year.
   Additional minutes     94c        93c  /

   Hence longer calls work out cheaper. Incidentally, the MCI rate is
the same rate time-wise as phoning from the US to the UK at the prime
time but an extra 25c card surcharge. As for the cards there is no
fee, minimum useage or any other extras -- in fact I recently had $15
credit as a new customer (an unexpected surprise). If no calls are
made there are no bills sent out. When there are bills, it is directly
debited from a Mastercard/Visa and the bills sent to the (overseas)
billing address. Incidentally, the only gripe I have is that the bills
seem remarkably complicated to initially understand! Perhaps it's just
this thick Brit!

I think BT is probably one of the better foreign telephone services,
but this service is still a considerable improvement. If any `alien'
(to the US) is tempted to acquire such a card all that is required is
to phone the local MCI/AT&T access number and they will be more than
happy to assist you.

If anyone still has anything else they'd like me to answer please feel
free to e-mail me.


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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 12:44:40 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ignorance is Bliss?


Excuse my ignorance ... but I have a couple of questions to ask -- that
I think I should know but escape me at the moment; all I can think of
at the moment are these wretched exams I've just finished! Oh yes, the
questions :-

1) I want to add a monitor to my modem -- preferably very small
physical size. What do I need? Am I right in thinking along the lines
of impedance matching between the line and speaker?

2) I want to connect a device to the phone line that will play a
message on answering the phone. I currently have a circuit that
digitises, stores and replays a recorder message. This currently plays
back through a normal 8 ohm speaker. Presumably this is virtually the
reverse of the above problem.

Thanks for any help that anyone can offer me.


A thick Brit,

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


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I used to think there was a definite
connection between Ignorance and Bliss ... but then I began reading
messages on Usenet, and discovered how unhappy some of the writers
were ... :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #254
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02583;
          22 Mar 92 7:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01241
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01017
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:39 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:07:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #255

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 05:07:36 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 255

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions (FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Telecommuting References Wanted (Jeff Cantwell)
    Question About 800 Number ANI (John Perkins)
    Table of ISDN Rates Wanted (Ken Mandelberg)
    MCI Friends and Family 40% During May: Not What it Seems? (Bill Rubin)
    New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (John Temples)
    Telecommunication Flow Charting Program Wanted (SDL) (Reynold Schirmer)
    Switching Techniques and Old Phones (Robert Warren)
    International Audioconferencing Help Needed (Bill MacGregor)
    Inward-LD FX Line? ([e-mail])
    ATT Solicitation (Michael Peirce)
    No More Short Rings (Mike Bray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:20:48 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions


[The following message appeared in the Fidonet MDF echomail
conference.  For those of you who have wondered where they hide those
new telephone central offices, this might give you a clue ... look
down!]

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
       Subject: Innovate Switching, Transmission Solutions

New York, Jan. 9 -- Northern Telecom is now offering telephone
companies greater flexibility in locating remote transmission and
switching systems in large metropolitan areas.  The company today
installed the first remote transmission system in a Controlled
Environment ManHole (CEMH) under a sidewalk in Brooklyn, New York.

In congested urban environments, telephone companies are increasingly
encountering difficulties in locating, purchasing or leasing sites for
remote telephone equipment.  Northern Telecom, a leading telecommun-
ications research and manufacturing firm, has responded by taking the
proven technology and efficiency of the Controlled Environment Vault
(CEV) a step further and developing the Controlled Environment ManHole
(CEMH).

"The Controlled Environment ManHole is the best alternative available
to deploying remote telephone equipment in a public right-of-way,"
said George Caines, director, product interface, Northern Telecom
Inc. "The CEMH allows the installation of equipment in locations not
previously possible, reduces telephone company operating and maintenance
costs and is environmentally and aesthetically sound."

Installing a remote transmission or switching system in a CEMH is
practical in areas where the entrance hatch needs to be flush with the
surrounding surface, watertight, and vandalproof.  The CEMH can be
located in an easement or right-of-way such as a sidewalk, parking
lot, park or limited roadway location that cannot be obstructed by an
above-ground structure. The CEMH facilitates placement in the
traditional "roadway" franchise, thereby simplifying right-of-way
negotiations and permit acquisition.

Environmental control of the CEMH is managed with a self-contained,
earth-coupled geothermal heat pump.  Additionally, the CEMH technology
addresses the growing concern regarding noise pollution, as it is
virtually noiseless.

The CEMH is available in a variety of sizes and configurations.  The
vaults range from six feet by nine feet to ten feet by 26 feet.
Electronics can be remote Northern Telecom switching bays or DMS-1
Urbans in line sizes from 1,500 to 10,000.  In addition, there is
provision for power, fiber or copper termination and multiplexers,
digital cross connect panels and repeater shelves.

Since the CEMH has modular construction, it permits prepackaging and
factory installation of electronics.  Because the CEMH is placed
on-site as a pretested unit, placement time is minimized, and cable
splicing and connection are simplified.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Cantwell)
Subject: Telecommuting References Wanted
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:29:44 GMT


Can anyone recommend good books, articles, or references on tele-
commuting?  Recent works would be most desirable. Also, are there
any newsgroups which deal with this subject? Has anyone been able to
successfully telecommute? Thanks in advance for your help!


Jeff Cantwell, Vanderbilt U. CIS Box 1804, Sta. B Nashville, TN 37235
  Internet: [e-mail] Bitnet: CANTWEJR@VUCTRVAX
    Phone: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Perkins)
Subject: Question About 800 Number ANI
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 18:01:29 GMT


 From a COCOT that neglected to display its own number, I called the
wonderful Mystic Marketing Company 800 number.  Their automated system
obligingly gave me the number I was calling from.  Now, out of
curiosity, I called CALL-ATT from the same COCOT, and asked the
operator if he could give me the number I was calling from (since it
wasn't displayed on the phone).  He said that he did not have that
information.  Was he mistaken?  How could the number be available to
Mystic Marketing, but not CALL-ATT?  If the ATT operator did in fact
know the number, why would he refuse to give it to me?


John Perkins


[Moderator's Note: Instead of getting into a discussion/argument with
you about why operators are not supposed to tell you the number you
are calling from if you don't already know it, many operators simply
find it easier to lie about it, and say they don't have it. It is
considered a potential security problem to give out the number; you
may be someone snooping around a bunch of unlabeled wire pairs looking
for lines you can phreak on, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
Subject: Table of ISDN Rates Wanted
Date: 20 Mar 92 18:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


I've seen info from time to time on what a few locations offering ISDN
service are charging. However, I've never seen a table summarizing all
the published ones.

Does anyone have such a table?


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: Fri, 20 Mar 92 18:02:26 EST
From: "Bill Rubin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Friends and Family 40% During May: Not What it Seems?


I am a F&F family customer (very limited usage, but every bit helps),
and was quite interested in MCI's upcoming promotion where they will
give 40% off all F&F calls made during May, as opposed to the usual
20% discount.  I was even considering adding my relatives in NYC who
we call quite frequently to try to save some money (we live in
northern Westchester, an intra-LATA call, but relatively expensive).

Anyway, I have been seeing MCI's commercials about this new promotion,
and at the end in VERY small print is something about "credit to be
used on calls from 8/1/92-???".  So, I called up, and was told that
this was true, your bill will not reflect the actual 40% discount, but
you will instead receive some sort of coupons/certificates good toward
the following month's bill!  I have a large brochure that was sent out
to F&F customers, and I don't see anything in there about it not being
on the May bill.  Besides, I get my MCI bill as part of my NY Tel bill
 -- am I supposed to mail these in to NY Tel for crediting to my
account?  Give me a break!

Anyway, undeterred, I called the main MCI number to ask what the rate
would be to the numbers I wanted to do F&F on.  The bottom line is
that the only time when MCI is cheaper than NY Telephone is on the
first minute day rate, even with F&F figured in.  Here is the
breakdown:

         MCI          NY Tel          MCI F&F

Day    27.5/17.0     25.4/10.0       22/13.6    (all rates are
                                                 first/addl. minutes)
Eve    22.5/14.4     15.24/6.0       18/11.52

Nt/Wk  17.5/10.8      8.89/3.5       14/8.64

The problem is basically that NY Tel gives 40% off after 9 PM, while
MCI only gives 15-20% off for their discount.  And the MCI night/
weekend discount is 35%, while NY Tel gives 65% off!  So, I will not
be adding these folks to MCI F&F.  The only time I could conceivably
save money is between 5-9 PM, because MCI evening starts at 5, while
NY Tel starts at 9.  But even then, I'd have to keep the call awfully
short, because the evening extra minute charges on MCI are higher than
NY Tel's normal rates -- even with F&F!

By the way, is there any LD company which can beat the NY Tel prices?
I would be interested ...


Bill  [e-mail]

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 01:54:43 GMT


I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling
Card.  I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing
address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a
"random" order.  Has anyone else noticed this?  If they're going to
take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could
use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Reynold Schirmer)
Subject: Telecommunication Flow Charting Program Wanted (SDL)
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 14:52:45 GMT


Is there a software program used for flow charting which uses the
standard telecommunication's symbols (SDLs)?  I've presently get a
flow charting program called AllClear which draws the flow charts
based upon a pseudo-code file the user developes.  The drawback to
this package is the symbols used are not the telecommunication
symbols.  I would like to find a package similar to this which uses
the proper symbols.  Preferrably somthing that works on a PC or an
Apollo work station.


Joe Schirmer
[e-mail]
DSC Communications
Plano, Texas

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Warren)
Subject: Switching Techniques and Old Phones
Organization: Altitude, St-Lambert QC  CANADA
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 03:20:55 GMT


I'm looking for information on the different switching methods used by
phone companies through the years, along with their usage and general
inner workings. Has anybody got a thesis laying around?

Also, does anyone know where I can get an old payphone, preferably in
a place within eastern Canada.


RW - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Macgregor)
Subject: International Audioconferencing Help Needed
Date: 20 Mar 1992 16:15:58 -0600
Organization: Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science


My lab in Austin, Texas is attempting to run frequent audioconferences
with a sister lab in Paris, France.  Our five or six attempts so far
have been rather frustrating.  Using a POTS audio link between speaker
phones, we experienced frequent line drops (10-12 in a one hour
meeting), poor audio quality, and the squelch-like symptom of volume
thresholding somewhere along the path.  We've also tried digital
hybrids at both ends, with only marginally improved results.

There must be other people who need reliable, high-quality audio links
from Europe to the US on a regular basis.  Have you had any positive
experiences you could share?

We currently have a 56 Kb digital link between the labs (Accunet
Switched 56 in the US, embedded in a 64K channel on the way to France,
delivered via Numeris ISDN at 64K, and converted back to 56 K in a
Matra Audio/S adapter).  Could we use this link to transmit a
high-quality digitized voice channel?

I'll assemble and post interesting responses back to the group. Thanks
in advance for any help you can give,


Bill MacGregor

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:38:54 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Inward-LD FX Line?


Is that subject line as confusing as the phone call I got the other
day?

My Caller*ID box bbbrrrrings, dutifully displaying a *local* number. I
answered the phone and it's a collection agency wanting payment on a
bill I'd already paid long ago (hmmm ... AT&T bill -- whatta
coincidence ;^)

"Weird," I thought; she said she was in Louisiana. I called the number
back exactly as it was displayed on the box and "DOO DAH DEE ... The
number you have called is not in service." The displayed number was in
a local exchange -- it just wasn't in service. Is that some sort of
inward FX line arrangement? The town where this happened ain't that
big -- they can't POSSIBLY have that many customers here to warrant an
FX line all the way from LA (the state -- not the city).

Hmmmmph. Ideas?


[Moderator's Note: FX lines usually work in both directions, and I
doubt you were called from one. What probably happened was that
sometimes long distance carriers handle a call from one place to
another and drop off the call at their POP (point of presence) in your
community, then patch through a local outgoing call (from your local
telco's perspective) to you from that point.  The carrier used by the
agency probably was doing that instead of terminating in the toll
switch for your community and having the call passed along that way.
Thus your ID box saw it as a local call rather than 'outside'. MCI
used to do that years ago. In the late seventies on MCI's Execunet
Service, it was possible to (once on their switch) dial 2129111111
(you had to add four final digits as filler to get the switch moving
on the call) and actually connect with the NYC 911 center. Why?
Because they were dropping the calls off at their office in New York
and dialing them locally from there. Or the best of all was to dial
2120000000 (the switch always demanded ten digits but the local telco
would subsequently ignore any it did not want!) and you would reach
the local operator in Manhattan; so far as she was concerned when
asked, you were calling from some local number in NYC at the offices
of MCI.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Peirce)
Subject: ATT Solicitation
ate: Fri, 20 Mar 92 21:32:27 PST
Organization: Peirce Software
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Peirce)


I just had a mildly interesting conversation with an ATT person who
wanted me to switch my long distance carrier.

She gave me the standard pitch.  I replied that since had two phone
lines and the other line already has ATT as the default carrier, I
didn't think I wanted to switch this line too.

She replied, "Sounds like a good idea.  Of course if you do ever want
to switch this line just let us know and we'll be happy to take care
of it for you".

Of course, I didn't tell her that my other line is a modem line that
only makes local calls :-)


Michael Peirce         --   [e-mail]
Peirce Software        --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
Macintosh Programming  --   San Jose, California USA 95117
         & Consulting  --   voice: [phone] fax: [phone]
                       --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 02:58:34 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bray)
Subject: No More Short Rings


It's been quite some time since I've heard any partial rings on my
telephone when someone calls me.  As far as I know, each time my phone
rings, it always starts out with a full four-second ring.

And I also can't remember the last time I picked up the phone and
someone was calling me (or me calling them) without my (or their)
phone even ringing.

Has there been some sort of changes made by telco regarding partial
rings and such?


Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533
[e-mail]  or  ...!apple!camphq!mike

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #255
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03959;
          22 Mar 92 7:55 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08839
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:09:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09458
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:08:53 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 06:08:53 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #256

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:08:52 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 256

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground (John Stanley)
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia (Jill C. Arnson)
    Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link ([e-mail])
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Rob Warnock)
    Damn the Constitution, We Want Law and Order! (Tommy O'Lin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 15:02:05 EST


On 18 Mar 92 16:32:25 GMT, [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
said:

> 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?

You've got some of this confused.  Nobody got business because of the
card numbers.  You get card business by getting a phone PIC'd to you
for Dial-0 service or by getting loyal customers to dial 10xxx0 to get
on your network.

Yes, AT&T and the RBOC's shared a database of card numbers.  No, the
OCCs didn't issue cards with those numbers on them.  BUT, any legitimate
OCC and any gonif with an AOS could bill you (via the LEC) using that
card number.  The LEC would provides card verification and billing
services quite promiscuously, as is appropriate if they own the number.
I don't see how this translates into your assertion that AT&T got a
whole lot of business because of the shared card number database.

 From the stories in the Digest, it looks like we *lost* a whole lot
of business because people saw a number on a card with our logo on it
and assumed that nobody else could bill to it.  I know you've been
reading the Digest long enough to have read *ALL* those COCOT horror
stories.  Did you forget?

> 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.

Yeah, but you can always get an AT&T operator to dial for you by dialing
102880 after it times out.  Lots of stuff about the calling line comes
up on the operator console, so you *CAN NOT* charge calls to a toll
restricted BTN this way.

> 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.

I will not flame on about what I think of "hospitality" aggregators
lining their pockets by forcing their customers to have no choice of
carrier.  A cellular company is not a "hospitality" organization.  A
cellular company is a carrier.  Their obligations to their customers
are (or ought to be) different from your obligations to yours.  The
other week we heard about a cell company with a dial-in roamer port
that did not return answer supervision when it gave you the second
dial tone.  It's not legal for "hospitality" PBX's to do that kind of
thing.  So, if the cell companies want to be carriers, they should act
like it and give equal access.

> 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.

You must not have asked in a long time.  At least some of them are
available from other carriers.

> 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?

Would you care to make that same argument for RBOC's not giving you
equal access on your home phone?

> 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?

I don't think either you or the original poster has done the market
research to back up any of this.  65-70% of residential phone
subscribers are PIC'd to AT&T, with about 20% MCI PICs, and most of
the balance to Sprint.  People know who their long distance company
is.  They get upset when they get slammed.  They get upset when they
get bills from other companies for card calls, and are very confused
about how it could happen.

Now I'll grant your that they care more if they get a bill for Fred's
Storm Door and AOS Company for ten times the prevailing rate, but
people still like to know with whom they do business.  Some, as you
say, only care that the call goes through at a reasonable price.
Others are quite brand loyal, for seemingly emotional rather than
logical reasons.  Others have made a business decision to use a
particular carrier, getting a particular deal on card calls.  They
have a right to choose.  Take me, for example.  I have ROA with the
card option.  My *CALLING CARD* calls during night weekend hours are
$0.11 per minute.  Why does a cell company or a "hospitality"
aggregator have the right to deprive me of that rate by forcing me to
do business with another company at a higher price?  Pfui.

> AAMOF, I'd like to see the RBOCs given permission to carry calls
  ^^^^^ [ Didn't you mean IMHO?  :^) ]
> in their entire area (for instance, give NYNEX permission to
> carry calls between New York, Mass, NH, Maine, etc.)

That would be just wonderful.  How long do you think that anybody
would be able to afford to compete with them, what with the rest of us
having to pay access charges to them to complete inter-LATA calls.
There are too many potential abuses of the access system if the
monopoly player charging for access is also a competitor.

>> 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.

You're almost right.  1/1/92 was another milestone in the Modified
Final Judgement (MFJ), otherwise known as telecommunications according
to Harold the Just.  1/1/92 was when the last of what were called
"shared networking arrangements" had to disappear.  The shared calling
card database was one such arrangement.  That MFJ requirement was in
no way, however, connected with any "seep-down" due to improved
technology.  The date was the date was the date, and everybody had
better have found a way to do it.

Now, I suppose AT&T *could* have abandoned having its own cards and
*only* contracted with the LECs for verification services on LEC
cards.  That would have been a bad strategic move.  Much better for us
to have an AOS-proof card like the OCCs.  Good for customers, good for
us, probably good for OCCs (who are in the same fix as we are), but
bad for people who want to dictate our customers' business relation-
ships for them.


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!
These opinions are *MINE*, you hear me, *MINE*, all mine.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls From Airplanes on the Ground
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 08:41:35 GMT


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

 (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."

> 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

Paragraph (b) was deleted because it wasn't important to the
discussion.  It wasn't important because, it, too, did not say that
the PIC could not be the person who makes the decision.

> 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.

I wish you would point out the section that prohibits the PIC from
acting as a representative of the operator in this matter. In every
other action he makes, he is. Para. c does NOT say "the determination
may not be made by the PIC", it says it "shall be made by the
operator".  There is a difference.

The 'operator' is a legal entity, not a person. There HAS to be SOME
PERSON who makes the decision. So far, there has been nothing that
shows that the PIC can't be that person. Not under the FAR's. Maybe
there is in some ancillary rulings, but none have been presented so
far.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 16:53 MST
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia


[e-mail] (Nigel Burnett):

> 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?

    I doubt it.  Our cellular switches that we design for the Far
East have different signalling protocols that differ from those here
in N.A. or even those in Europe.  They use R2MFC signalling.


jill c. arnson        AT&T Bell Labs, Denver; [phone]
[e-mail] or att!(druco/drutx)!druwa!jca

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 09:43:07 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (The Dreamer)
Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link


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

> 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!

I've noticed this problem also when I call my parents in Saudi Arabia
from Canada.  Though the behaviour seems to vary a lot.  At the
beginning of the call its real bad ... makes it hard to decide who
answered.  But, at least there's no doubt that you've just received an
international call.

Last night things got real interesting when I experienced what would
be the local equivalent of cross talk, except the strange voice
drop-outs and echos were present in the other conversation also ...

> 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)?

If it is echo cancelling, it is not doing a very good job ... because
I hear my own voice echoing back several seconds later mixed in with
my parent's voice.

Can be very disconcerting.

> 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'm not sure if a continuous tone works. I send FAXes to my parents on
a regular basis.  I find that ECM is a requirement, otherwise the FAX
will fail and it transmission takes five to ten times longer per page
compared to a local transmission.


Lunatic Haven BBS [phone]     ___ FAX [phone]
Email: [e-mail] || telepro!lhaven![e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 09:44:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (lydic) writes:

> It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all
> Usenet transactions to the FBI every month.

Then our moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Try to think this out: A tape of ALL Usenet 'trans-
> actions' every month?  How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be,

Uh ... not very many at all, noble Moderator -- you let your outrage
interfere with your arithmetic. At 20 MB/day, that's only 600 MB/month,
about one third of a tiny 8mm tape [Exabyte or the like]. The net
traffic would have to exceed 60MB/day to fill up a single 8mm tape per
month.

To update the old saw [and add a *little* technical content to this
rebuttal], the highest bit-rate commercial long-haul data transmission
medium is a Federal Express plane full of 8mm tapes. [Used to be: "A
station wagon full of magtapes."]

Of course, the *latency* is still 24 hours ...


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510    [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311


[Moderator's Note: Are you *sure* that's all it is every day? I
thought it was much more than that in recent months. And are you
including all the mailing lists which pass through UUNET going to
their subscribers? Even with your figures, that's still a lot of
reading for someone to do ... or according to the rumor, are there
several people engaged in the task of keeping tabs on the net?  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 09:29:22 EST
From: adiron![e-mail] (Tommy O'Lin)
Subject: Damn the Constitution, We Want Law and Order!


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator (Pat Townson)
notes:

> [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."

The Bill of Rights gives us the right to assemble, but assemblies can
get noisy.  We don't need that one.

The Bill of Rights prevents the government from forcing us to testify
against ourselves.  But only a criminal would need to exercise such a
right.  We don't need that one.

The Bill of Rights protects us from illegal search and seizure.  But
only criminals and potential criminals would want to hide anything
from the public.  We definitely don't need that one.

And so on.

Are there any parts of the Bill of Rights that we *really* need?

And from Townson again,

> "We've already amended it a couple dozen times; I can suggest a few
> more good amendments."  PAT]

Instead of adding more amendments, maybe we can just repeal the first
ten or so.  That would solve most of our problems, wouldn't it?

In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator (Pat Townson)
writes:

> 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.

The only way we are ever going to get *all* the criminals off the
street is to lock up anybody even *suspected* of wrongdoing.  So what
if a bunch of innocent people get locked up with them?  Better than
locking everybody up, capital punishment for most crimes would ensure
that they don't escape or get paroled to prey on society again.  Sure,
some innocent people will be incarcerated or executed, but that's a
small price to pay for "peace and quiet and a community of law-abiding
citizens."


  Tom Olin    [e-mail]    uunet!adiron!tro    [phone] Ext 638
PAR Technology Corporation * 220 Seneca Turnpike * New Hartford NY 13413-1191


[Moderator's Note: Whatever you say. The proceeding was a public service
announcement from Usenet, and this newsgroup. And remember, you can
always have it your way with McDigest.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #256
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09452;
          22 Mar 92 11:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29745
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25952
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:08 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:09:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #257

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 09:08:54 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 257

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY? (David E. Sheafer)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Phone Lines and v32 (John Higdon)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: What's a Baud? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments With FCC (FIDO via Jack Decker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Have Follow-me in NY?
Date: 21 Mar 92 09:39:32 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


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

> 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.

NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message
       ----
about it a couple of days ago.

(However, there was a typo in the first sentence it said no and should
have said now.)


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 14:36:16 PST
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls


[e-mail] (Barry Mishkind) writes:

> 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.

Those oldtimers on this forum will remember that for years I suffered
with an 800 number that was frequent target for misdialings from both
the Hilton hotel chain and a local bay tour company. After getting my
jollies doing as much harm to Hilton as I could by impersonating the
company and then alienating callers, I had the number changed. Since
then, the count of wrong numbers could be kept on the fingers of a
person with no hands.

That is until this week. Suddenly MANY calls a day started coming in.
The callers seemed to want some strange things. Finally, a cooperative
caller told me that he was responding to an ad in a national trade
publication for a company that sells window treatment of some kind.
Sure enough, it is my number in the ad. One mitigation is that the
number only works in California, so most of the hapless callers are
simply hearing a recording that indicates that the number cannot be
reached from that particular telephone.

The publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything. It looks
as though I am going to incur a number change expense once again. Who
knows what surprises the new number will bring?


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 13:42:27 PST
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> 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'.

Before making allegations of this nature, it would be wise to nail
down a few more data points. I have no stock in Telebit and am put off
at times by the company's arrogance. However, as a user of many
Telebit modems, PEP and v.32, I can tell you that I have seen
absolutely no indication that Telebit purposely "cripples" v.32 in
favor of PEP.

It is not entirely meaningful to speak of an either/or situation with
reference to the two modulation schemes. For UUCP transfers, PEP wins
hands down. Even with v.32 AND g protocol spoofing, PEP is the clear
winner in raw CPS, regardless of the v.32 modem manufacturer. Add to
that the PEP capability for dealing with less than perfect connections
and you can understand why PEP is still the standard for UUCP. Here in
Silicon Valley, this site talks to more than a dozen other UUCP
neighbors. Several of them have v.32; ALL of them have PEP.

On the other had, there is nothing more painful that trying to use an
interactive login over PEP. This is where v.32 shines. Being full
duplex (as opposed to PEP's effective half-duplex), there is no
"turnaround" delay and using the remote terminal is just like being on
a local RS232 connection.

For this reason, I use both systems. ALL of my personal modems are
Telebit. NONE of them has any difficulty communicating with any other
using v.32 or PEP. It makes no sense for Telebit to damage its
reputation in the course of expanding its marketing base. And, no,
Telebit has never indicated (to me, anyway) that it expects PEP to be
all things to all people and purposes.

It has been my experience with literally hundreds of modems that
Telebit is one of the few product lines that actually work as
advertised and has good customer support. I have long given up on
Hayes, USR, and of course all of "clone" modem makers. (My last
interaction with Hayes was over a fax modem. I was waved off with the
comment, "We acquired that product from another company and don't
really support it.") I have NEVER been waved off by Telebit.

> The nice thing about standards is that they tend to be supported by
> multiple vendors, so users are not locked into a single source.

And I am very happy that Telebit is now one of them.


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


[Moderator's Note: I use a Telebit T-1600 modem in combination with a
Wyse-50 terminal at 9600 baud to work on the Digest, and find the
Telebit works just fine, whether I am logged in to eecs.nwu.edu or
using rlogin from there to some more distant site. I've never had a
minute's trouble with it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 05:57:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Patton M. Turner) writes:

> 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 just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status
of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232
break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in
Rat Shack).  Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers.

    It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't
as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are
using it every day, then heck -- go for the money. But for us poor
schlums, the $20 solution is the winner. And they have the added
advantage of being truly pocket-sized! ;-)


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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 00:59:30 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]
(Rich Holland) writes:

> 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?

This new service is only for AT&T 5ESS switches.  How that relates to
COCOTs I don't know [our system engineer is on vacation :-) ].


Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Unless the COCOTS are defaulted via the local telco
to AT&T on long distance calls and the local telco identifies them as
payphones to AT&T on passing the call, then probably it is is moot.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: What's a Baud?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 02:42:40 GMT


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

> 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.

If you calculate this out, you get about 22,000 bits per second. On
real phone lines you can't get that high, but rates of up to 18,000
bits per second have been reported (I guess on local calls). It also
falls back very nicely on long lines, dropping back about ten bits per
second at a time as it finds channels it can't use or only use at two or
four bits per baud. This gives VERY good performance on noisy lines ...
like the ones we have at work (between our PBX and Sugarland
Telephone).

SuperPEP on the new TB3000s (when it comes out) should supposedly run at
an even higher rate (I don't know if it uses more channels, or uses them
more efficiently, or what ...), up to 22,000 bps on real lines!

And that's BEFORE compression. Too bad nobody else makes PEP modems.

Shannon's Limit on a good phone line is about 35,000 bits per second,
so there's some room for growth. Not much, though: another doubling in
modem speeds is probably not physically possible until we go full
digital.


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

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 22:30:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes:

> 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.).

The buzz is crosstalk from the video signal into the sound channel,
probably caused by a combination of two things: The broadcaster is not
controlling his video levels to be within specs, and a less than
optimum television receiver with poor sound band filtering and
automatic gain control (The sound and video are amplified in the same
amplifier chain, and split apart after).


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 USA
Voice: 602 996 1717

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

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:22:21 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments with FCC


[The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:]

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
       Subject: NT Files Video Dial Tone Comments with FCC


Washington, D.C., Feb. 3 -- Responding to a request by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), Northern Telecom today filed comments
supporting the FCC's efforts to establish video dial tone, a
technology that allows people to receive video, image and text
communications with the same ease as making a phone call.

In its filing Northern Telecom, a leading global telecommunications
researcher and manufacturer, said the agency needs to create an
environment that encourages the development and deployment of switched
video services, making the country more competitive in today's global
economy.  Research, released earlier this year by Northern Telecom and
BellSouth, shows consumer support for many potential services.

Northern Telecom emphasized that the FCC proceeding is focused on
market forces and the technological advances that will change the way
Americans will work, learn, shop and be entertained.  Northern Telecom
believes the benefits from the early deployment of video dial tone
will include:

*  Improved economic competitiveness and an enhanced standard of
   living;
*  Enhanced individual productivity;
*  Greater access to knowledge for workers making decisions;
*  Improved education services and enhanced medical care;
*  Quicker movement of information among workers and within
   organizations;
*  Removal of distance as a barrier to teamwork and a reduction in the
   need to travel;
*  Access by smaller locations of large businesses, entrepreneurial small
   businesses, and work-at-home users to the same communications
   capabilities emerging in large corporations;
*  Easing the problems caused by time zones as they affect geographically
   dispersed international organizations;
*  Making specialized skills available as a resource regardless of
   geographic location;
*  Allowing teams to solve problems by communicating across distances
   rather than relying on face-to-face communications;
*  Enhancing traditional analog voice communications with powerful
   information tools, such as full motion graphics.

The filing asks the FCC to note that current restrictions prohibiting
local telephone companies from providing such services are contrary to
the commission's desire that video dial tone be offered in an open and
competitive environment.  It also notes that by delaying action, the
commission ensures that the LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) are unable
to act, allowing others to capture a greater portion of the market,
potentially retarding availability to a broader market base and the
use of the service for social benefits such as reducing medical costs
and improving educational opportunities.

In its conclusion, the Northern Telecom filing recommends the
commission remove barriers to full and competitive participation in
the video market -- and regulatory disincentives to investment --
thereby creating the necessary conditions for the video diversity it
seeks.

Earlier this year, Northern Telecom and BellSouth released results of
joint research conducted to determine public attitudes toward video
dial tone service.  The research shows the consumer trend to stay at
home, combined with the advent of video dial tone, will create a $30
billion electronic information services industry by the year 2000.

The 1991 market study, conducted by Noel Dunivant and Associates (now
known as P G Research) of Raleigh, N.C., finds very high consumer
interest in video dial tone as a gateway offering a variety of
services, including:

*  Movies on a demand or near-demand basis (within 15 to 30 minutes
   after ordering);
*  Delayed view television (past television);
*  Interactive news and music;
*  Interactive grocery and catalog shopping from home; and
*  Electronic classrooms and multi-media libraries.

Among 800 respondents to the study conducted in six U.S. cities (San
Diego, Nashville, Atlanta, Buffalo, Orlando, Tulsa), about 70 percent
are willing to purchase some or all of these services as they become
available.

Advances in communications and computer technology -- such as
fiber-optic cable, digital switching and hyper-speed computing -- now
make it economically attractive to transmit extraordinary volumes of
electronic information in digital form over telephone lines.

"Our experience in distance learning projects, in developing medical
communications systems, and in helping business and government improve
communications systems directly supports the commission's interest in
the development of broadband networks, said Ian Craig, executive vice
president marketing, Northern Telecom Inc.

According to ComputerWorld, a weekly industry newspaper, the
information services industry is currently at $8 billion and growing
at an annual rate of 20 percent.  Regional telephone companies are
already conducting trials using fiber optic cable to provide consumers
with push-button entertainment and information capabilities through
their telephones.

                           ------

 ... The cost of feathers has risen ... Now even DOWN is up!

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


[Moderator's Note: Now and then I break my own rule on removing
extraneous signature text from articles; this is one such case. Like
the elevator operator, whose job has its ups and downs, I thought the
'feather' comment was funny!  :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #257
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16098;
          23 Mar 92 2:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00020
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:21:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32445
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:20:50 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:20:50 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #258


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 21:44:08 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 258

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service (FIOO via Jack Decker)
    Help Wanted With Cordless Phone Problem (David Niebuhr)
    US West and BBSs Update (Peter Marshall)
    Show-Me Long Distance (J. Philip Miller)
    Cable vs. Satellite Calls (Paolo Bellutta)
    ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    ISDN Nitty-Gritty (David Lesher)
    Complete Answering Machine Software (Philip E. Pavarini, Sr.)
    COCOT Information Needed! (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
    Panasonic PBX Information Request (Randy Bush)
    Billed For Busy on Cellular When Ticket Line Jammed Network (David Sheafer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 16:21:11 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service


[The following message is from the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:]

 Original From: Dan J. Rudiak
       Subject: Dual-Mode Cellular Radios Placed in Service

Nashville, Tenn., January 23 | Northern Telecom's unique, dual-mode
cellular radio technology is now providing mobile telephone service to
customers in North America, the company announced today.

Cellular Communications, Inc.'s Cellular One of Columbus, Ohio, and
Bell Cellular Inc. of Toronto, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE Mobile
Communications Inc., are the first to implement the new base station
radios.

In addition, McCaw's Cellular One of Minneapolis, Minn., and
Independent Cellular Network, Inc., of Fort Myers, Fla., have placed
orders for shipment later this year.

Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular radio channel units are unique
because they will operate in analog or time division multiple access
(TDMA) digital modes on a call-by-call basis. TDMA is the industry
standard access technology for digital cellular systems in North
America.  Analog service is supported immediately, with digital
service available for implementation by cellular service providers as
early as the second quarter of 1992, when software testing will be
complete and digital cellular telephones are expected to be more
readily available.

"This is the only radio channel unit available for cellular networks
that can operate in either analog or digital mode, yet it's priced
competitively with analog-only systems," said John Roth, president,
Wireless Systems, Northern Telecom. "This means that much of the cost
associated with going digital can be deferred until digital service is
actually implemented."

"Dual-mode cellular radio technology provides an innovative approach
to solving the cellular industry's transition to digital service, "
said Joe Sarnecki, vice-president, network services, Bell Cellular.

The dual-mode cellular base station radio is the first cellular radio
to be manufactured by Northern Telecom for use in its mobile cellular
telephone systems. Northern Telecom previously offered only analog
cellular radios produced by other manufacturers.

Digital cellular radio technology promises increased capacity to meet
growing subscriber demand, improved call quality, and access to many
of the advanced features becoming available in "wired" public and
private telephone networks.

Many mobile cellular telephone system operators are expected to begin
switching to digital radio technology this year. However, both analog
and digital operation are considered requirements, given the
substantial investment of current subscribers in analog mobile
telephones.

Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular base station radio promises
highly flexible system configuration and enhancement and substantially
reduced maintenance requirements for mobile cellular telephone service
providers upgrading from analog to digital radio technology.

"It greatly simplifies the engineering task for cellular operators
preparing their networks for the transition to digital service," Roth
said. "Instead of having to install separate radio hardware based on
an estimated mix of analog and digital subscriber use, our customers
need only install the appropriate number of dual-mode radios and
allocate channels for analog or digital use.  And since channels are
allocated in software, the mix can be changed dynamically as
subscriber usage changes."

Northern Telecom's dual-mode cellular radio consists of a digital
signal processor-based (DSP) transceiver, capable of loading
application-specific software for analog or digital operation, and for
future enhanced cellular services.

It supports either a single analog radio channel, or a TDMA digital
channel capable of handling three simultaneous conversations, and
allows the cellular system operator to allocate analog and digital
radio channels dynamically on a call-by-call basis to meet changing
subscriber demand.

Benefits to the cellular system operator include:

* Enhanced analog operation | DSP technology enhances analog
  operation, providing clearer voice transmission.

* Smooth transition to digital operation | Dual-mode cellular radios
  installed to support analog subscribers today can be reconfigured in
  software to serve digital subscribers as required.

* Simplified system engineering | Dynamic allocation of analog and
  digital channels makes it unnecessary to "over-provision" dedicated
  analog or digital radios to meet peak traffic demands. Likewise, no
  re-engineering is required to accommodate the changing mix of
  analog and digital subscribers.

* Reduced maintenance | Feature enhancements are implemented in
  software, reducing hardware maintenance requirements.

Northern Telecom recently achieved commercial "lockdown" certification
of its dual-mode cellular base station radio. This certification, by
the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), verifies
compliance with performance specifications for TDMA.

Northern Telecom's lockdown field testing, conducted in Fort Worth,
Texas, included the industry's first TDMA "call handoff" between two
cell sites.  Cell-to-cell call handoff allows a call to continue
uninterrupted as the caller travels from the coverage area of one cell
to another.


--- 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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 08:50:02 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Help Wanted With Cordless Phone Problem


I'm having a problem with a cordless phone and hope someone can assist
me in locating the trouble.

It seems that when I changed the cabling at a wall jack from the plug
in type to a hardwired type going to my cordless phone base, another
phone on that box (also hardwired) goes completely dead, including the
light behind the push buttons.

Here are the before and after block diagarams:

    Before:                            After:

  +-----------+                     +-----------+
  | Wall Jack |                     | Wall Jack |
  +-----------+                     +-----------+
    |        |                        |        |
+------+ +----------+            +------+ +-----------+  +----------+
| Desk | | Cordless |            | Desk | | Wall Jack |--| Cordless |
| Phone| | Phone    |            | Phone| +-----------+  | Phone    |
+------+ +----------+            +------+                +----------+

Is the problem the second wall jack?  When the cable between the
second wall jack and the cordless phone is disconnected at either end,
the problem goes away.  Yes, I checked the wiring inside the jack
twice before closing the beast.

Please e-mail response to either address below and thanks in advance
for the advice.

BTW: A third phone in the kitchen doesn't exhibit any problem since
it's on its own run with no breaks from the demark to the phone.


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

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

Subject: US West and BBSs Update
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 08:02:19 PST


At the Oregon PUC, the Wagner v. US West Communications case is now
awaiting a Hearings Officer's decision following the 3/13 submission
of reply briefs. Excerpts follow from the US West reply brief:

Wagner's complaint raises but a single issue: whether use of USWC's
network is "obviously not confined to domestic use," requiring USWC to
charge its business rates. To the vast extent Wagner's opening brief
deviates from this single issue, it is completely irrelevant and
outside the scope of this proceeding.

Mr. Wagner's BBS service need not generate revenue or profit to
justify USWC's application of business rates.  The case law defining
"business" and "business enterprise" as an undertaking for profit has
absolutely nothing to do with USWC's characterization for billing
purposes the tariff includes both traditional business activities and
other "non-domestic" use certain subscriber activities that are not
traditional commercial undertakings will still mandate business rates.

The touchstone for analysis here is simply whether a service that:

(1) generates up to 168 calls in an evening;
(2) generates communication in which Mr. Wagner largely takes no
    personal interest;
(3) facilitates communication to which Mr. Wagner usually is not a party;
(4) permits access to "millions of users" around the world;
(5) transmits messages that Mr. Wagner cannot possibly personally read;
    and
(6) includes the advertising, or potential for advertising, of
    Shareware, can in any way constitute an "obvious domestic use" ...

"Domestic use" as "ordinary use" is a practical analysis that this
Commission should follow ... First Choice Communications'
[characteristics] take it beyond any meaningful definition of "obvious
domestic use."

Mr. Wagner emphasizes the purely social nature of the communication
among BBS users. In fact, USWC *does* apply residential rates to
individuals communicating via any BBS service. Yet when a subscriber
utilizes three lines to create a service that makes considerable and
substantial use of USWC's network to facilitate communication *among
others*, the Commission should not treat that use as "obviously
domestic." To further Wagner's own example: When he hosts a party in
his own house, USWC does not object. Yet when Mr.  Wagner hosts a
party in USWC's house, via USWC's telephone network, he should not
expect that extraordinary network use to be subsidized by other Oregon
ratepayers.


The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                         PEP, V.32, V.42bis

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Show-Me Long Distance
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 15:53:42 CST


Well us folks here in Missouri, the Show-Me State now have our very
own long distance company.  According to a bulk mailing I received
yesterday (addressed to Dear Southwestern Bell Customer) they will
offer 10% to 21% on most Missouri calls [those over 34 miles] and 10%
lower than the 1+ rate charged by AT&T on out of state calls.  I do
not need to change my existing long distance service, only use the
10778 prefix each time I call and I will be billed on my regular SWBT
bill.  The give me nice stickers for my phone book and phones with the
10778 number.  More information available from 800-882-5095 [probably
only works from Missouri].

I had thought that the trend was to eliminate the long distance
providers, not more and more splintering of the market.  This
particular one seems to be targeting the intraLATA traffic rather than
the interstate stuff that the big three always advertise.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta)
Subject: Cable vs. Satellite Calls
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 23:00:57 GMT


I've recently moved to the US, and I have a (probably) novice
question. When I call from my home phone (I have chosen ATT as LD
carrier), calls are always through satellite link. When my family is
calling from Italy (don't know which company they use, but I suppose
ATT too), calls are always via transoceanic cable. Is it possible to
dial in a way that the calls are via cable and not satellite? Would
they cost more? If this is a novice question, reply via e-mail,
otherwise posting is fine with me.


Paolo Bellutta - BICC - OHSU - 3181 SW Sam Jackson Rd.
Portland, OR 97201 - internet: [e-mail]
tel: [phone] - fax: [phone]

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 17:29:39 GMT


Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface
pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data?


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. | Phoenix, AZ. 85028 USA
voice   602 996 1717

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 20:19:37 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow.  How is ISDN
carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the
loop.  Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has
to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of
course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term.

But how different IS it, from alternatives such as switched56, etc?
And what special tricks do they use?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 19:49 EST
From: [e-mail] (Philip E. Pavarini Sr.)
Subject: Complete Answering Machine Software
Organization: PAVNET News & Mail Service


I have a Complete Answering Machine and would like to know if there's
third party software which would allow prompts to be changed and/or
eliminated.  Any help regarding the CAM manufactured by The Complete
PC, Inc. would be appreciated.


 Philip E. Pavarini Sr.  --  Voice 216.891.9105 Fax [phone]
   INTERNET: [e-mail] -- UUCP: pavnet!pps
         P.O. Box 360302  --  Cleveland, Ohio 44136-0427

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

From: [e-mail] (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
Subject: COCOT Information Needed
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 21:36:36 CST


Can someone please supply me with names and phone numbers and
addresses of COCOT manfacturers. Thank you.

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

From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Panasonic PBX Information Request
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 05:44:05 GMT


Back a while in this digest, someone posted re a Panasonic (I believe)
system that was a couple thousand for 32 lines and was rather nicely
featured as well.  Anyone know of such, or what some of the nicer ways
are currently available to handle an office of 25-30 lines?  Thanks.


[e-mail]   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy


[Moderator's Note: I'd think for 25-30 lines you'd still do well
getting the Panasonic unit described earlier. You'll have a few spare
lines for expansion that way.   PAT]

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billed For Busy on Cellular When Ticket Line Jammed Network
Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:16 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


The Saturday that tickets went on sale for U2 I also tried to call the
number for tickets.  However since I had somewhere to go, I had to use
my cellular phone for an hour to dial.

When I got my bill a couple of days, I was billed for approximately 60
calls to the number I was dialing, all in a period of less than one
hour.

Nynex Mobile was more than happy to remove the charges from my bill,
and as I have never been billed for a busy signal before, I assume the
screw up on billing was on the part of New England Telephone and not
NYNEX Mobile (they are both owned by the same company).


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #258
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16453;
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32374
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19740
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:19 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:22:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Mar 92 23:35:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 259

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CT2 Succeeds in Singapore (Peng-Hwa Ang)
    MCI News - Friends & Family (Phillip Dampier)
    Question About 800 Number ANI (David Lesher)
    New Rules (was 800 Blocking) (David Lesher)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Nick Sayer)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Barton F. Bruce)
    Need 800 ANI Number (Tony Heatwole)
    Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Rich Solis)
    Re: A Positive COCOT Experience (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (David Lesher)
    Re: 911 Source Identification (Carol Springs)
    Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (Dave Pascoe)
    Re: Subject: Telecom Winds of Change (Donald E. Kimberlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:10:32 SST
From: Peng-Hwa Ang <[e-mail]>
Subject: CT2 Succeeds in Singapore


The weirdest thing is happening here. CT2 -- those cellular phones
where you can call out but can't call in -- has taken off like a
rocket in Singapore. Apparently, it is the only place in the world
where this is happening.

A highly placed but unquotable official at Singapore Telecom told me
that they did a survey and found that most calls were outgoing.
Anyway, they went ahead (splashed US$10 to $20 million) to set up
those transmitters/receivers all over the island. They did not figure
that it would do well. What do you know, they ran out of the phones in
a flash.

Apparently, even blue-collar types who work the whole day in the
factory want them. The launch was in March and it's now more than
three weeks but sales are still going great guns. It's going to be a
money-maker.

My hypothesis is that there is an element of status-seeking here. The
phone is small and looks like the nifty US$2000 Motorola cellular but
costs a tenth as much. Also, like HK, people want to be seen as
important enough and busy enough to need telecom links. When the first
handphones went on sale, people stood in prominent street corners and
talked loudly over the phone. :) I'm told a similar sort of situation
exists in HK where they want small phones with long antennas.

Curious.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 13:41:55
Subject: MCI News - Friends & Family


MCI is mailing all of their Friends & Family customers a large
brochure touting the fact that the service has been wildly successful
(surprise), and that to "thank" their loyal customers, they will be
granting everyone 40% off calls to the Friends & Family members during
the month of May.

Also being promoted is a free five minute call to any person you
nominate on the plan, in order for you to use that time to explain all
of the benefits of using the plan.  In other words, you become MCI
Customer Service for five minutes.

Included with the mailing is a printed insert illustrating your
current plan members.  Mine had mangled the spelling of every member
in my calling circle.

Other new features:

 - Include up to 20 members in your calling circle versus 12.
 - Promotion of their new MCI calling card with a special
   "Friends & Family" version.
 - Promotion of their $5.00 per month Personal 800 service.
 - Promotion of their international service, inclusion of one
   international number to get the 20% discount, and some
   new discounts for MCI's service for those travelling abroad.


[Moderator's Note: But a message in the Digest early Sunday discussed
the forty percent off deal, and compared it to local telco rates for
intra-LATA calls, finding it was not such a great deal after all.  Can
you respond to that, after you see the message?   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About 800 Number ANI
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:16:47 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


[John Perkins asked about getting ANI from the operator.]

PAT replied that it's a security problem since you can fish for pairs
and find the assignment.

You know, some may call me cynical, but ...

This has been the "Bell Juice" line for years. Letting subscribers
(ooops, now they are "customers" ;-) find an assignment was evil.

But NOW, it is no long BAD, in fact it is GOOD! How?  Why, just get
Caller-ID at your confederate's location, and call HIM to find the
assignment.

Strange how good and evil get confused when there is a profit to be
made ...

PS: "Bell Juice" was a term an old boss used to describe the
propaganda Bell fed its troops about the evils of competition.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is true Caller-ID (or 800 service ANI) can be
used in the way you suggest, to gain illicit information about someone
else's service by finding a pair and identifying it in those ways. Of
course you can also make a collect call to someone and have them tell
you the number shown on their bill next month. Telco however sees no
reason to specically have the operators help you dig for details.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Rules (was 800 Blocking)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:03:26 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


Kath said:

> However, the reference you are looking got is the Telephone Operator
> Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-435, 104
> Stat. 986 (1990) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. 226).

Does this act cover COCOTs, also?

Specifically I'm looking for the law on local DA from them.  Several
slimeCOTs here in the District area want $0.50 or so for it, and of
course, they don't have any phone books.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: 22 Mar 1992 17:01:31 UTC


Does this mean that if I am staying at a hotel and the phones don't
take 10xxx I can complain? To whom do I complain?


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>   N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W               [phone], log in as 'guest'

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Date: 22 Mar 92 22:57:21 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> 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?

Certainly COCOT phones are generally quite 'smart' and so MUST have
been allowing equal access as of 16-March-92 (a few days ago).

I believe, but am not positive, that the IXCs also had to comply by
that date, and I suspect all have.

One problem is still the weenie ma + pa LEC that can hardly afford to
upgrade to equal access, and that I for one would hate to see gobbled
by the big LECs.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 18:02 EST
From: Tony Heatwole <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need 800 ANI Number


Pat:

A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back
your ANI.  I can't find it in the Telecom Archives.  If you have it
handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number.


Thanks,

Tony Heatwole   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Offhand I do not. Would someone send Tony that
number in Georgia which provided the service?  Thanks.    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:37:23 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison


The Moderator writes:

> Mr. Rose has now paid his debt to society ...

For those of us relative newcomers to TELECOM Digest, please explain
what it was that Mr. Rose did to wind up in the Federal slammer, and
what makes his return noteworthy.


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


[Moderator's Note: Phil Howard and others have written to ask the same
thing. See the Note appended to the next mesage.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 17:42:54 -0500
From: Midnight <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA


Why did he go to prison?


Rich Solis    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: During 1988-90 there was a major federal crackdown
on phone phreaks and hackers (using the perjorative sense of the
word.) Len Rose was a well known Usenetter, active in several groups.
He was found to be in possession of source code which belonged to
AT&T, and he was found to have transmitted it interstate to one or
more other computer sites. Based on that activity and other aspects of
his social history revealed to the court, the court chose to impose
punishment of one year in prison. At the time of his arrest,
conviction and trial, there was much discussion on the net and in this
group along with {Computer Underground Digest} discussing the merits
of his case and the appropriateness of the punishment, if indeed there
should have been any.  You can check out the CUD Archives for a great
deal of background on this. Also, check out the 'security' directory
in the Telecom Archives using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 06:45:53 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: A Positive COCOT Experience


Steve Howard <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have had a positive experience with a local COCOT company, and I
> thought that I would share it with the rest of the telecom
> community...

[stuff about picking a COCOT over US West payphones deleted]

> The phones used are manufactured by Intellicall.  I have been very
> impressed.  It would appear that these phones can be very user
> friendly, if the owner desires to program them this way (Too bad that
> most owners don't :-( ).

This isn't the same Intellicall that {Forbes} skewered last November
due to their extremely shady accounting practices, is it?  (According
to the article, Intellicall had been doing things like counting phones
shipped as phones sold and paid for, etc.  Not very pleasant stuff if
you're interested in investing in the company.)


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 10:24:59 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


[Why can't two cell-phones have the same number].

> Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned,
> etc.?

That is the wrong question. The correct one is: What profit is there
in making folks get two {or more} accounts, and then making them pay
for some special forwarding feature?

The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling
block; marketing considerations are.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 10:41:45 EST
From: drilex!carols
Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In Vol. 12, Issue 245, [e-mail] (Paul M. Wexelblat) writes:

> I was in my local police station this morning and got into a
> discussion with the dispatcher about impending 911 service.

> (I don't know what system we have in town, but it is Acton, MA

What?  You mean Acton is going to get Enhanced 911 even though NET has
withdrawn its plans for Caller-ID in Massachusetts?  Why, just a few
weeks ago, the Boston Globe, that font of technical wisdom, announced
in an editorial that because of the low-lives who had pushed for the
availability of per-line blocking, Enhanced 911 would not be saving
lives in Massachusetts the way it is in many other places.  I
naturally assumed that without Caller-ID, which as the Globe and all
the rest of us know is the mechanism for Enhanced 911, NET would just
scrap all its plans for Enhanced 911 and justifiably blame the privacy
freaks.  Gee -- they must've found another way!

 :^     :^    :^    :^    :^    :^    :^    :^    :^    :^


Carol Springs   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link
Organization: GTE/SCSD
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 20:03:32 GMT


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

> I've noticed this problem also when I call my parents in Saudi Arabia
> from Canada.  Though the behaviour seems to vary a lot.  At the
> beginning of the call its real bad ... makes it hard to decide who
> answered.  But, at least there's no doubt that you've just received an
> international call.

> Last night things got real interesting when I experienced what would
> be the local equivalent of cross talk, except the strange voice
> drop-outs and echos were present in the other conversation also ...

> If it is echo cancelling, it is not doing a very good job ... because
> I hear my own voice echoing back several seconds later mixed in with
> my parent's voice.

You are right -- it is suboptimal echo cancellation which causes the
problem.  Adaptive echo cancellers attempt to estimate adaptively the
two echo components that are present.  Then they subtract this
estimate from the received signal (which is a sampled signal).  They
typically use things algorithms such as LMS (least mean squares) to
optimize the filter coefficients in the echo canceller.  For telephone
channels the LMS algorithm provides sufficient tracking.

So the echo canceller (the correct term, I believe, is echo
suppressor, because you can't always completely cancel the echo) is
basically an adaptive filter with coefficients that automatically
adapt to the communications channel, whether it is a satellite channel
or a fiber optic channel or whatever.

So, you might still ask, "well why can't the echo cancellers just get
rid of the echo?"  Making echo cancellers perfectly adaptive is a very
difficult job.  But they are getting better ... with faster DSPs
you will eventually see further improvements.  For now you just have
to put up with it. I don't believe you can do much about it.

Of course, as the original poster pointed out, you will see this
primarily on channels that traverse satellite links.


Dave Pascoe     GTE/SCSD   [e-mail]    KM3T  [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 02:34 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Winds of Change


In a message <10 Mar 92>, Jack Decker and Patrick Townson exchanged
the following:

> 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:

> 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 ...

> [Moderator's Note: Yeah, those companies are operating here. I don't
> personally know anyone using their services.  PAT]

Hey, Pat!  You really know how to hurt a fella!  Don't you know me?

Or, maybe it's that you don't know I've been using the facilities of
Diginet right down in the Loop since February, 1991.  Just for a
measure, here's what that buy got me:

1.) A cost about 2/3 of the Illinois Bell price;
2.) A co-location arrangement I could not get from IBT or AT&T;
3.) No, Zero, Nada downtime at all;
4.) A 25% reduction in data error performance over the long term.

In general, a considerable improvement in the operation of our
national network, since I've also used the similar facilities of
Teleport of Denver (not affiliated with the NY-based Teleport
Communications Group), Teleport of Houston (a TCG affiliate) and
Metropolitan Fiber Optic of NY City.

In each and every case, it's been a real pleasure to be one of a
thousand customers instead of one of several million.  I heartily
recommend use of the offerings of any AAV based on a year's direct
experience nationwide.

Guess I'm really on Ma Bell's Subversive List now!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #259
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16629;
          23 Mar 92 2:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31826
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:13:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19814
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:12:59 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:12:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:12:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 259

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Michael Schuster)
    Re: Telecommuting References Wanted (Peng-Hwa Ang)
    Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Hosed by MCI (Phil Howard)
    Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (L. W. Danz)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Warren Burstein)
    Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (John Nagle)
    Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22-MAR-1992 21:08:05.39
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No


Recently, [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92
09:39:32 GMT stated:

>>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have
>>> follow-me roaming at this point?

>> Not that I know of.

> NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message
> about it a couple of days ago.

Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the
NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY")
does *NOT* have FMR.

I just tried it today. Hitting *18/*19 from accounts with GTE/SF,
BellSouth/Miami, SNET/CT and NYNEX/Boston (all of which offer FMR to
their subscribers) will result in:

"I'm sorry, we are unable to complete your call as dialed ... please
call the operator for assistance (etc.)" The switch/recording number
was RN9 each time.

The last time I spoke to NYNEX/NY (to complain about very poor
coverage about three weeks ago), I inquired as to when FMR will be
available in the NY Metro area. Their reply: "Probably soon." They
told me this two years ago. They always say this. So far, it hasn't
happened.

They may be getting *close* to allowing FMR. About two months ago, if
you hit *18/*19, NYNEX/NY wouldn't even open up a voice channel for
you.  The switch would instruct your phone to return a "siren tone",
ie, the same thing you get when you try placing a call in a "NO SVC"
area.

In February, they changed this to play the message noted above. I'm
not sure why they did so, but it may be a precursor to allowing FMR. I
dunno ... just a guess.

Also, it was noted that they have a "711" roam info line. Not so --
yet.

Dialing *711 returns the "No Svc" siren, while 711 returns the RN9
swtich recording. 611 won't work -- it just gets customer service, and
unlike Cell One/Boston or whatever, they don't transfer after hours
611 calls to an automated information service.

NYNEX/Orange county (Newberg), NY may have FMR now -- I have not tried
it recently. Like the New York Metro NYNEX system, the Orange County
system has pathetic coverage, and in my experience it is not worth the
$3/day roam charge to use the phone there due to the poor quality of
coverage.  I will try it out soon and see what happens.

NYNEX in general has awful coverage -- the {New York Times} recently
reported that NYNEX has only 20 towers on Long Island, whereas Cell
One presently has 50. It is obvious to anyone who drives there or
boats in Long Island Sound that Cell One has unquestionably superior
coverage. Why NYNEX has 300,000+ customers and Cell One only 150,000
or so I have no idea, probably the "Bell" name (?).

Albany and Boston's NYNEX systems have decent coverage, although in
Albany there are lots of gaps between Pittsfield and Albany along
US-20. Also recall that NYNEX/Boston engages in the (I think)
outrageous practice of charging airtime and (if applicable) a daily
roam charge for *18 or *19.

Anyhow, to receive calls in NY:

for "B" side customers - NYNEX roam port - [phone].
      -  SNET/"Linx" customers get automatic call
     delivery, EXCEPT people from the SNET/Franklin
     County system (Anyone out there with a Frank. Co
     SNET #?)
     (FMR, as of Sunday, 3/22/92, not available)

for "A" side customers - Cell One port   - [phone]
     -  other McCaw systems with Ericssons - automatic call
    delivery and full use of features (except voicemail
    and No-answer-Transfer)
     -  Customers from Metro Mobile/CT or Western Mass, or
          Cell One/South Jersey - automatic call delivery and
    full use of features, including voicemail.
    (Nationlink/Roam America not available as of 3/22/92)

If anyone finds that NYNEX/NY *does* offer FMR to them *please* let me
know!

Also, if your home system is a McCaw/Ericsson, and you travel to other
McCaw/Ericsson systems, could you let me know what sort of problems
you have noticed in terms of call delivery, features, and voicemail in
the roaming system?  (Just send me some brief e-mail at your convenience
if possible) Thanks!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:36:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


In article <[e-mail]> jwt![e-mail] (John
Temples) writes:

> I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling
> Card.  I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing
> address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a
> "random" order.  Has anyone else noticed this?  If they're going to
> take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could
> use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme!

Several months ago I received a letter "warning" me that a new format
AT&T card was forthcoming. It wasn't.

This week I got a glossy mailing from New York Telephone, emphasizing
how =THEIR= calling card is easy to remember, but the (non-existent)
AT&T card isn't.

I'm confused. I keep getting these letters, but nothing has changed.
My (home phone number-based) AT&T card works as before .. at home and
on the road.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:02:28 SST
From: Peng-Hwa Ang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommuting References Wanted


The "authority" in the loosest sense of the word is Jack Niiles (or is
it Niles ) now at U. Southern California. He wrote the first study in
1976 or so and may have been the one who coined the word. The study
was commissioned, I believe, by the City of Los Angeles, which,
despite its cherubic name, is hell for commuting.

Niiles/Niles has since written another study.

Also in the early 1980s or so, there was a study entitled something
like "Telec ommunications and Energy" by, I believe, someone called
Tyler. This, if I recal l right, was a UN-sponsored study.  (Pardon
these vague references 'cos I studied them in the late 1980s.)

LA has one or two other studies on telecommuting. When I visited the
City's tel ecom office in 1988, they were trying to put city workers
on telecommuting. The ir conclusion was that a lot of it was political
(in the wide sense of the word ). As one of the officers said, "How
would taxpayers feel if they see their City's employees' cars parked
in the garage day after day?"

Last heard, they have put a number of people on telecommuting though.
And yes, there are lots of people who telecommute. Academics are
classic examples.

BTW, there was an article in {BusinessWeek} fall of 1987 that had an
article on telecommuting saying something like 100+million Americans
were doing it. The figures are bloated. They probably include anyone
who does any stitch of work at work.


Regards,

Peng

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 02:43:04 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B.
> Whiteman) writes:

>> 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:

> And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that
> live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the
> defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the
> extremely poor audio quality.

Not even a contest with the one I found yesterday outside my favorite
bookstore.  I had walked by it on my way in, and thought "Oh good,
that's new, and the next nearest it up the escalator and around the
corner.  Not only that, it looks like Genuine Bell."

Bzzzzzzt, thank you for playing.  I came out, and decided to check my
voicemail (an 800 call).  I get up to the phone, and notice that it's
a COCOT, and my heart sinks.  First, I looked at the rate card.  Hmmm,
AT&T is the default, that's a good sign.  "Dial 211 or 817-xxx-xxxx
(free call) for repair or refund", that's encouraging too.  "Press 0
for a local operator or 00 for a long distance operator."  How good
can it get?  I pick up the handset, and I've got sidetone, and the
keys are giving proper DTMF.  Nirvana.

The awful truth:

1-800-my voicemail          "Invalid number."
0                           "Invalid number."
00                          "Invalid number."
10288-0                     "Invalid number."
10333-0                     "Invalid number."
10777-0                     "Invalid number."
(Thouroughly disgusted at this point, and ready to chew someone out...)
211                         "Invalid number."
611                         "Invalid number."
1-817-xxx-xxxx              "Invalid number."
(Gnaaaaargh!)

Insert 20 cents, dial local number, works perfectly.  Hmmm.
Hypothesis: local number setup okay, or defaulted to something,
special number setup hosed.  Go to other phone.  Same results.

Normally I'd let this pass as one of the inevitabilities of free
enterprise, and once again wish I could afford cellular base fees, but
this is a pretty bad example.  Surely here in the People's Republic of
Kalifornia there's a PUC bureau for reporting this stuff?  (We have
one for everything else, why not this.)

BTW, I also remember a post from a year or so ago discussing a COCOT
enforcement effort looking for volunteers, but by the time I called
the number, I got SITs.  Did this die?  Did anybody get through to
them?


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]   {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Hosed by MCI
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:23:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have
> any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did,
> "emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to
> route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not
> days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company.

Usually the first people to do anything are doing it because they
happen to see a need for the product and know how to provide it.

Thereafter everyone else just sees the money making opportunities.

That's life.

Well I've found that SOME followup companies do reasonably well.
MCI does not seem to have been one of them.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
Subject: Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 18:00:16 CST


Try a TASI locking frequency ....

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:50:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Armando P. Stettner) writes:

> 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.?

Because it is already in place.  If simply redesigning or fixing
things that are designed wrong were done more often, *LOTS* of things
would be different (and better) than they are now.

You might have to dispose of hardware for some design changes.  But
this mentality even extends to software.  Rather than quit using
software they paid money for, because something better comes along
ultra low priced, some management types prefer keeping the old
clunker.  It would make them look bad if they switched.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Date: 23 Mar 92 00:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> Finally, a cooperative caller told me that he was responding to an
> ad in a national trade publication for a company that sells window
> treatment of some kind.  Sure enough, it is my number in the ad.]  The
> publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything.

Gee, I might be tempted to take the names of the callers and then sell
them to the publisher.  At a reasonable price, of course :-}


L. W. "Dan" Danz                  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

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


I've never had any problem with line-powered BOB's.  In fact I have
seen battery-powered ones so sensitive that they registered the low
voltage found on an input, which made it impossible to distinguish
between inputs and outputs, one of the reasons I use the thing in the
first place.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It?
Date: 23 Mar 92 04:13:08 GMT


    What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage?
It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four
wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line
desk phone which is telco-owned.  It bears the marking "840364202
9-81", but no other ID.  It contains three resistors, a cylindrical
component 3/16" dia and 3/8" long with one orange band and the
embossed number "521", a spring 3/4" long, clearly wired into the
circuit, (looks like a heating element or a very low ohm resistor) and
a four-terminal IC in an 8-pin DIP package marked "WE 4 1 838A", all
mounted on a PC board with two screw terminals and two attached wires.
The back of the PC board reads "AM-4 220".

    The phone is one of those that appears to have been retrofitted
with modular jacks, and the box may be part of that conversion.
There's an opening in the box next to the spring, probably for
ventilation.


John Nagle

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:37 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly


Canadian communications minister Perrin Beatty announced that
Teleglobe, the national overseas carrier, will retain its monopoly on
international calls for another five years. The word "monopoly" was
avoided in favour of the euphemism "exclusive supplier". This monopoly
arrangement could be reviewed in 1995, and the monopoly could be
terminated or continued in 1997.

Teleglobe's current structure came about when the company was sold by
the federal government and made into a private enterprise in 1987.

Teleglobe's 1991 profit was $25.7 million; 1990's profit was a third
of that. There was a stated desire to achieve parity with U.S.
overseas rates, though Teleglobe did not say when that would be
expected.


[e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #259
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17150;
          23 Mar 92 2:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04428
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:04:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04055
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:03:58 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:03:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Air Fone Frequencies


This is a special mailing of an article too large for the regular
Digest.

 From: [e-mail] (Leroy Donnelly)
 Subject: Air Fone Frequencies
 Reply-To: [e-mail]
 Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha

A subject had been brought up on what the frequencies are used for
in-flight air-to-ground.  The following should clear up the questions.

The FCC has issued rules on allocation of the 849-851/894-895 MHz
bands for air-ground radiotelephone service.

The new action, effective September 9, 1991:

     1) changes channel spacing from GTE Airfone Inc.'s de
          facto standards;

     2) orders GTE to make its service available to other
          air-ground licensees at non-discriminatory rates;

     3) divides each channel block into 6 control channels
          (P-1 through P-6) and 29 communications channels
          (C-1 through C-29);

     4) provides for a communications channel bandwidth of 6
          kHz;

     5) gives GTE 22 months to modify its current control
          channel scheme; during this period, GTE can use
          the lower 20 kHz of each channel block, which
          includes channels C-1, C-2, and C-3, for control.
          GTE then has another 38 months during which it can
          only use a 3.2 kHz control channel in channel C-2
          of each channel block. After these transition
          periods end (September of 1996), GTE must switch
          to control channels marked P-1 through P-6 in the
          tables below;

     6) empowers the FCC to assign exclusively one control
          channel to each air-ground licensee;

     7) limits the ERP of airborne stations to 30 watts;
          maximum, and that of ground stations to 100 watts
          maximum;

     8) limits the ERP of ground stations to 1 watt when
          communicating with aircraft on the ground.

               GROUND TO AIR CHANNELS

(NOTE" "GB" in these listings denotes Guard Band, a series
of 3 kHz spacings to separate communications channels from
control channels)

CH. #                         CHANNEL BLOCK

               10        9         8         7         6
C-1       849.0055  849.2055  849.4055  849.6055  849.8055
C-2       849.0115  849.2115  849.4115  849.6115  849.8115
C-3       849.0175  849.2175  849.4175  849.6175  849.8175
C-4       849.0235  849.2235  849.4235  849.6235  849.8235
C-5       849.0295  849.2295  849.4295  849.6295  849.8295
C-6       849.0355  849.2355  849.4355  849.6355  849.8355
C-7       849.0415  849.2415  849.4415  849.6415  849.8415
C-8       849.0475  849.2475  849.4475  849.6475  849.8475
C-9       849.0535  849.2535  849.4535  849.6535  849.8535
C-10      849.0595  849.2595  849.4595  849.6595  849.8595
C-11      849.0655  849.2655  849.4655  849.6655  849.8655
C-12      849.0715  849.2715  849.4715  849.6715  849.8715
C-13      849.0775  849.2775  849.4775  849.6775  849.8775
C-14      849.0835  849.2835  849.4835  849.6835  849.8835
C-15      849.0895  849.2895  849.4895  849.6895  849.8895
C-16      849.0955  849.2855  849.4955  849.6955  849.8955
C-17      849.1015  849.3015  849.5015  849.7015  849.9015
C-18      849.1075  849.3075  849.5075  849.7075  849.9075
C-19      849.1135  849.3135  849.5135  849.7135  849.9135
C-20      849.1195  849.3195  849.5195  849.7195  849.9195
C-21      849.1255  849.3255  849.5255  849.7255  849.9255
C-22      849.1315  849.3315  849.5315  849.7315  849.9315
C-23      849.1375  849.3375  849.5375  849.7375  849.9375
C-24      849.1435  849.3435  849.5435  849.7435  849.9435
C-25      849.1495  849.3495  849.5495  849.7495  849.9495
C-26      849.1555  849.3555  849.5555  849.7555  849.9555
C-27      849.1615  849.3615  849.5615  849.7615  849.9615
C-28      849.1675  849.3675  849.5675  849.7675  849.9675
C-29      849.1735  849.3735  849.5735  849.7735  849.9735
GB        849.1765  849.3765  849.5765  849.7765  849.9765
               to        to        to        to        to
          849.1797  849.3797  849.5797  849.7797  849.9797
P-6       849.1813  849.3813  849.5813  849.7813  849.9813
P-5       849.1845  849.3845  849.5845  849.7845  849.9845
P-4       849.1877  849.3877  849.5877  849.7877  849.9877
P-3       849.1909  849.3909  849.5909  849.7909  849.9909
P-2       849.1941  849.3941  849.5941  849.7941  849.9941
P-1       849.1973  849.3973  849.5973  849.7973  849.9973


               5         4         3         2         1
C-1       850.0055  850.2055  850.4055  850.6055  850.8055
C-2       850.0115  850.2115  850.4115  850.6115  850.8115
C-3       850.0175  850.2175  850.4175  850.6175  850.8175
C-4       850.0235  850.2235  850.4235  850.6235  850.8235
C-5       850.0295  850.2295  850.4295  850.6295  850.8295
C-6       850.0355  850.2355  850.4355  850.6355  850.8355
C-7       850.0415  850.2415  850.4415  850.6415  850.8415
C-8       850.0475  850.2475  850.4475  850.6475  850.8475
C-9       850.0535  850.2535  850.4535  850.6535  850.8535
C-10      850.0595  850.2595  850.4595  850.6595  850.8595
C-11      850.0655  850.2655  850.4655  850.6655  850.8655
C-12      850.0715  850.2715  850.4715  850.6715  850.8715
C-13      850.0775  850.2775  850.4775  850.6775  850.8775
C-14      850.0835  850.2835  850.4835  850.6835  850.8835
C-15      850.0895  850.2895  850.4895  850.6895  850.8895
C-16      850.0955  850.2855  850.4955  850.6955  850.8955
C-17      850.1015  850.3015  850.5015  850.7015  850.9015
C-18      850.1075  850.3075  850.5075  850.7075  850.9075
C-19      850.1135  850.3135  850.5135  850.7135  850.9135
C-20      850.1195  850.3195  850.5195  850.7195  850.9195
C-21      850.1255  850.3255  850.5255  850.7255  850.9255
C-22      850.1315  850.3315  850.5315  850.7315  850.9315
C-23      850.1375  850.3375  850.5375  850.7375  850.9375
C-24      850.1435  850.3435  850.5435  850.7435  850.9435
C-25      850.1495  850.3495  850.5495  850.7495  850.9495
C-26      850.1555  850.3555  850.5555  850.7555  850.9555
C-27      850.1615  850.3615  850.5615  850.7615  850.9615
C-28      850.1675  850.3675  850.5675  850.7675  850.9675
C-29      850.1735  850.3735  850.5735  850.7735  850.9735
GB        850.1765  850.3765  850.5765  850.7765  850.9765
               to        to        to        to        to
          850.1797  850.3797  850.5797  850.7797  850.9797
P-6       850.1813  850.3813  850.5813  850.7813  850.9813
P-5       850.1845  850.3845  850.5845  850.7845  850.9845
P-4       850.1877  850.3877  850.5877  850.7877  850.9877
P-3       850.1909  850.3909  850.5909  850.7909  850.9909
P-2       850.1941  850.3941  850.5941  850.7941  850.9941
P-1       850.1973  850.3973  850.5973  850.7973  850.9973

               AIR TO GROUND CHANNELS

CH. #                         CHANNEL BLOCK
               10        9         8         7         6
C-1       894.0055  894.2055  894.4055  894.6055  894.8055
C-2       894.0115  894.2115  894.4115  894.6115  894.8115
C-3       894.0175  894.2175  894.4175  894.6175  894.8175
C-4       894.0235  894.2235  894.4235  894.6235  894.8235
C-5       894.0295  894.2295  894.4295  894.6295  894.8295
C-6       894.0355  894.2355  894.4355  894.6355  894.8355
C-7       894.0415  894.2415  894.4415  894.6415  894.8415
C-8       894.0475  894.2475  894.4475  894.6475  894.8475
C-9       894.0535  894.2535  894.4535  894.6535  894.8535
C-10      894.0595  894.2595  894.4595  894.6595  894.8595
C-11      894.0655  894.2655  894.4655  894.6655  894.8655
C-12      894.0715  894.2715  894.4715  894.6715  894.8715
C-13      894.0775  894.2775  894.4775  894.6775  894.8775
C-14      894.0835  894.2835  894.4835  894.6835  894.8835
C-15      894.0895  894.2895  894.4895  894.6895  894.8895
C-16      894.0955  894.2855  894.4955  894.6955  894.8955
C-17      894.1015  894.3015  894.5015  894.7015  894.9015
C-18      894.1075  894.3075  894.5075  894.7075  894.9075
C-19      894.1135  894.3135  894.5135  894.7135  894.9135
C-20      894.1195  894.3195  894.5195  894.7195  894.9195
C-21      894.1255  894.3255  894.5255  894.7255  894.9255
C-22      894.1315  894.3315  894.5315  894.7315  894.9315
C-23      894.1375  894.3375  894.5375  894.7375  894.9375
C-24      894.1435  894.3435  894.5435  894.7435  894.9435
C-25      894.1495  894.3495  894.5495  894.7495  894.9495
C-26      894.1555  894.3555  894.5555  894.7555  894.9555
C-27      894.1615  894.3615  894.5615  894.7615  894.9615
C-28      894.1675  894.3675  894.5675  894.7675  894.9675
C-29      894.1735  894.3735  894.5735  894.7735  894.9735
GB        894.1765  894.3765  894.5765  894.7765  894.9765
               to        to        to        to        to
          894.1797  894.3797  894.5797  894.7797  894.9797
P-6       894.1813  894.3813  894.5813  894.7813  894.9813
P-5       894.1845  894.3845  894.5845  894.7845  894.9845
P-4       894.1877  894.3877  894.5877  894.7877  894.9877
P-3       894.1909  894.3909  894.5909  894.7909  894.9909
P-2       894.1941  894.3941  894.5941  894.7941  894.9941
P-1       894.1973  894.3973  894.5973  894.7973  894.9973


               5         4         3         2         1
C-1       895.0055  895.2055  895.4055  895.6055  895.8055
C-2       895.0115  895.2115  895.4115  895.6115  895.8115
C-3       895.0175  895.2175  895.4175  895.6175  895.8175
C-4       895.0235  895.2235  895.4235  895.6235  895.8235
C-5       895.0295  895.2295  895.4295  895.6295  895.8295
C-6       895.0355  895.2355  895.4355  895.6355  895.8355
C-7       895.0415  895.2415  895.4415  895.6415  895.8415
C-8       895.0475  895.2475  895.4475  895.6475  895.8475
C-9       895.0535  895.2535  895.4535  895.6535  895.8535
C-10      895.0595  895.2595  895.4595  895.6595  895.8595
C-11      895.0655  895.2655  895.4655  895.6655  895.8655
C-12      895.0715  895.2715  895.4715  895.6715  895.8715
C-13      895.0775  895.2775  895.4775  895.6775  895.8775
C-14      895.0835  895.2835  895.4835  895.6835  895.8835
C-15      895.0895  895.2895  895.4895  895.6895  895.8895
C-16      895.0955  895.2855  895.4955  895.6955  895.8955
C-17      895.1015  895.3015  895.5015  895.7015  895.9015
C-18      895.1075  895.3075  895.5075  895.7075  895.9075
C-19      895.1135  895.3135  895.5135  895.7135  895.9135
C-20      895.1195  895.3195  895.5195  895.7195  895.9195
C-21      895.1255  895.3255  895.5255  895.7255  895.9255
C-22      895.1315  895.3315  895.5315  895.7315  895.9315
C-23      895.1375  895.3375  895.5375  895.7375  895.9375
C-24      895.1435  895.3435  895.5435  895.7435  895.9435
C-25      895.1495  895.3495  895.5495  895.7495  895.9495
C-26      895.1555  895.3555  895.5555  895.7555  895.9555
C-27      895.1615  895.3615  895.5615  895.7615  895.9615
C-28      895.1675  895.3675  895.5675  895.7675  895.9675
C-29      895.1735  895.3735  895.5735  895.7735  895.9735
GB        895.1765  895.3765  895.5765  895.7765  895.9765
               to        to        to        to        to
          895.1797  895.3797  895.5797  895.7797  895.9797
P-6       895.1813  895.3813  895.5813  895.7813  895.9813
P-5       895.1845  895.3845  895.5845  895.7845  895.9845
P-4       895.1877  895.3877  895.5877  895.7877  895.9877
P-3       895.1909  895.3909  895.5909  895.7909  895.9909
P-2       895.1941  895.3941  895.5941  895.7941  895.9941
P-1       895.1973  895.3973  895.5973  895.7973  895.9973


GEOGRAPHICAL CHANNEL BLOCK LAYOUT
(ground stations using the same channel block must be at
least 300 miles apart)

LOCATION            CH. BLOCK
ALASKA
     Anchorage      8
     Cordova        5
     Ketchikan      5
     Juneau         4
     Sitka          7
     Yakutat        8
ALABAMA
     Birmingham     2
ARIZONA
     Phoenix        4
     Winslow        6
ARKANSAS
     Pine Bluff     8
CALIFORNIA
     Blythe         10
     Eureka         8
     Los Angeles    4
     Oakland        1
     S. San Fran.   6
     Visalia        7
COLORADO
     Colorado Spgs. 8
     Denver         1
     Hayden         6
FLORIDA
     Miami          4
     Orlando        2
     Tallahassee    7
GEORGIA
     Atlanta        5
     St. Simons Is. 6
HAWAII
     Mauna Kapu     5
IDAHO
     Blackfoot      8
     Caldwell       10
ILLINOIS
     Chicago        3
     Kewanee        5
     Schiller Park  2
INDIANA
     Fort Wayne     7
IOWA
     Des Moines     1
KANSAS
     Garden City    3
     Wichita        7
KENTUCKY
     Fairdale       6
LOUISIANA
     Kenner         3
     Shreveport     5
MASSACHUSETTS
     Boston         7
MICHIGAN
     Bellville      8
     Flint          9
     Sault S. Marie 6
MINNESOTA
     Bloomington    9
MISSISSIPPI
     Meridian       9
MISSOURI
     Kansas City    6
     St. Louis      4
     Springfield    9
MONTANA
     Lewistown      5
     Miles City     8
     Missoula       3
NEBRASKA
     Grand Island   2
     Ogallala       4
NEVADA
     Las Vegas      1
     Reno           3
     Tonopah        9
     Winnemucca     4
NEW MEXICO
     Alamogordo     8
     Albuquerque    10
     Aztec          9
     Clayton        5
NEW JERSEY
     Woodbury       3
NEW YORK
     E. Elmhurst    1
     Schuyler       2
     Staten Island  9
NORTH CAROLINA
     Greensboro     9
     Wilmington     3
NORTH DAKOTA
     Dickinson      7
OHIO
     Pataskala      1
OKLAHOMA
     Warner         4
     Woodward       9
OREGON
     Albany         5
     Klamath Falls  2
     Pendleton      7
PENNSYLVANIA
     Coraopolis     4
     New Cumberland 8
SOUTH CAROLINA
     Charleston     4
SOUTH DAKOTA
     Aberdeen       6
     Rapid City     5
TENNESSEE
     Elizabethton   7
     Memphis        10
     Nashville      3
TEXAS
     Austin         2
     Bedford        1
     Houston        9
     Lubbock        7
     Monahans       6
UTAH
     Abajo Peak     7
     Delta          2
     Escalante      5
     Green River    3
     Salt Lake City 1
VIRGINIA
     Arlington      6
WASHINGTON
     Seattle        4
     Cheney         1
WEST VIRGINIA
     Charleston     2
WISCONSIN
     Stevens Point  8
WYOMING
     Riverton       9


 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha   Yes, Ivgate has alt groups ;-)  (1:285/666.0)











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18231;
          23 Mar 92 3:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18697
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00464
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:05 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:24:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #259

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:23:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 260

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Michael Schuster)
    Re: Telecommuting References Wanted (Peng-Hwa Ang)
    Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Hosed by MCI (Phil Howard)
    Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (L. W. Danz)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Warren Burstein)
    Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (John Nagle)
    Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22-MAR-1992 21:08:05.39
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No


Recently, [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92
09:39:32 GMT stated:

>>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have
>>> follow-me roaming at this point?

