Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss351-400

Internet Message Format | 1992-05-19 | 874.4 KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27449;
          30 Apr 92 1:48 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:33 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15047
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:02:24 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #351

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Apr 92 00:02:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 351

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Jack Decker)
    Sending/Receiving FAX's From a Workstation? (Dan Daddieco)
    Re: Sending Faxes Overseas (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Latest California Disaster (Rob Warnock)
    Re: 1-900 Numbers Available (Giles D. Malet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 16:50:35 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas


> I've already brought this up, but what would you say to a box that
> worked like this:

> It's set up as a FAX machine: you turn it on and leave it on. It
> presents the equivalent of an anonymous-UUCP login sequence, and drops
> into G protocol ... this would be the Email equivalent of the UUCP
> front-end negotiations. It's got some RAM or a printer (or even hooks
> into an existing FAX machine, if they have some sort of interface).

> You can address it from Usenet as "name@phone-number", or just enter a
> phone number from another equivalent box. You send mail simply by
> sitting down at it and typing "mail peter@7135680480" (with the usual
> shorthand).

> With a 2400 baud modem and a screen it could be made MUCH cheaper than
> any FAX, since it doesn't need high resolution I/O devices.

> An email machine ... with FAX as a fallback position.

I'd love to see something like this, but I would hope it would not be
LIMITED to 2400 bps.  Also, I'd hope that any such product would
support the ability to put a document on hold so that someone could
call in and pick it up at their expense.

Anyone contemplating doing something like this should try to get hold
of a program used in Fidonet called BinkleyTerm (chances are that a
Fidonet node in your area has it).  As far as I'm concerned, this
program is the current state of the art for intersystem transfer of
messages and files.  Of course, it uses Fidonet node addressing and
file naming conventions, but the principles would be the same.  The
reason I recommend looking at this program is because 'C' source code
is available from many BBS's.

BinkleyTerm allows you to send mail bidirectionally (sending and
receiving simultaneously), it allows for recovery of an interrupted
session (it will save the part of a file already received, so that on
a later call only the remaining portion needs to be transmitted, not
the entire file), and it can send mail on fairly complex schedules if
necessary.  Of course you probably don't have anything that complex in
mind, but I would hope that it would at least be possible to enter a
message and then have the unit delay transmission until late night
when the rates are low.

But ... I also think that the first person who makes a LOW COST, easy
to use mail package will get a big jump on the market.  Right now
electronic mail is just too complex for the average user, but at the
same time, I can see where paper mail is getting less and less
reliable, and as you've noted, FAX transmissions are definitely
inefficient.

Let me propose a hardware/software combination that might work real well:

1) Coded ring capable ... will answer the line only if a certain ring
pattern is received, if desired.

2) Has sufficient memory to store (reasonable amounts of) both
incoming and outgoing messages when the associated computer is off.
Has provision to alert user (by audible signal or some other means) if
memory limits are about to be exceeded, so user can turn computer on
and download some data from the hardware unit.

3) Can easily be restricted to send mail only during low rate periods.
Preferably this should be programmable, especially for those who call
overseas, since the "low rate period" varies from country to country
(and carrier to carrier in the U.S.!).  Also would be nice if you
could program in number-specific dialing prefixes/suffixes (to select
carriers, or get through voicemail "front ends").

4) Uses SIMPLE addressing -- phone number only where possible!

5) Will detect various call progress tones and NOT keep trying numbers
that answer without giving any useful response (such as voice
answers!).

6) If a transmission is interrupted, will save the part received (if
you're the receiver) and on next connect, only require transmission of
the remaining part.

7) Will COMPRESS data to the maximum possible before transmitting.
This should be done offline, BEFORE the call is made, so that more
efficient algorithms can be used.  Compression should be at least as
good as that achieved by the MS-DOS programs LHARC or ARJ.  You may
also want to think about an upgrade path in case better compression
algorithms are developed later.

8) Should be able to send and receive data simultaneously using a
bidirectional protocol (like the JANUS protocol used by BinkleyTerm).

9) If it calls a system and there is mail on hold for the caller, it
will pick it up, BUT the caller should be able to PARTIALLY disable
this on an individual number basis.  What I mean is this.  Let's say
you (system A) call another system (system B) to deliver a three page
letter.  He has a two page letter on hold for you.  Since his letter
is shorter and since the bidirectional protocol is capable of sending
and receiving simultaneously, your system would ALWAYS pick up that
letter since to do so would not add to your costs.  However, let's say
that you're sending a one page letter and he's got a 100 page document
on hold for you.  You should be able to refuse to pick that up, or to
maybe pick up just the first page and then wait for him to call you to
get the rest.

This all sounds complex but most of it would be hidden from the user.
In practice, the user would type up the message, tell the system the
destination phone number, and the message would automagically be sent
at the proper time.

That's the sort of system I'd like to see, anyway!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Daddieco)
Subject: Sending/Receiving FAX's From a Workstation?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 27 APR 92 15:19:18


I'm interested in finding out about any software (or hardware) that
will allow me to send and receive (mostly SEND actually) FAX's from my
workstation.  I know there's "something" out there that handles this
need since the Digital CSC has the ability to do this but I can't seem
to get my hands on the precise software information.  So any
information about specific products or whatever would be greatly
appreciated.


Dan Daddieco - License Key / PAK Management
Digital Equipment Corporation
Software Business Group
110 Spitbrook Road - ZKO1-3/B29
Nashua, NH 03062    03-881-0743

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

Subject: Re: Sending Faxes Overseas
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 7:19:06 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)


> I'd love to see something like this, but I would hope it would not be
> LIMITED to 2400 bps.

Stick a modem on the serial port.

> Also, I'd hope that any such product would support the
> ability to put a document on hold so that someone could call in
> and pick it up at their expense.

Sure, that's inherent in the UUCP scheme.

[discussion of Binkleyterm]

Maybe. Most Fidonet mail software doesn't seem to handle meta-information
very well.

> 1) Coded ring capable... will answer the line only if a certain ring
> pattern is received, if desired.

Good idea.

> 2) Has sufficient memory to store (reasonable amounts of) both incoming
> and outgoing messages when the associated computer is off.

What associated computer? It would be able to operate standalone, and
in fact if you *have* a computer you'd probably just get the software.

> 3) Can easily be restricted to send mail only during low rate periods.

Another good idea.

> 4) Uses SIMPLE addressing - phone number only where possible!

Well, you want to add a tag indicating the recipient so when you DO
hook it to a national Email network it remaind familiar.

> 5) Will detect various call progress tones and NOT keep trying numbers
> that answer without giving any useful response (such as voice answers!).

Good one.

> 6) If a transmission is interrupted, will save the part received (if you're
> the receiver) and on next connect, only require transmission of the
> remaining part.

Probably not a big deal, since most messages are going to be small
enough that call set-up time dominates. Plus, the existing protocols
don't support this, and we need to make it compatible with commercial
services (if it uses UUCP, it will hook directly to AT&T mail, UUPSI,
etc ...).

> 7) Will COMPRESS data to the maximum possible before transmitting.

Would be nice, but existing protocols don't do that. Should be an option.

> 8) Should be able to send and receive data simultaneously using a
> bidirectional protocol (like the JANUS protocol used by BinkleyTerm).

Would be nice, but the existing protocols don't support that. I'm not
sure how important this is... if you have that much mail traffic to a
single person, you probably want to be using a commercial mail relay
anyway.

> 9) If it calls a system and there is mail on hold for the caller, it will
> pick it up, BUT the caller should be able to PARTIALLY disable this on an
> individual number basis.

This is inherent in UUCP call grades, though not all UUCP versions support
call grades. The latest freeware version, Taylor, does.

> This all sounds complex but most of it would be hidden from the user.  In
> practice, the user would type up the message, tell the system the
> destination phone number, and the message would automagically be sent at the
> proper time.

Yep, just like what I already have with UUCP.

I said:

>> The problem is that neither AT&T Mail nor MCI Mail are as convenient
>> as just FAXing. We need a commercial email system for MS-DOS that's as
>> easy and convenient as UUCP Mail is on UNIX.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan
L Varney) writes:

> Peter, you must have missed the huge AT&T Mail Access Plus ad
> campaign.  :-) This is a DOS-based collection of software that that
> supports:

Does it allow you to call any other Access Plus user without having AT&T
Mail accounts or equivalent in-house systems set up?

Is it price competitive with a FAX machine when you factor in the cost of
the computer?

Is it compatible with existing Email systems without an AT&T Mail account
to help (assuming the answer to the first question is YES)?

Are the protocols published so I can build a standalone Email box, or
implement it for a computer AT&T doesn't support?

If the answer to any of these is "no", it's not the answer. Well, it's
AN answer, but it doesn't answer the right question.


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 00:18:28 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Latest California Disaster
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> Well, this has been the Week That Was for California folks.  An earthquake
> earlier this week, then another on Sunday have caused much damage. I know
> this sort of thing is a little more 'routine' there than it is in other
> parts of the USA, but still it seems to always wreak havoc. Can we get some
> up to date reports on the telecom situation in California as of Sunday
> afternoon/evening? If John Higdon can get through to us, perhaps he will
> provide news.

John should have no problem at all, nor would anyone else except in
the immediate area of the quakes, which were very far away from most
of us.  As is often the case, the media haven't been very careful
about saying exactly where the quakes were!

They were up in Humboldt county, close to the Oregon border, a couple
hundred miles north of any major population centers (which hardly
noticed a thing -- see below). The small town of Petrolia was closest
(though not hardest hit) to the epicenter, which was about 5 miles
below the surface and about 35 miles south of Eureka, CA. This area,
known as the "Mendicino Triple Junction", is where three crustal
plates rub, and where the northern end of the San Andreas Fault
intersects the Mendicino Transform Fault (which runs west into the
Pacific Ocean). Several hundred earthquakes a year occur there, "the
most seismically active place in the lower 48 states" (per Monday's
{San Jose Mercury News}).

The initial main quake (6.9) was Saturday around 11:00 am. First major
(6.0) aftershock was 00:42 Sunday, with another major (6.5) one at
04:18 Sunday.  Oddly enough, neither of the first two was felt in the
Bay Area, while the third woke people up all over the Bay Area -- and
as far east as Reno and as far south as Carmel! This is probably
because the latter one was quite long, some 10 - 15 seconds by various
reports. (Yes, I happened to be up, and heard the house rattling
gently but definitely for about that length of time. Does a long
rolling shaker propagate further than a short, sharp bump?) As of
Monday afternoon, there had been over 5000 recorded aftershocks,
though none anywhere near as strong as the two major ones.

Damage from the primary quake was bad enough, but the smaller 00:42
Sunday shock started a fire in downtown Scotia which completely wiped
out the tiny business district: a market, a lumber/hardware store, a
pharmacy, and a coffee store. Here is a list of the most seriously
affected towns and their losses:

    - Ferndale (pop. 1,367): 30 homes, 40 businesses, $4 million damage
    - Petrolia (pop. 1,500): 10 homes, one business, $1.5 million damage
    - Rio Dell (pop. 2,687): 20 homes, 20 businesses, $7 million damage
    - Scotia (pop. 950): 4 businesses, $15 million damage

Area hospitals treated 94 people, admitting 12. There were no reported
deaths.  In the immediate affected area, about a 30 mile radius from
the epicenter, power outages were widespread. Water lines were cut,
and some areas had to be served by trucked-in supplies, including
water to fight the Scotia fire.

Telehone service was reported as "unreliable", though KCBS reporters
seemed to have little or no difficulty calling in their reports (they
mostly use cellular phones). In fact, because of the number of "live
reports" on Bay Area radio stations, I'm guessing that the
"unreliability" of the phone service was probably due mostly to
jamming of the lines by friends and relatives trying to call in,
rather than to actual damage.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone] before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.        [phone] after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311    "Please make a note of it."

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

From: Giles D Malet <shrdlu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-900 Numbers Available
Organization: You gotta be kidding !
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 05:06:17 -0400
Reply-To: Giles D Malet <shrdlu![e-mail]>


>  We own several 900 numbers and I have three of them to rent out [...]
>  ^^
>  If you are interested in this opportunity of have any question about
>it, please do not hestate to e-mail to the following address:

>      [e-mail]

For those budding entrepreneurs out there -- unfortunately Mr. Yang
forgot to inform us just who the `we' above refers to, so I went
looking.

`waterloo.edu' it the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
`descartes' is a Sun system run by the Dept. of Mathematics (includes
Computer Science), and has well over 1000 user accounts, mostly
belonging to students.

`finger [e-mail]' reveals :

Login name: yzhang                      In real life: Yang
Office:     251, Sunview Street         Home phone: [phone]
7253204,251,Sunview Street
Directory:  /u3/yzhang                  Shell: /xhbin/tcsh
Last off:   Wed Apr 22 11:59:47 1992    Terminal: ttyu2 from laplace
New Mail:   Sun Apr 26 03:59:45 1992    Last read:  Wed Apr 22 11:58:29 1992
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I ran that at Tue Apr 28 00:50:00 1992, so as you can see, this
organization is really rushing to process those orders !

But wait, there's more :

ls -l /usr/spool/mail/yzhang
-rw-------  1 yzhang     156325 Apr 26 03:59 /usr/spool/mail/yzhang

So, as you can see, the orders are pouring in! Hurry, hurry, before it
is too late! (or could this notice have produced other mail as well?).


Kermit: disconnected :-)

[e-mail], or
Giles D Malet   [e-mail]    Waterloo, Ont, Canada   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for a very interesting conclusion to this
issue of the Digest!  :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #351
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00578;
          30 Apr 92 3:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16000
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:05:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11224
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:04:59 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:04:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #352

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:05:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 352

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New AT&T 700 Service (AT&T News via several of you)
    700 Numbers Start in June (Barry Mishkind)
    AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (John C. Lewandowski)
    AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (Monty Solomon)
    Position Announcement (Lewis M. Dreblow)
    Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Lawrence Chiu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Apr 29 08:12:28 EST 1992
Subject: New AT&T 700 Service


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to the several of you who sent me the item
below from AT&T. The one from 'dquist' arrived first, but I received
many copies throughout the day Tuesday and Wednesday.   PAT]


AT&T ANNOUNCES *** AT&T today announced a new service for people on
the move.  AT&T EasyReach 700 Service will offer consumers nationwide,
for the first time, a portable long-distance number that is theirs for
life and a package of features that will let them choose which calls
follow them and who pays for the calls.

For $7 a month, consumers will receive a 700 number that remains
theirs as long as they remain EasyReach 700 subscribers -- no matter
where on the U.S. mainland they may travel or move.  The average
American now moves 11 times in a lifetime.  EasyReach 700 Service will
also give subscribers the advantage of selective call forwarding that
can be programmed from any touch-tone phone and the option to receive
calls that are toll-free to the caller just like those to 800 numbers.
The service differs from standard call forwarding offers in that
subscribers will choose which calls follow them.  Subscribers can even
choose to have only some EasyReach 700 calls follow them by assigning
four-digit Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) to certain callers
and then instructing the service to forward only those calls.  Those
calls made with a PIN are paid for by the subscriber.  Charges for
those calls will be sorted by PIN on the monthly bill for easy
tracking.

The service is designed primarily for long-distance calling and
subscribers are expected to retain a local telephone number.
EasyReach 700 calls will be billed at fixed per-minute prices,
regardless of distance.  State-to-state rates will be 25 cents per
minute from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 15 cents per
minute at all other times.  Prices for in-state calls will vary by
state.

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: 700 Numbers Start in June
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 17:38:03 GMT


Overheard on CNN this morning:

"AT&T will provide a permanent nationwide 700 number for those that
wish, starting in June. The number will forward to where ever you
are ... Cost was said to be $7/mo, plus any LD charges."


Barry Mishkind

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

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 20:17 MST
From: "JOHN C. LEWANDOWSKI, 786-3512" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service


In the 29 April issue of the {Wall Street Journal} (page B1), it is
announced that AT&T will introduce a number of ten digits with a area
code of 700.  For only $7.00 a month one can own a number that will
follow you around the United States, and it allows you to decide which
calls you want to receive.  It can also act like a 800 number when
callers add a four digit access code after the number.  The charge to
the subscriber is 25 cents a minute during peak hours and 15 cents a
minute during off-peak hours.  It seems to me that this service is a
lot more customer-friendly than MCI's "Follow Me" service, but I still
want to see the finer points before making a real judgment about this
service.  Does anyone have any additional information, or an AT&T
number that I can call to find out more?


Thanks,

John C Lewandowski    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 23:23:43 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service


 From the 4/29/92 {Boston Globe}:

AT&T yesterday introduced permanent, portable long distance telephone
numbers for people who want to be reached easily as they travel.
Called EasyReach 700, the new offer will allow customers to use a
single telephone number no matter where they are within the Lower 48
states.  The service differs from standard call forwarding in that
subscribers may choose which calls will follow them.  AT&T said it
expects the service would appeal to busy individuals who do not want
to miss calls as they go from office to hotel or from car phone to
weekend getaway.

       -----

Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {Wall Street Journal}:

For telephone customers who want to be reached anywhere, anytime, AT&T
says it has your number and will assign it to your for life.

AT&T yesterday said it will begin selling by mid-June a new phone
service in which subscribers are assigned a new ten-digit phone number,
including a 700 prefix that can follow you for life -- and for a fee,
of course.

Called EasyReach 700 Service, the plan allows a customer to call a
central AT&T number and using a touch-tone phone, tell a computer to
route calls to another number.  Friends, family, or business
associates wouldn't have to worry about learning each of your phone
numbers; they'd need only to know your 700 number.  The fee: $7 a
month, AT&T said.

The number an AT&T customer gives to outsiders will be constant as
long as the customer remains with AT&T.

Subscribers can choose which calls they want to receive.  And they
have the option of receiving calls that are toll-free to the caller.
All the caller has to do is remember to punch in a four-digit PIN
assigned by the service subscriber after dialing the 700 number.  This
way the call is automatically billed to the called party.  The charge
to the subscriber is $0.25/min peak (M-F 8-5) and $0.15/min off-peak.

The new service is limited to the mainland U.S. for now.  In addition,
customers must make the call over an AT&T line or dial an extra
five-digit access code to sent the call over the AT&T network.

AT&T Bell Labs figured that there are about six million possible
combinations of ten-digit numbers that can be offered using the 700
prefix.

AT&T may marry the new service with some of its new credit-card and
calling-card programs so that your number covers all your transactions
in the future.

           --------

I spoke with an AT&T representative today and got some information:

The service is not yet available.  It is scheduled to come before the
FCC on 6/2/92.  They will send me a postcard when it is available.

You can request a specific number and pay a one time charge of $25.00.

There is a $10.00 setup fee which will probably be waived for the first few
months.

The call routing can be changed from any touch-tone phone.

There will be a credit card option with an $0.80/call surcharge.

There will also be third-party billing available with a 4-digit PIN.

To change routing, the EasyReach subscriber dials 0-700, then their
personal number, then a four-digit PIN, then 1-#, and the number to
which calls are to be routed to.

The subscriber can assign up to 20 four-digit PINs for reverse billing.

The $7 monthly fee includes call-waiting.

Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {New York Times}:

Call-forwarding has been available in some form since the late 1960's,
but is second in popularity to call-waiting, which signals when
someone is trying to call when the line is in use.

Nationally, about 30 percent of eligible telephone customers use call
waiting, while about five percent use call-forwarding, according to
Bellcore.  In New York state, fewer than 500,000 customers subscribe
to call-forwarding.  That compares with two million for call-waiting out
of 6.5 million eligible residential customers, according to Nynex.

Part of the reason for call-forwarding's slow growth may be that the
subscriber has to remember to establish and disconnect call-forwarding
for each phone.  The doing and undoing of the service could be
annoying to customers.

The current call-forwarding transaction is actually two calls,
although the dialer may not realize it.


Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
[e-mail]

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

From: "Lewis M. Dreblow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Position Announcement
Date: 28 Apr 92 14:45:45 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College


New Telecommunications and Networking position available at Muskingum
College.  Aside from US mail, queries may also be sent to Shelba Watson,
Secretary to the Personnel Director, [e-mail]

                             ----------

Telecommunications Specialist position available immediately at
Muskingum College.  Full time position responsible for day-to-day
management of NEC PBX, circuit and technical management, staff
training.  In addition, responsible for campus network.  May include
component design if qualified.  Send resume and three references to
Director of Personnel, Muskingum College, New Concord, OH 43762.
E.O.E.  Resumes will be accepted until position filled.

                              ---------

                           MUSKINGUM COLLEGE
                            Job Description

POSITION TITLE:       Telecommunications Specialist

POSITION REPORTS TO:  Director of Computer Services

POSITIONS REPORTING TO THIS POSITION: PBX Operators, Student Assistants

FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE OF THIS POSITION:

Management, maintenance and diagnostic repair and responsibility for
day-by-day operations of telecommunications system.

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

-  NEC 2400 telephone.

-  Manage, track, diagnose, maintain trouble log, and solve problems of
   system day-to-day and long range.

-  Set up and maintain telephone restrictions, features and parameters
   for each office, department, and student phones (including voice mail,
   referral, number change and PIN usage and others).

-  Responsible for generation and printing and responsibility for monthly
   bills.  Responsible for delivery to PBX operator for disbursement.

-  Implement and maintain in-house voice mail (Centigram).

-  Establish workable liaison and data gathering network with all
   departments to maintain voice mail information/news system.

-  Generate, maintain, assign, track and have authority for initial PIN
   numbers.  Assign or designate to dept. personal PIN's for non-office
   business.

-  Day-by-day operations including office moves, malfunctions, technical
   problems, circuit management.

-  Manage and maintain non-PIN access.

-  Program and establish parameters for Guardian system.

-  Design and implement any forms, brochures, billing statements,
   documentation and support materials as needed.

-  Provide training as necessary.

-  Responsible for up-loading information to the Prime system including
   billing and cash receipts.

-  Assist with telephone directory.

-  Management of wiring closet in each building and wiring plates.

-  Responsible for all wiring and connectivity integrity.

-  Instrument maintenance

-  Operation and management of the (1) call accounting system (ASTRA),
   and (2) the facilities management software/database (ASTRA).

-  Perform traffic and system monitoring and reporting using the MAT
   (Maintenance and Administrative Terminal) environment.

-  Maintain close contact with PBX service and support personnel (NEC).

-  Plan, configure, install, and maintain data network hardware and
   software as required. (Ethernet + TCP/IP) (Includes fiber optic, coax,
   and twisted pair technologies.)

-  Monitor, diagnose, and trouble shoot data network.

-  Responsible for day-to-day operation and configuration of
   network-based informational resources.

-  General (i.e., "board-level") diagnosis and maintenance of electronic
   scientific laboratory equipment.

-  Investigate, recommend, and install electronic interfaces between
   laboratory and computer equipment.  This may include limited circuit
   design and building if an off-the-shelf component is not available.

-  Establish and maintain records pertaining to equipment repairs and
   problems.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

-  Identify and implement custom applications using the OAI (Open
   Applications Interface) software development environment.

-  Other items as required by supervisor

SKILLS/REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS POSITION:

-  BA/BS

-  Technical expertise

-  Hardware diagnostic abilities

-  Data base management skills

-  Excellent problem-solving and diagnostic skills

-  Basic wiring and electronic experience/training

-  Ability to diagnose/track, manage and to repair electronic wiring
   system, data circuits, electronic and network management.

-  Program completion from unified electronics program or equivalent
   experience.

THE JOB PRIORITIES ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

-  First priority is telephone-PBX operation and management.
-  Second priority is data network operation and management.
-  Third priority is electronic diagnosis.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 03:21:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Chiu)
Subject: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment


The local telco has a new method of enforcing late payment which I
discovered to my annoyance recently.  I somehow neglected to pay my
current phone bill and when I remembered, couldn't find it. So I
decided to wait till the next month and pay at the same time.  Well
the next bill arrived and I put it aside to pay.

I then went away for a few days holiday and forgot about it!  Well a
couple of days ago I found my phone had been disconnected (actually
sounded like it was faulty till I called the fault service and was
told it was disconnected for non-payment).

They said they (or their computer) had called me nine times to tell me
if I did not pay the phone would be disconnected. I was away on the day
they called and there were messages on the machine.  Finally in
annoyance I got hold of a supervisor. It turns out the computer
messager they have is not compatible with answering machines -- it
calls your number and as soon as you or your machine answers it spits
out its spiel. If you have an answering machine the delivery is
usually over before your outgoing message is complete. Hence no record
of the call. I was told they were aware of the problem and were making
changes to the program to handle this (I wonder how - listen for the
beep -- wait for 30 seconds after answering [this would be confusing if
you actually answered the phone]). I guess the real answer is to pay
on time and wait for competition in local phone service -- we already
have competition in LD which has improved service a great deal.  As an
aside after I paid the phone was reconnected within an hour. I had a
very restful evening that night!


Laurence Chiu                      |
Principal Consultant               |
GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand   |
Tel: [phone]                | Internet    : [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]                | Compuserve  : 71750,1527


[Moderator's Note: So if I understand your complaint correctly, after
your phone bill went unpaid for almost three months and telco made
nine attempts to reach you by phone, they cut your service. You feel
imposed upon that they took such an action, and intend to give your
business to a competitor if one ever comes along. As is quite common
with debtors, you turned things around to become the injured party and
demanded to speak with a supervisor. Instead of speaking with a
supervisor, you should have been instructed to stand in line and wait
your turn at the cashier's window.

You note that since there is competition in LD it has improved, and
your implication seems to be that if a competitor for local service
comes on the scene things will improve locally also. How? Will the new
company let you go six months and a dozen phone calls without paying
your bills?  You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon
payment your service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the
fact telco could have left you cut for a couple more days while they
cleared your check at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt
payment in the future and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do
I have all that correct?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #352
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02415;
          30 Apr 92 3:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16829
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30389
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:17 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 01:31:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #353

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:31:17 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 353

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (John Higdon)
    Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ (Ron Newman)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Mark Reardon)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Norman Soley)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Simona Nass)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 12:29:10 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


BIG DISCLAIMER: I work for a part of AT&T that isn't an IXC, and I
don't speak for or represent the views of ANY PORTION of the company.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Todd Inch) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve L.
> Rhoades) writes:

>> (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was allowed to carry INTRA-Lata
>> traffic?!)

> .... That was my understanding at one time, too.  My boss got the
> impression that this was something [US Sprint] had over AT&T, our
> current LD provider.  But, I tried calling my home, which is a
> toll "long distance" intra-LATA call, preceded by both 10ATT and
> 10333 and they both worked.  Is this legal/legit, or did someone
> misprogram the CO's switch, or what?

   Neither AT&T nor other IXCs are PROHIBITED from carrying intra-
LATA traffic by the FCC or the Judge; remaining prohibitions from
these areas deal mostly with rates, accounting and such.  In VERY
general terms, the IXC market is viewed as mostly-competitive and has
relatively few anti-competitive restrictions (though AT&T still has
more restrictions than others).  On the other hand, the LEC markets
are viewed as non-competitive, and thus the major LECs are prohibited
from carrying most inter-LATA traffic.

   Existing intra-LATA traffic restrictions are typically imposed by
the STATE Utility Boards (e.g., PUC).  The original rationale was that
the higher-than-necessary intra-LATA toll rates were used to help hold
down prices of residential POTS service, just as higher "long
distance" rates did before 1984.  Some PUCs already allow intra-LATA
toll call "competition" by requiring the LECs to permit 10XXX access
for intra-LATA calls.

   But they only allow this after the LEC has modified its rates
and/or changed accounting practices to segregate toll costs/revenues
from services previously supported by such toll calls.  In most areas,
this would have the effect of raising monthly rates and reducing toll
rates, perhaps with some other changes such as "free" calling areas.
(Maybe these should be call "prepaid" calling areas?)

> The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go
> through an IXC than through the local telco?

   This requires an understanding of the LEC rates, IXC rates, your
calling patterns and any "plans" that offer discounts based on call
volume.  Only you can answer the question.  Don't expect the answer to
remain valid for any long period of time.

   Note that letting the customer make this decision avoids lots of
messy problems, like deciding what constitutes a "toll" call.  In an
area with Message Unit billing, a call that's billed in Units might
cost more or less than an IXC depending on the call duration, initial
period, discount plans and time-of-day.  Aside from the duration issue
(can you predict call duration?), the decision of what's the cheapest
access method is still so complex that PBX/Centrex customers pay for
Automatic Route Selection (ARS) features to make the choice.


Al Varney - the above information is from public sources, and
            does not reflect AT&T's views on this issue ... really!

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?


[e-mail] (Todd Inch) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve L.
> Rhoades) writes:

>> (But wait, I didn't think AT&T was allowed to carry INTRA-Lata
>> traffic?!)

> Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or
> what?

Intra-LATA traffic is controlled by your state's Public Utility
overseer (PUC in NH, which is only one LATA, so I can't speak for
multi-LATA states).  If your PUC has never ruled on intra-LATA
competition, IXC'x may try to provide the service "off-tariff" by
running the traffic out of the state and back in, thereby calling it
interstate traffic.  Both the FCC and PUC are likely to frown on this,
and I recall vaguely some kind of lawsuit in NYC on this very issue,
involving Off Track Betting, which had lines to New Jersey in order to
avoid intra-LATA (or intra-state) charges.

His other question was, is it cheaper?  Since in NH the major profit
maker was pulled out from under the BOC, New England Tel has pretty
high intra-state rates -- 26 cents per minute, with time of day
discounts and volume discounts that may get you as low as 11 cents per
minute.  Most IXC's will offer band one at high volumes at 10 cents a
minute or less.


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire   durham, nh

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 13:58 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?


Not every state was as short-sighted as California in setting up a
monopoly for the LEC to carry intraLATA calls. In many areas around
the country, any carrier can handle intraLATA traffic if the customer
so desires.

Whether you will save money is something you will have to research for
yourself. California's intraLATA rates are unquestionably the highest
in the country because the PUC, in its infinite wisdom, gave Pacific
Bell a license to gouge virtually any amount it so chooses for calls
to neighboring towns. In other places, it is probably a six of one,
half dozen of the other just as interLATA rates are amoung the major
carriers.

> I'm assuming they meant 10333.  My boss got the impression that this
> was something they had over AT&T, our current LD provider.  But, I
> tried calling my home, which is a toll "long distance" intra-LATA
> call, preceded by both 10ATT and 10333 and they both worked.

If one carrier is allowed to do this, then they all are. No one has a
"special deal".

> Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or
> what?

You can bet that you will find no misprogramming in a switch if it is
to the LEC's detriment.

> The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go
> through an IXC than through the local telco?

I would suggest you check the rates and find out. Rate information is
not exactly a closely guarded secret.


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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 03:19:16 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?


> I'm assuming they meant 10333.  My boss got the impression that this
> was something they had over AT&T, our current LD provider.  But, I
> tried calling my home, which is a toll "long distance" intra-LATA
> call, preceded by both 10ATT and 10333 and they both worked.

If you can't route intraLATA calls to an IXC then it is because the
LEC blocked access.  I guess its possable some of the smaller IXC
might have a problem with it, but Sprint/AT&T/MCI will be happy to
carry them.  If FGD access to IXC's is blocked, sometimes you can still
save with FGB access.  If not, and you're big enough you get a T1 (or
Primary Rate Interface ISDN trunk) to the IXC POP.

> Is this legal/legit, or did someone misprogram the CO's switch, or
> what?

It may well be illegal for them to market the service, but you welcome
to use it, the main problem being blocking of FGD intraLATA calls

> The other big question is, of course, is: Is it actually cheaper to go
> through an IXC than through the local telco?

I can call any other LATA in the state of Alabama for the price of a ten
mile intraLATA call.  Calls to nearby states are even cheaper of course.

Give it a try. IntraLATA traffic is the golden cow of the LEC, or was
that the inside wiring maintainance plan, or DTMF service, or DID, or
B carrier cellular, or ...

Yes I'm down on SCB, #1 I graduate in June and their not hiring, and
#2 they may offer ISDN in the Auburn area soon ... for ESSEX (Centrex)
custimers only (minimum eight lines until the new tariff comes out,
then it will be three lines).  But they will deliver as little as one
B channel to a premise.  Real Useful.  Has anyone done inband
signaling on ISDN :-)

In their defense they are 100% SPC CO's, have lots of fiber, SS7
connections to the IXC's are soon to come, BISDN is being field tested
in NC, etc.


Pat Turner     KB4GRZ      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 01:22:17 EDT


On 25 Apr 92 22:16:14 GMT, krfiny![e-mail] said:

> (2) This could be justified if there were enough calls within
> the service area, no?  AT&T, SPRINT, MCI all share information
> about long distance calling patterns of customers.  Is the
> information about local calling available, or even collected
> internally?

Leaving aside the rest of your article, some of which was intriguing
but much of which was, self-admittedly, dreaming, let me ask, where
did you get such a bizarre idea as this one?  I believe that customer
calling patterns come under the heading of Customer Proprietary
Network Information (CPNI) which is not to be divulged to third
parties by an interexchange carrier.  Sitting at AT&T, I would have to
say that MCI and Sprint are third parties to us, as we must be to
them.  Such sharing of information as you describe is against FCC
regulations.  It would also be skating on real thin anti-trust ice,
too, since some might take it as evidence of cartel-like behavior.  It
would also be real stupid for any of the big interexchange carriers to
give away marketing information like that to the competition.

As for your proposal, the information for calling patterns withing
Rahway could only come from the LEC, if they even collect it.  Why
would they make it easy for you to determine the feasibilty of cutting
into their market?


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

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

From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: Re: Jeff's Phone Company of Rahway, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 17:19:05 EDT


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

> (2) Re: the FBI wiretap and spook central: With all the screaming and
> kicking in TELECOM, and after reading the excerpt from the FBI, I am
> getting more sympathetic to the FBI's position.  If I were to
> implement this non-centralized telephone switching system, am I to
> expect the FBI to reverse engineer and non-intrusively perform their
> business?  And do that in a timely, cost effective manner?  No way!
> The FBI is appealing to the telecommunications companies to
> collaborate and cooperate with their law enforcement needs.  I agree
> that it is much more cost effective, controllable, accountable and
> well engineered if these needs are known at the system design phase
> and designed into the systems rather than retrofitted.

Why on earth would you want to help the FBI at all?

If I was starting a phone company, my position would be simple.  I'm
responsible to my customers, not to the FBI.  I won't help the FBI or
anyone else unless they have a court order.  Even then I'm not going
to make their life easy.  Why should I?

Personally I'd like to see the day when phone communications are
securely enough encrypted that wiretapping isn't even a possibility
for anyone.


Ron Newman    [e-mail]

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

From: emory!tridom![e-mail] (Mark Reardon)
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Reply-To: emory!tridom![e-mail] (Mark Reardon)
Organization: AT&T Tridom; Marietta, Georgia
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:01:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Sharon Crichton) writes:

> My question to telecom readers: How was it possible for someone to get
> authorization to bill my line when I was not even home during some of
> the call times listed?

When my daughter was born in January, I couldn't get the hospital pay
phone to connect me to my LD carrier if choice (I had their card) and
I didn't have the money on me to phone my parents.  She suggested that
I bill to my home.  When I explained that my wife and I where at the
hospital so no one could verify she laughed.  "I'm not worried about
it if your not."  She had no information on me except the number I
wanted to bill to and the number I wanted to call.

> ABTW, I think that I can win the prize for having the lowest average
> monthly long distance charges of any regular telecom reader - anyone
> have anything lower than $3? :-)

One year total of $2.36.  No wonder my employer doesn't care if I use
Sprint. :-)


Mark Reardon           |  AT&T Tridom
[e-mail]     |  840 Franklin Court
                       |  Marietta, GA 30067

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 19:05:14 GMT


Bell Canada recently did a publicity campaign about how, in order to
avoid fraud, they were going to require verification on all third
party billing.  I seem to remember them doing the same thing about
five years ago too. It looks like they do this every few years, the
crackdown lasts about a year and then they get lax again.

Back in high school days we used to occasionally third party bill
calls to a local branch of one of the big banks outside banking hours,
if the operator questioned the call at all we claimed to be a bank
employee in town on business and "they told me to bill my calls to
this number", we were never turned down.

In all likelyhood the person who made the calls is someone you know
casually who just picked your number for a while. If it was organized
phreakers they would have hit you for a lot more.

> ABTW, I think that I can win the prize for having the lowest average
> monthly long distance charges of any regular telecom reader - anyone
> have anything lower than $3? :-) The AT&T operator even asked me if
> that was my normal amount of long distance usage. Of course, she then
> went into her spiel about thanking me for using AT&T and mentioning
> all these great calling plans if my monthly usage should rise above $8 :-)

My usual monthly LD charges are between $0.70 and $1.40 (CDN) per
month, that's two calls per month to my parents to tell them if we'll
be coming for Sunday dinner or not. I also probably would place high
in the least features added to a line contest at a grand total of one,
touch-tone. When Bell switched our excahnge to a DMS last fall they
gave us eight weeks of free call-waiting, in two months it went off
exactly once so I figure, why bother.


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital
Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

From: [e-mail] (Simona Nass)
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 21:21:18 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


Some time, maybe two years ago, I got a third-party call billed to my
number by New York Telephone. I was living alone at the time, and not
even my building's superintendent had the keys to my apartment. I was
sure I did not make the call.

I called to have the charge removed and asked how it could have been
billed to me. They said the billing and connecting were done
separately, so maybe the operator merely mistyped the billing number.
I was a little surprised.

They offered to disallow third-party billing in the future, but I
didn't take it. I asked if they had a service that would disallow
having numbers _incorrectly_ (w/o authorization) billed to my number
but, alas, they did not offer that service and, from what I could
tell, had no plans to to so.

S.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I do have an opinion on everything.
     ([e-mail]    or    {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #353
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04882;
          30 Apr 92 4:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19409
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05786
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:41:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #354

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Apr 92 02:41:06 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 354

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Bill Pfeiffer)
    Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter (Doug Rorem)
    Re: ATM Discussion Group (Steve McDowell)
    Re: ATM Discussion Group (Bob Hinden)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Brad S. Hicks)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Mark D. Wuest)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Seth Breidbart)
    Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? ([e-mail])
    Re: White House Telecomms (Scott Dorsey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 18:36:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> Anyway, I got a call this morning from someone who wants to
> transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to
> walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym.  I guess they want
> to be able to look at one of the several screens and get the
> corresponding sound.  Seems like there should be little FM stereo
> transmitters available commercially for similar purposes (like sending
> your stereo around the house).  Anyone know of one?


Ramsey Electronics makes on that has been very favorable received (no
pun intended) by many in the Fido Broadcast echo.  They are in several
places, but I think their main catalogue place is in NY.


Barry

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Small FCC approved stereo FM transmitter
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 16:40:16 CDT


In a recent TELECOM Digest, [e-mail] (Harold
Hallikainen) writes:

> I got a call this morning from someone who wants to
> transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to
> walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym.  I guess they want
> to be able to look at one of the several screens and get the
> corresponding sound.  Seems like there should be little FM stereo
> transmitters available commercially for similar purposes (like sending
> your stereo around the house).  Anyone know of one?

Yes Harold, there is just such an animal.  It is made by Ramsey
Electronics, sells (in kit form) for $29 and is available through the
manufacturer, or through a place called the 'Radio Collection' (maybe
elsewhere too).

There has been much talk about it in rec.radio.shortwave and it sounds
great.

Supposedly it will transmit about ten blocks to a personal
(walk-entity :->) type stereo using only a nine volt battery and a 20"
whip antenna.  This claim was by a reader/user, not by the
manufacturer.  In addition, the unit is said to be quite stable, and
of good overall fidelity.  Yes, it IS stereo.  I will include the
address of Ramsey Electronics here, and the e-mail address of a woman
who is involved with Radio Collection.  Good luck.

Ramsey Electronics, Inc.
Amateur Radio and Hobby Kits Dept.
793 Canning Parkway
Victor, New York  14564
[phone]  Fax: [phone]

Christine K Paulstain (with the Radio Collection)
e-mail  [e-mail]
Ask her for a catalog of their other great radio oriented stuff.

Note:  I have no connection with either of these entities.


William Pfeiffer     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Tad Cook for providing similar
information about Ramsey.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Rorem)
Subject: Re: Small FCC Approved FM Transmitter
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 17:04:38 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> Anyway, I got a call this morning from someone who wants to
> transmit the stereo sound from various large screen TVs in a gym to
> walk-person radios worn by the people in the gym.  I guess they want

There are monaural systems available that operate on channels in the
FM band from 72-76 MHz.  These are called personal listening or sound
enhancement systems and are sold by two    companies that I know of,
Telex Communications in Mpls, MN [phone] and Phonic Ear in
Petaluma, CA (707)-769-1110.  These systems are primarily used by
hearing impaired individuals and are required in many public places
with PA systems by the 'Americans with Disabilities Act' as of January
1992.


Doug Rorem                              *   phone [phone]
University of Illinois at Chicago       *   fax   [phone]
ADVANCE project                         *   email [e-mail]
EECS Dept M/C 154 |  Room 1120 SEO      *   -or-  [e-mail]
Box 4348          |  851 S. Morgan      *
Chicago, IL 60680 |  Chicago, IL 60607  *

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

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 09:15:53 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Steve McDowell)
Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group


In message <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
(Shikhar Bajaj) writes:

>> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in
>> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information
>> on how to join the discussion.

> Send mail to [e-mail]

Well, this is a group for discussing IP over ATM, *not* for discussing
general ATM related issues. In fact, when general issues are brought
up they are usually flamed.


Steve McDowell          Opinions are
Exlog, Inc.               mine, not my
[e-mail]         employers.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Hinden)
Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group
Date: 28 Apr 92 16:01:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


>> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in
>> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information
>> on how to join the discussion.

> Send mail to [e-mail]

This is not the correct addresses to send to.  The correct address to
send subscription requests to is:

    [e-mail]

Sending these messages to [e-mail], results in the subscription
request going to over 250 people.  A nuance at best.

The atm list is the mailing list of the "IP over ATM" working group of
the IETF.  It is not a general ATM discussion list.  A copy of the
charter for the group is below:

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

Internet Protocol Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (ATM)

Charter Dated: December 31, 1991

Chair:

     Robert Hinden / Sun Microsystems    [e-mail]

Mailing Lists:

     General Discussion:    [e-mail]
     To Subscribe:        [e-mail]

Description of Working Group

The IP over ATM working group will focus on the issues involved in
running internetworking protocols over Asynchronous Transfer Mode
(ATM) networks.  The final goal for the working group is to produce
standards for the TCP/IP protocol suite and recommendations which
could be used by other internetworking protocol standards (e.g. ISO
CLNP and IEEE 802.2 Bridging).

The working group will initially develop experimental protocols for
encapsulation, multicasting, addressing, address resolution, call set
up, and network management to allow the operation of internetwork
protocols over an ATM network.  The working group may later submit
these protocols for standardization.

The working group will not develop physical layer standards for ATM.
These are well covered in other standard groups and do not need to be
addressed in this group.

The working group will develop models of ATM internetworking
architectures.  This will be used to guide the develop of specific IP
over ATM protocols.

The working group will also develop and maintain a list of technical
unknowns that relate to internetworking over ATM.  These will be used
to direct future work of the working group or be submitted to other
standard or research groups as appropriate.

The working group will coordinate its work with other relevant
standards bodies (e.g. ANSI T1S1.5) to insure that it does not
duplicate their work and that its work meshes well with other
activities in this area.  The working group will select among ATM
protocol options (e.g. selection of an adaptation layer protocol) and
make recommendations to the ATM standards bodies regarding the
requirements for internetworking over ATM where the current ATM
standards do not meet the needs of internetworking.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Fred Goldstein for his article
pointing out that '-request' is the proper form of address to use when
requesting addition to mailing lists.  PAT]

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Wed Apr 29 09:26:10 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise


In TCD 11.349, [e-mail] (Bill Squire) said:

> I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in
> the USA! ... nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been
> committed. ...  A lot of things illegal in America are legal here.
> Is it any secret, if you don't make it a problem, the problem is gone?

To which [e-mail] (Pat Townson) responded, of course:

> What do you mean 'since nobody gets stuck with the bill, no fraud
> has been committed'?

Pat, this subject has been beaten to death over and over again.  On
the other hand, "you started it."  :-)

Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who
have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and
make free calls.  Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled
onto the system at once.  Since most of 'em are students or people who
work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to
off-peak time.  Do you really think that at off-peak times that any
part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't
handle another 1000 calls?  That's why they have off-peak pricing!  So
even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to
the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak
demand periods.

You of course bring up the matter of tariff ... though surely you
realize the futility of bringing up US telcos' tariff language with
someone whose net address ends in ".nl".  That's the POINT he's
making; that his country's phone-related legislation recognizes that
the cost to track down and harass the phreaks is more than it's worth,
since all they're doing is uses resources that nobody else needed
right then anyway.

Littering is illegal.  Shall we hire as many cops as it takes to catch
every litterer, and fine them enough to pay the costs?  It would have
a salutary effect on littering, but it's much cheaper in both legal
costs and social costs to just pay people to clean the streets and use
social pressure and pride to reduce littering.  Why wouldn't this work
with phreaking?

Don't forget those social costs.  Remember, the guys who started Apple
Computers are widely reported to have built their expertise (and
possibly raised some of their startup capital) by blatant phreaking,
the sale of blue boxes.  Would America, or the world for that matter,
be better off if these guys had been caught, tried, and blacklisted
from ever working with computers?


J. Brad Hicks   Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad


I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.


[Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting
hacked, Brad?  I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam
around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad,
that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a
couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who
taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise
on credit card numbers hacked from the system?  I'm surprised to hear
an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of
behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in
his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference*
does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ...
don't their property rights count for anything?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:09:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Squire) writes:

> I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in
> the USA!  Put the responsibility on the carriers or corporations that
> use computers and the problem will go away alot faster than putting
> the "problem" in jail!  Of course fraud is illegal in most lands, but
> the idea here is nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> committed. Come on Pat, pay us a visit and loosen up!  A lot of things
> illegal in America are legal here.  Is it any secret, if you don't
> make it a problem, the problem is gone?  Except for stolen bicycles,
> we don't have much crime here.  Makes you wonder!

Pat's comments cover most other things, but this is just flat "out of
left field"!  Added usage of bandwidth causes the telephone company to
have to add bandwidth, and guess who pays?  All of the other customers
who actually PAY our bills end up paying for the hacker, so they are
actually stealing from *ME*!  Pat's shoplifter example is right on the
money.  In the same way, other customers end up paying for the
shoplifter because the storeowner/teleco raises prices to cover their
higher costs.

This is similar to the problem many U.S. citizens have with socialized
medicine and other social programs -- they don't mind helping pay for
someone who cannot afford services, they just resent having to pay for
those who just don't *want* to pay for them.  (Gads, I hope this
doesn't end up being a discussion of *this*!)


Mark Wuest   [e-mail]
[e-mail] (NeXT Mail Welcome!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 20:16:49 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Squire) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: I find it hard to believe in Holland it is legal to
>> bypass the billing equipment ... if you know how, of course!    PAT]

> I find it hard to believe they haven't made phreaking/hacking legal in
> the USA!  Put the responsibility on the carriers or corporations that
> use computers and the problem will go away alot faster than putting
> the "problem" in jail!  Of course fraud is illegal in most lands, but
> the idea here is nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no fraud has been
> committed.

Is it legal to sneak into movie theaters without paying in Holland?
After all, nobody gets stuck with the bill, so no crime has been
committed.

(Funny, when I was there a couple of years ago, there were signs
strictly warning people against riding the trolleys without a valid
ticket, which would result in large fines if you were caught.  Why
doesn't the same (lack of) ethic apply?)


Seth        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The same ethic does not apply in the minds of
hackerphreaks because the physical size of telco prevents them from
seeing it as a collection of human beings working for a living (or
stockholders) who are victimized everytime they (the hackerphreaks) rip
off service. To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation,
therefore fair game for their criminal activities.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? + Wardialers
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 08:42:18 GMT


> 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.

I dont see why all you lucky people in America complain about paying
25c or 30c for a phone call. I mean, in most other countries (incluing
here in Australia) everyone pays 25c for calls from your HOME! Thats
right, no free local calls, which also solves the problem of Wardialers
(except on 008 and 0014 numbers). Can anyone see hope for us Austral-
ians!?

TIE


[Moderator's Note: Sure. All Australians can immigrate to Holland, and
learn to bypass the billing equipment!    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center And Storm Door Company
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 15:16:59 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The Pope is listed in the phone book.   PAT]

Let me guess ... his number is Vat 59, right?


scott


[Moderator's Note:  Oooh, ick! That was awful. Let's quit for today
before the jokes get even worse. See y'all tomorrow!  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #354
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26589;
          3 May 92 0:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05119
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21150
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 22:15:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #355

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 May 92 22:14:55 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 355

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Reports From LA/SF Wanted (Thomas Lapp)
    It's a Riot (Robert L. McMillin)
    LA Phone Status (Mike Coleman)
    Telecom While LA Burns (Andy Jacobson)
    Riots in LA (Mark Rudholm)
    University Telecom Monopoly? (Stan Hall)
    GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - Intra-LATA Call Questions (Jeff Wisniewski)
    Telephony's Buyers' Guide (Nigel Allen)
    Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (Ted Koppel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 May 92 12:10:09 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Reports From LA/SF Wanted


Would it be appropriate for someone in the LA (and SF, since it also
has been affected, I hear) area to give us some reports of the
situation in LA, both a general perspective, and how it has affected
telecom?  I'm thinking of something along the lines of what Pat did
for us about two weeks ago for the Chicago area.

Although I do read media publications, since we have such a large
readership, we potentially have "news reporters" all over the globe
who can provide first-hand knowledge of items of world-wide interest!


internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)
             : [e-mail] (work)
OSI          : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA


[Moderator's Note: Look no further! I've included several articles
about the scene from the City of Angels, a/k/a/ El Lay in this issue
of the Digest. We in Chicago have been spared, thus far.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:02:00 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: It's a Riot


Having won the war (Willie Williams, late of the City of Brotherly
Love, is now LAPD Chief-Designate) and lost the battle (a virtually
all-white jury uniformly acquitted Rodney King's uniformed attackers),
the hotheads are trashing Los Angeles' South Central neighborhood,
looting and burning everything in their mindless paths.  At last
count, no fewer than 31 five-alarm fires were burning in South
Central.  One firefighter had been shot in the face, but was in stable
condition.  A roving gang of thugs stopped a truck driver and beat him
bloody; he finally escaped and managed, somehow, to get to a hospital,
where he is now in critical condition.  Firefighters go from one
disaster to the next, accompanied by police escort.  In some areas,
police have yet to respond to 911 calls -- in part because there
simply aren't enough cops to go around, and also because they fear the
residents.

Downtown at Parker Center, LAPD headquarters, a demonstration that
started peacefully rapidly descended into violence.  Rioters burned
and overturned a police car(s?), attempted to overturn a LA Unified
School District school bus, and threw rocks and bottles at police in
riot gear.  On my way to work this evening (a scary thought!), I saw
one plume of smoke that looked like it was in Watts, and another much
closer to home, possibly in Hawthorne or Inglewood.  The governor,
Pete Wilson, has called in the National Guard and declared a state of
emergency in Los Angeles.  (He also went on to say that he would
provide all resources needed to put out the riots; in the face of the
recent budget cuts that left education in California bleeding badly,
one has to wonder about his priorities ... Cal State Long Beach, a
campus with about 20,000 to 30,000 students, was this semester able to
offer six sections of English 100, a class that is a prerequisite for
29 majors.)

The obvious comparisons to the Watts riots in 1965 leave one wondering
just how much goodwill the rioters will burn simultaneously.  After
the 1965 riots, supermarkets disappeared from Watts.  Mom-and-pop
grocers, their prices inflated by high insurance and distribution
costs, have replaced them utterly.

Pacific Bell, the only telco in the area of the disaster, has urged
all residents in South Central to stay off the phone lines, since the
local exchanges are all but completely busy.


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


[Moderator's Note: After the 1968 riots in Chicago, *nothing* went
where the riot had been. Today, 24 years later, there are many totally
vacant blocks on the west side. Just big empty lots.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Coleman)
Subject: LA Phone Status
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 02:17:58 GMT


Just a quick anecdotal message, if you were wondering.  Dialtones are
a little slow here right now, and not surprisingly, long-distance in
and out of the city seems a little erratic.  Specifically, I got
several "your long-distance company cannot complete your call"
messages while trying to call to Missouri, and my parents there got a
couple different ones ("cannot complete", "phone is disconnected")
trying to reach me here.  I was finally able to get through using
10222 (ATT is our default).


Mike Coleman ([e-mail]), Ringmaster, Boelter Hall Roach Circus

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 21:36:44 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Andy Jacobson)
Subject: Telecom While LA Burns


As I'm sure there will be others out there who will discuss this anon,
I will not comment on the firestorm going on outside.  Suffice it to
say, as I write this, LA is under a complete curfew, police and fire
have been stretched to the point of non-response, and the business day
has been cancelled tomorrow (Friday).

Telecom is being severely effected.  From here at UCLA I can call off
campus, but I can not call into Santa Monica. Someone else here has
been able to complete a call to Santa Monica, but only got through
once. Calls to the Mar Vista area are also being blocked. Locally the
recording says due to "volume" of calls. From San Francisco, (where
they are having their own share of problems) calls are being blocked
to the same areas with a recording saying something to the effect of
"Due to problems with the local phone company ..." (This is not
verbatim).

As I was sitting here logged on, someone must have fingered me on this
machine, as I got an e-mail note from a complete starnger in Sonoma
who was desperately trying to get ahold of their spouse in the Culver
City area.  They asked me to call, and I was able to get through, and
relayed the message. I had no trouble being called at UCLA, or calling
from UCLA to San Francisco. There have been no problems calling from
UCLA east to Beverly Hills, LA, or east of there even. Strange that
only some GTE areas on the west side here seem to be effected, when
none of the fire bombings are out here (yet).  That's the word from
this vantage point. I'm sure there's more telecom problems in the
effected areas, but I haven't experienced them.


A. Jacobson <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 23:39:28 PDT
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Riots in L.A.


Greetings to all from the city of The Angels!

It is shortly after 10 PM on 4/30/92, I'm editing this message from my
home in the Hancock Park district of Los Angeles.

So far, 24 people are dead, 450 people are injured and there have been
1,300 structural fires.

Initially, the fires were contained to South Central L.A. but this
morning, the fires saw no geographical boundries.  Now, all areas of
the Los Angeles area are affected.

There has been VERY widespread looting.  You can take a stroll down
Wilshire Boulevard and pass looters wherever you turn.  People are
very bold about looting, they are not deterred by the presence of
onlookers, news crews, or in some cases, even police.  Try to
comprehend this, this is not something that has remained confined to a
specific area.  There has been property damage, fires, and looting in
even the wealthiest areas, including Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, West
L.A., Brentwood, and Westwood.

There have been snipers on rooftops, most notably, one on a building
at Melrose and La Brea shooting at anything on the streets below.
There is VERY unsettling news footage of looters and vandals behaving
as if participating in some demented carnival, laughing, yelling, and
waving at news crews.

The sky is black, it smells of smoke EVERYWHERE.  Almost all
businesses are closed, many closed early.  There is a curfew in force
for all areas within the corporate limits of the city of L.A., almost
all nearby cities, and portions of the unincorporated L.A. county
area.

As far as telecom issues go, (my theory on the cause of this whole
thing is that people are protesting the end of the 213/310 area code
permissive dialing on Saturday :)) this is what I can tell you ...
dialtones are slow in coming, occasionally you get them immediately,
occasionally you have to wait over two minutes, usually you have to
wait about 5-10 seconds.  I'm on an ESS5 and more often than not, when
I finish dialing a sequence, I get dropped back to dialtone (or the
queue for dialtone as the case may be).  Sometimes, I get reorder,
sometimes I get an all circuits busy recording from my CO or some
other along the way to the terminating end, and sometimes I get
through.  All this is pretty congruent with high volumes of network
traffic as far as I can tell.  Pacific Bell, GTE California, and AT&T
have all issued the usual request that customers use the phone only
when we need to.

Problems of this nature also occur immediately after earthquakes.
Even the cellular network is being over-taxed.  If an open channel is
unavailable, my cellphone retransmits the call request repeatedly
until the call goes through (I thought this was a pretty useless
feature until today!) Even with my Access Overload class of 15, it
sometimes takes a couple of minutes and a dozen attempts to get a call
placed.  Also, the cellular network seems to have been having problems
locating me when I get incoming calls.

Some of the fires have apparently damaged cable TV facilites.
According to my cable company, this is why I have no service at the
moment.  And now I hear news of similar events taking place in San
Francisco and Las Vegas.


MDR   [e-mail]    Philips Interactive Media of America


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for explaining the reason for the riots.  PAT]

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

Subject: University Telecom Monopoly?
From: Stan Hall <obelisk![e-mail]>
Reply-To: Stan Hall <obelisk![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 14:42:15 CDT
Organization: The Obelisk


I just thought I would ask the wonderful readers of comp.dcom.telecom
for opinions and suggestions about my telephone situation.

I am a student at the University of Oklahoma and am living in
university owned apartments.  The rent for these apartments includes
the cost for the phone service.  The phone service is provided by the
university telecom service.  The entire university is set up on a
large PBX so all I have to do is dial an extension for campus phones
otherwise "9" to get an outside line etc.

The telecom service drives me crazy. I have no choice to use their
phone service so they are less than helpful for any questions or
requests I make.  It seems I am destined to have low quality data
connections.  I spent a week trying to track down someone who could
verify if I could get an additional line. After having half the people
say yes and the other say no I finally get a definite answer.  No I
couldn't have an additional university telecom line and no I couldn't
get a Southwestern Bell line.

I could keep griping about this for a while, but I will stop.  Is
there anything I can do? Is anyone required to provide me with service
at all?  Please help me!!!!


Stan Hall
The Obelisk [ uokmax!obelisk!kilgore   [e-mail] ]

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

From: [e-mail] (jeffrey wisniewski)
Subject: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions
Organization: Ohio State University, Dept of Computer and Information Science
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 14:44:40 GMT


In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers.  When
I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I
liked was the extended local calling area.  I could place calls from
Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA)
for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges).  When I
switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be
billed for LD on out of LATA calls.  Since I have switched, I have
talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that
the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost
into Pennsylvania!

I have a few questions:

1)  Is there any truth to this rumor of larger local calling areas?

2)  If this is still the case (free intralata calls) how can GTE
    afford to do this?  Are they eating the cost?  Or do they have
    their own little network?  For example, say I am in Cleveland
    calling to Medina.  Does GTE realize that this is a intralata
    call and thus route it over their own network to a GTE office
    in Medina and then place it as a local call?

3)  If the above network example is true, can these companies
    use the same strategy and bill you anything they want?  I
    assume this is covered is some tariffff.

Well?  Anyone have any ideas/input?

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Telephony's Buyers' Guide
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


{Telephony} magazine publishes an annual buyers' guide. If your
company sells equipment or services to telephone companies, you may
want to request a free listing in the buyers' guide. Contact the
following office and ask for a Buyers' Guide questionnaire:

 Pat Blanton
 Directory Issue Editor
 Telephony
 Intertec Publishing Corp.
 P.O. Box 12901
 Overland Park, KS 66282-2901
 U.S.A.
 telephone [phone]
 fax [phone]

This address is only for the directory issue and circulation
departments. The editorial offices are still in Chicago.

{Telephone Engineer & Management} magazine also publishes a directory.
If you would like to be listed in it, write to:

 Buyer's Guide Editor
 Telephone Engineer & Management Directory
 1 East First Street
 Duluth, MN 55802
 U.S.A.
 telephone [phone]
 fax [phone]

As well, some industry associations (the North American
Telecommunications Association, for example) may also publish a
directory. I don't have current details on a NATA directory, though.

If you would like to be listed in the {Telecommunications Directory}
published by Gale Research Inc., write to:

 Editor
 Telecommunications Directory
 Gale Research Inc.
 835 Penobscot Building
 Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094
 U.S.A.
 telephone [phone]
 fax [phone]

You should probably contact the {Telecommunications Directory} in
writing, rather than by phone, as the directory is only published
every second year, and it will be a while before they start to send
out questionnaires for the next edition.


Nigel Allen         [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (T.D.H.)
Subject: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 13:03:24 GMT


[About someone we all know from reading telecom ...]

 From the {Atlanta Journal/Constitution}, 4/29/92. Gwinnett Extra,
page J2:

Candidate Isn't Exactly a Hopeful   (headline)

He's probably the only candidate for political office ever to concede
he'll lose -- not minutes before the results are in, but months before
the race.

"I don't have any expectation of winning", said Toby Nixon, who
announced Tuesday that he will be the Libertarian Party's candidate
for State Commissioner of Labor.

Mr. Nixon, 33, said that he had considered switching to the Republican
Party and running for a local office.  Only as a Republican can a
dandidate win local races, he said.

But the Lawrenceville resident said he was not ready to commit himself
to the kind of campaigning that a local race would require.  So he
sais he opted instead to run as the Libertarian Party's candidate for
Labor Commissioner.

Although he probably won't get elected, Mr. Nixon said, "at least this
way people will have a way to hear some new ideas on how these
problems [of unemployment] can be solved."

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

Good luck, Toby.


     Ted Koppel  --  [e-mail]  or   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We all second that motion. Good luck, Toby.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #355
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28520;
          3 May 92 0:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04680
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20813
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:10 -0500
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 23:02:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #356

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 May 92 23:02:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 356

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Final CFP - Int'l. Conf. on DSP Applications & Technology (Amnon Aliphas)
    A Different Kind of Music On Hold (Robert L. McMillin)
    Looking For 900 mhz Telephone (Norman Gillaspi)
    Wrongly Connected Fax Switch? (Jon Sreekanth)
    Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers (Bryan Montgomery)
    Compuserve Mail Charges (Ken Jongsma)
    Tone Plan Simulation Box (Sanjay Manandhar)
    Dialtone Spec Needed (P. J. Holsberg)
    What Telcos REALLY Want (John Higdon)
    213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Amnon Aliphas)
Subject: Final CFP - Int'l. Conf. on DSP Applications & Technology
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 21:48:17 GMT


REMINDER !!

        CALL FOR PAPERS DEADLINE APPROACHING
               ONE MONTH LEFT TO SUBMIT ABSTRACTS


 Chairman        |
             |
            |                  CALL FOR PAPERS
Dr. Amnon Aliphas   |
DSP Associates      |                       BOSTON '92
18 Peregrine Road   |
Newton, MA 02159    |               ________________________
            |
            |
            |   INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIGNAL PROCESSING
Technical Committee |
  _________________ |              APPLICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
            |
Mr. Joel Feldman    |
AudioFile, Inc.        |               featuring
4 Militia Dr. # 20  |
Lexington, MA 02173 |                       DSP WORLD Expo.
            |
Mr. John W. Irza    |     November 2 - 5, 1992    Hyatt Regency Hotel
Draper Laboratory   |                      Cambridge, MA. U.S.A.
ms 7C            |
555 Technology Sq.  |
Cambridge, MA 02139 |
            |    Application Areas:  Communications
Dr. Bruce Musicus   |                           Speech Processing
B.B.N.            |                        Image Processing
ms 6-4B            |                        DSP Technology
10 Moulton Street   |                        DSP Machines
Cambridge, MA 02138 |                        Medical Electronics
            |                        Neural Networks
Prof. A.M. Peterson |                        Industrial Control
Stanford University |                        Automotive
Electrical Eng.        |                        Underwater
227 Durand Bldg.    |                        VLSI Architectures
Stanford, CA 94305  |                        Geophysics
            |                        Underwater
Dr. Richard C. Rose |                        Radar
MIT Lincoln Lab.    |                       DSP Software
244 Wood Street.    |                        Instrumentation and Testing
Lexington, MA 02173 |                 Consumer Products
            |
Mr.J.V Ginderdeuren |
Philips I.A.        |
Pleinstraat 135        |             AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
B-3030     Leuven        |
Belgium             |        ________________________________
            |
            |


  DSP World        |
Keynote Speaker        |   Technology:
            |
William I. Strauss  |    Analog Devices, AT&T, Fujitsu, LSI Logic, Motorola,
Forward Concepts    |    NEC, OKI, Plessey, SGS-THOMSON, Texas Instruments,
1228 N. Stadem Dr.  |    United Technologies, Zoran
Tempe, AZ 85281     |
                        and Other Signal Processing Technology


MAIL, FAX, OR send e_mail (e-mail preferred) a 400 word Abstract for
Review to:


                        DSP Associates
                        18 Peregrine Road
                        Newton, MA 02159
                        U.S.A.

                        Telephone: [phone]
                        Fax:       [phone]

               electronic mail: [e-mail]

       (The deadline for receiving abstracts is May 30th, 1992)

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

    DSP WORLD EXPO - LIMITED EXHIBITION SPACE AVAILABLE

The International Conference on Signal Processing Applications and
Technology featuring DSPWorld Expo.  organized by DSP Associates is
coming to the United States for the first time, after two successful
years in Europe.

The Trade Show/Exhibit in Signal Processing Technology and Signal
Processing Based Products, and Applications will be held at the Hyatt
Regency Hotel in Cambridge, MA November 3, 1992.  Last year's
conference and Expo. Berlin '91 attracted over 400 highly qualified
design engineers and researchers from over 35 countries worldwide.

The International Conference on Signal Processing Applications and
Technology focuses strictly on industrial applications and product
development based on Signal Processing Technology, therefore
attracting a large number of application engineers with "hands-on"
experience.  This year's conference and Expo. are expected to attract
an even larger number of attendees with a large International
presence, due to DSPAssociates' recognition in the International
market.

A preliminary list of companies to be present at DSPWorld Expo. is
given.

Among them are:

Analog Devices              Ariel Corporation
AT&T Microelectronics        CADIS GmbH
Catalina Research        Sunnyside Incorporated
CSPI                Comdisco Systems Inc.
Data Translation        DSP Research
DSP Software            Dynetics
GEC-Plessey Semiconductor    hema Electronik GmbH
Hyperception            Image & Signal Processing
Ixthos                Momentum Data Systems
Sharp Microelectronics        Sonitech International
IEEE Spectrum Magazine        Spectrum Signal Processing
Loughborough Sound Images    Star Semiconductor
Texas Instruments        Zoran.

Exhibit space is still available and we would like to help you decide
in favor of exhibiting at DSPWorld Expo. To increase your company's
presence and your product exposure we urge you, colleagues, and
clients to submit application papers to the International Conference
on Signal Processing Applications and Technology.

If you would like to reserve exhibiting space or submit a abstract for
review, please contact:

Pamela Coneeny, Conference Coordinator. ICSPAT / DSPWorld Expo.

DSP Associates            Tel: [phone]
Peregrine Road            Fax: [phone]
Newton Centre, MA 02159, USA    e_mail address [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 01:29:04 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: A Different Kind of Music On Hold


File this one under 'Annoying Experiences Whilst On Hold': I recently
called Image Entertainment, one of the main distributors of Laserdiscs
in the U.S., to get information on a specific laserdisc that I had
wanted.  The conversation went about thus:

<Ring, ring>

Anonymous Phone Droid: Hello, Image Entertainment.  (Much noise in the
background.)

Me: Yes, I'm looking for a laserdisc called, "Beany and Cecil".

APD: What?  I can't hear you -- the manager (!) has got a new stereo,
and he's turned it up real loud.

Me: Ah, well let me spell it for you.  B-e-a-n-y ...

APD: 'P-e-e' ...

 ... and so on, for about ten minutes, until finally she got to 'Benny
and SeSILL' (that's how she said it!).  Absolutely unreal; I find it
unbelievable that her manager would make it impossible for their phone
answerers to hear their customers.  In these less than terrific
economic times, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so
callous.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Gillaspi)
Subject: Looking For 900 mhz Telephone
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 11:13:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I am looking for a manufacturer of wireless telephones in the 900 Mhz
band instead of 46-49 Mhz. Do these exist?


Regards,

Norman Gillaspie    ISS Engineering
992 San Antonio Rd.    Palo Alto
Calif 94303        [e-mail]
415-424-0380

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Wrongly Connected Fax Switch?
Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 14:41:36 GMT


This is something I've wondered about for a while. Many fax switches
have three or four RJ11's on them, one for the incoming telco line,
and the rest to connect to phone/fax machine/modem, etc. What happens
if a user connects the telco line to one of the outputs?

For background, a fax switch is a call splitter; it creates battery
bias for the devices hanging from it; monitors the telco line for an
incoming ring, picks up the call, tries to figure out where to direct
the call, rings that connected device and completes the call.  It also
works like a mini-pbx for outgoing calls from connected devices.

What happens to the fax switch, or to the telco, or both, if the fax
switch tried to drive a reverse polarity DC back into the telco line?
Or, for some reason, if the fax switch tried to ring the telco line?!

Since one RJ11 looks pretty much like the other, all it takes is one
mistaken connection on the part of the user. Is telco electrically
protected against such cases?

Please reply here or email, and I'll summarize.


Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.     |  Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140   |  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 14:46:07 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers


Good day,

Carrying on the theme of overseas calling cards from the US, MCI sent
me some literature yesterday -- I feared it was another bill!!

Point 1 : It introduces Friends and Family, saying how wonderful it
is, savings etc, and as a special offer you can add *anyone* to your
calling circle regardless of their PIC. This is for up to 90 days of
them being added. If MCI haven't been able to convince them of MCIs
virtues and change them by then -- cheerio. I wonder how much pressure
they'll receive from MCI? The letter says that MCI will write or call
on my behalf -- thanks chaps.

Point 2: MCI World Reach, similar to something that I recently heard
AT&T offering. You can now call any country served by MCI, from any
country with MCI Call USA. Charges are MCI call USA rates plus
1.25/minute-regardless of the country called. Roughly speaking it is
1/minute on call USA. Does this mean I can call Austalia for 2.25/
minute? I guess this would be cheaper than using BT/Mercury/NYNEX
etc? Any one care to elaborate on this payment scheme?

Point 3: Using Call USA you can now reach *any* 800 number, not just
MCI's. These are at standard MCI Call USA rates, and says collect
calls not accepted!

Point 4: Call USA expansion, now includes Puerto Rico and the US
Virgin Islands, as well as the other 50 states.

Quite a pleasant surprise - especially as I thought it was going to be
an expensive letter.

An impressed MCI customer,

Bryan Montgomery
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Compuserve Mail Charges
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 10:46:33 EDT


Being a rather heavy user of Compuserve, I think I ought to clear
something up. In one of his commentaries the other day, Pat said that
Compuserve charges for Internet mail. That is only partially true.

Compuserve's old billing plan (now called the "alternative plan")
charges each user $2 per month as an administrative charge, followed
by a per minute rate that depends on the speed of your connection.
There is no per message charge or surcharge for sending or receiving
Internet mail under this plan.

Compuserve's new billing plan (called the "standard plan") charges
each user $7.95 per month. A number of services are then provided with
no additional connect charges. (The most popular services, the
"forums" are not included in this flat rate.) Someone subscribing to
the standard plan is given an email allowance of $9 per month to cover
use of the CIS mail system. However, Internet mail is not covered by
the allowance and is billed on a per message basis for send and
receive. One is given the option of deleting Internet mail prior to
reading it if one does not wish to pay for it.


Ken Jongsma                       [e-mail]
Smiths Industries            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sanjay Manandhar)
Subject: Tone Plan Simulation Box
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 17:01:06 GMT


Does anybody know of boxes that generate telephone tone-plans from a
particular country (I'm interested in some European companies).

I would like to develop telephony-related applications in the US and
not have to travel to Europe everytime I need to test it. The
applications use dial-ins, dial-outs, fax capabilities, etc.


Thanks,

Sanjay Manandhar  MIT Media Laboratory       [e-mail]
                  Siemens-Nixdorf Info Systems          [e-mail]
                  Cambridge, Massachusetts. USA              [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (P. J. Holsberg)
Subject: Dialtone Spec Needed
Organization: The College on the Other Side of U. S. 1
Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 17:16:51 GMT


Could someone please post the specs for the interrupted dialtone that
voice mail systems use to inform the user that a voice mail message is
waiting?


Thanks,

Prof. Peter J. Holsberg      Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800          Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
FAX: [phone]            1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: [e-mail]       Trenton Computer Festival: April 17-18, 1993

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

Date: Sat, 02 May 92 13:34 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: What Telcos REALLY Want


A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco Chronicle} is a
great indicator of the future of telephony as seen from the eyes of an
LEC. "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie' Plan" describes a system that
would allow movies to be distributed to theaters and others digitally
via fiber optic lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the
highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie.

"The technology would allow theaters to instantly yank flops and order
hits. Assuming licensing deals could be worked out, they also could
offer a wide range of other types of entertainment like pay-per-view
sporting events, operas and rock shows."

There you have it, folks. Message to the EFF: Pac*Bell has not the
slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses. ISDN would only
fulfill the public's basic communications requirements. It would not
fill Pac*Bell's cash registers the way something as exciting as
Dial-a-Movie would. So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along?
Probably nothing.

But I can tell you what the company is doing to push this great
Dial-a-Movie idea. Pac*Bell plans to show this on May 6 at TEXPO,
being held at the Anaheim Convention Center. "Bugsy" was to be the
featured movie, but it contained too many dark scenes which did not
show up well on the HDTV system to be used for the demo.

So, "yesterday, Pacific Bell employees [on your regulated telephone
nickel] were busy watching other movies and still had not decided on a
bright enough substitute, a spokesman for the company said." While
Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN
to ANYONE, business or residence, it is moving full steam ahead on
highly experimental technology that has the potential for the really
big bucks. And it is using your captive regulated funds to do so.

And here is even more irony: ISDN is technically doable today with
equipment that is in place. Most film people predict that the video
technology involved with Dial-a-Movie will never be able to replace an
actual film presentation. Director Edith Kramer says, "You won't have
the particular aesthetics of film anymore. That would be a loss for
film makers and for those of us who love film."

Pacific Bell's point man counters with the statement that he is
concerned only with getting the images through the telephone system
from Point A to Point B. "He leaves the rest to somebody else."

I do not know about others, but I am completely enraged that Pacific
Bell is using MY regulated dollars to go after very 'iffy' but
potentially lucrative ventures, while neglecting to provide basic
telephone service to the public at large. I cannot get ISDN, CLASS,
and a host of other things because Pacific Bell chooses not to provide
them. And I cannot go elsewhere to get them.

It is time to remove the LEC monopoly.


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

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 01:15:51 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends


Just a reminder: 213/310 permissive dialing ends Friday, May 1, 1992.
Don't forget to reset any speed dialers, faxes, modems, etc.


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


[Moderator's Note: In the last issue of the Digest, someone noted the
riots in El Lay were protesting the end of permissive dialing. That's
odd, 'cause we did not have riots like that here in Chicago when 708
was split away from 312.  :)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #356
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02983;
          3 May 92 2:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09808
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 00:22:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16722
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 00:21:54 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 00:21:54 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #357

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 May 92 00:21:52 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 357

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed (David Gast)
    Albany Added to NACN; Cellular Parts Supplier (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Phone Line Woes (Dan Lanciani)
    Electromechanical --> Digital (Jack Winslade)
    Caller-ID Survey in New Zealand (The Dominion via Pat Cain)
    Possible Chicago Scam (Michael Bender)
    DID to RS-232 and POTS Box? (Don Jackson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 2 May 92 21:16:51 -0700
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed


"Due to the circumstances," as I think the official PR statement said,
the split has been postponed indefinitely.

On Thursday evening I had a great deal of trouble dialing out of the
LA area.  I tried a couple carriers.  I have had no trouble dialing
locally, however.

As to the circumstances, I can't say that the riots are as much of a
no deal as the earthquake of ten days ago that I did not even feel,
but if it were not for the news, I would have no idea that there had
been any problems.  I have been impacted much more by the curfew than
anything else.  One night I could smell something vile, but I have
smelled worse.  The only other impact has been noise -- I am located
near a National Guard facility and their noisy, smelly trucks have
been going by a regular basis for about 24 hours.  (They must have
designed those trucks to be as smelly and noisy as possible).  I just
heard a helicopter go by, but that is not unusual.  During the past 72
hours, I have heard about three sirens.

I personally have not seen one fire, one looted store, any violence,
or anything that could be described as newsworthy.  (I am not
disputing that others have, of course).


David

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

Date: 2-MAY-1992 07:17:21.02
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Albany Added to NACN; Cellular Parts Supplier


I mentioned that some features were working in Albany for NACN
customers from McCaw systems; well, it has now been fully added to the
NACN.

The usual NACN problems apply: If you wish to have voicemail, you must
hit *35, which will prevent call-delivery to Albany (or any NACN
city), and thus calls will go to voicemail. If you use *350 (or never
hit *35), calls will be delivered to Albany, but if you do not answer
they will NOT get transfered back to your home NACN system.

I talked to McCaw in Seattle, and the engineering VP in New York, who
was supposed to explain to me why the NACN (or just NY and CT)
couldn't allow call delivery AND voice-mail, and thus not necessitate
the annoying *35 feature.  The guy in New York couldn't answer: He
just said that the MFJ prohibits "voicemail" networking between "B"
owned systems and other "A" side carriers.

I told him I didn't think that this was true, and that the MFJ only
required that an IXC handle the traffic. Moreover, I pointed out to
him that Metro Mobile is able to deliver calls in NY, and if the call
is not answered, to have the call default to voicemail (or a
"No-Answer-Transfer" number) without much of a problem. He sounded as
if this was impossible, but said he would look into it. Although a
nice guy, he didn't sound all too knowledgeable about his system, at
least in terms of the specific areas which I mentioned.

Does anyone know if there is some inherrent problem with Ericssons
(which NY has) which prevents them from trying to deliver a call to a
remote system and then if no one answers to "take the call back" and
process it by sending it to voicemail or to some NAT number? The Cell
One/NY guy seemed to think it simply could not be done. I would doubt
this: If an older Motorola switch can do this (albeit with new
software) why can't the somewhat newer Ericsson do something seemingly
as simple as routing a call to voicemail if the remote system does not
signal that the called part has answered the cell phone? Anyone from
Ericsson or anywhere else know if this is correct or not?

Metro Mobile is also joining the NACN -- no date has been announced,
but calls received while in CT will now show "NACN-203" if you have a
Cell One/NY account. Still no Call-delivery to Pittsfield or Franklin
County, Mass -- they are looking into this now.

And as an aside: If you are tired of paying ridiculously high prices
for cell accessories, I saw an ad in the back of {Cellular Business}
for a supply house in CA which has no minimum order and sells at large
discounts. I sent away for their catalog, and found some really good
deals. For example, Novatel wants to sell me an extra battery for my
handheld at $54.00, the catalog sells it for $28.00. A carrying case
for the Panasonic tranportable that I have has been offered to me by a
cell phone store for $70; it was in the catalog for $16.

The place is called Cellular Products Distributors, in LA. You can
call [phone] (or 800-443-9889 in CA) to get their free catalog.
I've never ordered from them, but with some of the prices I saw in
their catalog, I certainly intend to give 'em a try!


Doug    [e-mail]      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, Ameritech (B) transfers calls
automatically to voicemail -- if you have that feature for about $4
(?) per month -- anytime they've found you but you do not answer after
four rings or immediatly anytime they cannot find you or your line is
busy (and you do not have call waiting on the line. Your *71 (transfer
on busy/no answer), *72 (immediate call forwarding) or *18 (follow me
roaming) instructions override voicemail. I do not use Ameritech
Mobile voicemail, perferring to simply use *71 to my home number which
in turn hits voicemail after a few rings.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 18:00:38 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dan Lanciani)
Subject: Phone Line Woes


    I've had two problems with my phone service recently and I
can't seem to convince the repair people to help me.  If anyone
recognizes the symptoms and/or knows some magic words to use, please
help ...

1.  Starting at about 11:30 every night (became 12:30 when we moved
the clocks ahead) the audio as heard by the party on the other end is
muted for a split second every 5-15 minutes.  I hear nothing special.
No clicks, tones, etc.  The only way I figured out what was going on
was when people kept asking me to repeat myself.  It doesn't matter
whether I placed or received the call.  It does appear to matter that
the call is outside the local office (or maybe outside some subset of
the equipment in the local office), because I can call my mother's
line (in the same house) and not "see" the problem.  Of course, this
effect plays havoc with my modem and I made the mistake of mentioning
this to the repair person.  This seemed to end my chances of getting
him to look more, even though the problem was initially (and
constantly) noticed on voice calls.

2.  More recently, I have two noises on the line.  (The first problem
has not gone away, unfortunately.)  Sometimes they start as soon as I
break dial tone by dialing the first digit.  Most common is a sound
just like someone's cheap-electronic-phone (tm) ringing in the
background.  Not the ring indicator sound you hear when placing a
call, but the sound you hear from a phone ringing near your head!  The
other noise is pulse dialing.  Sometimes rather loud, sometimes quite
soft.  I never hear other peoples' conversations.  Just ringing and
dialing.  Neither of these bothers my modem, but they drive me crazy.

    Again the repair service did whatever it is they do to "check the
line" but found nothing.  When I suggested that perhaps it was
something in their office, she started on how it must be my answering
machine or computer or even my phone (nice, old, heavy WE version that
doesn't know anything about electronic ringers).  When I asked to
pursue the matter further, the repair person said she didn't want to
send somebody out because I didn't have a maintenance contract and
would have to pay if (when?) they found a problem in my home.
Finally, I had the clever (?) idea of suggesting that I would record
the pulse dialing and figure out the numbers involved.  She said
emphatically that I shouldn't do that and that she would check the
central office.  This made me happy for a little while, but I don't
really expect it to get anywhere.  Help?


Dan Lanciani    ddl@harvard.*

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 23:09:04 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Electromechanical --> Digital
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a recent message, KEN DYKES writes:

> Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches
> (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going
> digital.  This is the switch I have been on for most of my life. ...

> ... and, if you have a rotary dial set, you will not hear a click in
> the receiver as the dial returns to rest.

This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a
rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the
next-to-last.  (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for
the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on
crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches
that we all loved.

> Be sure to begin dialing as soon as you hear the dial tone.  If you
> delay, the equipment may time out and you will need to hang up and
> dial again.

Wow!  This >>>WAS<<< old.  No timeout on dialtone.  This has to be an
old stepper.  Take the receiver off hook and tie up a linefinder all
night.  ( .. or at least until the cylinder of dialtone gas runs empty.
<smirk>)

> When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent pause
> from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings.

One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when
they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as
intra-office calling on a modern ESS.  Dial the last digit and !BANG!
ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control
step system.  This was, however, not the case with the <ahem> modern
'directorized' step offices, (such as the old 366 office on the south
side of Council Bluffs, the last stepper around here) where they had
some kind of a common-control register-sender glued in the system
between the line finder and first selector.  The old 366 switch was
notoriously slow.

> If You Have Ident-A-Call:

> If you have the Ident-A-Call feature
> [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line]
> you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing
> code.

This is the first time I have heard of this on an electromechanical
office, but I can see how it might work.

> Another local switch gave away free call-waiting to *all* lines over a
> year ago.

I'm glad US West is not so generous.   ;-)


Good day.    JSW

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 17:11:10 +1200
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Survey in New Zealand


Telecom New Zealand (owned by Bell Atlantic/Ameritech) has
commissioned an Auckland firm, CM Research Associates, to gauge public
response to the possible introduction of Caller-ID in NZ.

Telecom spokesman Clive Litt said yesterday it was a highly sensitive
area and carried some interesting issues of privacy.

"In effect there are two issues.  There is the right of the person to
know who is calling them as opposed to the right of a preson to keep
their identity secret if they so desire.  They are two very
interesting imperatives and we are trying to get a feeling from the
community as to how to the community believes we should handle such an
issue," Mr. Litt said.

People who are being surveyed are being told of some of the
disadvantages (such as inadvertent release of confidential numbers to
women's refuges or undercover police).  And that such a system could
also reduce the willingness of people to contact an agency about an
embarrassing or sensitive problem (eg. AIDS hotline) or providing
police with information about a crime.

The perceived advantages of the service include:

 * an improved emergency 111 (911) response;
   [This seems a little strange as the callers phone numbers is
   already automatically displayed/recorded when such a call
   is made.]

 * a decrease in the number of obscene or threatening calls;
   [Perhaps Call-Trace should be mentioned as an alternative.]

 * better detection of hoax calls and a faster response to life
   threatening situations, including suicide and domestic violence.
   [This seems redundant as Telecom announced a few weeks ago that
   the police would shortly have a direct link into the Telecom
   call log database and would be able to lookup calls just made to
   calls made over the last year or so.  Previous press reports
   have stated that they were already catching obscene and
   hoax callers.]

Paraphrased from {The Dominion}, 30 April 1992.

The article does not say whether people are being told about
alternatives to Caller-ID such as Caller-ID blocking, Call-Trace, and
Call-Screening.