>> Not that I know of.

> NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message
> about it a couple of days ago.

Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the
NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY")
does *NOT* have FMR.

I just tried it today. Hitting *18/*19 from accounts with GTE/SF,
BellSouth/Miami, SNET/CT and NYNEX/Boston (all of which offer FMR to
their subscribers) will result in:

"I'm sorry, we are unable to complete your call as dialed ... please
call the operator for assistance (etc.)" The switch/recording number
was RN9 each time.

The last time I spoke to NYNEX/NY (to complain about very poor
coverage about three weeks ago), I inquired as to when FMR will be
available in the NY Metro area. Their reply: "Probably soon." They
told me this two years ago. They always say this. So far, it hasn't
happened.

They may be getting *close* to allowing FMR. About two months ago, if
you hit *18/*19, NYNEX/NY wouldn't even open up a voice channel for
you.  The switch would instruct your phone to return a "siren tone",
ie, the same thing you get when you try placing a call in a "NO SVC"
area.

In February, they changed this to play the message noted above. I'm
not sure why they did so, but it may be a precursor to allowing FMR. I
dunno ... just a guess.

Also, it was noted that they have a "711" roam info line. Not so --
yet.

Dialing *711 returns the "No Svc" siren, while 711 returns the RN9
swtich recording. 611 won't work -- it just gets customer service, and
unlike Cell One/Boston or whatever, they don't transfer after hours
611 calls to an automated information service.

NYNEX/Orange county (Newberg), NY may have FMR now -- I have not tried
it recently. Like the New York Metro NYNEX system, the Orange County
system has pathetic coverage, and in my experience it is not worth the
$3/day roam charge to use the phone there due to the poor quality of
coverage.  I will try it out soon and see what happens.

NYNEX in general has awful coverage -- the {New York Times} recently
reported that NYNEX has only 20 towers on Long Island, whereas Cell
One presently has 50. It is obvious to anyone who drives there or
boats in Long Island Sound that Cell One has unquestionably superior
coverage. Why NYNEX has 300,000+ customers and Cell One only 150,000
or so I have no idea, probably the "Bell" name (?).

Albany and Boston's NYNEX systems have decent coverage, although in
Albany there are lots of gaps between Pittsfield and Albany along
US-20. Also recall that NYNEX/Boston engages in the (I think)
outrageous practice of charging airtime and (if applicable) a daily
roam charge for *18 or *19.

Anyhow, to receive calls in NY:

for "B" side customers - NYNEX roam port - [phone].
      -  SNET/"Linx" customers get automatic call
     delivery, EXCEPT people from the SNET/Franklin
     County system (Anyone out there with a Frank. Co
     SNET #?)
     (FMR, as of Sunday, 3/22/92, not available)

for "A" side customers - Cell One port   - [phone]
     -  other McCaw systems with Ericssons - automatic call
    delivery and full use of features (except voicemail
    and No-answer-Transfer)
     -  Customers from Metro Mobile/CT or Western Mass, or
          Cell One/South Jersey - automatic call delivery and
    full use of features, including voicemail.
    (Nationlink/Roam America not available as of 3/22/92)

If anyone finds that NYNEX/NY *does* offer FMR to them *please* let me
know!

Also, if your home system is a McCaw/Ericsson, and you travel to other
McCaw/Ericsson systems, could you let me know what sort of problems
you have noticed in terms of call delivery, features, and voicemail in
the roaming system?  (Just send me some brief e-mail at your convenience
if possible) Thanks!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 01:36:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


In article <[e-mail]> jwt![e-mail] (John
Temples) writes:

> I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling
> Card.  I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing
> address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a
> "random" order.  Has anyone else noticed this?  If they're going to
> take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could
> use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme!

Several months ago I received a letter "warning" me that a new format
AT&T card was forthcoming. It wasn't.

This week I got a glossy mailing from New York Telephone, emphasizing
how =THEIR= calling card is easy to remember, but the (non-existent)
AT&T card isn't.

I'm confused. I keep getting these letters, but nothing has changed.
My (home phone number-based) AT&T card works as before .. at home and
on the road.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:02:28 SST
From: Peng-Hwa Ang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommuting References Wanted


The "authority" in the loosest sense of the word is Jack Niiles (or is
it Niles ) now at U. Southern California. He wrote the first study in
1976 or so and may have been the one who coined the word. The study
was commissioned, I believe, by the City of Los Angeles, which,
despite its cherubic name, is hell for commuting.

Niiles/Niles has since written another study.

Also in the early 1980s or so, there was a study entitled something
like "Telec ommunications and Energy" by, I believe, someone called
Tyler. This, if I recal l right, was a UN-sponsored study.  (Pardon
these vague references 'cos I studied them in the late 1980s.)

LA has one or two other studies on telecommuting. When I visited the
City's tel ecom office in 1988, they were trying to put city workers
on telecommuting. The ir conclusion was that a lot of it was political
(in the wide sense of the word ). As one of the officers said, "How
would taxpayers feel if they see their City's employees' cars parked
in the garage day after day?"

Last heard, they have put a number of people on telecommuting though.
And yes, there are lots of people who telecommute. Academics are
classic examples.

BTW, there was an article in {BusinessWeek} fall of 1987 that had an
article on telecommuting saying something like 100+million Americans
were doing it. The figures are bloated. They probably include anyone
who does any stitch of work at work.


Regards,

Peng

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Maximum Rates Chargable by California COCOTs
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 02:43:04 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B.
> Whiteman) writes:

>> 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:

> And I have found literally two COCOTs from Hell (not Michigan) that
> live outside my favorite supermarket. In addition to all of the
> defects described below, it was almost impossible to talk due to the
> extremely poor audio quality.

Not even a contest with the one I found yesterday outside my favorite
bookstore.  I had walked by it on my way in, and thought "Oh good,
that's new, and the next nearest it up the escalator and around the
corner.  Not only that, it looks like Genuine Bell."

Bzzzzzzt, thank you for playing.  I came out, and decided to check my
voicemail (an 800 call).  I get up to the phone, and notice that it's
a COCOT, and my heart sinks.  First, I looked at the rate card.  Hmmm,
AT&T is the default, that's a good sign.  "Dial 211 or 817-xxx-xxxx
(free call) for repair or refund", that's encouraging too.  "Press 0
for a local operator or 00 for a long distance operator."  How good
can it get?  I pick up the handset, and I've got sidetone, and the
keys are giving proper DTMF.  Nirvana.

The awful truth:

1-800-my voicemail          "Invalid number."
0                           "Invalid number."
00                          "Invalid number."
10288-0                     "Invalid number."
10333-0                     "Invalid number."
10777-0                     "Invalid number."
(Thouroughly disgusted at this point, and ready to chew someone out...)
211                         "Invalid number."
611                         "Invalid number."
1-817-xxx-xxxx              "Invalid number."
(Gnaaaaargh!)

Insert 20 cents, dial local number, works perfectly.  Hmmm.
Hypothesis: local number setup okay, or defaulted to something,
special number setup hosed.  Go to other phone.  Same results.

Normally I'd let this pass as one of the inevitabilities of free
enterprise, and once again wish I could afford cellular base fees, but
this is a pretty bad example.  Surely here in the People's Republic of
Kalifornia there's a PUC bureau for reporting this stuff?  (We have
one for everything else, why not this.)

BTW, I also remember a post from a year or so ago discussing a COCOT
enforcement effort looking for volunteers, but by the time I called
the number, I got SITs.  Did this die?  Did anybody get through to
them?


Laird P. Broadfield     [e-mail]   {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Hosed by MCI
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:23:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 2. It is doubtful that a similar circuit ordered from AT&T would have
> any of the problems that we have encountered. But if it did,
> "emergency" to AT&T means more like "within the hour". If AT&T had to
> route a backhaul, experience has shown that it can do it in hours, not
> days. But then AT&T is (apparently) an engineering-driven company.

Usually the first people to do anything are doing it because they
happen to see a need for the product and know how to provide it.

Thereafter everyone else just sees the money making opportunities.

That's life.

Well I've found that SOME followup companies do reasonably well.
MCI does not seem to have been one of them.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
Subject: Re: Voice Drop Outs on International Link
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 18:00:16 CST


Try a TASI locking frequency ....

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 04:50:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Armando P. Stettner) writes:

> 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.?

Because it is already in place.  If simply redesigning or fixing
things that are designed wrong were done more often, *LOTS* of things
would be different (and better) than they are now.

You might have to dispose of hardware for some design changes.  But
this mentality even extends to software.  Rather than quit using
software they paid money for, because something better comes along
ultra low priced, some management types prefer keeping the old
clunker.  It would make them look bad if they switched.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Date: 23 Mar 92 00:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> Finally, a cooperative caller told me that he was responding to an
> ad in a national trade publication for a company that sells window
> treatment of some kind.  Sure enough, it is my number in the ad.]  The
> publisher apologized, but did not offer to do anything.

Gee, I might be tempted to take the names of the callers and then sell
them to the publisher.  At a reasonable price, of course :-}


L. W. "Dan" Danz                  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

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
Date: 22 Mar 92 14:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


I've never had any problem with line-powered BOB's.  In fact I have
seen battery-powered ones so sensitive that they registered the low
voltage found on an input, which made it impossible to distinguish
between inputs and outputs, one of the reasons I use the thing in the
first place.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It?
Date: 23 Mar 92 04:13:08 GMT


    What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage?
It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four
wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line
desk phone which is telco-owned.  It bears the marking "840364202
9-81", but no other ID.  It contains three resistors, a cylindrical
component 3/16" dia and 3/8" long with one orange band and the
embossed number "521", a spring 3/4" long, clearly wired into the
circuit, (looks like a heating element or a very low ohm resistor) and
a four-terminal IC in an 8-pin DIP package marked "WE 4 1 838A", all
mounted on a PC board with two screw terminals and two attached wires.
The back of the PC board reads "AM-4 220".

    The phone is one of those that appears to have been retrofitted
with modular jacks, and the box may be part of that conversion.
There's an opening in the box next to the spring, probably for
ventilation.


John Nagle

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 23:57:37 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Teleglobe Gets Five More Years of Monopoly


Canadian communications minister Perrin Beatty announced that
Teleglobe, the national overseas carrier, will retain its monopoly on
international calls for another five years. The word "monopoly" was
avoided in favour of the euphemism "exclusive supplier". This monopoly
arrangement could be reviewed in 1995, and the monopoly could be
terminated or continued in 1997.

Teleglobe's current structure came about when the company was sold by
the federal government and made into a private enterprise in 1987.

Teleglobe's 1991 profit was $25.7 million; 1990's profit was a third
of that. There was a stated desire to achieve parity with U.S.
overseas rates, though Teleglobe did not say when that would be
expected.


[e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #260
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09446;
          23 Mar 92 23:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26156
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:09:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27942
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:08:45 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 21:08:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #261

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:08:42 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 261

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars Caller-ID (Comm. Daily via Dave Banisar)
    GTE Southwest/Iowa-Nebraska Contract Talks (Phillip Dampier)
    Hold Music Sponsorship (Michael Rosen)
    AT&T International Operator Assistance (Andrew Lie)
    Speakerphone at Disneyland (Craig R. Watkins)
    3780 Protocol (Leroy Donnelly)
    UNIX and ISDN (Donald Molaro)
    Roaming in LA (Steve Forrette)
    Anyone Work With 900 Calling From PBX's? (Steve Chafe)
    Correction to 'How ISDN Works' (David G. Lewis)
    Only In America (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: CPSR, Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:49:09 EDT
Subject: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars Caller-ID


 From March 23, 1992 {Comm. Daily}

PA. SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT UNBLOCKED  CALLER ID

The PA state Supreme Court last week upheld lower court rulings
that unblocked Caller ID service would violate state wiretap laws, but
left open a significant question of whether any form of blocking would
satisfy legal requirements. The March 18 decision by Judge Nicholas
Papadakos for the seven-member court said the service violated state
law "because it is being used for unlimited purposes without the
'consent' of each of the users of the telephone service." The PUC had
approved service in 1989 without blocking, and was challenged in court
by then-Consumer Advocate David Barasch.

Bell of PA had argued that Caller ID was a legal trap-and-trace device
operated by the telephone company, but Barasch and others had said
that two traps were being used -- one by telephone company, which may
be exempt from law, and one by the customer's Caller ID device. The
court ruled state wiretapping law requires that "consent to any form
of interception must be obtained from all parties."

The ruling didn't answer questions whether Caller ID was constitutional,
or what forms of blocking would suffice to meet state requirements. In
oral arguments, the telephone company changed its policy and said it
would offer per-call blocking.  Bell of PA.  spokesman Saul Kohler
said that ruling "clears the way for Caller ID to be offered" with
per-call blocking, and that the company was pleased service wasn't
found to be unconstitutional. There's no timetable for proposing
service, he said. But Irwin Popowski, who succeeded Barasch as
Consumer Advocate, said it's an open question whether per-call
blocking is adequate. Popowski wouldn't say what blocking standard his
office would support, but noted that trend of regulatory decisions
around the country lately has been to include per-line blocking in mix
of services. There's a "real question" whether per-line blocking
should be offered, he said.

PUC Vice Chairman Joseph Rhodes, who wrote the 1978 privacy law while
in the legislature, said it's possible that any new Bell proposal
could lead to another three years of litigation. He called the
decision "triumph for privacy," and said Bell statement claiming
victory was "an absurd attempt to distort what the Supreme Court
decided." Rhodes called on Bell to confer with Caller ID opponents to
try to find a solution, and for the company to put more emphasis on
Call Trace.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:30:53
Subject: GTE Southwest/Iowa-Nebraska Contract Talks


CWA STARTS CONTRACT TALKS WITH GTE SOUTHWEST AND GTE IOWA-NEBRASKA;
JOB SECURITY TOP PRIORITY FOR 20,000 WORKERS AT GTE NATIONWIDE IN 1992


WASHINGTON, D.C., March 19 (CWA) -- The Communications Workers of
America will open negotiations for a new three-year contract with GTE
Southwest on Tuesday, March 31, 1992 in Irving, Texas.  Talks with GTE
Iowa-Nebraska begin soon after.  These are the first of several round
of negotiations to be held in 1992 and 1993 with GTE, for new
contracts covering a total of about 26,000 union represented workers
nationwide.

"GTE is among the healthiest, most profitable corporations in America,
despite the recession," said CWA Vice President T.O. Moses.  "Yet they
have been drastically cutting jobs and laying off thousands of
workers.  These layoffs have a devastating effect on our communities,
which lose both good jobs and the quality service these workers
provided.  GTE has a corporate responsibility to the communities which
they serve, and the workers they employ, and we will urge them to meet
that responsibility in our negotiations."

GTE, the largest U.S. telephone holding company, is a financially
strong, growing, successful corporation.  In 1991, GTE saw significant
increases in profits, revenues, return to shareholders, productivity,
and acquired new assets.  GTE paid $945 million for a share of the
Venezuelan phone company in 1991, and consumated a $6.2 billion merger
with Contel.  Profitability per employee is estimated to exceed
$35,000 per worker in 1992. [Detailed figures for 1991 have not yet
been released.]

GTE's telephone operations are the key to the company's success,
providing an overwhelming share (85 percent) of their profits.

"Our members, whose hard work has made millions for GTE, deserve a
fair contract that protects their standard of living and insures
employment security now and in the future," Moses stated.

"These economic security goals mean a great deal to the communities
where GTE employees live and work," Moses continued. "If our economy
is ever going to thrive again, successful, profitable companies like
GTE must make a commitment to create good jobs, instead of continuing
to downsize.  The thousands of jobs that GTE has cut over the years
have hurt families and communities all over this country, in favor of
boosting short term profits.  GTE and other corporations must stop
playing to Wall Street, putting workers on the unemployment lines to
gain a quick jump in stock prices.  GTE should adopt a long-term
strategy that creates good American jobs, with good benefits and
opportunities for advancement.  GTE is more than able to meet those
goals."

"CWA will also be addressing problems caused by the merger of GTE and
Contel, with our focus being to ensure that former Contel employees
will be treated fairly," Moses said.  Management is saying we are one
company, and they must live up to those words.

"CWA members at GTE will mobilize around the country on Tuesday, March
31st, to show their solidarity with the bargainers at GTE Southwest
and GTE Iowa-Nebraska," Moses continued.  "They will distribute
leaflets to all union employees marking the start of bargaining.  We
understand that when one table sits down to negotiate, we're all there
together, because we all work for the same company and belong to the
same union.  We're standing together and standing strong.  Similar
leaflets will go out nationwide every time another bargaining begins
in each GTE region."

CWA Local leaders from GTE met in Dallas, Texas, in December of 1991
and adopted bargaining goals for GTE, as well as adopting the
bargaining goals set by all of the CWA telecommunications local
leadership.

CWA represents over 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing,
publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the United
States and Canada."

                                ###

Communications Workers of America

Contact:  Jeff Miller
          Gaye Williams Mack
          [phone]

          Ben Turn
          [phone]


GTE - CONTEL MANAGEMENT DOUBLETALK


Is management giving you nothing but doubletalk?

If GTE and Contel management keep saying GTE is now one company ...

  - Why is GTE offering buyout incentives to its employees, but
    not to Contel workers?

  - Why aren't they offering the same pension plan?

  - Why do Contel employees have to pay part of their health
    care?

(part of a brochure being distributed regarding GTE and Contel)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Hold Music Sponsorship
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 07:13:19 GMT


Here's something interesting I encountered while calling Ticketmaster
(TM probably?) to purchase Orioles exhibition game tickets:

Upon connecting, I was placed on hold and was presented with some
classical music for my "entertainment" (sorry, I'm not much into
clasical).  Anyway, a little ways in, this voice cuts in and says:

"Your hold time entertainment has been brought to you by Brinks Home
Security ... blah, blah, blah ... [followed by advertisement for their
services and an 800 number]"

Has anyone else ever encountered hold music that was sponsored by
someone?  I found this to be quite odd ...


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: Mon, 23 Mar 92 09:39:38 CST
From: [e-mail]    (Andrew Lie)
Subject: AT&T International Operator Assistance


Two weeks ago I tried calling Hong Kong direct by dialing the country
code (852) and the city code (5) followed by the local number (both
the country code and the city code are in the phone book). I could not
get through using this dialing sequence.

So, I called the AT&T International Operator stating the dialing
sequence and the announcement I got.  He could not figure out what was
wrong and connected me to the Hong Kong operator.  The Hong Kong
operator verified the local number and did not see anything wrong.
The AT&T operator immediately disconnected my call without asking the
other operator to extend the call.  I gave up.

Last Friday I received a bill from AT&T charging $7.37 + tax for that
call (the number indicated is 852-555-1212).  I talked to the AT&T
representative and she insisted that it is their policy to bill such
call.  I am wondering whether anyone has similar experience with AT&T.

BTW, I learned from a friend that calling Hong Kong no longer requires
the city code (YES, I get through with this dialing sequence).  I
personally will not miss this type of operator assistance after it is
automated.


Andrew K. Lie

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speakerphone at Disneyland
Date: 23 Mar 92 12:05:47 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


As I promised, here's the phone number that showed up on our 800
billing for a call from the speakerphone at Disneyland: [phone]
When I call it, I get that the phone has "been disconnected or is no
longer in service."


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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 07:19:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Leroy Donnelly)
Subject: 3780 Protocol
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Looking for a supplier of UNIX based telecommunications packages that
will do 3780.  SCO and ZENIX will be the main operating systems of
choice.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DRBBS, Omaha   Yes, Ivgate has alt groups ;-)  (1:285/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Donald Molaro)
Subject: UNIX and ISDN
Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:04:58 GMT


I am looking for information with regards to a hardware and software
interface to ISDN from a UNIX system, either a SUN (sunos 4.1.X) or a
CDC 4080 (AT&T sys V).

Please respond via mail as I do not make it a habit to read this
group. I will post a summary of there are sufficent responses.


Donald Molaro    [e-mail]     #include <disclaimer.h>

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 16:11:20 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roaming in LA


Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite
dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier).
I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the
following problems in dialing:

- Using ten digit dialing (as it was a local call from where I was)
got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed."

- 1 + ten digits got "Roamers must use 0+ for long distance," even though it
was a local call.

- 0 + ten digits got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed," or a
reorder, seeminly at random.

I finally just did a 0- call and placed it on my calling card.  The
next day, I remembered that permissive dialing for the 310/213 split
was still in effect, and tried it with 213 + seven digits, and it
worked just fine.  Calling Customer Care got me a menu to wade
through, and when I selected "technical problem," I was told to leave
a voicemail message describing my problem. :-(  When I called back and
let the menu time out, I discovered that they don't have 24 hour
customer care, and that I would have to call back on Monday.

When I spoke with a rep on Monday, they told me that "Pacific Bell has
not issued us any 310 prefixes yet, so all of our subscribers are
still in 213."  I said that while that may be true, there's no reason
why that should prevent me from calling a landline in 310.  After all,
310 is the "real" number for those that got moved -- 213 is just
supported temporarily to ease the transition.  "But sir, you don't
understand; we have not been issued any 310 numbers yet!"

I countered with the fact that I was able to call my office in the 206
area code, even though LA Cellular did not have any home customers
with 206 numbers.  "But sir, but sir ..." :-( I asked how, as a
roamer, was I supposed to be aware of this situation, since the
recordings don't say what the real problem is.  This is especially bad
since LA Cellular charges 1/2 a minute for each uncompleted call, no
matter what the reason.

So, I get a nice 50 cent charge for all of those intercepts, as well
has having to pay calling card rates for a local call.  I would think
that as a common carrier, that they would have to have their act
together and support new area codes (especially ones in their service
area) on the first day they are activated.  After all, isn't the
permissive dialing period supposed to be so the CUSTOMERS, not the
common carriers, can have it easy during the transition?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Subject: Anyone Work With 900 Calling From PBX's?
Date: 24 Mar 92 00:56:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Organization: University of California, Davis


Hello,

Does anyone know what rules exist regarding providing 900 number
access from PBX's?  Is a university bound at all to provide such
access to its "residential" customers who are living on campus in
dorms?  I understand that because of billing problems, many sites are
unable to offer 900 service.  If anyone has any info on regulations
that relate to this issue, I would appreciate hearing from you!


Thanks,

Steve Chafe    UCD Telecommunications Office    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Correction to 'How ISDN Works'
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 20:44:23 GMT


In a previous article, I stated that the U-DSL using 2B1Q uses a line
rate of 192kb/2; it's actually 160kb/s.

Sorry for the slip-up.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 15:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Only In America


Quote worth requoting (from a southern California motel room):

On the bottom of a Comdial telephone is a sticker that reads:

"Made Right! In America!  (assembled in Mexico)"


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


[Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that
Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive
rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our
neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America'
by people in the USA. Maybe we should ask Americus Vespucci his
opinion on the matter. He's the one who drew the map and lent his name
to this continent.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #261
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12513;
          24 Mar 92 0:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29758
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21644
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:11 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:37:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #262

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:37:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 262

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (David G. Lewis)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Tom Gray)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Joel Upchurch)
    Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: 911 Source Identification (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:19:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Lesher) writes:

> This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow.  How is ISDN
> carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the
> loop.

I'm not sure I understand your question.  I think what you're asking
is how does an ISDN DSL (Digital Subscriber Line -- the connection
from an ISDN phone ("terminal") to an ISDN switch ("exchange"))
function.

There are as many different flavors of ISDN as there are switch
vendors, so let's assume we're dealing with American National
Standard, National ISDN 1, ISDN.

The standard of interest refers to the "U" reference point (and I'm
not going to try to draw the reference diagram, sorry), which is the
interface between an ISDN exchange ("Exchange Termination" function)
and a Network Termination 1 (NT1), which may be incorporated in an
ISDN terminal or a separate piece of equipment.  I don't remember the
standard number offhand.

The U interface (playing a little fast and loose with technology) is a
two-conductor digital interface which operates at a line rate of
192kb/s.  Line encoding is 2B1Q (two bits -- 2B -- encoded as one
quartenary digit -- 1Q).  Framing is defined in the standard; I don't
know if it has a name.  The three channels (B1, B2, D) are time
division multiplexed onto the 192kb/s bit stream; B1 and B2 at 64kb/s
each, D at 16kb/s, and overhead in the remaining 48kb/s.

> Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has
> to be audio, just as we now send with modems.

Well, if you hooked up a butt set to the pair, you'd hear some noise,
but it's not digital data modulated onto an analog loop -- it's a
digital loop.

> One difference is, of course, we don't call it a modem any longer --
> we use a different term.

Now you're talking about something different; namely, how user data at
some usable rate is imposed onto a 64kb/s circuit-switched B-channel.
That's the function of something called a Terminal Adaptor (which,
again, may be a standalone box, or integrated into an ISDN phone, or a
PC card, or whatever), and it performs something called Rate Adaption.
There are two standards for rate adaption, V.110 and V.120, both of
which use some sort of voodoo to put a signal at n kb/s (where n
ranges from 0.11 to 56, probably) onto a 64kb/s channel; I don't know
much more than that.  Maybe Mr. Nixon at Hayes does?


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 12:48:12 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Lesher) writes:

> This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow.  How is ISDN
> carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the loop.

   Dave, Your comments would suggest that you have a casual interest
in ISDN.  I'd suggest you take a look at some of the {IEEE Spectrum}
articles over the last few years, for an overview of the subject.
(This includes a lot of good multi-color drawings that go a long way
towards making the topic accessible to non-engineering folks.)  And
if you have more than a casual interest, I'd suggest a trip to the
local technical/university bookstore or library.  ISDN is finally
appearing in some books that might actually be used by non-engineers,
by more popular authors such as Stallings and Tannenbaum (my personal
technical library is at work, so please forgive the spelling.).  If
you're really interested, there are technical seminars on ISDN (and
data communications) that will give you even more details.

> Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has
> to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of
> course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term.
> But how different IS it, from alternatives such as switched56, etc?
> And what special tricks do they use?

   At a conceptual level, ISDN REALLY DOES "pulse the copper",
{actually, the pulses are usually modified bi-polar line codes} and it
is NEVER "... audio, just as we now send with modems".  Actually, ISDN
is most unlike today's "audio" modems in that it's signals are
understood by the local CO to be "non-audio".  To see why that's
important, first one has to understand the audio telephone system.

   At a simple level, the voice telephone system transmits audio
signals in the 300-3100 Hz band in both directions over a single pair
of wires to/from a telephone.  Power for this communication comes from
the local CO switch.  The transmission is in the form of balanced AM
signals over the "tip/ring" pair.  Due to much variation in the "loop"
wire plant, both the switch and the user's telephone have to use
non-trivial circuits to adapt to the loop.  Induced noise and
cross-talk exist at various levels in the loop.

   Notice that this simple description does not attempt to handle the
large variety of connection possibilities between the local CO switch
and the CO at the far end of a connection.  But you shouldn't care
about that inter-CO connection, because it's there only to provide an
audio path (with echo cancellation if needed) between the two CO
switches.  Nor does the description account for the large variety of
connection possibilities between the user's telephone and the CO;
again, this should be transparent (almost) to the user.  The
band-limited audio signal is viewed as being carried end-to-end, even
if the truth is that it is digitized at a near-by "digital loop
carrier", sent to the CO over fiber, to the far end CO over a mix of
fiber/microwave/ radio digital systems, and delivered by the far end
CO to a digital "fiber-to-the-curb" system, where it is converted for
the first time back to an analog signal.

   You asked how ISDN is different than switched 56K services.  Good
question, but do you understand "switched 56K"?  A typical version
takes "common ground" DC serial data at 56000 bits/second over a V.35
(or similar) interface, converts it to a "bi-polar" synchronous signal
over two pairs of wires (one transmit, one receive) at a DSU "modem"
and furnishes that four-wire connection to the CO.  The bi-polar signal
uses one of many possible "line codes" to encode the data; typically a
1-bit is indicated by a pulse in the opposite direction from the last
"1-bit" pulse, and 0 is no pulse.  Clocking is provided by the
incoming pair from the CO.  Other versions use special DSUs to support
56K over a single pair, with various schemes to handle two-way
transmission interference.  These schemes obviously require more than
2*56K bandwidth.

   Note that, unlike "voice" calls, the CO has to know that the 56K
service is being used (typically by dialing a code such as "#56" in
front of the desired number).  And every switch carrying the call to
it's destination has to know this is a 56K call, and insure that the
56K data stream is not converted to analog voice along the way.
Typically, this requires dedicated trunk groups and/or out-of-band
signaling (e.g., SS7) between switches.

   ISDN involves several parts of the telephone network in various
ways.  It specifies how the "ISDN terminal" interfaces to a simple
four-wire "binary" interface, how that interface adapts the signals to
a two-wire interface {using the technology learned from the 56K-over-
one-pair services} and how the CO switch converts this back to a
four-wire-type interface.  Also, to aid in offering new services, ISDN
divides the binary interface into various mostly-independent
"channels".  The most commonly discussed are the B-channel (a basic
bit stream) and the D-channel (a data channel supporting both "user"
data packets and "terminal/CO" data packets).  The latter data packets
replace most of the DTMF and related tone signals exchanged by the
terminal and the CO.  Common configurations of channels would be 2B+D
(two independent bidirectional 64Kb channels plus one 16Kb bidirectional
data channel), 0B+D (16Kb bidirectional data channel), 1B+D (one
bidirectional 64Kb channel plus one 16Kb bidirectional data channel).
The 64Kb channels can be used as voice channels, with the terminal
doing the analog-to-digital and reverse conversions.  The D-channel is
used to inform the other end about the status of the B-channels, set
up calls, handle "feature" buttons on the terminal, etc.

   That is a brief summary of the ISDN interface called Basic Rate
Interface (BRI), designed to work over a two-wire copper pair.  There
are various schemes for handling the two-wire encoding, resulting in
terminals (or at least four-wire/two-wire interfaces) that are not
compatible between vendors.  This situation should be remedied by
industry acceptance of a "National ISDN" interface for BRI, available
soon.  Since the two-wire interfaces do not change the 64Kb/16Kb
channel structure, most ISDN terminals can work with other ISDN
terminals that use a different interface, just as ground-start lines
and proprietary PBX telephones work with loop-start telephones today.

   ISDN also provides an interface called Primary Rate Interface
(PRI), designed to work primarily with PBX-like customer equipment.
The most commonly mentioned version in called 23B+D, with 23 of the
64Kb bidirectional B-channels under control of one 64Kb D-channel.
Note that the data packets on the D-channel are the same (mostly) as
the slower 16Kb D-channel of BRI.  So PRI and BRI "terminals" can
interwork without special effort.  This is one of the basic building
blocks of ISDN; while there is a lot of variation (some call it
flexibility) available in the terminal-to-CO-switch interface, the
basic 64Kb B-channel and packets of the D-channel are pretty standard.

   Note that switched 56Kb services required some dedicated trunks (or
at least some special non-standard signaling paths) in order for COs
to "know" a "data" call was requested.  ISDN provides for evolution in
the inter-switch trunking area, to avoid non-standard solutions.  In
particular, the only standard trunk signaling provided by North
American SS7 (Signaling System No. 7) is called ISDN-User Part -- also
called ISUP.  This part of SS7 is used to signal all SS7 "call set-up"
requests, even for simple analog telephone calls.  {CCITT provides a
different User Part - Telephone User Part or TUP, for analog-only
calls.} The set-up request allows switches to specify voice-or-data
information, data rate, etc.  For ISDN-to-ISDN calls, the user
terminals can even exchange a limited amount of call-related data
during call set-up.

   While this doesn't really discuss the "nitty-gritty" of the ISDN
interface, I hope will at least focus future discussion on the area of
interest.  For example, are you interested in the actual two-wire
encoding for ISDN BRI, or in the D-channel packet structure, or ....
Your original question is like asking for the "nitty-gritty" of the
interface between two packet switches -- the only answer is that "it
depends".


  Al Varney - AT&T has not approved or disapproved the above
              information, nor passed upon its accuracy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 16:46:39 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Lesher) writes:

> This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow.  How is ISDN
> carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the
> loop.  Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has
> to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of
> course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term.

The local loop will be pulsed with DC. The line code is called 2B1Q.
Two binary bits are encoded with one quaternary symbol.

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

Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch  )
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:40:49 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


[e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura) writes:

>     I just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status
> of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232
> break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in
> Rat Shack).  Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers.

>     It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't
> as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are
> using it every day, then heck -- go for the money. But for us poor
> schlums, the $20 solution is the winner. And they have the added
> advantage of being truly pocket-sized! ;-)

If you don't want to spend a lot of money for a break out box, Dalco
(1-800-445-5342) sells one for $26.80. The only drawback to the unit,
is that the jumper wires are a little cheap. They appear to nothing
more than wires with the insulation stripped off the end. At least it
makes it easy to replace them when you lose them and you will lose
them. Actually Dalco is a handy place to buy a lot of bits and pieces.


(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 11:56:57 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Blocking Problem


In posting 12.252.2 the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: ...
> Then they could offer to waive the $120+ deposit requirement if the
> student agrees to waive his/her rights to fully unblocked 800
> service.  PAT]

I wonder if this is technologically possible?  On our PBX, we can
assign a restriction code by NPA or by NPA/NXX, and we can block
specific NPA, NPA/NXX, and dialed numbers, but we can't place a
restriction code on a dialed number to make it dialable by some and
not by others.  Granted, other PBXs can do different things.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh
Inaccuracies should be attributed to my evil twin; not to my employer.


[Moderator's Note: Can you treat all 800 calls as billable LD calls,
by routing them through your switch and recording them like any other
LD call but taking the cost to always be zero dollars and zero cents?
You'd have an audit trail of who called any flaky 800 number that way.
In other words, users would dial an 800 number like any other LD call
with the proper code on the front, etc. Their monthly statement would
show the 800 call with zero as the cost. You'd know who to manually
bill for the $120 if a charge like that came through.

Another solution would be to send 800-736-7886 and others of that kind
to an intercept saying "This call requires manual assistance from the
campus operator. Please hang up and dial the campus operator to place
your call."  There may be a law now that you cannot refuse to complete
any 800 call, but there is nothing in the law which says the call has
to be *user dialable* -- just that it has to be completable. The campus
operator would shake down the caller for the $120 on a prepaid basis,
*then* dial the call and connect it to the desired extension.   PAT]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification
Date: Mon 23 Mar 1992 09:33 -0500


I would like to see a copy of the {Globe} editorial that links E911 with
Caller-ID.  The only thing the two might have in common is SS7.

The fact that NET has chosen to throw a childish temper tantrum
because they had to give people (sorry, I guess those who choose a
modicum of privacy are low-lives by definition [the return of HUAC?]),
is no reason to deny E911.

Perhaps NET simply requires a bit more time to update their software
to handle these situations, but that is not my impression.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #262
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14776;
          24 Mar 92 1:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04825
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12795
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:09 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:38:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #263

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Mar 92 23:38:09 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 263

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Conrad C. Nobili)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (John Higdon)
    Re: US West and BBSs Update (John Higdon)
    Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Henry Mensch)
    Re: AOS, APCC and Other Slime (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Customer Service  (Part 2): BT (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It? (Julian Macassey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 01:04:15 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]
(Conrad C. Nobili) writes:

> 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.

> [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]

Well, actually there is only ever 'hissing' in one direction.  As the
whole point (well, one of them anyway) of the automatic collect call
operator is to *prevent* bidirectional free communication, one would
have to construct some different "modem"s.  Or at least modify some a
bit.  One would actually need a "mo" on the sending end and a "dem" on
the receiving end.  Remember, the "caller's name" is being digitally
stored and played back *later*.  So the "mo" could be a modem which
ignores a lack of carrier and doesn't try to negotiate communication
parameters.  It would have to go instantly into full-bore transmit
data mode.  And the "dem" would be the obvious complement.  And of
course it would likely be wise to simply *record* the collect caller
and run the tape through the "dem" later.  Maybe one could use a
simple answering machine to record the "messages".  Would it have to
have one of the special 5% messages on it to fool the computer-
operator?  I don't know ...

Just wanted to point out that the only noise coming from the scam base
station would be a polite North American "no" declining the collect
call.  The *only* evidence of the nefarious activity would be the
statistics of the huge number of rejected collect calls to that
number ...


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 01:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

[Why can't two cell-phones have the same number].

>> Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned,
>> etc.?

> The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling
> block; marketing considerations are.

Did this ever set me off! With the technology widely available today,
the major reason for the non-availability of almost any service has to
do with administrative/political/marketing matters. The reason I
cannot get CLASS features is not technical but political.

And we have Mr. Kapor and the EFF with its laudable goal of establishing
a "public data network". A recent pub-infra message talks of "tests"
and "trial offerings" in MA of ISDN. ISDN has been tested six ways
from Sunday. Its lack of availability has nothing to do with "cutting
edge technology" or non-proliferation of suitable telco equipment. It
is a matter of marketing. As Mr. Lesher pointed out, the telcos are
asking the question, "Where's the profit?"

Or maybe, as a number of e-mail correspondents have suggested, the
various governments are not very excited about having citizens obtain
the ability to privately communicate with one another using encryption.
One can only speculate how much pressure has been applied to withhold
ISDN technology from the public.

And so it is with much of the technology that COULD be in the hands of
all of us. The trick is not implementation, but other considerations
such as "how can we maximize our return", "will this drain revenue
from our antiquated services", "will we lose the ability to easily spy
on all the evil drug dealers"? As you all know, the FBI is attempting
to get this last question imbedded in the specifications for all new
equipment.

So the general answer to a question such as, "Would it be possible to
...?", is "technically, yes". But do not count on ever seeing it
unless it makes money for the telco (big time), does not jeopardize
anyone's (as in big business') cash cow, does not emasculate any tin
horn government official's power, does not get in the way of the free
and easy monitoring of citizens, and is not the target of Chicken
Little types who will proclaim that the technology will destroy
someone's way of life.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: US West and BBSs Update


Peter Marshall <[e-mail]> quotes:

> Mr. Wagner's BBS service need not generate revenue or profit to
> justify USWC's application of business rates.

But I would be willing to bet that Mr. Wagner's BBS DOES generate
revenue -- for US West. I have a toy voice "party line" that has six
CO lines feeding it here at home. It is jokingly referred to as the
"ant farm". (Sociologists amoung us can contemplate the origin of that
term.)

 From my monitorings of traffic on that system, it has become most
apparent that callers have generated hundreds if not thousands of
dollars a month for Pac*Bell by placing intraLATA calls to the
machine.  I have actually considered attempting to cut a deal with
Pac*Bell to share in the revenue. It is gravy money; it all comes in
the evening -- leisurely, off-peak, no-stress income that Pac*Bell
would not realize without it.

US West regularly makes an issue about the volume of calls to Mr.
Wagner's BBS as if no one paid for the calls but were rather being
"subsidized by ratepayers". This is total crap. If the BBS was not
there for people to call, US West would not get the call revenue. It
is as simple as that.

If the BBS constitutes "ordinary" use under US West's mutable,
convenient definitions is, perhaps, arguable. But the claim that it is
"subsidized" by anyone is bogus. I would bet that if Mr. Wagner could
obtain the figures on exactly just how much US West benefits from his
"call attraction", he might be in a position to shut this nonsense
down once and for all.

In what is apparently a much more sensible arena, Pac*Bell does not
measure a line's incoming traffic to develop some sort of "case"
against a resident. Of course, Pac*Bell is not yet offering or about
to offer BBS-style services such as those on the horizon for US West.
And "unmeasured service" here is just that: unmeasured. It is not, as
US West seems to insist, "unmeasured until you make 'too many' calls".

It would be interesting to have US West define "too many" and having
done that perhaps explain how that LIMIT is applied to UNLIMITED
calling. I thought Pac*Bell was the worst. After reading all of the
self-serving sewage that has come forth from companies such as US West
and SWB, it is obvious that my opinions may need to be revised.

Surely the difference between what Mr. Wagner pays for his telephone
service and what US West thinks that he should be paying is not worth
the effort being put into this case UNLESS US West is trying to set
precedent for many similar future cases, as it goes from BBS to BBS
effectively shutting each one down in turn by making such endeavors
not economically feasable.


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


[Moderator's Note: But if the number of calls *received* by someone
(and the revenue generated for telco as a result by the callers) was
the criteria for whether or not business rates should apply to Wagner,
then it would logically follow that American Express, IBM, Exxon, and
Amoco should get residential rates also -- look at the incoming volume
of traffic those giants get each day from residential users!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 12:24:19 GMT


> [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 [...]

Another chance to plug Trailblazers. If you have a Trailblazer on the
other end you can send it commands from your end, unless this feature
has been disabled by an explicit command.

(I really like Trailblazers, can't you tell?)


Disclaimer: no connection with Telebit except as a VERY satisfied owner.
Now if I could just convince PSI to put more PEP in their POPs.


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


[Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register
S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems
must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command
allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as
though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing
you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier
Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling
around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it
when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 10:36:43 -0800
Subject: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (David E. Martin) wrote:

> I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
> travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.

This is not uncommon ... although I've not seen a charge that high for
an incoming fax.


 -- h

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: AOS, APCC and Other Slime
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:49:51 EST


On 12 Mar 92 09:28:05 GMT, [e-mail] (John Higdon) said:

> 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.

This has been sitting in my inbox giving me a chuckle for a while.  On
top of everything else, the bottom feeders have gone to the wrong
venue for relief.  The transition to CIID cards was necessitated by
the fact that yet another milestone in the Modified Final Judgement
(MFJ) passed on the first of the year.  The only way that the FCC can
ban AT&T's CIID card is to prohibit AT&T from issuing *ANY* calling
card of its own (requiring AT&T to buy all of its card verification
and billing services from the LECs).  I somehow think that the FCC
would choke on something quite so drastic, especially if they'd have
to pass it through to all interexchange carriers.  Without such
draconian measures the APCC is out of luck, unless they somehow
pursuade Judge Green to reverse his order on shared network
arrangements.  Is it still snowing in Hell, MI?  :^)


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:59:24 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Service  (Part 2): BT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [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]

What really annoys me is when a call comes into a position whose
attendant is there but does not want a call.  For example, they are
just getting ready to leave but a call comes in just before they busy
out their position.  The caller hears one or two seconds of background
office noise, followed by a CLICK and eventually dialtone.  Sometimes
you can even hear a handset crashing into its cradle.  It always seems
to happen to me after I've been waiting in the queue for ten minutes or
so, and have to call back and wait ANOTHER ten minutes!  You would
think that the person would know how long that call had waited, and do
something other than dropping the call, but it is amazing just how
rude some people can be when they are anonymous.

A related story has to do with our beloved Pacific Bell.  I called the
Business Office about a year ago for some account matter, and my call
was connected to a rep, and apparently he missed the beep from his
headset (or whatever the call indication was).  He was having some
problems with his computer terminal, and was whispering all sorts of
foul four-letter words as he was typing (complete with harder key
presses as the language got more foul -- I'm sure we've all been
there!  :-)).  After about 15 seconds of this, I decided to announce
my presence with "Hello!".  I could almost see him blushing from my
end of the connection.  He made a profuse apology, and I think was
quite thankful that I was understanding.  I would imagine that a lot
of the folks that call the residential Business Office would not be as
amused.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.


[Moderator's Note: The way some Automatic Call Distributors work is
they just connect without any tone. The operator or agent or whatever
knows a call is on the line when instead of a dead headset s/he hears
a click and breathing on the line from the other end.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Small Box in Old WE Desk Phone -- What is It?
Date: 23 Mar 92 20:24:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Nagle) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 259, Message 10 of 11

>    What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage?
> It's a reddish-brown plastic box, 15/16" x 2 1/8" x 7/16", with four
> wires attached to the touch-tone dial of a Western Electric 1-line
> desk phone which is telco-owned.  It bears the marking "840364202
> 9-81", but no other ID.

    It is what they used to call "Polarity Guard". These were
retrofitted into 2500 sets -- especially ones converted to modular --
so they were no longer polarity sensitive. In the old days, 2500 sets
were polarity sensitive. This was no problem when they were hard wired
and there only was one phone company.

    Problems arose when phones went modular, polarity tends to
switch about between different jacks and different line cords. So you
got the problem that we hear about on this Digest still of "My phone
won't dial". The telco solution to this was to place a diode bridge
before the DTMF pad so the polarity to the dial was always the same.

    Also old COs switched polarity on call supervision. So if you
had a polarity sensitive phone and called the local MCI swwitch, the
line would supervise and switch polarity when MCI answered the line.
You DTMF pad would go dead at that point so you couldn't dial your
passcode and number. Yes, another dastardly conspiracy from the telco.

    All DTMF phones now made have polarity guard. You can make
your own polarity guard with four 1N4007 diodes from Radio Shack.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #263
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26727;
          24 Mar 92 7:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07004
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:40 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26090
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:31 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:34:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #264

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:35:08 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 264

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Roaming in LA (Mark Rudholm)
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia (Louis Linneweh)
    Re: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones (Louis Linneweh)
    Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No (David E. Sheafer)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Mitch Mitchell)
    Re: Small Box in "Old" WE Desk Phone (Mark Rudholm)
    Re: Integretel (Andreas Meyer)
    Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Auto-Callback and AUDIX (Andy Sherman)
    Re: ANI Number Wanted (Pete Tompkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:22:03 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Re: Roaming in LA


In Volume 12 : Issue 261 [e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite
> dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier).
> I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the
> following problems in dialing:

> - Using ten digit dialing (as it was a local call from where I was)
> got "Your call cannot be completed as dialed."

> - 1 + ten digits got "Roamers must use 0+ for long distance," even
> though it was a local call.

This is especially curious considering that I'm an LA Cellular
subscriber and have been able to dial 310-xxx-xxxx since day one of
the 310 area code (November 2, 1991).  So obviously, they know how to
handle such calls.  I suppose there must be a bug in the software that
only appears for roamers.  Also, all calls to landlines anywhere
within the LA Cellular Service Area (it is quite large, from the
Channel Islands to the Nevada border and from Ventura to the San Diego
County line) are billed for airtime only.

So if you are on one of the Channel Islands calling Palm Springs
during off-peak, the cost is competetive with land-line rates.  But
charging for incomplete calls is just highway (or Freeway) robery.
And they just announced how they are going to extend "Free"
Call-Waiting through July, 1992.  So they give you the two bucks
monthly for free, but they still charge you double air-time to have
one person on hold while you talk to the other --  some "free."!

And I agree, Customer Tolerance (oops, I mean, Customer Service) never
seems to be open when I need them.

PacTel Cellular (LA Cellular's competitor in this market) has been
advertising their "MicroCell Technology" quite a bit, saying that it
is better for the new breed of "Micro-Portable" handheld phones and
that "Anything else is just Cellular."  LA Cellular, on the other hand
says that "MicroCell Technology is unproven" and that they have no
plans to implement it at this time.  Does anyone care to comment on
"MicroCell Technology"?  I'm torn between LA Cellular's superior
desert coverage and PacTel's superior coverage in the Santa Monica and
San Gabriel Mountains.  If "MicroCell" is actually worthwhile, it may
be the tie-breaker.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis Linneweh)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in S.E. Asia
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 22:50:35 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> [e-mail] (Nigel Burnett) writes:

>> 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?

> I doubt it.  Our cellular switches that we design for the Far
> East have different signalling protocols that differ from those here
> in N.A. or even those in Europe.  They use R2MFC signalling.

Your NA cellular phone operates on the AMPS air interface spec
(frequencies and protocol) that is also available in Hong Kong, Seoul
and Bangkok for sure (but it is still a business decision as to
whether they will authorize your mobile given a credit check.)  Japan
does not support NA or European Cellular (AMPS or TACS air interface,
respectively) but yet a third type "J-TACS" using slightly different
frequencies, bandwidths and protocols (Japanese only, of course).

I believe Bejing uses TACS (sorry, not AMPS compatible) and I'm not
sure about the rest.  Perhaps Singapore is AMPS.

Some of these countries do use MFC-R2 interoffice signaling, and while
that is a European standard associated with the TACS air interface, it
is not locked to it in any way.  The question is: what frequency band
is available and what standard do the neighboring countries use?  An
air interface is selected independently fron the wire-line protocol.
Hong Kong has both AMPS and TACS systems quite heavily loaded and I'm
pretty sure Bangkok is MFC-R2 and AMPS.

The real question for you is: "How does one contact the business
office in each of these places?"  I'm afraid I can't help you with
that.


Lou Linneweh

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis Linneweh)
Subject: Re: Emergency Interrupt of Cellular Phones
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 23:21:29 GMT


[e-mail] (David Leslie) writes:

> for an emergency interrupt.  The operator asks if it is a mobile
> phone, then says an Emergency Interrupt is impossible. I was just
> wondering if that was accurate. Also, what about cellular call waiting?

> [Moderator's Note: Cellular call waiting is available.   PAT]

Pat is right, call waiting is available, but if the mobile had the CW
feature the operator would not be necessary.  I don't know of any
manufacturer that would allow the feature to be installed and
activated on a mobile while it is in use on a call.  I don't know of
any manufacturer that makes use of the CW capability to allow operator
access from a dedicated trunk group, though it would be possible,
technically, with co-operation of the cellular system companies.

The mechanism that provides the operator with the capability to break
into a conversation in an emergency is normally provided on the line
side of the network, often by a "no-test vertical" (metalic test
access) at the line interface of the wireline network.  Cellular
networks are directly connected to the "trunk side" of the network
(without the line concentrator stage) which does not have this
facility.  I would say the movie was quite accurate in this instance.
Lots of things are possible in cellular with preplanning or with a lot
of technical muscle.  But I don't believe this is widely available to
the average operator when the phone is cellular.


Lou Linneweh

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX/NY has FMR -> No
Date: 23 Mar 92 20:01:21 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


Recently, [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer) on 21 Mar 92
09:39:32 GMT stated:

>>>> Do either of the cellular carriers (NYNEX or Cellular One) have
>>>> follow-me roaming at this point?

>>> Not that I know of.

>> NYNYEX does have FMR in the NY/NJ metro area now (I posted a message
>> about it a couple of days ago.

> Not to be rude to David or contradictory or anything, but the
> NYNEX/BAMS "partnership" service for the NY Metro Atra ("NYNEX/NY")
> does *NOT* have FMR.

I haven't tried it in NY/NJ however, I have dialed *711 from my phone
in MA.  It prompts to ask where your calling from, NY,NJ,MA, etc.  and
whether your an SNET Customer.  If your an SNET customer it states you
will receive automated call delivery, otherwise depending where you
are you may use *18 or the roamer ports.

In NY/NJ metro area you must use the roamer ports UNLESS your an SNET
customer in which your calls will automatically be sent to you through
automated call delivery.

For Nynex Boston customers they just eliminated the 3.00/daily roamer
fee when roaming on the SNET network, and reduced the cost per minute
to .75.  I'd assume they did the same for the NYNEX NY customers but
can't say for sure.

In Central NY, The Albany/Capital District Region, and Western NY they
do have FMR thru the use of *18, *19.

I hope that clarifies what I posted previously.


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

From: [e-mail] (Mitch Mitchell)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:37:52 GMT


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:

> [e-mail] (lydic) writes:

>> It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all
>> Usenet transactions to the FBI every month.

I remember seeing a note a few years ago to the effect that UUNET sent
tapes to the FBI so that some of their personell could read news on
machines that for security reasons didn't have UUCP or other contact
with the outside world.  I'll bet the majority of 'monitoring' of
USENET goes on during coffee breaks and lunchtime :->.


{letni | egsner | mic | supernet}!harlie!mitch     Mitch Mitchell
{uunet | texsun | sulaco}!digi!mmitchel      Voice Mail [phone]
[e-mail]                     FidoNet: 1:124/4115.224


[Moderator's Note: What are you trying to do, kill a nice, quaint
urban legend about how the people on Usenet are so special and so
important that the Bureau of Inquisition sets about spying on them and
'monitoring' the postings therein? Next thing I know, you are going to
be sending in articles claiming there is no Santa Claus. :)   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 20:30:16 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Re: Small Box in "Old" WE Desk Phone


In Volume 12 : Issue 260 [e-mail] (John Nagle) asks:

> What's this strange thing in a WE desk phone of 1981 vintage?

That little box you found in your Western Electric 2500 is what was
called a "Polarity Gaurd."  WE's tone encoders were, until relatively
recently, polarity sensitive.  They would not produce tones unless the
set was properly connected (tip to tip and ring to ring).  A set
equipped or retrofitted with a "Polarity Guard" can be connected to the
line backwards without any apparent ill effect.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 17:03:28 EST
Organization: gnat - Dunellen, NJ
From: [e-mail] (Andreas Meyer)
Subject: Re: Integretel


[e-mail] (Diana Boyd) writes:

> Yesterday I got a bill in the mail from VRS Billing Systems, under
> that it says "on behalf of INTEGRETEL, Inc.".

> 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.

> 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 to a local radio show, I know all about this scam now.

(Readers in the NYC metro area should tune in to "Off The Hook", hosted
by Emmanuel Goldstein; Wednesday nights at 9pm on WBAI, 99.5 FM)

If someone uses IntegreTel to call you collect, you will hear a
recording which tells you:

    "To accept this call, dial 1.
     To refuse, dial 0 or hang up."

What they don't tell you is that if you DON'T press 1 and stay on the
line, after five seconds THEY ASSUME YOU ACCEPT THE CHARGES and begin
billing.  So, if your answering machine or fax or modem picks up,
IntegreTel will also bill for the call. (Not exactly cricket).

To add insult to injury, their Customer Service number (800-736-7500)
is a VRU which only works with a touchtone phone!  And even if you do
have a touchtone phone, the system asks you to supply a phone number
for them to call you back "within three business days".  (When "Off The
Hook" called they didn't get a callback for two weeks).  Apparently it
is impossible to get a human on the Customer Service number.

According to "Off The Hook", to reach a human at IntegreTel, you must
call their offices in San Jose, California: 408-296-8959.

(By the way, a company called Amnex runs a similar operation out of
Orlando, Florida. Their number is 407-246-1234, but they are very
quick to refer you to their legal department in Connecticut: 203-322-7300).

Hope this helps somebody.


Andreas Meyer, N2FYE     Internet:       [e-mail]
Dunellen, New Jersey     uucp: ..!rutgers!bobsbox!gnat!ahm

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 13:49:54 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card Mailing
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> John W. Temples writes:

> I recently received a mailing from AT&T offering me their new Calling
> Card.  I just noticed that the ten-digit number above my mailing
> address appears to be my area code and phone number rearranged into a
> "random" order.  Has anyone else noticed this?  If they're going to
> take the time to try to protect our privacy, I would think they could
> use a slightly more sophisticated encoding scheme!

This beats a scheme that US Sprint used a few years ago hands-down!
Their scheme was to print your account number, with the last digit
converted to the n'th letter of the alphabet.  So, account number
123123456 was printed as 12312345F.  Talk about security!  I guess
Sprint doesn't think letter carriers are very bright.  I would think
that anyone who was "into" the kind of mischief that one could do with
someone's account number would be smart enough to "decrypt" the
account number.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Auto-Callback and AUDIX
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:14:27 EST


On 18 Mar 92 19:36:59 GMT, Mike ([e-mail]) wrote:

[ Describes trying to use the automatic callback on an AT&T Definity
PBX with AUDIX voice mail covering no answer and busy.]

> 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?

I reposted Mike's original (in its entirety) to an internal AT&T
newsgroup in hopes of getting a Definity or AUDIX guru to answer.  We
were in luck.  Steve Scholbrock of Bell Labs in Denver went into the
lab and did some experiments.  Here is his answer:

"If auto-callback is activated before the call is answered by AUDIX,
it will activate and work OK.  Thus upon hearing the 'going to
coverage' tone, you can activate auto-callback.  (Activation depends
on your set type.  For a 740x, it needs a button assigned. For a 710x,
use recall and the system FAC.)  Alternatively, if it is a priority
call (done by preceeding the call with the priority FAC or using a
priority call button), it will not go to coverage. It will indicate
busy for single line appearance phones and will give a priority ring
for multi-line phones (that have an appearance available). In both
cases, it will not cover to AUDIX and the auto-callback can be used.
(Note: there are some interactions with Call-Forwarding and
Auto-Callback).

"This is my understanding and the results of some simple lab
experiments.  There may be better or more obvious ways to make this
work."

I hope this helps.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:14:42 PST
From: pete![e-mail] (Tompkins)
Subject: Re: ANI Number Wanted


> A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back
> your ANI.  I can't find it in the Telecom Archives.  If you have it
> handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number.

It's not an 800 number, but as far as I can tell, it's free (I used it
several months ago and was not billed):

10732-1-404-988-9664


Pete Tompkins   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #264
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28542;
          24 Mar 92 8:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22087
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26881
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:14 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:20:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #265

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Mar 92 06:19:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 265

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Holly B. Papaleonardos)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Tony Safina)
    Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups (Mark Brader)
    Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT (John Higdon)
    Re: US West and BBSs Update (John Higdon)
    Variations on America (was Only in America) (Monty Solomon)
    AmeriGO Vespucci (Was Only In America) (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Holly B Papaleonardos)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 06:56:32 GMT


A few stories to relate about this subject ...

   First, my own personal experience. My old number was xxx-1447. The
24-hour child care service's was xxx-1147. Needless to say, I received
about a dozen calls per day from distraught parents in need of
emergency child care.

   My only real chance at fun came at one in the morning when I
answered the phone, "Kinder-care ...?" I listened to the related sob
story but broke down when she said she would drop Susan off at 9 the
same day.

   "No, you're not," I replied sweetly, "because Kinder-Kare's real
number is xxx-1147. READ THE AD WITH THIS LIGHTS ON!!!" and hung up.
Sometime later the KK's number changed to something more mnemonic.

    Then there was the case of the large printing company and a
newly-moved in family being assigned the same phone number. That one
was pretty odd, considering that the business was well-established,
yet the family was new. You would expect something like this when two
new numbers are issued.

    Lastly, there was the case of the large suit when some sort of
porn magazine ran an ad for a free phone sex number. They put in
enough information, alright, except THE AREA CODE!! Depraved perverts
in every area code in US and Canada called some poor soul and kept
pestering and threatening. Most had their numbers changed. Anyway,
later the poor souls banded together and sued the publishing company,
later winning. That was a bad one, there.

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

From: disk![e-mail] (tony)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:00:56 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.

    This happened to me a couple of weeks ago but not to the same
extent, a caller rang my number about five times. Every time I
answered a modem tone greeted me on the other end.  They called once
every 45 minutes or so.  Finally I turned on my modem -- no
connection.  After that I decided to try turning on my fax machine --
I intercepted my wife's girlfriend that time.  After that they didn't
call any more and I'm still wondering whether it was someone trying to
send me a fax, someone who thought I ran a BBS, or ... ???

    I can't imagine it was someone trying to send me a fax -- my
letterhead only gives one phone number and below that I say, "Fax
Available."  Anyone with any sense should know this means they have to
call me first so I can turn on the fax machine.  I wonder if this is
the general concensus as to what people think when they read, "Fax
Available," on someone's letterhead or business card?


Tony Safina    disk![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 04:49:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Call Return and Hunt Groups


I asked about this phenomenon:

> I have Call Return, which here means that if I dial *69 ... 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 [Canada] packages the ability to re-call the last number that
> _I_ dialed, by dialing *66 ... [And in either case if the line is
> busy the system waits for it for me.]

> 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.

I asked if this was for a human-factors reason, or a technical reason,
or if it was a bug.

David G. Lewis of AT&T replied:

> 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".

This explains how the non-hunting is implemented, which is more or
less what I had already guessed.  It does *not* explain why, except to
imply that it was intentional rather than a bug.

> 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.

[Why didn't he make it 100 agents so I could do Get Smart jokes? :-(]

This situation does not seem to me to be a sensible use of a hunt
group in the first place.  Automatic call distribution is the thing to
use here.  With a hunt group, the workload distribution across the 50
agents would be grossly uneven!  #1 would be on the phone all the
time, except for a brief respite after completing a call until the
next one came in; #2 would be slightly less busy, and so on until #50
would get calls only if all 49 other agents were busy!

In any case, without such new features as *69, it would be impossible
to reliably call a particular agent in such a setup.  If one wanted
to, one would have to call one of the numbers, accept whichever agent
answered, and then _ask_ to be transferred to agent #13.  So if *69 is
able to reliably call a particular line, then this is an _added_
_secondary_feature_.  Added secondary features are always nice if they
have no cost, but in this case there _is_ a significant cost -- in the
usability of *69, or rather *66, with a more important use of hunt
groups.

This "more important" use is to reach a number of lines which are all
routed to the _same_ person or set of people.  For instance, in small
companies using a key system, any employee may answer any line.  Or
maybe a "switchboard operator" answers all the lines.  In this case
the hunt group is simply being used to provide multiple paths and not
to do any sort of call distribution.  (The common use of a hunt group
with a set of modems is also an example of this -- the modems are
separate, but they all provide paths to the same computer or network.)

In this common situation, callers always call the first line in the
hunt group; they don't even have to know about the others.  Say I dial
my doctor's office, and the line is busy.  I want to get through to
him as soon as possible.  If he uses a single line, I just dial *66
and I do get through as soon as possible.  But if he uses a hunt
group, and I only know the first number, I should repeat-dial the
number myself, just as I would without *66?  Does this make sense?
What if, as I implied above, I _don't_know_ whether he has one line or
several?

Similarly, with *69, if the system tells me that it will call the
number 488-ZZZZ if I press 1 now, doesn't the Law of Least Astonish-
ment _demand_ that the effect be the same as if I had dialed 488-ZZZZ
in the first place ... including any hunting or call forwarding?

(Of course, for these purposes it would also be desirable for any
lines emerging from a company to identify themselves to Caller-ID or
*69 with the number of the first inward line.  Having calls from the
same company identified with different numbers is a pain anyway.  But
this is something of a separate issue, and I can certainly see that
there are reasons why it might be desirable to identify the lines
individually.  In any case, this is not my main complaint.)

If nobody produces a _technical_ reason why the DMS-100 can't do it
right, I think I'll write to Bell Canada about it.  If I do, and I get
a reply, you will hear about it.

Incidentally, are there places where these or analogous functions _do_
work "right"?


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 10:13:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:

> Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface
> pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data?

It would be very hard to do, perhaps impossible. At the very least,
you would need to insert loss into the line, to find out which way the
energy is moving. That is, you would have to create the equivalent of
a pair of back-to-back "VSWR meters" to extract the energy moving
"from left to right" from the energy moving "from right to left"
(which requires *some* insertion loss, I believe).

ISDN uses adaptive equalization and adaptive echo-cancellation at the *ends*
of the 2-wire line to approximate a "perfect" 2-wire-to-4-wire hybrid. This
is so sophicticated that it is able to tolerate multiple fairly long open
"stubs" bridged across the subscriber's line. You would have to equal this
performance in your line monitor. It'd be rough ...

It will probably be much easier for you to settle for monitoring the
already four-wire S/T interface on the subscriber side of the NT1.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510      [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 00:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> A related story has to do with our beloved Pacific Bell.  I called the
> Business Office about a year ago for some account matter, and my call
> was connected to a rep, and apparently he missed the beep from his
> headset (or whatever the call indication was).

A variation is when one calls Pac*Bell and is connected to an
apparently unattended station. One morning I was attempting to place
some orders and calling the business office landed me into what
sounded like a handset laying on a desk in a large office area.
Repeated "hello"s returned no response. After calling back numerous
times and being connected to that unattended telephone each time, I
stayed on the line and placed another call to the office. When the
call was answered, I told the rep that I was currently connected to a
position that was unoccupied or the person had collapsed.

The problem was corrected forthwith.


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 00:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: US West and BBSs Update


On Mar 23 at 23:38, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: But if the number of calls *received* by someone
> (and the revenue generated for telco as a result by the callers) was
> the criteria for whether or not business rates should apply to Wagner,
> then it would logically follow that American Express, IBM, Exxon, and
> Amoco should get residential rates also -- look at the incoming volume
> of traffic those giants get each day from residential users!   PAT]

Exactly my point! USWC brings up call volume time and time again in
making its case when in fact it has no bearing whatsoever. It
smoke-screens its own irrelevancy by constantly trumpeting the
allegation that Mr. Wagner is himself bringing up irrelevant points.
USWC downplays the only matter that has significance: Mr. Wagner is
using some telephone lines in his home (otherwise know as a residence)
for purposes unrelated to his or any one else's BUSINESS. It is NOT an
office-in-home; it is NOT related to his income stream; it is not an
organized operation (such as charitable); and it is not advertised in
paid media. In essence, what Mr. Wagner does with those lines is HIS
affair. He is not stealing service or making any misrepresentations to
the utility.

But USWC ignores all of these quintessential facts. Sweeping it all
away, the company brings up such irrelevancies as: there are many
incoming calls; the system is reachable from all over the world; Mr.
Wagner does not read every message (what the hell business is it of
USWC's whether Mr. Wagner reads messages on his own computer or
not????); and that communications MAY be taking place that for some
reason or another MAY be discussing the trading of software.

Thank heaven Pac*Bell uses the tariffs literally when determining
business or residence status for a given line. Interestingly enough,
the Oregon tariffs are very similar to California, which is why USWC
is throwing up so much smoke. A strict interpretation of the tariff
would have caused the case to have been tossed out long ago. USWC is
obviously desperate to get some precedence established so that it can
indeed wage war against the free BBSes. Note that all of its arguments
against Mr. Wagner appear to be defining BBSes to a tee.

And after USWC has its way with BBSes, who will be next?


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


[Moderator's Note: After USWC has its way with BBSes, who will be
next? Well, maybe you will be next, John. Maybe mother will look at
all your numbers and decide to do a number on you! Someone is probably
sitting there now saying " ... first let's stamp out all the BBSes;
then when those are all wiped out, we'll start on the ant farms ..." :)
I'm glad IBT has a more even-tempered disposition about such things.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:03:19 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Variations on America (was Only in America)


> [Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that
> Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive
> rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our
> neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America'
> by people in the USA.  PAT]

America includes North, Central, and South America.


# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 01:42:58 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: AmeriGO Vespucci (Was Only In America)


John Higdon observed:

> Quote worth requoting (from a southern California motel room):

> On the bottom of a Comdial telephone is a sticker that reads:

> "Made Right! In America!  (assembled in Mexico)"

> [Moderator's Note: Your point is well taken, but please note that
> Mexico *is* in America, as is Canada. The USA does not have exclusive
> rights to the name America. This is something which annoys many of our
> neighbors to the north considerably: the monopolization of 'America'
> by people in the USA. Maybe we should ask Americus Vespucci his
> opinion on the matter. He's the one who drew the map and lent his name
> to this continent.   PAT]

Or perhaps we should ask Amerigo Vespucci, as he no doubt would have
preferred to have it spelled.  As with Columbus, who had his name
Latinized by the scholars of the day (did they have Latinizing
while-you-wait service?), history books like to drop the Italianate -o
form in favor of the Latin -us, and with good frequency.  If he were
still around, no doubt he would have business cards printed to settle
the matter, perhaps with a tag line reading: "Continents discovered --
if you like us, tell the Queen -- if not, tell us!"


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #265
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06959;
          24 Mar 92 11:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11470
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23303
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:02 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 07:33:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #266

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Mar 92 07:33:03 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 266

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Problem With Lynx Ring Detector (Mitchell K. Hobish)
    New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-Issued one) (Ralph W. Hyre)
    Northern Telecom DMS 100/200 Patch Problems (Kevin Houle)
    Need Information on Satellite Phone (Nadim Massoud)
    Request For Definitions or FAQ (Bill Campbell)
    Possible FAQ? Connecting Dual Line Phone (Mark B. Wroth)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Michael Harpe)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Bruce Perens)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Martin McCormick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (MITCHELL K. HOBISH)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 10:11 PST
Subject: Problem With Lynx Ring Director


This one's got me stumped, so I turn to the heavy-hitters in TCD for
aid:

I have a business line to which has been added the Ident-a-Ring/
Distinctive Ring/whatever feature.  To facilitate distribution of
incoming calls, I have put in place a box named the Ring Director,
made/distributed by Lynx.  The box recognizes the distinctive ring for
each of the now three incoming numbers (one physical line, however)
and outputs the ring and makes the connection accordingly.
Specifically, the main number is on port one (long ring); the fax
number goes to port two (two short rings); and a second voice line is
on the box's port four (short-long-short pattern).

In an attempt to keep things simple (hah!) I sought to use one phone
and one answering machine to handle both voice lines.  I used a Radio
Shack two-RJ-11-plug-to-one-RJ-14-jack adapter to feed a Radio Shack
two-line coupler, designed to allow two lines to share one answering
machine.  The output of the coupler goes to a five-jack block, into
which I have plugged the phone and the answering machine (and two
modems, but that's another story).