Pat Cain / [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 92 11:12:06 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Possible Chicago Scam


I just received this in my morning's e-mail and thought that the
telecom readership would be interested in commenting on it:

  DATE: 4-29-92              SECURITY INFORMATION

The following telephone number has been "found" on Sun Microsystems,
Inc. telephone voice mail systems: 312-296-9000. This number is
generated out of the Chicago area and the message associated with the
number indicates that the caller was selected as a winner to receive
free airline tickets to Las Vegas or Orlando FL. The message was
generated at approximately 8:00 pm Pacific Standard Time.

This number is believed to be a possible "telephone scam" type of
fraud that will generate an automatic charge when accessed by the
caller. The charges can be $50.00, to $200.00 per call as soon as the
caller connects with the above number.

If you find this number on your voice mail please do not call the
number listed above, or similiar numbers. Not only will you not
receive free tickets, but the corporation will be charged with the
call.

                         -----------

Is this similar to the New York numbers that bill you the $200 if you
call them from within the metro New York City area, but only the cost
of a long distance call from anywhere else?  If that's the case, why
would this scam shop bother spending their (ill-gotten :-) money
calling California when they couldn't collect anything for the call?
Here's what I think happened:

1. Their automatic calling equipment was mis-programmed to dial the 415
   area code instead of (??) for their target market, which I think
   would mean that since a machine called a human that would be illegal
   in California (can anyone veryify this and cite any laws?)

2. The number works similar to the Mystic Marketing number where they get
   your ANI (but how? are they stupid enough to try to use Caller-ID?)
   and then somehow match the number that you called from with your
   address and send you a bill.

Pat -- I thought that the last little flood that you had there would
have drowned all of the telemarketers and phone scam artists since
their main offices would have been underwater after the retaining wall
broke :-).


[Moderator's Note: His Honor the Mayor has explained this all very
well pointing out that both telemarketers and rats are good swimmers
and both species will survive, despite their nests being in the sub-
basements of many buildings (which is why they are sometimes called
boiler room operations.) As to the case at hand, 312-296-9000 is a
harmless bunch of dweebs called 'MCS Associates' at 2708 North Halsted
Street, Chicago. A nuisance yes, but harmless. 312-296 is just a
regular exchange here, working out of the Chicago-Lakeview CO. They
call all over the USA. Since we don't have Randy Borow to kick around
any more (smile), I can't tell you anything about their calling
patterns. You do not get automatically charged for anything when you
call; you have to speak with an actual person, buy his pitch, etc. The
rule about machines calling humans in California only applies to calls
intra-state, since California cannot regulate interstate matters. I
suggest you advise 'security' they are full of Gas.  PAT]

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

Subject: DID to RS-232 and POTS Box?
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 23:22:49 PDT
From: Don Jackson <[e-mail]>


I am looking for a box that connects to one or more DID
(Direct-Inward-Dial) trunks on one side, has an RS-232 port that can
read the incoming DID number, and passes each DID trunk to a single,
POTS type line.

I'm virtually certain that such a beast exists; anybody know where I
could order one?


Best regards,

Don Jackson    [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Sun Microsystems Laboratories Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #357
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06912;
          3 May 92 3:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18467
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 01:13:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20895
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 01:12:57 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 01:12:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #358

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 May 92 01:13:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 358

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    L.A. Disturbances and Telecom (Lauren Weinstein)
    Birth of the Dominican Republic Research Network (Daniel Pimienta)
    AT&T Trans-Oceanic Ship Sets Cable Installation Record (Nigel Allen)
    MCI Fiber Cut in Los Angeles and San Diego (Tom Perrine)
    Toll Free Calls From Israel to USA (Ophir Prusak)
    AT&T Public Phone 2000 at DFW (Craig R. Watkins)
    How to Get Netnews From Home? ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 2 May 92 22:22:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom


Greetings.  I can't let statements that imply that all of L.A. is
"under attack" pass unchallenged.  As usual, media reports (quite
naturally) concentrate on the problems, not on areas where life goes
on as usual.

The further you go from South-Central L.A. (an economically deprived
part of town in the downtown area) the more the problems were spotty
or non-existent.  Yes, there were a couple of incidents in Beverly
Hills.  Yes, there was a hot spot in Panorama City deep in The Valley.
Hollywood definitely had some problems.  And there were scattered
other incidents in other areas.  But to portray the entire city as
some sort of war zone is inaccurate.  There were vast areas where life
went on as usual, with no real sense that anything was going on, other
than smoke blowing around widely (even though fires weren't widely
spread geographically), non-stop live news coverage on all local
channels (which often seemed to be showing folks in the trouble areas
where to go for the best looting), and some telecom problems.

According to my telco sources, almost all of the problems were caused
by overloading.  Slow dialtone for sure on Thursday (15-30 seconds
much of the time).  Trouble with getting interoffice trunks the same
day ("all circuits are busy").  Calls could be gotten through with
some effort.  If people would just WAIT for dialtone, rather than keep
hanging up and trying again when they don't get it immediately, they'd
have a lot less trouble!  By Friday morning, most telecom seemed
pretty much back to normal in most West Los Angeles exchanges at
least.

It is worth noting that by Friday everything was relatively quiet and
pretty much over except the shouting, which is bound to go on for
quite some time.  Many people in the large, unaffected areas of the
city (remember, the city of L.A. is a vast place) are finding the
continuing nightly city-wide curfew to be pretty silly.  Many feel
that it has been imposed city-wide only to avoid accusations of
discrimination (e.g., why was the curfew only imposed on "poor" areas
of the city?).  The main effect of the curfew in many areas is that
stores are closing around sundown, but there's significant traffic and
people wandering about outside the core area of trouble during the
evening.

The irony is that now that it's essentially over, there are National
Guard units being sent in and Marines are "standing by".  A little
fast action could have avoided a lot of grief for some people.  The
whole thing could probably have been avoided by some fast action at
the scene of the first incident on Wednesday.  The presence of
military units in the central city now seems to have little point
except to act as some great photo opportunities -- which people are
taking advantage of by snapping away.

I am not saying that there weren't serious problems in some areas.
But L.A. is still here, and by and large, except in the specific areas
(mostly central city) where there was concentrated trouble, it all
mostly looks the same as before, with people already proceeding with
their lives.

One other thing.  As you know, the 213/310 area code split took place
six months ago.  Saturday (today) was supposed to be the first day
that permissive dialing ended and you HAD to dial the correct code to
get through.  Due to the confusion of the past few days, that cutoff
has been postponed for some currently unannounced period of time.


 --Lauren--


[Moderator's Note: Others have said the same thing, that most of this
would never have happened had authorities there made a strong stand
from the beginning, with heavy armory if necessary the first night. We
here were very lucky to avoid the trouble; perhaps that is because at
the beginning, Mayor Daley and the Chief of Police went through the
likely neighborhoods here, met with people and denounced the jury.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:39:10 EST
Reply-To: Daniel Pimienta <dpimient!pimienta![e-mail]>
From: Daniel Pimienta <dpimient!pimienta![e-mail]>
Subject: Birth of the Dominican Republic Research Network


  It's our pleasure to announce the birth of the Dominican Republic
Research Network: REDID [Red Dominicana de Intercambio para el
Desarrollo] whose Association has been formalized yesterday by 25
founding members representing, directly or indirectly, 23
universities, 62 NGO's, four government agencies and three
international agencies.

  The development of this network presents a set of originalities
worth mentioning:

1] As in the case of the Peruvian network [RCP], REDID had followed
the stepping process proposed by the "REDALC methodology" of UNION
LATINA:

-REDID gathers researchers from every type of research institution.

-REDID is the result of an open, transparent and democratic process
with high level of participation and decision of the end-users.

-REDID is supported by several international organizations [Union
Latina, Unesco, UNDP]. Special agreements have been made between
UNESCO's CRESALC Office in Caracas and Union Latina's REDALC Office in
Santo Domingo, to join competencies and efforts.

-REDID use a UUCP protocol with gateway to the Internet.  User access
will be made via PC terminals connected to the national X25 network.

2] REDID users interface the central node with the MULBRI PC program
[built on the top of UUPC], in its first large scale experiment.
MULBRI is an ongoing development conducted by UNION LATINA to offer a
multi-lingual, state of the art, PC based, interface, transparent to
the types of networks [already exists a BITNET version for VM/SIMPC
users, and there are plans to enhance coverage].

3] REDID users will received an outstanding training, in July,
co-organized by UNESCO and UNION LATINA.  This comprehensive workshop,
designed for telematics users from the research community, will gather
a bunch of specialists with different skills and perspectives.

4] The node is linked to the Puerto Rico's Research Network [CRACIN]
which will give it the Internet appearance. A message to
[e-mail]/EDU.DO will reach the UPR2 node in the Internet,
then the REDID sub-system in the Codemail node will get it using UUCP
protocol.  CRACIN accepted to channel the Dominican traffic, free of
charge, under a special agreement.

5] Last but not least, for the first time, a National Research Network
receives a full range support from a National Telecommunication
Company.  CODETEL [a GTE subsidiary managing a predominant part of the
telecom market in the Dominican Republic], is offering a logical
partition inside its commercial e.mail system: the UUCP based
CODEMAIL.  Research Institutions members of REDID will, at no cost:

-gain telephone access to the X25 network [CODEPACK] from anywhere in
the country;

-gain access via the X25 network to the CODEMAIL system
where a limited [but large enough to cover the needs] number of
mailboxes will be reserved to them;

-have their traffic linked to the Puerto Rico Research Network [a well
provisioned volume limit is set].

  CODETEL's support stems from its commitment to the national
development, but is also the right business answer to the chicken and
egg dilemma which prevents the telematic market growth. The agreement
will last 18 months.  After that period it is expected to see REDID
getting its own UUCP node accessible, via Codepack, and to maintain
the other parts of the current agreement.

   Other companies from the industrial world will offer complimentary
support to REDID.  In particular, another company from the telecom
environment AACR [All American Cable and Radio] is preparing the free
access to some National Scientific and Technic Data Bases, and another
agreement is under study with french Questel for a limited free access
to some DB.

  The number of REDID users is expected to start at 25 and
progressively grows toward few hundreds [the estimated figure for the
Dominican Republic researcher population].

  Part of the methodology and the results should be usable in other
developing countries.  Similar agreements with the telecom companies
should be obtainable in various other places. The findings will be
documented within a three months time frame.


For more information on REDID and/or national matters:
Lucero Arboleda, OREDID!RAIZ![e-mail]

For more information on REDALC and/or international matters:
Daniel Pimienta, UNILAT!RAIZ![e-mail]

PS: A disappointing note to conclude.  The initial objective, stated
during the REDALC workshop in July, 1991 [when the idea of REDID was
crystallized], was to associate the Haitian researchers to the
proposed solution and method.  Unfortunately, present conditions in
Haiti have made this impossible.


Daniel Pimienta                            Tel: [phone]
Asesor Cientifico Union Latina             Tel: [phone]
APTD0 2972                                 fax: [phone]
Santo Domingo                              telex:       346 0741
Republica Dominicana

correo e. <dpimient!pimienta![e-mail]>

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Organization: Echo Beach


(From {Canadian Sailings}, April 13, 1992, probably taken from an AT&T
press release):

AT&T ship sets trans-oceanic cable installation record

SOUTHAMPTON, England - AT&T's new cable ship, the Global Link,
completed its maiden voyage here April 3 after battling snow squalls,
rough seas and the threat of waterspouts in the wintery North
Atlantic. It marked what was called the longest, fastest single
installation of trans-oceanic communications cable.

    The Global Link installed 5,621 kilometres (3,500 miles) of the
next transatlantic fibre-optic cable system, TAT-10, in 21 days. This
tops the record set by AT&T's cable ship the Long Lines in 1988 when
it installed 5,224 kilometres (3,250 miles) of cable for the
transpacific system, TPC-3.

    The fleet of five cable ships that is operated by AT&T lays claim
to the world record for installing undersea telecommunications cable --
more than double its nearest competitors.

    "We've installed about 177,000 kilometres (109,900 miles) of
undersea cable, 51,000 kilometres (32,000 miles) of which is
fibre-optic cable. Altogether that's enough to wrap around the equator
about four times," said Jim Barrett, vice president of engineering and
operations for AT&T Submarine Systems Inc.

    AT&T also owns four sea plows and a seabed tractor, and has
ownership interest in three unmanned remotely operated submersible
vehicles used for cable burial and repair operations around the world.

    Both the Global Link and the Long Lines have the unique AT&T Bell
Laboratories-designed linear cable engine that permits the fastest
cable-laying speeds in the industry. The Global Link, for example,
averaged 6.2 knots on its voyage. Most cable ships install undersea
cable at speeds around five knots.

    The TAT-10 fibre-optic route will directly link the United States
with Germany and the Netherlands for the first time. Service on the
U.S.-Germany segment is slated for late August, with service on the
Netherlands leg of the route due for service in October. AT&T
announced service on the TAT-9 fibre-optic route, which links the
United States and Canada with the United Kingdom, France and Spain on
March 2.

    From start to finish, the TAT-10 undersea fibre-optic route will
be completed in less than half the time a project of this size
normally requires. In addition, the Global Link's operations were
planned so carefully that the TAT-10 project has required fewer people
than usual.  A typical trans-oceanic cable operation requires about
100 people, but the Global Link had only 10 AT&T engineers on board,
along with 22 ship officers and 57 crew.

    With the Global Link's deep sea cable operations accomplished,
AT&T will now deploy another cable ship it operates to complete the
remaining segment of the North Sea undersea cable operations.

    The AT&T-operated cable ship, the Dock Express 20, will begin
working with other vessels to connect with the cable segment left off
the northern coast of Scotland by the Global Link. This final leg will
require the installation of specially-armored cable over 11 natural
gas and oil pipelines in the North Sea.

    Undersea fibre-optic cable activities are also under way in the
Pacific. AT&T's second the cable ship, the Global Sentinel, will begin
installing the next fibre-optic transpacific cable, TPC-4, in June.
TPC-4, which will link the United States and Canada with Japan, is
slated for service this fall. In addition, the Long Lines will begin
installing a new fibre-optic route between Hawaii and New Zealand
later this year.

(end of article)


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: MCI Fiber Cut in Los Angeles and San Diego
Date: 1 May 92 20:14:53 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


Our long distance service has been off all day today, and we just
found out why ...

We have been informed by MCI that their fiber trunk(s) have been cut,
presumably by vandals, in at least Los Angeles and San Diego areas.


Tom E. Perrine (tep)     | [e-mail]       |Voice: [phone]
Logicon, Inc.            | sun!suntan!tots!tep   |  or : [phone]
4010 Sorrento Valley Blvd|                       |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92121-1498

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

From: [e-mail] (Ophir Prusak)
Subject: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ophir Prusak)
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 08:22:27 GMT


I recently found out that it is possible to call toll free to the
States from Israel by using 177 numbers. (That is the Israeli
equivilant to 1-800 ).  These numbers are NOT listed anywhere here in
Israel. The format for making calls is 177-aaa-xxxx . If I use 906-909
for the aaa I get places in the States. For example 177-906-4304 got
me to Gateway.

Anyone know where I can get information about such numbers? (The
Israeli Phone Company says it knows nothing about this.)


Ophir     internet : [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If these numbers are not published or documented
anywhere, and the telco refuses to discuss them, then *how* do you
know they are toll-free, and not some routing error, etc? Is it
because you have not yet received a bill?   PAT]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Public Phone 2000 at DFW
Date: 1 May 92 12:39:39 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


I'm at DFW airport at an AT&T Public Phone 2000.  It's the one that
costs about $2-$3 / ten minutes to use the terminal.  I, however, am
on my laptop plugged into the Data Port in the front of the phone.
AT&T claims no charge to use the Data Port and I believe them since I
just made an 800 call.

Nice to have an available RJ11!  This phone is opposite Continental
gate 11.


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

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

Date: Thursday, 30 Apr 1992 14:01:11 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to Get Netnews From Home?


I'm leaving this place in a week's time and would like to continue to
get netnews. I have a PC and realise I need a modem and a phone point
but what do I need to do then? I couldn't afford to dial USA from the
UK to read netnews. I would think it is possible to get the service
via some local place to where I'll be in England. If you know how to
get the service and how much it'd cost please E-mail me before 8th
May.  Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: You'll have to subscribe to some public access Unix
site in your locality. Perhaps someone can help you locate one. Good
luck in your search -- we hope you can stick around.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #358
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28980;
          3 May 92 23:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25569
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17907
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:10 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:06:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #359

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 May 92 21:06:02 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 359

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T vs. F&F, ROA, and 900MHz Phones (Steve Kass)
    Re: (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS (David Leibold)
    Bell Canada Neighbourhood Calling Plan (David Leibold)
    Two-line Phones and Answering Machines (Mitch Wagner)
    Important Phone Numbers (was Re: White House Telecomms) (Andrew Green)
    Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Andrew Green)
    The Beeper Scam That Isn't (Adam Gaffin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Canadian (Toronto) Long Distance Alternatives (Peter Sleggs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 12:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T vs. F&F, ROA, and 900MHz Phones


Here's some news on phone service and phones you might have missed:

You've seen AT&T's anti-Friends and Family (TM) commercials, berating
MCI for wanting your loved ones' phone numbers?  Apparently business
associates aren't so sacred.  AT&T wants _their_ numbers, so you can
get a 20% discount calling them if they are AT&T customers.  The
advertising folks at 222-0400 should connect up with the advertising
folks at 222-0300 and try to present a consistent advertising
campaign.  I'm not a businessman, but I wouldn't really want to AT&T
calling my associates to tell them if _they_ use AT&T, _I'll_ save
money.

On another front, Reach Out America is increasing its evening
discounts to 40% for the month of May.  They don't mention that in
most cases this will make it cheaper to make calls during the evening
period (5-10pm Sunday-Friday) than during the night period (and _much_
cheaper than calling those coming-soon 1-700 EasyReach(TM) numbers).

Finally, the 900MHz cordless phones have hit the market.  A full page
ad in today's {New York Times} touts the _Tropez_ 20-channel 900 MHz
phone with a half-mile range.  Only $299, and it's "fully digital,"
whatever that means.  I hope some Telecom readers take a test drive
for us.


Steve Kass, Mathematics and Computer Science
Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940
201-408-3614  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 23:55:34 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (519) 884/885/886 Going DMS


[e-mail] (Ken Dykes) writes:

> Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches
> (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going
> digital.  This is the switch I have been on for most of my life.  It

Actually, there are plenty of Xbars still left in Bell Canada
territory ... Bell's Switching Equipment Modernization (SEM) program
is supposed to have 97% of local access lines under DMS switching by
1996. Some Xbars in Toronto and other cities are scheduled to cut over
to DMS this year, according to the current Construction Program Review
documentation.

> services area 519 prefixes 884,885,886 This switch has always provided
> good clean strong connections and true to my nature I am nervous about
> the change (I don't NEED silly Class features) if I still get good
> clean strong connections, fine, and I presume the DMS switch going in
> does have a good reputation when in capable hands.

 From my Waterloo days, the "good clean strong connections" weren't
worth much if you couldn't get something other than reorder tones when
calling long distance ...

>  When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent
>  pause from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings.
>  This is caused by the transition from one type of switching equipment
>  to another.

When checked a few years back, the 884/5/6 numbers still used dial
pulsing on the trunks to the 74x exchange downtown Kitchener, even
well after 74x was cut over to DMS (calls to New Hamburg 519-662 are
completed within a few seconds; calls to 74x used to take about 5-7
seconds). This should hopefully be changed by now, or at least in May.
SS7 should also be coming one of these years ...

>  If You Have Ident-A-Call:
>    If you have the Ident-A-Call feature
>    [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line]
>    you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing code.

They had Identacall on an Xbar?!?!?

>  Rural-line Service
>    If you call someone with rual-line service you will no longer hear a
>    coded ring (for example, one long and one short ring).  Instead you
>    will hear a single ring, repeated until the phone is answered.  The
>    person on the rural line will hear the coded ring as usual.

That is, someone with rural-line service on a DMS ... calling a party
line on another technology would likely yield a different result.

> [or *to* you. :-); Another local switch gave away free call-waiting to
> *all* lines over a year ago.  Anyone using a modem got nailed by the
> waiting tones since they were unaware of how "nice" Ma Bell was being
> to them. Even when people figured out they needed the disable-waiting

Perhaps you or some of the Waterloo folks should alert DCS, MFCF, etc
to this development ... also get some press over to Imprint, Gazette,
mathNEWS, etc to warn of impending modem disruptions.


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

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 00:12:26 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Neighbourhood Calling Plan


Bell Canada has a massive plan before the CRTC to expand local calling
service in 534 communities in Ontario and Quebec. The catch is that
about half the communities would be subject to higher local rates
(which translates to higher net local revenues).  The idea is that
neighbouring exchanges (mostly in smaller communities) that are
presently long distance from each other could have local calling
privileges added. Bell hopes this plan can receive regulatory approval
by October with a four-year implementation plan thereafter.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]
[e-mail] (** new fidonet.org address! **)
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines
Organization: Open Systems Today (formerly UNIX Today!), CMP Publications
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 15:25:14 GMT


I was hoping to tap into the collective wisdom of the group here for a
moment.

I'll be setting up a remote office for myself in Cambridge, Mass.,
soon, and will be looking to set up two phone lines, with the first
one to "hunt" to the second when the first is in use.

A colleague who has had such an arrangement for three years said he
has tried a number of combinations, and the best one is this: buy two
phones and two answering machines. The reason is that, when the second
line rings and I'm on the first line, I will be able to simply hit the
MUTE button on the first line and monitor the second call coming from
the answering machine. If it turns out to be someone important or
difficult to reach on the second line, I can get rid of the first call
and take the second.

(Not the nicest thing in the world, I know, but hey, that's life.)

I said this sounded great, but why two answering machines? He said
that the double-line answering machines that he had shopped for lacked
features that allow you to rewind and review messages from a remote
phone, and were generally shoddily made and broke down. As a matter of
fact, he told me, only the AT&T answering machine was able to stand up
under heavy use of this type.

Okay, said I, but why two phones? Why not a two-line phone?

At this point, he hemmed and hawed and then admitted that he'd thought
it through a while back and was sure there was a reason, but had
completely forgotten it.

So I turn to the collective wisdom of comp.dcom.telecom. What sort of
two-line phone system do I need to set up here?


Mitch Wagner  [e-mail]  CIS:70212,51  GEnie:MITCH.WAGNER

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 12:16:59 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Important Phone Numbers (was Re: White House Telecomms)


Here's the text of one of those "Important Phone Numbers" business
cards as I received it a while ago. The customer's own name and number
appear at the end of the list. Punctuation of numbers is shown as it
appeared on the card. (Note that it's a little bit out of date!)


        IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS
              of the world

GEORGE BUSH                1/202-456-1414
President, USA, Washington

MIKHAIL S. GORBACHEV            007/095-295-9051
General Secretary, Communist Party,
USSR, Moscow

ELIZABETH II                00441/930-4832
Queen of England, London

JOHN PAUL II                00396/6982
Pope, Vatican

FRANCOIS MITTERAND            00331/26151000
President, France, Paris

(...followed by your name and number here...)


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

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 12:36:09 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Wiring Question in Old Telephone


My father has recently bought two genuine Western Electric telephones
at a garage sale, and I'm hoping that someone in Telecom-land can
answer a question on the internal wiring.

Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that
columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons ("Try
that with today's phones!"), both finished in Regurgitation Beige
color. One is a Princess touchtone circa 1972, the other a touchtone
wall phone from 1980.

On testing, I found that the wall phone wouldn't generate any DTMF
tones with the keypad. I took it apart, hoping to find something
obvious such as a broken wire, but nothing seemed wrong. I DID,
however, find two wires disconnected and capped with insulating
sleeves; one was gray, the other was gray with red striping. On the
theory that the keypad might have been disconnected for incoming calls
only, I called the previous owner, who had thoughtfully left his phone
number on the telephone. He hasn't called back yet.  ;-)

Brainstorm! I opened the Princess phone for comparison, and found the
same two disconnected wires. Now what? Can anyone tell me what those
two wires are for? I'd also appreciate any pointers for troubleshooting
the keypad on the wall phone if it's not going to be brain surgery.
Response via Email will be fine; I'll forward a summary to anyone else
who is interested.

Thanks,


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

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

Date: Sat, 2 May 92 16:41:31 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Beeper Scam That Isn't


This message comes from the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:

 Original From: Adam Gaffin
       Subject: THE BEEPER SCAM THAT ISN'T

Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/92

Beeper call-back scam rings like urban legend.

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

It sounds like the latest high-tech scam. But it could be just another
urban legend.

At least one local high-tech company is now warning its staff and
customers about calling certain numbers that flash on their beepers or
pagers. The memo says that somebody has taken to calling known beeper
and pager numbers asking their users to call back. But the return
number is a pay-per-call number that charges users' phone accounts
$3.50 as soon as they connect, even if they hang up immediately,
according to the memo.

"The phone company allows the charge to be immediate, that is, no
message that gives you a chance to hang up before charges start, if
the charge is less than $3.51," the memo says.

But a spokesman for New England Telephone says the phone company knows
of no such scams and that company regulations require any service
charging more than $3 to let a caller hang up without being charged.

"We are not aware of any fraud that is taking place in the New
England area," spokesman Robert Mudge said.

Besides, of the four exchanges listed in the memo -- 540, 550, 940,
950 -- only 940 and 550 are in use in Massachusetts, Mudge said.

The story, like others that have appeared in recent months, apparently
evolved from some cases in New York City over the past couple of years
in which the ploy really was tried, according to Steven Marcus, a
spokesman for New York Telephone.

Marcus said he has gotten calls from people across the country in
recent days concerned about the alleged scam. The warnings have also
popped up periodically over the past few months on the international
Usenet computer network.

One of the exchanges frequently listed, 540, is used for "premium
pay" services only in New York City, Marcus said.

Unlike 900 numbers, which are offered by long-distance companies that
serve the entire country, 540 and other local exchanges are provided
by regional phone companies, which are barred by court order from
offering national services.

Marcus said that even if a Massachusetts caller did somehow get
connected to a New York 540 number, he would not be billed for more
than the cost of a regular long-distance call to the city. This is
because regional phone companies, such as New York and New England
Telephone, do not share information about rates for billing users of
these premium-pay services.

"I am totally puzzled" by the stories from non-New Yorkers, Marcus
said.  Marcus said that in the few cases New York Telephone has dealt
with, the company succeeded in getting the company involved to stop.
The practice violates state-approved company regulations that require
providers of such services to detail their costs in ads, he said,
adding that the company considers leaving a pay number on a beeper to
be advertising.


TBBS v2.1/NM
 * Origin: Fred the Middlesex News Computer, Framingham, Mass.  (1:322/190)

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

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

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

Subject: Canadian (Toronto) Long Distance Alternatives
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 11:32:50 -0400
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


As requested by a couple of people here, and of possibly limited use
to those outside of the Toronto dialing area. I've CC'd these people
directly so if you feel this is too limited, drop it in the bitbucket.
However one of the requests was from someone with relatives here so ...

If anyone who signs up mentions that I refered them I get a credit on
my account, no one need do so but I'd have no objections either :)
I've run out of time so this is going off as is, I'll followup if
there are any developments.

Uniglobe Telecom
3390 Midland Av.
Unit 11 & 12
Scraborough Ontario
M1V 4V7

Customer Service 416 412 1332

They offer a service that can reduce the long distance charges, they
claim up to 33% discounts, on calls to Canada, USA and International.
The Sample savings table shows an average for their priority plus
package of 28% to Canada and USA.

Sample rates:
Destination     Bell rate       Priority Plus rate
Miami           $0.55/min       $0.40/min
United Kingdom  $1.83/min       $1.57/min
Montreal        $0.39/min       $0.28/min

The system requires that you dial their access number enter your PIN
then dial the long distance number you want. Regular users can have
their phone number programmed into the system so it will avoid the
requirement for the PIN _from that number_.  (Note 1)

They offer several packages and aparrently can customise a package for
large customers I dealt with a customer service rep Dolf Chow at
496-1447, a little bit pushy but he was fairly easy to stall while I
thought things over.

They set up two accounts for me -- one personal and one business. It
took about two weeks and I got the information in the mail the
Thursday before Easter.  I tried the personal account on Saturday.
The initial voice prompts are a bit scratchy and could sound better;
entering the PIN gives the second prompt and you are off to the races.
Voice quality on calls was no different than calling via Bell Canada
as far as I could tell.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED:

1. They only allowed six rings before dropping the call.
2. PIN for the company did not work.
3. They did not recognise the buisness line automatically.

I called in on the customer service line and very quickly was passed
on to the techies as it was 'a technical problem'. The tech told me a)
the six rings limit was deliberate and when I complained and explained
that it was causing problems he said it would be changed to a higher
limit (10) I suggested higher as some answering machines need more to
turn on. It appears that it has been changed(04/26 was my last try).

The PIN problem he said he'd have to check into and get back to me, he
called back about 15 minutes later to tell me the letter had the wrong
PIN, and gave me the correct one.

(NOTE 1) The problem with the ANI was that it had not yet been
programmed but should be in place by May 1st.

When I signed up there was a $24.95 fee, that was offset by 6 $5
vouchers that they were including, so at least if you can keep it
going for 5 months it wont cost to sign up (offer may have ended by
now).

I have yet to try with a V.32bis connetion but I've used it for fax
with no problems.


[e-mail] or torag!beltrix!peters

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #359
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29736;
          3 May 92 23:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06680
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19543
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:44 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:46:44 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #360

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 May 92 21:46:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 360

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Moderator's Surprise (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Bill Coleman)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (John R. Levine)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Les Bartel)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Jack Decker)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Sam C. Nicholson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Date: Sun, 03 May, 1992  20:00:00 CST


This issue of the Digest is devoted entirely to various replies to the
(original) message here which dicussed toll fraud by a correspondent
in the Netherlands. In the next issue of the Digest, I'll run a long
article by a victim of phreaks here in the USA ... in area 206 to be
precise, where the 'friend' of our UK correspondent was arranging the
connections to 800 numbers.  The responses were numerous. Several of
the most representative are included here.


PAT

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 01:38:11 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> J. Brad Hicks writes:

> Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who
> have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and
> make free calls.  Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled
> onto the system at once.  Since most of 'em are students or people who
> work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to
> off-peak time.  Do you really think that at off-peak times that any
> part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't
> handle another 1000 calls?  That's why they have off-peak pricing!  So
> even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to
> the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak
> demand periods.

If it were only so simple.  In the simple of case of IXC hacking, the
IXC has to pay real money to the LEC on each end of the call, even if
it is off-peak.  The IXC may incur no marginal cost to carry its part
of an off-peak call, but it looses real money by having to pay the
LEC.  Also, what about the case of international calls?  Certainly may
of these phreaks will want to cash in on their skills (especially if
it is not illegal!)  They can sell their "call setup" service to
people wanting to call expensive foreign lands.  Again, the IXC looses
big bucks to the foreign PTT.

Oh, by the way, when are you next going on vacation?  I've always
wanted to visit your town, and I figured that I could just stay at
your place, with or without your permission.  Since you'll be gone,
and I'll clean up after myself, there's no cost to you, so I'm sure
you won't be offended.  Do you have pets?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Department of Economics
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 16:51:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

(and PAT replies):

> [Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting
> hacked, Brad?  I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam
> around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad,
> that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a
> couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who
> taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise
> on credit card numbers hacked from the system?  I'm surprised to hear
> an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of
> behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in
> his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference*
> does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ...
> don't their property rights count for anything?   PAT]

Pat is missing the point.

Brad pointed out that, at least if they number below some level,
hackers do not impose marginal costs upon the phone network.  He's
right.  Pat's analogy to MasterCard is completely inapt, since hacking
MasterCard requires the issuing bank to shell out cash.  Another
poster made a much better analogy; namely, that of people who sneak
into a movie theater.  No marginal cost is imposed.

Now, Pat is 100% correct that property rights ought to be respected,
and vendors are entitled to payment whether or not a marginal cost is
imposed.  Furthermore, the absence of marginal cost is true only up to
a point.  If it's too easy to hack, so many peoplewill do it that the
networks will both lose revenues and experience pressure on capacity.

Without conceding that hacking should be legal, I do think Brad made
the valid point that, absent a marginal cost being imposed on the
telco, enforcement of the law ought to be a low priority.


Bill Coleman

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

Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 30 Apr 92 17:45:13 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> To [phone phreaks], telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation,
> therefore fair game for their criminal activities.   PAT]

In the Netherlands, telco isn't a nameless faceless big corporation.
It's a nameless faceless part of the Post Office, a nameless faceless
part of the government.  No wonder people don't feel guilty about
cheating them, it's just like jumping through special interest tax
loopholes.


Regards,

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

PS: Hi, Seth.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Date: 1 May 92 5:8:48 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


> [Moderator's Note: How do the Master Card franchisees like getting
> hacked, Brad?  I'll bet they don't mind at all if strange people roam
> around in their computer all night, do they? And isn't it true, Brad,
> that one Master Card operation got hit by a credit card fraud ring a
> couple years ago which had its origin with a lady here in Chicago who
> taught young hacklings how to steal both phone service and merchandise
> on credit card numbers hacked from the system?  I'm surprised to hear
> an employee of a credit card billing center defend that sort of
> behavior. I don't expect much else from our correspondent with 'nl' in
> his address, but your comments are surprising. Anyway, *what difference*
> does it make how busy or slow telco happens to be at the time ...
> don't their property rights count for anything?   PAT]

PAT, I've read the message that you responded to, and I cannot find
any 'defending' of 'that sort of behavior'. Your comments on the
'correspondent with .nl in his address' suggest that you put your own
values over those of someone else. The person that you responded to is
not defending Bill, he's just saying that he sees no 'great evil' in
what Bill is doing.

By the way: While you worry about the moral state of affairs here in
Holland PAT, L.A. is on fire.  (explicitly NO smiles here!)


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]), editor of        | fax:   [phone]
Hack-Tic Magazine (only on paper, only in Dutch) | VMB:   [phone] *100#


[Moderator's Note: You are correct on at least two counts: Yes, I put
my own values over those of others *where the conduct of my own
affairs is concerned*; I am not easily cowed into keeping my values to
myself and not sharing them with others. And yes, the City of Angels
was being plundered and looted at the time you wrote me. While it is
true that some of the violence was due to the Rodney King affair, many
or most of the looters were mere opportunists; people who saw a great
opportunity to violate the property rights of others with impunity,
and be interviewed by the jackasses on television in the process. Some,
when asked about King did not even recognize the name!   PAT]

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

From: b11![e-mail] (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Reply-To: b11![e-mail]
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 15:18:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

> Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who
> have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and
> make free calls.  Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled
> onto the system at once.  Since most of 'em are students or people who
> work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to
> off-peak time.  Do you really think that at off-peak times that any
> part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't
> handle another 1000 calls?  That's why they have off-peak pricing!  So
> even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to
> the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak
> demand periods.

One point that I haven't seen brought up here is that if the phreakers
are not stopped, word would get around and those 1000 phreaks will
multiply.  This will eventually cause the phone company to have to add
more equipment to handle the calls or catch and prosecute the
offenders.  So, if they go on a prosecution binge every now and then,
people won't abuse the system as much.  Even if the amount of damage
done by one individual is almost nothing, multiply that by hundreds of
thousands, and you begin to have real losses.


Les

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 13:39:04 EDT


On 29 Apr 92 13:26:10 GMT, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail].
com said:

> Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who
> have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and
> make free calls.  Let's further imagine that all 1000 of them piled
> onto the system at once.  Since most of 'em are students or people who
> work for a living, to get 'em all on at once you'll have to move it to
> off-peak time.  Do you really think that at off-peak times that any
> part of the telephone network is under enough load that it can't
> handle another 1000 calls?  That's why they have off-peak pricing!  So
> even in the worst case scenario, the phreaks aren't adding anything to
> the telcos' costs; they have to provide that equipment to cover peak
> demand periods.

Pat's reply to you covered the fact that telco's have property rights
just like credit card companies.  But even without that, your
assumptions just don't hold water in a post-divestiture world.  Let's
face it, nobody is going to phreak local calls, they are going to
phreak interexchange or international calls.  These calls involve
multiple carriers.  The fact that a phreak manages to get the billing
for the minutes to go off into the ozone does not prevent the local
exchange carrier from collecting access charges from the interexchange
carrier.  That's real money, Brad, leaving the accounts of the IXC and
entering the accounts of the LEC.  If the call is international, add
to the LEC access charge the settlements charge to the PTT on the
foreign end of the call.  That is usually a substantial charge, much
bigger than the LEC access charge, which isn't peanuts.  That is real
money leaving the IXC account and entering the PTT account.

If that's a victimless crime, then what are the shareholders of AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint, chopped liver?

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 04:08:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

> Let's suppose that there are maybe 1000 phreaks in this country who
> have the technical know-how to bypass the telcos' billing systems and
> make free calls.

Off-phreak pricing, eh?

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

How to justify this message: With 1000 phreaks, you probably won't
have any problem. With 1000 people littering, you probably don't have
a problem.  With 1000 people sneaking into movie theatres, you
probably don't have a problem.

With no social sanction, and an immediate profit, it's not going to
remain 1000 phreaks, litterers, or sneaks for very long. Pretty soon
you DO have a problem.

I suspect that it's not going to remain legal for very long.

> Littering is illegal.  Shall we hire as many cops as it takes to catch
> every litterer, and fine them enough to pay the costs?

Nah, but you can catch enough to make sure there's a reasonable
expectation of a social sanction if you habitually litter. Low cost,
low return, but it does cut down on the number of people you need to
keep the streets clean.

> Don't forget those social costs.  Remember, the guys who started Apple
> Computers are widely reported to have built their expertise (and
> possibly raised some of their startup capital) by blatant phreaking,
> the sale of blue boxes.

Yeh, and look at Apple Computer today. George Orwell would be proud of
their intellectual property stance.


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

Date: Sun, 3 May 92 16:04:17 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise


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

> [Moderator's Note: The same ethic does not apply in the minds of
> hackerphreaks because the physical size of telco prevents them from
> seeing it as a collection of human beings working for a living (or
> stockholders) who are victimized everytime they (the hackerphreaks) rip
> off service. To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation,
> therefore fair game for their criminal activities.   PAT]

Pat, on the one hand, you are correct in calling it theft.  But on the
other hand, one might ask the question "Why do some people feel that
it's okay to steal from the telcos when they would not steal from a
home or a store?"

I'm not coming to these people's defense, but I would submit that it's
possible that there's an element of "as ye sow, so shall ye reap"
here.  In my opinion, the telephone companies have not played fair
with their customers.  There have been numerous examples of this
posted in the Digest (first example that comes to mind: charging extra
for Touch Tone service.  There are probably even better examples).

The problem is not helped by the fact that the local telcos are a
monopoly, and therefore customers have nowhere else to turn when they
are dissatisfied.  And at least some telcos tend to have a real
attitude problem ... they know you don't have other choices, and their
not above gloating about in, in their own way.

None of this excuses the ripoffs, but if you are asking the question
"Why are the telephone companies the target of this sort of
victimization more than other types of companies", I would say that in
some cases it is the chickens coming home to roost.  Of course, there
will always be some who will try to rip off the phone company, but my
guess would be that once full local competition arrives, it will be
FAR less socially acceptable to phreak (even among the groups now
inclined to do so, e.g. technically-knowledgeable college students).

To any phreaks reading this: The PROPER outlet for your frustration
with the local telcos is to lobby your PUC and/or state legislators
(or the equivalent thereof in your location) to change the regulations
to allow local competition and/or to put a stop to whatever telco
practices you feel are wrong, and NOT to try to use illegal means to
get compensation for whatever you may think the telco "owes" you.


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

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

Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 20:53:37 -0400
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> PAT notes:

> To them, telco is a nameless, faceless big corporation, therefore
> fair game for their criminal activities.  PAT

While I agree that the property right of all must be upheld to make
them worthwhile for us little folks, and I am more sympathetic to the
LD providers now that they have to slug it out daily in order to make
a living, and I do NOT advocate any illegal activities in opposing the
power of the LEC ...

I do empathise with anyone who wants to rip the daylights out of their
big, faceless, over-fed LEC.  Around here, they buy our PUC wholesale
and add only services that are easy to market, cheap to provide, and
don't cause a stink if they overcharge.

To be fair; Some of the nicest and most helpful folks that I have met
work for our LEC.  And I don't mean to disparage their help in many
matters.  But the sum of the whole of them and their managers is a
frightful mess which is impossible with which to work unless one is a
fatter, meaner corporation.

To conclude, we are fair game for their activities, some of which are
criminal.


Sam C. Nicholson,     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In the next issue of the Digest Sunday evening, a
victim of phreaks speaks out.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #360
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02737;
          4 May 92 0:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00516
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:28 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03273
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:19 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 22:32:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #361

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 May 92 22:32:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 361

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toll Fraud is NOT a Victimless Crime (A Note Sent to Moderator)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (John Higdon)
    Re: Hang-up Pirates (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Jack Adams)
    Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA (Warren Burstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 17:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Fraud is NOT a Victimless Crime


[Moderator's Note: A message received recently.  PAT]

Pat -

This is for publication, just file off my fingerprints.  Sorry it took
so long to get around to this, its been hectic here.


[Moderator's Note: Okay, this *one time only*. Usually I do not like
to run articles without names, and I flatly refuse to run anonymous
articles which show up here with the header diddled with, etc. I will
do it on rare occassion provided *I* know who sent it, and provided
there is some good explanation for the privacy request as there was in
this case.  PAT]

                          -----------

Pat asked me to write an article about a personal experience I have
recently had with toll fraud.  Because of the embarrassing nature of
the problem, and to avoid having more phreakers target us, I have
asked that Pat not reveal my name, or the name of my employer.

I work in the communications department of a large Pacific Northwest
organization (206 area code).  In March, we were hit for thousands of
dollars in toll fraud.  The fraud will have a real impact on our
department, our ability to service the rest of our organization, and
the product that we provide to our customers.  As is always the case,
the cost of the clean up may be greater than the cost of the problem.
Those of you who are out there stealing long distance services, please
stop.  It hurts a lot of people.  If you find, or hear about, a hole
in someone's telecom network, please let the owner know.  Don't tell
me about the phreaker providing a valuable service by pointing out
flaws in a network, that is just a second class rationalization for
your harmful actions.

In February our department began receiving complaints about phone
calls made by automated devices.  These calls all seemed to come in
during late afternoon early evening hours.  When the called party
answered, all that was heard was a modem/fax like tone.  We determined
that the incoming calls seemed to be moving sequentially through our
phone lines.  We tried to transfer some of these calls to a modem and
a fax machine.  The modem would not handshake with the tone.  The fax
machine printed a "1" in the middle of a two inch page.  While I don't
know if these calls are related to our fraud, the timing makes them
suspicious.

Shortly after that, I read a TELECOM Digest article by a Canadian/English
author that mentioned a "friend" in the 206 area code who was helping
the author reach American 800 numbers.  The impression I received was
that the "206 friend" had established some kind of trunk to trunk
conference on a standard phone line.  The foreign author would call
the "friend's" phone number, and the "friend" would pick up another
line, dial a requested 800 number, and allow the author to complete
the call.

For those new to the Digest of Telecom, persons outside of the United
States are generally not able to call US 800 numbers for a variety of
technical and billing reasons.  This is doubtless frustrating to
people who get American periodicals and want to order things from
companies who only list an 800 number.  I thought the "friend" was a
kind hearted person indeed.

Then I read (Pat's) Moderator's Note at the bottom of the article.  (In
the past, these notes have caused me to question Pat's objectivity.
This note saved us tens of thousands of dollars.  I will question no
more.)  Pat stated that this "friend" was probably an unrestricted
DISA port, and that some poor company's phone lines were being used
without their knowledge or permission.

Note -- DISA stands for Direct Inward System Access.  It is a feature
available on many phone systems, including the systems that we use.
Our organization uses relatively small phone systems at each location,
rather than one large PBX.  DISA allows a caller to dial a phone
number that is answered by the phone system.  Generally the phone
system answers with dial tone.  Callers may then dial the intercom
number of someone on the system, getting a call directly to an
internal party without having to take up the time of a receptionist.
In some cases, the incoming caller can also dial "9", get an outside
line, and dial a long distance phone call.  Most companies restrict
this feature in some way.

The modem/fax calls that we had received, coupled with Pat's note
formed a critical mass when a co-worker stated that she had a
complaint from one of her user groups about some weird calls on their
February phone bill.  As the amount was only about $300.00, no one was
really too concerned.  There had been a disgruntled employee recently
terminated from that group, and this was thought to be the explanation.

I asked the co-worker if that group had DISA.  It did.  When I tested
the DISA, I found it to be unrestricted.  I then tested all 30 systems
with DISA, and found eight of them were completely unrestricted, a
violation of our internal policies.  By this time it was late March.

At my request, Pat asked Digest readers to tell him the phone number
of the "friend in 206."  No one volunteered any information.  Then
came the March long distance bill.  I sent the message below to Pat.


[Moderator's Interuption: Before we get into that, I should say that
I did receive one message -- from the UK writer whose 'friend' was
making those calls. He merely repeated a number which had already come
to your attention ...  PAT]

                      -----------------
Pat-

The gruesome truth is in.  Our DISA was being hit for toll fraud.  The
initial report that I received was that calls were coming from a 702
number in Reno, going to Canada.  This seems backwards to me, but I
will know more later.  On the one system where we were alerted to the
problem, there are several thousand dollars worth of fraud.  It
appears that they only found the last line in a five line hunt group.
I am so glad that they didn't get the lead number.  I still don't know
if they found any of the other unprotected systems.  I am pretty upset
with the person who left them open; I can't believe the head in the
sand attitude that some people have.  I can't count the number of
times I have seen warnings in professional journals, or even the
general press, about guarding DISA ports.  Her reaction to this
problem was a sort of "huh?"

In any case, thanks for your assistance in helping us try to find the
leaks.  The Digest saved us thousands of bucks.  If I hadn't seen the
article from the guy with the "friend in 206," coupled with your
commentary, I probably wouldn't have started closing the holes until
this month's bill came in.  As fraud tends to grow every month, this
probably would have become a REAL problem.  In any case, I will never
again question the placement of your Moderator's Notes.  :) If you
happen to hear of any other potential problems like this, please let
me know.

                            -----------

I really doubt that we would have figured out the problem in March
without the Digest.  By the time we would have received it in April,
the charges would probably have been astronomical.  Because of the way
the charges appeared on our bill, we may not have figured out that we
had a DISA leak for even another month.  Pat's comment really saved us.

Thank you Pat.

To the phreaks:  Shame on you.

If you would like to send a message to me, and if Pat is willing,
please send it through him.

Burned in 206.

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 92 11:08 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates


[e-mail] (Corinna Polk) writes:

> I'd call PacBell to ask them, but everytime I try to ask them any
> questions they get real suspicious and want my name and home phone
> before they search for anyone who might know any answers.

Well, my Pac*Bell residential rep, who already HAS my number and is
always suspicious of me :-), says that CLASS should start becoming
available sometime in third quarter of this year. My understanding is
that it will be offered simultaneously in the Bay Area and in the Los
Angeles area.

There is not a chance in Hades that GTE will put it on line before
Pac*Bell. First, that is not the GTE way. Second, the hold up is not
technical but regulatory. GTE will not get the go-ahead before
Pac*Bell, since GTE always uses the "wait and see" approach to all
regulatory matters. (Ask 976 providers about that!)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: Hang-up Pirates
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
Date: Sun, 03 May 1992 10:34:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Linc Madison) writes:

> Evidently, in China it is customary for the CALLED party to first
> identify him/herself and begin the conversation -- a protocol that is
> entirely foreign to Americans.

As far as I am aware, in most of Europe, too, it is customary for the
called party to answer the phone with some sort of identification.

In England, a lot of people answer the phone with their phone number.
Thus, when I call my In-Laws, they'll answer,

    "Four-Two-Five-One-Eight"

although you're still left guessing whether you reached the right area
code :-) ...

In the German-speaking countries as well as elsewhere, it is quite
customary to answer the phone with your last name, prefixed with "bei"
(German) or "chez" (French) if you are not actually a resident or
member of the family (i.e a babysitter, visitor or domestic servant).
Thus, we answer our phone, "Paul", while I would answer my
grandmother's, when I'm visiting her, "Bei Zitta".

Businesses (but usually not government offices :-() will also add some
greeting formula after their name, as in, "Smith Travel, Good
morning!", or "Ordination Dr. Ginner, Gruess Gott!" (the latter being
a doctor's office, in German, not an agency that creates Christian
ministers).


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center         [e-mail]
Alcatel-Elin Research Center     [phone] (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                   [phone] (fax)

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: Enforcing Phone Bill Payment
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 92 14:26:30 GMT


/* FLAME ON */

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lawrence Chiu) writes:

> <Lots of carping and B&M deleted> ...
> I guess the real answer is to pay
                                ^^^ What a novel idea!
> on time and wait for competition in local phone service -- we already
> have competition in LD which has improved service a great deal.

To paraphrase our illustrious Moderator ... I guess competition allows
you to screw over SPRINT, MCI, AT&T equally ... huh?!

> [Moderator's Note:  ...
> You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon payment your
> service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the fact telco could
> have left you cut for a couple more days while they cleared your check
> at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt payment in the future
> and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do I have all that
> correct?  PAT]

I'm with PAT 100% on this one!

/* FLAME OFF */

Jack (John) Adams        | Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        | [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    | [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Chiu has REsponded, and shall be heard from in
the next message.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 03 May 92 21:58:08 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: Re: New Method of Enforcing Phone Payment


TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: So if I understand your complaint correctly, after
> your phone bill went unpaid for almost three months and telco made
> nine attempts to reach you by phone, they cut your service. You feel
> imposed upon that they took such an action, and intend to give your
> business to a competitor if one ever comes along. As is quite common
> with debtors, you turned things around to become the injured party and
> demanded to speak with a supervisor. Instead of speaking with a
> supervisor, you should have been instructed to stand in line and wait
> your turn at the cashier's window.

> You note that since there is competition in LD it has improved, and
> your implication seems to be that if a competitor for local service
> comes on the scene things will improve locally also. How? Will the new
> company let you go six months and a dozen phone calls without paying
> your bills?  You gloss over in one sentence the fact that upon
> payment your service was restored almost immediatly, ignoring the
> fact telco could have left you cut for a couple more days while they
> cleared your check at the bank; required a deposit to assure prompt
> payment in the future and otherwise diddled around with paperwork. Do
> I have all that correct?  PAT]

Not quite. My phone bill was only one month overdue. I.e. I had not
paid a bill due mid-March (oversight) and then I got the April bill
which showed the outstanding amount. I of course being a conscientious
bill payer fully intended to pay both of them. Then I went of holiday
for a week and during that time the Telco called me nine times on the
same day. Since their machine had assumed the message had been
delivered since the phone was answered nine times by my machine a week
later my phone was cut off.

This is a new "service" and some warning might have been appreciated
like a note in my current bill that I had an unpaid amount and if I
did not pay by a certain date the phone would be disconnected. One
month's overdue is hardly a capital crime and I am sure we all have
forgotten about a bill every now and then given so many arrive all at
different times.  I would be interested to know how people in the US
would react if their Telco's did the same given the much higher
penetration of answering machines over there and much stronger
consumer advocacy groups.

LD competition has improved LD service immeasurably here.
Notwithstanding the fact that the local Telco is owned 100% at present
by two BOC (Ameritech and Bell South?) when a new LD player came along
and offered lower prices and six second billing for domestic LD
Telecom had to follow.  Then the alternative LD offered lower
international and one second billing after the first minute (very
useful when you send faxes) and again Telecom had to follow.


Laurence Chiu        Principal Consultant
GCS Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand   Tel: [phone]
Internet  [e-mail]   Fax: [phone]
ompuserve  : 71750,1527

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA
Date: 3 May 92 11:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ophir Prusak) writes:

> I recently found out that it is possible to call toll free to the
> States from Israel by using 177 numbers. (That is the Israeli
> equivilant to 1-800 ).  These numbers are NOT listed anywhere here in
> Israel. The format for making calls is 177-aaa-xxxx . If I use 906-909
> for the aaa I get places in the States. For example 177-906-4304 got
> me to Gateway.

> [Moderator's Note: If these numbers are not published or documented
> anywhere, and the telco refuses to discuss them, then *how* do you
> know they are toll-free, and not some routing error, etc? Is it
> because you have not yet received a bill?   PAT]

Well the 177 prefix is Israel's equivalent of 800 numbers.  Of course
we might have an equivalent of 800 numbers that bill, too, but I
haven't heard of such a thing.

I tried the number, it just rang, no pickup.  I don't know what
Gateway is, anyhow (maybe they're not up yet?  It's 6:27AM EDT right
now), or how the seven digits following the 177 might map into the US.

I use 177-100-2727 to get to ATT's USA Direct. My guess is that there
are other services that use a 177 number that is answered abroad.  How
these services pay for the cost of the 177 line, I suppose is up to
them.

BTW, has anyone ever asked the USA Direct operator in what part of the
world he or she is located?  Are they in the region where the 800 area
code is located :-)? (a skit on Saturday Night Live once had 800 be
the area code of a place where all the inhabitants made their living
answering the phone.)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The USA Direct operators are located in the IOC
(International Operating Center) of AT&T in Pittsburg, PA.  Is there
any particular reason our correspondent could find nothing published
in the phone books there about 177 or could find no one at telco to
discuss it (or claims he couldn't)?    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #361
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02954;
          5 May 92 1:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05044
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29393
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:01 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 23:20:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #362

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 May 92 23:20:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 362

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Need Handheld Cellular Phone Recomendations (Mike Dove)
    Advice Sought: Portable Cellular Phones (Neil R. Ormos)
    Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions (Doug Sewell)
    Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions (J Wisniewski)
    Car Phone Questionnaire (Bill Levison via Andy Malis)
    Roaming in New Jersey (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Looking For 900 MHz Telephone (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: New Cell User Needs Information (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 10:29:14 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Dove)
Subject: Need Handheld Cellular Phone Recomendations


I am looking for recommendations on handheld cellular phones.  I will
occasionally be using this phone in areas which will require a high
performing phone to succeed.  I am interesting in experiences good and
bad with any of the hand-held phone.

Right now, one of the ones at the top of many people's list in the
durability, performance and battery life category is the Motorola
Micro-TAC series of phones.  They are claimed to be very durable (can
take big drops and still function), perform very well, and long life
battery gets it up to 24 hour standby, 120 minute talk.  Very
respectable.  However its 7-segment display seems to be far to small
to be useful.  Manuvering through the menus is painful, and time
consuming.  On the service front, some outlets will be outfitted with
equipment which will download the entire state of your phone into a
loaner while yours is out for service.  Very handy.

The other one that looks very promising is the new NEC P400/P600
series of phones.  The P600 is the P400 plus alphnumeric, plus a few
more features.  It has a nice 42 character, multiline display which
seems like a big win.  Its size is very smaller and has very high
performing batteries for its size.  Its high capacity batteries do 24
hour standby and 120 minute talk time.  It also apparently has an
extenable antenna so flexible that you can tie a knot in it.  I have
only seen a dummy which does not have the antenna attached.  I am very
interested in experiences with this phone.  This also runs about $100
cheaper than the Moto, but I am not sure it is a comparable package
(batteries, charger, etc).

Also I would be interested in good and bad experiences with any of the
Mitsubishi/DiamondTel, Fujitsu Pocket Commanders, OKI, etc.

BTW: Do these passive repeaters really work?


Thanks in advance,

Mike Dove                Email: [e-mail]
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc.    Phone: [phone] x313
255 Caspian Way, Sunnyvale, CA          Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 07:06:36 -0600
From: "Neil R. Ormos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advice Sought: Portable Cellular Phones


My sisters and I are looking for advice on buying a light-weight (i.e.
less than one pound) hand-held portable cellular telephone as a gift
for our parents.  There seem to be many models available, and we are
finding it difficult to differentiate between them.  As usual, the
salespeople with whom we've visited have provided little assistance.

Our primary goal is to provide a convenience for our folks; we don't
expect them to use the telephone much.  We would also like them to
feel safer by being able to call for help in case of car trouble.
They occasionally travel through rural areas so we thought it would be
a good idea to be able to connect the telephone to a permanently
mounted vehicle antenna, when the phone is to be used in the car.  Our
folks are technologically unsophisticated, so we are more concerned
with quality and reliability than whiz-bang features.

I've listed a few specific questions below, but we would be interested
in any general comments people might have.

  1.  Which hand-held models can be easily connected to an external
antenna?  A few of the lightest phones we looked at, particularly the
Motorola "flip-phone" models, appeared to have a permanently installed
antenna and to lack an antenna socket, but we were looking at
mock-ups, and not actual phones.  Can these light-weight phones be
adapted for an external antenna connection?

  2.  Do any brands or models have particularly good or bad reputa-
tions for reliability or quality?

  3.  Is an external vehicle antenna necessary for reliable operation
in rural areas?

  4.  Is the limited transmitter power of a hand-held phone a
significant handicap in actual use?  If so, is this handicap
eliminated by connection to an external antenna?

  5.  Are the battery life specs provided by the manufacturer (i.e.
talk time/standby time) realistic?

  6.  Do any models have batteries which are particularly easy to
remove, recharge, and install?

  7.  We've seen brochures for some phones advertising around 2400
channel capacity.  Do all modern phones have this capacity?

We would appreciate comments from anyone who has experience with one
of these phones or who has studied them recently.  Suggestions or
experience with a particular model, or "Street Prices" for various
products would be very helpful.

Thanks for your help.  I'll post a summary of responses if there's any
interest.


neil ormos  wd8bdp   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Questions
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 13:43:41 GMT


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

> In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers.  When
> I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I
> liked was the extended local calling area.  I could place calls from
> Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA)
> for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges).  When I
> switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be
> billed for LD on out of LATA calls.  Since I have switched, I have
> talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that
> the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost
> into Pennsylvania!

Hmmmm.  I have Cellular One service out of Youngstown, OH and have the
extended local calling service all over area code 216, which covers
the Youngstown-Warren, Cleveland, Akron, and Canton (maybe the last
two are actually one) cells.  If I remember right, I can call anywhere
in Ohio for very reasonable rates (I think it might be air-time only),
as well as to Pittsburgh PA.

Wilcom/Cellular One here also provides the standard perks (forwarding,
three-way, call waiting) in the standard $20/month plan, and also has
automatic "follow-me" roaming free throughout Ohio (well ... one of
the major cities has a roam fee that applies, but that's the extent of
it).  Nationwide automatic roaming is $2/month additional, but I don't
use it because when I'm out-of-state I don't WANT to be that available
(and I don't want the roam fees).

Incidentally, air-time is $.35/minute all day.  That was a trade-off
 -- "with all the new features we've made available to you, we feel you
won't mind that we're dropping the $.20/minute non-prime-time rate".
Didn't matter to me ... 80% of my calls were prime-time (8am-8pm)
anyway.

I suspect part of the difference between C1-Cleveland and C1-Youngstown
is that they have to throw in extra perks here in Youngstown to get
buyers, where there's more willing buyers in Cleveland.  Locally,
Centel offers just about the identical package.

Now, for your real question: how can they do the intra-lata calls and
bill them as local?  I suspect it's because they're using their
trunks and/or the mark-up for air time over their cost more than
covers it.


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

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

From: [e-mail] (jeffrey wisniewski)
Subject: GTE Mobilnet in Cleveland, OH - IntraLATA Call Question
Organization: Ohio State University, Dept. of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 16:19:57 GMT


In Cleveland Ohio, GTE Mobilnet is one of the cellular carriers.  When
I used to be a customer with GTE (2+ yrs ago) one of the features I
liked was the extended local calling area.  I could place calls from
Cleveland to Medina (a suburb of Cleveland but in a different LATA)
for the price of a local call (ie. no long distance charges).  When I
switched over to Cellular One I lost this ability and started to be
billed for LD on out of LATA calls.  Since I have switched, I have
talked to a few people who are with GTE (customers) and they said that
the calling area is even larger now; some saying it reaches almost
into Pennsylvania!

I have a few questions:

1)  Is there any truth to this rumor of larger local calling areas?

2) If this is still the case (free intralata calls) how can GTE afford
to do this?  Are they eating the cost?  Or do they have their own
little network?  For example, say I am in Cleveland calling to Medina.
Does GTE realize that this is a intralata call and thus route it over
their own network to a GTE office in Medina and then place it as a
local call?

3) If the above network example is true, can these companies use the
same strategy and bill you anything they want?  I assume this is
covered is some tariff.

Well?  Anyone have any ideas/input?


Jeffery L. Wisniewski          OSU/TIS/IE            [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  "My ideas are my own and therefore they do not reflect
              the ideas and/or views of my educator, employer, or the
              little green man sitting next to me!"

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

Subject: Car Phone Questionnaire
Date: Mon, 04 May 92 16:31:16 -0400
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


The following questionnaire has been forwarded from Bill Levison of
Bolt Beranek and Newman.  Please mail replies directly to
[e-mail].

To users of in-car telephones:

BBN is assisting the University of Michigan in its contract with the
Federal Highway Administration to develop human factors guidelines for
advanced in-vehicle controls and displays, including in-car telephones.

We are in the process of designing laboratory experiments to explore
the effects of telephone usage on driving performance, and we are
attempting to develop a math model for same.  Since neither I nor my
clients have in-car 'phones (and even if we did), we need some data
from in-car 'phone users on the mechanics of telephone use --
especially in regard to dialing and terminating the call.  For those
of you who have have car telephones and want to help out, I would
appreciate your responses to the following questionnaire.  If the
questions indicate erroneous assumptions on my part on how car 'phones
are used, please point them out.  Also, please send the answers to me
directly ([e-mail]), not to the telecom list.


Thanks,

Bill Levison, Bolt Beranek and Newman

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

1.  When you have finished talking, do you press "END"?

2.  If you do not press "END" when done talking, do you pay for time?

3.  If you do not press "END", is there any auditory feedback that
    you have not closed the connection?  (like on home phones)

4.  Do you clear the number in the display when you are finished with
     the call or just before entering a new number (assuming time
     between calls)?

5.  When talking, can you clear the number from the display before
    pressing "END"?

6.  Do you always have to clear the display to enter a new number after a
    call, or can you "write over" the old number?

7.  When receiving an incoming call, is the number in the display
    automatically cleared?

8.  When you finish a call, and assuming you are not about to make another
    call in the near future, do you turn the power off?

9.  Do you pick up the 'phone to dial, or do you dial it while it is still
    in the cradle?


[Moderator's Note: As stated above, send replies to the persons
collecting them -- NOT here to telecom. Thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 17:07:09 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Roaming


I just went on my first long distance trip with my cell phone and did
some testing and investigations along the way.

I have a Motorola bag phone that came with an eight inch rubber
antenna and a magnetic mount car antenna.  I decided that I didn't
want to leave the window open for the cable on the outside antenna, so
I tested with just the little rubber one.

I made a round trip between Eastern Massachusetts and North Eastern
New Jersey.  The only area I had trouble with was from the Sturbridge
MA area to the CT border.  The phone was set to B carrier only.  In
this area it kept going in and out of ROAM mode and a few brief times
it lost service.

My questions are as follows:

1.  If I had been on a phone call in the area where it was going in
and out of roam mode, would the call have been dropped or passed off
to the other system?

2.  Would the results have likely been different if I was using the
outside antenna?

I was in Fair Lawn which is between Paterson and Paramus.  Before
leaving Massachusetts, I checked with Nynex and was told that the area
was covered by Nynex.  My roaming guide from Nynex does not list an A
carrier for that area.  I used the Nynex access port in Newark which
worked fine when I tested it.

What confuses me, is my understanding that the B carrier in any area
is always the wireline carrier.  The wireline carrier for the area I
was in was not Nynex, but Bell Atlantic.  I then looked in the Yellow
Pages and found four different cell phone companies listed.  (Nynex,
Bell Atlantic, Mobile One, and Cellular One.)

Can someone out there explain this?


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

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

Subject: Re: Looking For 900 MHz Telephone
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 21:49:25 BST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Macy's in Atlanta is selling the Tropez 900DX digital cordless 900MHz
phone for $299.  Get 'em while they're hot!

My 900DX is charging up for the recommended 10 hours at this very
moment and I intend to thoroughly test it in the coming days.  The
audio is advertised as digital, so that should discourage the casual
eavesdropper from knowing what is being said on the Tropez 900DX.


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

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 22:29:55 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: New Cell User Needs Information
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Ken Levitt) writes:

> a.  Is there some sort of quick disconnect adaptor I could get that
>     would make it easier to swap antennas?

Since they started selling cellular phones, Radio Shack has also been
carrying TNC-to-BNC and BNC-to-TNC adapters. I use them to jump back
and forth between the 1/4-wave whip on my handheld and a side-window
clip-on in my car.  For Radio Shack stuff, they're pretty high
quality. I've been using the same set for a couple of years now,
several reconnects per day, and the BNC males haven't gotten too
wobbly (a common problem with cheap BNCs). And having the adapter pair
in series with the 1/4-wave whip doesn't seem to have hurt the
impendance match at all. In fact, I recently took advantage of PacTel
Mobile's "free cellular checkup", and the service guy's VSWR meter
said that the whip+adapters combo was ever-so-slightly better than the
whip alone.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone] before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.        [phone] after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311    "Please make a note of it."

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Does Cellular Antenna Choice Affect Battery Life?
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 21:19:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Patton M. Turner) writes:

> Makes a lot of sense, as gain increases beamwidth decreases.
> Cellphones are bound by conservation of energy just like anything
> else.  As you send more power torwards the cell site, they will reduce
> you power, saving batteries.  But, as you point out, with higher gain,
> antenna position becomes more important.  The signal is vertically
> polarized, not horizontaly however.

Apparently some transmitter designs draw the same or nearly the same
current even though RF power changes.  My ham radio HT's get warm
faster when I drop from high power to low power.  I measured the
current drawn on one and found it reduced only slightly on low power.
So just how much saving of battery life you get will depend on many
factors such as the design and battery voltage relative to the range
the unit accepts.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #362
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04964;
          5 May 92 2:28 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23073
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:16 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30750
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 00:10:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #363

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 May 92 00:10:03 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 363

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Summary: Data Over Cellular Responses (Lynne Gregg)
    AT&T 700-Number Service: What a Crock! (John L. Shelton)
    Re: New AT&T 700 Service (Steve Elias)
    Re: New AT&T 700 Service (John R. Covert)
    Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Tom Reingold)
    Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Myron E. Drapal)
    Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (Phil Howard)
    Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service (John Slater)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Michael Rosen)
    Re: White House Telecomms (Carl Moore)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX (David Ptasnik)
    Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal? (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 May 92 14:18:12 EDT
From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary:  Data Over Cellular Responses


I would like to thank all of you who replied to my query with your
comments and experiences in data transmission via cellular networks.
My background includes high speed data communication applications and
technologies so when I developed an interest in cellular networks, I
thought (as many of you did) that these networks would not be feasible
for a number of reasons including reliability and cost.  Well, just
like every other technology, it's application dependent.  For many
data transmission applications, cellular networks are proving to be
both reliable and cost-effective.

Here are some of your remarks:

Gerald Peppers, [e-mail], replied that {Cellular Business}
magazine detailed phones that allow you to send data over cellular.
I'll check it out.  After checking with a couple of providers,
indications are that the interface between lap/notebook modem and
cellphone is via RJ11 (NEC's smart RJ11 seems to be popular).

Aaron Rosenbaum, [e-mail], Gamma Consulting, reports that
Apple's PowerBook is ideal for data and fax communication.  Aaron
points out that the PowerBook is the only notebook on the market that
can receive faxes while powered off.  The PB "sleeps", but when a call
comes in it wakes up, accepts the fax then goes back to sleep.  Good
point, Aaron, my PC-compatible laptop would have to be powered on to
accept data/faxes.  Aaron connects the PowerBook to his cellphone with
the NEC smart RJ11 interface and is probably reading this in his car.

[e-mail] remarks that error correction is essential
because "cellular nets switch channels from time to time".  Also says
that 1200 (v22) works better than 2400 and batch applications are
better than interactive "because of the delays caused by errors".

John Anderson, [e-mail], forwarded a copy of the Ericsson
GE Mobidem press release that included details on its use with the HP
95LX palmtop computer and Anterior's Radio Mail.  Mmmm, pretty hefty
both pound-wise and price-wise, don't you think?  (email me or John
for a copy of the release). The Mobidem is designed for use on radio
networks, not cell (but, thanks anyway, John).

Scott Kludge, [e-mail], says cellular modems are
available w/ 2400 being about the max.  Cellular nets have a tendency
to drop connections at handoffs every once in a while.  Cost is the
same for your average cell call -- "damned expensive".

Bill Kennedy of San Antonio, [e-mail] gets 90% of his news
via cellular communication (including TELECOM Digest).  His comments:
speed is 1200 bps, his particular cellular call plan provides "free"
time from 2000 to 0700 weekdays and all day on weekends, so he takes
advantage and obtains approx. 6,000 free minutes per month.

Mike Bray, [e-mail] is not currently using cellular,
but expects to.  He's looking for advice on phones and RJ11 interface.

Lonnie Filbrun, [e-mail], says "yes, it works but
boy, it can be VERY expensive".  Did a test in Phoenix using USWC net.
No probls exp. at 1200/2400 rates.  USWC pals use faxes in their cars
at 9600 (MNP fax modems).  Lonnie suggests optimizing your use of
cellular data transmission by only sending necessary data, formatting
and sending data packets in batches, i.e., "dial, connect, dump
packet, disconnect".  (Lonnie, I'm not surprised by your remark on
cost in light of a recent conversation with a USWC sales rep who said
their rates are probably going to go up. Great sales pitch, eh?  Other
carriers, like McCaw, say the trend is the other way.  Rates or at
least billing on data calls should decrease.)

[e-mail] tells about a Cellular Data demo he recently
saw.  CDI has their own X.25 over cellular for use in credit card
verification and other transaction applications.

[e-mail], Jim Rees says no problem to 2400 baud data (no way
at 9600 or 19.2) and discussed cellular modems.  (By the way, the
recently announced CelluPlan II will boost data rates to 19.2.)

Thanks to all of you for your responses.  I have also recently been
discussing cellular data communication with some of the cellular
carriers and I know that most of you with an interest in this area
have already heard of the IBM CelluPlan II trial with Sears that's
scheduled for this summer.  I expect to see the utilization costs (on
cell nets) decline while the reliability and performance (speed)
increases.

Any comments, questions, please email me and I'll sum.

What's next, satellites?


Regards,

Lynne Gregg  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Date: Mon, 04 May 92 11:21:53 -0700
Subject: AT&T 700-Number Service:  What a Crock!


What a crock.  AT&T has come up with a new way of confusing things.

Why do I want to pay money for a "lifetime" phone number that has
similar (but worse) behaviour than 800-service.

Consider:

1.  Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD
provider has it's own "namespace".  My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in
AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM.  And the cost to the
caller could be different, too.

2.  Because of (1), I would have to tell all my callers to dial 10288
1 700 CALL MOM (16 digits) instead of either seven or ten digits.

3.  Like an 800 number, AT&T is asking me, the recipient, to pay for
the calls.  That's not a feature for me.  With no set procedures for
area 700, they could have placed the burden of payment on the caller,
not the recipient.

4.  While I can change the routing for my 700 number, Cable & Wireless
has allowed this feature for 800 numbers for a while.

5.  Bell Atlantic will be allowing reprogrammable LOCAL numbers soon.
And, they will offer scheduling (send calls to home from 5pm to 8am,
to work from 8am to 5pm, and to my beeper if no answer after N rings.)
AT&T isn't offering these features (yet.)


Bottom line:  Big Deal.

John

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

Subject: Re: New AT&T 700 Service
Date: Mon, 04 May 92 11:41:49 PDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


According to an ATT rep at their 800 number, the 700 service will be
unlike their 800 service in at least one key area:

700 calls will be completed within California, unlike 800 numbers,
which require PacBell "complementary" (gack) 800 service.


eli

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

Date: Mon, 01 May 92 12:26:08 PDT
From: John R. Covert  30-Apr-1992 1524 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T 700 Service


Well, I already see a serious problem.

It's going to be very hard to call these numbers from many PBXs.

If your company, or your school, or your hotel doesn't make it easy
for you to get to AT&T, you'll probably have to call these numbers via
1-800-CALL-ATT.

Remember, 700 numbers are carrier specific, so you have to get to
10288.


john

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Reingold)
Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service
Organization: Noo Joizy, USA
Date: 30 Apr 92 20:06:59 GMT


When I heard about this service this week, my initial response was to
think that this is really neat.  I tried to think of why I would want
it.  I still haven't thought of a reason.

The phone number can follow me wherever I go.  So when I move, I don't
have to call everyone I know and give out my new phone number.  But if
I only give out my 700 number, I will be hit with a lot of forwarding
charges.  So to avoid those charges, I give out my local number.  Then
I'm back to where I was.

If this is the first step in implementing personal telephone numbers
for everyone, what will happen when all 700 numbers are exhausted?

How is this whole thing implemeneted?  Is there a central database of
forwarding information?  When this gets big, how will such a giant
database work?

I fear that if we are aiming for everyone to have a personal number,
following each of us wherever we go, it will be expected of us to be
reachable at all times.  We will lose the advantage of being able to
walk away from our phones.

Who can make the best use of this new service?


Tom Reingold    [e-mail]  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr

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

From: [e-mail] (Myron E. Drapal)
Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service
Date: 1 May 92 15:59:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, LEWANDOWSK_J@CUBLDR.
Colorado.EDU (JOHN C. LEWANDOWSKI, 786-3512) writes:


> Does anyone have any additional information, or an AT&T
> number that I can call to find out more?

You can get more information on AT&T EasyReach 700 service by calling
AT&T Customer Service at 1-800-222-0300.


Myron Drapal    AT&T Bell Labs, Denver    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 21:57:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Monty Solomon) writes:

> Excerpt from the 4/29/92 {New York Times}:
 ...

> Part of the reason for call-forwarding's slow growth may be that the
> subscriber has to remember to establish and disconnect call-forwarding
> for each phone.  The doing and undoing of the service could be
> annoying to customers.

While that may be true, the applicable problem that AT&T's service
seems like it will fix is the ability to make the changes in where
your calls are forwarded as you move around.

I had been wondering how I might set up a system whereby I can call in
to home on one line and connect into the other line and make the
changes.  It would have had to be a secure system to make sure I don't
hand over my dial tone to someone else.

But it looks like the AT&T service will do this for me with features.


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

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 12:34:47 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater)
Subject: Re: AT&T EasyReach 700 Service


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Monty Solomon) writes:

> Subscribers can choose which calls they want to receive.  And they
> have the option of receiving calls that are toll-free to the caller.
> All the caller has to do is remember to punch in a four-digit PIN
> assigned by the service subscriber after dialing the 700 number.  This
> way the call is automatically billed to the called party.  The charge
> to the subscriber is $0.25/min peak (M-F 8-5) and $0.15/min off-peak.

Assuming reverse billing with four-digit PIN is *not* used, how much does
the caller pay for the call to the 700 number?


John Slater

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 92 17:39:19 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The Pope is listed in the phone book.   PAT]

Yeah, 1-900-THE-POPE. :)

Mike

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 9:18:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House Telecomms


The Pope is listed in what phone book?


[Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican
City listings of that directory.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Moderator's Surprise
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 11:58:47 GMT


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

> None of this excuses the ripoffs, but if you are asking the question
> "Why are the telephone companies the target of this sort of
> victimization more than other types of companies",

What makes you think they are?

Now companies that deal in "soft services": cable companies, software
vendors, phone companies, record companies, and other cases where the
product is purely information ... they tend to be the target of this
sort of thing. But within this group I don't think that phone
companies are more victimised than any other.

Also, your argument about frustration with monopolies doesn't hold
water: long distance companies aren't a monopoly over here.


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Unauthorized Third-Party Billing on my Line
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


In [e-mail]>, Norman Soley ([e-mail].
dec.com) writes:

> Bell Canada recently did a publicity campaign about how, in order
> to avoid fraud, they were going to require verification on all
> third party billing. I seem to remember them doing the same
> thing about five years ago too. It looks like they do this every
> few years, the crackdown lasts about a year and then they get
> lax again.

Actually, Bell Canada has just begun verification of all third-number
calls. Previously, verification was required only on third-number
calls from pay phones.

Bell Canada has also decided to make life more difficult to people
calling overseas from a pay phone. It will no longer accept Bell
calling cards for overseas calls placed from a pay phone, but you can
use a Visa, MasterCard or American Express card from a card reader
telephone.


Nigel Allen           [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Comments on Tadiran Coral PBX


From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)

> I've finally done enough research to recommend that our corporation
> buy a Tadiran Coral II PBX to replace our aged, maxxed-out, "dumb" key
> system.

> Before we sign the check, does anyone have any experiences with the
> Coral to share with me?  I'm particularly worried about "normal"
> configurations which one would want to program which are impossible,
> such as I've heard about the Norstar and some others, or features
> which are poorly implemented or unnecessarily conflict with each
> other.

The Tadiran is a truly fine product.  It's DC based power system make
battery back up cheap, easy, and strongly recommended.  The hardware
is very solidly built both in the cabinet and at the set.  The field
upgradability of the sets is really nice.  The ability to replace any
board in the cabinet, including the CPU is tremendous.

I did wish that the phones came with more dedicated fixed feature keys
(last number redial, etc).  Putting routine features on the phones
gets a little button intensive, consider more buttons on each phone.

The PC operators console was VERY nice.

Reliability is high, and the Tadiran people in Florida really know
what they are doing.  Good technical support.

If it has the features and price you are looking for (and it probably
does), you will be happy with it for a long long time.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Why Are War Dialers Illegal?
Date: Fri, 01 May 92 20:43:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Ronald H Davis) writes:

> Automatic callback was not offered by Ohio Bell at the beginning of
> this year and, as far as I know, is still not available. In fact,
> Ohio Bell seems to be behind the times in terms of optional features
> offered to customers as they don't offer any "advanced" features: call
> waiting, call forwarding, and speed calling; and that's about it.

Maybe someone can collect a list of what features are known to exist
in what states (or cities or by carrier) and post it regularly.  This
would include particular laws in those states as well.

Then those of us contemplating moving to a new state can have some
data to work with.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #363
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28243;
          5 May 92 12:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19990
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07558
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:18 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 07:52:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #364

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 May 92 07:52:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 364

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Jack Decker)
    Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection? (Tim Christensen)
    Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query (Jim Baty)
    Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (John Nagle)
    Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 May 92 17:01:30 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?


This thread has given rise to an idea for a product that somebody
ought to develop.  I realize there are probably EXPENSIVE commercial
systems that may do something like this already, but I'm talking about
something that would be affordable to computer hobbyists and small
businesses.

Here's the proposed product:

Hardware: A plug in card that would occupy one slot in an IBM (or
compatible) computer (XT or AT clone).  The card would have the
following connectors on the rear:

6 conductor telephone type jack
Audio out jack (line level)
Headphone out jack (would drive stereo headphones with mono audio)
Audio in jack (line level)
Microphone in jack
Microphone hi/lo impedence switch

Also, a telephone type handset would be provided which would plug into
the six conductor telephone jack.  This handset would contain:

Telephone type earpiece -- GOOD quality microphone capable of high
quality speech recording (i.e., NOT your typical cheap carbon
granule microphone).

Momentary contact switch (normally open) switch in handle.

Each of these would have its own pair of wires in the handset cord which
would connect to a pair on the six conductor plug that inserts into the card.

Plugging in an external microphone or audio source would disable the
handset microphone (unless you want to get fancy and have the inputs
software selectable).

This card would take audio or speech and digitize it into a byte
stream which could be stored in a file OR sent out the COM port.  The
card would also take digitized audio and decode it back to "real"
audio.

Now, in typical use you'd press the switch on the handset, would would
indicate that the card should begin capturing and digitizing audio,
and you'd release it when you are through speaking.  But the state of
the switch could be ignored when desirable.  Basically, the switch
would just be an aid to the system in helping it determine whether
actual sound is present or not.  In effect, when the switch is NOT
pushed, any sound would be considered "background noise" and ignored.

The software supplied with the product (or by a third party) should
ideally allow selection of the sampling rate of the audio signal (more
on that in a moment), and also allow one to specify that the handset
switch is to be ignored.  And, it should allow the digitized audio to
be sent directly to and received directly from a COM port (and
therefore, a modem).  It should also allow a choice of minimal error
detection and correction (only as much as can be done in "real time")
or full error detection and correction (it will try as many times as
necessary to transmit the data error-free ... usually you'd only use
this if the digitized data were being stored on a hard drive for later
replay at the receiving end).  It should also allow NO error
detection, for cases where freedom from errors is not as important as
speed of transmission OR for cases where the modems themselves are
doing the error detection and correction.

Now the question is, if you put audio into this thing, would it come
out the other end in "real time"?  That would depend upon several
things, including:

1) The sampling rate used ... a higher sampling rate would give you
better bandwidth and a better quality signal, but if you overrun the
modem's transmit speed, there might be gaps (short pauses of silence)
at the other end as the modems "catch up." In that case, you'd either
use a lower sampling rate (losing audio clarity) or store the speech
for later playback.  In some situations, it might be desirable to
record a few seconds of speech (using the handset button to indicate
start and end of the message), let the system transmit it, store it on
the other end, and then play it back when the entire audio segment is
received.  This would provide "not quite" real time speech, but of
considerably higher quality than would be possible over a normal phone
line.

2) The amount of noise on the phone line,

3) The level of error correction used,

4) The speed of the modems involved.

The uses of such a unit would be fairly obvious ... anytime you need
to transmit audio of higher than normal quality via a phone line, you
could use this thing.  If it could be made affordable, every radio and
TV journalist in the country would want one.  And computer hobbyists
would want them as well.  I envision that with the proper software, a
BBS user could hold a nice voice chat with the sysop, while downloading
a file simultaneously.  Of course the software would have to disting-
uish between voice and data "packets", but it could make use of silent
periods in the conversation to transmit data.  Or digitized voice or
audio could be stored and forwarded via a packet switching network,
perhaps in semi-real time.

Imagine an audio journalist caught in a situation where the telephone
lines are poor quality and/or nearly unavailable, but the packet
switching networks are open and working fine.  An audio report could
be digitized and sent back to the home office.  Imagine taping a short
recording for a friend (say three minutes of music, talk, or whatever)
and sending it across town or around the world in digital format, so
that the recipient would get audio of the highest quality.  Even if a
three minute segment takes 20 minutes to send, it may be considerably
less expensive than other available means.

(Actual case in point: I know of a weekly radio program on shortwave
that gathers three-to-five minute reports from various correspondents.
When they phoned in audio reports, the audio quality was terrible and
listeners complained that they couldn't understand.  So now the
correspondents have to Fed-Ex in tapes.  That means late-breaking news
can't be included, and there's a weekly expense of around ten dollars.
If those segments could be digitized and transmitted over the phone
lines in, say, half an hour online (which is probably much longer than
it would actually take), the cost would still be less than one-fourth
of Fed-Ex, NOT counting the pickup charges or cost to take the tape to
Fed-Ex).

Yes, I know there is EXPENSIVE equipment that will do things like
this, but ... I suspect that "hobbyist grade" equipment could be made
for much less money AND would ultimately do a better jobe than the
commercial stuff (just as much home stereo equipment outperforms the
equipment your local radio station uses).

Please remember me if you make a million bucks with this ... :-)

> It depends.  I once saw a demonstration of a low bit-rate secure voice
> system that operated at 300 bps!  The system used "code-book lookup"
> and translated words or phonemes into codes that were looked up and
> played out at the other end of the data link.  Needless to say, the
> voice that came out didn't sound at all like the voice that went in,
> but it got most of the message across.  The question you should be
> asking is how much computer power do you have to process the speech
> and how much distortion can you tolerate?  Voice processing delay also
> needs to be considered.

Now THAT raises interesting possibilities.  Suppose that you could
have a phoneme coder/decoder running all in one box (forget modem
transmission for a moment)... would this not provide some
possibilities for changing speech?

For example, let's say that you played the soundtrack of a few old
W.C. Fields movies into a computer (only the parts where Fields is
speaking) and had the computer "learn" all of Fields' speech patterns.
Then I recorded the same words and phrases using my voice, and let the
computer "learn" my speech patterns.  Then the computer was programed
to detect phonemes in my speech and replace them with the equilavent
phonemes from Fields' speech.  Now, let's suppose we do all this on a
relatively fast system (a '486 box may well be plenty fast enough).  I
could speak in real time, answering any questions put to me, and it
would all come out in W.C. Fields' voice... and it would actually be
segements of HIS voice electronically "spliced" together, not MY voice
reformed to sound something like his.