Things seemed to work well (initially) but I soon found that after a
call came in on the second voice line (port four), I was unable to get
any dial tone on the phone until after another call came in.  It
didn't matter which voice line received the call; there was no dial
tone until a call came in.  No problem with calls coming in on the
"main" line.  It's not just the port, as I tried every combination of
port, number, etc. that I could.  It was always after an answered,
incoming call on the secondary number that I lost dial tone for
outgoing calls.  I could hear the relay(s) in the Ring Director box
attempting to establish a connection (i.e., go off-hook) but there was
no dial tone.  Plugging another phone into the second voice line port
demonstrates that the Ring Director is working normally; it's the
addition of the Radio Shack adaptor that's messing things up.

The folks at Lynx can't help, and no one at Radio Shack has any idea
of how their answering machine coupler works.  For now, I've
pseudo-solved the problem by putting the voice lines in parallel with
the line going into the Ring Director box.  It works, but now the
phone rings when the fax line is called, whereas the Ring Director, if
used properly, prevents this.  Can anyone tell me what's going wrong?
Or, offer a better (but still cost- effective) solution?

E-mail, please to [e-mail].  Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One)
Date: 23 Mar 92 17:16:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kath Mullholand) writes:

> [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?

> 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?

I have both types of AT&T calling cards; some number + PIN, issued by
Cincinnati Bell Telephone (CBT), and the 'new' card, 'direct' from
AT&T.

Thanks to a recent (summer '91) FCC or Judge Green order, I found I
was indeed able to complete calls on other carriers.

MCI worked from a pay station and a residence line.

Sprint [who made the formal complaint about not having access to CBT's
database to validate card numbers] only worked from pay phones.  (I
always got the Sprint operator when I used my CBT-issued/AT&T labeled
card from a residence line).

The Cincinnati Bell newsletter I read mentioned that AT&T didn't want
other carriers to have access to their card database for validation
purposes.  Not that the databases are separate, things are more
'normal' now.

BTW, Metromedia/ITT didn't work from anywhere.  Guess they don't want
the business :-)

I'd be curious to find out how the costs of these calls may be
impacted by my Reach-Out America plan.  Billing seems complicated
enough with the multiple vendors and billing agents involved, without
considering the impact of these billing plans.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

E-mail: [e-mail]        Phone: [phone]
(Mailtool messages cheerfully accepted)    Radio: N3FGW [144 Mhz]

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

Subject: Northern Telecom DMS 100/200 Patch Problems
From: lunatix!iowegia![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:30:19 CST
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, [phone]


We installed a patch from Nothern Telecom in our DMS 100/200 this past
weekend, with disasterous results. I do not know the type of patch; I
am not a switch tech. But on the AMA side, things got ugly.

The switch patch caused the switch to reverse the overseas indicator
on all call detail records passed via tape to our billing computer.
When processed, the software (correctly) took the originating NPA and
used it for the terminating NPA. This was followed by a lookup in a
terminating point master file. Obviously, nary an exchange existed in
the TPM, and thousands of calls errored out. It took an entire day of
communications with Northern to determine the extent of the damages,
and for our software consultants to write code to process the faulty
CRD's into billable records.

This situation was complicated by an MCI blunder. They made a
translation change in the 515 area code which caused no NPA to be sent
to our trunk for 515 <-> 515 intralata calls. Our trunk requires ten
digits. We lost 8500 calls on that one, no recovery, and I do believe
someone at MCI lost a job.

Ok, I've complained enough. All in a day's work in telecom I guess. :)


Kevin Houle   :   iowegia![e-mail]    [e-mail]
      System/News Admin., Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Monday, 23 Mar 1992 21:32:18 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Information on Satellite Phone


I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where
there is no regular phone service, and where cellular phones don't
reach.  I read somewhere that GTE makes such a phone. Size of the
device is of no conce rn.  Any information such as price, price of
communications, and quality of the latter would be appreciated.


Nadim Massoud   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Request For Acronyms List and FAQ
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 17:12:54 GMT


I haven't seen a FAQ for this newsgroup, and it is replete with
acronyms (COCOT, LATA ...).  Would it be possible for a posting so
that newcomers could learn the jargon?


Bill
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The place you want to look is the Telecom Archives.
There you will find not only a <F>requently <A>sked <Q>uestions file,
but also a few different files dealing with acronyms used in the
telecom industry and by consumers, etc. The Telecom Archives is located
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where it is available
using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. Use anonymous to login, then give
your name@site as password. When online, 'cd telecom-archives'. You
may use an ftp mail server also if your site does not support ftp. Most
back issues of TELECOM Digest for eleven years are there also.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 14:33:33 CST
From: texsun!astrid![e-mail] (Mark B. Wroth)
Subject: Possible FAQ? Connecting Dual Line Phone


As I suspect this is either a frequently asked question or an extremely
basic question, please email rather than posting a response.

I have two telephone lines coming into the house, one for general
(voice) telephony and the other for digital (primarily).  I am
investigating the possibility of connecting the two of them together
and attaching a two-line phone so that I can use either line while
sitting at my desk.

My problem is that I don't know how to connect two lines in a single
cable, and my one easily available reference book (a Radio Shack
"Install Your Own ...") does not discuss the issue.  The desired final
arrangement would be to allow me to use the voice instrument on either
line, while leaving the modem on the line that currently comes to the
desk (auto-answering and so on).

So my two questions are:

  1.  What connections do I need to make in the cable coming to
the desk, and

  2.  Is there anything I should watch for in the modem part of this?


Mark Wroth    [e-mail]
  ...uunet!letni!rwsys!lawton!astrid!mark

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Harpe)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:11:04 GMT


Actually, the buzz is caused by the letters in the caption.  The
"super" is being inserted at too high a video level and is bleeding
over into the aural subcarrier.  Your TV is trying to demodulate this
as a 4.5 MHz FM audio signal.  If it only happens on cable, then the
cable signal is probably too hot.  If it happens in broadcast
"off-air" signals then it's probably the broadcaster's fault.  They
should catch that in master control.  "Key buzz" is really annoying.

It's really difficult to determine at your end where the problem is
because there is a LOT of equipment between the source at the station
(VTR, switcher, satellite downlink, distribution amps, you name it)
and your set.


Mike Harpe

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

Date: 23 Mar 92 12:12:49 EST
From: Leonard Erickson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles


In volume 12 #243 Joe Konstan writes:

> 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).

It's your TV set. Specificly, the filtering circuitry that seperates
the chrominance and luminance data sideband from the audio sideband.
Sets with cheap filters see high frequencies in the color signal (fine
grained patterns or text) as being part of the audio signal. Thus the
buzz.

You *may* be able to to get the set adjusted if it has only recently
started doing it. If it has always done it, you are likely S.O.L.
There's a *reason* why some sets cost more than others ...


[Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because
I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster
is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Date: 23 Mar 92 09:28:47 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


In article <[e-mail]>, isus![e-mail]
(Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
> berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes:

>> 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.).

> The buzz is crosstalk from the video signal into the sound channel,
> probably caused by a combination of two things: The broadcaster is not
> controlling his video levels to be within specs, and a less than
> optimum television receiver with poor sound band filtering and
> automatic gain control (The sound and video are amplified in the same
> amplifier chain, and split apart after).

Which brings up an often-effective "fix" for this problem: Adjust the
TV set's AGC control.

The "broadcaster out of specs" is not supposed to be common, and a
misadjusted AGC control (or an older set whose AGC control needs to be
adjusted to compensate for aging components) can produce this problem
all by itself.

OTOH, broadcasters, especially small ones who aren't network affiliates,
and most especially a certain Mexican station that broadcasts to a
certain US market, can also produce the problem.  An obvious clue: If
it happens on more than one station, it's most likely the set.


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 00:28:21 GMT


On occasion I also notice a "buzz" in TV sound that is related to the
picture.  It's always when _white_ information is being displayed. I
suspect that the video signal is overmodulated, and is thus affecting
the sound carrier. I'm unable to blame this on the broadcaster, since
something else could be wrong: there could be a lack of headroom in
the cable head-end, my VCR, or my TV.  I'd need a vectorscope and a
calibrated TV tuner to track down the problem.


Bruce Perens

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

Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 14:44:34 -0600
From: [e-mail]


The problem of hearing a buzz during subtitles is a very common one.
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the network and very little
to do with your local TV station.  It is a byproduct of the method
used to transmit television.

     In a nutshell, the audio is FM and the video, AM.  Almost all
modern TV sets receive the sound by mixing or heterodyning the video
and audio carriers to produce an IF frequency of 4.5MHZ.  The sound
detector is, essentially, a FM radio and is supposed to respond to
frequency modulation and not changes in amplitude.  Alas, there are
many changes going on in the amplitude of the carrier as the video
changes.

     In the video signal, the amplitude of the signal depends upon the
brightness of the picture, among other things.  In the NTSC system,
used in the United States, Canada, Japan, and a few other places, the
picture is reverse polarized, in that the black areas represent high
signal and the white ones, a very low signal.  The vertical
synchronization signal meant to keep your picture from rolling, is the
blackest of the black.  Your TV receiver just looks for the strongest
peak of the signal and locks on to that.  When there is a very high
contrast picture, such as a printed message, the automatic level
circuitry in your set just can't keep up with the extremes of signal
being delivered.  The result is that during the wide signal swings
from superblack sync to white print or a white background, the FM
sound detector looses the audio signal because there isn't enough
video carrier to mix with the sound signal to get good FM limiting.
Hence, the buzz.

     If the TV or VCR has been buzz free, but has just started to hum
along with the show, it may have developed AGC problems and should be
taken to a good TV technician.  If it has always done it on all
channels, it could be that this particular set doesn't handle high
contrast pictures as well as it should.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #266
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08715;
          25 Mar 92 1:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22789
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19948
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:17 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:54:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #267

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:54:19 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 267

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hosers at Sprint (Mark Walsh)
    Ohio PUCO to Rule on Caller ID This Week (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    A Visit to the AT&T Phone Store (Howard Pierpont)
    LEC Competition in Rochester? (Mark Fulk)
    Information Wanted on Phone/Mail Services (Dale Ollila)
    Vendor Ethics: LANsystems (Roger Marquis)
    Bell Atlantic to Offer Fax Broadcast (Randy Gellens)
    Originating Phone Number Unavailable (Monty Solomon)
    Digicom Modem Information Request ([e-mail])
    Cellular Phone Service in Europe (Allan M. Schiffman)
    Information Wanted: EE Opportunites in Cellular ([e-mail])
    Information Wanted on PC Telex Card (Roupen Nahabedian)
    Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications (Kevin Davies)
    Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (John R. Covert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:54:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Hosers at Sprint


In 1984, my wife and I had a maze of billing problems with Sprint, but
just as we were about to throw in the towel, they decided that we did
not owe them anything, and started fresh.  Things were just fine
between us and Sprint until a few months ago when we experienced the
problem of delayed bill processing (we would send in our payment right
away) which would result in a computer generated message to the effect
that we had better pay up or else.

"Oh well," I thought, we had been through this before.  Then my wife
got a note from Pacific Bell that we could have our Sprint charges
included in our Pacific Bell bill, so that we would only have to write
one check.  We thought it was a good idea, and signed on.  You guessed
it, they both billed us for the same calls.  My wife called Sprint to
straighten it out, and thought that it was resolved.  Next thing you
know is that we get a letter in the mail from Sprint saying that they
are sorry that we decided to discontinue our service, and could they
get us back with these various incentives.

Sheesh!  No wonder the Japanese don't want anything to do with
American telephony.  The little podunk company that delivers me
varying amounts of bottled water every month is capable of doing
computer billing, why not Sprint and MCI?  I have never seen any posts
in this newsgroup from anybody at either of these two companies.  Why
is that?


Cheers -- Mark -- KC6RKZ

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Ohio PUCO to Rule on Caller ID This Week
Date: 24 Mar 92 19:39:32 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


COLUMBUS, OH -- The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) will
make a ruling on Ohio Bell's application to offer Caller ID in
Columbus and Cleveland during the Commission Meeting to be held on
Thursday, March 26, 1992 at 11:15 a.m., Offices of the Commisssion,
Hearing Room 11-A, 11th Floor, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH.  A
Media Availability will be held immediately following the Commission
Meeting in Hearing Room 11-D.  The Commissioners will be available to
answer press questions.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:40:56 PST
From: Howard Pierpont <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Visit to the AT&T Phone Store


After much discussion about rotary phones and the fact that my folks
would not convert if they had to pay an extra monthly charge, SNET
raised everyone's rate and made touch-tone available at "no cost".
They also told everyone that they had to call in to have the service
changed. I plugged in a WECO touch-tone and it worked fine.

Off the the AT&T store to purchase three wall mount reconditioned WECO
push button phones. There were a few units on the wall at the back of
the store but I had to ask. They were a little reluctant to sell the
units but rang up the sale anyway. [49.95 each] After the sale, the
sales rep said that if I had brought in my old rotary phone I could
have a $15.00 rebate. "Keep the slip and when you are in the
neighborhood drop off the old phone."

Stopped in yesterday with the old phone. My salesman was not there.
[Surprise]. The other sales rep gave me a credit on my monthly lease [I
do not lease, I buy!!]. He then reversed the transaction and had to
give me a full credit on my original purchase and then charge me for
the new phones. He complained that the $15.00 credit was only supposed
to be on new equipment. He managed to give me the credit as $10.00 on
one phone and $2.50 on each of the other two. (Looks like the retail
store guys have some leeway in pricing?)

There was a display with the 1050/1020 master slave units priced at
$199.00. Some nice features including intercom and mute buttons. I
inquired and was told that there were a limited number produced [1000]
and very few sold [like 10]. Seems, according to the sales rep that
the market survey was done a year after introduction and 'everyone
wanted two line capability' so the 1050 was discontinued. He couldn't
find the box for the 1050 (no instructions, power supply or ability to
test the unit) but had lots of 1020 units available. A call to another
store that had collected a bunch of 1050/1020 units for a sales
leverage yielded one complete set that will be UPS today. Now if he
had found the packaging for the 1050 he was willing to discount the
unit by $10-$15. When he went into the book and then the system the
repair replacement price was $160 total plus tax. [BTW_the two line
system is retailed at $400.]

Anyone have any experience with the 1050/1020 product line?

Anyone from AT&T want to talk about any 'undocumented features?'


Howard Pierpont
Digital Equipment Corp pays my salary but I can't speak for them.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: LEC Competition in Rochester?
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:35:42 GMT


I just had an interesting dinner conversation with a local sales rep
for Motorola.  Two of his customers are offering fiber-optic
networking in the Rochester, NY area to businesses; mostly they offer
T1, T3, and ethernet repeater service.  I'd seen their ad, and figured
that they were a Rochester Telephone subsidiary.

It turns out that they are reselling bandwidth installed by Rochester
Gas and Electric.  It seems that RG&E has installed a fiber cable
(sorry, don't know the type) with every new or replaced natural gas
pipeline and major electric cable for the last five years.  They now
have more optical fiber installed than Rochester Telephone.  For the
nonce, they are avoiding direct competition with the telco, but my
informant figures that they'll be offering telephone service within a
few years, when the stockholders figure out that the possibility.

This figures; easements to install the cables are one of the largest
expenses faced by a communications company, and RG&E already has
easements.


Mark A. Fulk            Computer Science Department
[e-mail]        University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk    Rochester, NY  14627

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

From: [e-mail] (Dale Ollila)
Subject: Information Wanted on Phone/Mail Services
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:50:16 GMT


A partner and I are in the process of writing a book about many of the
things a person should do when changing from an employee to an
independent contractor/consultant status. While much of the
information we have compiled applies nationwide, some of the
information is regional, so I'd like to ask for some help from people
on the net concerning local rates.

If you could email any responses to me, I will summarize and post all
general-interest info to the net.  The questions are as follows:

1.  Information on cellular phone service:
    a.  Your local cellular company and its service area.
    b.  Cost to activate service.
    c.  Monthly rate 1) for one hour, or 2) for three hours.
    d.  Cost per minute over the base rate.

2.  Information on answering services:
    a.  Cost for line rental.
    b.  Cost of call forwarding.
    c.  Cost for extension lines.

3.  Have you encountered any resistance (or favorable comments)
    from clients or colleagues on the use of answering machines
    and/or voice mail?

4.  Have you checked into the use of private mailbox services?
    If so, what was the cost?  Comments on usefulness?

Thanks for any help/information you can provide.


Dale Ollila

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Marquis)
Subject: Vendor Ethics: LANsystems
Date: 24 Mar 92 23:25:37 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


A question for LAN managers:

Have you found consultants information unreliable when they are also
hardware vendors?  I'm curious having recently been sold less than
usefull equipment by a company (LANsystems) we hired for their
consulting and NOT their hardware and I'm anxious not to get burned
again by resellers posing as consultants to move product.

As network consultants LANsystems had been recommended by another,
smaller company.  To their credit LANsystems was able to identify a
bad microwave bridge which, when taken out of service, solved most of
our problems.  They also warned us of problems with the size of our
LAN and it's routerless / bridgeless topology.  To address that issue
they recommended we purchase Wellfleet routers.  Our only problem with
Wellfleet is that their routers can only bridge, not route VINES IP.
VINES is our most common traffic and growing quickly.  Cisco routers
do route VINES and were clearly indicated for this installation.
Nevertheless LANsystems pushed _hard_ to sell Wellfleet and despite
many protests the IS director (who is not especially telecomm
literate) gave them the go-ahead.  I know they made a 40% profit on
these brouters but am shocked at the slack ethics of both the on-site
consultant and his regional manager.  Now we're stuck with this
hardware.  Anyone interested in three slightly used Wellfleet brouters?


Roger Marquis

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 MAR 92 21:49
Subject: Bell Atlantic to Offer Fax Broadcast


Someone recently asked about a fax broadcast service, in connection
with a fax delivery option for a newsletter.  Saw this recently:

   BELL ATLANTIC TO OFFER FAX SERVICES WITH TANDEM COMPUTERS

Bell Atlantic announced its local telephone companies will begin
offering three new fax services.  Fax Overflow will help businesses
whose fax machines are constantly busy with incoming messages.  When a
fax machine is busy, the service will store it on Bell's computers and
resend it when the fax machine is no longer busy.  Fax Mailbox is
designed for businesses that want to be able to retrieve fax messages
while on the road.  And Fax Broadcast will allow businesses to send a
fax document to many locations without having to occupy a single fax
machine for repeated transmissions.  During the program's trial
period, the services will utilize a Tandem CLX minicomputer, Audiofax
Fax Pad processors and software by Tandem Telecommunications.  Bell
will charge about $10 per month for Fax Overflow and $15 for Fax
Mailbox.  Fax Broadcast will cost $5 per month plus $.40 per minute
for each number dialed.

(PR Newswire 3/11/92)


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:45:06 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Originating Phone Number Unavailable


A friend of mine on Oahu in Hawaii is having trouble with one of his
phone lines.

Whenever he dials a long distance call an operator comes on the line
to ask him his phone number telling him that it wasn't available and
that they can't complete the call without it.  They need it in order
to bill him.

He tried calling 700 555 4141 to see who is long distance carrier is
(should be AT&T) and he gets a recording which states "We're sorry.
Because of a temporary equipment condition, your call did not go
through ..."

What would cause this problem and why does it only occur on one of his
two lines?

Both phones are in the same exchange.

An unusal feature of his exchange is that he can dial tones but the
exchange converts them to pulses in order to complete the call.


Monty    roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 11:15 GMT+1
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Digicom Modem Information Request


Last week a friend gave me a modem board of which he hasn't neither an
instruction booklet nor a jumper setting description so, we can't use
it.  It has 20 (twenty!) dip switches which thus can be set in 2**20
different ways !

If someone on this list has the jumper setting description or knows
its features please mail them directly to me:

     ([e-mail] or [e-mail] or
                   [e-mail])

or to the list if you can't reach me directly for any reason.

The manufacturer of the modem is DIGICOM and the model is M3-12PC.  Is
a 1200 baud modem (as it seems to be) or has an higher baud rate ?  On
the board there is also a pair of (serial ?) numbers: X5093 4D0478.

(The DIGICOM BIOS release is 1.0 and there is no date on the board.)


Thanks in advance,

Luca

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 11:16:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (Allan M Schiffman)
Subject: Cellular Phone Service in Europe


My wife is going on a trip to Holland and France next month.  If she
takes her cellular phone with her, will she be able to activate it
somehow?

Surely it will be more complicated than on our periodic trips to Tahoe
from the Bay Area, where, courtesy of "Follow-me Roaming", I guess, it
just works ...


Allan

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 16:40:11 -0600
From: [e-mail] (marty)
Subject: Information Wanted Regarding EE Opportunities at Cellular Companies


I'll be graduating in May and I would like to work in the cellular
communications industry.

Are there many electrical engineering positions at cellular companies?

Can someone provide me a list of the top cellular companies that I
should look into?  So far, I have information on GTE and McCaw.

Any information that you can give me is greatly appreciated.


Thanks,


marty

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:44:50 PST
From: ntmtv![e-mail] (Roupen Nahabedian)
Subject: Information Wanted on PC Telex Card


I'm looking for information on a PC TELEX card (like a fax/modem card).
Something to connect a PC to a TELEX line ... is there such a thing? I
am not talking about dial-up services services like Western Union, AT&T
EasyLink, etc...

Any information will be appreciated.


Thanks,

Roupen Nahabedian     Northern Telecom, Inc.  Mountain View, California
UUCP: ames!ntmtv!nahabed   [e-mail]
ARPANET: ntmtv![e-mail]

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

From: iisat![e-mail] (Kevin Davies)
Subject: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications
Organization: Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:28:41 GMT


Has anyone worked with call processing equipment for micros?

In particular, we're looking at some applications which require the
use of digitized voice, at touch-tone detection for the software.  One
company I know of, Dialogic, has hardware to handle this. Has anyone
any experience with this company or ones like it?

(This will be on 80486 machines with either DOS or Unix).


Thanks in advance.

Kevin Davies        Public Access Unix
UUCP:  dalcs!iisat!kevin   or   cs.dal.ca!iisat!kevin

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 07:27:29 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone


> I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain ...

You will pay somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 for a portable
Marisat terminal capable of providing telephone service.

The price of calls from the U.S. to Marisat terminals has recently
been reduced from $12.00 to $10.00 per minute.  It may very well be
more expensive from Spain.  I have no information on the cost of
outgoing calls from the Marisat terminal.

Quality is good but not excellent.

Marisat Services in Washington, D.C. (800 424-9152) can provide a list
of equipment manufacturers if you still are interested.


john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #267
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10696;
          25 Mar 92 1:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19610
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15322
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:04 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 23:55:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #268

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Mar 92 23:55:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 268

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Product - CSID (Eric Jacksch)
    Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (FIDO via George S. Thurman)
    Wireless Telecom Services in Asia (Mark Rudholm)
    Potpourri (Cellular, 800-CALL-ATT, V.32, &c.) (Michael Scott Baldwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New Product - CSID
From: [e-mail] (Eric Jacksch)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 05:30:13 -0500
Organization: Insomniacs' Guild, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada


The following is part of a document describing a new product for
PC/XT/AT machines which enables the computer to make use of Caller-ID
information passed from the phone company.


                            Call SecurID

Telephone call identification, screening, redirection and logging system.

                          SUMMARY OF FEATURES


ICON CS Canada Inc.
21 Lynwood Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 2B4
Phone/Fax [phone]

INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEM FEATURES

A. GENERAL OVERVIEW

        Call SecurID is a comprehensive computer-based utility which
allows all in-coming telephone calls or signals from related devices
to be accepted or rejected, monitored, logged and organized in a
multi-field database, all with unattended operation.  Designed for use
within a home, business or professional facility or in a computer
security environment, Call SecurID assures automated control over all
telephone-based communications in a manner that can be user customized
for specific needs and circumstances.

        Working with a personal computer, the Call SecurID system
captures the CMS or CLASS data transmitted between the first and
second rings of the telephone.  This data currently includes the phone
number of the calling party, the date, and the time to the nearest
minute.  A hardware insert board and a device driver capture and
transmit the data to the software system.  The software interrogates a
data base looking for an existing entry for the calling number.  If it
locates the number, a screen identifying the calling party flashes
onto the monitor and presents information that the user previously
entered.  If, on the other hand, the software does not find a number,
it adds the new number into the database.  An Unknown Caller screen is
then exhibited which the user can edit to identify the caller and to
add any other information that may be desired to be visible on the
screen the next time the same party calls.

        The user can identify each calling number as either an
acceptable caller, a nuisance caller, a limited caller or a special
caller.  An acceptable call will go through to the handset or other
specified device.  A nuisance caller will activate a "hang-up"
routine.  A limited caller can only get through during certain
specified hours of working days and a special caller will be
identified on the main screen with a different colour or reverse
video.

        Besides the choice of five categories noted above, the user
can identify each caller in one of ten groups.  Group zero is a "ring,
ring, ring" group.  The calling party will hear the phone ringing as
though nobody were there to answer.  Group 1 callers are directed to
the first of three output ports.  Group 2 callers are directed to port
#2 and Group 3 callers are directed to port #3.  Groups 4 to 9 callers
are also directed to port #1.  However, these groupings are used to
bring up user modified/designed screens for categories of callers such
as "business," "family," or "friends" to suit information required in
each separate case. The practical result of such signal flow
management is that calls can be directed to, say, a handset or an
answering machine on port #1, a modem on port #2 or a FAX machine on
port #3.  There are no restrictions on any of the ports for any
telephone device.

        The software operates in one of two modes: TSR (Terminate and
Stay Resident) or a Stand-alone mode.  The TSR mode is employed in
circumstances where the computer used for the Call SecurID system is
also used for word processing or another computing activity.  Using
this mode, when a call comes in a Terminate and Stay Resident (TSR)
kernel starts the main Call SecurID program while saving the current
screen and activity.  The caller's identification screen appears for a
brief predetermined time, or upon command, is held while a
conversation or other telephone operations take place. Thereafter, the
interrupted activity is returned to the screen and the computer is
again available for use.

        The Stand-alone mode is designed for a dedicated computer that
is used to protect a dial-up system on a mini or mainframe computer.
Here the Call SecurID screen is always visible.  It shows the last 14
callers in the log, the numbers of the originating phones, the names
of the parties as entered by the user, their categories and groups, as
well as the date, time and duration of each call.  This mode can also
be used with a multi-tasking system such as DESQview or Windows 3
where Call SecurID operates in the background and can be selected at
will to show the screen log or other information.

B. HARDWARE

        The hardware is an insert card for an 8 or 16-bit XT/ISA Bus
slot in standard PC/MS-DOS computers using Intel 8088, 8086, 80286,
80386 or 80486 processors.  Main operation is via the 8 bit section of
the bus with two extra interrupts available if installed in a 16-bit
slot.  The hardware has all necessary FCC and DOC approvals.

        Four RJ11 connectors on the bracket of the Printed Circuit
Board (PCB) connect the "line" (top connector) and three output ports
for telephone devices such as a handset, an answering machine, a modem
or a FAX machine.  The output ports are port 1 (next to the line
connector), port 2 and port 3 at the bottom of the bracket.

        Your PC provides power for the operation of the board.  Hence,
an external power device is not required.  The board can be configured
to use one of four Interrupts on the PC.  Use IRQ3 or IRQ5 on 8-bit PC
and XT type computers.  On 16-bit AT, 386 and 486 computers, an
additional two options, IRQ10 and IRQ12 are available.  Inserting a
jumper on one of four sets of pins near the PC connector selects the
IRQ.

       The board can also be configured to use one of seven
"addresses" on the operating system: 0360 Hex, 0340 Hex, 0320 Hex,
0300 Hex, 0260 Hex, 0240 Hex, and 0220 Hex. Thus interference with
other devices such as scanners, can be avoided.  This is accomplished
using jumpers on three sets of pins near the top of the board.

        In a security facility, default operation of the system can be
set in such a manner that, in the event of a power failure, the system
will not accept telephone calls.  In the converse setting, if the
computer is turned off or if power fails, telephone calls would
continue to be passed through in the normal way.  A jumper installed
on one of two sets of pins near the connector end of the board selects
the desired configuration.

C. SOFTWARE

        Call SecurID software has three main components.  The first is
a device driver activated when the computer is started.  This is the
software element which continually interfaces with the hardware to
capture the information transmitted by the telephone company.  Upon
receipt of a call, the device driver issues a signal that is picked up
by the TSR or the Stand-alone portion of the software program.  Your
computer's config.sys file must be edited to insert the command which
installs the device drive.

        The second component is the Terminate and Stay Resident
kernel. It is installed by adding the proper activating command to the
computer's autoexec.bat file. When an interrupt is received from the
device driver, the TSR kernel initiates the main program, the third
component of the software.  The main program accepts the information
transmitted by the telephone company and begins to operate.

        The main program can be activated by the TSR or, in the
Stand-alone mode, can be run continuously.  The only difference in
operation is that the Stand-alone version continually interrogates the
device driver and hardware to monitor in-coming calls.  When run in
TSR mode, the program is started by the TSR when a call arrives.

        After accepting the information transmitted by the telephone
company, the main program -- operating in TSR mode -- compares the
received phone number to a list of numbers in a database.  If it finds
the number there, the program displays a screen dedicated to that
caller.  The screen can be edited to include information which will
appear when that particular caller phones again.  If the number is not
found in the database, an entry is made for that calling number and an
Unknown Caller screen appears on the monitor.  The user can then enter
the name of the caller and any other information that is to be
displayed at the next call from the same source. This information is
then saved as an editable screen.

        A caller's screen can display the dates and times of the last
five calls as well as the total number of calls from that party.  The
log and any caller's screen can be reviewed by the user at any time.

        The software includes a menu system with the Common User
Access (CUA) form of interface for performing maintenance and other
activities.  When activated, the menu line appears at the top of the
screen making available pull down menus for each menu line item.
Context sensitive help screens are also available.  Activities that
can be selected include editing, printing, dialing out -- complete
with call logging -- adding information to a caller's screen or
changing the category and/or group of a caller. In addition, this
portion of the software provides the ability to view the database of
callers, the log or a history file containing data on all calls.  The
user can also search any of the files on any field.  Amongst its other
useful utilities, the software includes a function which moves entries
from the log to history files on a user defined schedule.

D. SYSTEM VERSIONS

        The system is available in three versions: SYSOP, BUSINESS,
and SECURITY. Each has been designed to meet specific needs.

        The SYSOP version is tailored to dial-in bulletin board
monitoring where three output ports categorize and group callers and
direct calls to different devices.

        The BUSINESS version is designed for use by small to medium
sized businesses or professional service organizations using
individual phones lines (not PBX systems). It offers the added ability
to dial out using the system and, thus, to record all phone calls
originating from within the office.  Additional printing functions
respond to the needs of individual business operations.

        The SECURITY version is designed as a call screening
protection system for mini and mainframe computers with dial-in
databases or other proprietary information.  It includes special
lock-out features to prevent unauthorized access.  It is also designed
as a total system incorporating up to four dial-in lines on a single
computer.


Eric Jacksch, [e-mail]  (UUCP: aficom!insom!jacksch)

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 00:30 GMT
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears


Found in the Fidonet Shortwave Echo:

 Msg#: 8319 *SHORTWAVE*
 03-20-92 23:15:00
 From: DAVE PLUMB
 Subj: CORDLESS UNSAFE!


Well, Eric Postpischil couldn't find anything on when it's legal to
monitor CMT communications, but he did find this gem on other cordless
phones that is worth passing on.  Of course, we all knew that the IRS
was above the law, anyway, right?  :-(

IRS CUPS ITS EAR TO CORDLESS PHONES (USA Today, 7/30?)

If you're thinking about declaring a few imaginary dependents this
year, don't mention it on your cordless phone.

The Internal Revenue Service may be listening.

Under new guidelines for its criminal investigators, the IRA can use
radio scanners to eavesdrop on suspected tax dodgers while they chat
on their cordless phones.

No warrant is necessary.

The IRS policy, issued as an update to a handbook for investigators,
comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court action.

The high court declined in January to review a federal appeals court
ruling that conversations on cordless telephones are not subject to
federal privacy laws.

"The IRS thinks that since there are no legal or constitutional
protections against listening in to cordless telephone conversations,
its agents aren't bound by any higher principles," says Janlori
Goldman of the American Civil Liberties Union's Privacy Project.

As of this year, one in four homes has a cordless phone; more than 9
million were sold last year alone.

The ACLU has asked Congress to overhaul the 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, which extended federal privacy protection
to such areas as cellular telephones and electronic computer mail -
but specifically omitted the emerging technology of cordless phones.

"The current law makes no sense," says Goldman.  "If your telephone
happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law.  If
not, you have none."


Eric J Werme     uucp: mit-eddie!alliant!werme   Phone: [phone]

* Origin: Dave's Mailer in Enfield, London, UK [0000-0600 GMT] (2:252/140)

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 14:39:13 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Wireless Telecom Services in Asia


Hutchison Telecom has operations in; Hong Kong, United Kingdom,
Germany, Australia, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Macau,
Philippines, and Bangladesh.  They are also constantly expanding their
operations.  They offer services such as; PCN, Telepoint, Cellular
Telephone, Paging, Public Mobile Data, Trunked Mobile Data,
International Value Added Services, Information Services, Satellite
Systems & Services, and Broadcast radio.

Hutchison Telecom is the provider of AMPS Cellular service in Hong
Kong.  I do not know if they operate an AMPS system anywhere else in
Asia.  A friend of mine who is one their executive team has an AMPS
phone that he has no problem using here in Los Angeles.  When he
arrives, he establishes temporary service with either of the two
carriers by having all charges billed to a credit card.  Hutchison
offers the same type of temporary service to anyone with an AMPS
phone.  Their customer service is excellent and availble 24 hours a
day.

In any case, here's where to reach them:

Hutchison Telecommunications Ltd.
(A Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. company)
27th Floor, Great Eagle Centre
23 Harbour Road   Wanchai   Hong Kong
Tel:  [phone]   Fax:  [phone]


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Potpourri (Cellular, 800-CALL-ATT, V.32, &c.)


Cellular One of NY/NJ uses *71 for Immediate Call Forward instead of
*72.  Anyone know why they are different?  Also, No Answer/Busy
Transfer has to be enabled manually.  Bleah.  Last weekend I was in
South Jersey.  The A carrier there is also called Cellular One, but
it's a completely different company.  They couldn't even tell me what
I was paying for my calls.  Anyway, call waiting didn't work, and I
couldn't retrieve my voice mail.  Incoming calls and voice mail seemed
to work.

Cell One now says to dial *35 to enable Voice Mail in CT, RI, and MA.
I couldn't get a straight answer from the rep, but I am guessing this
is only in the DMX areas, and not all of MA, for instance.  Of course,
this means I do *not* get incoming calls.  If I dial *350 to get
incoming, I do *not* get voice mail.  This is exactly how the North
American Cellular Network operates.  They seem to think that this is
the same as having "all of my features."  Give me a break.

Someone mentioned a "one phone number" service in Bell Atlantic
territory.  I attempt to do that here with a computer that dials *72
codes for me on my home line.  Not perfect, but close.  My biggest
problem is the voice mail garbage I mentioned above.  Basically, I
cannot use any cellular voice mail system, because they simply don't
work outside my home area.

People tell me to use 55x-yyyy (x!=5, yyyy=last four digits) for ring
back in NJ.  Sadly, it doesn't work from +1 201 539.  I want to use it
to as a cheapo intercom system in my (big) house.  I don't know how
ring back would work, but I would like something similar to party
lines back in good 'ole MD.  We just dialed our own (or any other
party's) number, and got a busy.  After hanging up, all phones would
ring.  Anyone who picked up phones could talk to each other.  I also
have Identa-Ring, so I'd like to be able to ring back either number,
and be able to pick up one or more extensions and talk.

800-CALL-ATT lets me bill intra-LATA calls to my AT&T card, but I
cannot dial 10ATT to do the same (NJ Bell blocks it).  What is the
scoop on IXC completion of intra-LATA calls?  This wreaks havoc on the
dialing instructions ("if you don't here AT&T hang up and dial ...")
because they will never work here.  You either get "NJ Bell" or "<SIT>
We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code ...").

I use a AT&T Dataphone II V.32 modem at home, and it just doesn't
work.  It hangs up all the time, usually when there are power
fluctuations (washer or boiler comes on, &c.).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #268
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29201;
          25 Mar 92 9:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30874
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18986
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:06 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:50:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #269

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:50:02 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 269

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone (Aaron Good)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (John V. Zambito)
    Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ (Tony Safina)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Brad Hicks)
    Re: 911 Source Identification (Carol Springs)
    Re: Phone Lines and v32 (Brandon S. Allbery)
    Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Kamran Husain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone
Date: 25 Mar 92 04:23:26 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 266, Message 4 of 11

> I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where
> there is no regular phone service, and where cellular phones don't
> reach.  I read somewhere that GTE makes such a phone. Size of the
> device is of no concern.  Any information such as price, price of
> communications, and quality of the latter would be appreciated.

    GTE? In the Inmarsat business? How does IDB sound? They will
sell you one of these units -- as used by Peter Arnet in Bhagdad.

    Ok, The units start at $55,000.00 and go up to $68,000.00 for
a 56Kbs unit; just the job if you want a Usenet feed to keep up with
the Digest. I have heard that the price of these things is coming
down.

    Air charges are $8.74 per minute peak and $6.84 off peak.

    The usual unit is a 30 Kilo suitcase holding the electronics
and a 1.2 Meter dish weighing 4.5 Kilos. Power is 150 - 318V DC or 90
- 240 V AC (47 - 64 Hz). Power consumption is 220 W transmit and 100 W
stand by.

    The interface is two two-wire ports, a modem port and telex
port. The Antenna can be 20 feet from the suitcase and the phone can
be 500 feet from the suitcase.

    For more info, place an order etc, call IDB at [phone],
or [phone], or [phone]. If you have any trouble ask for
James Feld at the 213 number and mention my name.


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] (Aaron Good)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Satellite Phone
Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 00:32:38 GMT


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

> I need to buy a satellite phone to be used in Spain, in an area where

Pick up a copy of the magazine Popular Communications, Monitoring
Times, {73 Magazine}, or {CQ Magazine} -- any ham radio store should
carry them.  There is a company that advertises called ,"CES" (I
think). The ad shows the Magnavox portable satellite telephone system
for about 25,000.00 dollars U.S. and a few hundred more for an air
shipping container.  The telephone is an INMARSAT portable ground
terminal.

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
Date: 24 Mar 92 10:06:55 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jiro
Nakamura) writes:

> I just use two ten dollar connectors. One tells me the status
> of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs.

I love two-color LED's, but NOT for this application.  I would only
buy boxes that have two LED's for each signal.  I can "see" a single
character at 9600 or 19.2 with two LED's (I see the normally-off one
flash on) but I can't "see" a single character with the dual-color
LED's.  That is, I can see a red LED blink on for a 19.2k character,
but I can't see a green LED turn red for that amount of time.  Maybe
it's a personal problem.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 03:57:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> upchrch![e-mail].c
cur.com (Joel Upchurch ) writes:

> [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura) writes:

>> of each RS-232 line with two-color LEDs. The other is a mini RS-232
>> break-out box that I bought in Akihabara, Tokyo (and I've seen them in
>> Rat Shack).  Both are around the same size as DB-25 gender changers.

>>     It works fine for me in almost all situations. Sure, it isn't
>> as nice as a $100 break out box, but why waste the money? If you are

I bought one of Radio Shack's little two-color LED Mini-Testers for
$15 about a year ago for use at the office -- we have 35 RS-232 drops
in our department alone.

For most RS-232 work, it has been a God-send. It is small, slips in
your pocket, and for 99% of the situations, it's more than sufficient.
I have a full-size Black Box breakout box at work which I have used
exactly once in the last year, when I HAD TO do something exotic. I
made up a test cable with a DB25 on one end and a set of four foot
clip-leads for the other end, marked with Brady wiremarkers as to
function and numbers indicating the order on our punchblocks. Plugging
the R/S mini-tester into this cable makes it possible to test terminal
circuits at the punchblocks with one hand while standing on a ladder,
something that ain't easy with a full-size breakout box.

I liked the Radio Shack gadget enough to go buy one for myself for
home.  I have to do com development work, using my 386 talking to an
old IBM dinosaur.  The minitester makes it very easy to see what's
going on. I leave it permanently in place between the two machines.

It's the only really valuable thing I have ever found at Radio Shack.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 11:48:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (John V. Zambito)
Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY


> Anyone know the ringback or other interesting tests here?

411 give us local (Rochester Tel) directory assistance.
511 tells us what number we are calling from.

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

From: disk![e-mail] (tony)
Subject: Re: Ring Back Number Wanted For NJ
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 22:51:41 GMT


> [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

    Please, ... what does "not tarriffed for use by the general
public," mean?  `Sounds kind of ominous to me.  If a procedure is not
illegal that is one thing, but if it is "not tarriffed" does that mean
the phone company could cut off your service if you use it?

    I have only used it twice to date and my service has not been
cut off, but if I used it several times per month would that change
anything?


Tony Safina    disk![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You won't get your service cut off for using
ringback, but by not being tariffed, I mean it has no rules which
apply to it and no price tag assigned to it (like Call Waiting for
example.) Telco does not really like unauthorized people using it for
anything other than its original purpose; that of testing.   PAT]

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

From: "[e-mail]"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Date: 24 Mar 92 18:47:54 GMT


In <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <[e-mail].
dec.com> writes:

> 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 ...

(Does this apply to modem calls?  What if the number is published as a
BBS number (a) in a magazine or (b) on a BBS?.)

>  (C) ... to send an unsolicted advertisement to a telephone facsimile
>  machine; or

Again, who is responsible if I have a FAX but give someone else's FAX
number who (a) I think will accept return FAXes or (b) I am trying to
FAX/slam?

I think the law needs some more work.


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.


[Moderator's Note: The law does not need any more work. First of all,
why would your modem be making calls to the category of phones
mentioned above -- emergency lines, hospital rooms, cellular phones,
etc.?  The intent is very plain: to avoid hassles for phones which
would *never* or rarely be used for the purposes specified. And if you
have a FAX, why would you give someone else's FAX number? If you are
trying to 'FAX/Slam' some person, then I suspect the law would include
you as a violator.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 16:49 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On


John W. Lydic ([e-mail]) said:

> It has been rumored (unsubstantiated) that UUNET sends a tape of all
> Usenet transactions to the FBI every month.

To which Pat replied:

> How many giga-gazillion bytes would that be ... Do you
> really think the Federal Bureau of Inquisition [reads the entire
> UseNet]?  Delusions of grandeur ...

Not that long ago, {Life} ran a set of photos from inside the Langley,
VA offices of the CIA.  I clearly remember one photo of the inside of
an automated tape storage facility (they called them "tape silos")
with enough raw data given in the photo caption to calculate the total
storage per silo.  It also indicated that there were multiple silos;
the number that sticks in my head is nine of them.  I don't remember if
it came out to 1.5 Tb per silo or if it was just 1.5 Tb for the whole
system, but that's good enough for order of magnitude purposes.

Yes, I said Tb.  As in terrabytes.  As in millions of megabytes.  Now,
given their strong interest in signals intelligence and photo recon,
the CIA may need a bit more storage space (digitized undecoded signals
and digitized photographs, for example) than the FBI, but obviously
Congress didn't flinch from buying an intelligence service that kind
of data storage.

Now, let's approach it from the other angle.  Didn't we see an article
here in TCD about a company that produces a monthly CD-ROM of the
entire UseNet?  So one year's worth of traffic for the highest-volume
period of the UseNet to date would rattle around loosely in a good
CD-ROM jukebox; the entire historical contents of the UseNet would fit
into a small room on hardware costing less than $100k, which would be
pocket change to the FBI.

You think the FBI wouldn't care?  Even with newsgroups which might
attract "perverts" (alt.sex.bondage, alt.sex.pictures, rec.nudism),
"hackers" (comp.dcom.telecom, alt.dcom.telecom, comp.org.eff.talk),
and other groups of "potential criminals"?  If not, then I think you
have insufficient understanding of the history of an organization that
got its start compiling dossiers on poets and writers.

Now, the only limiting factor here is manpower.  Do I think that one
or more FBI special agents, investigators, or even clerks actually
READS the 12 Mb per day of text that flows through UseNet?  My
personal guess would be no, that even the FBI doesn't have an
unlimited budget and the "productivity" (amount of criminal activity
successfully prosecuted per investigator hour) would be too low.  But
I strongly suspect that they store it in a format where if my name
came up on some "enemies list", a special agent could pull everything
I wrote on this medium to look for admissions of criminal intent, or
even just to build a personality profile.

One last potential objection: With all of those privacy freaks using
the FOIA to get their files, wouldn't this have been proven by now?
Not necessarily, or even likely.  The FOIA specifically exempts
information that would reveal methods of intelligence gathering; it
may well be that the FBI could argue that their UseNet collection was
only valuable as long as potential criminals didn't know they were
monitoring it, and have a blanket permission under FOIA to not release
any information collected in that fashion.  All legal as church on
Sunday.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 08:33:35 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Carol Springs)
Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston@frankston.
std.com writes:

> I would like to see a copy of the {Globe} editorial that links E911 with
> Caller-ID.  The only thing the two might have in common is SS7.

Never submitted it and don't have it anymore; sorry.  It was amusing,
though.

> The fact that NET has chosen to throw a childish temper tantrum
> because they had to give people (sorry, I guess those who choose a
> modicum of privacy are low-lives by definition [the return of HUAC?]),
> is no reason to deny E911.

I never saw any evidence that NET was actually denying E911, or even
slowing down its plans.  I think the {Boston Globe} editorial was
written by someone who'd befuddled himself rather than being misled by
NET.  Then again, someone once sent me e-mail saying that some bad NET
reps had set out deliberately to confuse people in this very regard,
in order to increase the chances of passing Caller-ID as originally
specced out by NET.  I'm uncertain whether to attribute remarks like
these to paranoia, and I'd appreciate any further info from those who
were there during the lobbying and such.

(I would be annoyed if there were actually any slowdown in NET's new E911
implementations -- aren't the new 411 charges being earmarked for this
project?)


Carol Springs    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 20:10:59 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines and v32
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by zygot![e-mail]
(John Higdon):

> [e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writebit? It would seem
> that Telebit wants to discourage the use of V.32 and K encourage the]
> use of PEP by making modems that don't work well with

> at times by the company's arrogance. However, as a user of many
> Telebit modems, PEP and v.32, I can tell you that I have seen
> absolutely no indication that Telebit purposely "cripples" v.32 in

The new T3000 doesn't even *come* with PEP.  (It's a $100 option.)
Wouldn't Telebit have made the V.32 option the add-on if they wanted
to push PEP that badly?


Brandon S. Allbery, KF8NH [44.70.4.88]        [e-mail]
Senior Programmer, Telotech, Inc. (if I may call myself that...)

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

From: [e-mail] (Kamran Husain)
Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison
Date: 24 Mar 92 16:35:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products


Who is Len Rose and why was he is prison?  Was he a telemarketer?


kamran


[Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a
straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious
'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was
convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad
Things, and transporting it around the net. Are you suggesting
telemarketers belong in prison?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #269
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19465;
          26 Mar 92 5:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31326
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26236
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:00 -0600
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:46:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #270

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:08:48 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 270

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Ptasnik
    New 900-Type Number? (Holly B. Papaleonardos)
    Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Gordon Burditt)
    Replacing a Cell Phone (Peter B. Hayward)
    Petitioning Indiana PUC (Doctor Math)
    Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz (Joe Konstan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:55 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies


[The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:]

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

One of the most propagandized statements the phonecos heap upon your
eyes, ears and minds is a claim that "the phone business" is a
"natural monopoly."  There might have been a ring of reason to it in
the context in which Theodore Vail wrote that about 80 years ago
(while under the tutelage of the railroad baron, Theodore Vanderbilt).
But, technology has made gigantic inroads into the real capital and
operating cost of local telecommunications transmission plant.  The
"natural monopoly" is so dead that anyone who tries to use it on you
should be shamed.  Here's a paper by Royce J. Holland, president of
Metropolitan Fiber Systems, discussing the matter, as published in a
newsletter recently sent out by MFS, its "MFS News-Letter" for Winter,
1992:

                         THE LAST MONOPOLY

        "The local loop remains the last domestic bastion of
bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition ..."

        "Competition means strife, industrial warfare; ... it often
means ... resorting to any means that the conscience of the
contestants or the degree of enforcement of the laws will permit."

        "This unflattering view of competition was espoused in the
early twentieth century by Theodore Vail, the former president of the
Bell System.  The twin cornerstones of Mr. Vail's philosophy were that
telephone service is a "natural monopoly" and that the goals of
affordable universal service can only be achieved in a monopoly
environment.

        "To a proponent of a competitive, market-based economy, the
term "natural monopoly" is the ultimate oxymoron.  Much like
Marxism-Leninism, monopolism results in the stifling of initiative,
restriction of technological innovation, development of a stultifying
bureaucracy, and general acceptance of mediocrity.  Fortunately, many
areas of the American telecommunications industry, including equipment
manufacturing and long distance services has transformed monopolism to
a relic of a bygone era.  Competition in these industries has resulted
in technological innovation, dramatic improvements in customer service,
robust increases in demand, and significant reductions in costs.

        "Affordable universal telephone service is a laudable goal
that has been a major tenet of domestic telecommunications policy ove
the last half century.  MFS heartily endorses the goal of affordable
universal service and believes that a competitive environment in the
local loop will strengthen this national committment.  As we have
proposed in two pending FCC rulemaking proceedings, non-dsicriminatory
contributions by all competitors to promote universal service will
produce significant benefits for consumers and the US economy.

        "The last two decades have seen the death of monopolism in
many areas of telecommunications.  In fact, the local loop remains the
last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed
competition.  Despite the exaggerated outcries of `billions lost to
bypass,' by the Baby Bells, the local exchange carriers still control
over 99 percent of the local access market.  And the Regional Bell
Operating Companies (RBOCs) in particular use these outrageous
fabrications to try to justify the removal of the Modification of
Final Judgment restrictions on their lines of business and to gain
further deregulation.

        "Even in this last monopoly market, the benefits of very
limited competition are very apparent.  The RBOCs are beginning to
improve customer service and network reliability, at least in the
cities where limited access competition exists.  And our new product
offering for interconnecting high speed computer networks will
undoubtedly spur the Bells to accelerate the development of similar
products.  It is particularly ironic that MFS is leading the way in
commercializing the technology for America's Information Superhighways
of the Future while the RBOCs continue to focus on non-regulated
overseas markets." (Alluding to the millions the RBOCs have invested
in phone companies, cable TV and transoceanic submarine telephone
cables instead of their local business.) "Once again, consumers have
benefitted from a competitive rather than a monopoly environment.

        "Although competition has gained a small beachhead, to
paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of monopolism's death are greatly
exaggerated.  The lack of true competition has sparked legislative and
regulatory initiatives such as the Cooper Bill in Congress and
Chairman Barnich's Telecommunications Free Trade Zone Proposal at the
Illinois Commerce Commission to remove regulatory barriers to entry in
the local exchange market.  As our Local Equal Access Initiative and
other pro-competitive proposals are implemented, and competitors to
the Baby Bells continue to set the standards for customer service and
technological innovation, Theodore Vail's horse-and-buggy era
philosophy may ultimately be consigned to the dustbin of history."

<end of quote>

    And, one more case, as Paul Harvey puts it, of, "Now You Know the
Rest of the Story."  Remember it when the monks of your phoneco start
chanting the mantras of the obsolete Bell System again!


WM v2.02/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing this along, Jack. Even if Don
Kimberlin is extremely anti-AT&T and anti-telco, his articles are
quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late
arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines
and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here
had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It
seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from
scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire
pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they
need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of
experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates
and claim telco is the ripoff!  I don't see where the telcos owe them
anything except that once MFS and the others build their network,
spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own
central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco
can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your
gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop
their own software, make their own applications to the long distance
carriers for interconnection, etc.  *Then* let's compare prices.  They
are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 11:40:43 -0800 (PST)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone
marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would
benefit.  That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users
with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely.  I
firmly believe that this is telco propaganda.

When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a
nice big map of the state.  This map showed the boundaries of control
of each phone company.  Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer.  The
biggest cities were served by IBT.  The middle sized towns were served
by GTE.  The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El
Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of
regional companies.  The rural customers did not pay significantly
higher rates than urban customers.  Often the reverse was true.  I
have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little guys.
They just priced their services at a fair mark up.  Even though their
loops were a lot longer, they still seemed to do fine.  I really don't
think that the phone service in El Paso, Mendota, Paxton, or Foosland
will be impacted by IBT losing their monopoly.  I do think that IBT
will become LOTS more competitive if faced with competition.

Imagine being able to set appointments for installation of service.
Imagine remotely programmable call forward busy, don't answer, and
variable being offered at low prices (or just being offered, the 5ESS
can do them all now).  Imagine digital services at rational prices.

You might have to insure univeral service within the existing service
boundaries, or maybe by CO boundaries.  These issues can be resolved.
Sure, breaking up a monopoly can be ugly (I can hear Judge Green
laughing in the background).  Yes it means that we have to learn more
about our telephones in order to make an informed decision.  Yes there
will be new rip offs.  Yes it means some people will get worse
service.  Still, phone technology has exploded since divestiture.
While things are more complicated than they were before, they really
are better and less expensive.  It's called progress.  Someday it
might even help Mendota.


Dave Ptasnik        [e-mail]
(NOT the opinion of the University of Washington, or any university
departments)


[Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory
assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use
AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call
on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all
themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not
otherwise.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Holly B Papaleonardos)
Subject: New 900-Type Number?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:21:25 GMT


    When opening a commercial information service (BBS), a friend of
mine was faced with several options for the possibility of long-
distance callers. He decided on the 800 number, but said he was
offered two other options: a 900 number, but also a 700 (yes
seven-hundred) number, both billable.

    Has anyone else heard of this 700 service?


            Delphi:  WTHUNDER
          Alexi   Papaleonardos
    NetworKING BBS:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: 700 is basically like 900 except each carrier does
its own thing with the entire 700 number space. Where 700-something on
AT&T will get you one thing, the same 700 number on Sprint will get
you something else. It is not as widely used as 900, however.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:24:28 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register
> S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems
> must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command

On a Trailblazer Plus, you have to have a PEP connection.  I suppose
on a T3000, you have to have a MNP or v.42 connection (my T3000 hasn't
arrived yet).

> allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as
> though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing
> you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier
> Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling
> around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it
> when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother.   PAT]

Allowing parameter reset remotely is a very convenient feature when
you're testing configuration options that affect transfer efficiency,
or are just setting up the modem and one end is unattended.

Some systems have &D2 (a.k.a. S52=2, reset parameters on DTR drop)
set, so resetting S10 after your session isn't necessary.  This option
is also useful for dealing with dialin/dialout parameter differences
(resetting verbose response option after dialout, for example), so
many systems may use it anyway.

However, "remote access" has its problems.  There is great opportunity
for REALLY rude behavior, especially if the dialup number is well-known.
(At least the default is off, so people who don't know about remote
access probably have it off).  I don't have the version with callback
security, so there may be some protection there, but consider the
effect of some of the commands:

 - Turn off auto-answer.
 - Lock interface speed at 300 baud.
 - Program the number directory to contain the number of someone
   you wish to annoy or something expensive (Saddam's personal residence?),
   then activate the option to dial out whenever DTR goes from OFF to ON.
 - And, of course, writing the obnoxious parameters into all of the saved
   configurations.

Denial-of-service attacks are easy.  Running up big phone bills is possible.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need
the system password for the other modem.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 09:57:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Peter B. Hayward)
Subject: Replacing a Cell Phone


I suppose this has been beaten to death already on this group, but I
must have missed the discussion.

Since the retail sale of cell phones is subsidized by the carriers,
what provision is there when one needs to replace a cell phone because
the old one is dead or one wishes (let's say) an installed model in
place of a transportable?

I called my carrier and was offered a trade-in on my phone but the
carrier's list price for the new phone was nearly double that I could
obtain retail. Of course, I can't get the phone retail because I am
not a new subscriber.  I suppose I could subscribe with the alternate
carrier, but then I would lose my long established number, have to pay
a new account connect charge, etc.

And what about getting around this by purchasing a used phone? Such
must exist as people upgrade. Are there places that sell used cell
phones without the requirement that they be activated with carrier X
or Y?


Peter

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

Subject: Petitioning Indiana PUC
From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:03:00 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


Here in lovely North Central Indiana, we are served by a #1A ESS. As
far as I know, it is possible to get all custom calling features with
this switch; but Indiana Bell only offers some of them: call
fowarding, (cancel) call waiting, 3-way calling, and speed dialing. I
would really like to have distinctive ringing and/or busy call
forwarding. Not only can I not order them, my Bell rep doesn't even
know when I will be able to get these services in my calling area. I
could get these services if I regraded my residential lines to
business (which would double the cost) and paid extra for Centrex, but
that's not what I want. I suspect that these services are not offered
either because they're not tariffed, or because Bell is too cheap to
upgrade their switch to a newer generic which handles these services.
My guess is the former.

There is a process by which mere subscribers can petition the
Utilities Commission to force Bell to offer services where they are
technologically capable. From what I have gathered, it requires a
petition with at least 12 signatures, among other things. Has anyone
done this? Can anyone offer hints, suggestions, etc? Finally, does
anyone out there who happens to live in St. Joe county (South
Bend/Mishawaka) want to sign the petition?

Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:29:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz


I'm still wading through the flood of responses, but since I'm going
out of town for a couple of weeks I thought I'd post a quick summary.

I received 22 responses which pretty much all agreed that the problem
was the high level of white in captions seeping into the audio band.
Then the fun starts.

About 1/2 of the responses said that it was my TV.  Most thought it
could be repaired, but some said it wasn't worth it for an old set
(mine is about five years old).

About 1/3 blamed the broadcast station for not properly regulating the
level and the rest blamed the cable folks for not properly adjusting
the levels.

Armed with this information, I'll try out another TV set first (and if
necessary, adjust/repair this one) and then bug the cable folks (after
all, I pay them for this!).


Joe Konstan    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #270
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19836;
          26 Mar 92 5:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20679
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24234
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:48 -0600
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:08:48 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #270

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:08:48 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 270

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Ptasnik
    New 900-Type Number? (Holly B. Papaleonardos)
    Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Gordon Burditt)
    Replacing a Cell Phone (Peter B. Hayward)
    Petitioning Indiana PUC (Doctor Math)
    Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz (Joe Konstan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:55 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Natural Monopoly" Dies


[The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:]

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

One of the most propagandized statements the phonecos heap upon your
eyes, ears and minds is a claim that "the phone business" is a
"natural monopoly."  There might have been a ring of reason to it in
the context in which Theodore Vail wrote that about 80 years ago
(while under the tutelage of the railroad baron, Theodore Vanderbilt).
But, technology has made gigantic inroads into the real capital and
operating cost of local telecommunications transmission plant.  The
"natural monopoly" is so dead that anyone who tries to use it on you
should be shamed.  Here's a paper by Royce J. Holland, president of
Metropolitan Fiber Systems, discussing the matter, as published in a
newsletter recently sent out by MFS, its "MFS News-Letter" for Winter,
1992:

                         THE LAST MONOPOLY

        "The local loop remains the last domestic bastion of
bottleneck facilities and circumscribed competition ..."

        "Competition means strife, industrial warfare; ... it often
means ... resorting to any means that the conscience of the
contestants or the degree of enforcement of the laws will permit."

        "This unflattering view of competition was espoused in the
early twentieth century by Theodore Vail, the former president of the
Bell System.  The twin cornerstones of Mr. Vail's philosophy were that
telephone service is a "natural monopoly" and that the goals of
affordable universal service can only be achieved in a monopoly
environment.

        "To a proponent of a competitive, market-based economy, the
term "natural monopoly" is the ultimate oxymoron.  Much like
Marxism-Leninism, monopolism results in the stifling of initiative,
restriction of technological innovation, development of a stultifying
bureaucracy, and general acceptance of mediocrity.  Fortunately, many
areas of the American telecommunications industry, including equipment
manufacturing and long distance services has transformed monopolism to
a relic of a bygone era.  Competition in these industries has resulted
in technological innovation, dramatic improvements in customer service,
robust increases in demand, and significant reductions in costs.

        "Affordable universal telephone service is a laudable goal
that has been a major tenet of domestic telecommunications policy ove
the last half century.  MFS heartily endorses the goal of affordable
universal service and believes that a competitive environment in the
local loop will strengthen this national committment.  As we have
proposed in two pending FCC rulemaking proceedings, non-dsicriminatory
contributions by all competitors to promote universal service will
produce significant benefits for consumers and the US economy.

        "The last two decades have seen the death of monopolism in
many areas of telecommunications.  In fact, the local loop remains the
last domestic bastion of bottleneck facilities and circumscribed
competition.  Despite the exaggerated outcries of `billions lost to
bypass,' by the Baby Bells, the local exchange carriers still control
over 99 percent of the local access market.  And the Regional Bell
Operating Companies (RBOCs) in particular use these outrageous
fabrications to try to justify the removal of the Modification of
Final Judgment restrictions on their lines of business and to gain
further deregulation.

        "Even in this last monopoly market, the benefits of very
limited competition are very apparent.  The RBOCs are beginning to
improve customer service and network reliability, at least in the
cities where limited access competition exists.  And our new product
offering for interconnecting high speed computer networks will
undoubtedly spur the Bells to accelerate the development of similar
products.  It is particularly ironic that MFS is leading the way in
commercializing the technology for America's Information Superhighways
of the Future while the RBOCs continue to focus on non-regulated
overseas markets." (Alluding to the millions the RBOCs have invested
in phone companies, cable TV and transoceanic submarine telephone
cables instead of their local business.) "Once again, consumers have
benefitted from a competitive rather than a monopoly environment.

        "Although competition has gained a small beachhead, to
paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of monopolism's death are greatly
exaggerated.  The lack of true competition has sparked legislative and
regulatory initiatives such as the Cooper Bill in Congress and
Chairman Barnich's Telecommunications Free Trade Zone Proposal at the
Illinois Commerce Commission to remove regulatory barriers to entry in
the local exchange market.  As our Local Equal Access Initiative and
other pro-competitive proposals are implemented, and competitors to
the Baby Bells continue to set the standards for customer service and
technological innovation, Theodore Vail's horse-and-buggy era
philosophy may ultimately be consigned to the dustbin of history."

<end of quote>

    And, one more case, as Paul Harvey puts it, of, "Now You Know the
Rest of the Story."  Remember it when the monks of your phoneco start
chanting the mantras of the obsolete Bell System again!


WM v2.02/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing this along, Jack. Even if Don
Kimberlin is extremely anti-AT&T and anti-telco, his articles are
quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late
arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines
and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here
had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It
seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from
scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire
pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they
need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of
experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates
and claim telco is the ripoff!  I don't see where the telcos owe them
anything except that once MFS and the others build their network,
spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own
central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco
can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your
gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop
their own software, make their own applications to the long distance
carriers for interconnection, etc.  *Then* let's compare prices.  They
are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 11:40:43 -0800 (PST)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone
marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would
benefit.  That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users
with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely.  I
firmly believe that this is telco propaganda.

When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a
nice big map of the state.  This map showed the boundaries of control
of each phone company.  Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer.  The
biggest cities were served by IBT.  The middle sized towns were served
by GTE.  The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El
Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of
regional companies.  The rural customers did not pay significantly
higher rates than urban customers.  Often the reverse was true.  I
have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little guys.
They just priced their services at a fair mark up.  Even though their
loops were a lot longer, they still seemed to do fine.  I really don't
think that the phone service in El Paso, Mendota, Paxton, or Foosland
will be impacted by IBT losing their monopoly.  I do think that IBT
will become LOTS more competitive if faced with competition.

Imagine being able to set appointments for installation of service.
Imagine remotely programmable call forward busy, don't answer, and
variable being offered at low prices (or just being offered, the 5ESS
can do them all now).  Imagine digital services at rational prices.

You might have to insure univeral service within the existing service
boundaries, or maybe by CO boundaries.  These issues can be resolved.
Sure, breaking up a monopoly can be ugly (I can hear Judge Green
laughing in the background).  Yes it means that we have to learn more
about our telephones in order to make an informed decision.  Yes there
will be new rip offs.  Yes it means some people will get worse
service.  Still, phone technology has exploded since divestiture.
While things are more complicated than they were before, they really
are better and less expensive.  It's called progress.  Someday it
might even help Mendota.


Dave Ptasnik        [e-mail]
(NOT the opinion of the University of Washington, or any university
departments)


[Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory
assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use
AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call
on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all
themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not
otherwise.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Holly B Papaleonardos)
Subject: New 900-Type Number?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 07:21:25 GMT


    When opening a commercial information service (BBS), a friend of
mine was faced with several options for the possibility of long-
distance callers. He decided on the 800 number, but said he was
offered two other options: a 900 number, but also a 700 (yes
seven-hundred) number, both billable.

    Has anyone else heard of this 700 service?


            Delphi:  WTHUNDER
          Alexi   Papaleonardos
    NetworKING BBS:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: 700 is basically like 900 except each carrier does
its own thing with the entire 700 number space. Where 700-something on
AT&T will get you one thing, the same 700 number on Sprint will get
you something else. It is not as widely used as 900, however.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 20:24:28 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: My Telebit T-1600 has this feature also. Register
> S-45 is set to 0 to disable this, or 255 to enable it. Both modems
> must have this feature, and must have an MNP connection. The % command

On a Trailblazer Plus, you have to have a PEP connection.  I suppose
on a T3000, you have to have a MNP or v.42 connection (my T3000 hasn't
arrived yet).

> allows the user at a local DTE to send a command to the other modem as
> though it had been entered from the other end. I guess the first thing
> you would do when calling is set the other guy's S-10 register (Carrier
> Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling
> around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it
> when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother.   PAT]

Allowing parameter reset remotely is a very convenient feature when
you're testing configuration options that affect transfer efficiency,
or are just setting up the modem and one end is unattended.

Some systems have &D2 (a.k.a. S52=2, reset parameters on DTR drop)
set, so resetting S10 after your session isn't necessary.  This option
is also useful for dealing with dialin/dialout parameter differences
(resetting verbose response option after dialout, for example), so
many systems may use it anyway.

However, "remote access" has its problems.  There is great opportunity
for REALLY rude behavior, especially if the dialup number is well-known.
(At least the default is off, so people who don't know about remote
access probably have it off).  I don't have the version with callback
security, so there may be some protection there, but consider the
effect of some of the commands:

 - Turn off auto-answer.
 - Lock interface speed at 300 baud.
 - Program the number directory to contain the number of someone
   you wish to annoy or something expensive (Saddam's personal residence?),
   then activate the option to dial out whenever DTR goes from OFF to ON.
 - And, of course, writing the obnoxious parameters into all of the saved
   configurations.

Denial-of-service attacks are easy.  Running up big phone bills is possible.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need
the system password for the other modem.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 09:57:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Peter B. Hayward)
Subject: Replacing a Cell Phone


I suppose this has been beaten to death already on this group, but I
must have missed the discussion.

Since the retail sale of cell phones is subsidized by the carriers,
what provision is there when one needs to replace a cell phone because
the old one is dead or one wishes (let's say) an installed model in
place of a transportable?

I called my carrier and was offered a trade-in on my phone but the
carrier's list price for the new phone was nearly double that I could
obtain retail. Of course, I can't get the phone retail because I am
not a new subscriber.  I suppose I could subscribe with the alternate
carrier, but then I would lose my long established number, have to pay
a new account connect charge, etc.

And what about getting around this by purchasing a used phone? Such
must exist as people upgrade. Are there places that sell used cell
phones without the requirement that they be activated with carrier X
or Y?


Peter

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

Subject: Petitioning Indiana PUC
From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:03:00 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


Here in lovely North Central Indiana, we are served by a #1A ESS. As
far as I know, it is possible to get all custom calling features with
this switch; but Indiana Bell only offers some of them: call
fowarding, (cancel) call waiting, 3-way calling, and speed dialing. I
would really like to have distinctive ringing and/or busy call
forwarding. Not only can I not order them, my Bell rep doesn't even
know when I will be able to get these services in my calling area. I
could get these services if I regraded my residential lines to
business (which would double the cost) and paid extra for Centrex, but
that's not what I want. I suspect that these services are not offered
either because they're not tariffed, or because Bell is too cheap to
upgrade their switch to a newer generic which handles these services.
My guess is the former.

There is a process by which mere subscribers can petition the
Utilities Commission to force Bell to offer services where they are
technologically capable. From what I have gathered, it requires a
petition with at least 12 signatures, among other things. Has anyone
done this? Can anyone offer hints, suggestions, etc? Finally, does
anyone out there who happens to live in St. Joe county (South
Bend/Mishawaka) want to sign the petition?

Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:29:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Early Summary of Responses about TV Caption Buzz


I'm still wading through the flood of responses, but since I'm going
out of town for a couple of weeks I thought I'd post a quick summary.

I received 22 responses which pretty much all agreed that the problem
was the high level of white in captions seeping into the audio band.
Then the fun starts.

About 1/2 of the responses said that it was my TV.  Most thought it
could be repaired, but some said it wasn't worth it for an old set
(mine is about five years old).

About 1/3 blamed the broadcast station for not properly regulating the
level and the rest blamed the cable folks for not properly adjusting
the levels.

Armed with this information, I'll try out another TV set first (and if
necessary, adjust/repair this one) and then bug the cable folks (after
all, I pay them for this!).


Joe Konstan    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #270
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22578;
          26 Mar 92 6:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29039
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:43:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22213
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:42:57 -0600
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 01:42:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #271

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Mar 92 01:43:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 271

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phonecos Renege on "Deal" (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    My School Switched Over From AT&T to Sprint (Michael Rosen)
    NWS Weather Radio -- New System (Mike Riddle)
    Anyone Out There Use Dispcall on a DMS? (Steve Chafe)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Ronald T. Crocker)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Mike Berger)
    Re: Cellular Phone Service in Europe (John R. Covert)
    The 1-800 Man (Carl Moore)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assigment (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 16:40:30 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phonecos Renege on "Deal"


[The following message originated in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:]

 Original From: Don Kimberlin
       Subject: Phonecos Renege on "Deal"

Here's another way the local phonecos are failing to meet their often
ballyhooed "service to the public," "natural monopoly" and "all things
to all people" profile they like to put forth.

Now, after making a committment to the FCC that they understood all
the requirements (after all, they ARE the only real "experts," aren't
they?) and committed to the FCC that they could participate in "800
number portability" by April, 1993, the local phonecos are `fessing up
that they won't have SS7 installed adequately to accomplish it.  One,
good old Southwestern Bell, who was always one of Ma Bell's nastier
children, has even sued the FCC at this late date, trying to get the
court to tell the FCC it can't tell a local phoneco how to run its
business!  Here's a story quoted from two trade journal sources:

<From {Communications Week}>

                     TELCOS ASK FOR SS7 ROLLOUT DELAY
                           By: Kathleen Killette

        "Local telephone companies last week remained strongly at odds
with the biggest customers -- and users and long distance carriers --
about how quicly they should be required to roll out Signaling System
7 networks and associated databases for routing "800" - number
traffic.

        "In filings with the FCC last week, several telcos said it
will be too expensive and too technically difficult to comply with the
agency's March, 1993 deadline for SS7 deployment and implementation of
the 800-number databases.

        "But user advocates say those claims are exagerrated.  `Telco
had full input into the negotiations that led up to the FCC's adoption
of the rules, and their whining is now inappropriate,' said Henry
Levine, a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster and counsel
to Mastercard International and other large financial institutions.

        "The SS7 networks will support databases for screening and
routing 800-number calls to the proper interexchange carriers --
called 800-number portability -- which is expected to shorten the time
it takes to set up calls and which will let users retain their 800
numbers when they switch long-distance carriers.

        "Number portability is also crucial to carriers who face
intensifying competition for business users.  AT&T, which the FCC
believes still has the lion's share of the 800-number market, is
forbidden to provide 800-number service as an integrated component of
its customized Tariff 12 network services until telcos provide number
portability.

        "The databases, according to the FCC, should enable telcos to
cut their access call setup times to five seconds or less for 97
percent of 800-number traffic.  By MArch, 1995, the telcos must
achieve a maximum access time of five seconds for 100 percent of their
800 traffic, with a mean time of 2.5 seconds.

        "In reports filed with the FCC last week, telcos reiterated
their claims that there are significant costs to comply with the
deadlines, and that variations in their switching equipment within
their territories were not taken into account when preliminary call
setup estimates were issued by the Industry Carriers Compatibility
Forum."  (Well, whose fault is _that_? -- God's?)

        "San Francisco-based Pacific Telesis Group and several other
telcos have asked the FCC to waive its rules, and St. Louis-based
Southwestern Bell Corp. has challenged the FCC's rules in court.

        "But Levine dismissed telcos' worries about equipment
variations and cost burdens.  `The call setup variations due to
[switch] inconsistencies are measurable in hundredths of a second;
that doesn't justify the magnitude of the changes now being
requested,' he said.

<table of local phoneco promise versus performance on SS7 deployment,
from {Network World} >

                TRAFFIC PERCENTAGE TO MEET FCC REQUIREMENTS

FCC Plan
1993    97%
1995   100%

Ameritech
1993    74%
1995    96%

Bell Atlantic
1993    85%
1995   100%

BellSouth Corp,
1993    93%
1995    98%

GTE Telephone Operations
1993    90%
1995   100%

Nynex Corp.
1993    92%
1995    98%

Pacific Telesis Group
1993    84%
1995    98%

Southwestern Bell Corp.
1993    72%
1995    95%

USWest, Inc.
1993    64%
1995    no committment

<end of quotes>

So, on yet another front, you now know, in Paul Harvey's style, yet
another part of "The Rest of the Story."  Remember that when your
phoneco next propagandizes you with how well they are taking care of
your interests!


WM v2.02/91-0073
* Origin: AET BBS - [phone], 84,000+ Files (6300 megs)(1:379/16)

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: My School Switched Over From AT&T to Sprint
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 23:46:25 GMT


On my school system, we dial 9 for our direct dial local and long
distance calls.  These calls are handled by AT&T ACUS with individual
students using their PSC's to complete their calls.

For any other type of call (0+ calls), we dial 8 and then 0 and the
number.  Up until yesterday we were using AT&T; now the university has
switched over to Sprint (George Washington University, btw -- yeah, I
know I'm at an address in NC, this is just a bbs I use).  I called
1-800-CALL-ATT to ask if this would cost more for me to use my card
through Sprint.  I was told that I wouldn't be able to use my card and
to ask for an AT&T operator, telling her that I was being blocked from
using my card, thereby saving me operator rates.  But my card did work
through the Sprint -- So I asked the Sprint operator if this would cost
me more and he said they should be about the same if not less.  Is
this true?  10288 does not work through my system.  I will be
enquiring about that.