Now, that may sound harmless enough, but suppose that instead of using
W.C.  Fields' voice, I used the voice of the President of the United
States?  Can you see where that could possibly cause some problems if
misused?

I'm afraid that the day is coming (and is already here, in many ways)
where we will not be able to believe anything we see on television or
hear on radio.  If you saw the segment on "Prime Time Live" a few
weeks ago on "morfing" (sp?), where they can actually construct new
faces from parts of other faces or change one face to another (as in
the Michael Jackson "Black or White" video), you know that computers
can do many tricks with video that were formerly impossible.  Want to
shoot a scene of an old city that's supposed to have been filmed
before the turn of the century, but there's some nasty old telephone
cables strung across the scene that spoil the effect?  No problem,
just use a computer to "erase" the wires and poles from the scene!

And now you say that you can do voice substitution on a phoneme for
phoneme basis ... wonder when the day will come when we see a talking
head on the screen that is totally computer generated and virtually
indistinguishable from the real thing!

And just ignore the man behind the curtain ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Christensen)
Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 21:05:35 GMT
Subject: Re: How Many Bits/Sec Necessary For a Voice Connection?
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.


The use of different compression or prediciton techniques allows good
quality voice down to 4800 bps.  Such names as VSLEP and RTLP come to
mind.  All of these techniques us digital analysis of the voice, then
send long and short term descriptors to the distant end where DSP
recreates the voice.  Using such technologies has largly made PCM
obsolete.  The voice is still oversample at greater than 8KHz, but the
quanitized voice data from this is fed to DSP where the digitial
filtering and long and short term coefficients are identified and sent
to the modulator usually after additional FEC and interleaving.
Checkout just about any of the Digital Cellular specifications TR45,
GSM 5.xx etc ...

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

Date: Mon, 04 May 92 14:10:29 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Baty)
Subject: Re: Nokia P-30 Pinout Query
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 19:10:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> I think it's safe to say that you can't get a v.32 (or v.32bis)
> connection at 9600 bps or above over a cellular link.  I've never been
> able to get a connection at these speeds, and I've tried with a
> Qblazer, a T2500, and a T3000.

> There is also a cellular modem made by Microcom that uses v.32-like
> modulation at 4000 bps (I think) and includes v.42bis compression.

The Microcom Microport 1042 is described above.  They have a newer
model the Microport 4232bis which supports v.32bis & v.42bis.  Its
serial prt speed is limited to 38.4kbps though.  I have used it
consistently at 9600 connect (with throughput of approaching 38kbps)
over cellular.  I have not been able to make reliable connections at
14.4 (I do get a normal mode connect but the handshake fails to make
an error correction protocol, and noise is too high to be useful).

Making consistent 9600 connections over cellular is not the norm, but
it is possible.  Most of my experience is in good cell locations I
believe the cellular switch is Ericson (sold through AT&T?)

My experience has been best with an NEC p300 w/ NEC 1202 smart
interface.  (ie. 600 milliwatt).  This has been a better performer
than a Motorola bag phone (ie. 3 watt) w/ internal smart data
interface.

My application is X windows under DOS remotely accessing Sun servers.

Both Microcom modems use MNP 10, designed for cellular connection, but
also good for bad terrestrial links.  MNP 10 includes dynamic speed
adjust, dynamic packet size adjust and dynamic gain.  With dynamic
gain on I can hold the cellular connection at higher speeds under
adverse conditions (eg. taking the antenna off and shorting the
antenna connection to introduce noise).

PS: I don't know if the P-30 pinout question has been answered but the
phone is basically identical to the old Radio Shack handheld (model
number forgotten 2001?) and Radio Shack will sell you the tech manual
for that phone. This has been discussed here in the past.


jbb

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 07:49:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


        The one great thing about pure step-by-step offices is that
although they are noisy, misroute calls, take huge amounts of space,
and offer very few features, they have absolutely no single point of
failure.  No component failure can take down more than one line; most
just reduce the capacity of the exchange by one call.  Step-by-step
switches are true distributed systems.  No component has more than a
tiny fraction of the intelligence of the system.

        In the entire history of the Bell System, no electromechanical
CO was ever down for more than 30 minutes for any reason other than a
natural disaster.

        And now they're gone.


John Nagle

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

Date: Sun, 3 May 92 00:48 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a
> rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the
> next-to-last.  (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for
> the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on
> crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches
> that we all loved.

The 'cluck' after each digit was the selector "selecting" the next
switch in the train. The Strowger switches had two motions: vertical
and rotary (XY offices had vertical and horizontal). Each click of the
dial sent the center rod of the switch up one notch. When the dial
pulsing stopped, a relay with a capacitor across it (to make it
slow-acting) would start the switch in a rotary motion, sweeping the
contact arm around a set of contacts that were connected to the
available subsequent switches of that level. The stepper solenoid
would pull in and release as fast as it could until an idle set of
contact was found.  This gave the characteristic "thrruummp" after
each digit was dialed.

However the last two digits were handled on the same Strowger unit.
The sixth digit would step the vertical rod to the proper lever and
the seventh digit would rotate the arm until it contacted the called
party's contacts. Since there was no "automatic" selection in the
rotary plane, there was no "thrruummp".

> One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when
> they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as
> intra-office calling on a modern ESS.

Intra-office call completion on a SXS was FASTER than any ESS switch.
The slight pause was the "slow-acting" relay described above to ensure
that the dial had actually stopped at that number. Otherwise,
everyone's phone on that final switch might jingle as the last digit
was dialed! The intra-office SXS call actually completed faster than
on any common control switch past or present. It was not an illusion.
Hell, my old #5 crossbar switch completed intra-office calls faster
than the "new and improved" #5 ESS does now! (The 1/1AESS beats
everything other than SXS for speed of intra-office call completion
speed!)

> Dial the last digit and !BANG!
> ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control
> step system.

Of course. The selectors in the distant office were following your
dial pulses in real time, just as if they were in the same office.

> This was, however, not the case with the <ahem> modern
> 'directorized' step offices, (such as the old 366 office on the south
> side of Council Bluffs, the last stepper around here) where they had
> some kind of a common-control register-sender glued in the system
> between the line finder and first selector.

GTE use to do this on a large scale. It did enable them to do a lot of
things without having to upgrade to more sophisticated equipment. In
many cases this setup allowed expeditious implementation of Touch Tone
dialing. The sender could be adapted to receive the DTMF and then
"direct" the steppers accordingly.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #364
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00690;
          6 May 92 1:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20147
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 22:57:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13087
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 22:56:59 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 22:56:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #365

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 May 92 22:57:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 365

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Problem in Switzerland (Helge Oldach)
    Re: TCAP Protocol (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies (Jack Decker)
    Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question (Ken Dykes)
    Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Bob Furtaw)
    Re: ATM Discussion Group (Allen Robel)
    Re: ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted (Tim Christensen)
    V&H to LAT/LONG Conversion (Peter M. Cohen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Helge Oldach)
Subject: Re: ISDN Problem in Switzerland
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 16:08:42 GMT
Organization: Stollmann GmbH, D-2000 Hamburg 50, Germany


[e-mail] (Santo Wiryaman) writes:

> My question is this. Is looping back B channels during call-setup a
> standard practice in ISDN networks? In Europe or elsewhere?

Definitely not. I have never observed this with videotelephones in
Germany with connections in the German ISDN.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 05 May 92 11:08:52 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: TCAP Protocol
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael Brown) writes:

> I'm looking for information on the protocol, TCAP.  TCAP stands for
> Transaction Capabilities Protocol, and is used primarily in telephony.
> Any pointers to documents, code (if available) would be appreciated.

    I had a long write-up I sent to an e-mail requester, but can't
seem to find it.  TCAP is an Application layer protocol, but the full
series of Recommendations/requirements specify what is called the SS7
Transaction Capabilities (TC).  This is basically TCAP plus the
underlying Presentation, Session and Transport layer.  These last
three layers are called the Application Service Part (ASP) in SS7.
Since current TCAP-using services all assume SS7 SCCP as a Network
layer (connectionless, either Class 0 or 1) and explicitly state there
are no required ASP services, the distinction between TC and TCAP is
blurry.  Unfortunately, it looks like SCCP will have to start
supporting sequencing, segmentation and reassembly for some "bloated"
TCAP services, thus making it look more and more like a Transport
layer (and part of the Network layer as well).

   End of lesson 1 ...  The protocol itself is specified in:

Recommendations Q.771 to Q.774 of the CCITT "Blue" books.
  (But this is only the International version ... USA uses
  a somewhat different version ...)

ANSI T1.114.x series of recommendations (used to be ANSI Q.771-Q.774)
  (The official standard is continuously modified by periodic
  meetings of the T1S1.3 standards working group, primarily by the
  TCAP Sub-working Group.  If you have more than a casual interest
  in ongoing TCAP issues, you should find or create a group member.)

Bellcore re-publishes a snapshot of the MTP, SCCP, ISUP and TCAP
recommendations in TR-NPL-000246 "BCR Specification of Signaling
System Number 7", currently at Issue 2, Revision 1.  Revision 2 is due
out in December.  Expect it to cost about $500 -- and I don't believe
they will break out the TCAP part (about 15%) as a separate (cheaper)
document.

   I have also mis-placed by ordering info. for ANSI T1 standards, but
maybe someone else can supply it.

   Lesson 2 ... TCAP is now described in ASN.1 terms in Appendicies
that are semi-formally part of the standards.  It is based on X.409
encoding and X.410 Section 2 (Remote Operations).  So an understanding
of ROSE and associated concepts is very helpful, since none of the
Recommendations are Tutorials on the protocol.  In fact, they are
there is effort ongoing to more closely align TCAP with ROSE, but the
older version of the standard was a confused merger of X.410 and TCAP
"enhancements" needed to make the protocol useful in applications not
supported by the typical Query/Response model.  The language of X.410
and ROSE has evolved in the ten years or so that TCAP has been "in
process".  These changes and others account for major terminology
differences between the ANSI T1.114-1988 and -1990 standards.


Al Varney -- the above is not the official view(s) of AT&T.

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

Date: Tue, 05 May 92 17:15:27 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Applications of Voice Recognition Technologies


I recently forwarded a message from another newsgroup regarding a
system that would, in essence, have convicted criminals under "house
arrest" telephone a computerized system at specific intervals, and the
system would use voice recognition and Caller-ID to make sure that the
criminal was really at home.

I pointed out that there would be many ways to defeat this, and
postulated that said criminal could set up call forwarding on his home
phone so that when he called into the computer from wherever in the
world he was, the Caller-ID would show the number of his home phone.

Several readers of the Digest took the time and trouble to point out
that Caller-ID could NOT be defeated in this way, since SS7 (required
to support Caller-ID) would also forward the number of the actual
originator of the call for Caller-ID purposes when call forwarding a
call.

However, some also suggested other ways that the system could be
defeated.  Two of the most popular suggestions were these: 1) Get
three-way calling on the line and get a relative or hire a
neighborhood kid to set up a three-way call at the proper time.  This
would show the criminal's home phone number as the originating number,
2) Get one of those hardware call-forwarding devices that requires two
phone lines.  Call in on your "second" phone line, have the device
dial the parole office voice recognition system on your primary line.
You talk to the computer from anywhere, and if your "second" line is
unlisted, few other people would try to call you and get the voice
recognition system instead.  Another option that would work is an
"off-premises extension" of the first line run to some other location
(such as the criminal's "office").

My whole point was to show that this type of system COULD be defeated
by anyone who really wanted to do so.  It might well be an adequate
method of punishment for someone convicted of having too many parking
tickets, but I certainly would not care to see it used on anyone
convicted of a violent crime, or any felony.  It's just too easy to
defeat by anyone who really wants to do so.

It was just unfortunate that I chose call forwarding as an example of
a way that this system could be defeated.  Of all the methods I could
have suggested, that is the one that apparently will NOT work.

Thanks to all who took the trouble to netmail me on this.  I now know
a little bit more about how the telephone system works!


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 92 05:57:39 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Ken Dykes)
Subject: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) wrote:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 357, Message 4 of 7

> In a recent message, KEN DYKES writes:

>> Well, what is probably one (if not THEE :-) last crossbar era switches
>> (definitly not digital) left in Bell Canada Ontario territory is going
>> digital.  This is the switch I have been on for most of my life. ...
>> ... and, if you have a rotary dial set, you will not hear a click in
>> the receiver as the dial returns to rest.

> This 'clunk' was typical on direct-control (translated: dumb as a
> rock) step offices and would occur after all digits except the
> next-to-last.  (The reason for this will be left as an exercise for

Definitely after *last* digit, not second to last.

> the diehard techie trivia types. ;-) I don't ever remember it on
> crossbar, especially the genuine Ma Bell #1 and #5 crossbar switches

Don't forget in Canada, we probably used some sort of NorTel xbar
design.  To call back your own number, you dialed 99x-xxxx instead of
your number of 88x-xxxx, got a strange tone, hook-flash, hangup.
voila, instant ringing phone.

>> Be sure to begin dialing as soon as you hear the dial tone.  If you
>> delay, the equipment may time out and you will need to hang up and

> Wow!  This >>>WAS<<< old.  No timeout on dialtone.  This has to be an
> old stepper.  Take the receiver off hook and tie up a linefinder all

It did/does timeout, first to a LOUD recording, then a loud fast-busy.

>> When dialing to other exchanges you may find a noticeable silent pause
>> from the time you finish dialing until the telephone rings.

> One feature of these old direct-control step switches was that (when
> they worked) they appeared to the sub to be almost as fast as
> intra-office calling on a modern ESS.  Dial the last digit and !BANG!
> ring or busy, even when calling inter-office to another direct-control

Takes time, but less than two seconds. There was a time a while back
during a city wide rationalization of digital signaling when it took
MANY long seconds to pulse dial the local digital exchanges on its
interoffice trunks.

My boss who lives off the New Hamburg, Ontario exchange was defintely
stepper until about a year ago; geeez, farmers go digital before the
big city :-)

>> If You Have Ident-A-Call:
>> If you have the Ident-A-Call feature
>> [multiple numbers, distinctive ringing, one hard line]
>> you will notice a change in the duration of the distinctive ringing

> This is the first time I have heard of this on an electromechanical
> office, but I can see how it might work.

Well, I got a hint in a surprising way myself ... a year ago I was on
the 'fone to the business office about ordering a long-distance plan
or something, and was making an enquiry if BOTH of my numbers would be
covered under one plan/one-fee since I only get one bill printed. They
said, "Sorry, it cannot be done with Ident-a-call."

I say, "What Ident-a-call? ... I have two physical lines ..."  It
turns out their database had a typo that I had Ident-a-call for two
numbers rather than two physical numbers.  I went on to say "This
exchange isn't even capable of it!"  They went "Mumble, maybe, well,
yea, mumble, your file has been fixed, and yes the plan will cover
both numbers."

When I was a kid I remember this exchange (whole new building even, I
lived about three blocks away) going into service. If you wanted the
new-fangled touch-tone service you had to get a new number via this
exchange. During the last few years if you wanted one of the new
fangled services, you had to leave this exchange ...

Over the years, various little quirks, and talking briefly to various
Bell techies has led me to believe that at one time during its early
"glory" years this was a model-exchange of new technology and new
tricks were tested and installed -- if not advertised -- on it, but
this is just a gut feeling.

It would make sense given the profile of Waterloo being the home to a
very technically literate population (two universities, electronics
companies like Raytheon, insurance head offices, etc), and also a
relatively high average household income. (Daddy, what's a slum?)
(How many areas do you know where the citizens REGULARLY pay Ma Bell a
couple dollar charge to do an operator interrupt on a busy line??  On
some days it seems dollars mean nothing to the permanent residents,
and that underlying feeling that "of course" everyone has
call-waiting, and so "of course" something is unusual with a busy
signal ... yuppie scum everywhere).

Talk to the transient student population and you get quite another
perspective however :-) :-) I swear that students must synchronize
their watches and have a conspiricy to go off-hook at 11pm (cheap rate
time) and try to grab long-distance/inter-office trunks; normal
sentient switch behavior returns around 11:15pm :-) I would suspect
even the most radical and generous capacity-planning couldn't
compensate for this conspiricy of the residents of Suitcase-U.


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
  [e-mail]  [e-mail]  thinkage!kgdykes
  [e-mail]          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 12:42:25 GMT


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

> Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that
> columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons ("Try
> that with today's phones!"), both finished in Regurgitation Beige
> color. One is a Princess touchtone circa 1972, the other a touchtone
> wall phone from 1980.

> On testing, I found that the wall phone wouldn't generate any DTMF
> tones with the keypad. I took it apart, hoping to find something
> obvious such as a broken wire, but nothing seemed wrong. I DID,
> however, find two wires disconnected and capped with insulating
> sleeves; one was gray, the other was gray with red striping. On the
> theory that the keypad might have been disconnected for incoming calls
> only, I called the previous owner, who had thoughtfully left his phone
> number on the telephone. He hasn't called back yet.  ;-)

It was a common practice at one time, because the REN of "1", to
disconnect the bell on one or more phones, if you had others connected
at the same time. See if these leads go to the bell.  As for the DTMF,
older phones don't have steering diodes to power the DTMF from the
line.  This requires polarity to be observed.  Reverse the two leads
(tip and ring) to see if DTMF is restored.

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Robel)
Subject: Re: ATM Discussion Group
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 22:21:56 GMT


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

> In message <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> (Shikhar Bajaj) writes:

>> I heard there is an ATM discussion group and am very interested in
>> joining such discussion group. Appreciated if anyone has information
>> on how to join the discussion.

>> Send mail to [e-mail]  [[e-mail], edited, robelr]

> Well, this is a group for discussing IP over ATM, *not* for discussing
> general ATM related issues. In fact, when general issues are brought
> up they are usually flamed.

For discussions of general ATM issues, the group comp.dcom.cell-relay
will be formed on May 6th barring objections to the voting that ended
on May 1st.  The results, which will be posted soon to
news.announce.newgroups were 220 YES, 11 NO.

I am also working to set up an email (mailing list)/USEnet gateway for
those who do not have USEnet access.  Look for another post in the
next few weeks concerning this gateway and how to subscribe.


Regards,

Allen Robel                         [e-mail]
University Computing Services       [e-mail]
Network Research & Planning         voice: [phone]
Indiana University                  FAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Christensen)
Date: Mon, 04 May 1992 20:55:42 GMT
Subject: Re: ISDN References and Technical Books Wanted
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.


Aside from the latest revisions of the CCITT standards, try the ISDN
book by Stallings from MacMillan Books (1989).  Otherwise try the
trade journals.

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 92 09:21:35 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Peter M. Cohen)
Subject: V&H to LAT/LONG Conversion


I am searching for a program that will convert Vertical & Horizontal
coordinates to Latitude & Longitude.  I have a Macintosh Plus
connected via modem to a SUN II computer running SUN-OS (Unix).  I
would like to know if there is a program out there that I could either
run on the SUN or the Macintosh.  I am looking for a program that will
accept input from a data file (a file containing a bunch of V&H's)
rather than one that converts interactively.  If the program can do
both then that's even better.  Better still would be a program that can
convert either V&H to LAT/LONG or vice versa.  Please email your
response to me at [e-mail]

Thanks.


Science Applications International Corporation
8619 Westwood Center Drive   Vienna, Virginia  22102
Peter M. Cohen  [phone]  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #365
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02328;
          6 May 92 1:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20732
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05900
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 23:47:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #366

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 May 92 23:47:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 366

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Looking For V.11 Pinout (Tim Christensen)
    Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (Winston Sorfleet)
    Ericsson to Receive IEEE Corporate Recognition Award (Ericsson PR News)
    How Does E&M Signalling Work? (John Boteler)
    UUNET Thruput (was Re: The Telebit WorldBlazer) (Jiro Nakamura)
    Needed: Some Hardware to Interface to Telephones (Warren Burstein)
    Caller*ID Schematic Offer V2.0 (Rob Bailey)
    Re: Dialtone Spec Needed (Alan L. Varney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tim Christensen)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 17:25:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Looking For V.11 Pinout
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.


Here is the V.11/X.21 pinout for the DB15 connector:

CCITT
Circuit       Pin#           Mnemonic            Description
               1              PG                Protection Ground
103            2              T(A)              Transmit (A)
105            3              C(A)              Control (A)
104            4              R(A)              Receive (A)
106            5              I(A)              Indicate (A)
114            6              S(A)              Signal Element Timing (A)
               7              F(A)              Frame Start Indication (A)
               8              SG                Signal Ground
103            9              T(B)              Transmit (B)
105           10              C(B)              Control (B)
104           11              R(B)              Receive (B)
106           12              I(B)              Indicate (B)
114           13              S(B)              Signal Element Timing (B)
              14              F(B)              Frame Start Indication (B)
              15              -                 Unassigned

For the sense on the balance circuits refer to this diagram:

                         |\o-----T(A)-----------o|\
  -----------------------| >                     | >--------------
                         |/------T(B)------------|/

The *(A) wires are the LOW sense lines and the *(B) wires are the HIGH
sense lines.  (I've never heard any standard way to refer to them.)

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

Date: Tue, 05 May 1992 14:03:05 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone


Previously I wrote:

> My father has recently bought two genuine Western Electric telephones at
> a garage sale, and I'm hoping that someone in Telecom-land can answer a
> question on the internal wiring.

I have since been inundated with replies, every single one of which
told me to reverse the red and green wires and all will be fine. So
noted! I conclude that I am the only person in the Western Hemisphere
who didn't know this tip to begin with. I also learned from Telecom
readers that, among other things, the Princess phone was highly
sought-after by ham radio aficionados for its parts, and that the wall
phone is capable of being blown through a window by a shotgun blast
without sustaining serious damage. This will come as good news to our
Los Angeles friends, no doubt. :-)

Thank you all for your help. I'm very impressed by the expertise and
fast response of the Telecom group!


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

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

Date: Sun, 3 May 92 22:48:34 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone


[Andrew Green asks about slate (grey) and slate-red wires inside
princess TT and wallmount 2500 set.]

If memory serves me, the wires are a connection to a resistor (?) used
to tip party identification on Bell party lines.  Shouldn't present
any problems if disconnected and, and maybe a little noise if not.

Try reversing the tip/ring polarity going to the set, most sets from
that age were not equiped with a diode bridge to power the TT pad.  If
this fixes it, add a diode bridge to power the pad, RS should carry
them.

> Both phones are the steel-base standard-issue home variety that
> columnist Dave Barry has said could be used as murder weapons

Not only do they make good weapons, but afterwords you can use it to
call an ambulance.  I have seen one that survived a blast of #7
birdshot, was blown through a window, and after being reconnected to
the 42A block, still worked.


Pat Turner           KB4GRZ          [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Another good piece of news for L.A. denizens!  PAT]

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

Date: 5 May 92 15:59:00 EDT
From: Winston (W.L.) Sorfleet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital


The following circulated around Bell-Northern on April 1.

   Important News Announcement From Northern Telecom, April 1, 1992.

  On April 1, 1992, Dr Paul Stern of Northern Telecom Inc.  announced
NT's bold new vision of the future.

  "We call it Strowger World" said Dr. Stern as he showed off the
latest model of NT's new series of switches.

  "It goes along with our new quality and excellence thrust. You just
can't get any more reliable than these babies. Before, with the
software based switches, we had no ends of problems. With these, a
drop of oil here, burnish a contact there, and they'll go for decades.
If the power fails, the switch is ready to go as soon as power is
restored. With our old software based switches, if the power failed,
it took hours to get it running again. Now switch recovery is
instantaneous!"

  When asked about NT's previous direction, FiberWorld, Dr. Stern
replied, "Fiber World? Don't make me laugh. Where are the electrons
going to go? Glass is an insulator! I admit that we were temporarily
blinded by the insane promises of a few egg-headed visionaries, but
the one, true, path became evident very shortly afterward. As our
technical experts said at the time of that announcement -- 'Don't
trust your ass to glass'."

  "It was time to go back to basics. Telephone switches should be made
from real switches, not this electronic stuff where you can't see what
is going on. 'Real switches for real people' is our new motto" he said
proudly.

  After citing many of the advantages of the Strowger World switches
 -- among them the ability to do literal call tracing, Dr. Stern closed
the session by inviting all Northern Telecom customers to "Come join
us as we go step-by-step into the future."

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

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Very clever, thank you! I'm sorry we did not have
this a month ago to share with the TELECOM Digest readers.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 15:15 +0200
From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ericsson to Receive IEEE Corporate Recognition Award


PRESS RELEASE
1992-05-04

ERICSSON TO RECEIVE IEEE CORPORATE RECOGNITION AWARD

Swedish Pioneer of Cellular Radio Technology to be Honored

LM Ericsson of Stockholm will receive a 1992 IEEE Corporate
Recognition Award "for significant contributions to the development
and implementation of analog and digital cellular radio technology."
The award will be presented on Sunday, May 10, 1992, during the IEEE
Honors Ceremony in Boston. Dr. Lars Ramqvist, Ericsson President and
Chief Executive Officer, will accept the award for the company.

Ericsson is the world's largest supplier worldwide of analog cellular
radio systems, with more than 40 percent of market share. Founded in
1876, it is one of the world's leading manufacturers or telecommun-
ications equipment and has been a success in merging radio and
switching technology into effective, high capacity networks.

"We have entered an era of 'personal communications,'" according to
Dr.  Ramqvist. "Cellular and wireless communications products allow us
to use advanced information services in a convenient, natural way.
Ericsson has been a pioneer in cellular and advanced wireless
communications systems, applying advanced electrotechnology to solve
important practical problems."

With operations in over 100 countries, half of Ericsson's 70,000
employees work outside of Sweden. Ericsson is also known for its
contributions to international telecommunications standards and
specifications. Its concept of narrow band transmission has had a
significant impact on specifications for the Pan-European Digital
Mobile Telephone System (GSM) and the Telecommunications Industry of
America (TIA). Further technical development by Ericsson formed the
basis for Digital European Cordless Telephony (DECT) for wireless
communications within buildings.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) is
the world's largest technical professional organization, with more
than 320,000 members in over 145 countries. The Institute is a leading
authority in areas ranging from aerospace, computers and
communications, to biomedical technology, electric power and consumer
electronics.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Kathy Egan, Director of Press Relations, The Ericsson Corporation
 Tel. [phone], tec.tecke(at)memo.ericsson.se

Lynne Howell, International Press Officer, Ericsson
 Tel. [phone],  lme.lmedlh(at)memo.ericsson.se

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Does E&M Signalling Work?
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 15:12:41 EDT


I need a Big Dummy's guide to E&M signalling.  It's kind of tough
getting the right answers when I can't ask the right questions.

I am experimenting with receiving real-time ANI over a T1 circuit and
trying to pick up the ANI information using D/40 cards. The T1
channels under consideration are currently configured for Ground Start
operation.  Carrier=MCI, BTW.

I'm afraid phrases such as "it's just like Megacom", et al won't help
me very much (besides, I've already heard that from Telco Systems).

So, now it's your turn.

I would really like a 1, 2, 3 step-by-step guide that describes what
the office sends, what it expects of the station end, etc. until call
completion.

Unless you think the whole net is interested you'd best email me at
'[e-mail]'.

Thank you way in advance.


[e-mail] (John Boteler)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: UUNET Thruput (was Re: The Telebit WorldBlazer)
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 23:47:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Andrew Partan) writes:

> The metric that we use to measure our performance is Megabytes per
> Connect hour.  This is total Megabytes sent & received divided by total
> connect time (from the start of the call all the way though to the end
> of the call - including all interfile time).  The connect time is the
> total off all connections - including all of the 1200 & 2400 folks.

> Up until a few months ago, we were running running at about 2.0
> Meg/hr.  We have now increased the performance to about 2.2 or 2.3
> Meg/hr.  We are working on increasing this further.

2.0 meg/hr. * 1,048,576 bytes/meg / 60 min/hour / 60 sec/min =
    582 bytes/sec.

Given that UUNET counts dead time, includign login time and interfile
gaps, this is not as bad as it looks. But I see why they use meg/hour
 -- doesn't look as bad on the surface.

I applaud them on trying to increase performance 10%. However, given
that most of the problem is dead time, UUNET should seriously think
about ways to cut down on dead time, including batched mail or other
forms of batched UUCP transport.


Jiro Nakamura            [e-mail] (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor    76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group        [phone] (Voice/Fax)

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Needed: Some Hardware to Interface to Telephones
Date: 4 May 92 16:58:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


My boss just asked me what we can buy off the shelf to do all or at
least some of the following:

There will be two systems in different cities, countries, whatever.
They will be connected via a packet-switching line.

People will call a phone number that is connected to system A.  They
will enter an access code, their phone number (or, if it's somewhere
that does Caller-ID, of course we can skip this) and a phone number
(located where system B is), and hang up.  A will verify the
information and pass it to system B over the packet-switching line.  B
will call the local phone number, and if the call goes thru (how does
it know?) it says "please wait for a call to <somewhere>", calls the
phone number from which this all started, and connects the two.

The result is that a person at A can call a person at B, but pay the
rates from B to A (plus an additional charge, of course) rather than
from A to B.

The number of conversations supported at one time should be configurable.

So can anyone recommend anything that we could buy, that would either
do it all, or significant pieces of it?  We would not mind having to
do the software ourselves, but we really don't want to start building
telephone interface circuitry, touch-tone/Caller-ID recognition,
speech circuitry (and some way of knowing if the call was answered, I
wouldn't even know how to start doing this unless call supervision is
supported on side B and we cannot assume that) and getting it
certified.

Don't tell me about legal issues, because you'd have to know where A
and B are to give accurate info, and the customer doesn't want this
disclosed.  An anti-hint for people who remember that I am in Israel
although my address is in New York: even though Israel is known for
high international telephone rates, this system is *not* intended to
save on calls out of Israel.

Please reply by email if you have answers or would like to receive a
summary of the answers.

Thanks.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 03 May 92 21:06:13 EDT
From: Rob Bailey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Schematic Offer V2.0


I missed issues 33? thru 350, so if there were any questions or
cursing of my crappy hand-drawn schematic, please repeat or forward
them.

The real reason for this message: I have made a few copies of the spec
sheets for both the MAX-23x series chips and the XR-2211 FSK
demodulator used in the Caller*ID-to-PC interface, and if the folks
who have already wasted $0.58 would care to waste another 6 bits, send
(yet another) SASE back to me (I say 6 bits 'cause ya probably oughta
put $0.58 on the SASE just in case -- it's a buncha pages), I'll send
them. If you cut out the XR2211 schematic given as an example and
paste it onto the MAX232 example schematic - Voila! - the Caller*ID
interface, sans DAA.

SASE to:

ROB BAILEY
211 GEORGES DR #B-301
CHARLESTON WV 25306-7501

I hope nobody else's transformers got eaten by the snail mail machine.

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

Date: Mon,  4 May 92 09:20:11 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Dialtone Spec Needed
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (P. J.
Holsberg) writes:

> Could someone please post the specs for the interrupted dialtone that
> voice mail systems use to inform the user that a voice mail message is
> waiting?

   I'm sure you understand that the voice mail systems do not offer
the interrupted dialtone to the client's line; they just ask the CO
Switch to notify the client that a message is waiting.  This interface
is also used with Message Desk services.  Whether the client has a
message waiting lamp, the "interrupted dialtone" signal or some other
method of notification (ISDN) is known only to the Switch.  The voice
mail or message desk service is also responsible for turning off the
message waiting indication.

   The Voice Mail/Message Desk interface to the Switch, and the inter-
switch signaling interface (SS7/TCAP) for turning on/off the
indication are described in Bellcore's TR-NWT-000866 (Iss. 1, Jan.
1991) titled "ISDN Message Services Generic Requirements" ($75).  In
spite of the name, it discusses the inter-switch signaling for ISDN
and non-ISDN clients, as well as ISDN and non-ISDN interfaces to the
voice mail or message desk provider.

   In the TR, Bellcore calls the audible message waiting indication a
"special interrupted dial tone", but I'm unsure what makes it
"special".  Frequencies are 350 + 440 Hz, at a (.1 second ON, .1
second OFF) rate, for at least 2.5 seconds, then steady ON.  I haven't
seen a statement specifying whether or not customer dialing must be
accepted during the interrupted period, but that would seem to be
reasonable.  The tone and interruption rate are identical to the
"Confirmation Tone" used to confirm Speed Calling recording or Call
Forwarding activation/ deactivation -- but those only last .6 seconds.
And 350 + 440 Hz at a steady rate is regular Dial Tone.  [All tones
are +/- 0.5% in more modern Switches, but could be different or less
precise in some areas.]

   Hope this helps.  Information on most switch tones are in
TR-NPL-000275, "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986" (if you
have it) or the replacement, SR-TSV-0002275, "BOC Notes on the LEC
Networks - 1990", dated March 1991 ($395).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #366
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03970;
          6 May 92 2:40 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22661
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26571
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 00:46:43 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #367

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 May 92 00:46:44 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 367

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    It's A Riot: Followup (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: It's a Riot (Declan McCullagh)
    Re: Riots in LA (John Higdon)
    Re: Telecom While LA Burns (Michael A. Covington)
    Re: Riots in LA (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (No, Not Yet) (Rich Wales)
    Re: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed (Carl Moore)
    Calling Out From LA (Matthew Holdrege)
    Re: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom (Robert S. Helfman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 May 92 09:11:45 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: It's A Riot: Followup


And then on Thursday, it got horrible.

My boss called to tell me that second and third shifts had been
cancelled, although I didn't get the message on my answering machine
until the loudmouth pool players downstairs in my apartment complex
said something about people shooting at the Ralph's grocery store
across the street.  THAT woke me up (I work graves these days ...
yikes!).  There were rumors that the Circuit City next door had been
looted (it hadn't), and that rioters robbed the bank next to my
girlfriend's work (they had).

Also, looters had sacked the Hawthorne Mall not five miles up the
street from where I live, and two miles away from the Hughes facility
where I work.  This was at 3:00 or so in the afternoon; I then made
about five calls before GTE shut down dial tone to residential
customers.  Pay phones continued to work.  According to news reports
in the {Orange County Register} -- I hid out for a couple of days at
my parents' house in Huntington Beach -- Pacific Bell claims that as
few as 50% of all attempted calls were getting through in the 310 and
213 area codes at the height of the rioting.  My girlfriend was able
to get through to her parents in Arkansas, and strangely enough, they
were able to call me, even though my girlfriend was unable to
successfully call me directly from work.

TELECOM Digest really isn't the place for editorializing, but I would
like to make a few brief comments:

* The verdict was wrong.  There was nothing that Rodney King could have
  done that could justify the violence those policemen used to subdue
  him.  I can only hope that the subsequent federal investigation comes
  to a more reasonable conclusion.

* This Sunday's {Los Angeles Times} contains a very reasonable proposal
  for the creation of an independent prosecutor whose job is limited to
  trying cases involving police and other public officials.  It has been
  tried successfully in Philadelphia, and needs to be used in the City
  of Angels.

* Whites need to recognize the legitimate concerns of blacks that the
  judicial system has collapsed for them.  Part of this problem is that
  Los Angeles is woefully underpoliced to begin with, which has lead to
  the cops' paramilitary stance, whereby they hope to frighten residents
  into lawfulness.  It hasn't worked, nor will it.  If, as Lincoln
  believed, governance flows from the people, then cooperation with the
  governed -- and therefore, the policed -- is crucial.  We simply
  cannot afford to have cops out there who believe that black men are
  automatically suspects.

* Blacks need to understand that attempts to sweep criminal activity
  under the rug of race won't do.  Too many were the cries that Marion
  Berry's accusers were motivated by racial rather than legal or
  political issues.  The ethnic exclusionists only worsen the situation
  with their creed, "It's a black thang -- you wouldn't understand."
  People of EVERY color -- white, black, brown, yellow -- were busy
  looting.  We all saw it on CNN and the local news.  Now, maybe, we ALL
  can start calling a criminal a criminal, regardless of what color his
  skin is.

* Lastly, unless we do something constructive about the underclass in
  our cities, and by this I do not mean the big-spending giveaway
  programs that serve to feed bureaucrats at the expense of those they
  purportedly help, we will find ourselves in a few years taking
  bulldozers to entire neighborhoods and simply starting over.  The
  redistributionists, for whom capitalism is a four-letter word, have
  already started to crawl onto the Times' editorial pages.  Let us hope
  that their rancid ideas for state-run looting don't seal the fate of
  the urban poor.

It's been a scary, scary week.  The most awful thing, though, is that
the blacks I've talked to say that this is just the beginning.  I hope
it is not true, but fear they are right.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Declan McCullagh)
Subject: Re: It's a Riot
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 04:37:00 GMT


Robert L. McMillin (rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com) writes:

> Pacific Bell, the only telco in the area of the disaster, has urged
> all residents in South Central to stay off the phone lines, since the
> local exchanges are all but completely busy.

Does anyone have any more information on how this disaster has
affected telephone service?

At a Jerry Brown campaign meeting in Washington, DC this morning,
Brown was supposed to call from Los Angeles to speak to us via
speakerphone.  Unfortunately, even at 6:30 AM in California, it took
the Governor over half an hour to place the call and we missed him by
a few minutes.


Declan       [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 May 92 23:25 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Riots in L.A.


aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm) writes:

> As far as telecom issues go, (my theory on the cause of this whole
> thing is that people are protesting the end of the 213/310 area code
> permissive dialing on Saturday :))

Well, it apparently worked. Implementation of mandatory 213/310
prefixing has been delayed "indefinitely". Since Pacific Bell is so
busy fixing the damage, it does not want to complicate matters with
another major event. In addition, the company does not any confusion
with emergency calls and complication of restoration activities.

Maybe we should have done that here to dump this stupid 510 business :-)

Wait until you find out what the 714/909 folks have in store ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: Telecom While LA Burns
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 03:32:58 GMT


All of this suggests that we need a plan for using the Internet as a
carrier of emergency message traffic when the telephone network is
overloaded or inoperative.

Traditionally, amateur radio is the alternative to the telephone in
times of crisis, and hams have very elaborate organizations that can
swing into action quickly.

The Internet needs a plan for doing the same.

Example: Every UCLA student probably wants to call home.  How about
having them report to the computer labs (or call the computer labs via
internal un-disrupted telephone), where messages about their welfare
could be sent by Internet to sites near their parents' homes, and
delivered by telephone from there?

The crisis is over now, but you see the idea.


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  [e-mail]  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 3 May 92 04:52:00 UT
Subject: Re: Riots in LA


Well all seems to be ok for now. But then there is a dusk to dawn
curfew (which was lifted on Monday).  As to GTE areas we have had a
few dial tone problems, but that is from 'hey, there is a problem
let's see if the phones work.' We had the same problem with the
earthquake.

Some newscaster had said that two of the people on the jury were GTE
employee's so we have had some problems. In fact one of them was a
PacBell Tech and the other was a splicer for Edision. I could not
believe that the {Daily News} in LA (San Fernando Valley -- it was the
{Valley News & Green Sheet} when I was young) published the names,
hometowns and interests each of each of the jury.  That is just real
poor judgment and could put these people in danger, but then the paper
has the right and the people don't.


Steven H. Lichter    GTECA   COEI


[Moderator's Note: The names and addresses of members of the jury are
public records, available for inspection by the public. And for those
who question the makeup of the jury, please remember the constitution
calls for a jury of the *defendant's* peers ... not the victim's
peers. The defendants were white police officers.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: 213/310 Permissive Dialing Ends (No, Not Yet)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Date: Sun, 3 May 92 05:05:07 GMT


213/310 permissive dialing =was= scheduled to end early on the morning
of May 2.

However, the local phone folks announced that the cutover was being
postponed because of the unrest.  I heard this on a TV news report.

At least two reasons were given: (1) things were hectic enough down
here right now without having to add another complication; and (2) the
final cutover would require extra access to phone company buildings,
and it was better not to make the employees do this during the present
situation.

In any case, it would clearly be best for everyone to act as if the
cutover had already taken place and ignore the permissive dialing per-
iod altogether.


Rich Wales <[e-mail]> // UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 92 9:07:29 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LA Riots Cause 213/310 Split to be Postponed


You were talking about the full cutover (i.e. would no longer be able
to use 213 to reach 310).  I have never heard of such a postponement
before.  Please keep us posted, because my archives file will be
affected as well.

{USA Today}, which is not a local paper (and could make some mistakes
regarding local situations?), mentions the full cutover today:

"AREA CODE: Besides their other problems, some Los Angeles telephone
customers began operating with a new long-distance area code -- 310.
Since November, callers to those affected could use either code, but
the 213 code was replaced for about 2.4 million customers Saturday."

I have the full cutover for 415/510 as Jan. 27, 1992.  There was a big
fire in the hills near Oakland not long ago; that was after the full
cutover there?  This Digest noted that some publications at that time
forgot that there was a new area code in Oakland.

I have just called 213-825-4321 at UCLA and it worked.  This was in
Maryland.  If the full cutover of 310 was now in effect, it should NOT
have worked.

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 92 17:19 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Out From LA


Well now that the riots are over (I hope) and 80% of residential
service has been restored, I have time to read my e-mail.

I had a few telecom problems during the riots obviously due to
overloaded trunks. I don't understand a couple of them. From my home
modem in Long Beach (ac310) I dial our HDMS dial back security system
in Cypress (ac714). I get a dial tone OK and an answer. I enter my
username and password, hang up and wait for call-back. The call-back
never came. I could dial out fine from within the riot zone, but the
call-back which comes from the safe haven of Orange County had
trouble. Why is that?

The other problem was with LD. When I tried to call to Mass (ac508) or
IL (ac708) I got the "all circuits busy" BEFORE finishing the number.
I would enter 1-508-8 and then instantly get the busy message. Why is
that?

Thanks in advance!


Matt Holdrege  [e-mail]  714-229-2518 Pacificare Health Systems

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: L.A. Disturbances and Telecom
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 01:48:38 GMT


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

> The further you go from South-Central L.A. (an economically deprived
> part of town in the downtown area) the more the problems were spotty
> or non-existent.

Calling South-Central a part of town in the downtown area is
preposterous and reflects, I suspect, a Westside yuppie's blinders to
the rest of the city. South-Central starts at Pico -- which is the
equivalent of 13th street -- and runs down to El Segundo Blvd. -- which
is about 127th. That is 114 blocks, which is no closer to Downtown
than Beverly Hills.  BUT, in the minds eye of a Westside type, that's
"All down there", I suppose.