AT&T has something interesting for those of us not able to access
them.  If you call 1-800-CALL-ATT, choose option 2 for dialing
instructions, and then option 1 you will hear, "AT&T, please dial the
number you are calling or 0 for an operator now, <bong>, please dial
your card number and PIN, or 0 for an operator now."  If you remember
all the menu choices, you won't have to listen through too much, but
it's a pain just to get to AT&T.

What would happen if I just dialed my AT&T card number from a payphone
using MCI, Sprint, or some other legitimate company?  Would my rates
be effected for the better or worse?


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: Wed, 25 Mar 92 08:06:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
Subject: NWS Weather Radio -- New System
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


Here in Nebraska we just finished Severe Weather Awareness Week.  As
anyone who's spent much time in Tornado Alley can attest (right,
Patrick?), there's a need each year about this time to review your
emergency plans and procedures.

One of the things I noticed is the National Weather Service radio
stations, in addition to the 1050 Hz alert tones, now transmit
something called (if I heard this right) "WR - SAME".  If you have a
newer, more expensive (natch!) set, your alarm can be tuned to your
specific county.  Since my local weather radio supports
seventy-thousand square miles, a more localized alert would be nice.

The Weather Service could tell me of one source: NEMAR, 4220 Proton
Road, Dallas, TX 75244, [phone].  I haven't called yet, but
prices were supposed to be in the $400-500 range.

Does anyone have information about other possible sources, or the
encoding technique used, for this system?


Thanks.

[e-mail]
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Subject: Anyone Out There Use Dispcall on a DMS?
Date: 25 Mar 92 23:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Organization: University of California, Davis


Does anyone out there work with the DISPCALL utility for DMS switches?
I use it but I am not an expert and would love to be in contact with
other users.


Steve Chafe   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ronald T. Crocker)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 15:07:53 GMT


*** WARNING: UNABASHED PLUG FOR PRODUCT :-> ***

Of course, if you purchase the new Motorola cordless telephone, the
transmissions between the handset and the base station are
"encrypted," so prying ears may be able to hear something, but it will
not be what they were looking for!


Ron Crocker
Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:37:28 GMT


[e-mail] (George S Thurman) writes:

>Found in the Fidonet Shortwave Echo:

> Msg#: 8319 *SHORTWAVE*
> 03-20-92 23:15:00
> From: DAVE PLUMB
> Subj: CORDLESS UNSAFE!


> Well, Eric Postpischil couldn't find anything on when it's legal to
> monitor CMT communications, but he did find this gem on other cordless
> phones that is worth passing on.  Of course, we all knew that the IRS
> was above the law, anyway, right?  :-(

Doesn't the Secrecy of Commications Act apply here?  You can legally
monitor, but not disclose the contents of, any transmission not
intended for general broadcast.  So legally, the IRS agent can listen,
but he can't tell anybody about it.


Mike Berger    Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067    Internet    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 06:20:29 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Europe


There is not now and never will be cellular compatibility between the
U.S. and Europe.

Europe currently uses a plethora of different cellular standards,
preventing the use of cellular phones registered in one country in any
other country (except for an interchange between the Nordic countries
and Switzerland).  U.K. phones work in no other countries; German
phones work in no other countries.

Europe is moving towards a new worldwide standard being adopted by
almost every country in the world except for the U.S. and Canada.
This is the CCITT "GSM" standard (Groupe Speciale Mobile).

The U.S. uses a standard called AMPS, which is in use in the countries
in the table below.  However, just because your phone will work does
not mean that you can roam; the local service operator may insist on
renting you one of their own phones.  Do not take your phone with you
without making prior arrangements; in some countries it may be seized
by customs officials upon arrival.

Note that Australia currently has an AMPS system running; however,
they are installing a GSM system.  I have no idea how long they intend
to continue to run the AMPS system.  I also understand that roaming is
not currently available when going to Australia, anyway.

American Samoa        AMPS        American Samoa Government (PTT)
Antigua            AMPS        Boatphone of Antigua
Argentina        AMPS        Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM)
Australia        AMPS        Australia Telecom (PTT)
Bahamas            AMPS        Bahamas Telecomms Corp.
Bangladesh        AMPS        Hutchison Bangladesh Telecom Pvt
Bermuda            AMPS        Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd.
Brazil            AMPS        Telebras (in Rio & Brasilia)
British Virgin Islands    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Brunei            AMPS        Jabatan Telecoms Brunei
Canada            AMPS        Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B)
Cayman Islands        AMPS        Cable & Wireless
Chile            AMPS        CTC, CIDCOM,VTR/Millicom,Telecom Chile
Costa Rica        AMPS        Millicom and Comvik
Dominican Republic    AMPS        Codetel
Gabon            AMPS        OPT
Grenada            AMPS        Grentel Boatphone
Guatemala        AMPS        Millicom
Hong Kong        AMPS & TACS    Hutchison Radio
Indonesia        AMPS        Perumtel
Israel            AMPS        Motorola Tadiran
Jamica            AMPS        JTC
Mexico            AMPS        various
Netherlands Antilles    AMPS        St. Maarten Boatphone
New Zealand        AMPS        PTT
Pakistan        AMPS        Paktel and Pakcom
Paraguay        AMPS        selection in progress
Peru            AMPS        Lima Parker Co.
Philippines        AMPS        1) PLDT 2) Express
St. Kitts & Nevis    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
St. Lucia        AMPS        St. Lucia Boatphone
South Korea        AMPS        Korea Mobile Telecom
Taiwan            AMPS        PTT
Thailand        AMPS        CAT
Uruguay            AMPS        Abiatar
Venezuela        AMPS        CANTV
Zaire            AMPS        Telecel


/john


[Moderator's Note: My thanks also to Gregory A. Lucas and Wilson Mohr,
both of Motorola who responded the same way, but without the detail
John Covert included.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 9:24:58 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The 1-800 Man


Jerry Brown, in a news release from KYW 1060-AM radio in Philadelphia,
has been called "the 1-800 man".  The occasion was that he had just
won the Connecticut primary.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 19:21:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


>> Would somebody please tell me why this can't be fixed/redesigned,
>> etc.?

> That is the wrong question. The correct one is: What profit is there
> in making folks get two {or more} accounts, and then making them pay
> for some special forwarding feature?

> The answer is obvious. Technical limitations are not the stumbling
> block; marketing considerations are.

I have to disagree in this specific case.

They COULD have designed in the capability to have TWO (or more)
phones worked on the same number, AND THEN CHARGE MORE TO HAVE IT SET
UP.

They didn't design it in in the first place.

Secondly, the mentioned features DO *NOT* perform the same function.
Forwarding one number to another does not function the same way.
Though I personally do not need it, it COULD have been done by having
all the assigned phones ring.  But it wasn't, and this capability is
simply not offered at any price.

As it turns out, the only way I have found to do what I want to do
turns out to be one which increases the revenue to a major cell phone
maker, which happened to have a major effect on the design of the
system :-)

There is a saying:
"Do not subscribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

Basically this means that more often when things go wrong, it was
because someone just didn't know, or was incapable of knowing, how to
do it right.

I'm sure the designers of the cellular phone technology could have:

    1.  made two or more phone work as one number;
    2.  used digital technology for the audio;
    3.  made a secure system.

But they don't get to make the decisions.  Many of the design
decisions that are made are done by those who have an agenda.  Many
others make the decisions just out of pure ignorance (and probably got
their high authority job by some other means).

I still believe the design decisions that left out the multiple phone
capability were made simply because no one in a position of authority
thought that anyone would want to do that (early enough to get it into
the design without an awkward retrofit that would be costly).

Still there might have been technical reasons, such as too many phones
ringing at one time.  Though this could have been gotten around by
having each assigned phone charged the same full subscriber rate (i.e.
same rate for two phones whether its two numbers or one number), and a limit
(maybe two) on the number allowed.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #271
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09966;
          27 Mar 92 1:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24216
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11364
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:41 -0600
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:42:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #272

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Mar 92 23:42:41 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 272

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hold Music Sponsorship (John Higdon)
    Re: Roaming in LA (John Higdon)
    Re: Phoneco Winds of Change (David W. Barts)
    Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One) (Cliff Barney)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Jim Budler)
    Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (John David Galt)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Monty Solomon)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Marco S. Hyman)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Kamran Husain)
    Re: Len Rose Released From Prison (Mike Godwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:50 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hold Music Sponsorship


[e-mail] (Michael Rosen) writes:

> Upon connecting, I was placed on hold and was presented with some
> classical music for my "entertainment" (sorry, I'm not much into
> clasical).  Anyway, a little ways in, this voice cuts in and says:

I, on the other hand, am "into classical" and am at least slightly
familiar with the repertoire. Nothing annoys me more than regularly
interrupting a Mozart piano concerto or a Sibelius tone poem to 1)
remind me that "they" are sorry I am having to wait; 2) tell me about
the latest company offerings; or 3) simply remind me that I am on
hold.

If I am going to have to listen to music (and I DO prefer classical
over "cover" instrumental versions of popular songs -- otherwise known
as elevator music), then let me listen to the bloody music without
interruption. If the interval on hold is to be used for advertising,
then just give me a steady stream of advertising. Then I can just turn
my brain off.

As a writer of ACD programming, I can tell you that in my systems when
the caller ends up connected to the MOH bus, he STAYS there until his
number comes up in the queue. No one needs to be reminded every ten
seconds that he is still on hold. Knowing what I know about ACD, this
is no reassurance that I have not been forgotten. It is just an
annoyance.

To its credit, Pac*Bell lets you listen to the music without verbal
punctuation. It also frequently uses KDFC in San Francisco for the
source. Yes, KDFC is San Francisco's oldest classical music station!


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 22:03 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Roaming in LA


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Southland, and was quite
> dismayed with the problems I had with LA Cellular (the "A" carrier).

Sounds a lot like two years ago when I roamed in PacTel (the "B"
carrier). Since then, PacTel has put its house in order. I have been
in LA a lot the past few weeks and have had no trouble calling long
distance (10D), calling numbers in Long Beach (310), or using the FMR.
In fact, it was most satisfactory.

> I was trying to get a hold of a friend who's now in 310, and had the
> following problems in dialing:

Hah! A lot of landline phones in there LA region cannot dial 310
numbers yet. GTE apparently has not heard about this yet even though
it serves the majority of phones in the 310 area. The problem works in
reverse: 310 phones get various recordings when trying to call 213
phones by using '213' in front of the number!

> So, I get a nice 50 cent charge for all of those intercepts, as well
> has having to pay calling card rates for a local call.

And I thought PacTel was a ripoff. It charges 50% of the current air
time rates for busy or no answer. But at least the calls go through
properly.

> I would think that as a common carrier, that they would have to have
> their act together and support new area codes (especially ones in
> their service area) on the first day they are activated.  After all,
> isn't the permissive dialing period supposed to be so the CUSTOMERS,
> not the common carriers, can have it easy during the transition?

Cellular service (and I am paraphrasing recent posts) is considered a
"non-essential" service. That means the PUC does not give a damn how
badly cellular providers screw customers or what kind of shoddy
service is provided. You are at the tender mercies of the marketplace.
And I understand that many of the rats are deserting the sinking "LA
Cellular" ship. Unfortunately, as a roamer, you cannot even vote with
your feet. You are stuck with the agreement made by your home company
(obviously in your case, Cellular One). The roaming agreements in LA
factored heavily in my choice of Mobilnet as my home company.


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:31:29 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phoneco Winds of Change


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

> ... So when you talk about local competition and say that the local
> carriers will "cherry pick" the most profitable 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).

Well, just be prepared for the phone companies to come back to the
PUC's after n years is up, begging for an extension of time because to
spend any more expanding their territory right now would mean their
financial insolvency.

And then be prepared for them to come begging again after the extension
they are granted is up.


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 22:46:40 PST
From: Cliff Barney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One)


Pac Bell says that its calling card works anywhere, with any vendor.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:17:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <covert@covert.
enet.dec.com> writes:

> Public Law 102-243 was passed last year by the 102nd Congress and
> signed by President Bush on 20 December 1991.

[...]

>  (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 ...

Oh, that explains it.

I've started getting calls:

<Human Voice>: "I have an important message for you from xxx, do you
want to hear it?"

Me: Yes

<Automated message>

I learned very quickly (one try) to say no.


Jim Budler    You can reach me at:
[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 00:59:57 PST


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

This is not a new practice.  The Los Angeles area, which has now had
THREE splits and will do a fourth later this year, has many prefixes
of this type.  In general, the one in the "wrong" area code will be
listed as "foreign exchange" and billed as if it belonged to some city
in the new area -- even though its real location has never changed.
It's a great deal for the LEC, which gets to rake in the bucks without
changing anything.

So Pac Bell is providing itself with a service that it has offered to
other businesses since at least 1984 (the 213/818 split).  What's all
the fuss?

One thing does appear to have changed: the prefix lists in our white
pages no longer show all-FX prefixes as, for example, "East Bay
(Richmond FX)."  I don't know why this change was made, but it's
cosmetic, and there are many equally important facts they have never
listed.  (For example, my present home in San Jose is in the same
billing zone as Santa Clara, but they wouldn't let me keep my number
 -- they're two different COs.  The phone book does not mention this,
let alone say which CO owns which prefixes.)


John David Galt

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 04:17:45 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?


[e-mail] (Kath Mullholand) wrote:

> [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.

Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?  Cellular One/Boston
offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work.  I recently found out that
MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years!


# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# roscom![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Who told you that MCI didn't bill Cellular One LD
calls for five years?     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marco S Hyman)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: 25 Mar 92 05:16:51 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications, Alameda, CA


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

> PC card, or whatever), and it performs something called Rate Adaption.
> There are two standards for rate adaption, V.110 and V.120, both of
> which use some sort of voodoo to put a signal at n kb/s (where n
> ranges from 0.11 to 56, probably) onto a 64kb/s channel; I don't know

Common forms of rate adaption in the ISDN world are:

 X.25:    (most people dont think of this as a rate adaption protocol, but it
    does the job.)  Don't just think of D-channel X.25 to D-channel
    X.25.  Think of all the people with ISDN phones making D-channel
    X.25 calls to their friendly PAD on a B-channel.  Pure packet
    switching.

    The rest are used to rate adapt over a circuit switched 64 kbit/s
    B-channel.

 DMI:    This is a proprietary scheme found in AT&T ISDN phones and terminal
    adapters.  For the async inclined DMI mode 2 is often used.  It
    performs rate adaption by varying the number of flags sent between
    frames.  Frames are kept very small (2-8 data bytes if I remember
    correctly).

 V.110:    Rate adaption is performed by defining what bits are used to carry
    the data.  Running 56 kbit/s over a 64 kbit/s link is the most
    common form of V.110 -- only 7 out of every data bits are used.

 V.120: Basically its Q.921/LAPD run over a B channel.   In fact, the spec
    for V.120 is written as differences to Q.921, you need both to
    understand what is going on.  Rate adaption is via RR/RNR.


marc
work: [e-mail]          uunet!aria!marc
home: [e-mail]    pacbell!dumbcat!marc

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:44:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Lesher) writes:

> This question is rather too obvious, but I'll ask anyhow.  How is ISDN
> carried? Not the stuff you and I see, but the carrier side of the
> loop.  Now I doubt they pulse that hunk of copper with DC, so it has
> to be audio, just as we now send with modems. One difference is, of
> course, we don't call it a modem any longer -- we use a different term.

ISDN is true digital transmission using (in US) a 4 level code called
2B1Q (2 bits 1 quat).  There are 2 + voltages and 2 - voltages, but no
zero volts (each direction).  The voltage changes about 80K times per
second.

It is true full duplex.  Each end subtracts out what it is sending so
as to receive only what the other side is sending, using an elaborate
echo canceller consisting of a digital filter.

Luckily, AMD, Mitel, and others make single chip network interfaces
that render all these details transparent to the user.

The constant 160 kilo bits/second data is split up into several
separate lower bit rate streams. These sub bit streams then have HDLC
protocol added for the two 64 + 16 kbps streams, and some possible
proprietary protocols for talking to network interfaces, plus some
sync, equalization, and other overhead.

On top of the HDLC protocol, one can have a rate adapter that converts
standard baud rates to the channel by sending some bits more than once
(wasting bandwidth).

The bi-directional interface is called "U", and it is often split into
two channels, one in each direction by the network interface chip
(called S,T interfaces).  It is possible to go directly from a U
interface to an application device.  This isn't often done for reasons
I haven't figured out (why have two network interfaces, A U and ST)?

except:

With a U interface, you can't just "add extension phones"; only one
device can be on the pair at each end, not true with ST interface.

Hope this helps.

Disclaimer:
I don't have the specs in front of me, so I'm doing this from memory.


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.| [e-mail]
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 | USA
voice 602 996 1717

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

From: [e-mail] (Kamran Husain)
Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison
Date: 26 Mar 92 16:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Western Geophysical Exploration Products


> [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a
> straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious
> 'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was
> convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad|
> Things, and transporting it around the net.
> Are you suggesting telemarketers belong in prison?  PAT]

No. I did not mean to imply that. Simply wishful thinking.  (Case
History; I've been getting calls from machines about credit cards,
insurance etc at 4 AM, and this has been going on for two weeks since
we listed our phone number in our local directory. It is the same
voice for all three products and we get it at both our numbers which
have the same 271-XXXX and XXXX+302 .  It`s probably an amateur with a
telemarketing system who does not realize the difference between 0400
and 1600 hours and is soliciting fixed blocks of numbers. I think this
is illegal but I am changing my phone numbers anyway since I am moving
and do not want to deal with this nonsense.)

I apologize if I offended someone with my remark.


kamran


[Moderator's Note: No one was offended, except possibly a telemarketer
reading the Digest.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Len Rose Released From Prison
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 17:23:02 GMT


Our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Uh, no ... he wasn't a telemarketer. (Keeping a
> straight face as I type this.) Len was one of those notorious
> 'hackers' you've probably read about in the newspapers. He was
> convicted of having source code in his possession which could do Bad
> Things, and transporting it around the net. Are you suggesting
> telemarketers belong in prison?  PAT]

The source code Len was convicted of possessing was that of AT&T
System V, version 3.2.  It is true that you can do a lot of bad things
with that.

Our Moderator doubtless recalls that Len had attempted to publish a
modified version of login.c in {Phrack Magazine}. But it was his
possession of the original source for login (and everything else in
System V v 3.2) that was the basis of his conviction.


Mike Godwin,     [e-mail]
[phone]   EFF, Cambridge

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #272
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14994;
          27 Mar 92 3:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02721
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29295
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:37 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 01:10:37 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #273

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Mar 92 01:10:39 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 273

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Show-Me Long Distance (Will Martin)
    Re: Integretel (Joel Upchurch)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Bruce Clement)
    Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Keith Smith)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Jim Harkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 8:31:54 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Show-Me Long Distance


I, too, received the "Show-Me Long Distance" flyer and stickers Phil
described. Their 10XXX access code is "10778". I just checked the
Telecom Archives for the latest 10XXX list, in the "occ.10xxx..."
files, and cannot find this number listed. The latest version of that
10XXX list appears to be of mid-1991 vintage. Can I safely assume from
that evidence that this "Show-Me Long Distance" company did not exist
as of mid-1991, and that using 10778 here in Missouri was not possible
until recently? Is "778" now listed as being owned by "Show-Me" or is
it listed under some other owning or holding company? Can this same
code be used in other states by other-named companies for *their*
intrastate services, or is "778" now just valid in Missouri? (The
flyer says that interstate calls made using 10778 will be charged at a
rate 10% lower than the AT&T 1+ rate. It only mentions using 10778
"within   this SW Bell service area" so I don't know where else it might
function.)^^^^

Can anyone tell me just when this became available? I want to know how
many months I've been paying more than I needed to for my intrastate
LD; 99.9% of my LD bill is my wife's weekly calls to her aunt in
Warrenton, MO, within the SW Bell calling area, and I had checked with
SW Bell every now and then over the years to see if there was *any*
way I could reduce these charges. I had even asked about paying for
her aunt's phone service to be upgraded somehow to become local to St.
Louis, figuring that would cost me less as a monthly charge than I was
paying for LD calls. No way. (I seem to have a nagging recollection
that Warrenton is in a GTE-service enclave and thus few options or
interactions with SW Bell were feasible.) Now I finally see a way to
save at least something off these exorbitant intrastate charges!

I called Show-Me to get rate guotes for calls from here to Warrenton
and then used their provided figures to compare with my latest LD
charges from SW Bell. A significant savings looks likely. In case
anyone cares, here are the rates they quoted me for St. Louis-Warrenton:

        DAY        EVENING        NIGHT/WEEKENDS
1st MIN        .3649        .2919        .2372

ADD'L MINS    .2136        .1709        .1388

(According to the state highway map, that is a 58-mile distance. I
don't know how that compares with the distance used by telcos to
figure rates.)

As a side note, does anyone know if there have been any companies'
calling plans or discount offers or other deals which would have
helped me save something all along on intrastate calls that usually
ran $25-$30 per month? I had never been contacted before by any LD
provider saying that their plan "x" would save me any money, and all
the publicity I ever see about rate savings says "interstate" in the
fine print. We all know that some LD vendors would complete intrastate
calls despite tarrifs or regulations, but I never heard of such being
available here in Missouri. Note that I am referring to calls that
would show up on my bill as being provided by SW Bell, NOT by my
default 1+ carrier (AT&T).

I wanted to test this just now from my work phone at a Federal office
building here in St. Louis by calling 10778-1-700-555-4141, but our
phone system gives an intercept as soon as we dial "910" (9 for the
outside line and 10 to begin the 10XXX code), saying "The number you
have reached is a non-working number at the federal offices in St.
Louis, Missouri.  Please consult your directory or call directory
assistance. St. Louis 2400N."  (It also gives the same intercept after
"9170" so I can't even check the default carrier.) What with all the
discussion recently about blocking 10XXX access, I wonder if the cited
law doesn't apply to, specifically exempts, or does include US Gov't
offices? (There's an awful lot of regulations out there that the gov't
establishes but manages to make itself exempt from, but I don't know
if this is one of them ...) If we are violating the law I'll report it
to our telephone person.


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are not a subscriber or customer of the phone
service. You are an employee of the owner of the phone system, and
that makes a difference. Your employer can administer the phones as it
sees fit ... it cannot sell phone service to the public without
following the rules for same.  Your point about the government not
following its own rules is good though; all those federal agencies,
including Congress, which are always sticking their noses in what
should be the private business of each individual NEVER follow their
own rules where their own employees are concerned. And don't forget
those deadbeats in Congress, using NSF checks to pay their bills.

My all time favorite though was several years ago when the Washington,
DC city council fined and finally had to sue the U.S. Supreme Court in
an effort to get the Supremes to properly dispose of their trash every
day. The court was throwing out tons of waste paper daily, filling the
dumpsters to overflowing. The wind would scatter it all over the
street, forcing city sanitation workers to clean it up. The Court was
told to order more dumpsters; refused to do it; it was fined but
refused to pay the fines; and finally sued. A judge ruled that except
in matters specifically related to their duties under the Constitution,
the Supreme Court had to follow the same municipal ordinances as
everyone else in town. The Court's Administrative Office chose not to
appeal, but it took all that to get them to clean their mess up from
the lawn, sidewalks and streets around their building.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Integretel
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 14:48:19 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


> [e-mail] (Diana Boyd) writes:

> 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.

Speaking of late bills, my last bill from AT&T had some phone calls
from last October. The note on the bill explained it was due to a
data-processing problem. Sounds like one of the boys or girls at the
processing center forgot to hang one of the tapes to me.

(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Clement)
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Organization: Children of Ingle-Frey
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 22:32:33 GMT


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

> I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
> travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.  I found
> this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes.

It sounds a lot, but were the faxes delivered to your room/suite, or
did you collect them from the lobby? If they were delivered to your
room, then the price seems reasonably close to the US$4.00 that some
hotels charge for a cup of coffee delivered to the room.

If this was the charge for collecting from the lobby, then IMHO they
are gouging, don't go back, tell the world, and tell the hotel *why*
they won't get your (or your associates) business in future.


Bruce Clement

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 21:15:17 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Test Equipment Wanted


Rob Warnock writes:

>> Is there any test equipment available to bridge an ISDN U interface
>> pair, and separate out the two directions of 2B1Q data?

> It would be very hard to do, perhaps impossible. At the very least,
> you would need to insert loss into the line, to find out which way the
> energy is moving. That is, you would have to create the equivalent of
> a pair of back-to-back "VSWR meters" to extract the energy moving
> "from left to right" from the energy moving "from right to left"
> (which requires *some* insertion loss, I believe).

While Rob's explanation makes sense, Tec makes a ISDN test set that
has an optional U interface.  One would assume the customers NT1 would
still be connected, and that they don't expect the tech to cut the
loop before using the set, so it seems to me it is probally bridging
the line.  Another explanation might be a requirement for the tech to
disable the termination before using the set.  Anyone know?

The Tec test set is for voice (POTS or ISDN) only, so this still
doesn't answer the original question.  At $1200 plus interfaces, I
think Harris-Dracom will still sell a lot of TS-21 and 22's :-).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 03:14:42 GMT


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

> Loss Detect Time) to some high value: AT%S10=255. But really, fiddling
> around with the other guy's modem is kind of rude unless you reset it
> when your session is finished; most people wouldn't bother.   PAT]

Of course with your Trailblazer you can also have it RESET when DTR
wiggles so the S10 value would go back to power up if the host simply
resets the '232 line. (Like Unix would do ...)


Keith Smith       uunet!ksmith!keith   5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs   BBS 1-919-423-4216   Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201

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

Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 25 Mar 92 22:44:41 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> "[e-mail]"@
BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM (I guess that's me) writes:

> In <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <[e-mail].
> dec.com> writes:

>> 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 --
 ...

>>    (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.

> (Does this apply to modem calls?  What if the number is published as a
> BBS number (a) in a magazine or (b) on a BBS?.)

> [Moderator's Note: The law does not need any more work. First of all,
> why would your modem be making calls to the category of phones
> mentioned above -- emergency lines, hospital rooms, cellular phones,
> etc.?  The intent is very plain: to avoid hassles for phones which
> would *never* or rarely be used for the purposes specified.

The intent is clear, but there are some problems.  In the case of
modem/FAX calls (which usually autoredial if busy or no recognized
answer, thereby making it an automatic telephone dialing system
(unless otherwise defined in the law)), what happens if the number
called is published (incorrectly) as being a modem/FAX number.  We all
know reputable publications don't make misteaks. :-)

It also occurs to me that this would make mis-auto-dialing an 800
number might be covered.

(Of course, if "automatic telephone dialing system" is defined to mean
something like a "War Games" dialer, or if "artificial or prerecorded
voice" doesn't include modem/FAX communications, then there are only
minor problems.)

(continuation of Moderator's Note)

> If you are trying to 'FAX/Slam' some person, then I suspect the law would
> include you as a violator.]

The excerpts John Covert sent seemed to make the person making the
call liable, even if the number was maliciously supplied by a third
party.  I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.


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.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 12:12:58 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


A couple of days ago I was talking to an employee of a local software
firm which offers dumps of Usenet traffic on CD ROM for a fee.
Apparently a CD ROM will hold a couple of weeks worth of traffic.

We did not talk about government agencies requesting the disks, but he
did say that many of the purchasers were overseas, and the disks
offered a low-cost alternative (although delayed in time) to paying
overseas telephone time for delivery of megabytes per day.

I'm sure this firm is not the only one archiving news.  If a
government agency wanted to browse the news, they don't have to make
special arrangements to do so, all they have to do is obtain a copy of
the disks which are available to the public.  They don't even have to
do that.  They could easily arrange for a full-with-a-capital-'F'
newsfeed of howmany thousand groups from any number of sites.


Good day.        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
DBBS Omaha  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: Ah, don't say those things. You are supposed to
help keep the myth alive ... you know, the one about how the FBI
'monitors' certain newsgroups and certain writers on the net. :)  PAT]

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

From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 06:10:50 GMT


[e-mail] (David E. Martin) wrote:

> I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
> travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.

Yup, it's expensive.  But I submit that it's not a 'rip-off'.  They're
providing a service that you want, that's quite valuable to you.  If
it isn't worth $4.50 to you to receive a FAX, then you don't have to
use the service.

But if you need to receive a FAX, it's cheaper by far than renting a
FAX machine or bringing one with you.  It's only a rip-off if FAX
service is something they're expected to provide (in the same category
as towels, sheets and a reading lamp) and yet they charge an
inordinate fee for it.

Somebody's got to pay for the FAX machine, and the time for somebody
to operate it, put paper in it and deliver all the messages!


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

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

From: pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:17:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because
> I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster
> is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it?  PAT]

You're all wrong.  You've all seen those cereal ads with the bee-like
creatures in them.  You also probably don't remember the cereal, like
me :-) Anyway, it turns out these creatures are real and live inside
your TV tube.  Normally they just sit back and enjoy whatever you
happen to be watching, but as their eyes aren't so good they have to
actually get up and fly around to read the text in older sets.  Living
in an electromagnetic field as they do their wings generate a lot of
RF energy when they fly, thus the buzzing you hear in your speakers.

This also explains the phenomena of your TV being tuned to the Playboy
channel when you return from a night on the town and your kids disclaim
all knowledge of how it got there.


Jim Harkins              [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products    pacdata![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #273
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18796;
          27 Mar 92 4:46 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21055
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:32:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09546
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:31:58 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 02:31:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #274

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Mar 92 02:32:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 274

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Bob Frankston)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Tim Gorman)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Dave Weitzel)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Carl Moore)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Tony Kennedy)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Jim Budler)
    Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT (Clive Feather)
    Re: Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury (Clive Feather)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: Thu 26 Mar 1992 09:50 -0500


> [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory
> assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use
> AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call
> on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all
> themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not
> otherwise.  PAT]

These are old issues but they do deserve an occasional response, even
if I am not an economist.

1. Were DA calls ever free?  Being part of AT&T's overhead doesn't
mean they were free.  Maybe there can now be third party DA services
that offer advantages over AT&T's offerings.

2. Did telco really build things from scratch?  I would think that the
regulated monopoly environment made it much easier (or cheaper) to
raise the capital necessary to build the physical plant and negotiate
exclusive right of ways for wiring.  I'd argue that this was a
societal investment.

Competition needs a relatively level playing field and Judge Green was
a bulldozer.


[Moderator's Note: Not a bulldozer ... a bull in a china shop is more
like it. And yes, over the past 115 years or so, telco built from
scratch. Let the others try stringing wire across the Rocky Mountains
in January to restore service lost by rural subscribers in a winter
storm. As Charles Brown, former chairman of Illinois Bell and later of
AT&T once commented in discussing the costs of maintaining the network,
"when was the last time MCI had two of their men killed in a mudslide
on the side of a mountain they were working on ..."  PAT]

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

Date: 26 Mar 92 12:13:27 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


David Ptasnik <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #270:

> Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer.  The biggest cities were served by IBT.
> The middle sized towns were served by GTE.  The rural areas were either
> served by truly local service (El Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico),
> Centel, or one of a couple of regional companies.  The rural customers did
> not pay significantly higher rates than urban customers.  Often the reverse
> was true.  I have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little
> guys. They just priced their services at a fair mark up.

This may be the case in Illinois. It is certainly not true in Kansas.
Local service rates in many of the small independent company
territories are higher. My parents live in one such area.

Subsidies? Apparently you have never heard of Division of Revenue and
settlement payments? We have moved past that in Kansas but instead pay
the independent companies an "access charge" for traffic sent to them
or received from them.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 13:28:15 EST


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Ptasnik) writes:

> I have heard it said repeatedly that competition in the dial tone
> marketplace would not be good because only the big cities would
> benefit.  That "cream skimmers" would come in and leave rural users
> with service at inflated prices, or without service entirely.  I
> firmly believe that this is telco propaganda.

> When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a
> nice big map of the state.  This map showed the boundaries of control
> of each phone company.  Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer.  The
> biggest cities were served by IBT.  The middle sized towns were served
> by GTE.  The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El
> Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of
> regional companies.  The rural customers did not pay significantly

[stuff deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory
> assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers to use
> AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual revenue-earning call
> on MCI. If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all
> themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not
> otherwise.  PAT]

Please PAT cut us a break.  ???*from scratch*??? No, no, no ... the
telcos have been in bed with the regulators since telco time
immemmorial.  Its only been in the last several years that competition
was even considered as viable.  It's easy to 'build it all yourself'
when you're the only game in town and no one else is allowed to build.

What was your opinion on the MCI complaints against ATT way back when?
I personally applaud the forward looking regulators that are allowing
competition.  Ask Wall Street companies what they think and you will
see several big users and investors.  I heard Mr. McGowan of MCI call
the near term future of local competition 'Holy Hell' and that is
probably what we should expect.  The proverbial 'little old lady in
tennis shoes' that the regulators are protecting now has cordless,
cellular, FaxModems ... who really loses?

Local competition will make our urban business districts have a better
and more robust telecom infrastructure, IMHO. And that is good for the
USA if not for the monopoly telco.  Ask the NY commission or even the
chairman of the Illinois commission why well regulated competition is
good.


Dave Weitzel "my opinions only, standard disclaimer applies"
Flame OFF, we now return you to the normally scheduled newsgroup  ;)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:10:38 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


There is mentioned "El Paso Tel., Illinois not New Mexico".  El Paso
is in Texas, not in New Mexico.


[Moderator's Note: And, as the ignorant magazine subscription order
takers out in Boulder, CO at the fulfillment house say when a caller
gives an address in New Mexico, "sorry, we can't bill you if you don't
live in the USA."  Really. Geography is a sore point with me; I'm
embarassed and sorry I overlooked that error; I really am.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tony Kennedy)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: 27 Mar 92 05:45:34 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


> Moderator's Note: Sure, like we all get to pay for directory
> assistance calls now because MCI was telling their customers
> to use AT&T for 'free' directory, then place the actual
> revenue-earning call on MCI.

We all paid for directory assistance calls anyhow -- AT&T was never a
charitable institution. Now the people who use directory assistance
frequently are no longer subsidized by those who don't.


[Moderator's Note: Gee, that's funny. When I said *exactly what you
said* about why local measured service was fairer than flat rate, I
got jumped by a dozen readers who disagreed the other way around.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 07:01:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Conrad C. Nobili) writes:

> 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?

[...]

> [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]

About a year ago we went through this problem at work. Many times a
day the switchboard would get dead calls. We finally ended up calling
Pac*Bell about it. They instituted a trace, no cost except for the
legal forms we had to sign to authorize it.

When the results finally came in I felt dumb. Pattern: approx. once an
hour three calls in succession. Answer: uucp.

One of our uucp connections had programmed our contact number into their
uucp systems file instead of our modem number.

Other symptom *I* should have noticed: all connects were on our
outbound calls.

They recorded the inbound numbers, matched it to our log of dead calls
and identified the name of the calling party. Upon identifying the
name of the calling party we contacted the people and corrected the
problem.

They did ask upon identification something like "We've identified the
calling party and believe it is a technical error, do you wish to
prosecute?". We said, "No, if it's an error we can resolve it".  Then
they identified the source. And yes, it was very quickly resolved.

I submit this not to say there is some pattern the original poster
should be aware of, but to reinforce the fact that the phone company
can and will help, without charge.


Jim Budler    You can reach me at:
[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We had a FIDO BBS here in Chicago about five or six
years ago which was placing calls in the middle of the night to a
79-year old woman ... for a month straight. IBT put the BBS out of
business; showed the sysop no mercy at all when the lady indicated she
wanted to prosecute. Hint: keep those phone numbers accurate, folks!  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 09:24:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies


[Pat writes:]

> quite interesting. What I don't understand though is why all the late
> arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines
> and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here
> had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It
> seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from
> scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire
> pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they
> need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of
> experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates
> and claim telco is the ripoff!  I don't see where the telcos owe them
> anything except that once MFS and the others build their network,
> spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own
> central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco
> can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your
> gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop
> their own software, make their own applications to the long distance
> carriers for interconnection, etc.  *Then* let's compare prices.  They
> are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO.   PAT]

When the alternative access providers use telco building space or
their local loops they do not "rip them off".  They pay for it.  They
pay rent, they pay for the heating and air conditioning and they pay
for the use of the loops.  What IBT wants to do is "tie" its products
together: if you want to buy use of our loops, you must also buy use
of our switches and our interoffice trunks (i.e. standard dial tone or
leased line service).

When IBM tried to say, "If you want to buy our mainframe software, you
have to buy our hardware" it was rightly seen as a violation of
antitrust law.  Forcing IBM to sell the software separately allowed
companies like Amdahl to compete for hardware sales.  MFS isn't asking
for the loops or central office floor space to be free; they are
asking that they be allowed to buy the use of loops and rent floor
space without having to buy the use of Digital Cross Connects, SONET
multiplexor's, 1A switches, interoffice trunks, and everything else
that IBT wants to bundle with the loops in order to increase their
revenues.

For years IBT and the other telcos had a government franchised
monopoly that prevented anyone else from building loops.  Now they
want to use their existing monopoly over loops to give them a
competitive advantage in selling other functions like cross-connection
or interoffice trunking.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University


[Moderator's Note: So why can't MFS do like IBT did (and does)? Get a
permit from the City of Chicago to dig in the street and install their
own loops? Get easement rights from landlords to wire buildings; buy
some land and build a telephone exchange, etc. Simple: no one will
*ever* be able to accomplish what AT&T has done in the past. Even
after 20 years, MCI has only started to come close; and MCI's first
petition to the Illinois Commerce Commission in the late sixties stunk
of fraud ... but that's a whole different story.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Customer Service (Part 2): BT
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 7:50:08 GMT


In Telecom 12.244.7 Nigel Roberts relates some experiences with BT's
UK direct service. I feel I ought to comment.

> 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 used BT Direct from Hungary in late 1990. The operator asked "what
is your number in Hong Kong ?". When I queried this, he explained that
"his screen was showing HG". He was quite happy to accept that that
this was Hungary.

> They seem to have a fetish for knowing the number you are calling from

When calling from the USA, I always say "calling from area code 212"
(or whatever) before they can ask me. This seems to work.

> the polite operator (one of the few)

Every one I've ever got has been polite.

What annoys me is that the US number (800-44-55-66-7) doesn't work in
Canada -- instead, some totally unrememberable number is needed (and
the Bell Canada Operator / Directory Services didn't know it).


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited         | If you lie to the compiler,
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.  | it will get its revenge.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ |   - Henry Spencer
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom      |

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Customer Service (Part 3): Mercury
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 10:06:05 GMT


In Telecom 12.245.1 Nigel Roberts writes:

> 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 :-) ]

Just where do you think Mercury puts its fibres so that it doesn't
have to dig up the roads ?

(Answer: along the railway lines.)

Actually, BR are looking into the telephone business, according to the
rail press. They have an enormous amount of spare capacity -- in one
case, the connections to (train) signals about 5 km from a signal box
were made via an existing 250 km route rather than pay the cost of
installing 5 km of new cable.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #274
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13602;
          27 Mar 92 14:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02989
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24579
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:23 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 08:04:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #275

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Mar 92 08:04:14 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 275

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Potpourri (Cell) - *35/*350 (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Steve M. Hoffman)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Les Bartel)
    Re: ANI Number Wanted (Doug Rorem)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26-MAR-1992 03:53:25.34
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Potpourri (Cell) - *35/*350


In Telecom Digest Vol. 12, Issue 286, [e-mail],
wrote:

> Cellular One of NY/NJ uses *71 for Immediate Call Forward instead of
> *72.  Anyone know why they are different?

No one really knows ( :) ), but here's the reasoning:

One reason I have heard is that since Cell One/NY uses the
No-Answer-Transfer feature to forward unanswered calls from the
Ericsson to the Motorola (where the voicemail system presently is),
hitting the "old" *73 command would blow away your NAT, and thus your
voicemail. So, they got rid of the *73. Yet other Ericssons use *73,
Northeast Motorolas have *73, and even at times *73 works in NY -- and
every one of the above will blow away your voicemail.

In an effort to stop this, Metro Mobile and Cell One/South Jersey (the
adjacent systems to Cell One/NY) removed the *73 feature for NY
customers. Metro removed it for everyone. Yet this didn't do much --
the code they substituted, *70, also blows away voicemail. Moreover,
other Northeast EMX's, like Philly and Boston and Atlantic city still
have *73, so a NY customer can go up there, and hit *73, and blow away
his voicemail quite easily.

You can also blow it away in another McCaw/Ericsson system that has
not disabled the *73 command.

So I have no idea what has been achieved. I have suggested that they
go back to the old codes. That is, use *71, *72, *74; and *7X3 or *7X0
to cancel the specific features, or *73 for a "global" cancel. To
avoid disrupting voicemail, program the NY switch to ignore "harmful"
commands. But no one seems interested in doing this.

Moreover, I see no reason to convert the entire nation just because NY
is having some trouble getting its Motorolas to talk to its Ericssons.
I doubt that this is the REAL reason for the sudden change.

Alternately, I have heard that McCaw is trying to "standardize" the
commands on the "A" side nationally, and this is their attempt at
doing so. So far, the only thing that I have seen them do is get rid
of NAT, and use new commands for call-forwarding:

The old *72 is SUPPOSED to be switched to *71.
The old *73 is SUPPOSED to be switched to *710.

I have no idea what the new command will be for No-Answer-Transfer or
Busy Transfer.

But this is by no means standardized:

In New York, *74 and *72 and *71 ALL do the same thing: set up
Call-Forwarding.  *73 works for some (all?) customers, and hitting *73
can blow away your voicemail.

In Miami (another McCaw Ericsson), *72 seems to work, but *71 does
not. *73 WILL blow away your voicemail if you are a NY customer. Note
that Miami customers may have other features which will or will not
work.

In non-Ericsson systems which are part of a connection to NY (Metro
Mobile and Cell One/NJ), the codes are standard Motorola. But it
varies where everyting works:

In Metro mobile's old "Fairfield system" (they are all unified now,
sort of), a NY customer can enter: *71, *710, *713, *72, *720, *723,
*74, *740, *743 and *70. Each one will give the standard Motorola
confirmation tone, but only *71 and *710 will work. (That is, only
*70/*710 will be sent through the "Protocol Converter" which
translates between the Motorolas in CT and NJ to the Ericsson in NY.
Everyting else will return the Motorola confirmation tone, but will
not go through the converter and not affect the Ericsson, thus not
have any effect on your calls.)

In Metro Mobile's "Hartford system" only *71 and *710 will give you a
confirmation tone. Yet Metro Mobile customers can use all the
features, and they will have some effect. (You can even hit *720,
which, like *723 is supposed to kill ONLY your call-forwading, while
leaving your No-Answer-Transfer and Busy-Transfer alone. But, Metro
being brain-dead, thinks *720 means "Forward to "0", and promptly
forwards your calls to the SNET operator!)

So forget any sort of standardization ... I could go on and on with a
chart of "what codes work in what system for which cell company's
customers", but that's beyond the scope of this post.

Suffice to say that nothing is settled yet, and that more changes will
occur and it may get worse (less standardized) before we see any
improvement in the Northeast. California had no problem putting
together its linkages (although there were some bugs on the "B" side
prior to implementation in 1990), so it is a shame that all this is
going on here. And you can't really get a straight answer from any of
the mobile companies about what is going on.

> Also, No Answer/Busy Transfer has to be enabled manually.  Bleah.

If you have voicemail, Cell One/NY can not also give you NAT. You can
have either or. There is no way (yet) to allow you to set Voicemail or
another number as your NAT number. Busy transfer can be set to another
number or voicemail, but you may have to pay airtime even if you
choose voicemail. I'm not sure about this. (Presently, if Cell One/NY
gives you voicemail, you pay no airtime for calls that forward to your
voicemail system. If you hit *71-111-7 digit mobile number, you WILL
pay airtime. Odd how they can't tell their system to simply not charge
for any type of forwarding to voicemail.)

> Last weekend I was in South Jersey.  The A carrier there is also
> called Cellular One, but it's a completely different company.

They are called "Cellular One of New Jersey". The SID codes are:
00173, 00575, and 01487. They cover most of central and southwestern
New Jersey.  They do NOT cover Atlantic City, Vineland, Ocean County,
or Newtown. Atlantic City and Vineland use Motorolas, so they can be
linked up easily, and your call-forwarding features will work there.
Newtown is an Ericsson, and I think they should be linked up by now to
NY. Ocean County is a "cellular island" and they don't connect with
anyone. They make their money the cheap way -- off of roamer traffic on
the Garden State Parkway. You can start a call in the NY system, drive
down the GSP, cross through the Ocean County system, and be handed off
to the Cell One/NJ system, and not ever have to use the Ocean County
system. (Granted there will be static in areas, but your call will
generally not drop.)

> They couldn't even tell me what I was paying for my calls.  Anyway,
> call waiting didn't work, and I couldn't retrieve my voice mail.
> Incoming calls and voice mail seemed to work.

They are generally refered to as "ComCast Cellular", and yeah, they
get call delivery to/from NY, features will work, etc. Rates are $.99
per minute, no roam charge for NY customers. They bill incomplete
calls after 45 seconds.

I am checking into why Call-Waiting does not work there -- it did a
few weeks ago. Possibly a bug in the Protocol converter. Any other
Cell One/NY customers notice feature problems in CT or NJ?

To call voicemail when all else fails, dial 111+7 digit mobile in a
Motorola switch. This usually works for me.

> Cell One now says to dial *35 to enable Voice Mail in CT, RI, and MA.
> I couldn't get a straight answer from the rep, but I am guessing this
> is only in the DMX areas, and not all of MA, for instance.  Of course,
> this means I do *not* get incoming calls.  If I dial *350 to get
> incoming, I do *not* get voice mail.  This is exactly how the North
> American Cellular Network operates.  They seem to think that this is
> the same as having "all of my features."  Give me a break.

*35 and *350 are indeed a "do not disturb" feature. It will officially
start on April 1st.

Why? Well, they haven't said so directly, but since Bell Atlantic (a
"B" system) is finalizing its takeover of Metro Mobile on April 1st,
toll charges will have to be levied for calls coming in and out of the
Metro Mobile system. (Appropriate that this "enhancement" takes place
on April Fool's day ... sure are a lot of fools at Bell Atlantic if
they actually paid money for Metro Mobile! :) )

So Metro Mobile started it's *28/*29 system which I posted on earlier.
You can use *29 to turn OFF call delivery outside your home area, and
thus not pay toll charges to receive calls there.

*35 presenlty does nothing: If you are in CT, hit *35, calls will come
to your phone, and if you don't answer, go back to voicemail. *350
will allow calls to come to CT, but NOT go back to your voicemail.
(Other interesting things happen if your phone is busy. This is left
as an excercise for the reader :) )

I inquired about this, an NO ONE at Cell One/NY knows what is going on
here.  They SAY that no toll charges will be billed for calls
delivered to CT.

So WHY would I want to turn call delivery off? Why not just let it
default to voicemail all the time?

The focus of the *35/*350 "feature" is to either force calls to
voicemail with *35 (which it doesn't do anyhow), or to cancel
voicemail and have calls delivered to you.

So let me get this right: There is no charge for calls delivered into
CT. OK.  So why make a big deal if after five rings and I don't answer
phone, that calls should not go back to voicemail?

I asked: "If the call is NOT answered in CT and it goes back to NY,
whether there is a problem because CT has to open a new channel to NY,
and thus charge NY a toll for that channel", yet this is not how it
works. If the call is unanswered in CT, it is "taken back" by the NY
system, and forced over to voicemail. No new CT -> NY channel is
opened up; the NY -> CT channel is closed, and a new NY -> voicemail
channel is opened, and the call is deposited into voicemail. So there
does not seem to be a single problem (technically or otherwise) in
allowing the calls to go back to voicemail if no one answers.

This is THE most imporant feature of my cell phone (besides talking :)).
It is bad enough that voicemail does not work in the McCAw "North

American Signalling Network", yet to take away the feature for apparently
no good reason to those who travel to New England greatly reduces the
utility of the cellular service. The fact that it works FINE now makes
this decision even more irritating.

Phew! OK, so what's going on here? Is there ANYOME at McCaw who is
reading this who has any idea of what's going on? Anyone in general??

BTW, *28 ("deliver my calls anywhere" for CT customers) = *350,
     *29 ("Don't deliver my calls" for CT customers) = *35

They all work! I wonder if they work in NY as well, ie, if I can hit
*28/*350 or *29/*35 interchangeably outside of CT.

About the only NICE feature with the *28/*29 - *35/*350 system is that
is you are in the *28/*350 mode, and hit another *28/*350, you DON'T
get a confirmation tone, but a reorder. The same is true for *29/*35.
(This is only true for NY customers in CT -- CT customers in always
get a confirmation tone.  Must have something to do with how the
Protocol converter and/or the Ericsson in NY works.)

This is good so if you can't recall that you hit *28 or *350, and you
hit it again, you will know that the "*28/*350" condition has been
active all along.  Very much like hitting 72# on a 1/AESS after you
have already forwarded calls, or 73# after you have already hit 73#
and have no forwarding in place.

Anyhow, there are a few more subtleties to the *35/*350 system and the
"new" call forwarding codes, but I'll only post on those if there is
some interest. (This has already taken up 1.5 hours of my time ...!)

Overall, I am happy with what McCaw does -- they are a strong force
towards the unification of the "A" side providers. Yet they clearly
messed up here, and should take measures to restore the old (and
familiar) system of forwarding-type features. Moreover, an effort
should be made to ensure that voicemail and call-delivery work
hand-in-hand, and not as mutually exclusive features outside of one's
home area.

And hey, if they let me take a whack at it, I'm sure *I* could do a
better job! :) ... having a different set of codes in EVERY new system
is ridiculous.  So is having to always remember to turn on voicemail
when you leave the car.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:13:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ronald
T. Crocker) writes:

> *** WARNING: UNABASHED PLUG FOR PRODUCT :-> ***

> Of course, if you purchase the new Motorola cordless telephone, the
> transmissions between the handset and the base station are
> "encrypted," so prying ears may be able to hear something, but it will
> not be what they were looking for!

Yea, I picked up one of these gizmos back in December and while the
encription is very nice to have, it much clearer than most cordless
phones I've used.  I replaced my Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone with
it.  I figured it has a 30 day refund policy so I at least compared
it.

Yes, I do work for Moto, but regardless I think it's a nice phone.
Anybody want to buy my old phone????  Whoever rated that other phone
as the best was sure pulling our chains!


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

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

From: b11![e-mail] (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Reply-To: b11![e-mail]
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 19:05:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(George S Thurman) writes:

(Discussion of IRS and cordless phone eavesdropping deleted.)

> "The current law makes no sense," says Goldman.  "If your telephone
> happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law.  If
> not, you have none."

Does the law specify how long, and what type this cord should be?
Unfortunately, I'm only half joking.  But really, would a corded
cordless phone be protected?  Ie, there is a cord on the phone, but
the communication still involves the radio link between the hand set
and the desk set.


Les

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Rorem)
Subject: Re: ANI Number Wanted
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:17:37 GMT


pete![e-mail] (Tompkins) writes:

>> A few months ago someone posted an 800 number which will give you back
>> your ANI.  I can't find it in the Telecom Archives.  If you have it
>> handy, I'd appreciate it if you would send me the number.

> It's not an 800 number, but as far as I can tell, it's free (I used it
> several months ago and was not billed):

> 10732-1-404-988-9664

I tried this on an IBT payphone in Chicago and had the automated voice
come on and ask for $2.10. By the way, which company has 10732 for an
access code?


Doug Rorem    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: 10732 is one of AT&T's access codes; similar to
10288 but for a different category of calls.  Your last name is of
interest to me: are you related to the composer Ned Rorem?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #275
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15760;
          28 Mar 92 2:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15997
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:12 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30923
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:03 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:36:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #276

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 00:35:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 276

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phonecos Renege on "Deal" (John Higdon)
    Re: Myth Busting (Norman Soley)
    Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees (Jack Decker)
    Re: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications (Norm Aleks)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Inward-LD FX Line? (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: 700 Numbers ([e-mail])
    Re: Call 1-800-CALL-ATT (Michael Scott Baldwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 11:41 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phonecos Renege on "Deal"


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, on yet another front, you now know, in Paul Harvey's style, yet
> another part of "The Rest of the Story."  Remember that when your
> phoneco next propagandizes you with how well they are taking care of
> your interests!

The one thing that telcos enjoy about being telcos is the fact that
they can send bills out every month and the people that receive them
have to pay. It is a wonderful cash cow whose return is quaranteed by
regulatory edict.

What these companies do not like is being forced to provide anything
for that money. Capital improvement to regulated plant is just money
out the door -- money that could be better spent funding the
competitive services such as pay BBSes or voicemail.

In case you were not reading between the lines, each of these sisters
(particularly Pac*Bell) will soon be before the respective PUCs
demanding rate increases to cover the FCC-mandated upgrades. And
everyone pays; not just those who happen to be lucky enough to be
served by modern equipment.

When one is a telephone subscriber he is subject to the luck of the
draw. If his CO does not provide services he deems necessary, he is
out of luck. One still cannot go shopping for telephone service. There
are a number of services that I would find very useful. Pac*Bell
cannot provide them. My choices are 1) wait; and 2) move.

By refusing to provide value for money recieved, the telcos are
hastening the day when dial tone competition will be a reality. I, for
one, would drop Pac*Bell at the earliest possible moment. It is most
heartening to see the FCC putting some pressure on these companies to
actually deliver.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: Myth Busting
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 26 MAR 92 14:12:06


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?

I heard a radio bit on this recently, seems the earliest citation anyone
could locate was a letter from Edison that is now in the archives at Bell
Labs. There was a later piece that was supposed to debunk that claim but
I missed it.

What I found most interesting is the context, Edison was advocating
the use of the word hello instead of a signalling bell. Essentially
his idea was that the phone company would connect the caller to your
line and they would holler hello repeatedly until someone noticed the
noise coming out of the box on the wall and started talking back
(which is not that far off the way it actually worked with a
signalling bell). Hello was supposed to carry further than the
greeting words in common use at the time.


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital
Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 16:09:45 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T to Eliminate 6000 Operator Employees


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Conrad C. Nobili) wrote:

>> [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]

> Well, actually there is only ever 'hissing' in one direction.  As the
> whole point (well, one of them anyway) of the automatic collect call
> operator is to *prevent* bidirectional free communication, one would
> have to construct some different "modem"s.  Or at least modify some a

Well, some of them don't do such a good job of preventing it.  For
example, if you place a collect call from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,
Canada (Bell Canada territory) you get prompted to enter a card number
or "11" for a collect call.  If you enter "11", your name (or whatever
you choose to give for a name) is digitally recorded.  So far, so
good.  But then you hear the ringback tone, followed by the called
party's answer, and the digital playback of the collect call
announcement (which includes the recording of your "name").  But if an
answering machine answers, you here the entire message from the
answering machine as it is played (or at least the first half-minute
or so of it), along with Bell Canada's automated announcement.  If the
other end doesn't respond in a recognized manner, the automation
announces the call a second time, before finally saying "please hold
for an operator" and breaking the audio path.

One can imagine an obvious potential for fraud here.  For example, a
kid could call home collect and when asked for his name, reply "when's
dinner?".  When the announcement was played, the parent (or whomever)
could reply "Six thirty" which of course would not be recognized as a
valid response, after which the caller would just hang up, abandoning
the call (that's a trivial example and the best I can think of on
short notice, I'm sure that someone with more imagination could think
of all sorts of ways this could be abused.  Yes, I know this is wrong
and I'm not condoning it, just illustrating how easy it would be).

Michigan Bell's automated equipment (as used in lower Michigan) seems
to be smarter; it doesn't cut an audio path from the called party back
to the caller until the call has been accepted.  This still would
allow delivery of a short one way message from the caller to the
called party, but you'd never know if the message was received (after
all, the dog could have knocked the phone off the hook when it rang,
for all the caller would know).  But in the system used in Canada,
you'd know that called phone was answered, who answered it (provided
you could identify the voice), and they could acknowledge receipt or
even pass useful information back in the opposite direction!

Either Canadians are more honest than U.S. residents (I really doubt
that they're THAT much more honest, especially considering the number
that come over here to Sault, Michigan to shop, and then smuggle back
their purchases!), or else Bell Canada really blundered when they put
that system in!  Wonder if this is a system used only in Canada (pity!)
or if some of the U.S. telcos have a similarly insecure system?

For readers not within range of Canadian television stations, the
"Only in Canada? Pity!" line is from a Canadian tea commercial of a
few years back.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Norm Aleks)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Call Processing Applications
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 23:26:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> iisat![e-mail]
(Kevin Davies) writes:

> Has anyone worked with call processing equipment for micros?

> In particular, we're looking at some applications which require the
> use of digitized voice, at touch-tone detection for the software.  One
> company I know of, Dialogic, has hardware to handle this. Has anyone
> any experience with this company or ones like it?

> (This will be on 80486 machines with either DOS or Unix).

Dialogic makes good equipment, and has by far the largest share of the
market for voice-processing hardware.  Two other good companies are
Natural Microsystems of Natick, Mass. (508/650-1300), and Rhetorex
(forgot their number).  They both have drivers for both DOS and Unix,
but another good operating system you should think of is OS/2 (in
fact, many people think it's *best* for voice processing apps -- its
multithreading is fantastic).  Natural Microsystems has two
programming products to help you develop your application: ME/2 is a
set of C-language libraries, and Vscript is a full fourth-generation
voice application programming language.  Dialogic depends on other
vendors to supply similar products.

I have a Natural Microsystems four-line card and the ME/2 libraries,
and I'm very happy with the combination.


Norm Aleks / [e-mail]
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 22:21:21 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?  Cellular One/Boston
> offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work.  I recently found out that
> MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years!

I think that only the cellular companies that are run by an RBOC (or
have a certain percentage of stock owned by an RBOC) are subject to
this requirement.  My only experience with Equal Access from a
cellular carrier was with Cellular One of San Francisco, in which
Pacific Telesis has a minority ownership position.  They offer Equal
Access, but it is subject to some restrictions:

1.  The carriers must install dedicated facilities to the MTSO
(cellular equal access doesn't use the landline equal access facilities).
As such, only the major carriers feel it's worthwhile to install these
facilities.  At first, only AT&T and MCI served Cellular One SF.  A
while later, US Sprint was added.

2.  10XXX is not available.  When I asked Cellular One SF if there was
a way to "select the long distance carrier on a per-call basis", and
after explaining it a couple more times so that she understood what I
meant, the response was "Why would anyone want to do that???"

3.  0+ always goes to AT&T, regardless of the 1+ selection.  While
this seems strange at first, it is actually what I wanted.  That way,
I could place callingcard calls via AT&T while still have 1+ calls via
Sprint.  And since Sprint and MCI calling cards don't use 0+ dialing
for access, it's not unfairly denying the selected carrier from
calling card revenue.  (Also, I don't know why I would ever want to
talk to the Sprint operator for other than a calling card call; that's
about all they can help you with anyway.)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Date: 27 Mar 92 01:27:22 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David
E. Martin) writes:

> I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
> travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.  I found

I know many occasions where FAXes were sent unrequested and even
undesired to business travelers who in no way should be expected to
pay for them. They were sent as a more complete and accurate form of
the old fashioned "leaving a phone message at the desk". Of course
maybe this hotel charges for phone messages.

I even heard of one hotel that had a guest needing to print something
from his laptop. Since he had a FAXmodem, *they* suggested he simply
dial the INTERNAL extension number of their FAX so he would not be
charged the even minor local call charge it would take to reach the
FAX's outside number. No charge for all he printed, and they KNEW it
was from him to him.

Some Best Western's are extra *NICE*!

> this out after having my secretary send me four FAXes.  I will be writing
> an angry letter to the management, but I don't expect a whole lot of
> results.  Anyone else been bit?

Perhaps it would be fitting to FAX the manager your comments. Perhaps
some others would care to send their comments, too.

You forgot to post their manager's name and the HOTEL's FAX number.

800.info gives 800.288.0770, but their reservation's are closed this
late at night, so a FAX number and manager's name will have to wait.

In the meantime, it is wise to ASK telecom and fax policies when
booking reservations, and simply NEVER use telecom-hostile properties,
but DO tell they why you are skipping them.

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Inward-LD FX Line?
Date: 27 Mar 92 01:56:31 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> My Caller*ID box bbbrrrrings, dutifully displaying a *local* number. I
> answered the phone and it's a collection agency wanting payment on a
> ...
> "Weird," I thought; she said she was in Louisiana. I called the number
> back exactly as it was displayed on the box and "DOO DAH DEE ... The

> [Moderator's Note: FX lines usually work in both directions, and I
> doubt you were called from one. What probably happened was that
> sometimes long distance carriers handle a call from one place to
> another and drop off the call at their POP (point of presence) in your
> community, then patch through a local outgoing call (from your local
> telco's perspective) to you from that point.  The carrier used by the

Lets keep this really simple. They used a Feature Group A (FG-A) line.
Nothing magic. This one was arranged for one-way use, apparently.

An IXC can use them exactly as you witnessed. It is in reality simply
an old FX line with fancy modern pricing. The IXC probably was using
it to complete a call that may have overflowed FG-D trunks, or where
equal access ISN"T even available.

Unlike FG-B or FG-D lines, FG-A lines could be billed to the IXC (as
was this case, probably), or can be billed to the end customer when
that is who is using it as an FX line. The bill you get has many weird
charges out to many decimal places, and clips you for traffic BOTH
ways, and even for 800 calls, I think. The charges are all TINY, but
very very real. One of the few cases where a customer gets to see what
really looks like carrier to carrier billing.

Of course there IS a small chance, that though REMOTE, the agency
makes MANY MANY calls into your area and an FX line really is in
place.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:45:03 CST


The majority of the 0+700+XXX+XXXX numbers (from what I know) are used
for confrence calling ...

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 08:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call 1-800-CALL-ATT


> ...call 1-800-CALL-ATT, choose option 2 for dialing instructions, and
> then option 1 you will hear, "AT&T..."  If you remember all the menu
> choices, you won't have to listen through too much, but it's a pain
> just to get to AT&T."

There aren't a whole bunch of choices.  "1" for AT&T calling card, "2"
for dialing instructions, "3" for AT&T Universal.  That's it.  After
"2", there isn't a menu at all; just press "1" to get the "AT&T
<blong>".  You don't have to wait for *any* voice prompting.  As soon
as 800-CALL-ATT answers, you can immediately dial "21".  I think it is
intentionally slightly annoying to encourage you to try 10-ATT-0
first.  The message between the "2" and the "1" tells you about
10-ATT-0 *twice* just to make sure.

Speaking of such things, I notice (on my ISDN set) that call
supervision isn't returned until after I press "21".  During the
10-ATT-0 blurb my call still isn't completed.  I've noticed that other
voice prompting systems do this as well: 800-423-4343 for AT&T
Universal leads me through two levels of menu selection before the
call is completed.  How is this done, and is this available to any
customer?  Isn't this potentially abusable?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #276
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18394;
          28 Mar 92 3:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29498
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02675
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:05 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 01:26:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #277

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 01:26:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 277

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    U.S. Postal Service Worldpost (Nigel Allen)
    Caller-ID Box Info Wanted (David Niebuhr)
    AT&T Any Hour Saver (Monty Solomon)
    N0X/N1X Coming to 813 in Florida (Carl Moore)
    Unique Caller ID Decision in Ohio (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Major FTS-2000 Change (David Lesher)
    MCI and Cellular One/Boston (Monty Solomon)
    Dominican Republic on a Phone Bill (Carl Moore)
    Modems Price List From "Survey" (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
    So Who is at Fault? (Bruce Perens)
    Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Jack Callaghan)
    Cable Companies (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
    Closed Captioning Question (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Wireless PCNS / Ubiquitous Computing (Mark Alcazar)
    Re: Unfairness at the Ranch (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


The U.S. Postal Service and other postal administrations are being
hurt by competition from fax machines (it's usually cheaper to send a
one-page letter across the country by fax at off-peak rates than to
mail it as a first-class letter) and, for overseas mail, from
remailers such as TNT Mailfast who pick up mail from one country and
mail it in another.

The U.S. Postal Service is fighting back with something called
Worldpost which may be of interest to U.S.-based companies that send
out a lot of international mail. For more information, call
1-800-456-3600, ext. 250, or write to:

 Worldpost
 United States Postal Service
 P.O. Box 7899
 Mt Prospect, IL 60065-7899

The phone number can be dialed from Canada, although I expect that this
is simply a mistake by the U.S. Postal Service or its telemarketing
service bureau.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: Could you write again please, and tell us in more
detail about the Worldpost Service: how it works, the charges, etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 07:16:45 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Caller-ID Box Info Wanted


In a catalog distributed by a local equivalent to Service Merchandise,
there's an ad for the AT&T Call Display 30 which keeps a record of the
last 30 incoming calls.

The advertised price is $59.99 (+ Uncle Mario's kickback).

I realize that NY doesn't have CID yet and I'm curious about this unit
and would like any information possible (good and bad).

Please e-mail to either address below (not the one in the header -- I
work from several systems) since it's much easier for me to receive
mail that way.

Thanks in advance.


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 07:41:28 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Any Hour Saver


AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver".

It is $10 for 60 minutes each month and $0.20/min for calls during the
day and $0.11/min for calls after 5 PM.  Depending upon your state you
also get a 5% discount on intrastate long distance calls.  They are
also currently waiving the $5.00 sign up fee.

They use the most expensive calls towards filling the included 60
minutes.


# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# roscom![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty
minutes to fill the prepaid hour?  I was told they use the first sixty
minutes, in whatever order they may be.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:07:20 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: N0X/N1X Coming to 813 in Florida


Because no one else has sent this along to telecom, I wrote back to
Dave Leibold and he says it's OK to do so myself.  Notice that 305/407
split was done in 1988 without the use of N0X/N1X.

 Date:    Sun, 8 Mar 1992 20:57:57 -0500
 From:    Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
 Subject: New Area Codes
 To: [e-mail]

Looks like 813 is going to interchangeable prefixes, with an area code
split pending in 1996 (after interchangeable area codes come into
effect) ... this was the message as received from the Fidonet FCC
conference area where some discussion on 813 exhaust is going on.

* Original Area: FCC
* Original From: Paul Knupke Jr. (1:250/501)
* Original To  : Bill Blomgren (1:250/524)

BB > I understand that the Tampa area keeps the 813, but areas south
> of Sarasota will turn into something else in a couple of years.
> As of this Saturday, we BB > go to 10 digit long distance for
> everything outside the immediate bay area.

Coverage of this event has been very poor.  Few people know it ...
someone should mention it in BaySysop and BayChat ... so people don't
wonder why they can't call Sarasota or Lakeland anymore.


pekjr    JABBER v1.1 #37 * BETA TESTERS WHO LIE! On the next Geraldo.

Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Unique Caller ID Decision in Ohio
Date: 27 Mar 92 01:19:41 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


As reported by the Associated Press in the Tiffin, OH {Advertiser-Tribune}:

State utility regulators today allowed Ohio Bell to offer a service
that lets customers see the telephone number of incoming calls.  But
the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also required the company to
offer a service that would prevent telephone numbers from being
revealed to subscripbers.  The decision by the PUCO followed 2 years
of debate over whether Caller ID is am intrusion of the callers'
privacy particularly for those who want their telephone numbers kept
confidential.

The company has contended that Caller ID reduces the threat of
nuisance and pnscene calls because they can be traced easily.  The
service would be avilable for $6.50 a month.  The display device must
be bought separately at an estimated cost of $55 to $120 ... Ohio Bell
intends to offer the service first in Cleveland and Columbus.

THE COMMISSION SAID OHIO BELL MUST PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING BLOCKING OPTIONS:

+ MAKING AVAILABLE FREE PER-CALL BLOCKING TO ALL SUBSCRIBERS.
+ OFFERING FREE PER-LINE BLOCKING TO CUSTOMERS WITH NON-PUBLISHED NUMBERS.
+ OFFERING SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR PER-LINE BLOCKING TO CUSTOMERS WITH
  PUBLISHED NUMBERS AT A CHARGE EQUAL TO THE COST OF A NON-PUBLISHED NUMBER.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Major FTS-2000 Change
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 20:34:19 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)


For the last ten years or so, FTS calls have been dialed with either
seven or ten digits. "On-net" calls, i.e. those to another USG agency,
went with a seven digit number. Originally, the prefix was the same as
your POTS number, and the last four digits always were. But as the
system spread, it got difficult to find a prefix that was unused both
within FTS and the NAPA assignments in the destination city.

For example, let's say my NAPA number is 202-345-9999. My FTS number
is 345-9999. But Vinnie may have 703-556-8888, and an FTS assignment
of 654-8888, cuz the FTS 556 is already in use in San Francisco.

Now, for the last eight years or so, off-net calls have been handled
by 8 + AC + 7D [note - no leading "1"]. Prior to that, you dug through
the GSA directory, found the number for the FTS operator in Podunk,
called her, and {S}HE dialed the local call, and gave you a nice
clean, 30 db down patch ;-{

Well, with FTS 2000, which appears to be a network mostly in software
{I'm not really sure how much of it is dedicated, isolated trunks},
things are changing. I just saw a memo announcing that FTS numbers
will cease to exist at all. To reach another agency, we will just dial
the full NAPA number. We'll get a one-month permissive dialing period
before all the old ones go away.  This will tend to make things a
little easier -- it's gotten increasingly hard to find an up-to-date
FTS directory, even if you are concerned enough to want to ;-}

As a side note, we also get new FTS trouble reporting numbers.  They
are {8} 700-288-xxxx and such. Guess that furthers the notion that
IEC's are free to use the 700 pseudo-code as they see fit.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 03:21:43 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI and Cellular One/Boston


> Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?  Cellular One/Boston
> offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work.  I recently found out that
> MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years!

> [Moderator's Note: Who told you that MCI didn't bill Cellular One LD
> calls for five years?     PAT]

I was aware that MCI had not billed for long distance calls for some
period of time from some associates that had MCI as their long
distance carrier.  A Cellular One customer service rep told me about
the MCI fiasco recently.  When they finally started billing for the
calls, the bills covered only the past two months or so.

It is the commercial division of MCI that handles the Cellular
One/Boston long distance calls.  They bill the customers directly.
The Friends & Family program is available, but not any of the frequent
flyer mileage programs.  Primetime is also available.

There was a discussion here a few months ago about Cellular system
SIDs.  The February 13, 1992 edition of the Cellular One USA-Canada
Roaming Guide lists the SID for each system along with the customer
service number, band, access number, service number, and rates.

It is interesting to note that there is no standard customer service
number.  The customer service numbers listed include *611, 611, *711,
*INFO, 811, and *311.  All of the Canadian systems list 0 as the
customer service number.

Cellular One/Boston has institued a free information number which
started out as *INFO and is now *FYI.  All kinds of information is
available like rate plans, how to use Message Plus, etc.  They will be
reusing *INFO shortly for some new services.

Celluar One/Boston is currently testing Roam America and will probably
offer it sometime in the next couple of months.

Someone recently posted a query about *71 and *72.  For Cellular
One/Boston, *71 is used for No Answer Transfer -- typically to enable
Message Plus.  *72 is used for Call Forwarding.  *73 cancels *71 or
*72.

Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Three-Way Calling, and Message Plus are
all provided for free.  They can be disabled if you don't want the
service.

They are offering a new service called Maintenance Plus with the following
benefits for $5/month:

    One free antenna replacement per year;
    One free cellular phone tune-up per year;
    A free diagnostic test each time the phone is brought in for service;
    Use of a loaner phone (same number) if repair will take > 1hr;
    Free repair, adjustment, or replacement, to extent not covered by the
manufacturer's warranty, of the following:
    transceiver, data cable, mount, wiring,
    control-head, hands-free, horn relay


Monty    roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:21:29 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dominican Republic on a Phone Bill


On a phone bill I have found a call to the Dominican Republic placed
via MCI.  It is in area code 809 (although Haiti, the other part of
the island on which the Dominican Republic is located, has its own
country code 509).  Furthermore, although it is in country code 1, it
appears on the bill as if it were outside that country code:

1. no city name, only the country;
2. the number called is printed without embedded blanks.

(The number is 809544xxxx.)

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 17:49 EST
From: [e-mail] (Phil Pavarini Jr.)
Subject: Modems Price List From "Survey"
Organization: PAVNET


    Someone had mentioned to me that a modem price list, from a
survey or something, was compiled from the {Computer Shopper} (or other
magazine or sources) and posted to usenet.

    It was printed, and I guess the message header had something
to the effect "usenet@almaden" or "usenet at almaden".  I would have
sent mail to "almaden", but no uucp site with that name seems to
exist.  This 'master price list' of all of the modems is _VERY_
important, if anyone has any suggestions ... I'd appriciate it!


Phil Pavarini Jr.  --  Voice 216.891.1122 Fax [phone]
INTERNET: [e-mail] -- UUCP: pavnet!pep
        P.O. Box 360302  --  Cleveland, Ohio 44136

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: So Who is at Fault?
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 16:10:00 GMT


Pat says:

> [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because
> I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster
> is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it?  PAT]

In a telephone circuit, you can often diagnose where a problem is
happening by the sound. Bad microphones, swinging connections, and
maladjusted repeaters all have their characteristic "sound".

NTSC television embodies two sacrifices that would not have been made
today. The spectrum space had to be limited: VHF was a defense
technology (radar). The receivers had to be made less expensive:
phase-locked loops were priced in the tens of dollars, not in cents as
they are today. Same for frequency standards and filters.

Because of these sacrifices, there isn't much margin for "system
reliability". Any bad component will make the entire signal path look
bad, and it won't be as easy to diagnose as your phone.


Bruce Perens

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 07:26:10 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991


I'd like to get my hands on the text of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

Am I lucky enough that TPC would cough it up on request, or should I
go to the nearest Federal Center and request Public Law 102-243?

Or does someone know a quick pointer that would make this all simpler
then that.

Any assistance appreciated.


Jack


[Moderator's Note: We've seen a recent posting from John Covert
quoting at length from this. Perhaps John would be so kind to forward
the entire document here for inclusion in the Telecom Archives.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Cable Companies
Date: 27 Mar 92 16:45:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


I would like to know which are the largest national cable TV
companies, which have the best engineering facilities, and which are
the most technically innovative.

I would also like to know what are the current legal restrictions on
cable providing voice service, and are there ANY tarriffing
limitations on their providing data and mixed data/video (multi-media).