> than smoke blowing around widely (even though fires weren't widely
> spread geographically),

I live in the Baldwin Hills, which is just about the geographical
dead-center of the "Central/Western" AAA map. I look out (with a 210
degree view) over the whole of LA, Westwood through Beverly Hills to
Hollywood to Downtown to the Eastside to South Central and down to
Long Beach. My field of view was a mass of smoke and fires, visible in
Hollywood, out on La Cienega, all across the city. There were, at any
one time on Thursday afternoon, probably 30 fires going at once and
many more burned out and smouldering.

> According to my telco sources, almost all of the problems were caused
> by overloading.  Slow dialtone for sure on Thursday (15-30 seconds
> much of the time).

Try typically 60 seconds. It took me five minutes to get dialtone, and
a half-dozen tries to reach 911 before I got something besides "busy".
Trouble with getting interoffice trunks the same.

> By Friday morning, most telecom seemed pretty much back to normal in
> most West Los Angeles exchanges at least.

That's the key phrase "West Los Angeles". It's served by GTE, whose
equipment was probably completely un-impacted by 911 calls. They were
probably frantic calls trying to locate spouses, etc, rather than
emergency calls.

> continuing nightly city-wide curfew to be pretty silly.  Many feel
> that it has been imposed city-wide only to avoid accusations of
> discrimination (e.g., why was the curfew only imposed on "poor" areas
> of the city?).

That's right, and that's the only fair way to do it.

> The irony is that now that it's essentially over, there are National
> Guard units being sent in and Marines are "standing by".  A little
> fast action could have avoided a lot of grief for some people.  The
> whole thing could probably have been avoided by some fast action at
> the scene of the first incident on Wednesday.

I'll agree to that! Gates' ego could not admit that he wasn't prepared
for what happened and that he couldn't handle it. So he stalled. He
wouldn't even talk to the Mayor. If they hadn't run into each other at
the command post, they never would have talked.

Here is an unconfirmed bit of information which I think is extremely
reliable:

Before it all started, LAPD at the corner of Normandie and Manchester
were taunting some gangbangers about the verdict. The crowd got ugly,
the LAPD called for backup. Five cars came, they shagged out of there,
leaving the poor random citizens who subsequently came through the
intersection to suffer the wrath of an incensed crowd. Trucker
Reginald Denny's beating on TV was one of the results.

I called the LAPD Wednesday night when I heard distant shouts, looked
out my view windows and saw, with binoculars, a crowd looting a
swapmeet building. The LAPD showed up [after 20 minutes] in two cars,
four officers total, told everyone to drop the stuff and go home,
waited until the looters had left and split. The looters came back. I
called again. This time they came back with eight cars, did the same
thing. One tidbit overheard via the police megaphone and the wonders
of uphill sound transmission (I live nearly 1000 feet away and 16
stories above the area in question):

"Put down the merchandise. Put it down. Look man, I've got your
license number [all these thieves had cars and were loading]. Do you
want me to come to your house? Come on Homie, don't be a fool. Put it
down."  Homeboy put it down, got in his car, drove away.

Absolutely no arrests were made, in either arrival. The LAPD. As they
say so well in Iowa "worthless as teats on a boar hog."  I hate to be
a Monday morning quarterback, but if they had handcuffed a couple of
looters near the entrance and left just one Black-and-White on
location, I'll bet a lot less looting would have taken place. It was
the clear understanding that no one was going to get arrested that
encouraged the looters to get everything they could.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #367
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06420;
          6 May 92 3:40 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29482
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 01:47:02 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20453
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 01:46:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 01:46:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #368

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 May 92 01:46:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 368

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rodney King Riots -- City of L.A. (John Schofield)
    LA Information Wants to Know if "I'm a Relative?" (Jonathan Welch)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not? (George Browning)
    Ma Bell and the Flood (Max Moen and Jack Boogaart, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D (Todd Inch)
    Re: USWEST Wants to Hose Me! ([e-mail])
    USWEST Still Trying to Hose Me (Scott Colbath)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Rodney King Riots -- City of L.A.
From: [e-mail] (John Schofield)
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 13:09:49 PDT
Organization: Quake Public Access


Well, the riots are over!  I live in the San Fernando Valley, which
was almost totally unafected by the violence.  The pall of smoke that
hung over much of the city Thursday and Friday was totally gone by
Saturday.  I am a photojournalism student at a local college, and I
drove down to the most affected areas yesterday (Saturday).  While we
got some extremely poisonous glares (we're both white), everyone we
talked to was friendly and open.  People were telling us where the
best burned out buildings were, and everyone smiled once we made the
first step of talking to them.

Burned out buildings and national guardsmen were everywhere!  The city
was truely on fire Thursday and Friday, with over 40 people dead from
the rits and over 3000 fires lit.  I must emphasize, however, that it
is safe again in L.A. (as much as it ever was <sad grin>) and that
most of the city was not affected in any material way by the fires or
civil unrest.


[Moderator's Note: Not affected in any material way? The hell you say!
The city as a whole will not recover for many years. Chicago still has
not recovered from the riots in 1968, with the west side still in
ruins over an area of several miles.  You'll see!   PAT]

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

From: Jonathan_Welch <[e-mail]>
Subject: LA Information Wants to Know if "I'm a Relative?"
Date: 4 May 92 07:50:27 GMT


Over the weekend I called LA information to obtain a friend's phone
number.  After giving the name I expected to hear the number spit out
to me but instead the operator asked me a question which, in my
confusion, sounded like "are they a resident?" to which I bindly
answered yes.

Thinking about this later I realized that they had really asked "are
you a relative?"  Is this something that was put into place to help
keep the phone system from being overloaded during the riots or is
there a flag that can be put on accounts to help protect one's number
from non-relatives?


Jonathan Welch  VAX Systems Manager  Umass/Amherst  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Tue, 05 May 1992 03:01:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?


   To put an end to the earlier discussion, I have determined how to
send internet mail both to and from America Online.

 From AOL to Internet, address mail to:

Inet@[e-mail]

[Note that there are two '@' signs in that address.]

 From Internet to AOL, address mail to:

[e-mail]

Any questions about this gateway should be addressed to:

[e-mail]

There is no charge levied for mail passing in either direction, other
than regular connect charges.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Is America Online Connected to the Internet or Not?
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 16:42:06 EDT


I have read many postings about America Online and the Internet in
this newsgroup.  Since some of the information has been not quite
right I figured I should make a posting to clear up any misconseptions
that might exist.  There is an America Online gateway to Internet.  It
is now going into 'open' beta testing.  To send mail to an America
Online, Promenade or PC-Link user you need to know the user's screen
name.  The only way to get a user's screen name is to contact them by
other means (ie there is no name server).  Once you know a user's
screen name remove any spaces, make it lower case, and append
@aol.com.  For example to send to the screen name A User you would
address your mail to [e-mail].

To send mail from America Online to the Internet you simply put the
Internet address in the To: field on the regular mail form.  In a
previous post the question was posed as to whether or not there are
'special' gateways for Compuserve, MCI Mail etc.  The answer is no,
there are not.  For some of the more popular services abbreviations
have been created; for example to send to a Compuserve user you can
use the address 123.4567@cis.  Additional information can be found on
America Online by using the keyword InetBeta.  There is no additional
charge for using the Internet mail gateway.  Mail is limited to around
27k bytes in both directions.  If you notice any problems with this
gateway please send mail to [e-mail] from the Internet or
inetbeta from America Online.


George Browning Programmer/Analyst    [e-mail]

** BETA TEST MAIL Report bugs to [e-mail] **

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

Date: Sat, 2 May 92 16:40:30 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ma Bell and the Flood


The following message was found in the Fidonet MDF echomail
conference, although the message indicates it was originally posted in
the RelayNet PHONES conference.  See also the reply which follows.


 Original From: Max Moen
            To: All
       Subject: Ma Bell & The Flood

[forwarded by RelayNet's PHONES conference]
                       MA BELL AND THE CHICAGO FLOOD

     Since I work in the Chicago central office that serves the area
flooded out in our fair city's recent tunnel disaster I thought some
of you might be interested in hearing how Ma Bell fared in this
crisis.

     If you could see, me you'd see an ear to ear grin.

     The Windy city is about as flat as a pool table, but there are a
handful of well known ridges that were once ancient shorelines for
what geologists call Lake Chicago (at one time the communities of
Summit and Blue Island were the only areas of Cook County above what
is now called Lake Michigan).  Chicago was slough and wetlands area
until the 1880's when George Pullman proposed raising the city up on
at least six feet of topsoil.  Actually, Pullman meant to level the
city off, so to speak, but the City Council didn't understand and
passed a law that said six feet from the present level.  For that
reason we still have those few ridges left (they're just six feet
higher and we still get flooding, just not as much) and as fate would
have it, the Franklin Central Office is about 3/4's of the way up one
of them.  We were like Moses in the Red Sea, floods to the east of us,
floods to the west of us, but even our sewer didn't fill up, the muck
just flowed past.

     They didn't even cut off our electricity, the boundary was the
alley behind us!  If they had, of course, our diesels could have
handled the load until the fuel ran out.  For the first few days we
ran the diesels and powered the equipment from them just in case, but
the building remained on Edison power and we never even shut off the
elevator (phew).

     If you thought Hinsdale was a big deal, that's a two story
building; Franklin is 18 stories, it services almost the entire Loop
and everyone from the FAA to Network Television has circuits going
through there.

     Actually, the likelihood of a flood taking out an Illinois Bell
central office is pretty slim.  The only time it did happen was
because a once in a hundred year flood hit while the office was under
construction and the emergency systems were shut down (i.e. someone
really screwed up).  BTW, we had two "once in a hundred years" floods
in a row; the previous one was 45 years ago.

     Each C.O. has the power plant and batteries located at the
highest point, if it's a level basement, the plant is located on an
elevated platform.  Each C.O. is provided with a special high volume
flush valve that is said to pump thousands of gallons a second from a
basement.  Of course, they weren't expecting the whole Chicago River
to show up as was this case.  At one point the Board of Trade building
was pumping 2500 gallons a minute and still saw the water level
rising.

     Our only real involvement has been in relocating the telephone
services of those companies that have temporarily moved.  The only
real problem we had there is that one of our Vice Presidents promised
all sorts of people all sorts of extreme due dates, but nobody really
called out the troops over the weekend to do all the necessary
rewiring.  It was pretty frantic Monday morning, but we seem to have
met the commitments.


SLMR 2.1a #T348  "What a bunch a maroons"
PCRelay:BMCBBS -> #351 RelayNet (tm)
4.11   Bell Microcomputer Club, Chicago 312-727-5043
Mosaic v0.99/l
* Origin: *Cloud Nine BBS* 9 Gig on line 713-855-4385 (1:106/99)

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

This reply to Max Moen's message on the Chicago Flood was found in the
Fidonet MDF echomail conference:

 Original From: Bill Boogaart
            To: Max Moen
       Subject: Ma Bell & The Flood

In a message of <Apr 26 20:17>, Max Moen (1:106/99) writes:

 MM> because a once in a hundred year flood hit while the office
 MM> was under construction.

Hmm. Lessee. Back about 1974 I worked in the Kingsland CO in Calgary
where it was decided that the roof needed replacing. So, off came the
roof; in came the big black cloud which parked itself over the
building and dumped gallons of water onto the building. It rained as
hard over several banks of line finders, connectors, E6 repeaters and
the MDF as it did outside the building. One CO man was soaked from
head to toe as he tried to pull plastic sheets over the cable runways.
Waste of time, as it was all in vain. The SP-1 office was miraculously
spared. The old stepper was eventually replaced with a DMS100 and the
SP-1 and the DMS100 have both since been replaced with a DMS100
Supernode.

Next exciting time I had was in the Killarney CO where the roof was
removed to put a second floor onto the building to house the SP-1
addition to handle the growth in the area. Same thing happened there.
We had hair dryers and pressure cleaning fans running in there for a
week to try and dry things out. Green grunge on selector banks for
months afterwards, along with all sorts of noise trouble reports.
Both the old stepper and the SP-1 followed the same path as the
Kingsland equipment.

My final experience with water was when a watermain burst just outside
the Calgary Westin hotel. Flooded the hotel's basement and the NEC
NA4-09 crossbar PABX that was in it. There it sat in four feet of
water. No-one wanted to wade over to the rectifiers to shut them off
and the battery string was just gurgling away! The 4-09 was a
write-off and was replaced with a GTD-1000. The only saving grace was
that it happened a couple of days before Christmas and the hotel was
for all intents and purposes empty. Anyway, I don't know what was
worse ... the NA4-09 or the GTD. Eventually the GTD got flooded out
too (leaky toilet on the floor above) and was replaced with a nice
Northern Sl-1.


Bill      msged 2.07
* Origin: Gorre & Daphetid BBS - Calgary AB Canada HST DS (1:134/14)

                        --------

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Using Answering Machine With Panasonic KX-T123211D
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 22:22:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> Has anyone else here experienced any problems using an answering
> machine with the Panasonic KX-T123211D EMSS?

And says it essentially no longer detects "hangup" signals from the CO
when wired behind the Panasonic.

I'm guessing the Panasonic is a small PBX or hybrid key system?  (I
have no clue what a EMSS is.)

I would assume that very few PBX's pass the flash or polarity reversal
from the CO on to the individual extension circuits.  Personally, I'd
put it "in front" of the PBX instead of "behind" it, connecting
directly to the CO line.  If you have several lines or want to call it
from a PBX extension (to retrieve messages using an in-house phone,
for example), a two-line adapter device might work.

Now somebody with more experience will follow up with some REAL
advice.   :-).

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USWEST Wants to Hose Me!
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 01:45:10 PDT


[e-mail] (Scott Colbath) wrote that he could not
get a third line because no lines were available, and they wanted
$1000 to add more equipment, etc ...

In about the last seven places I have lived I have added a second
line ... first because I had a roommate and we wanted our own lines,
then later because of my computer modem use. In the early instances
they just ran another line from the nearest phone pole (evidently the
existing wiring did not have two pairs.)

Then I moved into a house pre-wired for two lines (from the previous
occupant) but was told due to rapid expansion in the area I could not
only not get two lines, but couldn't even get one line for a few weeks!
Actually, a few days later the phone company had a technician spend
hours moving wires around and somehow came up with two free pairs (or
so they told me.)

Later, I was living on a dead-end street and was told no pairs were
available or would ever be available, so they piggy-backed a second
line with a frequency shifter that put my call on top of the existing
line.  It had a little rechargable battery that trickle charged from
the line ... if I made hours of calls in a single day the battery would
run down to the point I could not use the line.

Then I moved to Oakland, California and was cheered up over the
prospect of getting two real lines again, partially because many of my
two-line phones features, such as the memory and line use indicator
did not work on the funny line.  Guess what -- they gave me a real line
and a frequency multiplexed line.  Even then they had to run a line
from down the street about one hundred yards.

   Perhaps others can use this 'old' but useful technology to work
around a limit of wires. As more and more people add fax machines and
modems, the line shortage may grow instead of shrinking!


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: USWEST Still Trying to Hose Me
Date: 4 May 92 17:55:34 GMT


Well ... those boneheads may have me but ... I'm not giving up yet.

    According to a tariff named A4 (don't ask me why) the flat
rate of $1035 dollars is a valid amount for any and all situations
where the street needs to be dug up. This comes from the ACC which
sets or qualifies these prices here in Arizona. I am going to
challenge the charge.

    There was a device called SLC-1, aka slick-1 which used a
battery in the central office and one at the home externally which
allowed a second signal to be carried over the same voice line. These
are being pulled due to their inability to work with such things as
call waiting, voice messaging etc. In addition, there is a distance
limitation of approximatly one mile on this device from the central
office to the home. I come in at the two mile mark.

    All of this information comes to me via the USWEST engineer
for my area. If anyone has opinions on this which may differ or add
more information, I'm open to suggestions. I had one last idea, that
being, see if I could get a bordering neighbor who has only one line
in use to let me use their free line and bury it all the way to my
house. The USWEST rep said this could be a possibility and he is
looking into it.

    Thanks to all who responded on the first round of this fun
with phones.


Scott Colbath    Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.  [phone]
Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If a bordering neighbor has an unused pair, it is
probably already multipled on the pole behind your house and could be
brought in normally. Anyway, if there is *at least one* spare pair in
the vicinity which is multipled to the pole or drop near you, I can't
see how telco can hold you responsible for the costs of street
excavation. I don't think they can hold out the pair from you merely in
order to service a possible new (single line) subscriber who might
come along later and be angry that *they* had to pay the big $$ to get
a line installed. Are you *sure* no more pairs are available or that
just what telco is saying to get a handout to help with the cost of a
new cable in the near future?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #368
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08171;
          6 May 92 4:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22378
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20616
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:03 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 02:31:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #369

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 May 92 02:31:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 369

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CompuServe Mail Charges (Sam Neely)
    Re: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines (Greg M. Paris)
    Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA (Warren Burstein)
    Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA? (John R. Levine)
    New AT&T USA Direct Services (Joe Lushnia, ATT News via Fred E.J. Linton)
    Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Phone + Wardialer ([e-mail])
    Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill (Kevin Crowston)
    Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End (Phil Howard)
    Re: What Telcos REALLY Want (Sean N. Welch)
    Incoming Phone Line Question ([e-mail])
    Computerized Fax Handler (Graeme G. Love)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 03 May 92 21:04:28 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CompuServe Mail Charges


[e-mail] (Ken Jongsma) wrote:

> Being a rather heavy user of Compuserve, I think I ought to clear
> something up. In one of his commentaries the other day, Pat said that
> Compuserve charges for Internet mail. That is only partially true.

> Compuserve's old billing plan (now called the "alternative plan")
> charges each user $2 per month as an administrative charge, followed
> by a per minute rate that depends on the speed of your connection.
> There is no per message charge or surcharge for sending or receiving
> Internet mail under this plan.

> Compuserve's new billing plan (called the "standard plan") charges
> each user $7.95 per month. A number of services are then provided with
> no additional connect charges. (The most popular services, the
> "forums" are not included in this flat rate.) Someone subscribing to
> the standard plan is given an email allowance of $9 per month to cover
> use of the CIS mail system. However, Internet mail is not covered by
> the allowance and is billed on a per message basis for send and
> receive. One is given the option of deleting Internet mail prior to
> reading it if one does not wish to pay for it.

This is not entirely correct.  Internet mail IS covered by the monthly
allowance.  Here is the scoop directly from the rates database.  (GO
MAILCHARGES)

COMPUSERVE MAIL RATES FOR STANDARD PRICING PLAN

Your CompuServe membership of $7.95 per month includes an electronic
mail allowance of $9.00.  With this allowance you can send up to the
equivalent of 60 three page messages per month with no additional
charge.  Note: Each 2,500 characters is about one double-spaced page.)
This monthly allowance applies to both ASCII and binary messages. Your
remaining message allowance expires at the end of each month.

**The following is included in your monthly allowance:

 Send Mail (per message):*
 first 7500 characters            $ .15
 additional 2500 characters       $ .05

 Receipt Requested:
 per recipient                    $ .15

 Read/Download Internet Messages:**
 first 7500 characters            $ .15
 additional 2500 characters       $ .05

* The charge per message is multiplied by the number of recipients you
have chosen to receive your message. Surcharged messages, such a
Congressgrams, fax, telex, and postal are not included in the $9.00
monthly allowance.

** If Internet messages are deleted without reading or automatically
deleted by the system after 30 days, no charges are incurred.

NOTE: In general, you do not pay to read messages, except messages
received from Internet.


Sam Neely, CompuServe Incorporated                  [phone] (voice)
5000 Arlington Centre Blvd, Columbus, OH  43220     [phone] (FAX)
Electronic Mail:  InfoPlex: >CSI:SAM      Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 92 09:23:35 -0400
From: "Gregory M. Paris" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Phones and Answering Machines


In comp.dcom.telecom Mitch Wagner writes:

> I said this sounded great, but why two answering machines? He said
> that the double-line answering machines that he had shopped for lacked
> features that allow you to rewind and review messages from a remote
> phone, and were generally shoddily made and broke down. As a matter of
> fact, he told me, only the AT&T answering machine was able to stand up
> under heavy use of this type.

> Okay, said I, but why two phones? Why not a two-line phone?

I don't claim to know all the pros and cons of other possible
arrangements, but our arangement is as follows.  We have two lines, a
two line answering machine and a two line phone.  One line is set to
hunt to the other; I couldn't get New England Telephone to make both
hunt to each other.  (As has been mentioned here before, hunting
doesn't cost anything, neither for the initial installation nor as a
monthly fee.)

With this arrangement, I make outgoing calls on the line that hunts;
that way any incoming calls can be picked up by the answering machine.
(By the way, I despise call waiting and don't have it.)  We give out
one number to friends and family (no connection with MCI) and give the
other to acquaintances and those of lesser relation.

Our two line answering machine is the AT&T 1332.  It works well enough
and does allow calling in and replaying messages and a bunch of other
functions.  I wish it stored the announcements (it can handle four of
them) in NVRAM instead of on tape; it does a whole lot of clicking and
tape motion every time one of the phone lines rings.  If you listen to
your messages but don't rewind them, the "new messages" light keeps
blinking -- a big misfeature in my book.  It also won't record TDD
messages (though many other answering machines won't either).

A good argument could be made for buying two separate machines with
more/better features and/or fewer bugs, but the convenience of having
all messages on one tape (it identifies which line each message came
in on) shouldn't be neglected.

I don't know why someone would recommend two phones instead of a two
line phone; I really like ours.  One thing you can't get from separate
phones is that it lets you join the two lines for a conference call; I
never use that feature, but it might be handy for others.


Greg Paris <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA  02048-1193
Office: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; Home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Toll Free Calling From Israel to USA
Date: 4 May 92 09:06:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The USA Direct operators are located in the IOC
> (International Operating Center) of AT&T in Pittsburg, PA.]

Thanks.

> [Is there any particular reason our correspondent could find nothing
published in the phone books there about 177 or could find no one at
telco to discuss it (or claims he couldn't)?  PAT]

Actually I could not find information about 177 in the 1992 Jerusalem
phone book (aside from mention of a few 177 numbers operated by the
telco) but he said that he recognized 177 as the "Israeli 800" and I
think what he meant is that the telco would not discuss the particular
numbers in question.  Maybe he meant that they wouldn't tell him who
they belonged to.


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: IXC's Carrying Intra-LATA?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 05 May 92 17:34:00 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Is there any general rule on whether inter-state intra-LATA traffic is
open to competition?  There are quite a few LATAs that span state
boundaries, e.g.  the Philadelphia LATA includes all of Delaware, and
one town in northwestern New Jersey is actually in the northeastern
Pennsylvania LATA.


Regards,

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

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

Date: 05-MAY-1992 22:19:22.64
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T USA Direct Services


If the following *didn't* start here, in c.d.telecom, perhaps it would
be worth sharing (I found it in s.c.polish):

 From: [e-mail] (joseph.s.lushnia)

I came across the following announcement in another news group and
thought it might be of interest to the readers of this news group.

        Wednesday, April 22, 1992 -- Noon EDT

AT&T today introduced a new service for the residents of China that
makes calling relatives and friends in the U.S. easy, affordable and
reliable.  The new service -- AT&T USADirect Service In-Chinese --
allows callers to place calls to the U.S.  with the assistance of a
Chinese-speaking AT&T operator located in the U.S.  Calls can be made
from virtually any phone, including home phones, calling centers and
other public telephones.  To access the service, a caller only needs
to dial 10810.  An AT&T operator in the U.S. who speaks Mandarin
Chinese will answer, take the phone number and name of the person
called, and place the call.  Calls will be billed to the person
accepting the call.

AT&T today also introduced a similar service for the residents of
Poland -- AT&T USADirect Service In-Polish -- which allows customers
to place calls to the U.S. with the assistance of a Polish-speaking
AT&T operator located in the U.S.  Calls can be made from any phone in
Poland that has international direct-dial capability.  To access the
service, a caller must dial 0, wait for a second dial tone, and then
dial the number 010-480-0112.  From some large businesses and hotels
in Warsaw, a customer simply dials 010-480-0112.  An AT&T operator in
the U.S. who speaks Polish will answer, take the phone number and name
of the person being called, and place the call.  Calls will be billed
to the person accepting the call.  With today's announcements, AT&T
USADirect Service In-Language is being offered in 15 countries and
three languages: Spanish, Polish and Chinese.


Joe Lushnia,  AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Naperville, Illinois
              email: att!ihlpb!lushnia
              phone: [phone]

                            ---

Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Worth it to Use Hotel Room Phone? + Wardialers
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 09:09:35 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Sure. All Australians can immigrate to Holland, and
> learn to bypass the billing equipment!    PAT]

In my wildest dreams ... although I do plan on moving back to USA.
Incidently, has anyone heard any news on the deregulation of the
monopoly Australian Telecom has on the business? What fees will the
competitors charge? Are there any chances of free local calls and
Wardialing like the good old days? :-)


TIE

[Moderator's Note: The return of free local calls in places where they
have been discontinued is very unlikely. The modem users, phreaks and
work-from-home telemarketers abused it too badly in most places.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Crowston)
Subject: Re: Lookee What Michigan Bell Put in My Bill
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 13:25:42 EDT
Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ. of Michigan


I believe that local service in Michigan was also deregulated.  For
example, University of Michigan uses (or used -- they might have
switched) AT&T for intra-LATA calls from Ann Arbor to Detroit.
However, this option is really only available to large companies
who've already bypassed the LEC.  As I understand it, Michigan Bell
does not have to allow its subscribers to access another carrier for
these calls and chooses not to.  I should research this more; if I
find something different I'll report back.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller-ID Twist: Blocking at the Far End
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 20:51:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: You've got some things wrong. One, the calling
> number *is* frequently passed along; the other telcos en route just
> choose to not give it to the end user. Two, the phone number in and of
> itself is not adequate to send a bill. Send it to who, where?  Under
> the rules, the local telcos must share their data base with long
> distance carriers for billing purposes on request.  No choice in the
> matter either way, whether your phone is listed or non-pub.  PAT]

Can they give this information to any LD carrier or just the ones you
actually place a call through?


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


[Moderator's Note: I believe the LD carrier has to be trying to bill
you. It can't be just for marketing purposes.   PAT]

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

From: Sean N. Welch <[e-mail]>
Organization: Experimental Computing Facility, UC Berkeley
Subject: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want
Date: Sun, 03 May 92 13:55:16 -0700


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

> A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco Chronicle} is a
> great indicator of the future of telephony as seen from the eyes of an
> LEC.

Let me start with a disclaimer that I haven't read the article.  I'd
like to know what day it was reported, however, so I can go look it
up.

[...]

> So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along?  Probably nothing.

Pacific Bell is a large company, and it is moving in several
directions at once.  I make no claims as to having an understanding of
any large scale goals it might have, but I can tell you what I know.
Pacific Bell has been involved with a project at UC Berkeley for the
last year that involves bring ISDN to the campus.  To this end, there
are a number of lines in labs (somewhere on the order of a dozen) and
a number of lines into homes of people involved with the project.  In
addition, there are a few Frame Relay lines.  Work has focused on
expanding the campus network by sending IP over ISDN, connecting to a
Frame relay network via ISDN, and exploring the feasibility of sending
video over ISDN/Frame Relay.  The project is expected to continue at
least through next year.  While this may be an isolated case, there is
at least some interest in ISDN as a generally available service within
Pacific Bell.

Let me finish this with a disclaimer that I don't speak for Pacific
Bell, UC Berkeley, or the ISDN project.  I'm involved with all three,
but not as a spokesman.


Sean Welch                        [e-mail]
Experimental Computing Facility   ISDN: [phone]

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

From: Ron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Incoming Phone Line Question
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 6:29:28 CDT


I've got a friend that is moving into an apartment soon and would like
to have one phone line handle multiple functions.  He'd like a switch
box or some other device to be able to detect whether the incoming
call is fax, data, or voice and direct it to the proper device, (ie
fax call to the fax machine, data call to the modem, and a voice call
to the regular phone/answering machine.)

I know there are fax/data switches out there, but I haven't seen one
that could also handle a voice call.  Any recommendations?


Thanks,

Ron                      | Lightning Systems, INC.
[e-mail]  | [phone]  62megs
carroll1![e-mail] | 14.4k HST/V.32bis

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

From: Graeme G Love IE90 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computerized Fax Handler
Date: 5 May 92 11:27:33 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.


I am currently working on a project to provide our CS computer network
with fax handling capabilities. The system is a SUN network and it is
desired to be able to do the handling through e-mail by putting a
telephone number in the To field. Due to the short time with which I
have to do this project, I have been looking around for equipment
which could make my job easier. Therefore I am looking for a fax
machine with an RS-232 port and character generator, or a fax card for
a unix box. If anyone knows of such equipment, where I can get it,
cost, etc. then please reply through e-mail. At the very least I am
looking for standard ICs which I could build into a board.

Ta.

JANET: [e-mail]   Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #369
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06738;
          7 May 92 4:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00282
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20382
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 02:28:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #370

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 May 92 02:28:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 370

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Juan Osuna)
    Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Carl Moore)
    800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers ([e-mail])
    Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Byron Jeff)
    FAQ List Updating (David Leibold)
    Re: The Beeper Scam That Isn't (Chris Johnston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 May 92 01:19:17 GMT+0200
From: "Juan Osuna" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam


In a recent message, the Moderator noted:

> As to the case at hand, 312-296-9000 is a harmless bunch of dweebs
> called 'MCS Associates' at 2708 North Halsted Street, Chicago. A
> nuisance yes, but harmless. 312-296 is just a regular exchange here,
> working out of the Chicago-Lakeview CO. They call all over the USA.
> Since we don't have Randy Borow to kick around any more (smile), I
> can't tell you anything about their calling patterns. You do not get
> automatically charged for anything when you call; you have to speak
> with an actual person, buy his pitch, etc. The rule about machines
> calling humans in California only applies to calls intra-state,
> since California cannot regulate interstate matters. I suggest you
> advise 'security' they are full of Gas.

I did an in-depth story on the operators of 312-296-9000 for a {The
Bloomington Voice}, a local paper in Bloomington, IN.  Beleive me they
are not dweebs, and they are not harmless.  By asking for the checking
account numbers of people who call them, they were able, in at least
one case I know of, to withdraw money from someone's account without
authorization.  This type of check fraud, which involves printing fake
demand drafts, has become a major problem over the last two years.

Also, the operators of 312-296-9000 appear to have violated an Indiana
law that requires auto-dailers to begin messages with information
describing who the telemarketers are and what they are selling.

The name "MSC Associates" does not sound familiar to me.  Here in
Indiana, they have identified themselves as "American Consumer
Services."  One victim in Bloomington, IN, had money siphoned off his
checking account shortly after he called ACS back. The money was
deposited into the account of TRA Marketing Inc. at North Community
Bank in Chicago.

Incidently, the victim lost $239 and never received a prize like he
was promised.

I am hoping to do follow-up stories on this case.  I'd appreciate
anyone with information concerning these telemarketers to post, send
e-mail, or write:


Juan Antonio Osuna
P.O. Box 6121
Bloomington, IN 47407-6121


[Moderator's Note: Well, but my point was *merely calling the number*
will not cause any charges to appear on your bill. It is true they are
very glib and convincing in their appeal; some people definitly have
fallen for it. I will give you a bit more information for your next
newspaper story however:

TRA Marketing, Inc. is the sole invention and property of a fellow by
the name of Louis E. Garcia, 1953 North Hudson Avenue, Chicago 60614.
That address is his home, and the phone there is non-pub. You can
probably understand why. You might want to write or otherwise contact
Mr. Garcia about any unfinished business.

MCS Associates, Inc. is the creation of Morris Spector and Carol
Spector; thus the 'MCS' in the name. Morris is the President and the
Registered Agent for process of legal service. Their residence address
is 1550 North State Parkway, Chicago, IL 60610; their home telephone
number is 312-280-1784.  You may want to talk to them also!  :)

And I remind you that Indiana laws, like California laws, mean
diddly-squat in interstate commerce, where federal law, interstate
tariffs and the Uniform Commercial Code all take precedence.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 May 92 12:09:47 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam


A recent Moderator's Note had MCS Associates, 2708 N. Halsted Street,
Chicago, IL (60614), tel. [phone].  This telephone would
apparently be Chicago North (it was given as being part of
Chicago-Lakeview CO).  I don't yet know if it duplicates a prefix
which went into 708 (is there a 296 in Des Plaines?).


[Moderator's Note: (312) <==> 708-296 has been a prefix in Des Plaines
for many years. The one in Lakeview (312-296) started a while back.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May  6 12:11:27 CDT 1992
Subject: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers


DATE:  APRIL 24, 1992

  TO:  ALL BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CUSTOMERS

SUBJECT:  CONSUMER ACTION AND LONG DISTANCE COMPANIES UNITE TO FIGHT
          MISUSE OF TOLL-FREE "800" NUMBERS

     April 13, 1992 - Consumer Action (CA) has joined forces with AT&T
and Sprint to fight misuse of toll-free 800 numbers.  Today, each
organization is calling public attention to the potential for abuse of
toll-free numbers and to describe the steps they are taking to protect
consumers who call 800 numbers.  CA is working closely with the
carriers to develop changes in tariffs that would address the problem.

     According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are
fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information
services.  There have never been charges for making calls to 800
numbers.  However, in the past month we have heard of phone bills or
look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone.

     "This is the type of service for which "900" numbers were
created.  But with increased regulation of 900 numbers, some
information providers are switching to 800 numbers, taking advantage
of the fact that people assume they won't be charged for calling 900
numbers.  Currently, there are no effective regulations to prevent the
misuse of 800 numbers for billing of information services.  This puts
consumer confidence in the free 800 call in jeopardy.

     Long distance companies are also concerned about misuse of 800
services.  AT&T and Sprint have discussed new tariff language with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent use of 800 numbers
to bill for information received over the phone, except in cases where
there is a previous relationship between the caller and the service,
or the caller agrees to be billed on a credit or charge card.

     To illustrate his concerns, McEldowney described three 800-
number services that people had complained about to Consumer Action:

        - One was a postcard solicitation that had previously used a
900 number.  It urged people to call a toll-free 800 number to learn
the prize they had won in a "sweepstakes."  Although callers were
first told there was no charge for the call, they were later told
that, for a fee, they could press a number on their phones to learn
their prize.  Many of those who did, subsequently received a bill
containing a $10 charge listed next to the 800 number they had dialed.

        - Another service promised adult conversation at $4.95 a
minute.  Students at some midwestern universities and colleges called
the service at an 800 number from campus phones.  Four months later,
the schools received charges for the calls on their phone bills.  In
some cases, the institutions did not know who made the calls: in
others, callers had already left the institution.

        - The third service provided psychic information over an 800
line, for $120.  Callers were to make appointment to speak to a
psychic counselor, and to indicate whether they wanted to pay through
their phone bill or through a credit card.

        "We are especially concerned about any charges that appear on
a phone bill," said McEldowney, "because in some states people can
lose phone service if they don't pay such bills."  He stressed that
bills for information received on 800 numbers are not subject to the
same type of consumer protections as are calls to 900 numbers or
charges billed to a credit card.  "Billing for information services on
800 numbers also negates the protection offered by the blocking of 900
numbers.  People who think that 900 blocking protects them from
unauthorized charges will be vulnerable to similar bills for
information services using 800 numbers."

        CA wants Congress to consider legislation to prevent abuse of
800 numbers.  Legislation should codify the tariff changes proposed to
the FCC by the long distance companies, said McEldowney.

ACTION:  For questions about this security issue, please call the DEFINITY
         Helpline at 1 800 225-7585.

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

From: [e-mail] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 06 May 1992 20:21:20 GMT


After many frustrating years of owning a phone I've decided to declare
war on the following groups:

1. Telephone Sales People
2. Telephone Sales Computers
3. Hanger-Uppers
4. Wrong Numbers
5. Bill Collectors
6. Late Night Callers
7. Family/Friends/Children who make 1-900, 976, and long distance calls
8. Radio Stations
9. And anyone/anything else that uses/abuses my phone

I've decided at last to build the ultimate call sceening box and I'd
like your help and input.

These are the features I'd like to see:

1. My phone never rings for the groups 1-6. Depending if I'm annoyed
with them I'll either shunt them off to an answering machine or simply
hang them up (for the cronic callers). No hint of an DTMF ID in the
answering machine message. My reject list can include all numbers from
an exchange or an area code.

2. Automatic pass through without DTMF ID for certain numbers (i.e.
family, friends, work, and the like). Folks who want to reach you but
are not at a known phone number have to give a DTMF ID during the
answering machine message which rings and connects your phone.  Again
whole exchanges/area codes can be included.

3. Any phone number that calls you is automatically logged no matter
how the caller is eventually handled.

4. Automatic/Repeat redial.

5. Speed dialing.

6. Must dial a code for long distance, 976 and 1-900 numbers. Date,
time and length of call are automatically logged for any toll calls.

7. Both a console interface (via keyboard and display) and phone
interface (via DTMF and speech synthesis) are required to allow for
easy home use and remote use via the phone.

Over the years I've seen bits and pieces of the functionality I want:

1. Steve Ciacia (of Circuit Cellar Ink and formerly of BYTE) has had
several articles on manipulating the phone. The last article he wrote
on phones used a voice synthesizer and a DTMF interface to give info
about his home control system.

2. An article in {Radio-Electronics} (I think) showed how to build a
976/1-900 eliminator.

3. Local phone companies have a plethora of custom calling services as
you well know. Unfortunately they can double your monthly phone bill
and still not give you exactly what you want.

4. And of course the Caller-ID boxes and other phone screeners on the
market.

So the real question is how to pull all this together without spending an
arm and three legs. Let's see what parts are needed:

1. The only custom calling service actually needed in Caller-ID. It'll
provide the phone number and the screener can use the info to route
the call. The screener can emulate the speed dialing, repeat and
redialing, callback and the like. I know I can get these from the
phone company but the monthly charges can and do add up.

2. A Part 68 DAA, an SC1211 caller ID detector, and a DTMF transceiver
(Silicon Systems used to make one) should be enough to interface
everything to the phone line.

3. B.G. Micro sells a text to speech synthesis board that takes speech
over a serial line and speaks it. $70 isn't too too much for that.

4. A microcontroller with a serial port (for the text to speech board)
and I/O ports to interface to the DAA, SC1211, DTMF transceiver, LCD
display (Timeline has a nice 32x4 LCD display with ASCII interface for
$20), and keyboard (PC keyboard or maybe just another DTMF matrix).
Any of the 8051/68HC11/683XX families should do fine.

5. Battery Backed RAM and an EPROM for memory. Also a real time clock
(maybe even a no slot clock from Dallas Semi).

6. Parts to switch the phone line to different destinations. Probably
a few relays should do the trick.

[actually I have most of 2-5 in my junk box. I need the DAA, DTMF
xceiver, and  the LCD display.]

So I figure for $100 to $150 I can get a box that will make my
telephone work the way I want it. I just need some serious software
which is my specialty.

I know that a PC can do much of this stuff but PCs in general are too
big and/or too expensive for this dedicated task.

My basic hookup plan is to put the screener box between the internal
phone line and the external phone line at the network interface. The
screener must monitor both lines. I figure it to have the following
basic responses:

1. Ring on outside line:
   a. Get caller ID number after 1st ring
   b. Log number and Lookup number in phone number database
   c. If automatic accept then connect internal and external lines.
   d. If automatic reject then pick up external line then hang up.
   e. If neither c nor d the connect external line to answering machine and
      listen for DTMF. If valid code given then turn off answering machine and
      goto c (screener must give artificial ring to internal line).

2. Off hook on internal line.
   a. simulate dial tone.
   b. if detect special key then do special function on external line. Special
      functions include speed dialing, redial, long distance access, etc. When
      ring detected on outside line connect internal and external lines. If
      toll call then log date, time and length of call.
   c. if normal key then connect internal and external lines. Listen to
      DTMF tones. if 976 or 1-900 dialed then disconnect internal and external
      lines.

Now I am unfortunately a computer dude and not a telephone engineer.
So I have some questions:

1. How hard is it to simulate dial tones, ringing etc? How difficult
is it to detect off hook? I'd have to do all the above for the
internal phone line.

2. How difficult is it just to do ring detection? Is it legal to use
an optoisolated circuit to do ring detection without a DAA?

3. Is it possible to use audio switchers to route the phone lines? Is
there any other reliable method other than relays to accomplish this?

4. Does anyone know of a easy way to electronically record speech
without resorting to a codec? I understand that intelligible speech
can be encoded in 8-12Kbits a second. 64K/second is a litle to costly
in terms of memory bandwidth. I'm hoping to put an all electronic
answering machine in the screener box.

5. Does anyone know where to get an inexpensive DAA and DTMF Xceiver?

I believe this box is doable and I for one can find many uses for it.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to do/improve this idea I'd sure
like to hear from you.


Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 05 May 92 18:44:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FAQ List Updating


It's getting time for more housecleaning on the FAQ List ... I don't
foresee another edition getting out until about June, but might as
well solicit updates and stuff now.

One major gap in the list is the lack of cellular questions and
answers.  Perhaps someone with more expertise or familiarity with the
cell world could do the honours of creating a cellular FAQ list
(please net mail to me c/o [e-mail] or
[e-mail] if interested).

Perhaps one question that would be useful to add would be to describe
who the Telephone Pioneers of America are and what they do.

Please reply via mail as opposed to followup postings.


[e-mail]     [e-mail]
[e-mail] (** new fidonet.org address **)

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: The Beeper Scam That Isn't
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 19:59:46 GMT


I once got such a number on my pager.  I called it from home and got
'The Dating Tip Hotline' or some such thing.  I immediately called the
operator, but a three dollar charge still appeared on my next bill.
At first the person at the business office claimed I would have to
pay, but caved in and removed the charge when I stated that I would
not pay under any circumstance and would like to speak with the
supervisor.  (Thanks Pat.)

    I doubt the dating hotline would bother to call my pager, a bored
high school student ...


cj


[Moderator's Note: Why is that? They probably have suggestions for
things you could do to relieve your boredom ... :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #370
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22785;
          8 May 92 12:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12992
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 May 1992 08:31:46 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24609
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 May 1992 08:15:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 08:15:29 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #371


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 May 92 07:54:19 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 371

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dow Jones & BellSouth (Wall Street Journal via Monty Solomon)
    800 Service Bureau Information Request (Howard Pierpont)
    Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (Wall Street Journal via M. Solomon)
    Telephony and the Chicago Flood (Patton M. Turner)
    NEC P200 Handheld Cellular (Ben Black)
    News Reports Carrier Line Down in NE Iowa (Kevin Houle)
    Phone War Escalation (New York Times via Charlie Mingo)
    CLID Block Block (David Lesher)
    CRTC to Mandate No Charge Call Display Blocking (Norman Soley)
    Block of Call Display (Canada) (Henri Schueler)
    CLID on TV (Barry Margolin)
    Bell Canada Plans its Own Lifetime Number (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 23:14:25 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dow Jones & BellSouth


 From the 5/1/92 {Wall Street Journal}

Dow Jones & Co. and BellSouth Corp. said they formed a strategic
alliance to identify, develop and market information services.