[The NYSE stock symbols would also be nice :-) ]


Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund          [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 13:40:24 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Closed Captioning Question


Does anyone know which brands (and models?) of TVs have closed
captioning support BUILT IN?  At some point, all of them will have to,
by law, but I had heard that some already support it.  Any info should
be mailed to me:

[e-mail]

If there is sufficient interest, I'll post a summary.  Thanks.


josh

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Alcazar)
Subject: Wireless PCNS/ Ubiquitous Computing
Date: 27 Mar 92 19:13:20 GMT


Can someone point me in the way for good references on technical
aspects of Wireless PCNs and Ubiquitous Computing, specifically
analyses of different systems current and projected max throughput?
Articles in IEEE Communications Magazine abound but they're a little
too simplistic.

Please mail, I will post a summary if there's enough interest.


Mark Alcazar    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 8:37:47 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unfairness at the Ranch


Speaking of listing of FX prefixes:

The Northeastern Maryland call guide (C&P) apparently stopped using
"name1 (name2 service)" at least a few years ago, opting instead for
simply "name2".  For example, 679 Edgewood (Fork service) is listed
now as Fork.  "Fork" is not a technical term but the name of a town
not far inside Baltimore County, and it is served by the 592 Fork
exchange.  (Area code 410, with 301 still useable.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #277
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28928;
          28 Mar 92 21:13 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12878
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 19:16:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04854
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 19:16:07 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 19:16:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #278

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 19:16:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 278

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Email and News via Satellite (Norman Gillaspi)
    Problems With MCI Voice Calling Card (Russ Latham)
    Does Anyone Know About (Old?) Area Code 151? (Jonathan Welch)
    Austel Plans to Change Every Phone Number in Australia (David E.A. Wilson)
    Anyone on the Telecom List Heard of AUTOMAIL Geneva? (H. Shrikumar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Norman Gillaspi)
Subject: Email and News via Satellite
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 07:13:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


    I am conducting a survey to determine if there is interest and
the extent of the interest in a direct broadcast satellite (DBS)
Usenet news feed service.

    The system would have the following characteristics:

    Antenna size    18" or 45cm
    Antenna type    Parabolic
    Antenna mount   Wallmount
    Data rate    9600 Bps
    Modulation    FDM-V.29 Subcarrier
    Demodulator     FM extended threshold
    Xmit band    KU band
    Satellite    GE K-2
    Coverage    Continental US
    Price         $1500.00 includes complete system and one year
            of service.

    All news groups woul be transmitted; along with requested
newslists.  The advantages for the users will be virtually a direct
connection to the Internet for incoming news. This of course will
eliminate indirect routing and associated delays. Outgoing postings
will be handled through regular terrestrial methods.

    Users could be Organizations,BBS operators and individuals.

 The system will consist of an outside 18" antenna, mount, and
satellite receiver approximately the size of a Telebit modem. The
output from the receiver is a V.29 signal from a standard RJ-11 male
jack. The signal can then be demodulated using a fax modem as a data
pump which then provides an RS-232 signal out to a computer.

    This system can be used with an inexpensive XT,AT or Unix box
that is readily available. This computer is setup to receive the data
continuosly.  This computer behaves like an electronic mail box. This
mailbox would receive, buffer, and manage the data. This email box
could be interrogated by other users through the use of an RS-232 or
LAN. Conventional newsreaders would be used.

    Some early attempts have been made in the past to distribute
the news via satellite or FM radio subcarrier. Theese companies
included Norsat, Stargate and others. These attempts were partially
acceptable.  However problems with copyright, slow throughput,
multipath distortion, limited coverage area, hardware expense,
incompatiable hardware and probably most important timing caused
limited use.

    If you would be interested in supporting this effort as an
individual purchaser of the system or as a corporate sponser.  Please
send your comments via email to [e-mail].


    Norman Gillaspie          Tel [phone]
        992 San Antonio Rd        Fax [phone]
    Palo Alto , Ca 94303        Email netcom.com


To the interested parties who responded to the survey:

I want to thank you for responding. I believe there is a definite need
for a satellite broaddcast service providing transmission of Usenet
news, E-Mail, commercial news, entertainment packages, etc.

Briefly, I would like to explain my background, interest and how we
might make this happen.

     I was involved in the television broadcast business from 1970 to
1980.  In 1980 I was one of the pioneers of the home satellite
industry, and founded GCI (Gillaspie Communications Inc.). We produced
over 15,000 satellite receivers and microwave down converters.

     In 1984 I founded a company called ISS Engineering, Inc.  ISS has
produced and marketed products to cable TV, TV broadcasters, radio
stations and satelite common carriers. ISS is also a satellite common
carrier and currently possesses apx. 10% of the resources on GE's K-2
transponder 2.  ISS designed satellite receivers and components for
companies wishing to bypass the telephone company leased lines in
point-to-multipoint applications.  We have significant capacity on K-2
and we have one of the highest energy density signals from K-2.  ISS
is currently transmitting data to over 500 sites reliably throughout
the U.S.

     I believe ISS has one of the best technical solutions for most
applications involving satellite data broadcast.  ISS has been
basically an RF house, but as a common carrier I realize the
possibilities for distributing E-Mail or Usenet news, etc.  I believe
ISS has the technology and satellite resources to make this a viable
service today.

     ISS currently has uplink facilities in Mountain View, CA.  A
second uplink out of Orange, NJ will be operational in 1992.

     As an active reader of Usenet news for approximatly 18 months, I
have found Usenet is a great way to stay current and to get more of a
real time feeling of various trends in society.  Most of my activities
involving the net have been one-way, read-only, much like reading
newspapers or magazines. In the future with electronic publishing I
see the transmission of electronic newsletters, talking cartoons,
requests for bids, patent abstracts, legal rulings, and many other
forms of up-to-date information being distributed in a more immediate
form via satellite broadcast.

     The proliferation of computers and communication networks will
allow electronic publishing to have an increasing acceptance.  This
should also open up a delivery and distribution method for artists,
writers, government and special interest groups,etc.  Satellite
delivered information is the most direct route to the ultimate user.

     Let me respond to some the the questions and comments I received.

1) $1500 a year seems a bit steep for a service.  This would cover the
initial hardware purchase and service.  A possible fee for the second
year would be on the order of $30 per month.

2)  What would be transmitted?
Supporters would be able to receive Usenet news groups, personal E-mail,
weather pictures, and other forms of information that are requested
by supporters.

3)  How would ISS get the information to the uplink?
The information to be transmitted would be received through a direct
internet connection or in conjunction with dial-up modems, or
through the use of uucp, etc. and then transmitted via satellite.

4) How could groups or organizations benefit?
Information could also be received by BBS, a company LAN, or other
service provider.  In this way multiple people could share the
service to a common address.

5) Why V.29 on the output of the receiver?
In the past it has been my experience that installations that involve
long cable runs from the antenna to receiver are problematic from
the standpoint of cost, convenience and reliability. Running coaxial
cable for example in a multi-story building from the 10th floor to
the first is expensive even if doable.  But with a satellite receiver
close to the antenna, V.29 modem tones from the receiver can be
distributed to one or more fax modems (multidrop) located next to
the E-Mail box computer.

Also, the next generation fax boards will make it possible to transmit
voice for narrow cast radio broadcasts and talk shows.  Applications
might be to user groups, developers, educational organizations,etc.

6)  What about errors if one-way will not allow for a request for
re-transmission?
The broadcast service will be a virtually transparent link and would
follow the existing addressing protocols.  It would be possible for the
sender to compress the file, run and error correction code such as
Reed-Solomon, etc. to detect and correct errors.  Also, the satellite
signal is much more reliable as there is only a single hop involved.
Link margins can compute error rates to be very low.  In real life
satellite links will go for days without an error if the satellite
links are designed properly.

7)  Is 9600 BPS fast enough?
The data can be compressed before being transmitted.  The long
uucp routing instructions currently used would be cut way down
as the receive site would be getting virtually a direct connection
to the internet.  Additional channels could be added as needed.

8) Can I receive the signal outside of the U.S?
In much of Canada and Mexico a larger antenna would be required.
Link calculations could prove needed antenna sizes.  In Alaska,
Mexico and the Carribbean another satellite would be needed, such
as a C-Band satellite. In Europe a carrier might be available on
Pan Am Sat.  The problem in Europe and most other countries are
regulatory.  Certainly the signal could fall on all of Europe.
However, reception might be deemed illegal by local authorities.

9)  What about copyright?
It is my understanding that as a common carrier ISS is not responsible
for copyright, much like a wireline telephone carrier.  The sender,
however, might need to meet certain copyright requirements.

10)  Can I get more information?
I will be please to put together an information packet about the
hardware, along with possibilities on usage and implementation.
Please send me your mailing address via E-Mail.

11)  When could I get delivery?
The hardware and satellite system exist.  What doesn't exist is the
Unix server at the uplink to forward the message.  I have an
ATT 3B2-600 we are planning to put into use.  (Anyone wishing to
donate equipment and help in the Palo Alto, California area?)
In addition, ISS has not created any software to accept, store and
manipulate E-Mail once it has been received.  At this time we will
only be able to spool and transmit data.  The receive site will have
to support data rates of 9600 BPS.  Here is an opportunity to
create, modify or integrate this capability into existing programs.

What we have here is a classic chicken and egg scenario.  We need
people to support this effort initially through the purchase of
hardware.  The more customers, the cheaper the cost.  However, ISS is
willing to provide and donate the air time in exchange for the
purchase of hardware.

Once again, please send me your postal address and I will drop more
information to you.


Regards,

Norman Gillaspie      [e-mail]
ISS Engineering, Inc. 992 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA  94303  Tel. [phone]   Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Latham)
Subject: Problems With MCI Voice Calling Card
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 13:14:27 CST


I have had a few problems with the new MCI voice calling card, and was
curious if others are having problems.

First, after finishing a call, pressing the POUND (#) button to make
another call does not work all of the time.  Thus, I have to redial
the access number, then put the calling card number in again, etc.,
resulting in another surcharge (which I will definately dispute when I
get the bill).  This problem has happened more than once.

Also, at one time when I was trying to make a call with the 800 access
number, everything worked fine but I kept getting a fast busy tone
(all circuits busy).  I first thought that it was probably on the
local end, since it was a couple of seconds after dialing before I got
the tone.  I called a number of times with the same result, and
finally tried the old calling card number with 950-1022 access.  It
went through without any problems.  Don't know if it really was the
local end with all circuits busy, but I suspect it wasn't.

I have also had the experience of dialing a number, and getting some
other number that was not even similar.


The one other problem I've seen is once after making a call, and then
pressing the POUND button to make another call (it worked on this
occasion), it gave me the two short beeps signalling me to dial in
another number.  I entered the phone number, and then an operator came
on and asked me what number I was dialing.  I asked her why it didn't
go through as dialed, and she said that she didn't have any number
entered.

If any others have had similar problems, please let me know.  I would
like to know if it is just me making the mistakes, or if there really
is a problem with the service and I shouldn't be using it.


Thanks,

Russ Latham   ([e-mail])   Motorola, Inc

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

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Does Anyone Know About (Old?) Area Code 151?
Date: 27 Mar 92 15:40:56 GMT


I recently bought an old payphone at a flea market -- the kind that
rings a bell when a coin in dropped in.

I'm trying to make sense of the front panel instruction card that came
with it.  The first line looks like this:

   151 AREA 555-1313

Subsequent lines keep referring to this 151 area code.

My question is: was there ever such an area code, and if so, for what
area, and what time period was it in existence?


Jonathan Welch   Umass/Amherst   Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There was never such an area code, nor has there
ever been the number 555-1313. The phone (if the instruction card was
always part of it) was probably some sort of display or demo unit in
the front window of a telco business office, etc. It seems to me the
demo phones here used to always have the number 311-555-2368.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Austel Plans to Change Every Phone Number in Australia
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 06:02:36 GMT


Austel (the Federal telecommunications regulator in Australia) has
proposed a plan that involves adding an extra digit to every phone
number in Australia because areas such as Sydney, Newcastle and the
Gold Coast are expected to run out of numbers in the next few years.

The NSW state government Minister for Administrative Services (Mrs
Cohen) is worried that the plan is being introduced to quickly (over
the next three to eight years starting next August) and that it will
cost the business community A$100 million to make the change while the
NSW government would face costs of up to A$15 million in changes to
letterheads, reprogramming PABXs and re-educating Public Service
clients to use the new numbers.

Austel has admitted that only 13% of numbers available under the
current plan were being used, with 60 million unused (compared to an
average of 25% in other countries). The head of Austel (Mr. Robin
Davey) said it was trying to anticipate demand and ensure that the
limit on numbers did not impede the growth of new services.

The plan is to add an extra digit to the front of the current seven
digit number used in capital cities.

The original plan was very simple:

02    Sydney (NSW)    03    Melbourne (VIC)        04    Inner NSW
05    VIC        06    Outer NSW + ACT        07    QLD
08    SA + NT        09    WA            00    TAS

01    Reserved for services

This was then modified to use three digit area codes for non capital
city codes.  The last change I am aware of was the change of all ACT
numbers from (062) nx xxx to (06) 2xx xxx adding another 20,000
numbers of the form 2[01]x xxx.


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 21:33:58 GMT
From: sangam!iucaa![e-mail] (H. Shrikumar)
Subject: Anyone on the Telecom List Heard of AUTOMAIL Geneva?


Hi,

   Has anybody on comp.dcom.telecom heard of outfit that calls itself
AUTOMAIL, and is based in Geneva ?

   They claim to be an "international e-mail network", but the
info-sheets I have do not say how "international" they are spread.  It
is supposed to be an e-mail network, based on properitary software
(ie.not X400), which they give out free as a promotional. If you are
interested, you just load the software, fill out a form on the screen
which is sent to the mail gateway, and you are enrolled for free.
There is only a transport charge for messages and faxes sent or
forwarded.

   Unlike public e-mail networks, they are based on a loose group of
franchisees around the world, with Geneva co-ordinating the billing.
Incidentally, the Geneva node gets a really hefty 30% cut from *all*
the revenues of each franchisee for this.

   Somewhere in the sketchy description they claim they have 5000
users worldwide ... having been part of the team that set up the
academic e-mail network in India, I think that that number, if correct,
is laughably low.

   I look forward to a reply from anybody who has heard of this outfit
 ... how real are they, and has anybody used it ?

Since I am not on the list these days ... could you please E_MAIL to
me too ?

My EMAIL Address:  [e-mail]

   Can I request you to reply AS early as feasible, so I could hope to
get a reply by Sunday ... I could really use the information if I had
it by then. Many thanks in anticipation.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #278
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02041;
          28 Mar 92 22:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25227
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 20:42:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30463
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 20:41:56 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 20:41:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #279

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 20:41:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 279

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Editorial on FBI Proposal (The Washington Post via Dave Banisar)
    Ohio Wiretapping Law Doesn't Protect Cellular Phones (Columbus Dispatch)
    Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies (Richard Nash)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Paul Giovacchini)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (David Lemson)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (John Yaya)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Mark E. Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: CPSR, Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 14:15:43 EDT
Subject: Editorial on FBI Proposal


{The Washington Post}   March 26, 1992   Back to Smoke Signals?


    The Justice Department spent years in court breaking up the
nation's telecommunications monopoly in order to foster competition
and technological advances. Now the same department has gone to
Congress asking that improvements in telecommunications technology be
halted, and in some cases even reversed, in the name of law
enforcement. The problems facing the FBI are real, but the proposed
solution is extreme and unacceptable on a number of grounds.

    Wiretaps are an important tool in fighting crime, especially the
kind of large-scale, complicated crime -- such as drug conspiracies,
terrorism and racketeering -- that is the responsibility of the FBI.
When they are installed pursuant to court order, taps are perfectly
legal and usually most productive.  But advances in phone technology
have been so rapid that the government can't keep up. Agents can no
longer just put a tap on phone company equipment a few blocks from the
target and expect to monitor calls. Communications occur now through
regular and cellular phones via satellite and microwave, on fax
machines and computers.  Information is transmitted in the form of
computer digits and pulses of light through strands of glass, and none
of this is easily intercepted or understood.

   The Justice Department wants to deal with these complications by
forbidding them. The department's proposal is to require the Federal
Communications Commission to establish such standards for the industry
"as may be necessary to maintain the ability of the government to
lawfully intercept communications." Any technology now in use would
have to be modified within 180 days, with the costs passed on to the
rate payers. Any new technology must meet the suitable-for-wiretap
standard, and violators could be punished by fines of $ 10,000 a day.
As a final insult, commission proceedings concerning these regulations
could be ordered closed by the attorney general.

   The civil liberties problems here are obvious, for the purposeful
designing of telecommunications systems that can be intercepted will
certainly lead to invasions of privacy by all sorts of individuals and
organizations operating without court authorization. Further, it is an
assault on progress, on scientific endeavor and on the competitive
position of American industry. It's comparable to requiring Detroit to
produce only automobiles that can be overtaken by faster police cars.
And it smacks of repressive government.

   The proposal has been drafted as an amendment rather than a
separate bill, and there is some concern that it will be slipped into
a bill that has already passed one house and be sent quietly to
conference. That would be unconscionable. We believe, as the industry
suggests, that the kind of informal cooperation between law
enforcement agencies and telecommunications companies that has always
characterized efforts in the past, is preferable to this stifling
legislation. But certainly no proposal should be considered by
Congress without open and extensive hearings and considerable debate.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Warner)
Subject: Ohio Wiretapping Law Doesn't Protect Cellular Phones
Date: 27 Mar 92 22:23:58 EST
Organization: The Ohio Data Network


This article apeared in the Wednessday, March 25, 1992 Issue of the
{Columbus Dispatch}:

"Cellular Phone Case Dimissed
Judge says wiretap law doesn't cover electronic talks"

By Jim Woods, Dispatch Staff Reporter

"Lancaster, Ohio -- A Judge dismissed wiretapping charges yesterday
against a Lancaster man who used a ham radio to monitor and tape
cellular phone conversations of law enforcement officiers.

   Jerry Larabee, 48, was believed to be the first in Ohio to be
charged with wiretapping for intercepting and taping cellular phone
telephone calls.

   Fairfield County Common Pleas Judge Joseph Clark ruled that state
law prohibits intercepting oral or wire communications but does not
protect cellular phone converstaions which are electronic
communications.

   Clark noted federal law was amended recently to prohibit intercep-
tion of cellular phone converstaions, but the Ohio legislature has not
taken similar actions.

 .............

   "Defense attornies Charles Lantz and Harry R. Reinhar admitted
Larabee taped the conversations.

   At a pretrial hearing March 11, they argued state law does not
protect cellular phone conversations.  A television set was used to
demonstrate how cellular phone conversions can be intercepted.

   "The Judge made the proper decisions," Lantz said.  "It isn't any
more illegal to intercept an electronic communication than it is to
monitor a radio broadcast."

 ..............

   "Special Prosecutor Richard Ross of Morgan Country said no decision
had been made on whether to appeal."

The omitted parts of the article go into details of the ongoing
conflicts between Larabee and the the country sheriff.  The cellular
phone tapes where of the country sheriff and Larabee unsucessfully ran
for sheriff and Lancaster Mayor.


William "Bill" Warner, III (N8HJP)    [e-mail]
Ohio Data Network                     WARNER@OHSTPY (Bitnet)
65 E State St, Suite 810              [phone] (Voice)
Columbus, OH  43215                   [phone] (FAX)

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

From: trickie![e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Those Pesky FBI Spies
Date: 26 Mar 92 05:03:39 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization


In article <[e-mail]> [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. ...

stuff deleted

> ... 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.

What really escapes me, is the lack of understanding of what a CO
does.  If the call goes through the CO, is it not being switched? I
think so!  Modern CO's are digital.

With modern switching equipment, any telephone connection through the
switching equipment network can (could?) be easily monitored from a
remote location equipped with a dialup teminal and another phone (in
any exchange) for listening to the voice path. The terminal provides
control to access any directory number/equipment in that office. The
telephone switching equipment dials the number of the phone used for
monitoring purposes.

Another mechanism used, is a 'special access code' followed by the
desired directory number that signifies that a monitor connection is
to be established from the equipment location to the trunk that sent
the access code. One hangup with this method is with PBX DID trunks
that have no real association with the desired telephone number. The
PBX doesn't have the smarts to create a monitor connection, but
instead simply reacts as if it was an incoming call.

The above assumes that the conversation takes place in a standard
eight-bit pcm timeslot.

For fractional T1's, normally the information being passed is data,
not voice. Since the end user equipment determines the allocation and
arrangement of the timeslots, the end user becomes responsible to
'decode' the data into a coherent stream of bytes that their equipment
understands.

Digitized information can take one of several forms when converted
back into an analogue form us humans understand. PCM, ASCII/EBCIDIC/
DATA, FAX, VIDEO, all produce ones and zeros in the digital domain
presenting an endless variety of possibilities as to what the message
content was.  As it is the information that the FBI wants to have
access to, and as how everyone seems to understand (agree with ?) the
FBI's concern, just pass a law requiring that all forms of electronic
communications require an automatic carbon copy being sent to those
pesky FBI guys and gals in Washington! :) :)


Richard Nash     Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:  [e-mail]   unregistered leaf site; trickie!rickie

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Giovacchini)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 05:42:20 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(George S Thurman) writes:

 Text deleted.

> Under new guidelines for its criminal investigators, the IRA can use
> radio scanners to eavesdrop on suspected tax dodgers while they chat
> on their cordless phones.

> No warrant is necessary.

> The IRS policy, issued as an update to a handbook for investigators,
> comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court action.

> The high court declined in January to review a federal appeals court
> ruling that conversations on cordless telephones are not subject to
> federal privacy laws.

I find this interesting.  After all the debate in the scanner group
about the legality of listening to broadcasts made by cellular phones
et al, the general assumption was you can listen but can't repeat what
you hear.  So the IRS can listen and repeat what they hear?  Call me
an idealist, but these are the public air waves, not the government
air waves.  It is becoming scary to live in this country.


Paul J. Giovacchini    ( [e-mail] )  ( [e-mail] )


[Moderator's Note: I quite agree with you; it is becoming very scary
to live in the USA -- at least in some areas like most of Chicago. To
go out at night in many Chicago neighborhoods such as mine is a very
foolish thing to do with all the gangbangers and crazy people running
loose here.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 04:24:02 GMT


b11![e-mail] (Les Bartel) writes:

>> "The current law makes no sense," says Goldman.  "If your telephone
>> happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law.  If
>> not, you have none."

> Does the law specify how long, and what type this cord should be?
> Unfortunately, I'm only half joking.  But really, would a corded
> cordless phone be protected?  Ie, there is a cord on the phone, but
> the communication still involves the radio link between the hand set
> and the desk set.

I hope you're fully joking here.  The spirit of this law seems to be
(for better or for worse), that if you are broadcasting your conversa-
tions out into the universe on 46/49 MHz, you throw away your privacy.
It has nothing to do with the shape of your phone.  If the phone has a
cord, you might as well make the signals go through the cord and give
yourself some better quality.

I have a question about the Moto phone, does it use the same frequency
band, and if so, is it spread-spectrum or some other security digital
method?  Or is it just modulated analog signals with some sort of
error correction?


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] (John Yaya)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ben Cox)
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Bavarian Sears
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 23:00:55 GMT


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

> There is mentioned "El Paso Tel., Illinois not New Mexico".  El Paso
> is in Texas, not in New Mexico.


Actually, the relevant El Paso is in Illinois.


Ben Cox    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 22:15:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 27-Mar-92 Re: The Case for
Competitiv.. by Tony [e-mail].

> We all paid for directory assistance calls anyhow -- AT&T was never a
> charitable institution. Now the people who use directory assistance
> frequently are no longer subsidized by those who don't.

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, that's funny. When I said *exactly what you
> said* about why local measured service was fairer than flat rate, I
> got jumped by a dozen readers who disagreed the other way around.  PAT]

Whether flat rate or measured service is appropriate depends a lot on
the underlying cost structure for providing the service.  In the case
of directory assistance, (DA), historically the costs have dominated
by operator time, and therefore are proportional to the number of DA
inquiries.  The cost of local service has been dominated by the cost
of local loops and line cards at the CO -- costs which do not vary as
a function of minutes of use.  Thus usage sensitive pricing for DA
inquiries and flat rates for local service may both be economically
preferred.

It is instructive to extend this line of reasoning to a consideration
of new technologies.  For example, because cellular radio channels are
always *shared* by successive callers within a cell, virtually all the
physical resources needed to provide cellular service must be
increased as the number of call minutes increases.  Thus, the costs of
cellular service are far more proportional to call holding time than
are the costs of wireline service.  Accordingly, measured service may
well be the correct pricing structure for wireless while flat rate is
appropriate for wireline.

Of course, as technology drives costs down further and further, the
remaining costs will be dominated by operations costs: sales,
marketing and maintenance. Since most of these costs do not vary with
minutes of use, but only with the number of subscribers, we may yet
see flat rate cellular service someday.


Marvin Sirbu    Carnegie Mellon


[Moderator's Note: But interoffice circuits and the common equipment
used in the CO by all subscribers are finite in quantity. Granted, my
local loop and whatever line cards the CO has installed for my service
were probably amortized by telco long ago, but if I am (for example)
'war dialing' and grabbing the dial tone every few seconds; or
spending a lot of time chatting (or on the modem) with someone in
another CO, isn't this excessive use of limited resources a good
reason to require me to pay for what I use, rather than forcing
everyone to pay for a CO upgrade made necessary by only a few people?
The people who beef the most about flat rate local service going away
are the people who use more than what they are otherwise paying for.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 18:11:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark E Anderson)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: AT&T


> If these birds want to start *from scratch* and build it all
> themselves like telco did, then I support competition, but not
> otherwise.  PAT]

But the telco did not -build it all themselves-.  They inherited most
loops after the breakup of AT&T.  Now the RBOCs, which own most
telcos, want to get into equipment manufacturing and long distance.
This violates the original agreement and thus, the telcos should be
obligated to provide free access to those loops.

It probably is a little more complicated than that but the bottom line
here is that the RBOC's monopoly should be broken up much like AT&T's
was back in 1984.  Who has to pay who for what should be worked out by
the lawyers -- who will probably win in the end.


Mark Anderson

DISCLAIMER:  I work for AT&T but this message represents my own thoughts.
             AT&T never listens to what I have to say anyway.


[Moderator's Note: In my message, instead of saying 'telco' I should
have said 'AT&T' ... as in 'AT&T built it all themselves'. Go back and
read the message that way; see if you still disagree with me.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #279
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05079;
          28 Mar 92 23:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16971
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:07:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16477
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:07:25 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:07:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #280

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 22:07:25 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 280

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Kenneth R. Crudup)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect? (Steve Forrette)
    Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties? (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (Henry Troup)
    Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link (Chris Sowden)
    Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Brandon S. Allbery)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Dave Banisar)
    Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes (Roy M. Silvernail)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 19:38:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) says:

> Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?

As far as I can tell, no. I'm a Cellular None Boston user, too, and
when I dialed *611 and asked them about this, they said no, w/no
provisions to do so. If you want carrier X, I was told you dial "0"
and ask, (at higher rates, I'm sure).

> I recently found out that MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long
> distance calls for five years!

I can believe this ...


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    [e-mail]
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home [phone]     Home Fax [phone]

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

Date:  Fri, 27 Mar 1992 15:08:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?


Monty Solomon asks:

> Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?  Cellular One/Boston
> offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work.

In my recent response regarding cell one in Vermont I got into an
off-line discussion about this very issue.  Cellular seems to be
mysteriously absent from the legislation requiring aggregators and
operator services providers to offer unblocked 10xxx.

I wonder if the FCC deliberately ducked (since Congress didn't mention
it) or if it just got missed?  Anyone know?

At any rate, if they are "carriers" and don't offer operator services,
they are apparently clear, and they aren't in the aggregator class if
only because they aren't specifically listed.  However, the definition
seems to cover them: "Each entity that exercises control over
telephone equipment, whether through ownership of the equipment,
control of the access to the equipment, or some other means, will be
responsible as an "aggregator"..."

I think if I were a cellular customer, I'd write the FCC and complain.
It may at least draw a clarification from them.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 22:21:21 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When Do New Equal Access Rules Go Into Effect?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Are cellular phones required to support 10xxx?  Cellular One/Boston
> offers AT&T or MCI and 10xxx doesn't work.  I recently found out that
> MCI didn't bill any Cellular One long distance calls for five years!

I think that only the cellular companies that are run by an RBOC (or
have a certain percentage of stock owned by an RBOC) are subject to
this requirement.  My only experience with Equal Access from a
cellular carrier was with Cellular One of San Francisco, in which
Pacific Telesis has a minority ownership position.  They offer Equal
Access, but it is subject to some restrictions:

1.  The carriers must install dedicated facilities to the MTSO
(cellular equal access doesn't use the landline equal access
facilities).  As such, only the major carriers feel it's worthwhile to
install these facilities.  At first, only AT&T and MCI served Cellular
One SF.  A while later, US Sprint was added.

2.  10XXX is not available.  When I asked Cellular One SF if there was
a way to "select the long distance carrier on a per-call basis", and
after explaining it a couple more times so that she understood what I
meant, the response was "Why would anyone want to do that???"

3.  0+ always goes to AT&T, regardless of the 1+ selection.  While
this seems strange at first, it is actually what I wanted.  That way,
I could place calling card calls via AT&T while still have 1+ calls via
Sprint.  And since Sprint and MCI calling cards don't use 0+ dialing
for access, it's not unfairly denying the selected carrier from
calling card revenue.  (Also, I don't know why I would ever want to
talk to the Sprint operator for other than a calling card call: that's
about all they can help you with anyway.)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A curiosity just noted here:  Ameritech Mobile
lets customers select their default LD carrier. I have AT&T. When I
tried just now to use 10xxx, I found that 10288 + anything works just
fine, as it should. But 10222 and 10333 both were rejected.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 08:34:38 GMT


My recent enquiries about my school's switch from AT&T to Sprint got
me thinking ... there's this talk about equal access for payphone
providers and carriers having to provide 800 and 950 access and all.
But how would it apply to an organization such as my university?  I
called the telecom office today and was basically told I would have to
ask for an AT&T operator to use an AT&T calling card.  The guy didn't
even know what I was talking about when I mentioned 10ATT0.  At least
the Sprint operator knew what I was talking about.  She must have
checked something on her screen and informed me that it was not
possible to dial 10ATT0 from the phone I was using.

It's a pain in the butt that I have to dial an 800 number (CALL-ATT),
*then* the number I want to dial, *then* my card number ... yeesh.


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: Fri, 27 Mar 92 11:00:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Organization: Rolm Systems


Andrew M. Dunn writes:

> [e-mail] (David E. Martin) wrote:

>> I discovered a new way that hotels are rippping off business
>> travelers.  At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
>> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.

> But if you need to receive a FAX, it's cheaper by far than renting a
> FAX machine or bringing one with you.  It's only a rip-off if FAX
> service is something they're expected to provide (in the same category
> as towels, sheets and a reading lamp) and yet they charge an
> inordinate fee for it.

> Somebody's got to pay for the FAX machine, and the time for somebody
> to operate it, put paper in it and deliver all the messages!

Or, better yet, bring your notebook computer with you (which you
probably already do) and have an internal (or at least external) fax
modem on it.  Then hook it up to your phone in your room, and you can
receive the fax right there!  As long as you don't need a printout,
you can view it there and take whatever action is appropriate.  Or,
you can hook it up to any available printer (such as at the office you
are visiting) and print it just as you would any other fax printout.

This avoids the fax (ripoff) charge, and costs only the price of the
telephone call to your room, which they would have had to pay anyway.
Of course, this assumes that the hotels don't charge you for the
incoming phone call!  ;-)

One problem you might run into is if your caller's (secretary?) fax
machine can't deal with a manual call through the hotel switchboard,
with a transfer to your room.  Sorry, I don't have any ideas for
that ...


Mickey Ferguson -- Rolm Systems -- FergusoM at scrvm2 -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Bernholdt)
Subject: Re: Incoming FAX Charge at Hotel
Date: 27 Mar 92 21:48:37 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida


In article <[e-mail]> mongrel![e-mail]
(Andrew M. Dunn) writes:

> [e-mail] (David E. Martin) wrote:

>> At the hotel I am currently staying at (Bahia Hotel, San
>> Diego), they charge $4.50 plus tax for every incoming FAX.

> Yup, it's expensive.  But I submit that it's not a 'rip-off'.
> [... deleted stuf ...]
> Somebody's got to pay for the FAX machine, and the time for somebody
> to operate it, put paper in it and deliver all the messages!

Two issues: The cost to the guest versus bringing his own FAX machine,
and the cost to the hotel to provide the service compared to what they
charge.

At $4.50/incoming FAX, it doesn't take too long for it to become
economical for the company to provide a portable FAX to the traveller.
If a FAX machine costs $2000, its only a few hundred faxes. Not
unreasonable over the course of a year or two, if the machine is
shared among travellers to obtain high usage.

So how much does it _really_ cost?  Here is a (very) rough estimate:

We buy FAX paper at $10/roll, 328 feet per roll.  For simplicity, say
each page of incoming FAX requires 1 foot, so you get $0.03/page for
paper.

I figure personnel time comes to maybe five minutes per document.
That means picking up the incoming fax, putting it wherever messages
for guests are put, and notifying the guest (turning on the little
message light on the phone).  That should really be pretty quick.
Occasionally, the paper must be loaded, etc., which I've factored in
to the per-document cost.  I don't know how much a desk clerk costs
the hotel, but lets try $20/hour or $40/hour. The five minutes/document
comes to $1.67 or $3.33.

The other factor is depreciation of the FAX machine itself.  If the
machine costs $2000 and has an expected life of 20,000 incoming pages
(which is probably low -- only 60 rolls), the cost is $0.10/page.

Put this all togther and you get $1.67-$3.33/document plus $0.13/page,
and I suspect I've been pretty generous.  I recently was at a place
that charged $2 for the first page and $1/page thereafter.  The first
page costs there suggest to me that my per-document costs should be
more toward the low end of the range I gave.

To cost $4.50, by my accounting, there should be 9 - 21 incoming pages
(depending on the per-document cost).  And it seems pretty clear that
the $1/page charge I encountered is about FIVE TIMES more than the
cost.

In my book, this _is_ a rip-off, in the same way that many hotel
telecom policies (charges) are a rip-off -- they are charging _much_
more than their costs.


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Date: 26 Mar 92 10:15:00 EST
From: Henry (H.W.) Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet?


I attempted a call to NPA 706, both from the office SL100 and from my
home number (Ottawa, Canada).  Neither works yet. According to Bell
Canada, calling to 706 will not be available until May 3rd.


Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 18:34 GMT
From: Chris Sowden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Drop-Outs on International Link
Reply-To: [e-mail]


There are two devices that I know of that might cause the
"voice-operated relay" effect: echo suppressors (ES) and digital
circuit multiplication equipment (DCME).  I think DCME is the most
likely cause.

An echo suppressor is a device that sits on a trunk (with separate
send/receive pairs) and makes use of the fact that, during most
conversations, only one person talks at a time.  When the ES detects
speech energy on one pair, it heavily attenuates the signal on the
other pair.  This stops an echo returning to the speaker.  When no-one
speaks, both pairs are left un-attenuated.  The voice-operated relay
effect occurs when both parties try to speak at once (double-talk) or
too quickly one after the other.

A better device for controlling echo is an echo-canceller (EC).  This
is a much more complex device than an echo-suppressor and works quite
differently.  The EC estimates the echo by comparing the signals on
the send and receive pairs.  It then continuously subtracts this
estimate from the send pair thus removing the echo but allowing actual
speech to pass through.  There is no voice-operated relay effect when
an echo-canceller is used.

It is possible to disable both ESs and ECs but they will automatically
cut back in during any short silent period.

Digital circuit multiplication equipment (DCME) is used to concentrate
a number of calls onto a smaller number of trunks.  It does this by
using Low Rate Encoding (LRE = compression) and Digital Speech
Interpolation (DSI).  With DSI, a call is dynamically allocated a
trunk only when there is speech to be carried.  During periods of
silence, no trunk is allocated.  Although DSI is specified to cause
minimal clipping of speech, the dynamic allocation of trunks on a busy
route will produce a voice-operated relay effect.

I think DCME is quite widely used on international circuits.


Chris Sowden

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 20:56:20 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Subject: Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail].
org (Gordon Burditt):

>  - Turn off auto-answer.
>  - Lock interface speed at 300 baud.
>  - Program the number directory to contain the number of someone
>    you wish to annoy or something expensive (Saddam's personal residence?),
>    then activate the option to dial out whenever DTR goes from OFF to ON.
>  - And, of course, writing the obnoxious parameters into all of the saved
>    configurations.

> Denial-of-service attacks are easy.  Running up big phone bills is possible.

> [Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need
> the system password for the other modem.   PAT]

Older Telebit modems don't have system passwords.  Remote operations
can be performed on the T1000 in PEP mode (if enabled, of course); the
T1000 has no "system password", so if I enabled it then anyone could
reprogram my T1000.  Of course, since I leave that disabled and the
modem is not set to auto answer, it's not a problem for me in
practice.

We realized this potential problem when we (Telotech) started using
Telebit modems; we immediately made it policy to leave the remote
access mode OFF at all times.


Brandon

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Banisar)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 20:36:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
M. Hoffman) writes:>

> Yea, I picked up one of these gizmos back in December and while the
> encription is very nice to have, it much clearer than most cordless

Umm, encryption? Thats' a bit of a misnomer, from what I've seen. Its
"encryption" is actually just the fact that it is digitallly
transmitted rather than the usual analog. Anyone with a D/A converter
can "crack" it.


David A. Banisar
Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility

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

Subject: Re: RS-232 Breakout Boxes
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 10:45:14 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman) writes:

[about RS-232 breakout boxes]

> It's the only really valuable thing I have ever found at Radio Shack.

Radio Shack has one other useful item ... they sell a splitter jack
that plugs into a modular phone jack and gives you seperate jacks for
line one and line two (with the line two jack translated to the center
pair on the modular), as well as a pass-through jack with both pairs.
I have three of them, and they are _extremely_ handy!


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #280
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06441;
          29 Mar 92 0:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03427
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:48:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04032
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:47:58 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:47:58 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #281

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 22:48:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 281

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Panasonic PBX Information Request (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Rob Warnock)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Bill Sohl)
    Re: Hold Music Sponsorship (Michael Rosen)
    Re: 911 Source Identification (Ken Abrams)
    Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Monty Solomon)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Ron Schnell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Panasonic PBX Information Request
Date: 27 Mar 92 02:27:10 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Back a while in this digest, someone posted re a Panasonic (I believe)
> system that was a couple thousand for 32 lines and was rather nicely

There are TWO Panasonics! One makes digital phones, and sells through
selected dealers who are expected to meet quotas or be dumped, and who
tries to control too much.

The OTHER division makes the analog KSUs everyone here chatters about.
Just so you don't get confused by accidentally shopping at the wrong
dealer.

The 3x8, 6x16, and 12x32 sizes were 'it' until recently. The first two
come fully equipped, the last comes 4x16 and expands with cheap plug-in
cards.

They used to have three seperate series of almost identical phones,
one for each KSU. Each only differed by a few buttons added or left
off, and $5 - $15 was all you could save by buying the stripped down
set.

This added confusion when users wanted to upgrade to a bigger KSU and
lost access to something they really should have had a button for.

Distributors had to hassle with too many different sets, also.

Now they will ONLY make the newer 7000 series sets (except a few
specials such as the integrated phone/dss box for the 3x8 system), and
they will work on ALL KSUs.

Additionally, there is now an expansion path BEYOND 32 stations. You
keep the sets, and the new KSU modularly goes up to 292 ports.

All station ports NOW take proprietary and POTS phones SIMULTANEOUSLY
rather than either/or as before. You can connect your modem on the
same port as your proprietary speaker phone simply using a modular Y.

Actually that IS true on these three small size KSUs, but on the BIG
box, there are optionally cheaper plugin cards that ONLY do
proprietary or only POTS. The dual mode cards don't really cost that
much more, but sometimes you need to be CHEAP.

I once did a FULL 12x32 configuration with one proprietary full
featured phone for programming and the receptionist, and the other 31
sets were 2500 sets. Total cost wholesale? $3000.

There are many other brands that are a LOT less $s, but are not as
user accessible or friendly.

Greybar, Anixter, AllTel, North, TW Comm, etc all should have these
Panasonic units in stock. If they fail (you will have to work very
hard at being a dumb end user to not be able to buy 'wholesale' ...),
places like Lechemere Sales are authorized to sell the WHOLE product
line, even though they normally stock only one and two line phones and
answering machines.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 11:39:19 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:

> I haven't figured out (why have two network interfaces, A U and ST)?
> except: With a U interface, you can't just "add extension phones";
> only one device can be on the pair at each end, not true with ST
> interface.

Exactly! You can have up to seven interfaces multi-dropped on the S/T
interface!

All seven can be sharing the "D" channel at the same time
(interleaving packets), though only two of them can be using the "B"
channels at once. That is, if you have a phone, a computer, a burglar
alarm, and a credit-card verifier [to pick a set of things at random]
multi-dropped off the S/T interface of *one* ISDN "Basic Rate" line,
the phone can be doing 64kb/s PCM voice on one "B" channel while the
computer is doing (in the US) 56kb/s full-duplex binary data (e.g.,
TCP/IP/PPP/V.110) over the other "B" channel while *both* the burglar
alarm and the the credit-card verifier are sending X.25 packets
occasionally on the 16kb/s "D" channel.

By the way, it's all done with bit-level TDM. The S/T interface is a
nice, "simple" binary-level (AMI, actually) four-wire interface,
running at 192kb/s (*regardless* of whatever your local phone company
runs on the "U" side), with a fixed-format frame of 48 bits per 250
microseconds in each direction, all nicely synchronous to the 8000 Hz
basic PCM sampling rate. The 48-bit frame contains two 8-bit bytes for
each of the two "B" channels, four bits for the D channel, four
D-channel "echo" bits (used to handle contention, see below), and
eight other bits for framing, "multiframe", DC-balancing,
"activation", etc.

The NT->TE (CO to you) direction is continuous; the TE->NT direction
is time-shared by the various terminal adapters on the bus by
tri-stating themselves except when they are driving *exactly* at the
time allocated to them. The frame formats in the two directions are
*slightly* different.  In particular, in the TE->NT direction, the "L"
(DC-balancing) bits adjust the AMI code before and after each "D" bit
so that the "D" bits can all be driven in the same direction
(negative, as it happens) or zero, instead of sometimes positive,
zero, or negative as is usual for AMI coding. Through very careful
synchronization, this allows "wired-OR" transmission of the "D" bits.
That is, the TE->NT "D" channel is a "wired-OR bus".

There is a protocol for contention resolution on the "D" channel,
which depends on the fact that the NT "echos" each incoming "D" bit in
the next available outgoing "E" ("D-channel Echo") bit. This serves
two purposes: Each TE (terminal, phone, whatever) can see from the "E"
bits whether another TE is already sending, and also each TE monitors
the "E" bits while it's sending to make sure that the echo matches
what it sent -- if it doesn't, it presumes there was a collision.
There's a whole priority and backoff scheme that's involved, but the
basic idea is that the "D" channel -- actually, just those time
positions in the synchronous 48-bit frame that are the "D" bits -- is
a sort of "LAN", which it probably doesn't hurt to think of as vaguely
similar to a 16kb/s "Ethernet". (*Gaaack!* Very rough analogy, I know.
The access protocol is very different, but you get the idea.)

Finally, by building devices to the S/T interface, vendors are pretty
much insulated from future technology changes in the "U" interface.
Given that, and given that the "NT1" box that converts "U" to "S/T" is
only about $100 (and will probably get cheaper!), you can understand
why almost nobody connects directly to the "U" interface (except NT
boxes and COs).

[Information above very loosely adapted from "ISDN Systems:
Architecture, Technology, and Applications", edited by Pramode K.
Verma, Prentice-Hall 1990, Chapter 3, "ISDN Physical Interfaces", by
Ryoichi Komiya (NTT). Any gross mistakes are probably mine.]


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 12:38:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marco S
Hyman) writes:

> Common forms of rate adaption in the ISDN world are:

Add:

T-Link:    Northern Telecom's proprietary (although licenceable) rate
    adaption scheme.  Used for many years now in their PBX and Centrex
    data units.  Forward error correction is used in asynchronous mode,
    the data is duplicated until it almost fills the bit stream and then
    padded.  Also handles synchronous mode up to 64Kb.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: dancer![e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Reply-To: dancer![e-mail] ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 15:07:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> b11![e-mail].
com writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (George S Thurman) writes:

> (Discussion of IRS and cordless phone eavesdropping deleted.)

>> "The current law makes no sense," says Goldman.  "If your telephone
>> happens to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law.  If
>> not, you have none."

Even if the law is changed, anyone that believes a law will guarantee
your privacy is woefully ill informed.  Making something illegal does
not eliminate "eavesdropping".  The only improvement to cordless
security is encryption.  There are thousands of radio receivers
available in the marketplace that can receive cordless frequencies.
Indeed, there are probably hundreds of thousands already in people's
hands.  Does anyone really think that by saying do not listen to the
frequencies in the 49 mhz range that all those people are never going
to doi it.

The only thing a law will do is eliminate the opportunity to obtain
evidence by such eavedropping on the part of law enforcement, etc.  No
law will eliminate your neighbor's kid listening to you talk on the
cordless phone over his scanner.

Now there is a school of thought, especially by the cellular folks,
that manufacture and sale of radio equipment (scanners, etc.) that can
receive cellular should be illegal.  I totally disagree.  The radio
spectrum is there for anyone to tune in to.  If you want protection,
encrypt your transmissions.  This country has a long history of
unbridled availability of all types of electronic equipment (radios,
etc.) and I don't want to see us taking on the aspects of totalitarian
regimes whereby anyone has to be concerned that any electronic
equipment they legally own (or can purchase) today might become
"illegal" to own and/or operate.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Hold Music Sponsorship
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 16:48:06 GMT


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

> If I am going to have to listen to music (and I DO prefer classical
> over "cover" instrumental versions of popular songs -- otherwise known
> as elevator music), then let me listen to the bloody music without
> interruption. If the interval on hold is to be used for advertising,
> then just give me a steady stream of advertising. Then I can just turn
> my brain off.

Ok, I'll have to side with you here, I guess I would prefer the
classical over the Muzak garbage.  I guess they won't play progressive
music just for me...:) But my point was that I've never heard of
another company sponsoring someone else's hold music, it just struck
me as being very humorous.


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] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:02:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu.mu.edu writes:

> naturally assumed that without Caller-ID, which as the Globe and all
> the rest of us know is the mechanism for Enhanced 911, NET would just
> scrap all its plans for Enhanced 911 and justifiably blame the privacy
> freaks.  Gee -- they must've found another way!

As is the case with most assumptions and many of the things that "all
the rest of us know", it is NOT true that E911 and caller ID are in
any way related, from a technical perspective at least.  Although the
end result is about the same (making the callers number available to
the called party), the mechanism that is used to make this happen is
quite different.  Ergo, you can have E911 without CID and you can have
CID without E911.  They are seperate issues, except maybe in a legal
sense.


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 15:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Cell One/Vermont and New AT&T Card


My recent post received multiple comments (primarily from AT&T
employees.  Every one disagreed with this statement regarding AT&T's
new calling card:

> 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?

Most of the disagreement was rooted in the fact that readers didn't
recognize that I wasn't referring to the current situation, but the
situation that existed before Judge Greene ordered PAY PHONES to go
equal access, which, I believe, was after the general divestiture.

I did make an error, however.  I did not know that before pay phones
went equal access that they were PICd randomly to vendors, based on
the local market share of that vendor.  Durham was not an equal access
office until about three years ago, so all our payphones were AT&T
after divestiture.  I mistakenly assumed that this was the case
everywhere.

Other than that gracious retraction, I stand by my original opinions.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 04:29:34 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver


> AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver".

> It is $10 for 60 minutes each month and $0.20/min for calls during the
> day and $0.11/min for calls after 5 PM.  Depending upon your state you
> also get a 5% discount on intrastate long distance calls.  They are
> also currently waiving the $5.00 sign up fee.

> They use the most expensive calls towards filling the included 60
> minutes.

> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty
> minutes to fill the prepaid hour?  I was told they use the first sixty
> minutes, in whatever order they may be.   PAT]

Yes, it is definately the most expensive sixty minutes and not the
first sixty.  I obtained this information from AT&T at 1 800 REACH
OUT.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 22:08:41 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver".

> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty
> minutes to fill the prepaid hour?  I was told they use the first sixty
> minutes, in whatever order they may be.   PAT]

Monty is correct.  It is documented to be the most expensive sixty
minutes.  I don't know why anyone would still use ROA when they can
use this new plan.


Ron

[Moderator's Note: Oh, absolutely. In fact, I shall call and change my
service to this plan from ROA. Now, if only Ameritech Mobile would do
it the same way with their bulk time packages instead of accumulating
the minutes of usage as they occur. My luck always seems to be I use
up my 40 minutes per month with off-peak minutes and wind up paying
extra for daytime minutes!  :(   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #281
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08659;
          29 Mar 92 1:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10787
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 23:29:00 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19774
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 28 Mar 1992 23:28:45 -0600
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 23:28:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #282

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Mar 92 23:28:45 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 282

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Letter to McCaw, re: Voicemail (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Washington State Caller ID Decision (Seattle PI via David W. Barts)
    900 Service in Germany ([e-mail])
    CFV rec.radio.broadcasting (Bill Pfeiffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28-MAR-1992 06:13:00.79
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Letter to McCaw, re: Voicemail


After hearing of and investigating into the recent implementation of
the "Do Not Disturb" feature for Cell One/NY customers (see my last
post about *35/350), I have decided to write to McCaw to inform them
of how displeased I am about it.

Here then is my letter. I urge any other NY-based customers who are
affected or feel that in the future they may be affected by these
changes to write to either McCaw or Cell One/NY as well. McCaw
customers from other Ericssons may also wish to write about the
unavailability of voicemail in the North American Cellular Network.


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


Dear Sir,

I recently received multiple copies on a "Reference" card issued by
Cellular One of New York. It pertains to the implementation of the "Do
Not Disturb" feature for New York subscribers who travel to states in
Southern New England.

As a long-time McCaw-Cellular One subscriber with accounts on both
coasts of the nation, I am quite disturbed by its contents. If I may
briefly quote from it:

"Deposit of Messages: ... Press *35 and the send button. All calls
will be forwarded to your Voice Mail service while this feature is
active. To continue to receive incoming calls only in [New England],
you must press *350 and the send button."

The letter is then sardonically concluded by: "We hope these changes
in using your Voice Mail in these three states will not present and
inconvenience to you."

My question thus becomes: "How COULDN'T they!?" My associates, family
and friends regularly travel between New York and the lower New
England states affected by this new "feature", and communicate via
cellular. With the lack of any form of user-controlled "No-Answer-
Transfer" for NY customers, the only other alternate method by which
unanswered calls to the cellular unit can be answered is via Voice
Mail.

I personally rely quite heavily on Cellular One/NY's Voice Mail
service. Yet this new "feature" is unduly burdensome. I must always
remember to press *35 when I leave my vehicle, and *350 when I return.
Should I forget to enter *35 when I leave my car, I will miss
potentially important messages; should I fail to enter *350 upon
re-entering the car, I may miss potentially important calls.
Moreover, if call-delivery in enabled (*350) into Connecticut or other
New England systems, and I drive into a "dead spot", call-delivery to
my unit will fail, yet unlike before, the call will not then go to my
voicemail for later retrieval. This situation is unacceptable.

We have withstood what can best be described as a blundered attempt at
a switch conversion in July of 1991. We have tolerated the lack of
previously available features outside of the NY (Ericsson) system. And
we have put up with the constant outages in call-delivery to New York
customers WHO ARE IN THE NEW YORK SYSTEM during the night and on
weekends while maintenance takes place.

Although terribly annoying and inconvenient, it was promised that
eventually such outages, failures, and reductions in service as
described above would be eliminated, and a new, higher grade of
service provided.

Well, I am pleased to say (and you must be aware of this as well) that
the features have returned to the Metro Mobile and Cellular One/New
Jersey systems, and the nighttime and weekend outages have slightly
diminished. I am also pleased to say that I find your staff in New
York to be skilled, polite, and eager to correct difficulties as they
arise. They are to be commended for their efforts.

However, this most recent development regarding the "*35" feature
dramatically bifurcates the progress you are making. On one hand,
connectivity is being increased, yet on the other, services which my
associates and myself depend upon, such as voicemail, are having their
utility diminished.

It is bad enough that voicemail is not available through the North
American Cellular Network, so that calls to my phone while I am in
another McCaw-Cellular One system will go unanswered. Yet to destroy a
feature which has worked between New York and Southern New England for
a good period of time goes beyond inconvenience and smacks at utter
absurdity.

I am aware that on April 1st, the date of this "feature's"
implementation, Metro Mobile will be officially controlled by Bell
Atlantic, which invites some difficult questions in terms of
interconnectivity and toll charges between systems. Yet I would
consider you to be a poor businessman if you had just spent a good
deal of your company's resources on the purchase of switching
equipment and associated technologies which can not even handle such a
basic problem. If I can work out a similar system with an ISDN
interface and a off-the-shelf PC, I would think your firm can fathom
and implement a solution to any technical/regulatory problems which
may arise.

McCaw boasts that it wishes to achieve single number service, yet this
newest feature in the New York system is an obvious step back in the
wrong direction.

Thus, I hope the issues raised herein are addressed, so that the *35
"feature" in terms of voicemail is not needed.

Should you or any members of you staff have any questions or a need to
contact me, please call my New York mobile number listed below. And
should you have any trouble reaching me while I am out of the vehicle
or in a poor coverage area, well, I'll consider that to be the finest
demonstration of my point.

Very Truly Yours,

Douglas Scott Reuben
RSD/NY

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 12:36:36 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington State Caller ID Decision


[I came across this on a local mailing list I subscribe to, and
thought it would be of interest to TELECOM Digest readers.  -David B.]

 From the {Seattle Post-Intelligencer}, March 26, 1992 -

        PRIVACY WINS OVER CALLER ID
      Phone companies must offer free blocking service
        P-I Staff and News Services

OLYMPIA - Telephone companies offering caller-identification service
must also offer callers -- free of charge -- the ability to block
display of their number or location, a state commission ruled
yesterday.

    The ruling by the Utilities and Transportation Commission came
over vigorous protest from telephone companies seeking to provide
called-ID service, which uses special phones equipped with display
monitors to identify the source of incoming calls.

    The companies said an offer of free line-blocking, or automatic
blocking of the caller's name or number, would doom called-ID service.

    "Washington has just adopted the most constrictive and
conservative regulation on called ID in the nation.," said Lisa
Bowersock, spokeswoman for US West in Seattle.

    Companies such as US West wanted permission to charge a monthly or
flat rate for a line block, while offering a "per-call" blocking
ability for free.

    They said they believe a fee for line-blocking -- $2.50 a month was
mentioned -- would sift out those who do not care if they are
identified.

    At least one company, GTE Northwest, said it would not operate in
Washington if the commission adopted the rule approved yesterday.

    US West is currently installing the system in Denver and Phoenix,
then will look at expansion into other areas.  Bowersock said.  "With
today's ruling, Washington will have a very low priority", she said.

    "There's no incentive for the company to introduce the service,"
she added.  "The regulations adopted today won't even allow companies
to recover the costs of line-blocking for individual customer".

    Caller ID is not available now in Washington, though the
commission next month will consider a request from Pacific Telecom
Inc. to offer the service in the Gig Harbor area.

    Caller ID is seen by some law enforcement officials and other as a
means of identifying the source of harassing or obscene telephone
calls. Those resisting the technology say it raises concerns about
callers' privacy rights.

    In hearings around the state, people said they wanted their
privacy considered before the needs of advancing telephone technology,
commission Chairwoman Sharon Nelson told telephone officials at
yesterday`'s proceedings.

    The 1991 Legislature approved a change in the state's privacy
statute permitting caller ID service after the commission pledged to
protect the privacy of callers.

    "We made a promise in good faith," said Commissioner A.J. Pardini
before the three-member panel voted unanimously for the regulation.

    But telephone officials said the commission was going too far when
it refused to allow a fee for line-blocking service.

    If line-blocking is free, they said, people who buy called-ID
equipment will get too many calls in which identifications are blocked
and will not sufficiently benefit from the service to make it viable.

    That remains to be seen, the commission countered.  "There are too
many unknowns," said Commissioner Richard Casad.  He added that the
best course was to come down on the side of callers.

    Industry officials argued that free per-call blocking service --
in which the called dials three digits before making the call -- has
worked well in other states and provides enough protection for those
who do not want their number disclosed.

    The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and the
Washington State Patrol both said they favored charging for the
line-block to ensure it was not overused.  Law enforcement is a major
supporter of caller-ID technology, believing that when it is widely
used the incidence of harassing and obscene telephone calls will fall.


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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 00:19
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 Service in Germany


While Germany is one of the world's largest market economies it still
believes in a command economy in the field of telecommunications. So
there is no competition. And everybody knows the results from the lack
of competition. The results are that many services that are common to
most subscribers in the USA and elsewhere are not available in
Germany.

One example of such a lack of modern service is what is called 900
service in the USA. This service is not commonly available to all
subscribers in Germany. There is just a field test of 900 service in a
limited area of Germany. And there are no definite plans for the
general availability of this service. But there is a market in Germany
for such services. And someone had a brilliant idea to offer this
service without the need to operate a special network in Germany.

Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
just call a foreign phone number. By browsing through some women's
magazines I found the number 001- (access code for the US from
Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask
how the provider of such services will get any money from you?  That
is quite difficult to explain but I try.

When you call a foreign country your call will be routed through dif-
ferent networks via different links (undersea cables, sats.). And
every operator of such networks and links will charge your domestic
operator for that service. So you have to pay for the domestic call to
the international gateway. Then you have to pay for the link to the
USA via cable or satellite. Then you have to pay for the long distance
call within the US to the desired phone subscriber. And the idea is
now that parts of these charges will be transfered to the service
provider.

This scheme works but it has several serious disadvantages. First of
all the voice quality is quite poor compared to domestic phone calls.
The second reason is that the ratio of what you have to pay for the
international phone call compared to what the service provider
receives is quite high. But that is quite obvious since the plain
telephone charges are much higher for an international link than for a
domestic phone call. So the customer has to pay high charges but the
service provider does not get much of it. And this results that the
quality of such services tend to be low.

After all the scheme works but it is just another sign that the German
network operator Deutsche Bundespost TELEKOM is not able to keep up
with the customer demands.

Any suggestions?

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: CFV rec.radio.broadcasting
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 07:57:54 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX


This is a Call For Votes on the creation of a new Usenet newsgroup
entitled 'rec.radio.broadcasting.

STATUS:      Moderated.

PURPOSE: This group will be for the discussion of a wide variety of
subjects pertaining to the general arena of domestic radio
broadcasting.  Topics of discussion might include (but not be limited
to): Programming, Engineering/Technical, Radio news and political
coverage, Challenges of secondary market stations, Innovations and
legislation affecting the media, Historical and cultural significance,
Network radio, Domestic pirate broadcasting, Differences and
similarities in 'domestic' radio of various nations, General items of
interest to broadcast professionals, hopefulls, affectionados, and
casual listeners, Assistance to those desiring to enter the industry
by providing a 'networking' infrastructure.

REASONS: Everybody listens to the radio.  It influences our lives, our
political beliefs, musical tastes, purchasing habits, and (hopefully)
stimulates our imagination.  Radio, in it's many forms, is pervasive.
It is the only mass media in which one can fully participate while
engaged in another activity.  Amazingly, there is no Usenet newsgroup
dedicated to the overall topic of radio broadcasting.

LIMITS:     I do not envision rec.radio.broadcasting to be a replacement
for such groups as rec.radio.noncomm or rec.radio.shortwave. Rec.radio
broadcasting (r.r.b) would try to avoid dealing with subjects which
are directly and _specifically_ related to the charter(s) of these
groups, but will gladly cover _any_ subject which has significance to
radio broadcasting in general, even if it involves noncommercial or
shortwave stations.  R.r.b would be likely to shy away from
discussions (flame wars) about specific performers and bands, except
as it pertains to radio programming and formats (there are many .music
groups on the net for such discussions).

MODERATION: I have proposed this as a moderated group.  I have also
volunteered to serve as that moderator.  I believe in a very
'light-handed' approach to moderation.  Basically no more than a
buffer, re-directing misplaced articles, attempting to quell excessive
'free-for-all-flame-fests' :-), and trying to keep the signal/noise
ratio on the 'signal' side :-).  *** I AM NOT A CENSOR ***.  I will
NEVER kill an article because it clashes with my beliefs or opinions!
In addition, I have my own dedicated Unix system with it's own direct
Internet e-mail feed, I have time and energy to dedicate to the
project, I have had a life-long involvement with radio and
communication, plus the wise counsel and support of many in the
industry, and on the net.

HOW TO VOTE:

TO VOTE YES, SEND E-MAIL TO '[e-mail]'  (OMIT THE QUOTES)
TO VOTE NO,  SEND E-MAIL TO '[e-mail]'

Only votes sent by e-mail, to the above address will be counted!  Do
not respond directly to this post.  Voting will end on 4/30/92.  No
conditional votes will be accepted.  Votes should have a line in the
subject or body of the letter stating clear intent, such as "I vote
yes on rec.radio.broadcasting as proposed" or "I vote no on
rec.radio.broadcasting as proposed", or some similar non-ambiguous
statement.  Mass acknowledgements, and possible re-posts of this CFV
will appear from time to time in news.announce.newgroups and
news.groups as well as other related newsgroups.  Vote counts will be
verified (if needed) by the sysadmin at the 'gagme' site.

If anyone desires direct corespondence with me on this subject, please
write to me at my personal e-mail address '[e-mail]'.
However, I will not enter into any discussion of vote totals or
projections while the vote is underway.

** VOTES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE 'AIRWAVES' ADDRESS! ***

(Exception to above rule: If your vote bounces, send it, and the
entire bounced header, to me at airwaves, and it will be included).

Thanks to those who expressed support.


Respectfully,

William Pfeiffer
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #282
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02098;
          29 Mar 92 12:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04784
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 10:22:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03693
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 10:21:55 -0600
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 10:21:55 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #283

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Mar 92 10:21:53 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 283

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How an '800' Number Call Can Cost $15.60 (NY Times via Monty Solomon)
    Bell Canada and Third-Number Billing (Bell News via Nigel Allen)
    800 Number Portability (Doug Zolmer)
    Advice Sought on Possible Cell Phone Purchase (Lenny Tropiano)
    How Does it Work? (Rajesh B. Desai)
    My School's Switch to Sprint (Michael Rosen)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Brian Moffet)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Jim Rees)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 23:24:14 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: How an '800' Number Call Can Cost $15.60


There are a couple of articles in the Saturday 3/28/92 issue of the
{New York Times} which will probably interest readers.

On pp 50 is an article entitled "Sharing of Credit Card Numbers by
Merchants Brings New Fears of Fraud."

On pp 52 is an article entitled "How an '800' Call Can Cost $15.60"
which describes some of the abuses that have been discussed here.
Some excerpts:

 ...

Here's how the "800"-number promotion works.  Postcards are mailed to
consumers telling them they have won a prize.  They are told that they
can find out what they won with a toll-free call to the "800" number
printed on the card.  Those who call are connected with a computerized
voice, which tells them to remain on the phone and follow
instructions.  They are warned that they will be billed for this
service.

But many callers stay on the line despite the warning because they
don't expect to pay for an "800" call no matter what the warning says
or because the instructions confuse them.  Those who stay on are asked
by the voice to punch in the 12-digit identification or control code
printed on their postcard.  It also requests their telephone numbers
and ZIP codes before it reveals their award.

 ...

Sweepstakes Clearinghouse denies that it did anything wrong.  William
M. Parrish of the Austin, Tex., law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist, which
represents the company, said callers "are not being billed for an
'800' call on their telephone number; they're being billed based on
the use of an automated information service."

 ...

The Federal Communications Commission is studying the "800" promotion
after receiving inquiries.  "We have an investigation going on to see
if this is a violation of an F.C.C. rule," said Robert W. Spangler, a
deputy chief in the commission's enforcement division.

The Federal Trade Commission has been contacted by state officials
about the complaints against the promotion.  "If you wind up getting
one of these bills and feel defrauded, don't pay," said Dan Salsburg,
a commission attorney.

                           ----------

Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
roscom![e-mail]

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

Subject: Bell Canada and Third-Number Billing
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 00:23:37 -0500


Bell Canada begins verification of third-number billing

(from Bell News, Quebec Region, March 23, 1992)

     Since March 19, Bell Canada has been ensuring that all charges on
long distance calls billed to a third number are accepted at that
number before the call goes though. If no one is available to accept
the charges, there will still be several options for customers,
including billing their call to a Bell Calling Card, dialing directly
or calling collect.

     This procedure is already in effect for collect calls and calls
billed to a third number originating from a public telephone. The new
measure was introduced to protect customers, and Bell, against
fraudently billed calls. This type of fraud has increased sharply over
the past few months. Calls billed to a third number represent less
than two percent of the long distance calls routed in Bell Canada's
territory.

    The company recommends that people who frequently bill their long
distance calls to a third number use a Calling Card instead.  The
rates for using a Calling Card are less than those of billing a third
number.

[Note from NDA: I wish that Bell had provided advance warning of this
change. I have had a long distance calling card for years, but many
people still don't have one. In light of this, you may want to
encourage friends and relatives to get calling cards if they don't
already have one.]

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

Date: 27 Mar 92 12:28:00 EST
From: Doug (D.W.J.) Zolmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Portability


I was looking through some very old articles from comp.dcom.telecom,
and I came upon the following written by J. Philip Miller:

> And, toward the future -- with its eventual operation pending
> regulatory approval -- Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), the
> regional Bell operating companies' joint R&D arm, is developing a
> database that could put all 800 numbers into a central system.  That
> would allow businesses to switch 800 suppliers without changing their
> 800 numbers -- saving them costly revisions in their advertising and
> marketing copy, for example -- and 800 calls to be routed to different
> numbers per time of day or week or caller location, a big booon to
> telemarketing efforts.  "It would free companies to shop for the best
> 800 service price," figures Dan Winters, SWBT's St. Louis based area
> manager for access product management, "without having to go through
> the hassle of completely changing their number."

> Anyone know more information about this proposal?  Is it based on a
> centralized database where every switch in the country would have to
> query it in order to complete each 800 call, or is it distributed to
> each switch or ...?

Here in Canada, the various telephone companies all belong to an
organization known (previously) as Telecom Canada (now known as
Stentor).  Telecom Canada is the "grand overseer" of long distance
(both national and international) telephone services.  Automated
Calling Card Service (ACCS), Billed Number Screening (BNS) and 800
Services are all overseen by Telecom Canada as well.

Canada's CCS7 network is made up of approximately 55 Service Switching
Points (SSPs, owned by the various local telephone companies), eight
Signaling Transfer Points (STPs, owned by the various local telephone
companies) and three Service Control Points (SCPs).  One of the SCPs
is located in Calgary.  It is owned by Alberta Government Telephones
and is responsible for routing half of all Automated Calling Card
Service (ACCS) calls and half of all Billed Number Screening (BNS)
calls for the entire country.  The other two SCPs are located in
Toronto.  They are owned by Bell Canada.  One is used for the other
half of all ACCS and BNS calls, and the other is used for all 800
number calls.

All of the local telephone companies have an agreement that allows
them to share all the resources in the CCS7 network.  This means that
no matter where the call originates from, ACCS, BNS and 800 Services
are available.

By having a centralized 800 database, we already support 800 number
portability between the various 800 services vendors.  We also support
a number of features that work for ANY 800 number; for example:
routing based on time-of-day or day-of-week, of on statutory or
customer-defined holiday, or on the NPA of the caller's telephone
number, or on the NPA-NXX of the caller's telephone number and others.

Such an agreement will have to exist in the United States before
number portability ever gets off the ground.  With all the players
involved in the U.S., I'm skeptical that this will happen anytime
soon.  One other thing: the 800 service on the SCP here in Canada is
already capable of handling number portability for U.S. owned 800
numbers.  We're just waiting for you guys.


Doug Zolmer    Work: [e-mail]      Play: [e-mail]
    I don't speak for Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (and vice versa)

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

Subject: Advice Sought on Possible Cell Phone Purchase
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 17:26:34 CST
From: [e-mail] (Lenny Tropiano)


Do you have programming information for cellular phones, especially
the common Motorola .8mw handheld phones?  I'm thinking of getting
one, and they have a deal here, buy one phone at $99, get another for
$1 (two numbers).  Programming $25, Connection fee $20.  No monthly
fee, $.28/min peak, $.17/min off-peak -- minimum sign-on six months.
No minimum usage necessary (since this is connected injunction with a
GTE commercial account).

In theory, I buy the phone, don't use it for six months and get no
bills.

What do you think about the deal?

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

From: [e-mail] (Rajesh B. Desai)
Subject: How Does it Work?
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 22:28:52 GMT


    I'm trying to figure out how a cellular phone connection
mechanism works. I guess it's easy to understand what happen's when
the person who has got a cellular phone, originates the call.

What is unclear is how does the system know where to look for a
person, who's moving around in order to call him.


Thanks,

Rajesh.


[Moderator's Note: Assuming the person is not in roaming mode (that
is, in his home territory), an incoming call is sent to all towers at
the same time. All the towers use the 'paging channels' to call for
the subscriber. The phone answers back to the tower it is closest to
and the actual call is then handed to that tower. If the caller
notified the system he would be in some other town, then the call is
sent to that town and the same process used there.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: My School's Switch to Sprint
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 05:36:26 GMT


It's funny, I've received plenty of replies regarding my post, but I
haven't even seen my own article at this site yet ... whatever ...

It was pointed out to me that the reason my calling card does work
through the Sprint service is that it is not a true AT&T calling card
but a local telco card.  It's a card with the code comprised of my
dad's office number and a four-digit pin.

Anyway, here's an article that appeared today in the GW Hatchet (our
school paper) concerning the switch:

"Spring replaces AT&T for GW long distance"

   The GW Telecommunications Systems Department changed its operator
assistance company for outgoing calls from AT&T to U.S. Sprint Tuesday
after several students complained they were unable to use calling
cards from other companies, associate director Ken Soper said.

   Students, staff and patients at the GW Medical Center may now
charge their calls to American Express, Diner's Club, Discover, Visa,
Mastercard, Carte Blance and local telephone company calling cards
without additional surcharges, Soper said.

   He said Sprint has operators in seven foreign languages, while AT&T
only offers operator services in three foreign languages.  Sprint
operators have the ability to communicate with customers in Spanish,
French, Italian, Korean, Japanese, German and Portuguese.

   Soper said students will be charged the same or lower rates by
Sprint.  The dialing instructions will also remain the same.

   The University will retain the AT&T ACUS option for the Dial 9
service used by on-campus residents and offices.  Students will be
notified of the changes on their next ACUS bill, Soper said.

   Questions about the new service may be directed to the Telecomm-
uncations Console-Traffic office at 994-0700.

   -Lisa Leiter
                       -------------

I will try calling this number tomorrow and see if they can answer a
question pertaining to dialing 10ATT.  Where exactly could I find this
legislation concerning equal access and when does it go into effect?


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] (Brian Moffet ext 7605)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 21:57:02 GMT


isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:

> The buzz is crosstalk from the video signal into the sound channel,
> probably caused by a combination of two things: The broadcaster is not
> controlling his video levels to be within specs, and a less than
> optimum television receiver with poor sound band filtering and
> automatic gain control (The sound and video are amplified in the same
> amplifier chain, and split apart after).

How would one go about finding whether it is the set or the
broadcaster?  I have a similar problem, but it only occurs on one
station, and it occurs on three different devices; two TV sets, and a
VCR.  To me this would indicate a problem at the station, no?


brian moffet   [e-mail]  or uunet!sco!brianm   Speaking for Myself

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 18:08:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, pacdata![e-mail]
(Jim Harkins) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: I've been running so many of these replies because
>> I am amazed at the diversity of explanations! Some say the broadcaster
>> is at fault, while others blame the television set. So which is it?  PAT]

> You're all wrong.  You've all seen those cereal ads with the bee-like
> creatures in them.  You also probably don't remember the cereal, like
> me :-) Anyway, it turns out these creatures are real and live inside
> your TV tube.

I used to work as an engineer at a TV station, so let me take a stab
at this.  It's technically possible for a TV station to transmit
incorrect white levels, but it's extremely unlikely, because these
things tend to be monitored pretty closely.  No TV station wants to
get a violation notice from the FCC.

It's also possible for a cable TV system to transmit incorrect white levels,
non-linear video, or badly tuned audio.  This is somewhat more likely.

It's also technically possible for a TV set to have non-linearities
that cause the video to splash over into the audio subcarrier, or have
bad IF filtering, or simply to be mistuned.  This is much more likely.

If it's a cable system, you may simply have too strong a signal and be
overloading something (RF front end or even the IF), causing
non-linearities and splash.  If that's the case, you can fix it by
attenuating the signal.  You can probably buy an attenuator at the Rat
Shack.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: 28 Mar 92 02:14:01 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I'm sure the designers of the cellular phone technology could have:

>     1.  made two or more phone work as one number;
>     2.  used digital technology for the audio;
>     3.  made a secure system.

I would like to comment on these assertions.

1.  Internet addressing could have been designed to support two nodes
with the same name in the same domain, but the designers of the
network didn't think of it.  Or perhaps, they did think of it, and of
the problems that result from an ambiguous address.  I think the same
applies in the case of different phones having the same number.

2.  They might have used digital technology.  But the AMPS standard is
not a new design.  The conceptual work was done in the 1960's, and the
current standard developed in the 1970's.  Personal portables and
mobiles based on digital techniques were not possible with the
technology then available.  Imagine a world with no large-scale
integration, no microprocessors, etc..  That world was only a couple
of decades ago, remember?  The next generation of cellular phones will
use digital audio (and data) links between mobiles and base stations
 -- the development work is in progress today.  Several digital
standards are in the works.

3. A secure system?  Yes, but what would the FBI say about it?  The
coming digital systems will be harder to intercept, and will require
more expensive equipment to decode.  But they're still not encrypted.
If they were, we'd only have to pay more so the FBI could afford to
decrypt it, no?


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 #283
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04413;
          29 Mar 92 13:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02481
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 11:16:56 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23179
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 11:16:45 -0600
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 11:16:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #284

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Mar 92 11:16:40 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 284

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (John Higdon)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Phil Howard)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Phil Howard)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Conrad C. Nobili)
    Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On (Conrad C. Nobili)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 21:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


On Mar 28 at 20:41, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: But interoffice circuits and the common equipment
> used in the CO by all subscribers are finite in quantity.