The agreement includes the current market test of a voice-based
service for mobile-phone subscribers that was announced in March.  The
two companies are offering the service, called Personal Info Clips,
through BellSouths's cellular affiliate in Los Angeles; cellular
subscribers can receive customized news reports on business, stocks,
sports, weather and other topics.

The alliance is the first agreement between a major publisher and a
Baby Bell to explore new opportunities in information services.
Several newspapers have agreements with regional telephone companies
to provide local news reports and other information using telephone
technology.  The Baby Bells won court permission to enter the
information services business last fall.

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

Date: Wed, 6 May 92 20:21:33 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Service Bureau Information Request


  As part of a career plan, sometime you have to move on. I am
considering advertising an item for sale in national magazines and am
looking for recommendations on 800 inbound service bureaus. These
service bureaus should be able to handle credit cards as well.

  When the operation gets big enough maybe I can get a customized
in-house system. 8^)


Howard Pierpont
VoiceMail Cell 401-524-5900
FAX [phone]
USPS P.O. Box 937, Dayville, CT 06241

Disclaimer: This request has no connection with my employer, Digital
Equipment Corporation.

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

Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 23:18:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line


 From the 5/1/92 {Wall Street Journal}

Bell Atlantic Corp. said it picked Union City, NJ, for a joint test
with AT&T of technology to bring information services to the
classroom.

The companies announced last October that they planned to test a
technology that allows the transmission of interactive voice and data
as well as full-motion video over existing copper wires in the
telephone network.

The technology is called "asymmetrical digital subscriber line," and
allows compressed video signals to be carried only one way over
regular copper phone wires.  It also allows the same line to transmit
voice, data and video signals simultaneously.

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

Date: Mon, 4 May 92 19:11:50 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephony and the Chicago Flood


There have been a pair of interesting articles in {Telephony} (Apr.20
and Apr 27) about the Chicago flood. I thought I'd post a summary of
what they said about the various carriers.  Remember this is from
{Telephony}, so take it with a grain of sand:

Illinois Bell

They were pretty well prepared with two EOC's, one in town, and
another in the suburbs.  None of their CO's lost power, none of their
cable was installed in the tunnel, and the only problem they had was
with nine buildings where flooded basements shorted out cable
terminations.  Most of Illinois Bells involvment was to help
bussinesses redirrect calls out of the loop.  They call forwarded 2000
lines and installed 16 ISDN consoles [BRI?], 12 T1s, 2 T3s, 4k Centrex
lines and 4K temp.  cable pairs.

Teleport

Their biggest problem was a fiber cable going into the Chicago Board
of Trade Building.  It passed through conduit that was allowing water
into the basement, and officals wanted to cut it to cap the conduit.

MFS

Had to run on emergency power for 12 hours as power was being rerouted
before underwater transformers could fail.  They also lost 100k
dollars of equipiment in the LaSalle St. building.  Their CEO said
they were worried about all the holes being drilled all over the city,
either for monitoring, or for pumping.

Another article said the fiber of at least one carrier was encassed in
a seamless aluminum jacket that would protect it as long as the
tunnels were not drained too fast. [With 250 million gallons, or about
30 million cu. ft., this wouldn't seem likely.]  No comments were made
about Digital Direct, Inc.


Patton Turner    KB4GRZ      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ben Black)
Subject: NEC P200 Handheld Cellular
Organization: JobSoft Design & Devel Co, Murfreesboro, TN
Date: Thu, 07 May 1992 07:10:30 GMT


I just bought a NEC P200 handheld cellular phone. Are there any special
features or technical notes that current users can share with me?

It's been a good phone so far. No tech or operational hassles yet. I'm
a Cellular One subscriber in Nashville, TN.

BTW, Cellular One has started a flat rate pricing plan that allows
unlimited weekend calling (7PM Friday - 7AM Monday) for $10/month.
Bellsouth Mobility has matched their plan here as well. Is this a new
trend in the industry, or merely a gimmick to draw in new subscribers?


Ben Black    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 06 May 92 20:59:36 CDT
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, [phone]
From: iowegia![e-mail] (Kevin Houle)
Subject: News Reports Carrier Line Down in NE Iowa


I heard a news report today saying because Garth Brooks concert
tickets went on sale in Waterloo, Iowa, the long distance lines in NE
Iowa were simply overloaded.  The news program said the traffic was so
high the lines went down. Not sure what that means, but I can attest
to traffic being unusually high. For the period between 8am and noon,
our AMA tapes average between 185000-215000 call records. Today's set
a record at 313000.


Kevin Houle     [e-mail]     kh1461a@drake

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Thu, 07 May 1992 02:21:36 -0500
Subject: Phone War Escalation


 From {The New York Times}, May 6, 1992 at D4.

"Service Makes It Harder To Override Caller ID" By Anthony Ramirez

   In the cold war between those who find Caller ID appealing and
those who find it appalling, Bell Atlantic is marketing a service that
will disconnect callers who try to mask their telephone numbers using
another service, also available from the Bell Atlantic Corporation.

   A unit of the Philadelphia-based regional phone company, the
Cheasapeake and Potomac Phone Company of Virginia, said the new
service, known as Anonymous Call Rejection, might be so attractive
that even people who do not have Caller ID devices may want to
subscribe.  "It is a deterrent to people who block their calls and who
could be a pain in the neck," said Susan J. Rubin, Bell Atlantic's
product manager for Caller ID.

   Often marketed as a deterrent to obscene and prank callers, Caller
ID displays the telephone number of of incoming callers on a small
device beside the telephone.  Some consumer advocates, however, regard
Caller ID as an invasion of privacy and a way for businesses to record
numbers for commercial purposes.  Thus, many states require Bell
Atlantic and other carriers to allow callers to block their numbers.

   This, of course, led inevitably to anti-anti-Caller ID.  Someone
with anti-Caller ID calling a household with Anonymous Call Rejection
will now be told that if they want to complete their calls, they must
redial without blocking their number.  Centel, US West and Bell South
either offer or plan to offer similar services.

   The Bell Atlantic service became available last Friday in Northern
Virginia.  Virginia callers cannot block telephone numbers, but
customers in nearby Maryland and Washington can.  The company plans to
extend anti-anti-Caller ID to those areas and Delaware between now and
September.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID Block Block
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 21:07:46 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


See & Pee Telco is looking for {tri-}PSC approval to offer blocking of
CNID blocked calls.

The irony is - At least in Virginia, C&P does not OFFER per line or
per call blocking in the first place! The Maryland and DC PSCs
required them to offer per-line, which they did only with loud
complaints.

I guess the VA block-block works on local DC calls coming from DC and
MD.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Soley)
Subject: CRTC to Mandate No Charge Call Display Blocking
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 16:57:00 GMT


According to an article in today's (May 5th) {Toronto Star} the CRTC
has decided to require the phone companies it regulates to allow
callers to block display of their number to called party either by
entering a code or by calling through the operator at no charge (the
article didn't specify if the two methods of blocking were options for
the phone company to implement or if they would be required to support
both).

This is a change from the current regulation which allowed blocking
only by calling through the operator at a charge of C$0.50 per call
(certian organizations such as women's shelters were exempt from the
charge).


Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
Digital Equipment of Canada                   [e-mail]
Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital
Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.

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

From: [e-mail] (Henri Schueler)
Subject: Block of Call Display (Canada)
Organization: Reuters Information Services (Canada) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 12:16:47 -0400


 From {Globe & Mail}, 5-May-1992

     BY LAWRENCE SURTEES
     Telecommunications Reporter

  Residential telephone subscribers will soon be able to block the
electronic disclosure of their numbers without having to pay for it,
the federal telecommunications regulator said yesterday.

  Responding to consumer group criticisms of electronic telephone
call-screening services, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission has ordered five phone companies under
its jurisdiction to eliminate the 75-cent-a-call fee to block the call
display service by June 1.

  The CRTC also ordered the phone companies to change the rate for its
call trace security service from a flat monthly fee to a
pay-as-you-use charge.

  Both call display and call trace are part of a portfolio of
specialized electronic consumer services called call management
service.

  The call display service displays an incoming caller's phone number
on an electronic screen attached to a phone line or built into the
latest generation of telephone sets.

  Call trace allows a subscriber who has received obscene or annoying
phone calls to electronically send a caller's phone number to the
phone company's security department immediately.

  The call management portfolio also includes call return to
automatically redial the previous local caller and call screen to
block calls from up to 12 phone numbers. The services are offered by:
Bell Canada, a unit Of Montreal-based BCE Inc.; British Columbia
Telephone Co. of Burnaby, B.C.; and the four Atlantic telephone
utilities.

  Subscribers can lease as many of the services in the portfolio as
they choose: The first costs $4.75 a month and each additional option
costs $2.25.

  Bell Canada has more than 300,000 customers using various call
management services in six cities, a company spokeswoman said.
B.C. Tel has 30,000 customers in Victoria and the lower mainland
using the services.

  However, the CRTC has been assailed by numerous consumer and social
welfare agencies since it approved the call management services two
years ago because of its decision to allow the phone companies to
charge 75 cents each time a customer blocked the transmission of a
phone number by dialling through an operator or punching in a special
code.

  Although the commission subsequently waived the fee for shelters and
community agencies, CRTC chairman Keith Spicer argued at the time that
the value of the call identification services to thwart annoying calls
outweighed privacy concerns.

  Explaining the CRTC's change of heart to allow free identification-
blocking to any subscriber who requests it, Mr.  Spicer credited the
input from several public interest groups.

  Customers with unlisted numbers, who already pay a premium to keep
their numbers secret, were the most upset.

  "We now have much more information from the phone companies, as
well, and data showing that new network features make it more
convenient for the phone companies to block the release of numbers to
protect subscribers' privacy," Mr. Spicer said in an interview.

  The CRTC also told the phone companies that the technology to trace
an obscene call should supersede any request to block a caller's
identity.

  Mr. Spicer believes widespread use of the call trace feature can
preserve the benefits of call message services to thwart obscene
callers while preserving individual privacy. "Taken together, we think
both services have the potential to eliminate over 90 per cent of all
obscene and annoying phone calls, " he said.

  The CRTC hopes to encourage wider use of the trace service by
eliminating its monthly fee and ordering phone companies to file a
pay-as-you-use fee for the service.

  Bell Canada spokeswoman Anna Di Gorgio said the company is pleased
with the changes. The utility will immediately begin a rate study to
determine the user fee for the call trace service in order to meet the
June 1 filing deadline, she said.

  Bell Canada shelved its studies for pay-as-you-use basic local phone
service, which it put forward in the mid-1980s, because of public
opposition.

  However, Ms. Di Gorgio said the utility will likely analyze the
response to the new call trace rate to determine if pay-for-use
billing is a more attractive form of billing for optional
services.

  Caller-identification services have been banned by a Pennsylvania
judge in that state and California may do likewise because of privacy
concerns.

  However, the Public Utilities Commission of Massachusetts recently
issued a decision similar to the CRTC's latest ruling and told the New
England Telephone Co. it could offer the caller-ID feature if it gave
subscribers the option to block the release their numbers on outgoing
calls.


(J) Henri Schueler, Toronto    [phone]        (ex-Reuters)

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Margolin)
Subject: CLID on TV
Date: 4 May 1992 02:54:51 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA


Warning: spoiler for the 5/2 episode of the TV series "The Commish",
in which Caller ID and database privacy issues figured into the plot ...

One of the bad guys (or in this case, a girl) makes a date with a cop
who's guarding a witness, and asks him to call her to confirm the
date.  He calls her from the safe house, and she uses a Caller Display
device to get the phone number.  Then she tricks a clerk at NY
Telephone into telling her the address corresponding to the number
(she calls to complain that she never received her phone bill and has
the clerk tell her the address they have on file).

This is the first time I've seen this class (pun intended) of
telephone technology used on TV (the closest I've seen in the past was
when Columbo made use of a telephone's "last number redial" feature --
perhaps this is why my office phone system requires the user to press
the redial button while attempting a call in order to remember it).


Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
[e-mail]          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

Date: Thu, 07 May 92 23:12:10 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Plans its Own Lifetime Number


CBC TV's _Venture_ tonight reported on the forthcoming AT&T 700
numbers that can be kept for life but will call-forward to whatever
local number whenever moving, etc. (as discussed in previous Digests).

However, the report added that Bell Canada expects its own service to
take effect in August for its own customers. No more details other
than the brief report reference are available (presumably a CRTC
application would have to be made to approve this service).


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #371
******************************






ISSUE 372 ARRIVED LATE AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 373.






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06481;
          9 May 92 4:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22298
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23213
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:21 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 01:31:21 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #373

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 May 92 01:31:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 373

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    British Rail Enters Telecom Market (IEEE via Bryan Montgomery)
    Challengers to BT (Portsmouth Evening News via Bryan Montgomery)
    Goliath and David? (Portsmouth Evening News via Bryan Montgomery)
    Polarity: Red = Negative? (Michael A. Covington)
    Bell Canada to Drop Fee For Caller-ID Blocking (Nigel Allen)
    Sending High-Quality Audio Over Digital? (Peter Desnoyers)
    An Unwelcome Guest on my Line (Collin Forbes)
    Centralized Home Phone System (Dan Ganek)
    FCC Network Chain Letter Tax! (Update on "Modem Tax") (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:42:27 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Rail Enters Telecom Market


This article appeared in {IEE Magazine}, April 1992.

BR Telecoms running late.

British Rail has finally lodged an application with the Department of
Trade & Industry to provide a full telecoms service in Britain. The
application covers local, national and international voice and data
switched services, private circuits, mobile radio (Band III) and
mobile data services. BR's entry into the telecoms market has been
long awaited; what is impressive is the scope of its application.

BRT, a subsidary of BR, owns and operates an extensive telecoms
network used mainly by BR. It boasts some 3000 route-km of installed
fibre and over 14,000km of coppper coaxial cable. It presently carries
traffic for Mercury, runs some private circuits (both voice and data)
and supplies a national trunked Band III radio service. Now it is
looking to co-operate with cable-TV suppliers to complete the local
loop in some areas; another option for the final link to the home is
using radio, from base stations on BR land, which, the company says,
could cover almost all of the population using GSM or PCN radio
standards.

Since its launch as a seperate enterprise in September 1990, BRT has
been looking for partners and sponsors for its expansion into the
public market.  It is still looking - and admits that the whole
enterprise 'has taken us longer, it's been far more complicated, than
we thought.' The hope now is that the licence, if granted, will help
to convince potential partners by setting the conditions of BRT's
entry into the market. BRT reckons to be roughly in the position where
Mercury was two years ago, and says that Mercury has 'broken the
ground' in international markets, making it easier for competitors to
enter the market.

We're getting there (BR's motto)?


Bryan

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:43:58 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challengers to BT


Yet another article hot off the press from the {Portsmouth Evening
News} (24/4/92):

Picking up the telephone is a part of everyday life that we tend to
take for granted.

But callers in the Portsmouth area are now in the front line of a
telecommunications revolution as technology advances and companies
offer increased competition.

Established operator BT is facing a concerted challenge from Mercury
and cable firm NYNEX as the battle for domestic and business customers
along the South Coast intensifies.

Nynex, an American-based company, is investing 100 million pounds in
the solent region to provide cable television and telephone services
by 1996.  It won the local franchise after the Government ordered an
end to the telephone duopoly of BT and Mercury.

The project involves 218,000 homes. Workmen are laying 2,200km of
fibre optic cables under roads and pavements.

Mercury whose digitial network is being used by Nynex, boasts it is
increasing its market share, converting thousands of customers in
Hampshire and West Sussex and undercutting BT on prices.

There is also a bullish mood at Nynex, which has established a local
headquarters at Waterlooville and electronic nerve centre at Cosham.
The company has other southern franchises for cable, including Sussex
and Surrey.

Domestic subscribers in the Portsmouth area have already been
connected to cable telephone and the first local buisness is expected
to be using Nynex later this month. The service is available so far to
homes in parts of Waterlooville, Purbrook, and Cowplain.

Cable has just been laid in Wymering and Paulsgrove and workmen are
currently in Hilsea. Bedhampton, near Havant, is next on the list.
South East Hampshire has 7,400 Mercury subscribers, with 7100 in West
Sussex. Mercury expects the figure to increase as local cable-laying
continues.

Under the non-cable Mercury system, users still have a BT line into
their homes or offices and pay line rental. Subscriptions to Mercury
costs 8.81 pounds a year and a PIN number is programmed into the
telephone to access the Mercury network for long-distance calls. With
cable, dialling does not change and there's only one bill.

The company claimed calls could be as much as 35 per cent cheaper than
BT, which charges by whole units even if they are not all used.
Mercury charges by 100ths of a second.

Interesting or what?


Bryan

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 08:43:02 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goliath and David?


I thought readers may be interested in a story that appeared in
the {Portsmouth Evening News} on Tuesday 14 April entitled "Natural
Monoplies? A force to be reckoned with in the near future?" Read on ...

Two teenage whizz-kids are laying plans to dig up roads near their
Locks Heath homes so they can link their friends to a private
telephone network. And Fareham council says it cannot see a reason why
the proposal should be turned down.

Riza Sobrany, aged 14, and Matthew Furber (13) have spent three years
building a telephone exchange in a garden shed at the bottom of a
Locks Heath garden.

The two schoolboy telecommunications boffins have got the exchange
working and a waiting list of customers for their brainchild named
`Retsu Communications Empire.'

But before they can take their first calls through the exchange they
need permission to lay cables to the homes of a dozen friends waiting
to join the network.

A spokesman for Fareham council said the authority would be prepared
to grant a road opening agreement to the two schoolboys if they
fullfilled the same requirements as any other private company wishing
to carry out works on a public highway.

The spokesman said "When I first heard about it I was a little bit
puzzled.  But having looked into it I can see no reason why we should
say no."

Matthew of Park Glen, Park Gate, said: "We've applied for a road
opening agreement and we have a contractor who will do the work for
free."

The exchange was built using dismantled equipment from the former
British Telecom exchange in Locks Heath, which was modernised in 1989.
It has cost the two boys just ten pounds in spare parts.

The very first customers on the exchange were Riaz's parents, whose
house at the top of their garden is connected to the shed where Riaz
and Matthew spend many hours.

The entrepreneurial duo plan to charge their customers just five pounds
per year subscription and 3p per minute for standard rate calls
between *am & 10pm.  Cheap rate calls at night would be free.

Construction giants Pirelli said it could carry out the work for free
pending a survey. Spokesman Nic Hart said the company commended the
duo's enterprise and already had the two million pounds blanket
insurance cover required to carry out the works. And he said Pirelli
would provide the cable for the job.


Enjoy,

Bryan

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Polarity: Red = Negative?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 03:02:12 GMT


Do telephone company standards still call for the red wire to be
negative and the green wire to be positive?

A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines
in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem.  Now I
discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now
positive, green negative).  I discovered this while checking some
wiring with a voltmeter; it has not caused problems.  Should I call
Repair Service?


Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  [e-mail]  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Bell Canada to Drop Fee For Caller-ID Blocking
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Bell Canada now charges 75 cents each time you block Caller-ID by
placing a local call through the operator. According to press reports,
the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
has ordered Bell Canada and some other telephone companies under its
jurisdiction to drop the 75 cent charge, effective June 1.

The CRTC also orderd the telephone companies to change the rate for
call race from a monthly fee to a pay-per-use service.

For more information, see the story by Lawrence Surtees on page B5 of
the May 5 {Toronto Globe and Mail}.

It isn't clear whether blocked calls with still have to be placed
through the operator, or whether caller-ID will be blockable by using
a special prefix.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Sending High-Quality Audio Over Digital?
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 15:26:27 GMT


A friend of mine is looking for equipment to run an FM radio remote
broadcast from a distant (1K miles?) location. The signal to be
transmitted is stereo (maybe mono if necessary) with 50Hz-15KHz
bandwidth -- I don't know the SNR requirements, but I would guess 50dB
or so.

Obviously the solution used for local remotes (an equalized copper
pair) won't work. Is there any solution out there that works over
fractional T1 or similar digital services?

(I suppose they could use a digital audio -> analog video converter
and then get analog video bandwidth from one site to the other via
satellite*. Seeing as one of the participants in this is a telco, I'm
not sure this would be the preferred route :-)

[*reportedly used by the Boston Pops to get from the Esplanade to WGBH
for live broadcasts.]


Peter Desnoyers

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

Subject: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line
From: Collin Forbes <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 00:22:30 -0800


 Can someone explain to me how two people can apparently be 'sharing'
the same phone line?  I have been having a problem lately where
another person can pick up his phone and have it interfere with my
data phone line.  I don't think he is aware of any disturbance because
he does not respond to me asking him questions across the phone line
when I encounter him ("What is your name? What is your phone number?")
but there is nothing like some touch-tones to terminate an error-
correcting modem's connection.

 I have checked my outside hookup for signs of "beige boxing" while
this was happening.  Nothing.  Neither have I noticed any long
distance calls not made by myself or my roommate (we keep logs).  I
have not spoken to the local telco about this because the line is
being used to run a BBS.  While I am almost sure that I am running a
BBS that would be considered a hobby under Idaho PUC, I don't want to
take any chances.

 Can somebody offer a probable diagnosis?  I will eventually have to
go to the phone company about this sometime, but I'd like to face them
more prepared than I am right now, about the "mystery guest" and the
PUC.


Collin Forbes   [e-mail]
visual!cardboard![e-mail]
(also [e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: The most likely cause of this is that somewhere
in the wire pair between yourself and the CO, a multiple was left in
place and someone else has done a sloppy job of wiring their phone,
somehow getting one or both sides of your pair involved. Searching by
yourself would be futile. Report it to repair ASAP.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Ganek)
Subject: Centralized Home Phone System
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 15:12:20 GMT


I need some advice.

Last year New England Telephone entered the 20th Century and we got
this great new feature -- touch-tone dialing! In a fit of euphoria I
went out and bought a few programmable phones. I quickly realized what
a pain it is to program each phone. This is complicated by the fact
that I am cheap and bought three different brands at various clearance
and going-out-of-business sales. (GE is the best program feature wise.)

Then I realized that business systems are centrally programmed; and I
ask why not a home system? I checked around and two-line business
systems would start at around $700!  Plus, they may not have the
features I need.  So, I'm asking does anyone make a centrally
programmed system that is useful for a two-line home?  Here's my
situation:

1) We have two lines - one is our primary private line and the other
is used for work (modem). We pay for the private line and use this
line for all our family business. My wife's employer reimburses us for
the second line -- so we don't want to put personal toll calls on that
line. Although we may use it for toll-free calls if our primary line
is in use.  The two lines are daisied-chained throughout the house.

2) I would like a centrally programmable system that allows us to use
standard phones, i.e. supports some sort of "speed-dialing", supports
two lines, a reasonable price! ($150 for the programmable unit?)

Does such a beast exists?


Daniel Ganek   Hewlett-Packard   Chelmsford, MA   ganek!apollo.hp.com

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 12:53:01 EDT
From: Fred R. Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Network Chain Letter Tax! (Update on "Modem Tax")


(forwading headers removed)
URGENT! I GOT THIS FROM THE SHIRLEY HUGEST BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
(617 937 1234) AND YOU GOTTA PASS IT ON:

Four years ago, the FCC tried to change the way it classified
telephone access to Information Service Providers such as Comp-U-Serve
and Dial-a-Porn.  While this idea, erroneously called a "modem tax",
was dropped and has never been revived, a far more insidious threat to
the way we use our networks has been proposed instead.

The FCC now proposes to tax network chain letters.  All network
connect time spent sending, forwarding, distributing, or editing
network rumors and chain letters such as the "modem tax" and "Craig
Shergold is dying" will be subject to a tax of up to $5/hour.  All
networks which propagate these messages across public, leased-line or
microwave radio facilities will be required to analyze their network
utilization and determine how much time and bandwidth was spent on
these chain letters.  A semi-annual payment must then be sent to the
FCC's Bureau of Redundancy Bureau.

I know this is true because I heard it on the Harry Lipschitz show on
WLFD radio in Passaic, NJ, where a caller heard about it in an article
written in the Globe.  They even read some of the details of what the
tax will cover and it's huge!

A message will be counted as a network chain letter if it meets such
broad criteria as:

a) uses the phrase, "Modem tax", without explaining that it's
   a hoax;
b) does not contain a date, so that it cannot be shown to be
   old;
c) cites as authoritative hearsay like, "I heard from
   somebody who heard on KGO Radio that the New York times
   said that...";
d) cites as a source a Bulletin Board System and gives a
   phone number that has long since been disconnected or
   changed;
e) includes addresses of present or former members of Congress
   ca. 1989, with a suggested text of a letter to send them,
   citing an aforementioned or similar chain lettter topic;
f) requests people to "pass this along urgently" or similar
   language designed to encourage the spread of disinformation
   at the speed of light;
g) has had its original headers removed, making it impossible
   to trace to the original source.

This tax would obviously cost us very much money, and could
conceivably lead to the end of computer networking as we know it!
Please pass this along urgently to everyone you know.  And also send
protest letters to:

    Congressman Wilbur Mils
    Tidal Basin
    Washington, DC 20000
and
    Commissioner U. Ben Hadd
    FCC
    1919 M St. NW
    Washington DC  20554

letting them know your feelings on this subject.


[Moderator's Note: Fred, I love it! That nasty rumor keeps going
around. I get five or six messages here weekly from people wanting to
put something up in the Digest about it. Thanks for once again setting
the record straight, and doing it in a humorous way.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #373
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08828;
          9 May 92 5:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22012
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:45 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21622
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:34 -0500
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 00:38:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #372

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 May 92 00:38:31 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 372

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    An Incident in DC (Paul Robinson, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (David Ptasnik)
    Calling Card Fraud on "48 Hours" (Corinna Polk)
    Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? (Doug Barlow)
    Qualcomm CDMA Cellular Specs Available For FTP (Phil Karn)
    Fiber in Our Streets (Dave Levenson)
    Looking For a PBX (Pat Barron)
    Modem Access to Pager Networks (Jeremy Brest)
    Pope's Phone Number (was White House Telecomms) (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 16:26:05 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Incident in DC


The following message was seen in the FidoNet/RelayNet PHONES
conference.  I found it rather interesting, and all too typical of
telco behavior:

* From : Paul Robinson (04 May 92 07:09)
* To   : All
* Subj : AN INCIDENT IN DC

I live in the Washington, DC area.  At our address in DC, we had
installed two telephone lines, one for me and one for a relative.  The
phone lines are billed separately.

On one of the lines the person there ran up a large long distance
bill, about $4,000.  What I gather about it is that they figured the
phone company would disconnect them in a month.  For some reason the
phone company kept sending threats of disconnection and kept advancing
the dates they would disconnect.  I have discovered the person never
asked the phone company for an extension, the phone company just kept
putting off the disconnection date after sending serveral notices --
each with a specific date that they would -- which I have not figured
out why.

Eventually C&P Telephone company disconnected the service.  It was
made clear to this person that they were not to make long distance
calls on the other phone; and they did not.  The other bill was normal
and there were no unusual charges.

Then one day the phone did not return dial tone even though it did
earlier that day.  I went to a pay phone to discover why the phone
wasn't working.  This other line is billed to someone other than that
relative.  The phone company representative at repair service said
that the service had been disconnected for nonpayment.

I called the business office.  I got this woman who told me because
the person who ran up the large phone bill was still living in that
house, they had the right under tariff schedules to discontinue all
phone service -- even that issued under another name -- when someone
else there has been disconnected for nonpayment, because they had so
many people who had not paid their bills then had someone else there
get the service turned on.

I told the woman we are living over a dentist's office that shares the
same address as us.  Does that mean that they can cut off HIS service
too?  Does that mean if an employee at the Pentagon doesn't pay his
home phone bill they can cut off the Pentagon's phone service!?

She tells me the only way I can get service restored is to send them a
notarized afidavit that the person had left.  Since they are paying
part of the rent there, evading phone service payments or not that
would require a formal eviction -- this person used to work for a real
estate office and knows every trick to prevent eviction, and could
easily stall one for six or eight months -- and I've had no problems
with them paying me so I didn't see throwing them out on the street
was an answer.  Actually, as I understand it, they just stopped paying
their bill on the assumption the phone company would disconnect it in
a month.  The phone company took four months before they disconnected
the service.

I found this was hard to believe that the phone company could cut off
one person's service due to nonpayment by another.  Further, I
considered that the person who didn't pay the phone bill could sue the
telephone company on the grounds that their action against a third
party jeopardized their life -- by throwing them out on the street --
and that the tariff might not be constitutionally valid, since it
holds one person responsible for the debts of another which they have
no control over, and thus get a court order to restore service which
the bill has been paid on.  Or they might sue me, then I could issue a
third-party suit against the phone company in the interim.

But I said, before we take a drastic route, let me see exactly what
the tariff says.  I had asked the clerk the number of the tariff but
her claim was she didn't know which one it was.

I went down to the telephone company office and asked to see the local
tariff schedules.  After the usual bureaucratic runaround -- anyplace
I've gone they don't want to show you the schedules or can't find
them.  (In California I once had to call the business office and
threaten to pay my bill through the PUC claiming inability to discover
tariffs, to get them to show them to me) -- I got to see the tariff
schedule.  I went through all of it.

The phone company can disconnect for nonpayment of the particular
account.  It can disconnect for nonpayment of long distance carrier
charges.  It cannot disconnect for nonpayment of directory
advertising.  There was no tariff indicating that service may be
disconnected for failure of a third party to pay a bill issued to the
third party, nor anything of any nature permitting service issued to
one to be disconnected for the actions of someone else on a different
line.

So, at the business office, with tariff schedule in my lap, I called
up the billing office to ask about this.  They informed me that my
service would be turned back on in two hours.  I never had to even ask
which so-called tariff it was.  The service was restored in about an
hour and a half.


RBBS-UTI v2.0 : by Bob Snyder - [phone]/1782 HST
PCRelay:BRODMANN -> #1206 RelayNet (tm)
4.11                BRODMANN'S PLACE [phone] USR/DS v.32bis
Mosaic v0.99/l
* Origin: *Cloud Nine BBS* 9 Gig on line 713-855-4385 (1:106/99)

                        ----------

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency


The University of Washington has been reviewing it's disaster
preparedness plans in the light of recent events (earthquakes, floods,
riots).  Much has been learned lately, and we want to put that
knowledge to good use.  One thing that we have discovered was recently
noted by another Digest contributor:

rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) wrote:
Subject: It's A Riot: Followup

> And then on Thursday, it got horrible.

> in the {Orange County Register} -- I hid out for a couple of days at
> my parents' house in Huntington Beach -- Pacific Bell claims that as
> few as 50% of all attempted calls were getting through in the 310 and
> 213 area codes at the height of the rioting.  My girlfriend was able
> to get through to her parents in Arkansas, and strangely enough, they
> were able to call me, even though my girlfriend was unable to
> successfully call me directly from work.

If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance
calls when local calls are blocked.  These calls often use different
facilties than the local calls.  Most calls in these kinds of crises
tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell
people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing
you just saw, etc.

As a result, if your city has a disaster, and you need to contact your
family, call a long distance friend or relative, tell them that you
are OK, and leave a message for your family.  Have them call the same
place to send and receive messages to and from you.

On a smaller scale, voice mail seemed to help alot as well.  With
people moving around so much, and lines being so busy, if you were
patient you could eventually get to your company's voice mail, leave
messages for others, and collect yours.  This again emphasizes the
value of leaving detailed messages on voice mail, not just call back
numbers.

Just some food for thought.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Calling Card Fraud on "48 Hours"
Date: 8 May 1992 12:11:04 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


The CBS show "48 Hours" ran a show last week on scams and their lead
story was on calling card fraud and how prevalent it was in bus and
train stations, and in airports. They had a camera hidden on a bank of
phones and had a reporter go in to use a phone and gave the operator
her calling card number vocally. It was unreal to see all the people
who leaned in towards her as she began to recite the digits. There
were at least half a dozen people who moved in. After she completed
the process, the police moved in and grabbed a couple of the people
there. The guy at the phone next to her already had it written down
(this was a number that MCI had given "48 Hours" to use and abuse in
their report). They had plenty of tapes of people leaning to see
digits being pressed on the phones, and had a printout of calls that
had been made using the reporter's number within minutes of her
"giving it away". People had called half a dozen different countries!

This raised two questions:

1. Why do operators still ask you for your card number? I assume that
if they complete the call in that manner they can bill for an operator
assisted call and thus charge more. But wouldn't it make more sense to
either flag certain numbers (pay phones in busy locales) for
non-verbal calling card ID unless the customer has no other way to
complete the call (slimy COCOTs) or to instruct operators to not ask
for the calling card number first thing?

2. When the police did pick up people at the pay phones for selling
the numbers, apparently there was little they could do with the
offenders.  According to what I heard (and we all trust TV journalism)
it is only illegal to steal someone's calling CARD, and not the
number. The only way to charge someone is to prove that they used the
number to make unauthorized calls.  It was a great scene though: a
camera watching the phones, a guy in the ceiling watching what was
going on, half a dozen people watching an analyzer spitting out
numbers called with phone numbers, a woman calling owners of the phone
codes to see if they had possibly just authorized a call to Bulgaria
to be made from the bus station, and a bunch of transit police waiting
for their chance to arrest someone. But even the guy they showed who
had written the reporter's number down wasn't really charged with
anything. They just held them in jail as long as they could without
charging them and then released them. Doesn't it seem like there
should be something else in place if LD companies really want to fight
fraud?

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Barlow)
Subject: Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist?
Organization: Novell Inc., Provo, UT ,USA
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:01:46 GMT


I am in the market for a cordless phone and daily I hear about people
complain that analog cordless phones have many problems (i.e. people
can listen in on your conversation, poor quality reception, sounds
like you're talking into a tin can, etc).

I have asked around and no one seems to sell a digital cordless phone
(at least none of the big name companies).  I would think that would
solve all of the problems listed above. Opinions?

The only company that I have seen sell one is VTech Communications
from Beaverton, Ore.  {Newsweek} did a short piece on them from the
Consumer Electronics Show (Jan 20,1992) page 6.

Do YOU know of any others?  Send me an E-mail and I will compile a list
and post it in a few days.

Any comments welcome.


Doug Barlow  Email: [e-mail]         Novell, Inc.  Provo, UT
            The opinions expressed above are solely my own and
        do not in any way represent the opinions of Novell, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: Qualcomm CDMA Cellular Specs Available For FTP
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 02:34:21 GMT


I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released most of the text of
the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple
Access) digital cellular technology, as recently submitted to the TIA
TR45.5 standards committee evaluating wideband spread spectrum digital
cellular telephone technologies.

It can be retrieved by anonymous FTP from lorien.qualcomm.com
(192.35.156.5) in the directory /pub/cdma.

Due to copyright considerations, chapters 2-5 of the CAI are not yet
available for FTP. They deal only with the analog FM mode used for
backward compatibility with existing cellular systems and as such
contain material previously copyrighted by TIA.  If or when we receive
permission to release these chapters, we will.

The /pub/cdma directory contains the following files:

announce - this file (ascii text)
copyright - copyright notice (ascii text - please read)

FrontMatter.ps.Z - Table of Contents, compressed Postscript
Chapt1.ps.Z     - Chapter 1,        "      "
Chapt2-5-notice
Chapt6.ps.Z
Chapt7.ps.Z
AppendA.ps.Z     - Appendices
AppendB.ps.Z
AppendC.ps.Z
AppendD.ps.Z
AppendE.ps.Z
AppendF.ps.Z

The RSA MD-5 message digests for these files, as computed on a Sun
Sparcstation, are as follows:

18cd3fa05520dbd289936bf8d64b0743 copyright

56d3da1d12b69756a3505ee416c8d0d3 FrontMatter.ps.Z
2da2c9970ba0566bf60130c7000fd522 Chapt1.ps.Z
3a693d7b04f2cc68fec629228f4e3885 Chapt6.ps.Z
8e31076167186c84a762f3c5867b0bc5 Chapt7.ps.Z
d99d63bd845fc98939ffebbba31fe6f4 AppendA.ps.Z
93a61a01890c5deeaef0844533440fd8 AppendB.ps.Z
dd7c78429f9a7456db36abffb312b6fe AppendC.ps.Z
ba162fc6eeccaa68605c2756815ff748 AppendD.ps.Z
9de7775645fc1ffeca42161d8e6ca921 AppendE.ps.Z
5757c868512e77986bd297d60a6554d6 AppendF.ps.Z

As Qualcomm's connection to the Internet is a 56kb/s link, we
encourage other sites with faster connections to also make these files
available so we can minimize the load on our connection.

Thanks!


Phil Karn     Qualcomm, Inc     [e-mail]     619-597-5501

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Fiber in Our Streets
Date: 9 May 92 03:27:09 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been
installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our
neighborhood.  What is most interesting about it is that this
lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR
Cable Television.

Anybody else in New Jersey know what TKR has planned for us?  They
still have co-ax to our house, and do a reasonable job of delivering
about 40 channels of one-way television over it.


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

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

Date: Thu,  8 May 1992 12:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For a PBX


I'm looking for a small PBX (8-16 lines or so), preferably with DID
capability, preferably very cheap (in fact, used equipment is just
fine, probably preferable).  I'd also like it to be fairly small,
physically.

I have no clue where to even start looking for such a thing.  Can
anyone give me any hints?


Thanks,

Pat

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Brest)
Subject: Modem Access to Pager Networks
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Thu, 8 May 1992 23:09:42 GMT


I know there are a couple of companies that privide pager access
software for desktop systems with modems.  What interface do they use,
what networks can they access, and what is the command set?  Also,
does anyone know of any email forewarding companies that take
advantage of this?

Please send replies by email.

Thanks,


[e-mail]
Jeremy Brest / 228 Byron Street / Palo Alto, CA  94301 / 415-322-1728

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

Date: Thu, 8 May 92 00:15:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Pope's Phone Number (was White House Telecomms)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> The Pope is listed in what phone book?

> [Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican
> City listings of that directory.  PAT]

Even more specifically, the telephone numbering space of Vatican City
is rather limited: there is only one number in the entire country,
which is the main switchboard.  Evidently, they don't have DID to
individual extensions.  It's a local Rome number.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #372
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06148;
          10 May 92 7:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08185
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10498
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:08 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 05:53:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #374

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 May 92 05:53:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 374

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PacBell ISDN (was: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want) (Rob Warnock)
    Problems With Telebit Modems and Three Xenix Systems (Mark Seiffert)
    FAX Mail Comes to Seattle (Phillip Dampier)
    Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Phil Karn)
    Rec.radio.broadcasting is on the Air (Bill Pfeiffer)
    Harrassment and Call Waiting Chuckles (Todd Inch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 23:34:48 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: PacBell ISDN (was: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie' Plan" describes a system that
> would allow movies to be distributed to theaters and others digitally
> via fiber optic lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the
> highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie.

The company I work for is a memnber of the "Bay Area Gigabit Testbed",
so I've been following the planned broadband ISDN offerings pretty
closely.  What is currently scheduled for availability to subscribers
sometime in 1995 is 155 Mb/s ATM service over SONET OC-3c fiber-optic
links. While 155 Mb/s is a lot, it's not nearly enough to send a
two-hour movie in three minutes.

Raw NTSC video ("network television") is roughly 60-80 Mb/s (depending
on coding). Compressed with lossy JPEG but still with "good quality"
it's between 10-20 Mb/s, depending on motion. On the other hand, a
first-run movie is more on the order of 10 Gb/s raw data rate
(4000x3000x36 x 24 frames/sec) as it comes out of the movie magicians'
morphing engines. Highly compressed, however, it could just about fit
within a single OC-3 channel. So the transmission of a movie-theatre
quality image could occur in one-to-one realtime.

Maybe the reporter got it wrong? Perhaps they meant it would take
three minutes from "dialtone" until the videotape/videodisk had been
fetched from the library and was mounted on the player?

> Pac*Bell has not the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses ...
> So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing.
> Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN
> to ANYONE, business or residence ...

John, this is simply not true. I can get PacBell ISDN service at home
*today*, for $45.15/month for two lines -- one analog, one digital
2B+D, or "three dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone" -- or $58.97/month for
two ISDN lines (four dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone). True, the
tarriffs are a bit weird, requiring you to have Centrex service, with
a whopping $585 installation charge -- of which $300 is "establishment
of Centrex service". But the intra-LATA call rates are exactly the
same as voice call rates. [Inter-LATA depends on one's ISDN IEC
carrier. Some are the same as voice; some are a *lot* higher.]

And ISDN Basic Rate service is only available within 18,000 wire-feet
of an ISDN-provisioned CO, which at the rate they're going I will
absolutely agree with you is nowhere near universal access ... yet.
But PacBell *is* selling and installing ISDN today, in some
non-trivial quantity.

By the way, they've just about given up trying to push it based on the
data transmission capabilities -- not enough of their anticipated
audience seems to care (so says an ISDN Makreting Manager). What
they're doing now is going after the high-volume business users,
promoting the fact that a single ISDN line gives you *two* dialtones
at a monthly cost *less* than two standard business lines. This
marketing strategy seems to be working better for them than pushing
the data capabilities.

If you absolutely *must* have ISDN today and are outside the 18kft
limit, there's a way to get ISDN in groups of eight lines ABSOLUTELY
ANYWHERE AT ALL for about the same price as a T-1 line. In fact, that
how they do it: They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every
6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing
called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces.
[Note that this is *not* ISDN PRI (23B+D), but merely eight BRI lines
(each 2B+D).] Each of those can then be run in any direction up to
18kft from the termination. But it's not cheap. A typical
"medium-short" run for "ISDN Extended" is over $7000 to install and
$1200/mo (or ~$75/mo/"dialtone").


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone] before 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.        [phone] after 6pm PDT May 8, 1992
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311    "Please make a note of it."

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

From: ssdc!delta1![e-mail] (Mark Seiffert)
Subject: Problems With Telebit Modems and Three Xenix Systems
Date: 30 Apr 92 22:10:25 GMT
Organization: My Organization, Inc., Hometown, ST


I am unable to solve a problem with three systems with Telebit modems
and SCO Xenix systems.