But they are much more plentiful then air channels. Given today's
technology, configurable capacities for wireline channels is virtually
unlimited compared to years past. Compared to the old mechanical
offices, digital and even analog electronic switches are almost
non-blocking by comparison. So why is the trend NOW for measured
service when the incremental costs for calls is at an all time low? If
reality were in play here, the push would be toward flat-rate long
distance.

> The people who beef the most about flat rate local service going away
> are the people who use more than what they are otherwise paying for.  PAT]

This is, of course, the RBOC line through and through. The most
superficial examination, however, reveals that the REAL reason that
telcos want to migrate to measured service is to disguise overall rate
increases. When measured service begins, those that do not use the
phone much get a slight reduction in rates, while those that use the
phone heavily get a whopping increase. In each and every case, the
telco gets a net increase in revenue. In this, the "information age",
we should not have to start paying through the nose for local
communications.

It costs just as much for telco to maintain a cable pair that is used
for two calls a month as it does for 1000 calls a month. The same goes
for the line cards, trunk cards, and every other piece of equipment in
the CO. To address a slot on a speech highway does not cost a dollar
an hour. And spare us the line about having to add capacity for "heavy
talkers". CO local capacity is designed to handle the business day
traffic which is many times the nighttime "residential" traffic. No
amount of "abuse" by residential subscribers would necessitate traffic
capacity enhancement.

If we are going to have to endure migration to measured service, then
let us at least not be naive as to the real underlying motives.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 07:48:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:

> When I was selling business telephone systems in Illinois, I had a
> nice big map of the state.  This map showed the boundaries of control
> of each phone company.  Illinois Bell was the cream skimmer.  The
> biggest cities were served by IBT.  The middle sized towns were served
> by GTE.  The rural areas were either served by truly local service (El
> Paso Tel, Illinois not New Mexico), Centel, or one of a couple of
> regional companies.  The rural customers did not pay significantly
> higher rates than urban customers.  Often the reverse was true.  I
> have never heard of any kind of subsidy going to the little guys.
> They just priced their services at a fair mark up.  Even though their
> loops were a lot longer, they still seemed to do fine.  I really don't
> think that the phone service in El Paso, Mendota, Paxton, or Foosland
> will be impacted by IBT losing their monopoly.  I do think that IBT
> will become LOTS more competitive if faced with competition.

I have to disagree.

When you have a monopoly system, one of the effects is that when an
area is served, everyone else has to go somewhere else.  Whoever was
unlucky enough to NOT get the cream (Chicago) had to either take what
was left (e.g. Paxton) or nothing.  They took Paxton (assuming Paxton
is served by someone else; I really don't know).

Your argument is based on the current set of rules.  But if you change
the rules, the logic changes as well.

If there is no longer dial tone monopoly, everyone will be heading for
the cream.  There will no longer be the justification for serving the
small towns.  The profit margin is lower, and financial considerations
(remember, profit is now the sole motive) will dictate going into the
cream.  Sure, competition will be stiff, but those marketing types
actually do believe their own hype about how good they are and how bad
everyone else is, no matter who they are.

I'm not against competition for dial tone per se, I against letting
there be a choice between good and bad areas.  If things were set up
with selectable areas such that to get in, one has to serve
everywhere, then I can go for it.  Put Paxton in the same area as
Chicago, then every choice of dialtone available in Chicago is
available in Paxton.

Can you prove that such choices would be available for every Paxton
everywhere if there were no rules requiring it?

> Imagine being able to set appointments for installation of service.
> Imagine remotely programmable call forward busy, don't answer, and
> variable being offered at low prices (or just being offered, the 5ESS
> can do them all now).  Imagine digital services at rational prices.

It would be nice.  Imagine moving to Paxton and not having it.

> You might have to insure univeral service within the existing service
> boundaries, or maybe by CO boundaries.  These issues can be resolved.
> Sure, breaking up a monopoly can be ugly (I can hear Judge Green
> laughing in the background).  Yes it means that we have to learn more
> about our telephones in order to make an informed decision.  Yes there
> will be new rip offs.  Yes it means some people will get worse
> service.  Still, phone technology has exploded since divestiture.
> While things are more complicated than they were before, they really
> are better and less expensive.  It's called progress.  Someday it
> might even help Mendota.

Certain things just need to be available to everyone.  How many days
after it helps Chicago will it help Mendota and Paxton?  Does your
calculator go that high?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 07:16:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: We had a FIDO BBS here in Chicago about five or six
> years ago which was placing calls in the middle of the night to a
> 79-year old woman ... for a month straight. IBT put the BBS out of
> business; showed the sysop no mercy at all when the lady indicated she
> wanted to prosecute. Hint: keep those phone numbers accurate, folks!  PAT]

What about BBS's that "go under" and relinquish the phone number, and
the number is quickly reassigned?  I did have one case where a friend
of mine moved from one city to another and I didn't have his new
number, so I called his old number to get the "new number recording".
It was a mere three weeks after he moved and someone else already had
is old number.  They said they got it two days prior and confirmed I
dialed correctly.


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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 03:05:57 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Conrad C. Nobili) writes:

>> For more than four weeks now I get calls all around the clock, about
>> 10-15 times in 24 hours, day and night.

Careful with the attributions!  It was [e-mail] (Uwe
Hagendorf), in article <[e-mail]>, in comp.dcom.MODEMS, who
wrote that ...!  I had simply rescued it from there thinking he might
have a better chance at getting help here ... (I don't normally do
this, but thought he was suffering badly and made an exception ...)

The interesting points were that he had *tried* to get various data
communications equipment to connect to it and failed, including a 9600
bps modem (which presumably had lots of CCITT modulations up to 9600),
a PEP modem, and a fax machine.  He had been told that it was a "data
transmitter" by German Telecom and that there was nothing they could
do but trace it, at his expense, to the tune of 20,-DM a day.

This is why I dragged his post over here.  I figure we have a more
appropriate audience here.  I don't know what a "data transmitter"
might be, but if it's not a "normal" modem he's got better chances of
finding an expert here ... and besides I thought there was an element
of telecom policy (wrt tracing) in it. I know that Toby (Nixon) and
several other true experts follow both c.d.modems and c.d.telecom (the
extension of TELECOM Digest into the Usenet world), but I believe even
*he* had expressed puzzlement in c.d.m earlier, so I thought wider
exposure was appropriate.

Seriously though, if anyone knows anything enlightening about "data
transmitters" in German Telecom-land, or other ways around that
annoying expense for a trace, please let Uwe Hagendorf know!  If you
think you have an idea but need to look at his original post and can't
dredge it up, let me know and I will mail you a copy.

P.S. You didn't think that *I* get phone service from the Bundepost,
did you...?  Or that New England Telephone would take 20,-DM in
payment for *anything* from me...?  Maybe I'll try writing my checks
for the phone bills out in DM this month...!  ;-)


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT

P.P.S.  PAT, you missed another geography blunder!  ;-)  Harvard
University is in the USA, not Germany ...


[Moderator's Note: The Digest-producing software has recently produced
a couple of bugs in the way quoted text appears. I'm going to try and
repair it. Sorry for the confusion.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 23:27:41 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brandon
S. Allbery KF8NH) writes:

   [Telebit remote configuration hacks deleted]

>> [Moderator's Note: To program the number directory however you need
>> the system password for the other modem.   PAT]

> Older Telebit modems don't have system passwords.  Remote operations
> can be performed on the T1000 in PEP mode (if enabled, of course); the
> T1000 has no "system password", so if I enabled it then anyone could
> reprogram my T1000.  Of course, since I leave that disabled and the
> modem is not set to auto answer, it's not a problem for me in
> practice.

> We realized this potential problem when we (Telotech) started using
> Telebit modems; we immediately made it policy to leave the remote
> access mode OFF at all times.

   While that is a wise policy for most static applications, we have
found remote reconfiguration a time-and-hassle reducing capability.
We have the need to occasionally send modems into the field for data
collection purposes.  The modem is attached to special hardware that
can be controlled remotely; the only human interface is the RS-232
port for the modem and a "RESET" botton.  We ship the modem and the
special hardware complete with connectors, etc., and instructions for
hooking it all up.  NO TERMINAL may be available in the building for
local access to the modem.  In many cases, there isn't even a
telephone connected to the modem, just a telephone "line".  Once
connected, we want to run everything remotely -- typically, there
isn't even someone in the building when we're calling/monitoring.

   Occasionally, the modem is shipped without verifying the power-up
config, and it may have been used elsewhere (with other configs) just
prior to shipment.  Without access to a terminal, this can be a major
problem.  Even if the modem is configured to deny remote access and/or
has auto-answer inhibited, the Telebit can be "re-configured" for
remote access AND auto-answer with a simple paper clip!

   This is MUCH better than trying to find a cable and/or terminal at
2 AM just to turn the auto-answer capability ON.

  Al Varney -- My opinion, not necessarily AT&T's; just a satisfied
               Telebit user.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 02:03:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Conrad C. Nobili)
Subject: Re: FBI Wants You to Pay to Be Spied On
Organization: Harvard University Office for Information Technology


> [Moderator's Note: Ah, don't say those things. You are supposed to
> help keep the myth alive ... you know, the one about how the FBI
> 'monitors' certain newsgroups and certain writers on the net. :)  PAT]

Hmmmm.  I think we've seen a range of attitudes on this one ...

I think most conspiracy theories are silly.  I don't really think
about whether the FBI is "monitoring" Usenet (or other electronic
information flows).  (If I thought they were and was concerned about
it you wouldn't see my real name here -- I would simply forge all my
posts -- on the other hand, maybe I do...!  ;-) )

I agree with PAT that there are probably those who think it's cool or
scary that the FBI (or CIA or NSA or other mysterious three-letter
government agency) is keeping tabs on them.  These people like to keep
these "myths" alive ...

On the other hand I don't see why PAT seems to find the idea that the
XYZ might even be interested in Usenet so laughable. As I said above I
don't imagine anyone is overwhelmingly or cynically interested in us.
But on the other hand I would really be surprised if these
organizations don't hedge their bets with regard to these information
flows.

As several people have pointed out here it is quite trivial for "the
gummint" to gather this information.  Just get a newsfeed in the case
of Usenet -- preferably on CD-ROM.  In fact, it would seem that Usenet
would be the *easiest* traffic to collect.

In light of this I can't imagine that the XYZ does *not* have a
complete archive of Usenet traffic.  I mean why wouldn't they?  It is
soooo easy.  And these information gathering organizations do much
more difficult things to collect boring data.  I mean there are large
numbers of people employed to listen to radio broadcasts and translate
foreign journals.  (You don't doubt that these efforts exist, do you
PAT?  I know that when my girlfriend finished her Master's in Chinese
Literature last year the *only* people who tried to recruit her were
the NSA ... ;-) )

PAT, you are right; Usenet is not *particularly* interesting.  But I
think you underestimate the ability of these organizations to be
"interested" in things.  And the triviality of gathering this data
makes the payoff good.  Even if the S/N is almost zero in gummint
intelligence terms; even if they don't really "monitor" it, but
rather just *collect* it. In fact that's the beauty of it all to
them.  No need to monitor it as it happens, as it is already in a
digital, readily stored, indexed, readily searched form.

So I don't think there's a Big Brother conspiracy where bleary-eyed
Agents are up all night in some dank concrete-lined vault in a
basement in an otherwise nondescript building somewhere near the
Capitol, poring over the day's posts.  But neither do I think that
these sometimes mindlessly obsessive organizations would pass up a
subscription to a Usenet news feed on CD-ROM.

I think PAT may be reacting against the juvenile fantasies of too
large a percentage of Usenet denizens, but may be forgetting the
equally juvenile fantasies of the "spooks" ... I notice some traces of
simple *disdain* for Usenet, do I not PAT?  Remember that many of your
readers (myself included) participate in this Digest by means of
it ... Usenet *is* a vastly superior mechanism for transporting and
presenting news compared with mail lists and LISTSERVs and such.
And some of us can't bring *ourselves* to *pay* for BBS and other
commercial services ... (Yeah, I know I am spending all your
hard-earned tax dollars to post this.)


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT


[Moderator's Note: I send each issue of the Digest to comp.dcom.telecom
because there are a lot of Usenet readers who want to see it, and
because it is, as you point out, more effecient than adding all those
names to the mailing list. That's the gist of it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #284
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06386;
          29 Mar 92 14:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01612
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 12:24:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02814
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 12:24:15 -0600
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 12:24:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #285

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Mar 92 12:24:16 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 285

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Phil Howard)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Linc Madison)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Steve Kass)
    Re: ANI Number Wanted (Graham Toal)
    Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One) (David Niebuhr)
    Re: Major FTS-2000 Change (Roger Fajman)
    Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Tim Gorman)
    Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback (Stan Brown)
    Information Wanted Leading to Remotely Controllable Xbar Switch (D Faunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 08:49:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I tried to reply by E-mail to BOTH the address in the news header AND
the address from the signature, and BOTH bounced.  I'd have rather
just sent this by E-mail to Mr. Stearns but it is just not going through.

[Moderator's Note: Some header information was enclosed which has been
deleted here. I've had a couple instances in the past where people
have said they were unable to get mail through to Mr. Stearns and it
failed at the site based on 'user unknown'.  PAT]

In comp.dcom.telecom is written:

> Luckily, AMD, Mitel, and others make single chip network interfaces
> that render all these details transparent to the user.

> The constant 160 kilo bits/second data is split up into several
> separate lower bit rate streams. These sub bit streams then have HDLC
> protocol added for the two 64 + 16 kbps streams, and some possible
> proprietary protocols for talking to network interfaces, plus some
> sync, equalization, and other overhead.

If I were to simply take the 160 kbs data stream raw as is, and relay
it via some other means of communications (such as full duplex radio)
somewhere else where a reverse setup exists, do you see any reason why
this would not basically work?  I want to be able to relay it
somewhere without having to worry at the relay points about the B and
D channels and the protocols delaing with them.

> On top of the HDLC protocol, one can have a rate adapter that converts
> standard baud rates to the channel by sending some bits more than once
> (wasting bandwidth).

What is the reasonable bandwidth I can expect from a B channel?
56kbs?

> Disclaimer: I don't have the specs in front of me, so I'm doing this
> from memory.

How do I get the specs in front of ME?  (i.e. where can one get them?)


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


[Moderator's Note: One frequent problem here is the lack of a *good*
return address for REplies. If all writers would include either a
'Reply-To:' line in their header (preferably) or at least a useable
address in their signature, the delivery of REplies would be greatly
expedited. In fact, the autoreply sent from here will use the line
marked 'Reply-To:' in preference to either the 'From ' or 'From:'
lines when one is available, under the assumption this data will not
have been altered by any mailers en-route.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 01:21:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> [Germany doesn't have domestic "1-900" style service, but some numbers
> use international dialing.]

> By browsing through some women's magazines I found the number
> 001- (access code for the US from Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81
                                              ^^^
> to 92). By calling this number you can get your personal horoscope
>or women's services. ...

Either there is a typo, or there is something VERY interesting going
on, since there is no area code 610 in North America.  Of course, some
of the similar numbers I've seen advertized here in the U.S. use city
codes that are not used for any regular service, but I am unaware of
any such setup in the U.S. or Canada.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: 610 is the 'area code' for Canadian TWX service. I
wonder if this could be translated to country code '61'?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 10:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver


In Issue 281, Ron Schnell <[e-mail]> writes:

> I don't know why anyone would still use ROA when they can
> use this new plan.

The Any Hour plan has no calling card option.  The calling card option
applies my AT&T calling card calls to my ROA plan, which is
particularly useful during the night and weekend hours, when I pay no
surcharge for using the calling card.  I make a couple dozen calling
card calls a month, and I would lose the savings with Any Hour.  I
don't plan to switch.


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

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

From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Number Wanted
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 17:37:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Doug Rorem) writes:

>> It's not an 800 number, but as far as I can tell, it's free (I used it
>> several months ago and was not billed):

>> 10732-1-404-988-9664

> I tried this on an IBT payphone in Chicago and had the automated voice
> come on and ask for $2.10. By the way, which company has 10732 for an
> access code?

I'm still eager to find out if CLID is passed out of the UK (it's
transmitted within the UK but not enabled for delivery to UK phones;
I'm not sure about ISDN though) so I thought calling this number might
tell me.  It just rang.  I let it ring twice and hung up assuming a
computer would answer straight away, so I must have dialed a real
telephone.

I just dialed +1 404 ... since we can't ask for USA carriers here. Is
that bit important?


Graham


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it is. And even though my understanding is
that BT pro-rates their traffic to the USA among the top three
carriers, I doubt they give any to 10732, which although it is AT&T is
not 'regular', i.e. for the general public, LD service.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92 07:04:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: New AT&T Card (vs a LEC-issued One)


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cliff Barney)
writes:

> Pac Bell says that its calling card works anywhere, with any vendor.

NYTel's card does the same.  However, they put the disclaimer in the
literature to the fact that if the card is used in the Regional
Calling Area (New York City for me), then they will carry the call.

However, if I cross a boundary then I'm fair game for any telco.
Since a calling card would normally be used only away from your
premises, I've found that 10XXX is the way to go and then have the
charge appear on my bill with a reasonable charge affixed.


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

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 92  12:31:55 EST
Subject: Re: Major FTS-2000 Change


> Now, for the last eight years or so, off-net calls have been handled
> by 8 + AC + 7D [note - no leading "1"]. Prior to that, you dug through
> the GSA directory, found the number for the FTS operator in Podunk,
> called her, and {S}HE dialed the local call, and gave you a nice
> clean, 30 db down patch ;-{

I suppose how long it's been depends on where you are.  Here in the
Washington, DC, area, it's been 8 + 7d for on-net calls and 8 + 10d for
off-net calls since at least 1969.

The cutover date to 8 + 10d only is April 20, with the 30 day
permissive dialing period starting then.  While I had heard the change
would be coming last fall, I just found out about the date this week.
It's not much notice, considering that people have to change dialing
scripts, etc.  The FTS 2000 managers apparently think everyone is
still just dialing voice calls manually.


Roger Fajman                     Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health    BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA          Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 92 12:13:15 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies


Mr. Holland quotes in the article on the above subject (provided by
Mr.  Decker in TELECOM Digest V12 #270:

> Competition in these industries has resulted in technological innovation,
> dramatic improvements in customer service, robust increases in demand,
> and significant reductions in costs.

Nice words, but where is the proof? What technological innovations are
we talking about? Fiber? Voice Mail? These are not really technological
innovations. This was all "on the way" or actually in service prior to
divestiture. Perhaps more widespread availability in a shorter time
frame can be claimed but it is not clear this would not have happened
anyway. Robust increases in demand?  Is the total network usage really
any higher than it would have been anyway?  Significant reductions in
cost? Where? How many residential users total bills are less than they
were before divestiture (even allowing for inflation)?  If they are,
was this actually driven by competition or a redistribution of charges
which the PUC's could have accomplished anyway?

> monopolism results in the stifling of initiative, restriction of
> technological innovation

Is this why the US was considered to have the best telecommunications
system in the world prior to divestiture? And why has the US slipped
behind other markets since divestiture (Germany, Japan, etc.)?

> MFS heartily endorses the goal of affordable universal service and
> believes that a competitive environment in the local loop will
> strengthen this national committment.  As we have proposed in two
> pending FCC rulemaking proceedings, non-discriminatory contributions
> by all competitors to promote universal service will produce
> significant benefits for consumers and the US economy.

This is a laudable goal but until a workable plan with all necessary
implementation details is proposed it is really just so much rhetoric.
I have yet to see anything proposed in the industry media that has any
workable details outlined. This includes who will collect the
payments, on what standards will the payments be based, and how will
they be disbursed.

Now, before everyone just jumps on me for being a telephone company
lackey, spouting the company line, let me say that, personally, I will
welcome competition. I have spent the last ten years getting my work
group staffed with good people and trained/equipped to perform. We can
compete with anyone (in our area of responsibility, anyway :->).
Competition will actually give us a better chance to shine.

I do think, however, that reasonable expectations of what competition
will bring must be provided to the public. Emotional rhetoric as
provided in the article referenced above serves no ones long term
goals, least of all the alternative service providers.

In addition, now that many of the IXC's and ASP's have invested
heavily in their networks it will be interesting to see what pace of
techological advancement occurs over the next ten years. How quickly
will the established carriers move to widespread, ubiquitous
availablitity of SONET capabilities?  Wideband ISDN? It is easy for
newly capitalized startup's in a growth market to claim they advancing
technology, it is quite another when it comes to having to justify
replacement of existing investment with new.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 6:46:41 EST


The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) sends me copies of all
interim orders in Ohio Bell's pending case for tariffing Caller ID and
Automatic Callback, because I once sent a letter abou the case.  On
March 28 I received a copy of the Commission's Opinion and Order in
the case.  Following is my abstract of the principal conclusions.

ABSTRACT: Ohio Bell's application to tariff Caller ID and Automatic
Callback was rejected as filed.  "Should Ohio Bell still wish to
offer" those services "it should [i.e., must] modify its application"
as follows:

    - Per-line blocking must be free to all non-published-number
      customers, present and future, and must be the default for them
      unless they specifically waive it.

    - Per-line blocking must be available to all other customers at a
      charge equal to non-published-number rates ($1.10/month) plus an
      unspecified one-time charge.

    - Per-call blocking must be available free to all customers, and
      per-call unblocking must be available free to all customers with
      per-line blocking.

    - Call Trace and Call Reject must be offered at the same time as
      Caller ID.

    - "Call Reject and Automatic Callback with measured service and call
      detail are unaffected by blocking" and "have the potential" to
      disclose "the calling party's number."  Therefore if Ohio Bell
      offers "those services, it must take measures to preserve the
      privacy of callers."

    - Ohio Bell must notify "appropriate customers" by "bill inserts or
      direct mailing 30 and 60 days in advance" of the introduction of
      Caller ID and Automatic Callback.  Ohio Bell must submit such
      notices and any advertisements concerning Caller ID to the
      Commission's staff 20 days before issuing them.

    - Caller ID and Automatic Callback have no functional equivalents,
      and therefore can't be considered competitive.  Ohio Bell's
      submitted cost studies were inadequate and must be refiled with
      new proposed prices, considering the cost and revenue impact of
      blocking and providing for recovery of "joint and fixed" costs
      within 5 years.  (If I'm reading the Order correctly, the
      Commission thinks the proposed prices are too low.)

"Ohio Bell's proposed applications may be just and reasonable if the
applicant modifies its tariff offerings to incorporate the safeguards
set forth [above]."  From the "may be" I infer that approval is not
guaranteed even if Ohio Bell makes the listed changes.

DISCUSSION: The 42-page Opinion and Order summarizes the nature of
CLASS services including those applied for, the testimony presented at
hearings, the legal position under State and Federal law, experience
of some other states, and the Commission's reasoning behind its
conclusions.  Reading between the lines, I think the Commission seems
a little irritated at how flimsy a case Ohio Bell presented.  (I
personally was surprised and pleased at the Commission's strong stand
in favor of privacy.)  I would think a lot of this would interest
Telecom readers.  If there seems to be interest, I'll type in and
submit to the Digest some relevant excerpts from the Opinion and
Order, without comment.


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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 07:40:51 -0800
From: Doug Faunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted Leading to Remotely Controllable Xbar Switch


We want, for one of our labs, a computer controllable crossbar switch,
or "patch panel", so that we can make arbitrary assignments of serial
connections for setting up test networks with serial links involved.
We need to pass at least V.35 signals through it, and RS232 is
probably necessary.  It strikes me that the telephone and broadcast
oriented readers of this group might have a good lead on this.
Reasonable price is a necessity.  Any suggestions?


Thanks,

Doug   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #285
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12976;
          29 Mar 92 17:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20162
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 13:33:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18451
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 29 Mar 1992 13:33:09 -0600
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 13:33:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco


A recent series of messages in the Digest was sparked by an article
written by Don Kimberlin on the topic 'Natural Monopoly Dies'. Most of
the articles (and my notes) spoke pro or con on the topic of compe-
tition in the provision of local dial tone, which was the topic of
another message thread running at the same time. The reply which
follows by David G. Lewis was too lengthy to include in a regular
issue of the Digest. In it, he responds to various comments made by
myself discussing the introduction of competing local service in
Chicago.

PAT

 From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
 Subject: Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies
 Organization: AT&T
 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:18:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: What I don't understand though is why all the late
> arrivals on the scene feel they have some right to place their lines
> and equipment inside the telco central offices. For example, IBT here
> had to put some of their competition's equipment in *their* CO. It
> seems like none of these late arrivals actually want to start from
> scratch and build a telephone company. They want to rip off the wire
> pairs they need from the local telco, the inside building wiring they
> need, the terminal blocks, etc. They want to use the century-plus of
> experience and plant the telco has developed, then charge lower rates
> and claim telco is the ripoff!  I don't see where the telcos owe them
> anything except that once MFS and the others build their network,
> spend billions of dollars on outside and inside plant, build their own
> central office building and otherwise get things together, the telco
> can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out the door and say 'here is your
> gateway to our network'. Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop
> their own software, make their own applications to the long distance
> carriers for interconnection, etc.  *Then* let's compare prices.  They
> are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO.   PAT]

Disclaimer: I do not claim to speak for any Access Carrier, and AT&T's
positions regarding Access Carrier colocation are unknown to me, so
I'm certainly not representing them here.  I happen to have some
knowledge of Teleport's (TCG's) motivation for colocation, having
worked there for a year and a half, but I do not claim to be
representing their opinions.

Pat asks "why all the late arrivals on the scene feel they have some
right to place their lines and equipment inside the telco central
offices"?  To answer this question, I need to explain something of an
Access Carrier's (AC's) network and services.  This is based on
Teleport's network architecture, but similar aspects probably apply to
all other ACs.  Note that none of this information is proprietary to
TCG or any other carrier; it's willingly told by TCG to anyone who
wants to know ...

The AC offers high-capacity (DS1/DS3) private line service.  One large
market for this service is carrying trunks from a company's PBX to an
interexchange carrier.  A large company may well have hundreds of
trunks between their PBX and their IXC.  A fiber-optic-based AC
provides this service in the following manner:

A Fiber Optic Terminal (FOT), usually integrated with an M13
multiplexer, is placed at the customer's premises (e.g. in their
switch room).  Two fiber pairs (main and standby) connect that FOT to
a similar FOT in the AC's central office.  The electrical side of the
FOT is connected to a 3/1 Digital Access and Crossconnect System
(DACS) or to a manual DSX-1 frame.

Once the DS1s are brought into the DACS or DSX-1, they can be
crossconnected onto any other system terminating in the CO.  To carry
traffic to IXCs, the AC will usually have a very high capacity
(anywhere from 12 DS3s -- 560Mb/s -- to 36 DS3s -- 1.7Gb/s) fiber
system.  This system will have one end in the CO, two fiber pairs
(main and standby) to the IXC POP, and the other FOT located in the
IXC POP in what is called "Customer Provided Access space" -- space
within the IXC CO, usually separated by a chain-link wall, leased by
the IXC to any customer who wants to install equipment there for the
purposes of handoff to the IXC, at some $/sq.ft. rate in line with the
prevailing rates in the area.  The electrical side of the FOT meets
the IXC at a designated demarkation point in the CPA space (usually a
DSX-1 or DSX-3 system).

This allows the AC to provide an end-to-end service from the customer
to the IXC.  It also allows for relatively easy trouble
sectionalization, particularly if the AC has significant remote
diagnostics and maintenance capabilities on its FOTs.

This is essentially the same network architecture used by the LEC, with
the following exceptions:

    * The majority of LEC DS1s are provided on copper pairs, not
    optical systems;

    * LEC-provided metallic DS1s are usually terminated on
    manual DSX-1 frames, and rarely terminated on 3/1 DACSes;

    * The LEC doesn't share CPA space with everyone else; it'll
    generally have its own space in the IXC CO.

Now, this customer has his PBX all connected up to the IXC (or several
IXCs), and wants to connect it to the local telco as well -- after all,
man does not live by LD alone.  So, customer goes to the local AC and
orders up a couple of DS1s into the local telco CO, to be connected to
telco's switch in the same way that his DS1s into the IXC were
connected to IXC's switch.

Well, getting from the customer's premises to the AC CO is no problem
 -- we've already got a fiber system installed, and there's a couple
of DS1s worth of spare capacity we can turn up in about half an
hour ... but how do we get to the LEC's CO?

Pat suggests that "the telco can hand them a bunch of wire pairs out
the door and say 'here is your gateway to our network'."  Recognizing
hyperbole when I see it, I'll interpret this to mean "the telco can
designate cable pairs on a demarcation point at a location immediately
outside the CO and say 'here is your gateway to our network'."

In an urban setting, a location immediately outside the CO means a
manhole.  In a suburban or rural setting, it may mean a splice box or
a pad-mounted or pole-mounted cabinet.  In any case, it's a copper
splice point.

But now we've got a problem, because we're talking about a
fiber-optic-based AC.  Even if it has a CO immediately across the
street from the LEC CO (which, incidentally, happens to be the case
with Teleport in lower Manhattan), it will have to run copper outside
plant cable from its CO to the manhole, splice box, or cabinet.  But
the AC doesn't *have* copper outside plant, doesn't want copper
outside plant, wants nothing to do with copper outside plant.

"Well, how much could a few hundred feet of copper cable cost," you
say?  Consider, in addition to the cable itself, the additional labor
expense of pulling a 1200-conductor cable instead of a 1/4" diameter
40-fiber cable; the cost of terminating and splicing 600 pairs; the
cost of the air pumps to pressurize the cable; the cost of the
repeaters if the distance is over 1200 feet; and the maintenance cost
of having all this twenty-year-old technology ...

This solution basically says we'll allow the LEC to dictate the
technology used by the AC -- hardly a competitive situation.

So we modify the solution, and have the telco hand them a bunch of
fibers out the door.  This was tried in New York; it was called the
Optical Telecommunications Interconnection Service - I, or OTIS-I.  It
was an operational nightmare, for both the LEC and the AC.  The FOT in
the LEC CO was purchased by the AC and leased to the LEC.  There was a
mid-span fiber meet in a manhole.  The fiber from the manhole to the
LEC CO was owned by the LEC and part of the OTIS tariff purchase by
the AC.  The FOT in the LEC CO was maintained by the LEC, based on
requests from the AC.  The FOT in the LEC CO had to be of a certain
type, designated by the LEC; therefore, the FOT in the AC CO had to be
of the same type.  The AC could not purchase the FOTs that they
wanted; they had to purchase the FOTs the LEC told them to.  They
couldn't upgrade the FOT according to their schedule; they needed to
schedule any maintenance activities with the LEC.  If a trouble was
detected, the AC was at the mercy of the LEC to schedule technicians
to shoot the trouble from the LEC end, and we can take some guesses as
to where that fell on the LEC's priority list.

About a year ago, OTIS-I was essentially abandoned by mutual agreement
of NYTel and the NY PSC in favor of OTIS-II, which defines physical
colocation.

But what about all the "unfairness" that Pat refers to?

> They want to rip off the wire pairs they need from the local telco,
> the inside building wiring they need, the terminal blocks, etc.

The AC installs equipment in CPA space in the LEC's CO, and cables to
a demarcation point, usually a DSX-1 or DSX-3.  The CPA space is
leased from the LEC at a rate specified in the tariff, based on
prevailing rates in the commercial real estate market.  The LEC cables
from the demarcation point to its cable distribution area, be it DSX,
DACS, or MDF.  The additional cost of inside wiring plant to the LEC,
above the cost they'd normally incur to bring OSP into the building,
is the cost of the demark plus the cost of the cable run from the
demark to the distribution area, minus the cost of the cable run from
the building entry point to the distribution area.  This cost is
recovered as part of the interconnection tariff.  No one's "ripping
off" anything; the AC is purchasing the use of inside plant from the
LEC, as well as purchasing the use of space from the LEC.

> They want to use the century-plus of experience and plant the telco
> has developed, then charge lower rates and claim telco is the ripoff!

I don't see where the AC is anywhere asking to use the experience of
the telco; the telco has a larger installed base due to their
experience, and customers want the capability to have their service
carried partly over that installed base (for which they are, of
course, willing to pay), but that's the extent of it.

As to "using the plant", you surely don't think the LEC lets the ACs
interconnect for free, do you?  If, for example, TCG sells a customer
a DS1 from Manhattan to Montauk, carries the DS1 on its own network
from Manhattan to Garden City, LI, interconnects at NYTel's Garden
City CO, and NYTel carries the DS1 from Garden City to the endpoint in
Montauk, TCG pays NYT an interconnection fee -- under the OTIS-II
tariff -- and a termination and mileage fee from the Garden City CO to
the endpoint in Montauk based on NYT's leased line tariffs.  If TCG
can charge lower rates for this service than can NYT, it's certainly
not from ripping-off NYT.

If an AC sold service at a lower price than the LEC, consisting solely
of reselling LEC circuits, it'd go out of business real fast.  If an
AC has lower costs for services provided on its own network, and can
effectively resell service purchased from an LEC at cost, it can
compete on price.  And if an AC provides a quality end-to-end service
to its customers, consisting partly of AC-provided facilities and
partly of facilities leased from the LEC, and customers would rather
buy this than buy an end-to-end service on the LEC network, the AC can
charge whatever the customer is willing to pay.

> I don't see where the telcos owe them anything except that once MFS
> and the others build their network, spend billions of dollars on
> outside and inside plant, build their own central office building and
> otherwise get things together, the telco can hand them a bunch of wire
> pairs out the door and say 'here is your gateway to our network'.

ACs have built networks; have spent, if not billions, then hundreds of
millions on outside and inside plant; have, if not built COs, then
leased space in the commercial market for COs; and, some would argue,
"got things together" very well, thank you.  They don't want a free
ride; they merely want to be able to interconnect their networks to
the LECs' networks so that they can provide the services their
customers want.

> Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop their own software,

They do.  Software for network management and maintenance, billing,
network design, circuit layout, circuit orders, engineering automation ...

> make their own applications to the long distance carriers for
> interconnection,

As I described above, they do.

> *Then* let's compare prices.

I don't understand why Pat's on such a price kick; I don't know that
either MFS or TCG claims to be consistently lower priced than the LEC.
I know that TCG definitely doesn't.  TCG, from my experience, claims
to be "competitively" priced; as engineers would say, "within a
delta", up or down.  Again, from my experience, TCG doesn't claim to
compete on price; TCG competes on quality of service, responsiveness,
customer service, and diversity.  MFS, in my limited experience, may
place slightly more emphasis on price, but they also stress customer
service and responsiveness.

> They are even using IBT's heating and air conditioning in a CO.

And paying for it at commercial market rates under the terms of the
tariff.

To try to wrap this overly-long post up somewhat succinctly,
colocation does not consist of anyone ripping off anything from
anyone.  It consists of an AC leasing space from the LEC in the LEC's
building to permit the AC to interconnect its circuits to the LEC's
network in a manner which is comparably efficient with the manner in
which the LEC interconnects its own circuits -- not identical, not
equal, just comparably efficient.  There's no free lunch -- the AC has
to pay for the space, the interconnection, and the leased circuits on
the LEC's network -- but the cost is set by tariff, not arbitrarily by
the LEC, and must (in the eyes of the regulatory agency) be a
reasonable representation of the costs incurred by the LEC, plus rate
of return.

(personal opinion follows)

Personally, I think fighting colocation is a shortsighted strategy.
Every circuit that an AC interconnects with an LEC is an additional
circuit the LEC is selling, which means more revenue and more profit.
Telcos seem to take the negative view, that they're not getting all
the revenue they potentially could out of the service, instead of the
positive view, that the AC has done their selling job for them, and
they just hook up the circuit and collect the checks for a service
that might not have ever been installed if the AC hadn't gone out and
sold it.

I apologize for rambling, but I wanted to try to present some of the
rationale behind the importance of physical colocation.  It's easy to
misunderstand; I didn't get it until I worked for Teleport.  Again,
this doesn't represent anything other than my own views, as evolved
based on working for TCG for a year and a half.  Now that I work for
AT&T, I probably disagree with what I just said ;-)


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


[Moderator's Note: If I understand correctly then, the main reason for
colocation of AC and LEC in the same physical premises is for the
convenience of the AC, who without it would be subject to service and
maintainence as the LEC saw fit to provide it. Further, the AC would
be subject to some difficulties and possibly a degradation in the
level of service they wish to provide their customers if they were
required to hook up to fiber or copper in a 'manhole' somewhere.

This seems to overlook the fact that telcos have dealt on this basis
with each other for years. If I, as an IBT subscriber wish to call
someone in Park Ridge who is a Centel customer, regardless of the
level of service IBT gives me with modern electronic switching and
all, the quality of the connection is still subject to the level of
service provided by Centel. If I want to call a subscriber on some old
antiquated step-switch in Podunk, again the connection is only as good
as the worst part of it. This also seems to overlook the fact that if
I am a customer of Centel, or the Podunk Telephone Company and I
really do not like the service I get, I am free to order FX service
from any telephone company I want.

Likewise, the AC's should be free to string their fibers anywhere they
have a customer wanting their service. Telco should have the right to
say their loops will only be used to connect with their (telco's)
subscribers ... but by the same token, artificial barriers, i.e.
demands that certain kinds of connecting devices be used out of only a
desire to squash the competition with no technical basis for the
demand should be proscribed, i.e. the Carterfone matter. If the
technology and service levels are the same offered to all their
subscribers, telco should not be penalized merely because the AC finds
it not to their satisfaction, provided the AC is permitted to build
their own loops and central offices which do meet their desired level
of service.  Telco should not have to rent *anything* to their
competition, and any gateway between the companies should be dealt
with on equal terms as telco deals with any other phone company.  PAT]











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06769;
          30 Mar 92 3:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03619
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:49:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24715
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:49:31 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:49:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #286

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Mar 92 01:49:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 286

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Christopher Lott)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Natural Monopoly" Dies (John Higdon)
    Re: Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties? (Stacey Cherny)
    Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 20:29:20 GMT


The Moderator, in a response to my article on colocation, makes a
comparison to connections between local telcos which do not share the
same service area, i.e. IBT/Centel and a hypothetical Podunk Tel.

> If I, as an IBT subscriber wish to call someone in Park Ridge who is
> a Centel customer, regardless of the level of service IBT gives me
> with modern electronic switching and all, the quality of the
> connection is still subject to the level of service provided by
> Centel.

The difference between this situation and the situation as it exists
with competitive access carriers, however, is that IBT and Centel
aren't in competition; they've sliced up the pie between them, and
their interconnection merely deals with how they go about holding the
knife ...

To clarify: If you call someone who is a Centel customer, and the
audio quality is lousy because Centel and IBT interconnect with a
bunch of rusty forty-year-old terminal blocks in a damp manhole under
Division Street, even if the facilities each of them use are state-of-
the-art digital carrier systems, well, too bad; you couldn't switch
to Centel and the person on the other end couldn't switch to IBT even
if they wanted to.

But let's extend your analogy a little bit -- let's say you subscribed
to IBT *because* you knew they had state-of-the-art digital facilities
and Centel didn't, and you even paid a premium for it, because the
quality was so much better.  So now you call a Centel subscriber, and
you get lousy quality because of those rusty terminal blocks.

You can ask IBT to take your calls all the way to the end subscriber
itself, and not have any part of the calls carried on Centel, but if
IBT says "we're sorry, that area of the Chicago metropolitan area is
not in our current network expansion plans, and we don't intend to
provide service there until 1995," you're kind of stuck.  And yes,
Bell companies are known to do that; not for POTS, but certainly for
advanced services that customers want -- DS3s, DS1s on optical systems
(for lower error rates and higher availability), ISDN, etc.

So instead, the Centel customer rep comes and knocks on your door, and
says "gee, Mr. Townson, here you are paying this 20% premium to IBT
for their quality service, and our latest survey which you were so
kind as to answer shows that on calls to the town of XYZ, you don't
seem to have any better quality than we'd provide for you at 20% less
than you're paying currently.  If you switched your end-to-end service
to XYZville to us, we could save you $1000 a year."

So now, by virtue of the fact that they offered inferior interconnection
facilities, Centel has managed to capture service away from IBT.

(Note: "Centel" and "IBT" are just names used because Pat used them;
they should not be construed in any way to reflect upon the policies
of the actual Centel Corporation or Illinois Bell Telephone Company.)

Is this realistic?  It happens today, any time an Access Carrier who
offers high-quality service at a price premium is unable to
interconnect in a comparably-efficient manner with a Local Exchange
Company.  The customer sees that LEC could offer a T1 from point A to
point B with a 99.9% availability and 10E-6 average bit error rate at
$600 a month, and AC, which normally offers DS1s with 99.995%
availability and 10E-10 average BER and can charge $700 a month for
it, is offering the DS1 from A to B for the same $700 a month and only
able to guarantee 99% availability and the same 10E-6 average BER.
The customer would be out of his/her mind to purchase the AC service.

Whereas with a reasonable interconnection arrangement using
colocation, perhaps the availability would be 99.97% (about halfway
between that of the purely AC circuit and that of the purely LEC
circuit), and the average BER 10E-8.  So because of the
interconnection arrangement, the customer has to settle for the
same-old-same-old from the LEC, and the LEC effectively shuts out the
AC.

(Note that the actual BERs and availabilty rates vary from LEC to LEC
and AC to AC; these are hypothetical.)

My point is that a LEC dealing with another phone company who is
competing for the same subscribers is *not* the same thing as a LEC
dealing with another phone company who is in a separate service area;
the interconnection arrangements which exist to enable co-monopoly
providers to interconnect are not sufficient to enable competitive
providers to interconnect.

Usual Disclaimer: AT&T had nothing to do with this.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 21:54:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco


Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 29-Mar-92 Colocation of
Access Carrier by TELECOM [e-mail]

> ....  Telco should not have to rent *anything* to their
> competition, and any gateway between the companies should be dealt
> with on equal terms as telco deals with any other phone company.  PAT]

Could someone enlighten me as to how LECs with adjacent franchise
areas -- e.g. Centel and Illinois Bell -- interconnect?  Is the
demarcation point typically a bundle of copper wires in a manhole?
Would the independent haul calls on a fiber interoffice trunk to a
LATA tandem?  Who would provide the fiber optic terminal (FOT) for
such a trunk: the independent or the RBOC?  Or would the RBOC
typically provide the trunking from the access tandem to the
independent's CO?  Would the independent permit colocation of the
RBOC's FOT on it's premises?  Does the pattern depende upon whether
the dominant LEC in a LATA is an RBOC or an independent (e.g GTE).

We know that for LEC to IEC interconnection, the MFJ makes the LEC
responsible for the interoffice trunk.  In a recent post from David
Lewis we learn that the IEC typically provides space in its building
for the LEC to locate it's FOT on the IXC's premises.  But how is LEC
to LEC interconnection handled?

Inquiring minds want to know ...


Marvin Sirbu


[Moderator's Note: In the case of Centel/IBT, I do not know who pays
for what. The territories are not strictly speaking adjacent, but
rather, Centel is completely surrounded by IBT, with a bit of their
territory in 312 (but mostly in 708). Centel serves Park Ridge and Des
Plaines, IL entirely plus small parts of Rosemont, IL and Chicago, IL.
Both telcos interconnect in the IBT Newcastle CO and the IBT O'Hare CO.
Centel and IBT-Newcastle/Ohare customers call each other with local
(ie. no toll or premium charge) service.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 15:59:24 -0500
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator notes:

> The people who beef the most about flat rate local service going away
> are the people who use more than what they are otherwise paying for.  PAT]

Pat, you seem to have a idea of 'what a subscriber pays for' and I for
one would like to know what it is.  When you get unmeasured service, I
understand it to be unmeasured.  Period.  What is vague about this??
Is making 1,000 calls per evening too much?  100?  50?


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
[e-mail]   /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>


[Moderator's Note: When any telco sets up an unmeasured, flat-rate
plan, they price it according to what they perceive their 'average'
customer will use, with an margin of profit for themselves. They'll
profit from some subscribers to flat rate, and lose on others. When
they have more customers they lose on than customers they profit from,
then it is time to rethink the pricing plan. As modems became more
common in the eighties, with long calls to far away suburbs becoming
the norm, flat rate plans of the fifties and sixties had to be
eliminated.  PAT]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: Sun 29 Mar 1992 22:34 -0500


I've been reading through the DPU filings on ISDN (very interesting).
I'll write about that in another letter.

Flat rate services was discussed as part of pricing issues and the
point was made that the rate is adjusted according to overall usage of
that service so that NET makes money on it.  The flat rate users seem
to be subsidizing each other.  That would mean that there are many
(50%?) flat rate customers who would be better off with measured
service.  But the availability of flat rate doesn't penalize those who
choose measured service.

Caveats.  I'm not an expert on this and this is based on a few
sentences in a large document.  But since when does a lack of
knowledge inhibit one from submitting to TD, more likely, it makes it
easier.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for your comments. (icy stare)  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 13:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Natural Monopoly" Dies


tim gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is this why the US was considered to have the best telecommunications
> system in the world prior to divestiture? And why has the US slipped
> behind other markets since divestiture (Germany, Japan, etc.)?

This urban legend comes up time and time again. I cannot speak for
Germany (although friends in The Netherlands indicate similar
findings) but I can certainly speak about Japan and its highly-touted
telephone system. There seem to be many in this country that hold the
mistaken belief that the Japanese telephone system is somehow light
years more advanced than the US system, that there is ISDN in every
home, etc. ad nauseum.

Not true. In fact, most Japanese telephone customers use cheap push
button, pulse dial (because of the general LACK of DTMF capability
outside of metro areas) phones. NTT thinks nothing of running tens of
thousands of cable feet without active enhancement so that trans-
mission is highly variable.

My own experiences using the telephone in Tokyo reveal that call
completion success percentages are a joke compared with the US. Calls
frequently end in reorder-equivalent or just simply die in silence.
Perhaps someone could detail for us just exactly where all these
residential ISDN subscribers live because I sure missed them.

No, the US telephone system has not gone down the drain. I find local
and long distance service to have a speed, quality, and reliability
that has never been equaled at any time in the past. And on that
much-rarer occasion that something does fail, repair efforts are more
swift and more conclusive than ever before.

 From my perspective (active telephone user), post-divestiture US
telephony is a dream-come-true when compared to the past. Technical
issues can be discussed with telco staff and creative solutions can be
reached. In the past, one dared not reveal that he had any working
knowledge of telephony for fear of reprisal from "telco security". It
was all supposed to be a big mystery.

Perhaps someone who feels differently could explain EXACTLY how the US
telephone network has gone to Hell, MI in a handbasket. Please do not
mention two issues: COCOTs (which are a separate matter from
divestiture and do not have to be the way they are); and the
complexity of making service purchasing decisions. With choice comes
responsibility. Look how tough it is to buy a car. Maybe if only Yugos
were available things could be easier.

No, what I want to hear about is how the service has deteriorated. And
how it is inferior to the rest of the world. Perhaps we could have
some details about real, generally available offerings enjoyed by
telco customers in Europe and Japan (I am familiar with Japan, so be
careful about what you make up).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Stacey Cherny)
Subject: Re: Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 20:52:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Michael.Rosen@lambada.
oit.unc.edu (Michael Rosen) writes about his school's switch from AT&T
to Sprint and their blocking of 10ATT (and 10222 etc ...).

My institution uses AT&T in a similar manner.  If I want to place a
call using another carrier, I must use a calling card.  Also, although
they use AT&T, they do not have facilities for attaching any of AT&T's
discount calling plans to the phones in student housing.  Our rates
are full AT&T rates, although no federal tax is added on.  (I've since
discovered that it is cheaper for me to use my AT&T Universal Card
than directly dialing out, since they offer a 20% discount on all
calls.)  I would guess that the equal access laws coming into effect
will not apply to university telcos, but would very much like others
opinions on this.  Also, I would like to know if anyone knows of an LD
company providing a discount calling plan for calls made to Canada
which is similar to AT&T's Reach Out World or MCI's Call Canada but
which can be used with a calling card.  Since I moved to University
housing, my LD phone charges have more than doubled!  (Using the
Universal Card now amounts to bills slightly less than double.)

Any information would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Number Assignment
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 22:53:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> 1.  Internet addressing could have been designed to support two nodes
> with the same name in the same domain, but the designers of the
> network didn't think of it.  Or perhaps, they did think of it, and of
> the problems that result from an ambiguous address.  I think the same
> applies in the case of different phones having the same number.

This DOES exist in Internet.  A single domain name (analogous to a
telephone number) can have more than one IP address (analogous to
selecting a copper pair or recognizing a cell phone ID).

When a network application queries the DNS with a given name, it can
find out what all the IP addresses are.  All applications I have seen
will deal with this by only trying one IP address at a time when
making the connection, but there would be nothing preventing trying
all the addresses concurrently if the application programmer wanted to
(and knew how to program the concurrency on the given system, e.g.
using fcntl(,FNDELAY,) and select() in UNIX with the programming style
to support the asyncronous events).

> 2.  They might have used digital technology.  But the AMPS standard is
> not a new design.  The conceptual work was done in the 1960's, and the
> current standard developed in the 1970's.  Personal portables and
> mobiles based on digital techniques were not possible with the
> technology then available.  Imagine a world with no large-scale
> integration, no microprocessors, etc.

I am aware.  I just believe the timing was bad.  Had they started on
the development of the digital methods at the time one could foresee
the availability (before 1980), we'd surely have it all in place by
now.

> 3. A secure system?  Yes, but what would the FBI say about it?  The
> coming digital systems will be harder to intercept, and will require
> more expensive equipment to decode.  But they're still not encrypted.
> If they were, we'd only have to pay more so the FBI could afford to
> decrypt it, no?

A secure system is coming no matter what they say about it.  If they
have their way, only the drug dealers will have encryption, and they
won't be any better off, except for lots and lots of useless digital
bugging equipment paid for by WTP (We The People).

My only beef is the time scale.

But with the later level of technology the next generation of cellular
will have, surely there will be no TECHNICAL problems with simple
concepts like contacting two or more physical phones for a call to a
single number.  If they want to charge more for use of the feature,
then fine.  I don't like excuses where non-technical people (sales
droids and managers) place blame for inability on the technical people
when more likely it is the non-technical people who supervised the
development and its finances who decided it was not worth the effort
to develop on that direction (and from a business point of view
perhaps they are right, but excuses don't cut it).


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #286
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10050;
          30 Mar 92 5:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19421
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 02:41:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08944
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 02:41:35 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 02:41:35 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #287

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Mar 92 02:41:35 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 287

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Dave Goldblatt)
    Re: Hold Music Sponsorship (J. Philip Miller)
    Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback (Don Davis)
    Re: Does Anyone Know About (Old?) Area Code 151? (Steve Gaarder)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe ... (Mark Rudholm)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Michael A. Covington)
    Dedicated Lines or AT&T? (Kyle Rudden)
    Caller ID and Call Waiting (Phil Howard)
    Telephone Loop Tape Player For Calls on Hold (Mike Jung)
    On-line Phone Directories (Edward Gehringer)
    CFV: comp.dcom.isdn (Michael Alexander)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Goldblatt)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp, Hopkinton MA 01748
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 19:39:36 GMT


On 26 Mar 92 12:41:28 GMT, [e-mail] (Monty Solomon) said:

> AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver".

> It is $10 for 60 minutes each month and $0.20/min for calls during the
> day and $0.11/min for calls after 5 PM.  Depending upon your state you
> also get a 5% discount on intrastate long distance calls.  They are
> also currently waiving the $5.00 sign up fee.

Actually, it's $0.22/min for daytime calls after the first 60 minutes
of time are used.  All evening and night calls are billed at $0.11/min
(again, after the first 60 minutes are used.)

> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty
> minutes to fill the prepaid hour?  I was told they use the first sixty
> minutes, in whatever order they may be.   PAT]

Nope.  Monty's correct -- the most expensive calls are applied towards
the sixty-minute allocation.

At least, that's what I was told. :-) We'll see when my bill shows up
in a few days (I signed up when NYNEX finally got around to handling
the billing in late February).


Dave Goldblatt [[e-mail]]
Subsystems Engineering
Clearpoint Research Corporation
Hopkinton, MA 01748 - [phone]


[Moderator's Note: But you contradicted yourself above! In one
paragraph you refer to the *first* 60 minutes, then you later say
Monty was correct; that it is the *most expensive* 60 minutes they
use. It could make a few dollars difference in the cost each month. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Re: Hold Music Sponsorship
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 15:13:53 CST


[e-mail] writes:

> Ok, I'll have to side with you here, I guess I would prefer the
> classical over the Muzak garbage.

Another alternative is that there is a new service being offered by
cable systems nationwide that will provide 32 different flavors of
music, piped into your home via your friendly cable system (if only
you lease their friendly tuner).  Now it seems this would be a fine
music source for MOH.  Since ordinarily one does not sign any
agreements for cable, I wonder whether there would be any restrictions
on its use?


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


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, there are some agreements pertaining to
cable, one being the service is for the sole use of the members of the
household. You cannot resell cable service, and I suppose you cannot
give it away (indiscriminatly, to persons not of your specific
aquaintance in your home, or as a way to enhance your business.) Here
in Chicago, restaurants and taverns which have displayed big ticket
sporting events to their customers (via cable, without paying special
royalties) as a way of drawing business to their establishment have had
their knuckles rapped. I think if you intend to re-use or share what
you get from the cable, special arrangements must be made.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback
From: dgdhome![e-mail] (Don Davis)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 01:02:13 EST
Organization: The Dayton Home for the Chronically Strange


[e-mail] (Stan Brown) writes:

> The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) sends me copies of all
> interim orders in Ohio Bell's pending case for tariffing Caller ID and
> Automatic Callback [...]

> [...]  If there seems to be interest, I'll type in and
> submit to the Digest some relevant excerpts from the Opinion and
> Order, without comment.

Please do!

I called Ohio Bell the day after the PUCO issued their opinion/order,
and the customer service rep with whom I spoke indicated that Ohio
Bell was not happy about the blocking requirements. He asserted that
free blocking would render the Caller ID service useless.

When I tried to explain to him that I (and probably most other people)
would be perfectly happy with it, he seemed not to understand ... even
after I explained that I would buy or build the necessary services or
circuitry to prevent my phones from ringing if an ID-blocked call was
attempted.

Me:  I'll just arrange for my phones not to ring if ID is blocked.
Rep: I don't know that Ohio Bell plans to offer that service.
Me:  No problem. There'll be lots of *much* smarter phones available
     pretty soon. Meanwhile, I'll build something myself that'll
     do the job.
Rep: Uh...[changes subject]

(I am following the progress of Rob Bailey's Caller*ID Project with
great interest!)


Don Davis        |          Internet:             |
5444 Mangold Dr. |  dgdhome![e-mail]   | 513-235-0096 (voice)
Dayton, OH 45424 | Disclaimer? I hardly know her! | 513-235-0097 (FAX)

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 02:17:19 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Know About (Old?) Area Code 151?


[e-mail] (Jonathan_Welch) writes:

> I recently bought an old payphone at a flea market -- the kind that
> rings a bell when a coin in dropped in.
> I'm trying to make sense of the front panel instruction card that came
> with it.  The first line looks like this:

> 151 AREA 555-1313

> Subsequent lines keep referring to this 151 area code.

The 151 is probably a prefix to be dialed before the area code.  Many
older step switches, especially those of independent telcos, used such
prefixes rather than today's standard "1".  In many such cases, 12x
was used for sent-paid calls and 10x for operator-assisted calls,
where the x is/was a party identification digit or 1 for single-party
lines.  151 could fit that pattern as a special code for sent-paid
coin calls.

Codes I've seen instead of the standard 1 are 1x, 12x, and 112x (x is
the party identifier).  Anyone seen any others?


Steve Gaarder    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 23:30:27 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe ...


Controlling the sale and use of devices capable of receiving cellular
and cordless telephone transmissions is especially laughable in light
of the fact that these devices, by definition, do exactly that.
Probably most of the people who read the newsgroup can make a cordless
phone pick up his neighbor's conversations.  In fact, I imagine most
cordless phone users have inadvertently (or intentionally) done
exactly that.

But of course, the real issue is that you can't send a signal through
someone's house, office, and even his person and then tell him that he
mustn't pay any attention to it.  That makes no more sense than to
yell something from one end of a long hallway to the other and then
throw the man who happens to be in the middle of the hallway in jail
for overhearing you.

My privacy as an individual is sacrosanct and I am very much against
the idea of the government (or anyone) compromising it in any way.
But, I cannot yell in someone's face and expect them to not hear what
I am saying.  This is the nature of radio, therefore, if you need or
want privacy, encrypt.


Mark Rudholm    [e-mail]

            I speak only for myself, these are just my opinions,
                      I don't mean to make them yours.

[Moderator's Note: Remember when television sets used to have channels
numbered all the way to 83 on the UHF dial, instead of stopping in the
70's as they do now?  If you tune an old television set up there you
will hear cell phone calls.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 23:15:07 GMT


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

> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
> just call a foreign phone number. By browsing through some women's
> magazines I found the number 001- (access code for the US from
> Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
> can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask

I was of the impression that the 610 area code was unassigned (reserved
for WU TWX service). Has that changed ? I do not believe that these
numbers are dialable within the US.

In other words, the article is not telling the whole story.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think the parsing he used was wrong. I think we
need to concentrate on the '61' as a country code rather than '610'
as a North American area code.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 04:18:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Arthur Rubin) writes:

>> (Does this apply to modem calls?  What if the number is published as a
>> BBS number (a) in a magazine or (b) on a BBS?.)

> The intent is clear, but there are some problems.  In the case of
> modem/FAX calls (which usually autoredial if busy or no recognized
> answer, thereby making it an automatic telephone dialing system
> (unless otherwise defined in the law)), what happens if the number
> called is published (incorrectly) as being a modem/FAX number.  We all
> know reputable publications don't make misteaks. :-)

Lack of _mens rea_, hence no conviction.  _Mens rea_ is the legal term
(also called "criminal intent") for the intent to do the forbidden
thing.  Doing a forbidden act via an honest and innocent mistake is
not a crime.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  [e-mail]  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 14:42:35 est
From: Kyle Rudden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dedicated Lines or AT&T?


I've recently started a new job, where one of my responsibilities is
to determine whether a leased line or a straight phone dialup is more
cost effective.  The situation that exists is where physicians call up
a mainframe to process claims information for their patients.  The
cost of the leased lines is $546.00 per month, while some AT & T bills
can run over $1,000.  Some of these exaggerated cots is because the
office managers do not hang up the line right away.  I suppose that
what I need to know is what factors should I look for in deriving a
cost per minute formula that I may present to my bosses.  If there are
any other things that may be relevant that I've left out, please fill
me in.

As always, thanks.


Bob Baxter   Internet:  [e-mail]
US Mail: PO Box 88, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779   Phone: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 23:10:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Does Caller ID work on the second call with call waiting?

Maybe it might, but I can't see how.  I've read on here and other
places that it sends the data between rings.  But if there are no
rings?


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


[Moderator's Note: No it does not. The two are not compatible.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Jung)
Subject: Telephone Loop Tape Player For Calls on Hold
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:22:50 GMT


Could anyone suggest an inexpensive loop type tape player to play
recorded messages etc. while customers are on hold.  I'm not looking
for a device that will answer phone lines from our PBX just something
to give information to customers while on hold (instead of elevator
music!).

It would be great if the device could support multiple (loops/cassettes?)
so that I could have a main informational tape and then add or remove
other tapes at will that might describe on going; sales or whatever.

If anyone has one of these gadgets online, I would appreciate a short
email with model and manufacturer name (address, telephone) if you have
it.

Thanks in advance.


Michael Jung - WD4ARM                 UUCP - unet!coplex!mjung
  Copper Electronics              Internet - [e-mail]
  3315 Gilmore Industrial BLVD         Voice - [phone]
  Louisville, KY  40213                Fax - [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 00:26:44 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Edward Gehringer)
Subject: On-line Phone Directories


A couple of months ago, there was some discussion in this newsgroup of
on-line phone directories available via Compuserve and similar
computer utilities.  I'd like to find out --

  - who offers such services,
  - what they cost, and
  - if it is possible to upload a list of names that you want "looked up."
    If so, would it be cheaper than typing in the names individually
    while hooked up to the service?

Thanks for any information.


Ed

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Alexander)
Subject: CFV: comp.dcom.isdn
Date: 29 Mar 1992 11:32:00 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE NEW NEWSGROUP COMP.DCOM.ISDN

CHARTER:

Comp.dcom.isdn shall be a forum for the discussion of all ISDN -
related matters. This includes everything from basic questions - and
answers to applications, products, switching technology, interfaces,
protocols, transmission media, standards and trends. The group is
intended to help make the topic more understood. Comp.dcom.isdn should
become a truly international group with contributions from everywhere
ISDN is in any state-from proposed to production. The group should
help accelerate ISDN superseding what comes to be known as POTS (plain
old phone service).

VOTING:

All votes must be replies to this note, or sent separately to
[e-mail]. The votes must be explicit and must be sent
during the time period of March 29, 1992 to April 18, 1992.

COMMENTS:

The group will be supported by an own ftp-server holding ISDN-related
documents and archives of the discussions. A monthly FAQ list and a
separate calendar for ISDN-related events will maintained. A second
CFV and a list of received votes will be posted on April 10, 1992.


Michael F. Alexander               University of Southern California
Ma-Bel-Network:    [phone]  MVS:       [e-mail]
VM-Bitnet: [e-mail]   UNIX:      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #287
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24800;
          30 Mar 92 22:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01657
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:46:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03299
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:46:32 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:46:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #288

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Mar 92 19:46:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 288

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Ron Heiby)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Dave Goldblatt)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (Stan Brown)
    Re: Does 706 Work Yet? (Kevin Houle)
    Re: Info Wanted Leading to Remotely Controllable Xbar Switch (K. Melden)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Steve M. Hoffman)
    Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting (Ron Schnell)
    Re: Hold Music Sponsorship (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Edward Gehringer)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (David E.A. Wilson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Heiby)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver
Date: 30 Mar 92 19:28:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


I looked into the AHS program a couple of weeks ago.  It turned out
that with either AHS or ROA, the LD calls we make most frequently came
out to be almost exactly $.11/minute whether the call was placed in
evening or night/weekend times.  Also, since the majority of our calls
are placed during evening times, the only reason for either progrm
(for us) is to get the evening discount (to about $.11/min).

With ROA, I pay $8-something for the first hour of night/weekend
calling, or about $2 more than the next hour will cost (whenever the
calls are placed, $6.60/hr).  I just have to make sure that we make at
least one hour of the monthly calling during night/weekend.  That way,
I'm only paying the $2 per month for the evening discount.  If we made
*no* calls during night/weekend rate times, we'd be paying the full $8
plus for the evening discount.

With AHS, all the rationale stays pretty much the same, but under AHS,
I have to pay *more* for the evening discount.  Since we don't make
any "day" calls to speak of, the hour of calls to get the evening
discount ends up costing us an extra ~$2 per month.

AHS certainly looks like it would be a win for those with a fair
amount of day LD calling, but if you have very little or none, ROA is
a better deal.  I found that one of the AT&T people I talked to could
look at my billing records for the last couple of months and tell me
whether I'd have saved money if I'd been on AHS.

BTW, The first person I talked to at AT&T was the one who answered the
800 number that I saw in the ad on TV while I was travelling.  She
told me that the above comparison info was not available, because the
computer was "down".  She suggested that I try again some other time.
What I didn't realize was that she meant, "SOME OTHER TIME".  So,
I called back the next evening at about the same time, got the same
person on the line, and was told (more clearly this time) that they
*always* have their computer down at that particular time.  When I
called at ANOTHER TIME, I was given the information very effeciently.


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 08:13:32 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Goldblatt)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver
Reply-To: [e-mail]


On 29 Mar 92 19:39:36 GMT, I said:

> Actually, it's $0.22/min for daytime calls after the first 60 minutes
> of time are used.  All evening and night calls are billed at $0.11/min
> (again, after the first 60 minutes are used.)

[...]

> Nope.  Monty's correct -- the most expensive calls are applied towards
> the sixty-minute allocation.

> [Moderator's Note: But you contradicted yourself above! In one
> paragraph you refer to the *first* 60 minutes, then you later say
> Monty was correct; that it is the *most expensive* 60 minutes they
> use. It could make a few dollars difference in the cost each month.
> PAT]

Well, it was a typo.  Just read the paragraphs in reverse order to see
how those first 60 minutes are determined. :-)


Dave Goldblatt [[e-mail]]
Subsystems Engineering    Clearpoint Research Corporation
Hopkinton, MA 01748 - [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 22:53:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I just got my first bill showing the new service, and they seem to
have used the daytime calls first, since my daytime total is zero
minutes, and I _have_ daytime calls in the listing.


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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:58:44 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


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

> On 26 Mar 92 12:41:28 GMT, [e-mail] (Monty Solomon) said:

>> AT&T has a brand new Reach Out America plan called "Any Hour Saver".

>> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure they use the most expensive sixty
>> minutes to fill the prepaid hour?  I was told they use the first sixty
>> minutes, in whatever order they may be.   PAT]

> [Moderator's Note: But you contradicted yourself above! In one
> paragraph you refer to the *first* 60 minutes, then you later say
> Monty was correct; that it is the *most expensive* 60 minutes they
> use. It could make a few dollars difference in the cost each month. PAT]

I called 1-800-REACH-OUT (the T is silent, don'tcha know) and asked
this question.  The operator was quite definite.  If you make 60
minutes of daytime calls in a month, those are applied against the
standard hour; if not, all the daytime and as much as necessary of the
evening calls will make the hour.  She also said "the most expensive
calls go toward that hour," which confirms the story from another
perspective.

Other TELECOM Digest readers quoted 20 cents and 22 cents a minute for
daytime calls beyond the first hour of daytime calls; my operator fell
nicely in the middle at "about 21 cents".

I asked for it to be sent in writing, and they promised to.

What I wonder is, why is AT&T not advertising this plan that is so
superior to the old Reach Out America plans for most customers?  :-)


Stan Brown     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Does 706 Work Yet?
From: lunatix!iowegia![e-mail]
Reply-To: iowegia![e-mail]
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 22:31:18 CST
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, [phone]


[e-mail] (H.W.) writes:

> I attempted a call to NPA 706, both from the office SL100 and from my
> home number (Ottawa, Canada).  Neither works yet. According to Bell
> Canada, calling to 706 will not be available until May 3rd.

Is that what is going on? I tried calling to 706 from Des Moines, Iowa
and got a recording saying "Your international call connot be
completed as dialed." I was calling to see why another call to 706
errored out of our AMA processing, as NPA-NXX not found in Terminating
Point Master. I take it Bellcore hasn't added 706 yet ...


Kevin Houle   iowegia![e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 07:37:12 EST
From: alpo![e-mail] (Kurt A Melden)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted Leading to Remotely Controllable Xbar Switch


Doug Faunt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We want, for one of our labs, a computer controllable crossbar switch,
> or "patch panel", so that we can make arbitrary assignments of serial
> connections for setting up test networks with serial links involved.
> We need to pass at least V.35 signals through it, and RS232 is
> probably necessary.  It strikes me that the telephone and broadcast
> oriented readers of this group might have a good lead on this.
> Reasonable price is a necessity.  Any suggestions?

A matrix switch is a common solution for test networks with lots of
serial connections. An electronic matrix switch comes in sizes ranging
from 16 to 8000 ports.  Any port can be connected to another
electronically, at the physical layer.  The physical layer connections
allow any protocol to pass without conversion, routing, or
encapsulation. Usually the matrix switch will pass all signal leads on
the cables without impairment.  The transparent feature is very useful
in test networks, where protocol issues are the focus and problems
introduced by a patching system are not desired.

A matrix switch has many different physical layer types such as V.35,
RS-232, X.21, and DSX-1 (T1). Speeds up to 4 Mb/s are possible.

The usual application of a matrix switch is in patching large numbers
of serial connections between computers and remote resources.  Another
application is for test or pre-production network testing, wherein
many combinations of devices and computers can be setup and stressed
or tested.

Most matrix switches are remotely controlled and some even have
networking for the control paths.

Switches are about 100 to 300 dollars per port (two ports per connect-
ion are required).

Vendors of matrix swtiches include:


    Bytex        Westboro, MA
    Telenex        N.J.
    Hadax        ???
    Dataswitch    Conn.


Kurt Melden    Cascade Communications    Westford, MA
[e-mail]    508-692-2600

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 09:13:51 CST
From: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Steve M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 15:13:39 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
> M. Hoffman) writes:>

>> Yea, I picked up one of these gizmos back in December and while the
>> encription is very nice to have, it much clearer than most cordless

> Umm, encryption? Thats' a bit of a misnomer, from what I've seen. Its
> "encryption" is actually just the fact that it is digitallly
> transmitted rather than the usual analog. Anyone with a D/A converter
> can "crack" it.

I think the use of "encription" here is not in the purest sense.  Yes
you need a digital transmission to encript something.  However, for
most people and and all practical purposes to someone tuned into the
frequency (either by scanner or cordless phone handset) is
"scrambled."  Since digital radio transmissions are just on their way
today, I figured this might be a practical, somewhat low cost solution
to the concerns people are making about being listened to today.  In a
year or two we may actually see "digital" cordless phones (just like
digital TV, radios, cellular phones, etc.), but until then I feel
better knowing that I can't easily be listened to.  Sorry about the
poor choice of words.

P.S. - For the people who have been writing me for info on the phone,
I think the only place that sells them right now is Sears.


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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 10:45:36 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting


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

> Does Caller ID work on the second call with call waiting?

> Maybe it might, but I can't see how.  I've read on here and other
> places that it sends the data between rings.  But if there are no
> rings?

> [Moderator's Note: No it does not. The two are not compatible.   PAT]

Yes and no.  They are somewhat compatible.  If you get a call waiting
and hang up on the original call, the phone rings (as documented) and,
at least in Southern Bell, CPID is delivered.  So if you *really* want
to know who is calling before you pick it up, tell the other person
you will call back.


[Moderator's Note: I was going to mention that, but my experience has
been if I hear the call waiting tone and take long enough to even say
'goodbye' very quickly to the other end and disconnect, I barely get
off before the second ring would (otherwise) occur. Caller-ID here
seems to come immediatly at the end of ring one. When I've heard the
tone and deliberatly tested by hitting the switch that same instant,
I've gotten 'Error' on the display, along with some partial reading.
I've never been able to courteously disconnect *and* get Caller ID
without at least an error and illegible transmission.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:19:07 EST
From: [e-mail] (Gary W Sanders)
Subject: Re: Hold Music Sponsorship
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Ok, I'll have to side with you here, I guess I would prefer the
>> classical over the Muzak garbage.

> Another alternative is that there is a new service being offered by
> cable systems nationwide that will provide 32 different flavors of
> music, piped into your home via your friendly cable system (if only

I can see it now, We're sorry, all operators are busy, for rock press
1, for classical press 2, for headbangers press 3, for ...


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 11:48:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Will Equal Access Apply to All Parties?


> The guy didn't even know what I was talking about when I mentioned
> 10ATT0.  At least the Sprint operator knew what I was talking about.

You *obviously* got the wrong person on the phone.  Call back and ask
for someone who's in charge.  If they don't know about equal access
for operator services, I'll eat my keyboard.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:36:36 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Edward Gehringer)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: North Carolina State University


>> Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
>> can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask

> [Moderator's Note: I think the parsing he used was wrong. I think we
> need to concentrate on the '61' as a country code rather than '610'
> as a North American area code.   PAT]

Hmmm -- 61 is the country code for Australia.  "02" would have a zero
prepended to become area code 002 in Australia.  That, if it exists,
would be somewhere in Tasmania (Hobart?), and there are six digits
remaining, which would be the right amount for a legal phone number.
However, the local phone number would then begin with 04, which I
think is illegal, 0 being the STD (long-distance) access code from
within Australia (04x is the area code for Wollongng, isn't it?).


Ed

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 22:27:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Lars Poulsen) writes:

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

>> 001- (access code for the US from Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92)

> I was of the impression that the 610 area code was unassigned (reserved

> [Moderator's Note: I think the parsing he used was wrong. I think we
> need to concentrate on the '61' as a country code rather than '610'
> as a North American area code.   PAT]

I don't think so. [phone]xx would be a number in Tasmania
(Australia) based on the 61 02 part but 0404xx is not a valid phone
number in that area code (at least it would not be dialable there
because it starts with a 0, our area code prefix digit). The telecom
FAQ lists 00 as the "standard" international prefix and does not
mention Germany as having a non standard one -- thus 00-1-610-204-04xx
would parse into a US number.


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


[Moderator's Note: Good point, but I would not let the lack of 0404xx
in Hobart, Tasmania be of concern, because where these international
junk call numbers have appeared in the past, they always had some city
code which never showed up in any printed source. For example, here in
the USA we've had advertisements to join in 'A Hot Worldwide
Conference for Gay Men' by calling a number in the Netherland
Antilles. The country code is correct; the call goes through to the
number dialed, but AT&T's International Information Center has no
record of the city code. And people in Spain are petitioned in
advertisements to call a number in New Jersey/USA to speak with a
Tarot practitioner. I'd sure like to know which telco is running all
these international '900-like' services; I rather suspect AT&T is
doing it, but staying in the closet about it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #288
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26306;
          30 Mar 92 22:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16796
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 20:33:26 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08215
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 20:33:12 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 20:33:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #289

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Mar 92 20:33:10 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 289

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Ron Bean)
    Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Jeff Hibbard)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Jack Decker)
    Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco (John Higdon)
    Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback (Stan Brown)
    Re: 911 Source Identification (Carol Springs)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    Re: My School's Switch to Sprint (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Bell Canada and Third-Number Billing (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: "Natural Monopoly" Dies
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 20:06:15 CST
From: Ron Bean <agrimad!nicmad!madnix![e-mail]>


Our Moderator writes:

> I don't see where the telcos owe them anything except that once MFS
> and the others build their network, spend billions of dollars on
> outside and inside plant, build their own central office building and
> otherwise get things together, the telco can hand them a bunch of wire
> pairs out the door and say 'here is your gateway to our network'.
> Nothing more. Let MFS and the others develop their own software, make
> their own applications to the long distance carriers for
> interconnection, etc.  *Then* let's compare prices.

   The question is not what's "fair", but what's "good for
competition". When one company completely dominates a large industry,
even if they did it fair and square, the US Government reserves the
right to put aside fairness and "adjust" things a bit in favor of the
competition. General Motors and IBM have both faced this sort of thing
in the past.

(BTW, some economists think that both GM and IBM would be more
productive if they were split up into several smaller companies, but
I'm not going to debate that here.)


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Natural Monopoly" Dies
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 01:16:02 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> My own experiences using the telephone in Tokyo reveal that call
> completion success percentages are a joke compared with the US. Calls
> frequently end in reorder-equivalent or just simply die in silence.
> Perhaps someone could detail for us just exactly where all these
> residential ISDN subscribers live because I sure missed them.

I cannot speak for outside of Tokyo much, but as for telecommunications
originating in Tokyo, after living here for about 16 months, I have
never had a call reorder or die, and with the exception of a couple of
random incidents of line noise during modem calls, I have never had a
bad connection.  I often hear the first ring before my finger releases
the last button.  Granted, most of my domestic calling is inside the
03 and 0422 area codes.

There are many areas served by older hardware that don't have DMTF; I
used to live in one.  Never had a bad connection there either.  The
hardware may be old, but it seems well maintained.

And local calls are a bargain -- 10 yen (7.5 cents) for the first
three minutes, and the local calling area has maybe 15 million people
in it.  (Japanese LD rates subsidize this, I'm sure) Public phones are
everywhere, and most take the prepaid cards.

I use IDC for my international calling.  The connections are (to my
ear) totally noiseless, and I am frequently not believed when I say
"International call from Japan."  The same cannot be said about calls
in the reverse direction.

I am sure that there are many problems with the internals of the
Japanese phone system that are not immediately apparent, and I do know
that some of the CO infrastructure is dated by US standards, but it
works, and it works well.  Even the COCOTs are polite (they do seem to
have them, and all they do is eat the 10 yen coins very slightly
faster, I've been told)


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 19:52:25 GMT


[e-mail] (tim gorman) writes:

> David Ptasnik <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest V12
> #270:

>> the rural customers did not pay significantly higher rates than
>> urban customers.  Often the reverse was true.

> This may be the case in Illinois. It is certainly not true in Kansas.

It's not true in Illinois, either.  One of my coworkers is served by
such a rural telephone company (Mid Century, offices in Canton IL, but
her service is from a switch in Williamsfield IL).  When she mentioned
what she was paying one time, I pointed out that even my cellular
service was cheaper.  She now has a cellular phone in her home and her
phone bills are MUCH smaller than when she used to use the phone with
a wire.


Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 21:32:38 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Tony Kennedy) wrote:

> We all paid for directory assistance calls anyhow -- AT&T was never a
> charitable institution. Now the people who use directory assistance
> frequently are no longer subsidized by those who don't.

 ... and Pat (the Moderator) noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, that's funny. When I said *exactly what you
> said* about why local measured service was fairer than flat rate, I
> got jumped by a dozen readers who disagreed the other way around.  PAT]

Apples and Oranges, Pat.  Directory Assistance is a service with which
there are direct costs associated.  Every DA call is answered by a
live operator, and that operator has to be paid.  The more calls
handled, the more operators that are needed.  I do think the current
DA charge is a bit excessive given the level of automation involved
(that allows the operator to disconnect and go on to another call
after taking the request and entering it into the computer), but I can
see a need for the charge WHEN THE NUMBER IS LISTED IN THE DIRECTORY
(I do *not* think there should be a charge for obtaining new numbers;
after all, the telephone company could easily publish a new directory
more frequently that once a year, but they choose not to).

However, the telephone CO switch is there, and all the outside plant
(the biggest expense in the system) is there and with the possible
exception of calls made in EXTREMELY heavy calling periods, there is
no additional expense to the phone company whether a customer makes
one call per month or one thousand.  And if loading were a factor,
then you would think that the fairest way to bill calls would be by
time, but most local calls are billed on a per-call basis (I realize
that some telcos would LIKE to bill local call on a timed basis, and a
few may do it already, but my point is that going from unlimited local
service to a per-call charge doesn't necessarily penalize the heaviest
USERS, if they make few calls but talk for extended periods).

I think the difference is like the difference between swimming in a
local swimming pool and swimming in Lake Michigan.  In a local pool,
you have limited capacity and high operating costs, so you might
impose a per-user charge to both limit use and recover your costs.
Whereas in Lake Michigan no one really incurs a cost if one person, or
ten thousand people go swimming.  That's almost the way it is with a
modern CO switch ... it would take a VERY unusual event (like a sale
on U2 tickets!) :-) to make the switch reach capacity, and you simply
cannot relate the operating expenses to the number of calls made in
any meaningful way.


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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 01:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco


On Mar 29 at 13:33, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> This seems to overlook the fact that telcos have dealt on this basis
> with each other for years.

> Telco should not have to rent *anything* to their
> competition, and any gateway between the companies should be dealt
> with on equal terms as telco deals with any other phone company.  PAT]

But the various telcos operate in exclusive territories and are not in
competition with one another. (You should hear Pac*Bell installers
talk about GTE and visaversa, but that is another issue.) The moment a
telco COMPETES with another entity, whether it be an equipment vendor
(Centrex) or another service provider (voicemail), it steps into a
twilight area. Of course the telcos would like to have all of the
advantages of being a monopoly and they would also like to be able to
leverage these advantages to cream the competition.

But the local telco owns its building and outside plant through the
largess of the regulated ratepayers under the supervision of
government edict and control. Pat's implications that the telco built
this all themselves, presumably at private investor's expense and
risk, are bogus. If true, then certainly they would not and should not
be required to offer it, or use of it, to anyone under any terms. But
this is not the case.

The telco's facilities come through guaranteed rates of return and
government mandated prices that provided a virtual risk-free
environment for capitalization. Since this is the case, and because of
the fact that telco facilities are the "only game in town", it is not
unreasonable to require them to "share" with others in a business that
the telcos themselves have deemed it appropriate to compete with.

We have been down this road before. Telcos compete with voicemail
service bureaus. Telcos never even considered offering this service
before the independent pioneers did the legwork in engineering and
marketing. And they did it at great investor risk without any safety
net if the whole enterprize failed. When the service looked marketable
and profitable, the telcos decided that this was a viable revenue
source and used its network ownership to great advantage to offer its
own product.

Without going into all the other shenanigans that the telcos have
pulled to put the competition out of business, the one point that must
be remembered is that the ability to compete was provided by the
ratepayers' capital. The whole empowering structure (regulated
monopoly status) is what made it possible, not shrewed, courageous,
and pioneering enterprize. To blithely claim that competitors, such as
voicemail providers or AC's, should just put up their own lines and
buildings or what have you, is ignoring the unique, enabling
environment that the telcos have enjoyed and continue to enjoy.

Much of what the telcos own was, in essence, "given" to them through
the regulated monopoly rules. It is not unreasonable to expect them to
cooperate with those targeted by them for competition.


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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 12:04:48 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> dgdhome![e-mail]
(Don Davis) writes:

> Me:  I'll just arrange for my phones not to ring if ID is blocked.

You may not be aware that about a quarter of all the lines in Ohio
Bell-land are non-published numbers.  Under the PUCO order, every
non-published number will have per-line blocking on every call unless
the customer says she doesn't want per-line blocking.

This means that you will be setting up your phone not to ring for
calls from about a quarter of the local calls you might get.  Or will
all your friends with non-published numbers remember to dial the
unblock code every time they call you?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Carol Springs)
Subject: Re: 911 Source Identification
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 18:52:48 EST


In Volume 12, Issue 281, [e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
> edu.mu.edu writes:

>> naturally assumed that without Caller-ID, which as the Globe and all
>> the rest of us know is the mechanism for Enhanced 911, NET would just
>> scrap all its plans for Enhanced 911 and justifiably blame the privacy
>> freaks.  Gee -- they must've found another way!

> As is the case with most assumptions and many of the things that "all
> the rest of us know", it is NOT true that E911 and caller ID are in
> any way related, from a technical perspective at least.

> ... The mechanism that is used to make this happen is quite
> different.

It's a joke, son.  Hence the row of tongue-in-cheek symbols just below
the line you quote.

I dunno, I'm aware of the dangers of posting this sort of thing
without smileys of some sort, but I'm sick of most of the standard
ones.  My mistake.  I'll stick to the familiar :-) in this forum in
the future.  Will it help?  I'm not so sure.

(Actually, I find "<sarcasm mode ON/OFF>" most effective in others'
articles, with lines at the top and bottom clearly delineating the
block of material that is supposed not to be taken seriously.  But too
many people mix up sarcasm and irony, including me, so this approach
has its faults as well.)

:-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)


Carol Springs    [e-mail]

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Reply-To: isus![e-mail]
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 17:06:18 GMT


New and Improved return address included. Sorry for the inconvenience.

> In comp.dcom.telecom is written:

> If I were to simply take the 160 kbs data stream raw as is, and relay
> it via some other means of communications (such as full duplex radio)
> somewhere else where a reverse setup exists, do you see any reason why
> this would not basically work?  I want to be able to relay it
> somewhere without having to worry at the relay points about the B and
> D channels and the protocols delaing with them.

To my knowledge, the raw digital stream is generated and detected
inside the DNIC (Digital Network Interface Chip) and converted to 2B1Q
there.  The 2B1Q code includes certain allowable voltage transitions
for data and uses one or more illegal transitions for syncing.

If you could use reliable waveform transmission methods, It seems it
would work.  It sounds like a non-trivial engineering problem, though.


Hoyt A. Stearns jr. |asuvax.eas.asu.
4131 E. Cannon Dr.  |edu!telesys!
Phoenix, AZ. 85028  |wierius!isus!
voice 602 996 1717  |hoyt

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 11:57:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: My School's Switch to Sprint


> Where exactly could I find this legislation concerning equal access
> and when does it go into effect?

1.  Go to your University library (if your school is a government
documents repository) and ask for the Federal Register, Volume 58
number 78 for Tuesday, April 28, 1991.  Pages 18519 to 18524.

2.  Call your congressional representative and ask for a copy of
Public Law 101-435 (October 17, 1990)

3.  Be aware that your school has until April, 1993 to comply.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 13:29:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada and Third-Number Billing


Many years ago in Delaware, I charged a few local calls to my home
number and, not long afterwards, was sent a calling card (then called
a "credit" card) without even having to apply for one.

And, yes, there is a requirement, now in effect for many years, about
verifying third party charges.  Phoneco security was quoted in a
newspaper that a way to get rid of the fraud problem is to get rid of
third party billing, but that a lot of people want it.  It might have
been the same newspaper article that mentioned someone getting a
recent phone bill loaded with third party charges which he had never
authorized.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #289
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02886;
          31 Mar 92 0:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10271
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:54:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24447
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:53:51 -0600
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:53:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #290

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Mar 92 21:53:42 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 290

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Advice Sought on Possible Cell Phone Purchase (Lenny Tropiano)
    Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles (Kenneth R. Crudup)
    Re: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (M Galloway)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls ([e-mail])
    Re: Dedicated Lines or AT&T? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Motorola Secure Cordless Telephone (Gary Segal)
    Do-Not-Disturb Setting (Carl Moore)
    310 Not Valid in Canada (Arun Baheti)
    ISDN Basic and Primary Rate Interfaces (Richard Prohaska)
    Sprint -- Is This Progress? (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Measured Service Causes Hassle for Hackling (Paul Houle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Advice Sought on Possible Cell Phone Purchase
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lenny Tropiano)
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Austin, TX
Date: 30 Mar 92 12:41:49 CST (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Lenny Tropiano)


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

> Do you have programming information for cellular phones, especially
> the common Motorola .8mw handheld phones?  I'm thinking of getting
                       ^^ I guess it was .8 watts (oops)

I think I got the information I needed from John (Mr. Telecom) Higdon,
thanks ...

> one, and they have a deal here, buy one phone at $99, get another for
> $1 (two numbers).  Programming $25, Connection fee $20.  No monthly
> fee, $.28/min peak, $.17/min off-peak -- minimum sign-on six months.
> No minimum usage necessary (since this is connected injunction with a
> GTE commercial account).

Here's the scoop!  First of all, this deal is *NOT* open to everyone.
Please don't write me and ask how to get connected.  The phone costs
are inconjunction with a GTE Mobilecom commerical account.  It's only
offered to people who have the ability to be signed up under these
circumstances, not to everyone who wants a phone.

Basically it turned out to be:

    $119.00 for the first phone
       -$ 19.00 for the first 60 minutes of air time free (offered from
        store where the phones were bought - coupon given)
    $ 39.00 Connection charge
       -$ 39.00 Connection charge waived for this two week special from GTE
       -$ 34.00 First 100 minutes of air time free ($34 credit offered from
        GTE Mobilecom - coupon given)
    -------
        $ 66.00 net cost for phone one

    ===============================================================

    $ 20.00 for the second phone
       -$ 19.00 for the first 60 minutes of air time free (offered from
        store where the phones were bought - coupon given)
    $ 39.00 Connection charge
       -$ 39.00 Connection charge waived for this two week special from GTE
       -$ 34.00 First 100 minutes of air time free ($34 credit offered from
        GTE Mobilecom - coupon given)
    -------
       -$ 33.00 credit (net cost) for phone two

Total net cost for two phones was $33.00, no monthly charge, billed at
$.34/min peak, $.20/min off-peak air time.  Soooo, as you could
imagine I've signed up!

> What do you think about the deal?

I think I answered my own question ... I think this is being done to
first increase GTE Mobilecom's presence here.

SORRY I CANNOT DO THIS FOR EVERYONE! :-) THIS WAS LIMITED TO THOSE ON
THIS COMMERICAL GTE MOBILECOM ACCOUNT AND IN AUSTIN, TX ONLY.


Lenny Tropiano           ICUS Software Systems        [e-mail]
              ...!{ames,cs.utexas.edu,pacbell}!icus!lenny
                 14300 Tandem Blvd #222, Austin, TX 78728

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth R Crudup)
Subject: Re: Television "Buzz" With Superimposed Titles
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:27:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jim Rees) says:

> If it's a cable system, you may simply have too strong a signal ...
> If that's the case, you can fix it by attenuating the signal.
> You can probably buy an attenuator at the Rat Shack.

Yup, and they call it a "splitter".:-) (Their models have a 7(!) db
insertion loss!)


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    [e-mail]
16 Plainfield St. Jamaica Plain, (Boston), MA 02130-3633
Home [phone]     Home Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morris Galloway Jr.)
Subject: Re: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:34:42 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I'd like to get my hands on the text of the Telephone Consumer
> Protection Act of 1991.

We got our copy by calling the local office of our congressman.  Its
free, you know.


Morris Galloway, Presbyterian College  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 15:59:46 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears


Dave Banisar writes, in reference to the Motorola scrambled cordless
phone:

> Umm, encryption? Thats' a bit of a misnomer, from what I've seen. Its
> "encryption" is actually just the fact that it is digitallly
> transmitted rather than the usual analog. Anyone with a D/A converter
> can "crack" it.

What I have read about the phone in a industry magazine claimed the
phone was scrambled.  It also said there were 65K "security codes" (I
don't know if these are "security codes" in the same sense as other
manufactures use the word, or if it means 65K encryption possibilities.)
Another feature was than it scanned all channels, and usess the clearest
one.

I would assume this phone uses analog scrambling, as many of Motorola's
land mobile radios do.


Pat Turner [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 02:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


> ... but to reinforce the fact that the phone company can and will
> help, without charge.

Not around here.  If you get harassment calls here, you can call Sou
Bell but all they offer is the option of paying a monthly fee for call
trace, or paying per use.  The per-use charge of $4.50 is charged to
you, not to the person making the harassing calls.

Southern Bell has managed to make crime pay.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 12:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Dedicated Lines or AT&T?


[e-mail] (Kyle Rudden) asks:

> The cost of the leased lines is $546.00 per month, while some AT&T
> bills can run over $1,000.

If one line will do the trick, you've answered your question already,
haven't you?

The main thing to remember with multiple lines, is to calculate both
charges in the same units.  Per month may not be the best unit to use,
particularly if your monthly use varies.  I tend to calculate
everything in per minute rates or per ccs (one hundred call seconds)
because that's how my traffic is gathered.

Getting your per minute cost on your AT&T bills should be simple
enough -- just remember to calculate in any fixed costs that would go
away if you put in leased lines.  Then take your leased line cost and
divide it by the per minute cost of your dial-up.  Then divide it
again by the number of days in a business month (21-22) and multiply
it by .17 (the percentage of calls that usually fall in the busiest
hour of the day).  This will give you the number of minutes per busy
hour that EACH leased line has to carry in order to be more cost
effective than dial-up.

It looks like this:

     leased line cost        minutes
  ----------------------- =  -------
  dial-up per minute cost     month


  minutes per month    minutes
  ----------------- =  -------
  days per month        day

minutes per day  X  busy hour percentage (17%) = minutes per busy hour

This may be more formula than you need if you're only dealing with the
situation on a line by line basis.

Any questions, zap me e-mail or call so we can do some interactive
talking about this.  I have tables and such that may make it even
easier if you're interested, but, there again, if you aren't talking
multiple lines and lots of traffic, it may be more than you need.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Segal)
Subject: Re: Motorola Secure Cordless Telephone
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 18:12:32 GMT


[e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:

> I have a question about the Moto phone, does it use the same frequency
> band, and if so, is it spread-spectrum or some other security digital
> method?  Or is it just modulated analog signals with some sort of
> error correction?

The Motorola cordless phones feature "SecureClear" (TM), which provides
privacy and corded phone quality.

Technically, the phone uses the exact same ten channels that all other
cordless phones use.  As these channels are approved for analog
transmission only, the voice tranmission is not digital.  There is a
communications link between the microprocessors in the base and the
handset that is used for signallig (ring, dialed digits, channel
changes, authenication, e.t.c), but the voice link is analog.

My understanding is the the encyption method used is a type of analog
frequency inversion.  While not being secure enough for DoD usage, it
does prevent the casual scanner buff or other cordless phone users
from listening in.  I've heard that it may be possible to build a
decoder, but that would require some extra effort on the eavdropper's
part.

Until spectrum space is made availible for commerical digital
cordless, we won't be able to buy phones that are secure enough for
the DoD.  But for now, the Motorola phones at least keep the
neighborhood kid with a scanner from understanding your conversations.

As with all electronic security, it's a case of who has more money to
spend, the spyee or the spy.  If you have really important stuff to
discuss, use a corded phone or meet your party at a park bench.

If you want to hear what is sent over the air, the phones feature a
demo mode that causes both parties to hear the encrypted voice.  One
of the store displays includes a speaker which plays a prerecorded
demo when you push a button.

Besides the security features, the phones do have many other usefull
features.  One feature that I particually like is the battery backup
in the base; thus if your AC power fails while your on the phone, you
don't lose your call.  The base power is good for an hour or two.  The
phones have other standard features such as memories and redialing.
The handset is the same size and shape as the MicroTac with a slim
battery cellular phone, but the cordless has a belt clip.  And of
course, the phone is made in the U.S.A., in Grays Lake, Illinios.

If you want to see and/or buy one, the Sears stores in the Chicago
area are carrying the phones.  I don't know if they are carried
nationwide, or if they will be.  You can buy direct from Motorola by
calling 1-800-331-6456.


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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 9:36:41 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do-Not-Disturb Setting


A hotel I stayed in has *28 on its room phone.  That *28 takes you to
a menu where you can set a time for the expiration of "do not
disturb".

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 11:07 CST
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: 310 Not Valid in Canada


Last week while "passing through" Canada en route to New York I placed
several calls on my calling card from the standard Bell Canada phones
in a gas station.  I was unable to dial directly to the 310 area code
(213 worked) and was also unable to use my "new" 310 based calling
card, but this also worked when instead using 213.

I also had similar problems when dialing from a COCOT in Syracuse, NY.

Anyone else have similar problems?

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISDN Basic and Primary Rate Interfaces
Date: 30 Mar 92 18:29:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ


I am interested in atbus/eisa bus/sbus/vmebus boards that connect to
either a basic rate or primary rate ISDN.  What products are
available?


richard prohaska      at&t     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 11:20:16 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint -- Is This Progress?


I've had a Sprint FON card for several years, but almost never used
it. I kept getting bills with a credit in my favor of about $4. I
guess I hadn't noticed that these bills stopped coming about a year or
so ago.

Well, on a recent trip, I decided to try my FON card. As you might
have guessed, they had cancelled the card and it no longer works. So
called up the customer rep and expressed dismay that they cancel the
card without notification while they still owe *me* money. I demanded
that they issue a new card which arrived a couple of days ago.

The new card is not like the old card. The format is area code + number
 + PIN just like the "old" AT&T cards (or current LEC cards).  The PIN
does not work with AT&T or Pac*Bell, in other words it is a *second*
working PIN for the same telephone number, but it appears you can only
use it by calling the Sprint 800 access number, so it only works on
Sprint.

Question, if they have the ability to accept phone number + PIN, aand
charge on Sprint only, why then do they need the silly 800 acess
number which makes it all such a pain to use?


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, 30 Mar 92 19:09:26 MST
From: [e-mail] (Paul Houle)
Subject: Measured Service Causes Hassle For Hackling


    Measured service also happens to be good for preventing certain
kinds of phraud.  Back in the Manchester area, one of the hacklings
who thought he was really *ELITE* found a really bad wardialer program
written in BASIC on one of the local boards.  He managed to hack this
program so it actually worked with a Hayes-compatible modem, and then
set the program to scanning all of the prefixes in and around
Manchester.  He comes on to one of the local boards and posts this
really big list of modem numbers in about ten local exchanges.
Everyone was impressed -- and dialing the list was a good source of
adventure, especially because many of the machines were desktop jobs
running PC-anywhere ... some hacklings copied lots of commercial
software off of those.

    It turned out that the would-be hacker was using his parent's
phone line with measured service.  Now sure, four cents per message
unit isn't much, but when you make 60,000 calls (to numbers that
actually answer) it really adds up to a monster bill.  When his
parents got the bill, with several hundred dollars of local message
unit charges, they went ballistic.  I'm sure that the monitoring
programs at New England Telephone detected his wardialing spree, but I
suspect the guys at security figured that the bill would be a good
enough deterrent.  The hackling was kicked out of his parent's house
and moved into an apartment.  In a soft economy without any skills
(other than being a fifth-rate hacker), he ended up having to sell his
computer to eat.  Isn't that a shame?


[Moderator's Note: Gosh, what a downbeat way to end this issue of the
Digest. :)  Usually if someone sends a funny story or a humorous
anecdote, I use it to close out the issue. So what happened next?
After he sold his Vic-20 to get enough for a McDonald's Value Meal #3
what did he do for food the next day? I wonder if he has talked any of
the lawyers who do work for the Hacklings Civil Liberties Union about
suing the nasty, greedy old telco to force them to remove the charges
from his parent's phone bill?  After all, if this situation is allowed
to continue, his intellectual growth will be stunted; his freedom of
speech will be chilled when he is unable to associate with Socially
Responsible computer users, and the imminent death of Usenet will be
quite predictable. Maybe we should take up a collection to by him a
new Vic-20 and an acoustic 110 baud modem. :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #290
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24307;
          1 Apr 92 3:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24366
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 1 Apr 1992 01:28:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 1 Apr 1992 01:28:00 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 01:28:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #291

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Apr 92 01:28:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 291

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Roger V. Thompson)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone ([e-mail])
    Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Natural Monopoly" Dies (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Linc Madison)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Fred ter Haar)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Mark Rudholm)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Carl Moore)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (A. Wittlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roger V. Thompson)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 14:45:06 GMT


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

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Tony Kennedy) wrote:

> I think the difference is like the difference between swimming in a
> local swimming pool and swimming in Lake Michigan.  In a local pool,
> you have limited capacity and high operating costs, so you might
> impose a per-user charge to both limit use and recover your costs.
> Whereas in Lake Michigan no one really incurs a cost if one person, or
> ten thousand people go swimming.  That's almost the way it is with a
> modern CO switch ... it would take a VERY unusual event (like a sale
> on U2 tickets!) :-) to make the switch reach capacity, and you simply
> cannot relate the operating expenses to the number of calls made in
> any meaningful way.

I don't agree with this point. Central office switches are much more
analogous to the swimming pool than Lake Michigan.  Assume your pool
is provided by a city for the benefit of all residents and all
residents are taxed to support the construction, manintenance and
operations of this imaginary pool.  At first, the capacity of the pool
is matched to the usage level.  As demand grows, the city needs to
construct another pool or add to the existing one.  Tax increases are
needed, but residents of the city who use the pool infrequently
object.  Free admission to the pool is replaced by a charge for use,
allowing the frequent pool users to carry the burden of construction,
maintenance and operating costs associated with their usage.  Analogy
aside, the key point is that central office switches do have capacity
limits.

As always, this is my personal opinion and I don't speak for Southwestern
Bell.


Roger V. Thompson, P.E.                         |ARS AD5T
Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, Inc.    |314-529-7847 (Office)
550 Maryville Centre Dr.                        |314-529-7674 (Fax)
St. Louis, MO  63141                   |*use* [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 00:44 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


[competitive dial tone would be done as cream-skimming. It might
arrive quickly in Chicago, but slowly in Paxton.]

Your argument is interesting, but fails to generalize.  I now consider
applying the proposition to other utilities, and suggest that your
proposal leads only to paralysis.  Should we defer benefits here in
DeLand because it is not yet practical to supply them in East Lake?
No, I say, we can not presume that things are valuable only if they
are available to everyone.

When the phone company started, they didn't immediately run phone
lines out to East Lake County, did they?  No, they started by
stringing a few lines down-town and close in toward their plant.
Should we have said that the folks who lived close to downtown should
not have phones until someone could run wires to East Lake?

When home delivery of electricity first started, most of the more
rural areas were not served.  Should we therefore have forbidden the
electricity downtown?

City sewer service does not yet reach out to my house, a block and a
half outside of the city limits.  Shall we require folks in the city
to install septic tanks?

Grey water is only available in a limited area.  Shall we insist that
it be dumped in the river because there are no lines to your golf
course?

Gas service is only available where the pipes are, or where the
customer is willing to pay to extend the pipes.  They are still a few
thousand dollars away from my house.  Shall we shut off the gas to the
existing customers, because the gas company is only serving those
currently served?

No, I say again.  Few things spring full-grown from the foreheads of
their parents.  Expecting otherwise is foolish.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: 31 Mar 92 11:20:40 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco


Some of the past posting have made sharing floor space sound
reasonable.  Following are some questions I have on the subject.
Perhaps some of the readers can share their views.

I have yet to see any comments on what happens when the CO runs out of
space. Are the PUC's going to require the LEC to go into the real
estate business? Or are latecomers just out of luck?

How does the telco forecast floor space requirement in a competitive
environment where free entry and exit from the market exists?

How much lead time must be given for the telco to provide the floor
space? Six months/one year? What if major building construction (e.g.
adding a floor) is required?

Who is responsible for backup power? What risk agreements will be
required for when the diesel seizes a piston?

Will the building cable entrance be shared by all or will separate
entrances be required? What if the building is not amenable to
separate entrances?

What if the alternate access provider wants to use microwave? Will the
LEC have to lease roofspace or will the LEC have to provide a tower so
antenna space can be leased? What if the CO does not provide line-of-
sight? What will the LEC responsibility be?


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 02:07:11 -0800
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Colocation of Access Carriers and the Local Telco


John Higdon responds to the Moderator's comments on colocation:

> On Mar 29 at 13:33, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> This seems to overlook the fact that telcos have dealt on this basis
>> with each other for years.

>> Telco should not have to rent *anything* to their competition, and
>> any gateway between the companies should be dealt with on equal terms
>> as telco deals with any other phone company.  PAT]

> But the various telcos operate in exclusive territories and are not in
> competition with one another. (You should hear Pac*Bell installers
> talk about GTE and visaversa, but that is another issue.) The moment a
> telco COMPETES with another entity, whether it be an equipment vendor
> (Centrex) or another service provider (voicemail), it steps into a
> twilight area. Of course the telcos would like to have all of the
> advantages of being a monopoly and they would also like to be able to
> leverage these advantages to cream the competition.

[stuff deleted about telco nastiness concerning voicemail and other
services engineered to force the competition out of business]

> Much of what the telcos own was, in essence, "given" to them through
> the regulated monopoly rules. It is not unreasonable to expect them to
> cooperate with those targeted by them for competition.

Some questions:

* Do the RBOC's become nothing more than companies that own and
operate the central facilities to which other competing companies
attach their dial tone, as it were, and from which individual
subscribers get their service?  Then, would we also see the telcos as
we now know them split into 'dial tone providers' and 'public line
facility providers', with the former competing and the latter a
publicly owned utility?

* Would the market alone ensure connectivity between Bozotel and
Gigantic Telephone?  What motives would Gigantic Telephone have to
keep Bozotel (or for that matter, Innovative All Digital Telephone,
Inc.) OUT of its network?

The problem as I see it is that competition for subscribers eventually
would lead to problems with interconnectivity.  You don't want to make
it easier for your customers to switch allegiances; that's why Sun,
for all its talk of Open Systems as a holy grail of computing, has
quietly worked to limit the extent of its real competition for Sparc
machines.  Sure, its NFS works with others' versions of NFS -- but
you'll notice that the big ticket item, the user interface, is
essentially a proprietary design. To them, Motif is a four-letter
word, despite the fact that a number of their customers would like to
use it, precisely because it is an open standard.  Apple and IBM are
getting together to build a system the clonemakers can't bust open.
And so on.  Why should phone companies behave differently?

The answer to me seems to be that either we get the RBOCs out of
competitive businesses (a case of closing the barn door after the cows
have gone), or we review the parts of the system we wish to allow as a
monopoly.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Natural Monopoly" Dies
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 07:18:14 GMT


I, aka [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) wrote:

> I cannot speak for outside of Tokyo much, but as for telecommunications
> originating in Tokyo, after living here for about 16 months, I have
> never had a call reorder or die, and with the exception of a couple of
> random incidents of line noise during modem calls, I have never had a
> bad connection.  I often hear the first ring before my finger releases
> the last button.  Granted, most of my domestic calling is inside the
> 03 and 0422 area codes.

20 minutes after I wrote this, my home phone became unringable.  The
problem lasted about two hours, then all of a sudden I could phone
home again.

The phone company professes not to have any idea what happened.
Murphy strikes, I guess.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 22:22:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

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

>> [Germany doesn't have domestic "1-900" style service, but some numbers
>> use international dialing.]

>> By browsing through some women's magazines I found the number
>> 001- (access code for the US from Germany) -610-204-04xx  ...

> [Moderator's Note: 610 is the 'area code' for Canadian TWX service. I
> wonder if this could be translated to country code '61'?  PAT]

That still wouldn't be a valid number -- +61 02 is Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia, but 0404xx isn't a valid local number there.  I think it's
more likely that it's a typo, or that the Germans are doing something
special with +1 610.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Haar F. ter)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: PTT Research


[e-mail] (David E A Wilson) writes:

> because it starts with a 0, our area code prefix digit). The telecom
> FAQ lists 00 as the "standard" international prefix and does not
> mention Germany as having a non standard one -- thus 00-1-610-204-04xx
> would parse into a US number.

This is correct.

> [Moderator's Note: ....
> in Hobart, Tasmania be of concern, because where these international
> junk call numbers have appeared in the past, they always had some city
> code which never showed up in any printed source. For example, here in
> the USA we've had advertisements to join in 'A Hot Worldwide
> Conference for Gay Men' by calling a number in the Netherland
> Antilles. The country code is correct; the call goes through to the
> number dialed, but AT&T's International Information Center has no
> record of the city code. And people in Spain are petitioned in

What I understand from a German television programme is that German
service providers have agreements with some non German operators.
These agreements are similar to 900-number agreements between operator
and service provider, i.e. the service provider gets paid for
receiving calls.

The programme mentioned operators in Australia and the Netherland
Antilles have such deals. This only works if operators do not have an
efficient 900 service in operation, like in Germany. The service
providers have to move to the other end of the world in order to get
substantial payment.  They are paid from what operators make on calls
and rates on international calls are very profitable.


Fred ter Haar       E-Mail : [e-mail]
                    Mail   : PTT Research, Dr. Neher Laboratories,
                             P.O. box 421,2260 AK Leidschendam,The Netherlands
                    Phone  : [phone],  Telefax : [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 19:47:15 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany


Advertisements were run in Germany a couple of years ago for various
informational services, some of which were aimed at children.  Many
people unfamiliar with direct international dialing in Germany called
them without realising that they were placing international calls.
Many people were outraged when they received rather large bills (some
of the notorious ones were in excess of DM3,000).  When a group of
people tried to sue the party responsible, it came to light that these
numbers were set up by Australian Telecom!  They promoted the use of
these numbers because, since they are the telecom service provider at
the terminating end of the call, they get about half of the revenue
from the call.  So the numbers dialed in Germany all begin with 00+61.
"00" being the international access sequence from Germany.  Deutsche
Telekom claims to have had no part in any of this but I don't imagine
that they minded much since they gained just as much as the
perpetrators of this deception.

Oh, to whomever it was that said that Germany has a better telephone
system than the U.S., you have a great sense of humor!  Most of
Germany, even the major cities, are still served by mechanical
switches.  Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
(the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
limited test-areas.  And the only place you are going to find anything
similar to the kinds of "Custom-Calling" features that are available
to most U.S. telephone subscribers is perhaps on a PBX.  Connecting
any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is forbidden, unless
you pay for an expensive "protective-interface" (does that rhetoric
sound familiar to you pre-carterfone Bell System customers?)  The
reason for all of this is simple, Deutsche Telekom has no competition.

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


Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 23:59:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany


Attempt (using AT&T card) to call 01-610-204-0481 could not be
completed as dialed.  01 is the access code I used for
operator-assisted international calls (i.e. going outside country code
1), and I got the familiar "bong" before I got the recording about
failed international call.

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

From: [e-mail] (A. Wittlin)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 19:43:16 GMT


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

> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
> just call a foreign phone number. By browsing through some women's
> magazines I found the number 001- (access code for the US from
> Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
> can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask
> how the provider of such services will get any money from you?  That
> is quite difficult to explain but I try.

In a weekly press in Poland personal horoscope advertisment number is:
001 609 490 78xx (xx from 00 to 09 and 49 ) . It is explicitly said
"charge for long distance call to USA is 18 000 zl (approx. US$ 1.50)
/min. I think this service operates in a similar way to the German one.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #291
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26626;
          1 Apr 92 4:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11945
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 1 Apr 1992 02:27:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07406
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 1 Apr 1992 02:27:31 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 02:27:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #292

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Apr 92 02:27:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 292

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback (Mike Riddle)
    Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback (Don Davis)
    Re: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost (Susan Hagan)
    Re: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost (John R. Levine)
    Re: 310 Not Valid in Canada (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver (John Bruner)
    Re: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Martin Weiss)
    Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge (Brandon S. Allbery)
    Re: Measured Service Causes Hassle For Hackling (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting (Vance Shipley)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Alan Barclay)
    900 Number Query (Phydeaux)
    Re: War Dialer (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 07:11:00 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
Subject: Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


In article <unknown>, Stan Brown writes:

>> Me:  I'll just arrange for my phones not to ring if ID is blocked.

> You may not be aware that about a quarter of all the lines in Ohio
> Bell-land are non-published numbers.  Under the PUCO order, every
> non-published number will have per-line blocking on every call unless
> the customer says she doesn't want per-line blocking.

> This means that you will be setting up your phone not to ring for
> calls from about a quarter of the local calls you might get.  Or will
> all your friends with non-published numbers remember to dial the
> unblock code every time they call you?

Exactly why the Ohio PUC decision is unwise and contrary to good
public policy.

For some reason, the vocal minority in the CNID debate focuses
excessively on the caller, not the callee.  The caller is making a
conscious decision to make the call.  This can involve whatever setup
instructions the caller finds necessary, to include "*67."

Callees, on the other hand, also have privacy rights {gasp}.  These
rights include the electronic-age equivalent of knowing who is
disturbing their privacy.  (Yes, CNID only returns a telephone number
and/or directory name associated with the number.  I don't always
recognize who is on the other side of the door, either, but I can
still look out and decide whether or not to answer.)

If someone values their privacy enough to post a "do not disturb
unless you tell me who you are" sign, then people calling them will
have to learn the unblocking codes.

[Patrick:  doesn't this really belong in the telecom-priv mailing list?]


          <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]        |  Nebraska Inns of Court
[e-mail]        |  [phone] (Data/Fax)
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet          |  V.32/V.42bis   /   G3 Fax

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3   (1:285/27.0)


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it does. Being sort of the parent list, with
the largest readership, much gets sent here as worthwhile news but the
continuing discussion gets away from our intent. Perhaps (and this is
an oft-repeated request!) continued discussion on Caller-ID pros and
cons can continue in Telecom-Priv.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Ohio Action on Caller ID and Automatic Callback
From: dgdhome![e-mail] (Don Davis)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 20:43:24 EST
Organization: The Dayton Home for the Chronically Strange


[e-mail] (Stan Brown) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> dgdhome![e-mail]
> (I) wrote:

> Me:  I'll just arrange for my phones not to ring if ID is blocked.

> You may not be aware that about a quarter of all the lines in Ohio
> Bell-land are non-published numbers.  [...]

No, I had no idea.

Can you say how reliable that figure is, or name the source of the
information? Or perhaps this is common knowledge, and I'm just badly
out of touch ...

I asked Ohio Bell about this, and they flatly refused to discuss the
percentage of their customers who have non-published numbers.  I was
talking with a regular customer service rep, so it may be that I
simply asked the wrong person.  She didn't think that the PUCO would
not have this information, either ... maybe I'll give them a call
tomorrow.

Anyway, let's speculate about this for a moment.

Assume that one quarter of the phones in Ohio Bell-land are non-
published numbers, and ID-blocked by default, and that my friends
are representative of the general population. Knowing this, I will be
careful to let them know that my phones will not accept calls unless
they allow the ID information to go through. I will tell them exactly
how to do that.

I am aware that no one except my friends will have any way of knowing
that this is the case.

Will my friends with non-published numbers remember to dial the
unblock code every time they call me?  Well, they're all human, so
they tend to make mistakes occasionally.  It seems likely that, at
some point, a friend will call with their ID blocked. What will
happen?

I am hoping that, by the time Caller-ID is available in Ohio, I'll be
able to buy (or build) a box to silently redirect ID-blocked calls to
a voice-mail kind of device which will say:

    "Your Caller-ID information is blocked. Please try
     your call again without ID-blocking by dialing
     star-xx-xx, then <my phone number>."

I think this would be an acceptable solution to the problem of a
friend who has forgotten (how) to unblock.

If I can't buy (or build) such a device, I would be risking that a
friend might call and simply not get through. I'd hate to miss a call
from a friend ... I _like_ talking to my friends. I have pondered this
at length.

Knowing my friends and their abilities, I consider it unlikely that
I'll miss any of their calls. Not impossible, but unlikely.

I suppose the question here is "Am I willing to accept the _risk_ of
missing a call from a friend in exchange for preventing all completely
anonymous calls to my home?"

Everyone gets to make their own decisions.  For now, for me, the
answer is "Yes."  If I miss a call, my friend and I will sort out
whatever it was some other time.  I may have to accept some ribbing
for the measures I take in the name of privacy.  So be it.

That could change, of course.  If I want to sell something by
advertising in the local paper, I *might* want to allow ID-blocked
calls to come through, at least temporarily.  Also, if I get feed-
back from my friends or family that leads me to conclude that I'm
missing many of their calls, I think I'd start letting ID-blocked
calls come through.

It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?


Don Davis        |          Internet:             | Tel. [phone]
5444 Mangold Dr. |  dgdhome![e-mail]   | deja vu - deja vu
Dayton, OH 45424 | Disclaimer? I hardly know her! | deja vu - d3ja3vu

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

From: [e-mail] (Susan Hagan)
Subject: Re: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost
Date: 31 Mar 92 18:50:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> The U.S. Postal Service is fighting back with something called
> Worldpost which may be of interest to U.S.-based companies that send
> out a lot of international mail. For more information, call
> 1-800-456-3600, ext. 250, or write to:

I just called the number and apparently, this extension number
determines the type of information you will receive.  By the types of
questions I was asked by the operator, this service seems to
concentrate on packages, but I'll let you know when I receive the
information.

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

Subject: Re: U.S. Postal Service Worldpost
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 31 Mar 92 20:56:48 EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Moderator's Note: Could you write again please, and tell us in more
> detail about the Worldpost Service: how it works, the charges, etc.  PAT]

Worldpost has been around for quite a while.  Basically, you pay the
post office to fax your letter to the recipient's post office (or some
office that's supposed to be close to him.)  The last time I looked at
the rates, several years ago, the prices were rather high.  With the
advent of ubiquitous fax machines I expect that Worldpost will quickly
become obsolete.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 23:34:33 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 310 Not Valid in Canada


That's some problem you got if a Bell Canada phone isn't accepting a
new area code.  Anyone from Bell Canada reading this?

I take it you've seen the earlier COCOT bashing going on here.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 08:31:39 CST
From: [e-mail] (John Bruner)
Subject: Re: AT&T Any Hour Saver


AT&T does indeed use the most expensive minutes first when filling up
the first hour.

[Moderator's Note: I have found this is correct. I called them and
wound up switching my service. I did have ROA with the daytime
discount and Reach Out World. I dumped ROA for the new plan and kept
ROW with it for an extra $3.00.  They said the same thing about the
minutes; that they wait until the end of the billing period then scoop
up what daytime minutes were used to fill in the hour.  PAT]

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

From: Martin Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for Pointer to Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Date: 31 Mar 92 19:12:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Try requesting it from your US Representative.  They are always glad
to please constituents.  Ours has always been very helpful on these
matters.


Martin Weiss
Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh
Internet: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
BITNET: mbw@pittvms

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 19:44:27 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery)
Subject: Re: Telebit Modems and Call Waiting Disable Kludge
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail]
(Alan L Varney):

> Occasionally, the modem is shipped without verifying the power-up
> config, and it may have been used elsewhere (with other configs) just
> prior to shipment.  Without access to a terminal, this can be a major
> problem.  Even if the modem is configured to deny remote access and/or
> has auto-answer inhibited, the Telebit can be "re-configured" for
> remote access AND auto-answer with a simple paper clip!

> This is MUCH better than trying to find a cable and/or terminal at
> 2 AM just to turn the auto-answer capability ON.

Granted --- if you have something like the setup password.  If not,
well, your application may be safe.  We connect modems to UNIX
systems, which is quite enough of a security risk in itself without
the remote command mechanism to make things worse.  (Hmmm, maybe I
should crosspost to RISKS?  :-)

For remote reconfigure, we install into the remote system a BNU dialer
entry "reset-tb" and a system name "reset<port>": if the modem on a
given port needs to be reset, just get them to a shell prompt and have
them "cu reset<port>".  It's needed rarely, as we use the same
mechanism on each modem at our office before packing it for shipment.
And a UNIX system is hardly likely to have no terminals (or dedicated
console) connected to it.


Brandon

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 17:13:32 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Measured Service Causes Hassle For Hackling
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


The Moderator noted:

> I wonder if he has talked any of
> the lawyers who do work for the Hacklings Civil Liberties Union about
> suing the nasty, greedy old telco to force them to remove the charges
> from his parent's phone bill?  After all, if this situation is allowed
> to continue, his intellectual growth will be stunted; his freedom of
> speech will be chilled when he is unable to associate with Socially
> Responsible computer users, and the imminent death of Usenet will be
> quite predictable. Maybe we should take up a collection to by him a
> new Vic-20 and an acoustic 110 baud modem. :)    PAT]
                    ^^^^^^^^

At least he won't be able to auto-dial any more! :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I want you to know I received a letter today from a
young hackling who complained that life was not fair. I've got it
around here someplace ... see elsewhere in this issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 23:48:07 GMT


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

> Does Caller ID work on the second call with call waiting?

Northern Telecom have this feature available with BCS32 software for
the DMS-100 central office.  As I understand it the data will be sent
after the first tone.  I have the feature specification around here
somewhere, I will look for it.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: Alan Barclay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 11:18:13 gmt


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

> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
> just call a foreign phone number. By browsing through some women's
> magazines I found the number 001- (access code for the US from
> Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
> can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask

Someone responded:

> I was of the impression that the 610 area code was unassigned
> (reserved for WU TWX service). Has that changed ? I do not believe
> that these numbers are dialable within the US.

The Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: I think the parsing he used was wrong. I think we
> need to concentrate on the '61' as a country code rather than '610'
> as a North American area code.   PAT]

According to my list of European Telephone access codes, the former
West Germany has the code '00' as it's international access code,
making the telephone number dialed, 00 (Intl access) 1 (North America)
610- ...., so the call is definatly getting routed towards area code
610.

The former East Germany has the international access code of 06, so
it's possible that it's a special code getting interpeded unusually in
East Germany, but I'd suspect that the code is for West Germany only,
as telecom services are stuck in the late 40's in the former East
Germany.


Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England
[e-mail], ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:[phone], VOICE:[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 20:31:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: 900 Number Query ...


A friend is interested in setting up a 1-900 number to provide a
low-cost specialized information service.  If you've got any advice on
how to go about this please let me know.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Heruld Fiskenmoskort)
Subject: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 7:41:18 CST


Though many of you may have found that article humorous, I would like
to raise the question of the legality of "scanning" numbers (not
codes, awww!). Though there are supposedly laws against wardialing,
what is unlawful about it?  I feel that if you are NOT allowed to scan
(manual wardialing, which I am a master of) that the telephone company
is violating its contract to you!


[Moderator's Note: Life isn't fair, that's for sure.  I mean, what
right do people have to go to bed at 3 AM like myself and make the
assumption their phone won't ring for a few hours? :)  You and your
war dialing program are hereby directed to abort!  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #292
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19595;
          2 Apr 92 4:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00383
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:01:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25458
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:00:56 -0600
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:00:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #293

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Apr 92 02:00:56 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 293

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Off Line For a Few Days (TELECOM Moderator)
    Billing and Business Practices (Mike Diehr)
    CWA Opens Contract Talks With AT&T (CWA Press Release via Nigel Allen)
    New Pricing Structure; Leased Lines in Norway (Morten Reistad)
    Operator Access Blocked on Our System (Thomas K. Hinders)
    Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Circuit (Tone/Pulse Circuits) (D. Nyarko)
    On the Trail of the Encrypting Motorola Cordless Phone! (Jack Callaghan)
    A Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone (S. Elias)
    NXX Comes to South Jersey (John R. Levine)
    PC Parts/Suppliers (Bryan Montgomery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:09:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Off Line For a Few Days


Due to another important project which will take the overwhelming
majority of my time this weekend, there will only be a few issues at
most between now and Monday, April 6.

 *** PLEASE SEND NO FURTHER MAIL TO TELECOM UNTIL MONDAY, APRIL 6 ***

There will probably be no issues of the Digest on Friday ... and one
or two over Saturday and Sunday if time permits. Most of the replies
in the queue now on the older threads will be be tossed out ... and
what is sent to you between now and early next week will be just the
new stuff coming in, as time permits.


Patrick

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 16:49:07 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mike Diehr)
Subject: Billing and Business Practices


I've recently had some billing problems with GTE (in Los Angeles, CA).
While I don't think the problem is unique to GTE, I wonder if these
practices are standard throughout the USA.

The situation:

I recently requested the installation of another phone line in my
apartment.  I was planning on using the line for my modem, and I was
going to let one of my apartment-mates (non-relation) use the phone
for their job as a chat-line monitor.  At first, GTE told me that
there was a "block" on installing new service in my apartment.  After
spending literally 1 hour on the phone, and being transfered repeat-
edly between REPAIR and BILLING (and being dropped once -- isn't it
wonderful when the telco can't use the phone correctly?) they decided
that they couldn't explain the block, and would go ahead and install
service anyway.  After that, everything was fine for a month.

Then, the chat line that my roommate was working for moved their
offices (and phone number) and told her that (in error) that it was
still a free call. (In Los Angeles, a given seven digit "local" number
can be in one of three zones, with the closest zone free, and the
furthest zone costing as much (or more) than true "long distance").
Unfortunately, this happened almost exactly in time with the billing
cycle, so that the next bill for the phone was nearly $400.  I decided
to dispute the bill [well, it was worth a try ;-) ] for calls to that
number, and sent in payment for the remainder of the bill along with a
letter describing my reasons.  I received no response from GTE, except
that about one week later the number was disconnected.

Now the fun begins.  I called 611 to talk to a customer service rep.

GTE:  The number was disconnected for lack of payment.

Me: The bill was in dispute, and I had sent a letter describing my
reasons with my payment.

GTE: That went to our billing department.  It can take TWO WEEKS for
that info to get to us.  You have to CALL US.

Me: But normal legal and business practices require that billing
problems be disputed in writing.

GTE: Not us.  You set up your account with a phone call, didn't you
(and on and on).

 ... etc ...

Upon talking to another rep, the conversation went like this:

Me: well, I am disputing the bill for two reasons.  First, the
person who made the calls did not have my permission to make toll
calls.  Secondly, they were making the calls after being told that
they were free.

GTE: You are responsible for all charges to your account.

Me: What if someone broke in to my house and used my phone?

GTE: Well, unless you had a police report, you would still have to pay.

Me: What if they checked with a GTE operator, who gave them erroneous
information about the charges?

GTE: Well, they woulnd't make that kind of error, and there would be
no way for you to prove it, so you would still have to pay.

So this brings up some questions:

  (1) If I never signed a contract, how can they try to make me pay
the bill?  Is their only power that they can disconnect service (and
prevent me from ever getting service again?)

  (2) This number was on a separate bill.  If I didn't pay one bill,
can they disconnect my other phone?

  (3) Why are they allowed to set their own business and legal
practices?  Ignoring written material in favor of a phone call?

  (4) Is it common practice to disconnect service without warning?

  (5) I used to live in Washington State, and on that phone system,
you could not incur a charge by dialing a seven digit number.  You
would be instructed to re-dial with a 1+ if the number was toll.  Why
doesn't GTE do the same?  My naive understanding is that this is the
same reason why long distance calls require a 1+ -- so that you know
you will be charged.  My answer is that they make a fair amount of
money off of people's mistakes, and they don't want that revenue
stream to end.

Obviously, I made several mistakes: sharing a phone line, trusting my
friend, my friend trusting the company she worked for, etc.  However,
I can think of no other business relationship where it is so easy to
rack up vast amounts of charges on someone else's account, and with so
little recourse in such circumstances.  Imagine cable TV that charged
extra if you left it on a certain channel, and you go on vacation.  Or
how about a certain brand of cash machine that charges a $25 fee per
withdrawal (well, they say, it is clearly printed in the pamphlet that
came with your ATM card two years ago).  Or an unmarked toll bridge
that automatically charged to your car license fee (well, they say,
the street map inidcates that it is a toll bridge).  This is very
similar to the $15 1-800 call.  Would these be tolerated?  Hell no?
So how come GTE can get away with it?

ARRRGH.

I've since paid the bill, and am waiting for service to be
reconnected.  If anyone thinks there is a chance in hell of getting a
rebate, please tell me.


[Moderator's Note: Contracts do *not* have to be in writing, or be
signed. Your manipulation of the dial or buttons on your phone to
establish a connection can be construed as a request for service with
an implied willingness to abide by the tariffs governing the service
and an implied willingness and ability to pay for the service. The
tariffs do state you are responsible for the use of your instruments.
Although they are not required to adjust your bill, some sort of
goodwill writeoff may be in order. You might try appealing to the
Chairman's office, as I have done a couple times with IBT. Offer to
split the bill or pay something to show your intent.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: CWA Opens Contract Talks with AT&T
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Here is a press release from the Communications Workers of America.

 "Save Good American Jobs" Rallies Mark Opening of AT&T Contract
Talks with CWA, IBEW

 Contact: Jeff Miller or Gaye Williams Mack of the
          Communications Workers of America, 202-434-1172

 News Advisory:

   Rallies calling on AT&T to "save good American jobs" will be held
in cities around the country to mark the start of union contract
bargaining.

   The Communications Workers of America and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers will begin joint negotiations for
new three-year contracts with AT&T on Monday, March 30, in Washington
D.C. for 127,000 union-represented workers.

   Talks will kick off at 2 p.m. at the Washington Court Hotel, 525
New Jersey Ave. N.W., in the Grand Ballroom.  CWA President Morton
Bahr, IBEW President John Barry, and AT&T Chairman Robert Allen will
open the formal negotiations.  They will give opening statements, and
take questions from reporters; there will also be a photo opportunity.

   Rallies will be held in the following cities:

   * MORRISTOWN, N.J. --  AT&T Headquarters Plaza, 1 Speedwell Ave.,
from noon to 1 p.m.
   Contact: John Kinloch, vice president, CWA Local 1058,
908-707-1400.

   * RICHMOND, Va. -- AT&T Richmond Works plant, 4500 Laburnum Ave.,
from noon to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Doug Thompson, 804-346-4777.

   * PITTSBURGH -- AT&T International Operator Center, 635 Grant St.,
from 11:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
   Contact: Lois Grimes, CWA Local 13550, 412-391-6646.

   * ATLANTA -- The AT&T Building at 1200 Peachtree St., from noon
to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Nettle Walraven, CWA District 3, 404-296-5553.

   * DAYTON, Ohio -- NCR World Headquarters, 1700 Patterson Blvd.,
from 12:15 p.m. to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Jerry Schaeff, president, CWA Local 4322, 513-274-8301.

   * LANSING, Mich. -- At the State Capitol, from noon to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Paul Eddy, CWA Local 4040, 517-372-4040.

   * ORLANDO, Fla. -- The AT&T Complex in Central Park, off
of Oakridge Blvd., from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
   Contact: Sarah Smith, president, CWA Local 3108, 407-422-6554.

   * DALLAS -- At these locations from noon to 2 p.m.: 4100 Bryan, at
the AT&T operators office; 5525 LBJ Freeway; and 545 Carpenter
Freeway (in Irving).
   Contact: H. Ray Kramer, 214-638-3255.

   * SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- AT&T Building at 10999 Interstate
Highway-10W, from noon to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Catherine Fey, Local 6143, 512-224-6143.

   * DENVER -- Downtown at Skyline Park, 17th and Arapahoe, from noon
to 12:30 p.m.
   Contact: Bill Frazee, CWA District 7, 303-770-2822.

   * SAN FRANCISCO -- AT&T Headquarters, 795 Fulsom St., from noon
to 1 p.m.
   Contact: Vira Millrides, CWA District 9, 415-348-7303.

   CWA represents 100,000 and the IBEW represents 27,000 workers at
AT&T.

 (end of press release)

[Note from NDA: I wish I had seen this press release earlier so that
TELECOM Digest readers could have dropped by the rallies and chatted
with some of the AT&T workers. Even if the press release is too late
to be directly useful, at least it will serve as a reminder that AT&T
and its workers are now negotiating for a new contract ... and you
know the street address of the building in Pittsburgh where the
overseas operators work <grin>.

I hope AT&T and its workers can reach new contracts without a strike,
but I wouldn't bet on it.]


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

Date: 31 Mar 92 10:45 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Pricing Structure; Leased Lines in Norway


In the latest leased line customer mailing from the PTT there is a
letter about a completely new price structure. The letter is dated
March 25th, and has the signature "Med vennlig hilsen, Televerket",
[With our best regards, the PTT]. No name, department or anything.

The letter states that the PTT will abandon the old rate structure
based on municipalities, local/long distance etc. and will adopt a
unified structure based on distance. [about time].

Detailed billing info follows, but no mention of what the new tariffs
are, or where they can be obtained. Took a good hour on the phone to
find someone who might possibly find out, who will get back to me, he
said.

So, this is how things are in PTT-monopoly-land. More info as they get
back to me.


Morten Reistad, <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 31 Mar 92 11:06:33+0500
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Operator Access Blocked on Our System


Our phone admin has blocked access to any number starting with 0.  As
a result, you can not reach the operator or place a call with most
calling cards.

I can reach 1-800 numbers ... is there any other way to reach/bypass
this blocking "feature"?

Thanks in advance.


            Thomas K Hinders
   Martin Marietta Computing Standards
        4795 Meadow Wood Drive
         Chantilly, VA 22021
    703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5975 (f)
Alternate E-Mail: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Most LD carriers also have 800 access numbers.  PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (David Nyarko)
Subject: Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Circuit (Tone/Pulse Circuits)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 17:10:46 GMT


I bought a modular two-jack answering machine auto-disconnect device.
It stops the answering machine when an extension phone is picked up.

The main problem is that when an extension phone dials out in pulse
mode (not tone or DTMF mode), the machine starts and no outward calls
can be made. It appears the machine classifies the outgoing pulses as
incoming rings. BTW the autodisconnect circuit basically consists of
two zener diodes connected back-to-back.

Could anyone suggest a better reliable circuit? Schematics are
welcome.

Please email to: [e-mail]


David Nyarko   |  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 09:41:12 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: On the Trail of the Encrypting Motorola Cordless Phone!


  ****(follow to: Cordless Phone Not Safe from Prying Ears)*****

After MUCH searching thru Sears, Motorola 800 numbers, etc, I finally
got through to the Motorola Corporate office, then a couple of
cross-country phone transfers to a Customer Cellular Response Center.

After discussing what I was looking for they informed me it was the:

    America Series:  Motorola "Secure Clear" Cordless phone
             Model 300 & 500.

 From the rep's description (not a techie) it has the somewhat usual
65000 base/handset locking codes, and is secure from eavesdropping by
other phones of this type, other cordless phone, and scanners.

Guess this must be "the Phone".


JackJack

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

Subject: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 13:03:20 PST
From: [e-mail]


Occasionally over the past few months, I end up with a message on my
answering machine that consists of ringing and then someone I know
picking up the phone and saying "hello?, Hello?, HELLO?", and then
hanging up.

I think I have solved this problem by moving the speakerphone into
another room, one in which George does not walk on the tables.
(George is a female himalayan cat.)

The speakerphone button is right next to the digit keys on the phone,
and the cat has been stepping on the phone, hitting both speakerphone
button and one touchtone, and then immediately hanging up the
speakerphone by standing on the button or jumping a little.  I have 3
way calling so the phone rings back after a few seconds, since there
is a call "on hold".  Answering machine picks up after a few rings and
records various annoyed relatives and friends.

I suppose I could also have solved this by switching to speed calling
30, since George T. Cat would then have to hit two touch tones to make
a call.

The end.


eli

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

Subject: NXX Comes to South Jersey
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 17:47:49 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


While reading the phone book in the bathroom the other day (a
perfectly normal thing for a Telecom reader to do) I was surprised to
notice that there is now an NXX prefix in the 609 area.  Although
North Jersey has had NXX for several years, South Jersey hasn't since
609 is nowhere near full.  The dialing plan in 609 has permitted NXX
for several years, both for statewide consistency and because there
are some NXX prefixes in Toms River (908) which are a seven-digit
local call from Barnegat (609.)

Anyway, I see that in Atlantic City there is now a 300 prefix,
probably for one of the casinos.  I'd have expected them to assign a
less strange one first, but I suppose 300 has the advantage that it's
not an area code.

By the way, I notice that NJ still has seven digit local dialing
across area code boundaries, though particularly with all the new
prefixes in Princeton, which is in 609 but local to several 908
places, and in Toms River they're running pretty low on unduplicated
prefixes.


Regards,

John Levine, comp.compilers moderator
[e-mail] or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 10:41:35 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PC Parts/Suppliers Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am doing a 12 week project to complete my BEng at Portsmouth. I was
wondering with the ammassed knowledge and wisdom of telecom readers if
someone might have some information hidden away that might help me.

I have been tasked with a project to measure (up to) several hundred
low voltage (+-15V) signals. I am looking for suppliers of PC or stand
alone ADC/voltmeter cards and multiplexors. One problem that I may
face is that my order/delivery time is fairly tight.

Any help would be greatly appreciated,


Thanks,

Bryan Montgomery    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #293
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20549;
          2 Apr 92 4:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06445
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:41:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29091
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:41:04 -0600
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 02:41:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #294

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Apr 92 02:41:04 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 294

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Responds to my 800 Billing Complaint (John R. Levine)
    Specs For Computer/PABX Integration - CSTA (Anthony McKay)
    DTMF to ASCII/RS-232 Box Wanted (James H. Thompson)
    Motorola Cordless Telephone (Mark Rudholm)
    Caller*ID Hardware Schematic Offer (Rob Bailey)
    Cable vs Telco (NY Times via Monty Solomon)
    ISDN Interface for Northern Telecom Norstar Meridian? (Mike Bray)
    Sonet to Data; How? ([e-mail])
    TV Special on Alexander Graham Bell: The Sound and the Silence (D Leibold)
    Expensive Local Calling Card Call (Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Responds to my 800 Billing Complaint
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 18:11:10 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


I sent an informal complaint letter to the FCC a month or so ago about
the practice of billing for 800 calls, both for the notorious
800-555-5555 and for one of the 800 "sweepstakes validation" numbers.

The FCC sent a copy to AT&T, who responded quite promptly.  For
800-555-5555 they said that since the number was a translation error,
their billing equipment couldn't tell whether I'd dialed the 800 or
900 number, so the fact that it appeared on my bill was basically a
technical mistake.  This is a lot easier to believe than that some
maniac went around falsifying phone records, and I wonder why the guy
quoted in Adam Gaffin's story didn't say so.

As far as the Sweepstakes Clearing House number, they say that the
subscriber for that number isn't SCH and they don't know what the
relation between SCH and the sub is.  They won't tell me who the sub
is, that's proprietary, though they'll tell the FCC under confiden-
tiality.  More to the point, they reiterate that "there is never an
AT&T charge to callers for an 800 Service call."  The bills are sent
out by some third party, consistent with the {NY Times} story of last
Saturday mentioned in the Digest.

They also sent a copy of the 800 Megacom tariffs.  SCH (or whoever)
get the ANI phone numbers from AT&T for about one cent apiece; that's
in the tariff.  What's not clear is how they know where to send the
bill.

In a separate matter, I sent my comments on CNID to the FCC, so I'm
now getting copies of the second round of responses.  So far I've
gotten AT&T's and Pac Bell's.  Not surprisingly, they are both opposed
to blocking, but there seems to be a battle brewing on whether IXCs
should be required to pass CNID to local carriers for free.  Pac Bell
says they should, it's part of regular LD service.  AT&T says no, the
IXCs should be able to negotiate any deal they want as with any other
competitively offered service.  (Naturally, the local telcos should
have to provide incoming CNID to IXCs for free, that's different.
Love these lawyers.)  AT&T may want to provide their own custom CNID
service as well as selling the data to IXCs.  A footnote points out
that all the IXCs agree that the IXC should share in revenue from CNID
service, and AT&T says that as little as one unanswered call per week
by a CNID subscriber will cause a material cost to AT&T.  What a mess.


Regards,

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

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

From: Anthony Mckay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Specs for Computer/PABX Integration - CSTA
Reply-To: Anthony Mckay <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1992 00:30:38 GMT


Hi, could anybody tell me where to obtain specs on integrating to
PABXs in order to obtain such information as what number (dn) a call
is going to, why it diverts from that number etc. I am trying to
integrate a PC based voice mail system with a variety of PBXs.

I have heard mentioned a spec called CSTA (Computer Switch Telephony
Applications) and wondered how I can obtain a copy (electronically via
ftp mail or otherwise).

Also, I've heard of IBM's CallPath -- anyone any clues as to how to
obtain the spec on that?

I'd really appreciate any information people have.


Many thanks in advance,

Anthony Mckay   Telephonetics, UK

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

From: "James H. Thompson - HNL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF to ASCII/RS-232 Box Wanted
Date: 31 Mar 92 15:34:53 HST
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI


I'm looking for a box that can attach to a phone line and convert any
DTMF tones it sees to ASCII characters and output them on an RS-232
port.  It does not need to be able to answer the phone or do anything
else except convert DTMF tones to ASCII.

It needs to be:

    Immediate off-the-shelf availability
    low cost ($100 or less in quantity)
    FCC part 68 certified


Thanks.

James H. Thompson       [e-mail]    (Internet)
VeriFone Inc.           uunet!verifone!jimmy_t  (UUCP)
100 Kahelu Avenue       808-623-2911            (Phone)
Mililani, HI 96789      808-625-3201            (FAX)

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 13:21:28 PST
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Motorola Cordless Telephone
Organization: Philips Interactive Media of America
Subject: Motorola Cordless Telephone


Well, I bought one of the model "500" cordless phones (the one with
all the bells and whistles) last night.  I must admit, I was kind of
disappointed.  I thought that the radio-link was digitally encoded,
even though I knew that there would likely be problems with
insufficient bandwidth in the conventional ten cordless phone
channels.  I gave Motorola the benefit of the doubt, thinking that
maybe they were using a Delta coded PCM rather than straight PCM to
compress the data, or perhaps they were using two channels, or some
other trick, keeping in mind that Motorola has done some pretty clever
things in the past.

But when I got it home and connected, of course, the first thing I did
was turn on my scanner.  What I heard was an analog transmission,
albeit an uninteligible one.  So being the hacker that I am, I did a
little testing with tone sweeps and stable, constant tones.  It turns
out that the phone simply inverts frequencies (not the signal itself,
because that wouldn't be any scrambling at all, but the frequencies)
that comprise the signal in the voice channel.  I've loaned my
frequency counter to a friend and haven't gotten it back yet so I
can't tell you exactly what the center around which the frequencies
are inverted but I assume it's 1500Hz (since that's the approximate
center of a telephone's frequency response).  So, given that, the
transfer function is pretty simple:

  Hz(out) = 3000 - Hz(in)

Like I said, I'm assuming the center is 1500Hz.  When I get my
frequency counter back, I'll verify this.

Something that Motorola says in the owner's manual that I disagree
with is that other cordless phones, even others from Motorola cannot
decode an intercepted conversation.  This isn't true since there is
only one encoding method.  The "more than 65,000" security codes
simply refers to the security code used to verify that a handset is
yours (just like most conventional cordless phones have).  To test
this, I turned on the speakerphone in the base unit of the Motorola,
dialed the weather report and pressed the "SecurDemo" button so that I
could hear the weather report scrambled.  I recorded this sound with a
tape recorder.  Then I called my line from another line in the house
and answered the call with the Motorola, pressed the "SecurDemo"
button again and then played the "scrambled" audio into the phone I
was calling with.

Sure enough, the audio that came out of the Motorola with it's
"SecurDemo" feature active, was a decoded weather report.  I pulled
the battery back-up out of the base and unplugged it for a few minutes
so that it would forget it's security code.  I then had it set a new
one and played the tape through again.  The audio decoded perfectly
again, verifying that the "Security Code" does not refer to the
encoding method.  Encoding and decoding are the same thing, which
makes design and maufacturing a lot easier.  So if you are afraid that
someone may be listening to your cordless phone conversations, this
phone most likely will prevent the casual scanner user from listening
to you but if the eavsdropper is somewhat knowledgeable in this area,
you might still need to use a wired phone.

Also, I found that the DSPs do introduce some artifacts into the voice
channel, they aren't too bad with pure tones but they are quite
noticeable with dual-tones, so dial tones and DTMF tones sound a
little distorted.  All in all, I don't think that the limited amount
of security afforded and the slightly compromised signal integrity
make this phone worth the $269 plus 8.25% sales tax I paid for it.
Although this IS one of the clearest cordless phones I have used and
when I say "slightly compromised signal integrity," I am refering to
the artifacts from the DSPs and I do mean SLIGHTLY.


Mark Rudholm        [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Mar 92 22:01:39 EST
From: Rob Bailey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Hardware Schematic Offer


I will probably regret this ...

If anyone would like a copy of the schematic for the
Caller*ID-to-RS232 interface I built, send an SASE (MANDATORY) and
I'll try to answer as many requests as possible. Please note that --
due to the unusual nature of this offer -- I'd like requests from
people who actually plan on building the thing AND don't really have
access to the resources to design it themselves (i.e., the data sheets
on the XR2211 and the MAX232 since having both of those is 90% of the
schematic).

My box was built from parts of a radar detector, parts of my friend
Shane's answering machine and VCR that got fried by lightning, and
other assorted junk-box goodies. It looks like heck, but it works.

Software: I will eventually make software available -- for now, you're
on your own. Note, though, that the box cannot distinguish ring trips
from data and your software must be smart enough to ignore data that
doesn't conform to the TSY specifications. If you want the software to
control any of your hardware, don't hold your breath. I probably will
never write software that controls hardware. There were a *LOT* of
requests for programs to control voice cards and modems, but they
weren't consistent with my original scope and I don't have plans on
doing them, yet ;^>

I may get rambunctious and post a .TIF file to the archives - I'll let
Pat know if that happens. (Anyone receiving a copy should feel free to
take this task upon themselves, with appropriate attributions all the
way around, of course.) One last obvious note -- I TAKE NO RESPON-
SIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU BUILD, what it does or doesn't do to you
or your phone service or equipement, etc. ad nauseum. All I can say is
that mine works fine.  And all the rest of the dribble about
omissions, errors, and so on ...

Oh ... and good luck!

Estimated assembly time: two or three hours Estimated cost (all parts
new from Digikey, JameCo, etc.): $35. The only wierd ones are the
MAX232 ($5) and the XR2211 ($3) -- if you've got a good junk box, you
can get by with $10 (by the way, my cost was $0 -- I had everything I
needed lying around).


Rob Bailey
211 GEORGES DR #B-301
CHARLESTON WV 25306-7501

(No SASE - No reply ... sorry)

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 15:37:46 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable vs Telco


Excerpts from an article entitled "Cable TV Battling Phone Companies"
on page 1 of the {New York Times}, Sunday 3/29/92.

Armed with technological sizzle and wires that run by nine of ten
homes in America, the nation's biggest cable television companies are
investing hundreds of millions of dollars in an aggressive bid to
compete against the local telephone industry.

In the last year, 30 cable television companies have obtained Federal
licenses to build experimental wireless telephone networks, which for
the most part will use the existing cable networks to link cellular
telephones through tiny radio relay stations scattered throughout a
city.  On a different front, some large cable companies have been
buying small companies that compete head-to-head with local telephone
companies by providing high-speed communications to big corporate
customers.
 ...

Earlier this month, McCaw Cellular Communications of Kirkland, Wash.,
began an experimental pocket-telephone network in Ashland, Ore.,
linked over a cable system owned by Tele-Communications, the nation's
largest cable operator.  Cox Enterprises has built a system linked
over its cable system in San Diego and used it last month to place a
call to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in
Washington.
 ...

For all the cable companies' planning and substantial investments,
some executives warn that cable executives may not appreciate how far
they will need to go to overcome public resentment over past rate
increases and unreliable service.  People may tolerate some
interference or uncertain reception in a broadcast, but be unwilling
to put up with less-than-excellent telephone transmission.
 ...

Newspaper publishers also want a piece of the new information era, but
the move by cable companies puts them in an awkward position.
Newspapers have been leading the fight for legislation to bar the
seven regional Bell companies from owning electronic information
services, including cable television.  Yet many cable television
operators, including Cox Cable, are owned by newspaper publishing
companies.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Bray)
Subject: ISDN Interface For Northern Telecom Norstar Meridian?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana,  IL
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 17:22:07 GMT


Does anyone make any devices for connecting a computer to a Northern
Telecom Norstar Meridian small business phone switch?  The phone sets
use some sort of "ISDN-like" protocol for communication with the
switch.  A friend would like to connect a NeXT or Mac directly to the
digital side without having to put in an analog line conversion box
and a modem.  Regular ISDN service to their city won't be available
for a long time.  Hayes has an ISDN interface, but their people have
just started checking into it, so no answers from them yet.  The
previous thread on "nitty-gritty ISDN" mentioned that Northern is
using a proprietary protocol ... is it substantially different from
current ISDN implementations?


Thanks,

Mike Bray  [e-mail]  217-359-2992

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

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 20:10:22 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rick)
Subject: Sonet to Data; How?


Does anyone know of a method of connecting Token Ring, Ethernet, FDDI
to Sonet equipment?  Is any manufacturer planning to bridge this gap?

If anyone is doing this are they incorporating dynamic IP routing?


Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Apr 92 23:02:47 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TV Special on Alexander Graham Bell: The Sound and the Silence


CTV Television in Canada will be airing The Sound And The Silence
which deals with Alexander Graham Bell's work with the deaf. This is
scheduled to air in Canada on 5th and 6th April on CTV (check listings
if in Canada or close enough to a CTV station). I don't know if the
feature will be broadcast in other countries or not, let alone what
stations.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 31-MAR-1992 19:20:13.42
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive Local Calling Card Call


I just got my phone bill from a recent trip to Florida.

One thing that stood out was:

MAR 09      FT LDL, FL    LOCAL CALL    12:33AM    DAY    1MIN    $1.00
        305 760-9831    305 749-0664            FL TAX  $0.06

That's $1.06 for a one-minute LOCAL calling card call!

(They even got the "DAY" wrong -- it WAS at 12:33AM at night ...)

Talk about high local phone charges ... :( The call was placed from a
COCOT on US-1, yet I of course made sure to get a Bell operator and
told her that I could not dial the call directly, and she said I'd get
the lower (direct dial calling card) rate. I think using the COCOT's
AOS service instead of Southern Bell would have been cheaper!

Is Southern Bell hurting for money or something? Most states charge
between $.25 and $.40 for a calling card surcharge. In many areas with
unlimited local calling (flat rate), if you are at a payphone, you
will pay the calling card surcharge, and then $.10 (or whatever) for
the cost of a local call on a payphone, and that's it! You can sit
there forever and will not be charged anything more.

I'm wondering what my BellSouth Mobility roam charges will look like
 ... $1.00 per incomplete call or something? Geez!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #294
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21813;
          5 Apr 92 14:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21106
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Apr 1992 12:30:28 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00467
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Apr 1992 12:30:19 -0500
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 12:30:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #295

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Apr 92 12:30:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 295

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Finland Competitive Long Distance Proposal (Dave Leibold)
    Telesat Canada Now Owned by Telcos (Dave Leibold)
    Mexican Rating DB & Pricing Software (Carl Wright)
    Polish Horoscopes From NJ? (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany) (David W. Barts)
    ATT and Larry King (Kevin Alexander)
    Telegrams re Women in Kuwait (Nigel Allen)
    Home PBX Ideas Wanted (Andrew Klossner)
    Wanted: IEEE Journals (William Y. Lai)
    Indiana Bell Rate Reduction (Nigel Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1992 02:05:13 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Finland Competitive Long Distance Proposal


A bit of news in a recent ITU Telecommunication Journal noted that
there is an application to provide a competing long distance network
within Finland. A group called Kaukoverkko Oy, owned by 50 private
local telephone companies, with Datalie Oy, a fibre optic trunk
network for special uses within State-owned PTT areas, is proposing to
give 50% of Finland access to its network within six months of
approval, and all of Finland within two years.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 02:17:21 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Telesat Canada Now Owned by Telcos


Telephone companies in Canada now have most of the control of Telesat
Canada, the satellite services operator. This was the result of a
decision this week to sell the federal government's stake. There was
another competing bid, but this lost out to the telco alliance.
Rogers, Unitel, BCRL and Maclean Hunter (cable companies or competing
carriers) are unlikely to be overjoyed at this development.

Telesat was also granted another ten years monopoly on fixed satellite
services in Canada. All this was reported in {The Toronto Star} a few
days ago.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Wright)
Subject: Mexican Rating DB and Pricing Software
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 92 13:21:28 EST
Organization: UMCC - Ann Arbor, MI  USA


Product Announcement

In the course of our work with Telefonos de Mexico, we have developed
and now offer our Mexican All-Points(tm) Rating Database and Mexican
Call Pricer.

This will price calls from any place in Mexico to any place in the
world including other Mexican locations. It prices direct dial,
automatic operator assisted, and collect calls. The software and data
are updated monthly.

More information is available.


Carl Wright                | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]   | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST  | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 13:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Polish Horoscopes From NJ?


> In a weekly press in Poland personal horoscope advertisment number is:
> 001 609 490 78xx (xx from 00 to 09 and 49).

Hey!  Those are real numbers right here in NJ (Heightstown).  I called
them from here (+1 908 582) and sure enough got some Polish
horoscopes.  Now, I can't be billed for anything but a normal call,
can I?  It was placed as a direct-dialed AT&T call.  I guess I'll find
out ...


[Moderator's Note: You will just be charged for the local call. But
needless to say, you are *not* the audience they are soliciting. They
are looking for callers from Europe, and the revenue from those phone
calls.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 21:31:48 -0800
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany)


Mark Rudholm writes:

> Oh, to whomever it was that said that Germany has a better telephone
> system than the U.S., you have a great sense of humor!  Most of
> Germany, even the major cities, are still served by mechanical
> switches.  Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
> (the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
> limited test-areas.  And the only place you are going to find anything
> similar to the kinds of "Custom-Calling" features that are available
> to most U.S. telephone subscribers is perhaps on a PBX.  Connecting
> any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is forbidden, unless
> you pay for an expensive "protective-interface" (does that rhetoric
> sound familiar to you pre-carterfone Bell System customers?)  The
> reason for all of this is simple, Deutsche Telekom has no competition.

There was no competition under the old Bell System, yet the US phone
system then was still more modern than Germany's.  Likewise, the
French PTT has spent more effort on modernization than Bundespost.  I
would therefore suggest that there must be some other reason for
Germany's phone system being the way it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will :-) ), but aren't
privacy concerns a big part of the reason Germany has been reluctant
to modernize it's phone network?  In particular, one goal of Germany's
phone system is that nowhere should there be records of who calls what
number (if you wonder why the Germans are so concerned about privacy,
I would suggest a little reading on German history from the years 1933
to 1945).

One property of Germany's admittedly antiquated phone network is that
it provides this privacy.  The only thing kept track of is message
units consumed, which are read from photographs of the mechanical
message-unit counters in the central offices.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Alexander)
Subject: ATT & Larry King
Date: 3 Apr 1992 10:33:27 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


Forgive me if this has come up in the newsgroup, but I haven't been
here for a while.  I've been listening to Larry King's radio talk show
(a national call in show that plays at late-night) and a lot of the
callers have been complaining that AT&T has been cutting them off when
they call in.  I apparently missed Larry's show when this was first
brought up, but every night there is a caller that tells the general
public to use sprint instead by dialing 10333 ... (pardon my ignorance
if this is not the correct prefix).

Does anyone know of this, and why does AT&T do so if this is happening?


Kevin J. Alexander  Texas A&M University


[Moderator's Note: Larry King for years has abused the network by
telling people to call him "and just let it ring until it is time for
us to take your call ... that way, you won't have to pay long distance
charges until you go on the air", or words to that effect. Circuits
were being held up for 30-45 minutes at a time on a non-revenue basis
saving King the need to answer and keep people on hold, or return
calls at his (the caller's) expense later. AT&T finally got tired of
it and started disconecting unanswered calls for *everyone* (you, me,
all callers) after about four minutes of unanswered ringing in order
to free up their equipment.  Apparently Sprint (10333) still does not
do this.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Telegrams re Women in Kuwait
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


I just saw the following press release, which is pretty sad.

I don't want to start an argument about Kuwait here, but since the
group that issued the press release is asking people to send telegrams
to the Ambassador of Kuwait and to the U.S. Secretary of State, I
think it demonstrates that telegrams are still an effective way of
conveying an important message.

 Women Leaders Launch Effort to Rescue Women Raped, Trapped in Kuwait
 To: National and Foreign desks
 Contact: Jenny Chung of the Fund for the Feminist Majority,
          703-522-2214

   WASHINGTON, March 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A coalition of U.S.
congresswomen including Reps. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Patsy Mink
(D-Hawaii), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Jolene Unsoeld (D-Wash.),
have joined Fund for the Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal in
denouncing Kuwaiti human rights violations of Asian women workers.

   The Feminist Majority has set up an emergency Western Union HotLine
to flood the Kuwait Embassy and the State Department with letters
urging immediate action on the widely reported accounts that hundreds
of Asian women workers are being raped or beaten by their Kuwaiti
employers, police and the military.

   "We are urging Americans to register their outrage over this
atrocity, and to galvanize the State Department and Kuwait Embassy
into taking decisive steps toward remedying these heinous crimes,"
said Smeal.

   "The abuse and indignities suffered by these women must not be
allowed to continue.  We implore the United States government to take
a leadership role in seeking a solution," said Mink.

   Tens of thousands of Filipino, Sri Lankan, Indian, and Bangladeshi
women have been recruited to work in Kuwait as domestic servants,
earning an average $135 a month.  Many are promised office jobs in
Bahrain or Qatar, but are instead taken to Kuwait where they are
forced into virtual indentured servitude and their passports are
confiscated.

   "I am appalled by recent news accounts that as many as 400 women
who escaped their abusive employers and took shelter in their
countries' embassies are now being held in Kuwait against their will
because their employers have their passports," said Unsoeld.  "This is
a shameless and hateful act of aggression against women."

   "I am deeply troubled by these stories and by reporters that the
Kuwaitis are not taking these allegations seriously.  Clearly, there
are human rights violations occurring and we must speak out against
them," said Boxer.

   "Our offices continue to receive resolutions denouncing Kuwaiti
human rights violations of Asian women signed by prominent leaders and
organizations concerned with human rights and women's rights," said
Smeal.  "They include leaders Bella Abzug and Robin Morgan, and
organizations The Hollywood Women's Political Committee and YWCA."

   The national feminist leaders urge the public to send emergency
next-day telegrams to the Ambassador of Kuwait and Secretary of State
James Baker by calling the Western Union ProAction HotLine:
800-372-2626, Operator 9231.  Western Union will bill your telephone
number $5.95

    ------
   Note: For more information on the Project to Stop Violence Against
Women, a copy of the resolution, and a complete list of organizations
and individuals who have signed on to the resolution denouncing these
human rights violations, contact the Feminist Majority at
703-522-2214.

(end of press release)


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: Yes, telegrams are still considered an effective
way to communicate in some areas of the world. "Opiniongrams" are used
to communicate with the United States Congress frequently. Telegrams
can still be charged to your phone bill also, just like 900 numbers
and certain errant 800 services.  As an aside, remember back when the
invasion of Kuwait first got underway, and we were told the purpose of
the exercise was to restore democracy there, yuk! yuk!  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Home PBX Ideas Wanted
Date: 1 Apr 92 21:01:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


I just finished home-running three-pair cable to each of fifty points
in the house I'm building, and now I'm idly wondering what to do with
it.  The original plan is to tie them all together at the head end
(several 66-blocks on a panel) to my two incoming lines.  Is there
something more interesting I could do that wouldn't cost an arm and a
leg?

(I know how to spell "PBX", but that exhausts my understanding of the
subject.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (William Y. Lai)
Subject: Wanted: IEEE Journals
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 18:44:54 GMT


I am a graduate student in search of past and present issues of IEEE
magazines/ journals.  My research area is in communciations, so any
CommSoc magazines journals would be of particular interest.  Some
sample titles that I am interested in acquiring:

Spectrum
Communications Magazine
Transaction on Communications
etc.

Also I am interested in the May 91 (?) issue of Transaction on
Vehicular Tech., with topics mainly in cellular and PCN technology.
If you have any issues I described above, and would like to sell them,
drop me a line. Thanks.


Regards,

William
email: [e-mail]   George Washington Univ.  Washington, D.C.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Indiana Bell Rate Reduction
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Forwarded from RelayNet's PHONES conference
Original message from Andy Middaugh of Users Choice BBS, [phone]

Just an FYI in case anyone else might be interested ...

March 30, 1992

UTILITY CONSUMER COUNSELOR, INDIANA BELL FILE SETTLEMENT IN
                     RATE INVESTIGATION CASE

         Indiana Bell and the Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor
today filed a settlement agreement in the investigation into the
reasonableness of Indiana Bell's rates.

         The two parties filed the agreement with the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission, which is overseeing the investigation.  The
settlement agreement must be approved by the Commission before it
takes effect.

         "The agreement provides both immediate and continuing
benefits to Indiana Bell customers throughout the state, while
providing Indiana Bell the opportunity to meet competitive challenges
in the marketplace," said Indiana Bell Vice President-Regulatory
Norman L. Cubellis.

         In the settlement, Indiana Bell elected to reduce Touch-Tone
rates and long-distance rates -- two services used by virtually all
customers -- as well as to issue a total of $10 million in credits to
customers.  The reductions, totaling nearly $44 million, will take
place over an 18-month period.  The reduced rate levels will be
reviewed sometime after January, 1994, by the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission.

         Cubellis said, "After an investigation of nearly two years
that included more than 100,000 pages in response to the Utility
Consumer Counselor's questions, I do not believe the UCC could prove
Indiana Bell's rates are unreasonable.  Not only haven't we had an
increase in basic flat rates since 1985, but we have had four
decreases in that time.  However, we have decided to settle this case
to get it behind us and enable us to move on to other pressing matters
in our industry.  Today, competition is in virtually every aspect of
our business and Indiana Bell, regulators, and the legislature need to
take aggressive steps to assure that the future telecommunications
needs of Indiana's customers are met.  We must meet these challenges
in the marketplace, not in the regulatory process.

         "We need to address these matters without the rate
investigation clouding the issue.  The nature of the regulatory
process being what it is, any evidence presented by either party would
no doubt have been contested.  This would have dragged on for many
more months, with no certainty as to how the Commission would rule."

         As part of the settlement:

         o On July 1, 1992, Indiana Bell will issue a one-time $7
million credit to all residential and business exchange customers.
The credit, which will average $4.74 per customer, will appear on July
customer bills.

         o Also on July 1, Indiana Bell will reduce rates for
Touch-Tone service by 87 cents per month.  This will reduce the
monthly Touch-Tone charge for residential customers from $1.55 per
month to 68 cents per month.  The monthly charge for business
customers will drop from $2.85 per month to $1.98 per month.  The
total reduction in Touch-Tone rates will reduce Indiana Bell revenues
by $12 million per year.

         o On January 1, 1993, Indiana Bell will issue a one-time $3
million credit to all residential and business customers who do not
subscribe to Touch-Tone service.  This credit, which will appear on
customer bills, will average about $13 per customer (based on the
number of such customers today).

         o On January 1, 1993, Indiana Bell will reduce its
long-distance rates to bring them in line with the rates of other
companies that are authorized to compete with Indiana Bell in
providing long-distance service within Indiana.  This will result in a
$15.5 million reduction of revenue for Indiana Bell, and a savings to
customers of approximately $7 a year on toll bills.

         The investigation into the reasonableness of Indiana Bell's
rates began in July, 1990.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #295
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26130;
          5 Apr 92 16:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07969
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 5 Apr 1992 14:23:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22173
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 5 Apr 1992 14:23:02 -0500
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 14:23:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #296

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Apr 92 14:23:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 296

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC Changes Rules For Cordless Phones (April P. Hool via George Thurman)
    Voice Mail Assistance (Bill Verry)
    Directory Assistance (was The Case for Competitive Dial Tone) (Keith Smith)
    Unix BBS List Wanted (Garrett Meiers)
    Question About Legal Bugging Techniques (Stuart Krone)
    Telemarketer Convicted; Possibly First 900 Conviction (Jack Winslade)
    Reaching an X25 Network From InterNet (David Tirosh)
    "Non-published" -vs- "Unlisted" (Stephen Friedl)
    Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port (American Infomation Exchange)
    Future of Fax? (Sandy Shaw)
    All Circuits Are Busy (Jim Harkins)
    Mu-law A-law Conversion (Toutain Laurent)
    Telecom From a Tropical Isle (Robert Cain)
    Questions About Call Waiting (Phil Howard)
    3270 HLLAPI Interface? (Aaron Werman)
    Discussion of EDI Technology Sought (Ken McVay)
    And These People Vote ... (John  Parsons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 19:06 GMT
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Changes Rules For Cordless Phones


I saw this in the FIDONET SHORTWAVE ECHO and thought it would interest
TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom readers.


George Thurman    [e-mail]

    ---------

 03-31-92 05:43:00
 From: DARWIN TEAGUE
 Subj: FCC PROPOSAL
 April 1, 1992

In a surprise move today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
proposed that all persons using cordless phones must identify using
the same guidelines now in effect for amateur radio operators: i.e.
every ten minutes and at the end of the conversation. This proposal is
aimed at helping cordless phone users identify other cordless phone
users on the same frequency that may interfere with their own
conversations. It is hoped that this will be a stopgap measure until
more frequencies can be assigned to decrease interference.

It is believed it will also aid in the identification of cordless
telephone users by persons listening in on the conversations with
their scanner radios. Some on the Commission opposed the proposed rule
change.  "Why should we make it easier for people to listen in?" one
member asked. "The next thing you know, everybody will be sending QSL
cards around their neighborhoods and coming up with 'Worked All
Neighbors' awards! It's preposterous!". The ARRL is said to be
studying the feasibility of awards for various categories. Please
contact the ARRL directly for further information.

Submitted by April P. Hool   Washington, D.C.


 * Origin: M.K.Grouch BBS [phone] Elwood,IN - HST/V32bis (1:231/180)


[Moderator's Note: I am sorry I could not run this a few days ago when
it first appeared. I hope it makes your weekend!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Verry)
Subject: Voice Mail Assistance
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Verry)
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Westford MA.
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 16:44:49 GMT


I'm in the process of selecting a Voice Mail system for my coporation
and could sure use some help. I have it narrowed down to two vendors,
VMX & Centigram. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, positive or
negative, on these guys. I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup so
please reply via e-mail.


Thank you,

Bill Verry ([e-mail])
Concurrent Computer Corp.   Westford, Ma. 01886
[phone] FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Subject: Directory Assistance (Was The Case for Competitive Dial Tone)
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 12:03:37 GMT


I often wondered why the phone company charges for DA on *NEW*
listings, and why they can't find it in their power to perhaps produce
quarterly supplements to the phone book.

I also think there ought to be a better way to distribute the phone
book other than door to door.  This has to incur incredible cost to
the phone company.


Keith Smith       uunet!ksmith!keith   5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs   BBS 1-919-423-4216   Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Meiers)
Subject: Unix BBS List Wanted
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1992 21:23:59 GMT


Does anybody have a list of UNIX Bulletin Board numbers? I have a list
that's about five years old and quite outdated.

Thanks in advance.


Please email me at the following address.

[e-mail]  ... spool!cserver!edsi!gmeiers
Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated


[Moderator's Note: Whatever happened to the nixpub listings which used
to appear in Usenet from time to time? Are they still being posted?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (stuart.krone)
Subject: Question About Legal Bugging Techniques
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:48:10 GMT


As far as I know, when a goverment agency wants to tap a phone line
they can present a court order to the RBOC and their people tap the
local switch.  Is this true?

Does anybody know any good books on the mechanics of electronic
monitoring and bug detection?

This is a relatively new field to me and I am curious as to how this
works and how prevalent the practice is.


Thanks,

Stu

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

Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 21:58:38 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Telemarketer Convicted; Possibly First 900 Conviction
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


This is a followup article to one I paraphrased some time ago when
charges were first brought against this Omaha-area firm and its
president.  I'll send in any other info about this and similar cases I
run across.

Good day      JSW

                                ------

 From {Omaha World-Herald}, Thursday, April 2, 1992.

900-Number Fraud Case Expected to Set a Trend

by David Thompson, {World-Herald} Staff Writer

Civil court cases against abuses of 900-toll telephone number 'will be
slam dunks' as the result of the successful prosecution of a criminal
case in Omaha over 900 numbers, a federal postal inspector said
Wednesday.

Postal inspector Michael Jones said numerous civil actions involving
900 numbers have been filed, including three recently in Iowa.  At
least one civil case is pending in Nebraska, he said, and there may be
others.

Jones said the mail fraud conviction Tuesday of Bedford Direct Mail
Service Inc. of Omaha and its president, Ellis B. Goodman, 52, of 1111
S. 113th. Ct., may have been the first criminal conviction involving
900 numbers.

The conviction also figures in Nebraska Attorney General Don
Stenberg's consumer protection program, which calls attention to
abuses of 900 numbers, a staff member said.

Among consumer complaints set to Stenberg's office, those about 900
numbers rank in the top five categories, said Daniel L. Parsons,
senior consumer protection specialist.

People are often lured by an offer of a gift or prize to dial a toll-
free 800 number, then steered to a series of 900 numbers and charged
for each one, Parsons said.

He said that during the last two years, state attorneys general have
taken action against 150 organizations for allegedly abusing 900
numbers.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 92 23:36:27 +0300
From: [e-mail] (David Tirosh)
Subject: Reaching an X25 Network From InterNet


I am looking for a way to access the X.25 Network or/and the
PC-Pursuit Network from Internet. Does anyone have any information on
this subject?

If anyone knows of a way to dial to real phone numbers from internet
it will be very helpful too.


Thanks in advance,

Ran Yaniv.

P.S: Please send replies by Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom or by
internet E-mail to [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: "Non-published" -vs- "Unlisted"
Date: 2 Apr 92 10:16:43 GMT
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


It has been written:

> You may not be aware that about a quarter of all the lines in Ohio
> Bell-land are non-published numbers.  [...]

I believe that this kind of statistic is perhaps misleading because it
may imply (to some) that 25% of people want to hide from people who
read the phone book.  Many homes and businesses have auxilliary phone
lines that have no reason for a listing in the book, and the main
voice number is listed for all to see.  If I have four non-pub lines
in my house, imagine how many trunks go into a big company?

A more telling statistic might be how many customers *pay* for
"unlisted" numbers, because non-primary numbers get free non-pub
status.


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

From: [e-mail] (American Infomation Exchange)
Subject: Need ISDN Phone With Extra Analog Port
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 92 07:00:47 GMT
Organization: American Information Exchange
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We've been looking at ISDN phone systems, and have an idea how this
stuff works, how much it costs, what it can do for us, and what it
can't.  We've looked briefly at what the local telco has been demoing
with their system.  These are fujitsu and at&t phones.  I think it is
a northern telecom switch that we might be using.

Here's the question: does anyone make an ISDN phone that has a digital
port, and an analog port, in addition to the 'analog' handset on the
phone.  I want the analog port to share the same channel as the
digital port.

What I want to do is always have the handset available for making and
receiving calls.  Then I'd like be able to attach a modem to the other
channel.  I want to use this modem for calling outside, non-ISDN,
services.  Occasionally (when the modem isn't being used), I'd     like
to be able to call other ISDN extensions using the digital port on the
ISDN phone set.  (There's going to be a switch-box to switch the
computer between the ISDN digital port and the modem port.)

If this isn't available, then is there a device that takes an ISDN
channel and turns it into a plain analog line?  Apparantly, it is
quite easy to split the two channels up.  This device would be like an
ISDN phone without the smarts.

Thanks much for any help.


jeff ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 00:26:04 HST
From: [e-mail] (Sandy Shaw)
Subject: Future of Fax?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu


A friend of mine, who is a communications consultant, seems to think
that fax is of limited utility especially in the future.

He says that all his clients that send either long faxes frequently or
many faxes, especially to international locations, end up switching to
other forms of communication, network, e-mail, etc.  He thinks that as
companies use fax technology more they will gravitate towards the
other media.

I say that there are large numbers of firms that send large numbers of
faxes all over the world and with more features and faxserver
capabilities available, will continue to do so well into the future.
Any opinions on this?  Any actual cases?

Is fax only the tool of smaller companies or departments, or is it
destined to be (is it now) a prime-mover for some larger firms?


Sandy Shaw    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 09:23:20 PST
From: pacdata![e-mail] (Jim Harkins)
Subject: All Circuits Are Busy


The other night I set up my computer to rapid dial the number for U2
tickets.  I set it to hang up immediatly on busy, and wait 5 seconds
when not busy so I would have time to pick up the handset.  This
didn't work as well as expected.  The problem was that about every 4th
call gave me that recorded voice "We're sorry, all circuits are busy
blah blah".  What I want to know is, what causes this to happen?
Shouldn't I have just gotten a busy signal all the time?  Would have
been much more convienant for me.

By the way, I managed to make 400 calls in about an hour and a half.
Never did get tickets tho :-( Oh well, I'm sure a broker will sell me
good seats for $200 or so.



Jim Harkins             [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products   pcdata![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Toutain Laurent)
Subject: Mu-law A-law Conversion
Date: 3 Apr 92 13:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Toutain Laurent -- Projet REFLECS)
Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt, Le Chesnay, France


Sound format in Europe is a-law and the Sun can only handle the mu-law
format.

I have tried to do the conversion using the G711 recommandation but
the result sounds like a white noise. I want some information about
the a-law, mu-law coding. Especially I would like to know how the bit
inversion is done in the a-law and in the mu-law?

Do you know if there is a program doing the conversion?

Thank you.


Laurent Toutain

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Cain)
Subject: Telecom From a Tropical Isle
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 92 09:20:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Is it possible in practice to set up an ittsy bittsy bandwidth uplink
dish in a remote area and communicate through a satellite to internet?
I wish to remove myself with some gear to a tropical isle and see if
it is possible to live on sun, sea, Usenet and email.

I am serious.  Is it possible and what would it cost?  If you don't
know could you put me in touch with someone who might?


Thanks,

Bob Cain    [e-mail]   408-358-2007

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Questions About Call Waiting
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 92 05:41:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


How does call waiting behave if:

1.  the called party is ringing from another caller calling them?

2.  the called party is calling someone else and they are getting and
    that call is ringing?

3.  the called party is calling YOU at the same time?

4.  same as #3 and you also have call waiting?

5.  the called party has forward-on-busy to YOU and you have call waiting?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Aaron Werman)
Subject: 3270 HLLAPI Interface Information Wanted
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 23:13:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


I have an existing MS-DOS application which requires *minor*
interaction with 3090 mainframes. Since the user has 3270 (IRMA)
emulation boards, the obvious option is 3270 emulation. If a reader
has had experience with building a 3270 interface to an existing
program, I would appreciate their advice.

My major question is whether this is appropriate technology.  I am
assuming (with no way to verify it) that using the HLLAPI interface,
the program will run on a variety of different manufacturers cards.
This is critical -- the number of 3270 configurations seems to be
enormous: CUT, DCF, SNA ... Does a HLLAPI program work on all?

If HLLAPI is the way to go -- how does one go? Is it reasonable for a
programmer without a strong comm background to attempt to build an
interface of this sort? (All it has to do is move 80 characters from
one system to another and back) Are there tools to help, such as
sample source code or software to aid in debugging?

With many thanks in advance,


Aaron Werman   [e-mail]  {cmcl2,apple}!panix!awerman

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Discussion of EDI Technology Sought
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 18:37:47 GMT


The subject says it all -- I'd like to see discussions from anyone
working with EDI technology, preferably within Canada.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 11:49:57 mst
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: And These People Vote ...


The following appeared in the April 2, 1992 Longmont, Colorado {Daily
Times-Call}.  Any typos are mine.

Listeners Fall for Phone Dust Fooling

FORT COLLINS (AP) - An April Fool's Day joke conducted by two radio
stations in Fort Collins may have gotten a little out of hand.

Deejays at KTRR-FM and KGLL-FM announced over the air that US West
planned to "blow out" telephone lines in Weld and Larimer counties in
the afternoon to clean out any dust.

Worried US West customers jammed phone lines at the company after the
deejays said they should either disconnect their phones or cover them
with plastic, "otherwise there would be a large mess in their offices
or homes."


"We've been bombarded by calls from our customers," said Edie Ortega,
a spokeswoman for US West in Fort Collins.  "It caused some pretty
serious problems with call volumes to us."

The stations broadcast retractions shortly after US West contacted
Gary Buchanan, manager for the two stations.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #296
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26836;
          6 Apr 92 6:10 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08422
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:18:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00669
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:18:11 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:18:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #297

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Apr 92 04:18:10 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 297

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Once For All Euro Telephone Approval (Computergram via Randy Gellens)
    Seeking "Swisstel" and "Ericofon Electronic" Phones (Steve Pershing)
    Communications Workers of America Convention (CWA News via Nigel Allen)
    CCREDIR - Complete Communicator Call Redirector (Russ Nelson)
    Wanted: IEEE Journals (William Y. Lai)
    BINA and Caller-ID From Any Phone (Paulo de Souza)
    Connections to the Internet (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Need Source For Old PBX (Mitel) Parts (Mike Anderson)
    Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? (Carl Moore)
    Area Code Splits (John S. Wylie)
    Call Detail Recorder (Robert M. Hamer)
    Hang-up Pirates (Dave Leibold)
    Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: 03 APR 92 17:48
Subject: Once For All Euro Telephone Approval



       ** International Information Center     Daily Newspaper **
    C O M P U T E R G R A M    Issue Number 1894     Date   02/04/92

        ONCE FOR ALL EUROCOMMUNITY COUNTRIES TELEPHONE
                  APPROVALS ARE STILL A DREAM

Forget the Euro-sausage, worry not about the single-harmonised pint of
beer. Difficulties over pig skin and yeast pale into insignificance
compared with those uncovered when the legislators started to try and
harmonise European telecommunications. This November a European
Commission Directive will come into effect which includes the mutual
recognition of terminal conformity. The alluringly-titled 91/263/EC -
that kind of thing appeals to the type of mind that inhabits the
Berlaymont and is assiduously traducing the European dream - aims to
deliver that much sought-after prize where a modem, X21 or ISDN board
manufacturer, for example, can build his device safe in the knowledge
that once it has been approved in one European Community country, it
is approved for all. France is currently implementing the directive
and all other member states must follow suit by November 6.
Unfortunately, "implementation" does not equate with "coming into
force": before the directive actually bites, necessary standards,
called common technical regulations, need to be finalised and, despite
hard work, the number of currently completed technical regulations
stands at precisely zero.

                   Common technical regulation

A common technical regulation specifies the essential requirements
that must be satisfied by a terminal before it can be attached to an
operator's network. They are requirements, not recommendations, and
brook no variation from country to country, but agreement on one of
these regulations does not necessarily imply network standardisation,
although it certainly helps. With some types of network, this isn't
too much of a problem.  Integrated Services Digital Networks -- ISDN --
and Group Speciale Mobile -- GSM -- radio networks, for example, are
already well circumscribed by international standards and while even
these areas do not have applicable common technical regulations yet,
drafting is well advanced and the first should appear, if not before
November, then at least soon after.

The analogue public switched telephone network -- PSTN -- is a
different matter all together. Both its complexity and the historical
baggage that the telephone network carries with it stymie attempts at
harmonising or even rationalising the Community's telephone systems
within the framework developed by Community law. With progress close
to stalling, the members of the European Technical Standards Institute
 -- ETSI -- are looking at using what progress has been made as the
basis for mutual recognition of approvals -- a vote on the relevant
standard is under way and is due to close on May 22. Should the vote
go through, the ETSI member states will have agreed to recognise each
others approvals requirements.  Should the vote fall short of a single
pan-European approval test for public switched network equipment, it
would at least permit test laboratories in one country to certify
equipment for another, provided they followed country-specific
requirements. Whether or not the labs will actually want to tool up
for multiple countries is a question in itself.


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

Subject: Seeking "Swisstel" and "Ericofon Electronic" Phones
From: [e-mail] (Steve Pershing)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 92 09:55:08 PST
Organization: Questor: Free Usenet News: Vancouver, BC: [phone]


I am looking for a source in Seattle (or by mail order) for the
following telephone instruments:

Swisstel:

This is a small dial-in-handset, flat telephone.  It is about 1/2 inch
thick and no larger than a standard G-type WEco handset.  The receiver
end is rounded, the xmtr end is square.  The transmitter end
articulates on two or three joints up toward the user's mouth when
manipulated.

Ericofon (electronic):

Developed by L.M.Ericsson over ten years ago, this is the modernized
version of the original dial-in-base, stand up telephone.  Some
thought it to be a phallic shape with a fat base.  When picked up, a
spring-loaded switch bar automatically took it off-hook.  The
"electronic" version used an electret mike and had an IC line
interface circuit.


Both instruments are nice, compact sets.  The transmission quality of
the Swisstel product is not very good (I am told), but the Ericsson
product has always been excellent.

Any suggestions where I might buy either instrument would be
appreciated.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Communications Workers of America Convention
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Here is a press release from the Communications Workers of America:

CWA Leaders to Converge on Miami Beach for Annual International
Convention

 Contact: Jeff Miller or Gaye Williams Mack of the Communications
          Workers of America, 202-434-1172

News Advisory:

   The Communications Workers of America (CWA) will hold its 54th
annual convention Monday, April 6, through Wednesday, April 8, in
Miami Beach, Fla., at the Miami Beach Convention Center, beginning at
9 AM, Monday, April 6.

   More than 3,000 delegates and alternates from all regions of the
United States and Canada will attend the convention -- the union's
highest policy-making body.

   Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton is expected to address the convention,
(see note) as well as other prominent officials and labor leaders.

   The convention will also focus on the election of CWA's national
officers.  And among other concerns of the delegates is the 1992 round
of bargaining which began with AT&T in March and involves more than
400,000 CWA members throughout the telecommunications industry and in
the public sector.

   "The challenges we face this year present many opportunities for
change," commented CWA President Morton Bahr.  "Our bargaining goals
of economic security for our families, justice in the workplace, and
preservation of union jobs, set an agenda to demand that successful
corporations set an example in providing -- not destroying -- good
American jobs.

   "And we have the opportunity to help change the direction of our
government, by mobilizing CWA members and their families, along with
other working people, to put a progressive president in the White
House this year," Bahr concluded.

   The CWA news room will open for media registration on Monday, April
6, at 8:30 AM, at the Miami Beach Convention Center.  For more
information, call CWA starting on Friday, April 3, in Miami, at
305-532-7842 or 305-534-0945.

   CWA represents more than 600,000 workers in telecommunications,
printing, publishing, media, health care, and the public sector in the
United States and Canada.

                  Convention Speakers Schedule

 MONDAY, APRIL 6: Convention Convenes - 9 AM
   Seymour Gelber, mayor, city of Miami Beach
   Marty Urra, president, South Florida AFL-CIO
   Morton Bahr, president, CWA

   CWA/Teamsters Jobs With Justice Rally - 5:30 to 7 PM
   Convention Center, Hall C
   Speakers: Sen. Tom Harkin; Ron Carey, Teamsters president;
               Morton Bahr

 TUESDAY, APRIL 7: Convention Convenes - 12:30 PM
   Lenore Miller, president, Retail, Wholesale and Department
     Store Union;
   Philip Bowyer, general secretary, Postal, Telegraph and
     Telephone International

 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8: Convention Convenes - 9 AM
   George J. Kourpias, president, International Association of
     Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
   Richard Womack, director, AFL-CIO Department of Civil Rights;
   Sol Stetin, president, American Labor Museum, Botto House
     National Landmark

  NOTE: The time of Gov. Clinton's appearance is to be scheduled.


Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: CCREDIR -- Complete Communicator Call Redirector
Date: 5 Apr 92 03:22:47 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY


Ccredir is an add-on for Complete PC's Complete Communicator.  It
switches between voice and FAX answering depending on the ring
pattern.  Only two rings are distinguishable right now: normal ring
(two seconds of ring, four seconds of silence), and ring-ring (two
seconds of ring with nearly a half second pause in the middle).
Normal ring means answer voice; ring-ring means answer FAX.

If anyone extends this program to work with more ring styles, I'd like
to get a copy of the changes ...

The program is copyrighted but freely copyable using the Free Software
Foundation's General Public License.  That means that anyone you give
it to can give it to someone else, and they must be able to get the
source.  The license is widely available, usually called COPYING.
Contact me if you can't find a copy.

ccredir.zip is available from simtel20.army.mil pd1:<msdos.modem>.


Russell Nelson    Crynwr Software
11 Grant St.      Potsdam, NY 13676
315-268-1925 voice     --- yes, these are both the same phone line.
315-268-9201 FAX        /  [e-mail]
russ <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (William Y. Lai)
Subject: Wanted: IEEE Journals
Date: 2 Apr 92 18:44:54 GMT
Organization: George Washington University


I am a graduate student in search of past and present issues of IEEE
magazines/ journals.  My research area is in communciations, so any
CommSoc magazines journals would be of particular interest.  Some
sample titles that I am interested in acquiring:

Spectrum
Communications Magazine
Transaction on Communications
etc.

Also I am interested in the May 91 (?) issue of Transaction on
Vehicular Tech., with topics mainly in cellular and PCN technology.
If you have any issues I described above, and would like to sell them,
drop me a line. Thanks.


Regards,

William   email: [e-mail]  George Washington Univ. Washington, D.C.

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

From: [e-mail] (Paulo de Souza)
Subject: BINA and Caller-ID From Any Phone
Date: 6 Apr 1992 02:37:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math Department


I have heard some time ago about a Caller-ID system that works on ANY
phone, independently of what the calling person does.

The system had been invented by a Brazilian (called Bina) and the
device carries his name. It has been in use for some time already in
Brasil by the Police, Fire Stations and other emergency services (to
screen where the calls come from),

My question is: Does anybody here know how this works?  Would it work
here in the US? And where to buy it?


Paulo de Souza    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Don't get your terms confused. Caller-ID only works
if the caller does not block it. If the caller blocks it, then the CO
does not send it ... there is nothing you can do about it. You can't
pick up some data out of thin air if none was sent. What Police and
Fire Departments usually have is ANI -- *not* Caller-ID -- and unlike
Caller-ID, Autmatic Number Identification works in reverse. It gets
sent whether the caller wants it to or not. The caller cannot block it
out.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 09:43:49 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connections to the Internet


Which of the commercial networks are able/willing to pass mail to/from
the Internet?

I have the following incomplete list:

Will:  Fido, MCIMail, ATTMail, CompuServ, GENie (by June), and America Online.
Will Not:  Prodigy

What about the others?  Please E-Mail responses so as not to clog up
the digest, and I'll summarize.


josh

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

From: sean![e-mail] (mka)
Subject: Need Source For Old PBX (Mitel) Parts
Date: 5 Apr 92 06:52:47 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City


I have an older Mitel SX-20 PBX that I use for modem driver testing
and development. I would like to add some more trunk and extension
cards to it, but they need to be low cost.

Does anyone know of places which handle used PBX parts? Are there any
magazines or publications which serve this market?


Thanks in advance,

Mike Anderson     uunet!sean!mka

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 1:01:09 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone?


I stayed at Edgewood, Maryland recently.  The hotel charged 30 cents
for each local call from a room phone, and the nearby pay phones (C&P)
charged 25 cents for a local call.  But there are different calling
areas to consider.  The pay phone is on 676 prefix and the hotel room
is on 679, and in changing from 676 to 679, you drop at least Havre de
Grace 939 and Churchville 734 from your local calling area and gain
Baltimore and its more distant suburbs.  So a call to, say, Baltimore
city is cheaper from the room phone than from the pay phone.

(This is in 410 area; 301 still useable.)

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

From: [e-mail] (John S Wylie)
Subject: Area Code Splits
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 03:50:22 GMT


Can anyone tell me when the following area codes go into use and
where?

210, 610, 710, 810, 910, 909, 917


John S. Wylie - Philadelphia PA USA    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 17:53 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Detail Recorder


Various persons have discussed in the past their call detail
recorders, which are devices placed between the phone and the line and
which record or print all digits dialed on the phone.

I'd like to have one to reconcile my bills with what was really
dialed.  I've checked Rat Shack and they say that while they carried
such a thing several years ago, they don't now, and I called Hello
Direct, and they claim they don't carry such a thing.  Does anyone
know where I can buy one?

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1992 02:09:04 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Hang-up Pirates


How many out there have problems with callers hanging up the moment
you answer the phone and say "hello"? Any ideas on what most cases of
the hang-up artist are? Autodialers looking for modem carrier?
Obscene callers not getting the right kind of voice?

That's the sort of stuff that promotes CNID and Call Return and the
other fine CCS7-based services.


replies: [e-mail]  [e-mail]

Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
Date: 3 Apr 92 14:03:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, dgdhome![e-mail]
(Don Davis) writes:

> It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
> already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
> useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?

For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
my residence lines.  Each inbound call record consists of one line of
text that gets appended to an ascii file.  During the peak inbound
calling time, I can run a tail -f of the file, and watch the inbound
calls scroll by.

A recent call from a telemarketer sounded too familiar.  I asked the
caller why they called me so often ... trying to sell me a paper I
already read.  While I had the caller on the line, I did a grep of the
file, piped to wc, which told me that in the past six months, the same
number had called here sixteen times!  I was able to give the caller
the date and time of each attempt.

My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
the new one.

Useful? -- I don't know yet.


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 #297
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28336;
          6 Apr 92 6:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22763
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:04:25 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10258
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:04:10 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:04:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #298

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Apr 92 05:04:08 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 298

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900 Service in Germany (John Higdon)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Claus Tondering)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Greg Lehey)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Martin Freiss)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany (Phons Bloemen)
    Re: 900 Service in Germany ([e-mail])
    Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany) (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls (Bruce Albrecht)
    Re: MCI and Cellular One/Boston (Will Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 23:39 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany


[e-mail] writes:

> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
> just call a foreign phone number.

> This scheme works but it has several serious disadvantages. First of
> all the voice quality is quite poor compared to domestic phone calls.

This is surprising since the general quality of international
connections has improved remarkably over the past couple of years.
Indeed when I call Holland or Japan the connections are far superior
to the domestic transcontinental calls of just a few years ago. Calls
to these service providers go over the same circuits as everything
else.

> So the customer has to pay high charges but the service provider
> does not get much of it. And this results that the quality of such
> services tend to be low.

The service provider does not get to keep much from a "900" call,
either. In fact it is possible that the payoff from these
international arrangements may be superior to 900 -- why else would
IPs do it? Also consider that dealing with carriers for 900 transport
is very risky.  Telesphere went under leaving its IPs holding the bag
for millions upon millions of dollars. There is much speculation that
Telesphere was merely a scam from day one to literally steal this
money from service providers and then fold the operation and hide the
money (Telesphere never had any assets; it leased everything).

AT&T, MCI, and Sprint are all very difficult to work with. The IP cuts
are low, no documentation is provided and the only protection against
fraud that an IP has with these carriers is to manage a database fed
by real-time ANI. (Telesphere never provided this.) So it may be that
getting a cut of international calls may not be such a bad deal after
all.

> After all the scheme works but it is just another sign that the German
> network operator Deutsche Bundespost TELEKOM is not able to keep up
> with the customer demands.

Oh, really? Just a few days ago, someone suggested that (specifically)
Deutsche Bundespost Telekom was vastly superior to the deteriorating,
post-divestiture wreckage that we call the US telephone system. Give
me a break!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Claus Tondering)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 12:53:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Lars Poulsen) writes:

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

>> 001- (access code for the US from Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92)

> I was of the impression that the 610 area code was unassigned

Couldn't this be the whole point! By using an unassigned area code the
call can be intercepted in Germany and redirected to a German phone
which would then provide the pseudo-900 service at the cost of an
overseas call.

I know this is not what the original poster suggested, but could it
not be the case nonetheless?


Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Lehey)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 2 Apr 92 16:08:07 GMT
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany


In article <[e-mail]> aimla!ruby!rudholm@uunet.
UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) writes:

> Advertisements were run in Germany a couple of years ago for various
> informational services, some of which were aimed at children.  Many
> people unfamiliar with direct international dialing in Germany called
> them without realising that they were placing international calls.

I saw a similar thing in a German magazine just a few weeks ago. The
number was in Hong Kong. Somewhere in the small print it indicated the
cost of a call, but didn't mention where the call was going. I think
it was phone sex advice or some such.

> Oh, to whomever it was that said that Germany has a better telephone
> system than the U.S., you have a great sense of humor!  Most of
> Germany, even the major cities, are still served by mechanical
> switches.

Things are, in fact, changing rather rapidly, though I agree with the
sentiment. Nowadays, if you want a new phone in a big town, you *must*
have ISDN (which, coincidentally, costs DM 74 per month base charge as
opposed to DM 40 for two normal analogue phones).

> Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
> (the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
> limited test-areas.

Again, things are changing, though steam dial is still the name of the
game.

> Connecting any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is
> forbidden, unless you pay for an expensive "protective-interface"
> (does that rhetoric sound familiar to you pre-carterfone Bell System
> customers?)

Not quite so. The equipment must be Telekom-approved (like equipment
connected to the US PSTN needs to be FCC approved). The difference is:

1. It's difficult to get approval (but not nearly as difficult as it
used to be). Thus the prices are high. From a Telekom pricelist: V.22
bis (2400 bps async) modem, DM 999 ($600), internal DM 1274 (don't ask
me why)). Rental charges DM 53.01/42.98 per month (don't ask me why
the internal is cheaper to rent than the external, I'm just reading
the list. But do note that the external costs $35 a month in rental).

2. Get caught, say, with an unapproved modem, and you can, at least in
theory, be sent to jail.

> The reason for all of this is simple, Deutsche Telekom has no
> competition.

Agreed. Fortunately, they don't require *me* to use ISDN, I just want
to (how else can you get 64 kb/s transmission for the price of a phone
call?). But since I don't live in a big city, I would have to pay not
DM 74 but DM 3320 per month for a basic rate ISDN connection. Ouch.


LEMIS
W-6324 Schellnhausen 2  Germany
Tel: [phone], fax -1489   Mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Freiss)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 10:03:15 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany


In <[e-mail]> aimla!ruby![e-mail]
(Mark Rudholm) writes:

> Telekom claims to have had no part in any of this but I don't imagine
> that they minded much since they gained just as much as the
> perpetrators of this deception.

Telekom has offered a 900 service (numbers that begin with 0190,
called Service 190) for some months now.

> switches.  Tone dialing is unavailable anywhere from Deutsche Telekom
> (the country's only telephone company) except recently in some VERY
> limited test-areas.  And the only place you are going to find anything
> similar to the kinds of "Custom-Calling" features that are available
> to most U.S. telephone subscribers is perhaps on a PBX.  Connecting
> any non-Telekom provided equipment to the network is forbidden, unless
> you pay for an expensive "protective-interface" (does that rhetoric

I have the feeling that I fell through hole in the space-time
continuum :-) Connecting non-Telekom equipment has been allowed for
over a year here, tone dialing is available in most bigger cities and
will be available everywhere "real soon now".

Just my 2 Pfennigs worth :-)


Martin Freiss            |[e-mail]
SNI AG, Dept. STO SI 325 |NIC MF194

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

From: [e-mail] (Phons Bloemen)
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany
Date: 3 Apr 92 14:18:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology - NL


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A. Wittlin)
writes:

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

>> Instead of dialing a special access code (like 1-900- ) in the USA you
>> just call a foreign phone number. By browsing through some women's
>> magazines I found the number 001- (access code for the US from
>> Germany) -610-204-04xx (xx from 81 to 92). By calling this number you
>> can get your personal horoscope or women's services. But you will ask
>> how the provider of such services will get any money from you?  That
>> is quite difficult to explain but I try.

This service also existed a while ago in the Netherlands itself, even
when there was a 900 service available (so-called 06-3 ...). Between
the advertisments for chat-lines, sexlines et cetera (all starting
with 06-3 and all ending with a notice wit 50 cpm in the smallest
possible letter (this indicates the tariff of 50 Dutch cents per
minute, which was at that time the maximun (is about 0.30 U$) there
were some starting with 09-61xxxxxxx (which is indeed 09 (international
dialing) 61 (Australia). The rest of the xxx I don't remember anymore.
The tariff indication was right, but confusing: 50ct5sec or something
like that.  Maybe these people found the maximum revenues from dutch
PTT telecom too low (from the 50 ct you get 25 ct). The advertisments
disappeared when PTT had the wise idea to change the maximum rate to
100 cpm (where the services get 70 cents from). Instantly all the
regular services doubled their rates.


Florete Flores
Phons Bloemen | Information & Communication Theory
W [phone] Vinkelaan 200 | Dept. of Electrical Engineering
H [phone] LX Helmond NL| Eindhoven University of Technology
[e-mail].

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 92 19:31
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Service in Germany


By reading the recent issues of TD I found out that my original
article had quite some reaction.

Here again are four different 900 style access numbers from Germany.

Intl Access Prefix  Country Code  Area Code

         00           1           610           somewhere in the USA
         00           1           809           somewhere in the Carribean
         00           61          ???           somewhere in Australia
         00           599         ???           Dutch Antilles

So when I call 001-610- the call will be routed to the USA.

Since there is no domestic 900 service available you just call a
foreign phone number. The call will be routed to the foreign country.
The foreign phone company will receive charges from the originating
phone company in Germany. Part of this charges will then transferred
to the information provider.

An example of such a number was 001-610-20404xx for personal
horoscopes.  This number is definitely routed to the USA since 00 is
the international access prefix and 1 is the country code for North
America. The area code 610 does not exist, but this makes sense since
if 610 would be a regular area code within the USA this number could
be dialed from any US phone line and this is not in the interest of
the information provider.

If you want to have more information about the 001-610- method for 900
service you may ask:

          USP Inc.
          398 Columbus Ave  Suite 109
          Boston, Mass  02116

I guess they will be able to explain how this "weird" method of providing
900 service for some international countries works.

If someone could call them (local?) and ask them about this method it
would be of interest for most of us.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1992 21:30:48 -0500
Subject: Bundespost vrs. AT&T (was 900 Service in Germany)


[e-mail] (David W. Barts) writes:

> Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will :-) ), but aren't
> privacy concerns a big part of the reason Germany has been reluctant
> to modernize it's phone network?  In particular, one goal of Germany's
> phone system is that nowhere should there be records of who calls what
> number ...

> One property of Germany's admittedly antiquated phone network is that
> it provides this privacy.  The only thing kept track of is message
> units consumed, which are read from photographs of the mechanical
> message-unit counters in the central offices.

   Well, it's impossible to disprove this type of theory completely,
but I have grave doubts that it is the actual explanation.

   It is certainly true that many Germans are quite sensitive to
privacy issues, which leads (for example) for the Greens to campaign
against the census, on the grounds that people should be inherently
incountable.

   However, most Germans simply don't realize how bad their phone
service is.  I have Die Zeit and Der Spiegel for years, and the only
telecom issues discussed are the cost of international calls, and how
to bring East German telecoms "up to" the level of West Germany.

   The first problem with your theory is that virtually no one in
Germany is aware that the tradeoff has been made.  I somehow doubt
that Deutsche Telekom is run by closet Greens who have been silently
striving to maintain subscriber privacy by deliberately retaining
antiquated equipment.

   Is there anywhere what DT has stated in writing that a major goal
of the phone system is to have no record of call detail? Obviously,
they're installing new capacity in Eastern Germany without regard to
this issue (to the extent they ever realized it was an issue).

   Secondly, it must be possible to design a CO switch that is
designed to keep no records of exactly who is calling whom. For
example, the French telephone system does not record the last four
digits of any called number, so the bill reveals only the area and
exchange called.  I suspect that the Germans could do something
similar if they really wanted.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 23:53:42 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Harassed by Mystery Fax/Modem Calls


>> [Moderator's Note: We had a FIDO BBS here in Chicago about five or six
>> years ago which was placing calls in the middle of the night to a
>> 79-year old woman ... for a month straight. IBT put the BBS out of
>> business; showed the sysop no mercy at all when the lady indicated she
>> wanted to prosecute. Hint: keep those phone numbers accurate, folks!  PAT]

There was a case in Minnesota a year or two back, where someone's BBS
called a correctly dialed phone number for about three days, and kept
getting incorrectly switched to someone's phone.  He reported it to
the phone company, they fixed the problem, and the city attorney had
him arrested for making harrassing phone calls.  Don't know the final
outcome, though.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 14:02:35 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI and Cellular One/Boston


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> They are offering a new service called Maintenance Plus with the following
> benefits for $5/month:
>    ...
>    Use of a loaner phone (same number) if repair will take > 1hr;
>    ...      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                   NOTE

Hmmm. A loaner phone with the same number. This means two cellular
phones with the same number, at least on a temporary basis. Doesn't
this conflict with all the previous traffic on how it was impossible
or would create unresolveable conflicts?

Or are these people updating the cellular database during the period
the loaner is in force to change the pointer from phone number to
serial number to that of the loaner, and then changing it back again
after the loaner is returned? If so, that proves this database update
is so trivial that no cellular company has any business charging
anything for doing this when a new phone is "installed" ... :-)


Will

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #298
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24331;
          7 Apr 92 3:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05790
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:21:32 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06027
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:21:22 -0500
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:21:22 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #299

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Apr 92 01:21:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 299

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Rob Warnock)
    Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty (Robert Sheaffer)
    ISDN Interface for Norstar (David Ptasnik)
    ISDN in Houston, Texas (Hubert Daugherty)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Phil Howard)
    Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears (Rob Heape)
    Re: On the Trail of the Encrypting Motorola Cordless Phone! (Steve Shapiro)
    Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, etc. (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 09:05:15 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| There is a protocol for contention resolution on the "D" channel,
| which depends on the fact that the NT "echos" each incoming "D" bit in
| the next available outgoing "E" ("D-channel Echo") bit. ...each TE monitors
| the "E" bits while it's sending to make sure that the echo matches
| what it sent -- if it doesn't, it presumes there was a collision.
| There's a whole priority and backoff scheme... similar to "Ethernet".

A subtle implication about the above (which was not immediately
obvious to me) has been pointed out to me by a co-worker, and I
thought I'd pass it on:

Since the "D" channel is an "inclusive-OR bus" (due to the way the "L"
bits adjust D.C.-balancing so that the "D" bits can all send in the
same polarity), when there is a "collision" only the station (TE) that
tried to drive a logical "1" (zero volts) has its bit "corrupted"; the
TE that drove a "0" ("negative" differential) will see its bit get
through.

And since the echoing "E" bit from a given "D" bit is seen before any
TE has to send the next "D" bit (due to the way the "D" and "E" bits
are interleaved into the total bit stream), any TEs that had their
bits corrupted (that is, they sent logical "1" but saw "0") have time
to drop out (cease transmitting) before damaging any later bits of the
"winner's" packet.

Therefore, unlike Ethernet or other similar multi-access protocols, on
the ISDN D-channel SOMEBODY ALWAYS WINS! It might possibly take
several bits into the packets before what's being sent differs enough
to shut up every TE but one, but *that* TE's packet will get through
unharmed. All the other TE's will go back into "listening for 1's"
state (which they can't exit until the "winner" finishes sending).

[There are more details having to do with how many 1's a TE has to
hear before starting to send, based on its priority and whether it has
sent recently, but you get the idea ...]

Again, this "collision-free contention bus" stuff only works on the
"D" channel (because of the "E" bits and the uni-polarity of the "D"
bits).  The "B" channels can only be driven by one TE at a time.

> If I were to simply take the 160 kbs data stream raw as is, and relay
> it via some other means of communications (such as full duplex radio)
> somewhere else where a reverse setup exists, do you see any reason why
> this would not basically work?  I want to be able to relay it
> somewhere without having to worry at the relay points about the B and
> D channels and the protocols dealing with them.

It's not quite that simple. You still need a real live NT1 (or NT2,
i.e., PBX) at your remote site, because the "D" channel echo protocol
has a fairly short distance limit over which it will work (~200m), and
it's the NT1/2 (not the CO) that echos the "D" bits as the "E" bits.

If you think you can build a conforming NT1 at your remote site, or if
you can find a vendor to sell you an NT1/2 that will work with your
"extender" media/encoding/transmission_means on the line side, then
fine.

Actually, you might consider this: Design/build/buy an "NT2" with an
internal extender. That is, the normal ISDN reference model is:

                "S"           "T"           "U"
                     interface     interface     interface

     [Trm]---+-...--+----|---- NT2 ----|---- NT1 ----|------....--- CO
         |      |
            TE ... TE

The "NT2" (i.e., ISDN PBX) is optional, which is why people call the
interface on a TE the "S/T" interface. But if you built a one with an
"internal" extender, that is:

                   "S"                      "T"       "U"
                 interface                interface interface

[Trm]---+-...--+----|---- NT2a---//---NT2b --|-- NT1 --|----....--- CO
         |      |              <------>
            TE ... TE         radio, or whatever

You could hide the extender. Remember, your "NT2" still has to play
the "D"-bit/"E"-bit game at the remote end [*ignoring* the "E" bits
that come back from the NT1], and meet all the rules for coding,
framing, superframes, etc.

Looks like a job for a major ISDN vendor, not an amateur, but good
luck!


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510      [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: ISDN Nitty-Gritty
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 92 01:19:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Most all the replies to the question "how is ISDN carried?" treated
Basic Rate as the only, or at least the most important, kind of ISDN.
Actually, ISDN Primary is currently enjoying an explosive rate of
growth. Typically, it links a PBX to a 4ESS, DMS-250, etc., and it is
finding widespread acceptance in customer support and (ugh!)
telemarketing applications.

The Primary Rate physical connection is over a T1 link. You can
operate 56 kb data over a T1 Superframe link, using ZCS ("bit-jamming"
or zero-character suppression), or 64K clear-channel over an
unrestricted B8ZS/ESF line.  The U.S. standard is 23B + D, in Europe
31B + D. Contrary to what was posted earlier, a Basic and Primary Rate
device cannot interoperate directly, because of differing data rates.
But they can function as part of the same network when the differing
rates are adapted, each according to its own standard. All ISDN
interfaces are synchronous data links, using LAPD/HDLC.



 Robert Sheaffer - [e-mail] (at ROLM Systems)
         [e-mail]             (at home)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Interface for Norstar


[e-mail] (Mike Bray) wrote:

> Does anyone make any devices for connecting a computer to a Northern
> Telecom Norstar Meridian small business phone switch?  The phone sets
> use some sort of "ISDN-like" protocol for communication with the
> switch.  A friend would like to connect a NeXT or Mac directly to the
> digital side without having to put in an analog line conversion box
> and a modem.

Northern Telecom makes such an interface that let's you communicate
across a Norstar system.  The box plugs directly into a Norstar set on
one side, and the PC/Terminal on the other.  This gives the PC a
separate adress from the set it's plugged into.  It supports
communication speeds up to 19.2.  It is also an exterior Hayes
compatible 2400b modem.  Thus a PC attached to a Norstar sytem thru
this box could directly communicate with another PC or, say, a printer
that is also connected to the same Norstar system with another box, at
19.2k baud.

If you want to go thru the CO you have a different problem.  As you
are communicating from place to place using a CO provided analog
circuit, you need to use a modem.  If you have enough communication
demand you could install a digital circuit.  At this point it would
have to be from your PC to your buddies PC.  It is my understanding
that a T-1 card, to be released in the next year I think, will be the
first digital CO interface for the Norstar.  In theory, I imagine you
could hook up a single digital circuit to their interface box, and run
that directly into the Norstar KSU.  I'm not sure if that would work,
or how the data would be switched to the correct set, but it might be
worth a try.

All of this info is a recent acquisition.  I was at a Norstar
demonstration last week, and was asking some of these same questions.
I suppose that is a warining.  You are getting my impression of
information given at a sales pitch.  Sorta fills you with confidence,
don't it :).


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Hubert Daugherty)
Subject: ISDN in Houston, Texas
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:08:12 GMT


Southwestern Bell has requested and recieved a tariff for basic rate
interface (BRI) service for several areas of Texas.

The service is only offered from two 5ESS switches in the city.  One
is in our regional Medical Center and the other is in downtown
Houston.

My home and Rice University are both adjacent to the Medical Center,
but on different sides.  And both are served by wireing centers other
than the 5ESS equiped Medical Center.

I pursued the question and found my local switch to be a DMS-100
switch.  Which I understand to be upgradable to ISDN.  The wiring
center serving Rice University is a 1AESS which is not ISDN capable.

After a lot of effort on both S.W. Bell and my parts I have now
received a quote!

The connection from Rice to the 5ESS would cost $489.00 to establish
and $115.60 per month.  The connection from my home to the 5ESS would
cost $364.00 installation and $113.50 per month.

The only problem with these prices are the sucharge added to the
monthly bill for service from a "Foreign Wireing Center".  The charge
for this service is $68.50 plus $.25 per quarter mile.

Obviously, my first question was: "Well, how much would it cost to
upgrade the DMS-100 to be ISDN capable, so that I can forgo the
surcharge and have a monthly rate of $44.50 from my home?"

S.W. Bell Answer: "Oh, I think it would be tens of thousands."

My reply: "Are you sure it's not just a line card change and a
software upgrade from Northern Telecom?"

S.W. Bell Answer: "Well, we don't plan to upgrade that switch because
we don't see a big market in the residential area."

MY QUESTION TO THE NET:

Does anyone KNOW what is involved in upgrading a DMS-100 from POTS to
ISDN?

I would really like to telecommute at 64k bits from my NeXT computer
to Rice.  But $1,362 dollars per year on my salary is too much.


Hubert Daugherty   Rice University
Electrical and Computer Engineering

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 92 04:59:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> (I do *not* think there should be a charge for obtaining new numbers;
> after all, the telephone company could easily publish a new directory
> more frequently that once a year, but they choose not to).

Perhaps they could publish a monthly supplement and ship it to us with
our bills.

Maybe they might even say "Reach out and touch one of our new
customers; welcome them to <insert telco name here>".  :-)

How about a telco BBS for directory assistance?  It would still cost
per number obtained, but surely less.  Is this too easily abused?
What if it had a built in delay factor, and/or only worked at a slow
baud rate, and/or max two successful and eight failing lookups per
call.

> I think the difference is like the difference between swimming in a
> local swimming pool and swimming in Lake Michigan.  In a local pool,
> you have limited capacity and high operating costs, so you might
> impose a per-user charge to both limit use and recover your costs.
> Whereas in Lake Michigan no one really incurs a cost if one person, or
> ten thousand people go swimming.  That's almost the way it is with a
> modern CO switch ... it would take a VERY unusual event (like a sale
> on U2 tickets!) :-) to make the switch reach capacity, and you simply
> cannot relate the operating expenses to the number of calls made in
> any meaningful way.

The general trend has resulted in an increased average calling usage,
but perhaps that trend comes from only SOME of the customers (such as
modem users calling a BBS).  Costs go up, partly because everything is
more expensive (this much should be expected to approximate inflation)
and there is more service demand.  By why should someone who has no
increase in usage from the 1960's to the 1990's be expect to pay more
than the basic inflationary increases?

I'd LIKE to see flat rates stay, but I just can't justify it.


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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 19:19:55 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: The Case for Competitive Dial Tone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)


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

> [e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:
> I'm not against competition for dial tone per se, I against letting
> there be a choice between good and bad areas.  If things were set up
> with selectable areas such that to get in, one has to serve
> everywhere, then I can go for it.  Put Paxton in the same area as
> Chicago, then every choice of dialtone available in Chicago is
> available in Paxton.

How about requiring any telco wanting to compete in a given LATA to
serve any customer anywhere in the LATA?

Judging from the way California's LATAs are arranged, I imagine that
this would work quite well.  Here, someone wishing to serve the SF Bay
Area would have to serve all the way to Eureka.


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rob Heape)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Not Safe From Prying Ears
Organization: control_centers
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 17:42:21 GMT


> What I have read about the phone in a industry magazine claimed the
> phone was scrambled.  It also said there were 65K "security codes" (I
> don't know if these are "security codes" in the same sense as other
> manufactures use the word, or if it means 65K encryption possibilities.)
> Another feature was than it scanned all channels, and uses the clearest
> one.

> I would assume this phone uses analog scrambling, as many of Motorola's
> land mobile radios do.

All this stuff about scrambling .. bah .. put the TX or RX signal on a
scope and draw your own conclusions, it shouldn't be hard.

As far as digital voice transport ... bahaha

It takes serious bucks to do secure communications, serious is
definetly greater than $250. Probably more like 3 or 5K.


Regards,

Rob Heape

Motorola Control Centers
1301 E. Algonquin Rd.   Schaumburg, Il 60196
Telephone: [phone]   Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Encrypting Motorola Cordless Phone!
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  2 APR 92 12:55:25 EDT


> After discussing what I was looking for they informed me it was the:

>    America Series:  Motorola "Secure Clear" Cordless phone
>             Model 300 & 500.

Thanks for the update. Would you happen to have a phone number or name
or list of distributors of these phones?

I would like to check one out.

I am located in Eastern MA.

Thanks.


Regards,

Steve.

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

Subject: Re: Cat Named George, 3 Way Calling, Speed Calling 8, Speakerphone
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 13:25:50 PST
From: [e-mail]


Brief technical correction follows:

> I suppose I could also have solved this by switching to speed calling
> 30, since George T. Cat would then have to hit two touch tones to make
> a call.

Yesterday I got a summary of available services from Pac Bell and
apparently there is no speed calling 30 out here!  I wonder if NYNEX
still offers it ...


eli

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #299
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26023;
          7 Apr 92 3:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26573
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:13:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00343
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:13:13 -0500
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:13:13 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #300

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Apr 92 02:13:08 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 300

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sending Faxes Overseas (Paul Cook)
    Best Bay Area Carrier (Pete Helme)
    Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal (ACUTA via Kath Mullholand)
    17th Annual Trenton Computer Festival (John F. McMullen)
    Motorola's Future Wireless Services (Mark Alcazar)
    Phone Line Surge Suppressors (Cris Pedregal Martin)
    MobiPen Press Release (Ericsson Press Release)
    Old Cord Board on Display in New York (Roy Smith)
    Source Needed For DTMF Pads (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (Don Davis)
    Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 21:05 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sending Faxes Overseas


In TELECOM Digest V12 #295 (Mexican Rating DB and Pricing Software),
[e-mail] (Carl Wright) writes:

> In the course of our work with Telefonos de Mexico, we have developed
> and now offer our Mexican All-Points(tm) Rating Database and Mexican
> Call Pricer.

Although this is for pricing outbound calls from Mexico, it reminded
me of a bit of a price shock that I got last week when sending a fax
to Mexico.

A company in Mexico faxed a request to us for some literature on our
telephone demonstrators.  They asked that we send the data sheets back
to them via fax.

Our normal data sheet for our most popular telephone demonstrators has
four sides, but the first page is really a cover sheet with a picture.
Given that it has lots of fax time-hogging background shading and not
much more data than a nice picture on the front, I mentioned to our
receptionist that she could save money by leaving the front page off.
So she sent three pages plus a fax cover sheet.

Or at least she tried to.

She called the fax number listed on their fax, but kept getting some
sort of call progress tone; she couldn't tell if it was ringing or
busy.  We made a couple of calls to AT&T to verify that the number and
city codes were correct for the called location in Tabasco, and then I
attempted it.

Someone answered speaking Spanish, so I used my standard fax procedure
for calls to foreign countries where a fax number is answered by a
live person.

I yelled "FAX!  FAX!"  This seems to be understood in most languages
now.  The person at the other end mumbled something like "momento."

Eventually I heard the familiar fax answer tone.  I pushed send, and
walked away.

A few minutes later I walked by the machine, and was alarmed to see
that the speed had stepped down to 2400 bps.  The line hadn't SOUNDED
bad when I called, but maybe they were using one of those cheap fax
cards that won't do 9600 bps.  We seem to be plagued with these
lately; folks call us up requesting literature, and want it faxed NOW.
What they want faxed is often multi-paged and highly detailed, so it
gets expensive.  Then when we send the fax, we get connected to a
machine that cannot communicate above 4800 bps, so it costs us twice
as much to send.

After the fax transmission was completed, the report from the machine
showed that it had taken slightly over 23 minutes to send these four
pages!

Out of curiosity I called AT&T to see what this cost us.  The rate was
$1.98 for the first minute, and $1.89 for each additional.  It seemed
odd that the charge for subsequent minutes was so close to the first
minute charge, but thats what they told me.  Given the delay in
getting the customer to turn on their machine, we will probably be
billed for 26 minutes for this call ... an incredible $49.23 for three
pages plus a cover sheet!

The volume of this sort of fax traffic is getting to the point that we
really need some brief "fax friendly" product data sheets that use
bolder graphics with no background.  I also would love it if our fax
machines could be set so that they will disconnect, rather than step
down to slower than 9600 bps.  There are plenty of times when I don't
mind the slower rate, but it would be nice if we had the option of
restricting it.

Occasionally I run into a problem with faxing to third-world countries
where either they have problems manually switching to a fax machine on
a shared line, or the connection is real flaky, plagued with slow
speeds or random disconnects.  In these cases, as long as I just need
to send text without graphics, I have found MCI Mail's fax service to
be a very economical alternative.  I can set the retry for the maximum
of 12 hours, and it doesn't matter how many attempts at whatever speed
it takes, or if the calls are usually disconnected mid-transmission; I
only get billed for that one successful completed transmission.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Helme)
Subject: Who is the Best Bay Area Carrier?
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:04:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


OK, I'm sure this has been thrashed on here before, but what are
opinions on the best cellular carrier in the San Francisco/Silicon
Valley Area?

Thanks,


pete    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:27:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Equal Access Ruling Stayed Pending Appeal


 From the ACUTA (Association of College and University Telecommunications
Adminstrators) News of April 1992  (typos mine):

     10-xxx rule stayed pending appeal

Since the regulations are being challenged, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a "stay" March 13 of irs order for call aggregators
to unblock 10-xxx access to interexchange carriers.  Under the FCC's
order in CC Docket 91-35, aggregators who could open 10-xxx-0+ access
simply by reprogramming their equipment had faced a March 16 deadline
to do so.

On September 18, 1991, ACUTA filed a petition with the FCC to exempt
universities from the 10-xxx requirement.  The Association filed a
second petition on February 18, 1992, seeking a clarification that
would remove colleges and universities from the aggregator
classification, which the FCC determined in CC Docket 90-313.  The two
proceedings were based on the Operator Services Act of 1990.

The FCC has indicated that it will move quickly to rule on these
matters, said ACTUA's attorney Anne Jones.  <end>


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh

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

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 10:18:49 EST
From: "John F. McMullen (at Marist)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 17th Annual Trenton Computer Festival

There will be a two-hour panel discussion on "Computer Crime & First
Amendment Concerns" at 10:30AM on Sunday, April 12th at the 17th
annual Trenton Computer Festival (TCF'92). I will moderate the panel
which will be composed of Donald Delaney, New York State Police Senior
Investigator responsible for computer crime and telecommunications
fraud; Mike Godwin, in-house counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF); Emmanuel Goldstein, editor & publisher - "2600:The Hacker
Quarterly; and Phiber Optik, well-know hacker (previously arrested by
Delaney).

TCF is the oldest computer festival/show in the world, preceeding even
the legendary "West Coast Computer Faire". It is held on Saturday &
Sunday, April 11 & 12th at Mercer County College, outside of Trenton,
NJ It will contain over 170 commercial exhibits, the largest computer
flea market on the East Coast (eight acres) and two days of seminars,
talks and panel dicussions. The keynote speaker (Saturday - 3:00 PM) is
Paul Grayson, CEO of Micrografx.

The New York Amateur Computer Club (NYACC), on of the festival's
co-sponsors, is providing bus service from New York City to and from
TCF. A bus leaves 11th Street and 6th Avenue at 8:00AM on Saturday and
8:30 on Sunday (The Sunday bus originates in Long Island). For
details, call Lewis Tanner (212 928-0577 between 7 and 9 PM).

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Alcazar)
Subject: Motorola's Future Wireless Services
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:14:28 GMT


Hi, does anyone know where I can get good technical references to:

 - Motorola's Plan to provide global communications systems by 1994,
using a 77-satellite system;

 - Motorola's Wireless Information Network, operating in the Microwave
18Ghz. band.

Please mail me, I'll post this information with an upcoming summary of
the references I've collected on Wireless Networks for Ubiquitous
Computers.


Mark Alcazar    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Line Surge Suppressors
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 0:00:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


As the things one hooks to the phone lines become fancier and more
expensive, the risk of having them blown by a power surge (or
lightning, or whatever) becomes more undesirable.  (I gave an AT&T
5500 cordless-speakerphone to my mother and it suffered such a fate; I
have to note AT&T replaced it as it was still within warranty!)

I have seen Radio Shack offers something ($12.95) that's line powered
and one puts between phone line and device.  Advice on these?  Other
sources?  Specs to look at? Any help is welcome.


Cris Pedregal Martin    -    [e-mail]
Computer Science Dept.  -    UMass / Amherst, MA 01003

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:30 +0200
From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS <[e-mail]>
Subject: MobiPen Press Release


PRESS RELEASE     1992-04-06

ERICSSON GE ANNOUNCES WIRELESS MOBILE SOLUTION FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS
FOR PENS

Ericsson GE announced today that it is demonstrating its Mobidem
Portable Wireless Modem with Microsoft Windows operating system for
Pen Computing (Windows for Pens) at Windows World in Chicago. The
Mobidem is being used with a Windows messaging application developed
by B&M Systems that will allow messages to be sent and received via
Mobitex mobile data networks in the U.S. and Canada as well as in
international markets.

According to a study recently completed by Microsoft, 80 percent of
corporate users plan to use the same applications on both desktop PCs
and their new field-based portable pen computers.

"Many Windows for Pens users will need access to their company's
network from remote locations, so wireless connectivity will be
critical," said Greg Slyngstad, general manager, Microsoft Pen
Computing Group. "Ericsson GE's Mobidem is a perfect example of the
innovative wireless connectivity products available for pen-based
computer users."

Mobitex is a public mobile data network designed to provide automatic
nationwide roaming using packet switched wireless technology. For
additional information, please call 1-800-223-6336 or 201 265 6600.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 12:14:26 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Cord Board on Display in New York


    This is for you phone history buffs in New York.  I just
happened to notice that AIN Plastics, on Park Avenue just below 23rd
St, has an old model 556 cord board on display in their window (along
with a "not for sale" sign).  If you're into this sort of stuff, you
should go check it out.  I don't know too much about this stuff, so I
don't know how rare one of these things is, or how old it might be
(perhaps somebody else could fill in the details).  The only reason I
knew it was a model 556 is because there was an instruction manual
that went along with it.

    Coming out of the desk-top is a rotary dial with the number
"312-227-3400" in the central label.  Anybody recognize that area code
and exchange?  I was a little bit curious about the various lines on
the board (there seemed to be about 20 lines).  Many are labeled with
what are apparantly extensions of the main 227-3400 number, but some
are labeled with 800 numbers.  I thought 800 numbers were a relatively
new thing; it seemed odd to see them on a piece of equipment that was
obviously this old.

    I have no idea why AIN plastics has it on display, especially
considering that the closest to a piece of plastic that's probably in
the whole thing is maybe some rubber or bakelite.


[Moderator's Note: 312 is of course Chicago ... and AIN Plastics has
an office here at 1704 North Milwaukee Avenue. They've had the phone
number CAPitol 3400 (or 227-3400) for many years. 800 numbers have
been available for perhaps 30 years; my first recollection of them was
in about 1968 however.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon,  6 Apr 92 21:53:32 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Herman R Silbiger)
Subject: Source Needed For DTMF Pads
Organization: AT&T


Could anyone point me to a source of standalone line powered DTMF
keypads.  Years ago these were often used as accessories to dial
phones when needed for end to end signaling.  I remember seeing gray
ones in slope top boxes made by WE.

Please reply to:  [e-mail]


Herman Silbiger

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

Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer
From: dgdhome![e-mail] (Don Davis)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 18:45:27 EDT
Organization: The Dayton Home for the Chronically Strange


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, dgdhome![e-mail]
> (Don Davis) writes:

>> It might be useful to hear the experiences of those net.people who
>> already have Caller-ID.  Has anyone learned anything especially
>> useful?  Or is it still too early to reach any conclusions?

> For the past six months, my UNIX system has been quietly compiling a
> list of the numbers associated with inbound calls to my business and
> my residence lines.  [...]
> A recent call from a telemarketer sounded too familiar. [...]
> I did a grep of the file, piped to wc, which told me that in the past
> six months, the same number had called here sixteen times!  I was able
> to give the caller the date and time of each attempt.
> My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
> the new one.  Useful? -- I don't know yet.

Ah! I'd call that useful.

We observe that:

1. the ability to search a six-month log of Caller*ID data is
   useful when confronting a telemarketer.

2. the Call*Block list can get full, making it necessary to unblock
   an old blocked number in order to block a new one.

This leads toward the conclusions that:

1. it is a Good Thing to keep a long-term caller log ... much longer
   than the last hundred or so numbers, as supported by the commercial
   Caller*ID boxes I've seen so far.

2. the size of the Call*Block list as provided by the Telco may be
   inadequate (assuming that Dave's usage pattern is reasonable).
   The ability to maintain this list in your own equipment, and to
   directly control the ringing of your telephones might also be a
   Good Thing, if it can be done practically.

Anyone else care to relate their experience where the Caller*ID and/or
related services have proven particularly useful or satisfying, or
where the limitations of the services have become evident?


Don

P.S. - Dave, three questions:

1. What equipment you are using to deliver the Caller*ID data to your
   UNIX system?

2. How many numbers can you keep in the Call*Block list?

3. Do you find the mechanism for reviewing/changing the Call*Block list
   to be tedious, irritating, or difficult to use?


Don Davis        | Internet:     Tel. [phone]
5444 Mangold Dr. | dgdhome![e-mail]
Dayton, OH 45424 | Disclaimer? I hardly know her!

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

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:04 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Stops a Telemarketer


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> My Call*Block list is already full, so I had to delete an entry to add
> the new one.

We're a long way from having any CLASS features here in the Golden
State (thanks, activists) but I can already see that the Call*Block
feature has too few entries possible. Recently I set up a system for a
business that uses 800 numbers. The company was getting so many junk
and nonsense calls that the real customers were having a hard time
getting through.

The system works like this: DNIS (similar to DID) and ANI records are
extracted as soon as the call appears. The ANI is checked against a
list of known "junk" callers. If the number is not found, the call
rings an attendant (or goes to ACD if none is available). If the ANI
data matches an entry on the list, the caller hears a recording saying
that the call "cannot be completed at this time". Whenever a call
comes in that does not get intercepted by the list and it turns out to
be a new junk caller, the attendant hits a key and the number is added
to the database.

In three weeks of operation, would you venture a guess as to how many
entries there are on this list? There are over a thousand and the list
is still growing. Granted, this IS a business and its nature would
attract this type of call. However, it does seem that maybe ten
maximum entries might just be a bit low for real usefulness.

I suspect that if one would add up all the "phantom hangup callers"
and all the telemarketing people that I might block from my residence,
the number would be closer to 100 than 10.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #300
******************************