My system is a 486/33 with a Telebit TB+ on a specialIX port running
SCO Xenix 386. Its a dog with an average of 32 Users, the response
time is bad. I am not sure how this would affect the modem, the SI
board is an intelligent board with RTS/CTS flow control.

System A is a 386 with a T1000 on COM1: with the interface locked
at xxxx baud.

System B is a 286/12 with a T1000 on COM1:, the interface is locked
at xxxx baud.

When system A tries to send a 20K file to system B using UUCP, the
line is lost.

When system A tries to get the file from system B using UUCP, the
line is lost.

All systems are set with m2s61=255, micro-packets disabled and tone
before packets, the modems are not retraining at the point where the
error occurs. On my system I have s58=2s68=2, on system B,
s58=3s68=255, on system A, s58=3s68=3.

When I send a 1.2MB file to system A, the file transfers fine, when
uucp changes to to slave mode and tries to retrieve a 170K file, the
line is lost. When System A calls me and attempts to send the file,
the line is lost. When I try to download using Zmodem from A to me
with Xmodem spoofing on (because I was going to try Xmodem if Zmodem
failed), there were errors but the file made it. When I uploaded the
same file to system B using Xmodem with Xmodem spoofing, the transfer
took a long time, had a large number of errors but it finally made it.
With Xmodem, there were a lot of pauses when nothing was being sent.
With UUCP, the transfer procedes for a while and all of a sudden I
start receiving alarms, eventually it will abort with line lost.

I had thought that 'spoofing' meant that the modems would take care of
error correction between themselves and return the user an error free
data transmission. Why am I seeing errors with Xmodem? What is going
on here? Can you help me?

Does anyone have list of the undocumented features in the Telebit
modems? I know of some of the information for disabling micro-packets
and adding tone before packets, and I remember some S registers have
undocumented 254 and 255 values.

This is the register setting for my Tbit+:

E1 F1 M2 Q4 T V1 X1     Version BA4.00
S00=001 S01=000 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=060
S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S45=255 S47=004 S48=000
S49=000 S50=255 S51=005 S52=001 S53=001 S54=002 S55=000 S56=017
S57=019 S58=002 S59=000 S60=000 S61=100 S62=003 S63=001 S64=000
S65=000 S66=001 S67=000 S68=002 S90=000 S91=000 S92=001 S95=002
S100=000 S101=000 S102=000 S104=000 S110=001 S111=020 S112=001
S120=012 S121=000

This is the register setting for system A's T1000:

E0 F1 M0 Q0 P V1 W0 X1 Y0 &P0 &T4     Version FA2.10
S00=001 S01:001 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=040
S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S18=000 S25=005 S38=000
S41=000 S45:255 S47=004 S48=000 S49=000 S50=000 S51:005 S52:002
S54:003 S55:003 S56=017 S57=019 S58=003 S59=000 S60=000 S61=150
S62=003 S63=001 S64=000 S65=000 S66:001 S67=000 S68=255 S69=000
S90=000 S91=000 S92=000 S94=001 S95=000 S96=001 S100=000 S101=000
S104=000 S111:030 S112=001 S121=000 S130=002 S131:001 S255=001

This is the register setting for system B's T1000:

E0 F1 M0 Q0 P V1 W0 X1 Y0 &P0 &T4     Version FA2.10

S00=001 S01:001 S02=043 S03=013 S04=010 S05=008 S06=002 S07=040
S08=002 S09=006 S10=007 S11=070 S12=050 S18=000 S25=005 S38=000
S41=000 S45:255 S47=004 S48=000 S49=000 S50=000 S51:005 S52:002
S54:003 S55:003 S56=017 S57=019 S58=003 S59=000 S60=000 S61=150
S62=003 S63=001 S64=000 S65=000 S66:001 S67=000 S68=255 S69=000
S90=000 S91=000 S92=000 S94=001 S95=000 S96=001 S100=000 S101=000
S104=000 S111:030 S112=001 S121=000 S130=002 S131:001 S255=001


Mark Seiffert            UUNet: [e-mail]
Delta Systems            InterNet: [e-mail]
New Orleans, LA 70002    Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Sat, 09 May 1992 23:45:46 -0500
Subject: FAX Mail Comes to Seattle


SEATTLE -- Fax Mail, a new service that is like voice mail, but for
faxes, was unveiled here today by US West and will soon be available
in the Seattle area.

Richard McCormick, chairman and chief executive officer of US West,
said Fax Mail is the first of many such enhanced information services
the company plans to offer.  He said future services will be based on
innovations in voice, fax, and data communications.

"The desire for these services is exploding," McCormick said. "We see
a total market opportunity within our 14-state territory of more than
$1 billion by 1995, and we expect to capture a significant portion of
that market.  In just the fax market, we see the number of machines
doubling and moving from central locations to desktops, automobiles
and homes," he said.

McCormick announced Fax Mail at US West's eighth annual shareholders
meeting, being conducted for the first time outside Denver, the
company's headquarters.  "It's especially gratifying to be able to
tell our shareholders about the introduction of Fax Mail here in
Seattle," he said.  "We've been talking about new information services
 -- and here they are."

Bill Gillis, president of US West Enhanced Services, the recently
formed unit that will market Fax Mail and other new services, said Fax
Mail electronically stores incoming faxes until a subscriber chooses
to print them.  Fax mail subscribers can then print fax messages on
any available fax machine, anywhere, in complete confidentiality.  The
service also works with personal computers equipped with fax modems or
fax cards.  All Seattle area telephone subscribers will have access to
Fax Mail, regardless of the company that provides their local service.

Each fax mail user is provided a personal fax telephone number to
which faxes are sent and stored electronically.  When a fax is
received, Fax Mail can automatically notify the customer by depositing
a message in voice mail or beeping a pager.  The user then calls Fax
Mail from any Touch-Tone phone, enters a personally selected security
code, and enters the number of the fax machine where the subscriber
wants the faxes printed.

"Fax mail allows you to retrieve all of your personal faxes with a
single telephone call and eliminates the inconvenience of trying to
track down faxes and messages," Gillis said.  "For frequent business
travelers, that represents a significant cost savings."

Customers wanting more information may call 1-800-945-9494.

1 May 1992
US West

Contacts: Lisa Bowersock [phone]
          Mike Szumilas  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 19:23:50 GMT


I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released the entire text of
the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple
Access) digital cellular technology. It can be retrieved by anonymous
FTP from lorien.qualcomm.com (192.35.156.5) in the directory
/pub/cdma. The files in that directory are:

read.me - description of files and copyright notice (please read)
cdma_cai_v2.sit - "Stuffit" format archive containing the individual
    chapters of the CAI in Microsoft Word format for the Macintosh
    Be sure to specify "macbinary" when transferring this file.
    Note that it is about 1.1 megabytes in size.

The RSA MD-5 message digests for these files, as computed on a Sun
Sparcstation, are as follows:

8b1a2de27923a08181b0fda6e4a5a347 CDMA_CAI_V2.sit
90a69c85af287452894f73f2f6006dce read.me (unix newline convention)

We are working on producing a set of Postscript files for those who
cannot handle the Macintosh formats. These will appear in this same
directory as soon as they are available. (Please don't bug us until
they're ready!)

As Qualcomm's connection to the Internet is a 56kb/s link, we
encourage other sites with faster connections to also make these files
available so we can minimize the load on our connection.

Thanks!


Phil Karn   Qualcomm, Inc   [e-mail]   619-597-5501

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Rec.radio.broadcasting is on the Air
Date: Sat, 9 May 92 14:14:16 CDT


Greetings Telecom Readers.

Thanks to a vote of 234 - 34, rec.radio.broadcasting is now approved
and has been newgrouped since May 6, 1992.

Rec.radio.broadcasting (as many of you already know) is a moderated
newsgroup dedicated to the wide world of domestic broadcast radio. By
domesatic, we mean all radio designed for reception within ones own
country, regardless of what country that may be.

We deal with all aspect of broadcast radio, including (but not limited
to):

* Formats and programming
* Engineering and technical
* Historical and cultural significance
* Radio's future potential
* New innovation and technology
* Legislation affecting radio b'casting
* Radio's differences and similarities between nations
* Pirate radio
* Network radio, yesterday and today
* Low-Power and community radio
* Broadcast band DXing
* Radio's news and political coverage
* Assistance to those attempting to find employment in the industry
* General gabfesting and exchange of information, opinion and what-
  have-you, between broadcast professionals, hopefuls and affectionados
  throughout the world.

About the only traffic NOT welcome in this group is ...

! Flame wars, and personal attack
! Endless, pointless "my-opinion-is-gospel-and-yours-is-garbage" arguments.
! Traffic not pertaining to radio broadcasting, reception or related fields.

I am starting a limited e-mail distribution of a digest (much like
telecom) to those who DO NOT HAVE USENET, or who's site won't carry
the group.  PLEASE only request this method of delivery if you cannot
get it through the regular Usenet channels.  My little Unix has
limited stroage and until I can get access to more storage, I am
limited in the number of digests I can send out.  If you can
re-distribute the digest within your system, feel free to do so.
Please do not distribute it to commercial systems like Compuserve,
GEnie, AOL, and such without contacting me first.

To post to r.r.b send e-mail to -- [e-mail]
For non-posting communications  -- [e-mail]

Thanks to all Telecom readers who voted YES to this proposal.  The
response thus far (three days into the group's creation) has been
fabulous.

Again, thanks to all.


William Pfeiffer
Moderator -- rec.radio.broadcasting

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Harrassment and Call Waiting Chuckles
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Sat, 09 May 92 23:15:20 GMT


In a blurb at the end of an article in the May {Reader's Digest}, from
a "Police Blotter": 'Resident reported she has been receiving phone
calls from a male named Lee for 25 years.  She is tired of the calls
and will change her phone number.'

There are several other telecom chuckles elsewhere in that RD issue.

On the radio the other day I heard a contest winner whose name was
drawn.  She had to phone the radio station within X minutes to collect
her $100 prize.  You could barely hear her and she made the DJ's
repeat everything because her call-waiting tone was constantly beeping
as dozens of friends and neighbors called to tell her to call the
station.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #374
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08342;
          10 May 92 9:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11105
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11497
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:11:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #375

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 May 92 07:11:39 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 375

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Switchover to Digital Service (Bruce Carter)
    ISDN in Massachusetts (Monty Solomon)
    New Generation of Airplane Payphones (John R. Levine)
    A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (David E. Martin)
    HAL Catalog (Todd Inch)
    Strange Phone Behaviour (Guy Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Carter)
Subject: Switchover to Digital Service
Organization: Boise State University - CBI Product Development
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 21:15:13 GMT


Greetings all,

BSU is changing its on-campus phone service over to a digital system
from Ericsson.  Although we have most of the hard spots figured out, I
have a couple of questions, as well as a request for general comments
from anyone who has been involved with this sort of conversion.

1) The telephone service group has pretty much determined that the use
of TAU units and a modem pool will take care of dial-out needs.  Are
there any particular circumstances in which this is not a good
solution?  I suggested that services requiring special front-end
programs (AppleLink, CompuServe Navigator or Information Manager,
America OnLine) might be problematical, but the Ericsson people say
that the TAUs respond to Hayes type AT commands so it should be no
problem.

2) Can anything be done with Shiva NetModems?  These are shared
devices on an AppleTalk network that allow modem dial-in and dial-out
services (when you dial-in you appear as a node on the zone of the
network where the NetModem is located).  The current suggestion is
that we'll have to get a separate analog line.

3) A UNIX based "gateway" system is being hooked into the switch to
control dial-in access to the campus fiber-optic network.  Any
particular words of wisdom here?

4) One of the groups here has an audio teleconference bridge that
appears to require analog lines.  Are there similar systems for
digital setups?

5) We have a system that forwards calls into a PA system in a
television studio that the vendor has told us is not compatible with a
digital system.  Run analog lines to it too?

I am not on the implementation team for this changeover.  My concern
is that none of our ongoing project work gets disrupted by this.  We
have a lot of strange setups in this building.  Thanks for your
thoughts.


Bruce Carter, CBI Product Development           [e-mail]
Simplot/Micron Instructional Technology Center  amccarte@idbsu (Bitnet)
Boise State University, Boise, ID  83725        [phone]@phone

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

From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN in Massachusetts
Date: 9 May 92 01:05:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Morris Meyer)
writes:

> We're going to put out a document that tells how to deal with your
> friendly RBOC in a way that you can get the service that our software
> and hardware needs.  If it makes you feel any better, the people who
> wrote all of the software (myself and Richard Williamson) have gone
> through all of this angst before.  The phone companies are getting
> better.

Just a note on the state of ISDN here in the People's Republic of
Massachusetts, in case others are interested and/or need some
amusement today.  While it is getting better as Morris states, the
improvement is happening at a ponderous pace, as befits the phone
company and other dinosaurs. I suspect that my problems may be
symptomatic of the nation at large, so I figure I'll post this little
story and see what, if any, comments come back.

A little background: I've been looking to upgrade the current SLIP
connection between my partner's home and the office, which is
currently running over normal residential lines and a pair of
v.32bis/v.42bis modem.  I was hoping that basic rate ISDN would enable
me, by bridging the B channels (thanks Morris and Richard), to step up
to a 128K connection. I hoped that at that speed, NFS mounts and
NXHost'ing of apps would become feasible (they aren't now). Both
locations are served out of the same Central Office (CO) which is a
5ESS and is ISDN capable.  At the moment we pay about $14/month on
each end for our connection and we keep it up 24-hours a day or as
needed for various other purposes.

Quick disclaimer: after literally one year of calling the phone
company and the Mass Dept of Public Utilities with inquiries about
ISDN, I have developed a visceral aversion to regulated utilities and
the technology-challenged liberal arts/law school graduates who
regulate them.  When I have a really bad day, I call these guys up,
(especially the DPU) because they give me the perfect means of venting
a lot of spleen without the guilt of doing so on someone who doesn't
deserve it. :^) The point is: salt the little parable below to taste.

Anyway, this past week, I finally got someone on the phone at New
England Telephone who could actually tell me what services the State
of Massachusetts was now allowing me to buy. I WAS APPALLED (but not
surprised :^) )

The conversation with NE Tel started out just rosy.  The sales guy
informed me that ISDN was available out of my CO (a fact that I knew a
year ago and which influence a relocation decision) and that it could
be had by subscribing to their Centrex service with quantity one line.
Now, I knew that Centrex is essentially renting part of a switch and
is typically sold to signicantly larger customers as a way of enticing
them not to buy a PBX, thereby cheating the phone company out of its
hard-earned return on assets.  I was a bit hazy on exactly what
Centrex features one can use on a single line, but I let it ride.

Since this was a business line (residential customers don't do
digital), I would of course have to pay the tariffed business line
rate of $30/month.  That's fair, gotta subsidize my personal line
somehow, and it sort of fits with making me buy commercial plates for
my pickup truck (only businesses in MA drive trucks). Anyway, I let
this ride, too.

Now we add $23/month because this is a DIGITAL line. I asked him if he
knew the function of the A/D chips and codecs that are on the line
card in the switch that my analog line attaches to. He allowed that
that was not really his area.  I bit my lip and reluctantly let it
ride.

Then I enquired as to any usage fees.  He said yes, all of this can be
had for the low-low price of 9.6 cents/call plus 1.6 cents/minute.  I
did a quick back of the envelope calculation: $.016/minute * 60 min/hr
* 24 hr/day * 30 days/month and came up with a usage fee of about
$691/month. I could not let this one ride.  I felt a bad day coming on
:^) ...

I asked exactly why NE Tel felt that I ought to be paying a per minute
usage fee when placing an intra-CO call on a non-blocking switch. He
assured me that even though this was not his area, those switch
services cost real money.  I said that I used to program state code in
line cards on phone switches for a living and that yes, I understood
that I used switch services during call set-up or if I went outside my
CO and tied up trunk capacity, but that I knew damn'd well that I did
no such thing once the call was established to another line in the
same switch.  He replied that this really wasn't his area, but he
assumed that since it was in the tariff, I must be wrong.

I decided to try another tack.  I asked him why anyone would possibly
be interested in paying $1,488/month ($691+53 on two lines) to get
ISDN for circuit switched data calls when one could pay $28/month for
a private connection.  (Admittedly the $28/month solution is "only"
14.4 up to 56KB, but it ain't 1/50th the speed).

At the mention of the words "private line", I could hear a giant
switch being thrown.  Why hadn't I mentioned that I wanted a private
line.  Why for "only" $80/month on each end he could provide me with
56KB DDS and they could sell me a DSU/CSU for about $1000/bucks on
each end and everything would be just peachy.  This was when I said
sorry to have troubled him, I'd call back when the DPU actually let
someone compete with New England Tel for the local subscriber loop.

I've said all of the above to say this: if you're counting on ISDN to
provide flexible data connections, you need to be fairly wealthy,
given the current regulatory environment. Small businesses need not
apply. This is changing in places like NYC and Chicago, but in other
places the free market is still seen as a dangerous innovation that
has not been proven to work. At this point, I'm interested in hearing
from other parts of the country what sort of use people expect to get
out of an ISDN connection over the public switched network and how
much they anticipate that it will cost.

If anyone's interested, over the course of the next month or so, I'm
going to give Metropolitan Fiber and Teleport a call and start trying
to find out what services they offer.  You never know, might not be
more that about five years before they're local loop providers and it
would be great to get in on the ground floor.  I'll post if I find
anything vastly amusing or useful.

PS: Sprinkle all of the above liberally with smileys.  It's all true
but its also all funny in an ironic sort of way.


Cheers,

Ronald V. Simmons    [e-mail]

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

Subject: New Generation of Airplane Payphones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 9 May 92 13:24:23 EDT (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Tuesday's {Microbytes} reports on a new generation of airplane phones
under development by In-Flight Phone of Oak Brook, IL.  It is headed
by John Goeken who was the founder of Airfone and, as I recall, was
also the founder of MCI.

The new phones are all-digital, and use 12 kilobit channels.  The
ground stations are controlled by 386 DOS PC clones.  On the plane,
each phone (one per seat or perhaps group of seats) has a small CPU
with a codec that turns the voice into a 64Kb bit stream, and an
in-plan LAN passes that to a server that uses a DSP to squash it down
to 11.2kbps.  There is provision planned for handling faxes, though at
the moment all they seem to have is something that passes ASCII to the
ground station which then turns it into a fax.  It implies that there
is also provision for modem traffic, as one of the major complaints
about the current scheme is that the fidelity is so lousy that it
can't even do 300 baud.

US Air is starting trials this month, with American and Northwest
expected to follow.  The rate is $2/minute, same as Airfone, but
without the $2 setup charge that Airfone has.

The computer stuff is from Desktalk Systems of Torrance CA, and the
radio part from Digital Microwave of San Jose CA.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 15:26:10 -0500
From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill


Several people have asked, so I have placed a copy of my first
residential ISDN bill on our anonymous ftp server, hepnet.hep.net
(131.225.100.1).  Look for purchases/april-isdn-bill.txt.  Some
highlights:

- montly services is about $44 - installation cost about $200 -
circuit-switched data calls $0.12 for the first minute, $0.01 for each
additional 1/10 of a minute, insensitive to time or volume.

- voice calls are standard rates.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: HAL Catalog
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Sat, 09 May 92 22:59:11 GMT


I recently received a new catalog at work which had quite a few
interesting goodies in it.  The company is Home Automation
Laboratories (HAL) and can be reached at 800 HOME-LAB (800 466-3522)
or 404 319-6000.

It includes:

- Several phone and intercom systems, including the much-raved-about
  Panasonic small PBX/Key phone systems - which I've never seen for sale
  retail and have failed to purchase in the past.

- Many phone accessories, including:

  A box that answers the phone and demands a password be punched in by
  the caller before ringing.  Apparently this is a replacement "bell"
  and doesn't ring the callee's phones, so I doubt it works with modems
  or answering machines and additional ringers would have to be kludged
  in.

  Several interesting voice/Fax phone line sharing devices with a new
  twist:  They let YOU or your answering machine answer the phone and it
  eavesdrops listing for a fax tone.  If it hears the tone, it
  disconnects your phone or answering machine and connects the Fax to the
  line.  They say this is guaranteed to work 100% of the time with any
  fax or answering machine, including behind a PBX.

  Another box is similar but listens for an originating modem's tone
  and assumes it's a Fax call if there's no tone within eight seconds. It
  says no modem programming is required since it listens for the
  origination tone, and apparently ignores the answering modem's tone,
  which must normally occur first.

  The usual distinctive-ringing detector which routes the ringing line
  to different devices depending on the ring cadence.

  Music-on-hold boxes, which can synthesize Bethoven or use an external
  music source.

  Dial-uppable devices to eavesdrop on sound, temperature, and external
  detectors, commonly used to monitor computer rooms from off-site.

- Many, many X10 (wireless AC switch/dimmer module/controller) accessories,
  including PC interfaces, and remote controls which do X10 and infra-red.

- Many, many infra-red (standard audio/video remote control) replacement
  remotes, PC-interface remotes, "wired" remote extenders including several
  to use existing TV coax for both CATV and run the wired remote detector.

- Surge suppressors for everything, including a "whole house" one that
  connected directly to your breaker/fuse panel!!

- Alarms, motion detectors, and closed-circuit TV systems.

- Multi-room speaker systems, including interesting impedance-matching
  devices.

- Systems/devices/solutions which combine all of the above into your
  worst nightmare!  :-)

The catalog is not terribly well organized and doesn't do a wonderful
job of explaining some things, but there are definitely some
hard-to-find and interesting items in it.  I have no idea what their
quality or service is like.  Maybe their tech support is all-knowing,
helpful, and just waiting for the phone to ring??  (Well, Dorothy and
the gang ARE on a yellow brick road on the cover of the catalog, so
who knows?)

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

From: [e-mail] (Guy Martin)
Subject: Strange Phone Behaviour
Organization: Polycat/Systems Support - Kennedy Library, Cal Poly SLO
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 06:15:32 GMT


I was wondering if anyone has experienced the following strange
behaviour from their phone ...

I try to call my sister in the East Bay (510) from San Luis Obispo
(805) several times. I got a busy signal the first few times, which I
didn't think was abnormal (she talks on the phone a LOT #:-)), but
then when I did get a ring, it was one ring, followed immediately by a
"static"y sound with no more ring tone ... I sat on the line, and
after about two minutes of the static, I got ring tone again, but it
just kept ringing out, until Boom!, I got fast busy (VERY LOUD I might
add) ...

What is strange about this is that there should have been an intercept
recording if there was a network problem, right?

Anyone ever experienced this before?


Guy Martin -- Polycat/Systems Support      | Internet: [e-mail]
Robert E. Kennedy Library, Cal Poly SLO    | UUCP: voder!polyslo!library!guy
----------------------------- Standard Disclaimer -----------------------------
  My opinions are my own!  They do not reflect those of the Kennedy Library.


[Moderator's Note: The problem might have been very local, within her
wires or instrument. If between the CO and the 'network' no problem
was seen, the call would have been passed along to your sister, but if
the wires somewhere around her were wet or poorly connected, the busy
signals you got earlier and the static could be accounted for. The
intermittent connection to her phone (due to wet or improperly
connected wires) then might have caused the CO switch to do something
strange, all the while the CO or network itself saw no problem. Have
you since asked your sister if she experienced any problems that day
in answering the phone when it rang, or in placing outgoing calls?
I've had cases of one ring then silence with no answer, and it turned
out to be someone (won't say who!) had accidentally connected the ring
of one line to the tip of another, or etc.  Once or twice of these
calls, then the CO started returning fast busy.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #375
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10069;
          10 May 92 10:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13155
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09097
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:07 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:50:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #376

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 May 92 07:50:05 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 376

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help Me Complete This One (Pierre-Martin Tardif)
    Reference to AT&T News Line in Someone Else's News Line (David Leibold)
    Bell Canada Voice Mail Demo Line (David Leibold)
    Detroit Area Code Split Questions (Linc Madison)
    Another Hotel Experience (Stephanie da Silva)
    Seeking Continued Net Access in the Boston Area (Scott Fybush)
    Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (Michael Rosen)
    Need: Software for Panasonic KTX-1232 Phone Systems (Jeff McCartney)
    Scams Discussed on Recent "48 Hours" Show (Gordon Burditt)
    Wanted: Differential Ringing Fax/Voice Switch (Douglas Camp)
    Integretel Response (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pierre-Martin Tardif)
Subject: Help Me Complete This One
Organization: Universite Laval
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 20:51:47 GMT


Can anyone help me complete this list?  Please, reply on the net so
everybody will be able to add their comments.  If no one replies, what
should I think?

Anyway, here it is:

Here is more about phone lines:

Remember this is for Canada, but the USA should be similar.

You should conform to the following:

TYPE                MIN (Ohm)    NOM. (Ohm)    MAX. (Ohm)
====================           =========    =========    =========
*******************************Impedance**********************************
  ---------------------------OFF-HOOK---------------------------------
DC                100                200
AC (200 Hz to 3500 Hz, T=R)            600
  ---------------------------ON-HOOK----------------------------------
DC                20,000
AC (20 Hz, T/R=G)        14,000
AC (30 Hz, T/R=G)        10,000
  ---------------------------RINGING----------------------------------
AC (at 40Hz, T=R)        1,000
AC (680 Hz to 1660 Hz)        2,000
********************************Over-Voltage*******************************
DC pulse of 1 sec.        -1,000                1,000
AC at 60 Hz            1,000

TYPE                MIN        NOM.        MAX.
====================           =========    =========    =========
********************************Power**************************************
In-band signal (300 to 3000 Hz)                    -9 dBm (3 sec.)
                                +3 dBm (250 ms)
Out-of-band into 600 Ohm                    -20 dBV
********************************Parasitic signals**************************
CC (T=R)            -25 mV                25 mV
CC (T/R=G)                            -0.5
AC (10 to 100 Hz, T=R)                        -33 dBm
AC (in C band, T=R)                        17 dBrnc
AC (100 to 4000 Hz, T/R=G with 500 Ohm to G)            -30 dBV
********************************Signaling**********************************
PULSE
Duty cycle            58%                64%
Pulses per second        8/sec.                11/sec.
On-hook time            53ms                80ms
Off-hook time            33ms
Between digit time        0.7s                3s

DTMF
Frequency tolerance        -1.5%                +1.5%
Power during emission                        0 dBm
Power during silence                        -55 dBm
Emission time            50ms
Between digit time        45ms                3s

You can use an automatic signaling system with 10 tries with a 60s
pause between calls.


THE PHONE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE YOU:

TYPE                MIN        NOM.        MAX.
====================           =========    =========    =========
Voltage DC (T=R)        47 V        48 V        105 V
Ring AC voltage (T=R)        40 Vrms        90 Vrms        130 Vrms
Ring frequency            15.8 Hz        20 Hz        68 Hz
Ring ON/OFF time                1s/1s
DC current            20mA        30mA        120mA
Noise                                15dBrnC

Also, the domestic cable should look like this:
        RED is RING is NEGATIVE(dc)
        GREEN is TIP is POSITIVE(dc)
        YELLOW is GROUND if available
        BLACK is not connected

Lexical:
    T was Tip, R was Ring, T=R was between Tip and Ring,
    T/R=G was between Tip and Ground  OR  between Ring and Ground

A good telephone line transformer should have an impedance of 600 Ohm,
a resistance around 120 Ohm, a good frequency response between 300 Hz
and 3 kHz, a good operating level (-45 dBm to 10 dBm), be able to
wisthand 90mA DC without saturating, have a good longitudinal balance
(60 dB is good) and a good dielectric strengh (1.5 kVrms for 1 min.).

You should use a relay to put your line ON/OFF-HOOK.  A good one is a
G6E-134P-ST-US from I don't remember who...if you're interested, I
will find out.  You also use it to generate your pulse signalisation
but you need to put a resistor-capacitor in parallel to remove to
voltage transients generated by the switching.  It's control come from
a 5Vdc supply and you should put a diode to remove the voltage
transients:

  Your interface ------* | | *------------------------ TIP
                       * | | *                       don't forget your
                       * | | *                       protection
                 ------* | | *-------|             |-- RING
                       Transfo       +-_-_-_--| |--+
                                     |   R     C   |
                                     |             |
                                  ---------------------
                                  |  |______/ _____|  |
                  |                   |
                                  |  --^^^^^^^^^^^--  |
                                  |  |             |  |
                                  ---------------------
                         + 5Vdc |----|             |
                                     |---|<|-------|
                                         DIODE     |
                                                   |
                                           |\      |
                                 HOOK -----| *------
                                           |/
                    ULN2804
DIODE: 1N4003
R and C: sorry I don't remember....

For protection, don't forget to put, between T and R, a transorb for
it small reponse time and a spark gap for longer and higher transients.

If you think it's too complicated for you ... then don't play with
phone lines!


Pierre-Martin Tardif, etudiant gradue  (email: [e-mail])
Laboratoire de Vision et Systemes Numeriques
Universite Laval, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot, local 00100-I, Ste-Foy, Quebec,
Canada, G1K 7P4         (418-656-2131, ext 4848)

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 02:43:13 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reference to AT&T News Line in Someone Else's News Line


The Amateur Video News Network (1 800 221 NEWS) will prompt whether
information is needed on their service, or on the AT&T News Line.
When AT&T News Line is chosen, a recording is played which mentions
the regular number for AT&T News and stating that there is no
toll-free access to this line. Even though the former 800 number for
AT&T's news was actually 1 800 2 ATT NOW, it would seem many people
have been trying this number.

AT&T's news line can be reached at +1 908 221 NEWS, but no longer as
toll free. In the U.S., an appropriate long distance carrier can be
used to place this call (hint: dial 10222 or 10333 first :-))


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 02:47:29 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Voice Mail Demo Line


Bell Canada has just introduced Call Answer, a voice mail service
integrated into their residential or business lines. The advantage
Bell has over private, non-PBXed voice mail suppliers is that Bell's
Call Answer can works on the subscriber's number, and when the line is
busy or not answering.

A demonstration line is available at [phone] (need touch tone
to skip through menus, etc). No information is immediately available
on whether an 800 number equivalent is available for this (though this
might only be effective in Ontario and Quebec only).


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 May 92 00:28:33 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Detroit Area Code Split Questions


I have some relatives who live in Michigan, just north of Eight Mile
Road, and therefore will be affected by the area code split that has
been mentioned here in the past.  However, they haven't heard much of
anything about the subject, and if these questions have been answered
here, I missed them.

(1) What will the new area code be?  810 and 910 are the only
possibilities left, but which is it?

(2) What are the effective dates for initial and final cutover?  Have
they been announced?


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)
Subject: Another Hotel Experience
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 07:53:40 GMT


In light of all the hotel telephone service bashing, I thought I'd
relay our recent experience, which turned out to be a positive one.

We went to Austin about three weeks ago so Peter could attend a
meeting of a committee that he was asked to participate in.  We stayed
at the Hawthorne Suites Hotel.  The rooms were very nice -- like
little apartments with a kitchen and a living room.  We were pleased
to see that the long distance carrier was AT&T.

Local calls were fifty cents apiece, and there was no charge for 800
numbers.  You could also make direct dial long distance calls for a
horrendous surcharge which I did one time when I got frustrated trying
to use the Sprint card because the buffer on the modem was too small
to hold the incredibly huge string of numbers one has to dial.  I wish
I had timed the call, but it couldn't have been longer than ten
minutes (just long enough to check my mail) and the charge was over
five dollars.  This for a call placed at three in the morning!

When we checked out, we scrutinized the bill and found we had not been
charged for any calls we didn't make.  The hotel clerk explained that
they didn't even do the billing for the phone calls.  In fact, we
weren't charged for a call we did make, but it was one where I had
timed out on the system for taking to long to log in and I guess it
was too short of a duration to register for a call (I guess they had a
minimum call length before they started charging).  Not a perfect
experience, but not too bad, either.

As a footnote, we went and visited with Peter's parents right before
we left for Austin.  They were staying at a hotel near the airport
here as they had arranged a short layover in Houston so we could visit
with them as we don't see them very often.  We looked at the card that
explained the telephone service, and it said the long distance carried
was Allied TeleScam or something like that, based out of Dallas.  On
the back of the card was a disclaimer saying the hotel wasn't
accountable for the service and it gave the name and number of some
Consumer Advocacy service to direct complaints to.  Kind of tells you
something about the quality of the service, doesn't it?


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:03 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeking Continued Net Access in the Boston Area


I will be graduating from Brandeis University in two weeks (gulp!) and
will therefore lose the use of this account.  I want to remain active
on the Internet, though, as this newsgroup and several others have
proved not only entertaining but most educational over the years
(Thanks, PAT!)  So here's what I'm looking for: A system which will
allow me access to USENET and Internet mail, reachable by 1200-baud
modem from a number in the metro Boston area, preferably in the
western suburbs (small unmeasured calling area, you know).  And being
a college graduate in 1992 with no clear prospects of employment, the
cheaper the better.

Suggestions are appreciated by e-mail to [e-mail],
which will be active until at least the 24th of May.  Anyone wanting a
summary of what I find can e-mail me at that address or my new
address, whatever that may prove to be.  Thanks in advance ...


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail] *UNTIL 24 MAY 1992*

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 10 May 92 02:54:38 GMT


Whew, long winded subject line ...

Does anyone know if there's any kind of device that will cut off
another extension when the modem is in use?  I would like to have
something that, when I am on the modem, will prevent someone from
picking up another extension and interrupting my session.  Is such a
device available?


Thanks,

Mike


[Moderator's Note: There are plenty of things like this. The easiest
most convenient source would probably be at your local Radio Shack
store. Price is just a few dollars.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (MCCARTNEY,JEFFREY ELWOOD)
Subject: Need: Software For Panasonic KTX-1232 Phone Systems
Date: 9 May 92 00:17:31 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


That's right.  I need to learn about the good software for the
KTX-1232 key phone systems.  Voice messaging and all that.  Typcially
not sold by Panasonic.

We are looking to install such soon and know the software is crucial.
Any recommendations and gotchas would be appreciated.


Thank you.

uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8963a
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Scams Discussed on Recent "48 Hours" Show
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 07:08:56 GMT


The CBS news program "48 Hours" recently had an interesting program on
various types of scams.  One of them was on the theft of calling card
numbers in airports and train stations, and the resale of these
numbers to make international calls.  Apparently the "going rate" is
$10 for an unlimited-duration international call.

A reporter made a phone call using her MCI calling card in Penn
Station in Newark, without being careful to protect it, and there were
apparently at least five people around her trying to get the number.
One of them asked the camaraman if he got the number.  One guy was
pretending to use a phone while actually trying to get calling card
numbers of the people next to him.

In a later interview with MCI's fraud control people, it turns out
that the stolen number was used two minutes later.  In the process
they gave viewers a nice shot of the MCI calling card number.
Presumably this card has been cancelled already.  There were also some
nice shots of call logs, identifying calls to Algeria, Egypt, and
Switzerland, complete with apparently real numbers, and computer
screens of AT&T Security with what looks like login passwords on them.

The police had cameras monitoring the phones and were logging all the
numbers.  Several arrests were made.  One of the number resellers
didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

It is apparently New York law that you have to be caught with a stolen
calling card, not a calling card number, in order to be prosecuted,
unless you actually make a phone call, which the resellers don't.

Also covered were the pigeon-drop scam, loan scams, fake lottery
ticket scams, stolen cars/fake auto accidents/insurance fraud taken to
the point of being an industry, and home-repair scams.

Parts of the program were sponsored by MCI, with a pitch for their
"Friends of the Firm" program, the business equivalent of "Friends &
Family".


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 13:39:58 -0500
From: douglas camp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Differential Ringing Fax/Voice Switch
Organization: Indiana University


Can anyone recommend a FAX/Voice switch which will recognize
differential ringing? (Different sequences of short/long rings). I'd
like to use it at home to route calls between voice/ modem/fax based
on the incoming ring (so that the switch doesn't have to pick up the
line, fake a ring, listen for a FAX, etc.).  Price is a _key_
consideration.

Thanks for your help.


Doug

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 16:44:53 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integretel Response


I have received a form postcard in response to my complaint to
Integretel in San Jose, California.  The dates were filled in by
handwriting.  It reads:

"DATE Apr 28 '92

"Thank you for your letter which we received on 4-27-92.

"Integretel is committed to providing quality inquiry service and we
will do whatever we can to ensure your dispute is resolved fairly and
accurately.

"This card acknowledges our receipt of your complaint.  We will now
begin to investigate the facts surrounding the dispute and may be
contacting you for additional information.

"Every attempt will be made to conclude our investigation by 5-27-92.
At that time we will contact you to indicate our findings and explain
the action that has been taken regarding your account.

"Again, thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

"Consumer Relations Department
Integretel, Inc."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #376
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11040;
          10 May 92 10:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15099
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:53 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10465
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:45 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 08:31:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #377

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 May 92 08:31:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 377

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) (Wm Randolph Franklin)
    Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (William Degnan)
    Looking For a Good Answering Machine (Pascal Gosselin)
    Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Gregg E. Woodcock)
    Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist? (Doug Barlow)
    Tropez 900DX 900 MHz Digital Cordless Phones (Brian Crawford)
    Tropez 900DX 900 Mhz Phone Review (Dave Rand)
    Positions Available at Hayes (Toby Nixon)
    Career Change Time (Robert L. McMillin)
    911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Todd Inch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 20:34:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> on 2 May 92 22:41:31 GMT,
[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> But a spokesman for New England Telephone says the phone company knows
> of no such scams and that company regulations require any service
> charging more than $3 to let a caller hang up without being charged.

Official spokesmen and the truth are not always positively correlated.

Two months ago, when that fortune-telling company was charging people
for 800 calls, I called first local NyTel and then AT&T about this
practice.  NyTel punted to AT&T.  AT&T adamantly denied that any such
thing could possibly occur, and also denied that such a thing as the
{USA Today} billing for an 800 call could occur either.  Twice the
person I talked to put me on hold for several minutes while she
checked her info.  When she came back she continued to deny this.

Whether she was playing a semantic logic-chopping game with me, in
that she considered such charges to be for information provided during
the call, and not for the call itself, or whether she, and her
supervisors, had really never heard of such things, I don't know.

(Other organizations also do this.  Last year, after a power blackout,
the official NiMo power company spokesman told the newspaper that all
service had been restored by such-and-such a time.  I wrote a letter
to the newspaper saying that I knew from personal experience that this
was false.  The paper published my letter.  The day it appeared, the
spokesman wrote me a full-page letter of explanation.  Basically, in
principle, Nimo intended that power be almost completely restored at
that time, so his story to the media was correct, just simplified.  It
reminded me of Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado.  The Mikado ordered that
someone be executed, and since his word was law, then for all
practical purposes the execution had then occurred.)

Just wondering, but if the charges for 900 calls are for the informa-
tion, then a defense for not paying should be that the information
provided wasn't worth the charge.


                           Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail]                     Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180


[Moderator's Note: Well, of course whether or not the information was
worth the charge is a very subjective decision. That's why once the
information is delivered, the payment is due. How do you go about
giving it back to the seller as with undesired merchandise? Do you get
hypnotized to clear the knowledge out of your brain cells? :) PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William Degnan)
Date: 09 May 92  22:41:40
Subject: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey


I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison &
Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter". My US
Mail to the manufacturer's address was returned as undeliverable.
Directory assistance to Northridge, CA and 800 DA came up empty.

Anybody know if these folks are still in business? If so where? I'd
like to see if I can find some practices for it and see if it might be
adaptable for my telephone.


William Degnan,  Communications Network Solutions
-Independent Consultants in Telecommunications-
P.O. Drawer 9530       | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530  | ![e-mail]  | Voice [phone]

Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Pascal Gosselin)
Subject: Looking For a Good Answering Machine
Organization: Altitude, St-Lambert QC  CANADA
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:22:34 GMT


I'm looking for an answering machine with excellent remote touch-tone
control that will let me do ALL operations remotely.

I'm looking specifically for:

-Time and date stamp
-Remote erasing/storing of messages
-Ability to change outgoing message remotely
-Very good security (at least 4 digits)
-Beeperless operation
-Fast operation

I will not have easy physical access to the machine, so it needs to
operate reliably in a closet without human intervention.

Recommendations in email preferred.

Thanks.


Pascal Gosselin            | Internet: [e-mail]  AppleLink: CDA0129
Omer DeSerres Informatique |   Voice [phone]    Fax [phone]

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

From: "Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages!
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 09:16:08 -0500


For those who missed this article in {Information Week}, it shows how
businesses are dependent on robust software and hardware (and disaster
recovery plans):

"Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with
more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward
Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds
to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage.  When 25,000
lines or more go down for one to six hours, carriers would have to
refund 1/4 of the previous month's phone bill to their customers. When
the outage lasts 6 to 12 hours, customers would get back 1/2 their
bill; outages over 12 hours would require carriers to refund the
entire bill. Moreover, carriers found to be 'negligent' could also
face penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 PER MINUTE (!) for disrupted
service."

OUCH!


[Moderator's Note: It will never become law. Telephone service is
governed by tariffs, one of which clearly specifies that the most a
customer can expect in the way of compensation is a pro-ration of the
month's bill based on the length of time the service was out.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 14:00:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Doug Barlow)
Subject: Digital Cordless Phones: Do They Exist?
Organization: Novell Inc., Provo, UT ,USA


I am in the market for a cordless phone and daily I hear about people
that complain that analog cordless phones have many problems (i.e.
People can listen in on your conversation, poor quality reception,
sounds like you're talking into a tin can, etc).

I have asked around and no one seems to sell a digital cordless phone
(at least none of the big name companies).  I would think that would
solve all of the problems listed above. Opinions?

The only company that I have seen sell one is VTech Communications
from Beaverton, Ore. {Newsweek} did a short piece on them from the
Consumer Electronics Show (Jan 20,1992) page 6.

Do YOU know of any others?  Send me E-mail and I will compile a list
and post it in a few days.

Any comments welcome.


Doug Barlow                   Email: [e-mail]
Novell, Inc.  Provo, UT
            The opinions expressed above are solely my own and
        do not in any way represent the opinions of Novell, Inc.

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 18:56:42 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tropez 900DX 900 MHz Digital Cordless Phones


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

> Finally, the 900MHz cordless phones have hit the market.  A full page
> ad in today's {New York Times} touts the _Tropez_ 20-channel 900 MHz
> phone with a half-mile range.  Only $299, and it's "fully digital,"
> whatever that means.  I hope some Telecom readers take a test drive
> for us.

I just ordered mine.  They say it should take two to three weeks.  If
no one else posts a "test drive review", I'm happy to do so.  Rather
than post an incomplete review and receive numerous inquiries, if
those interested parties will let me know what details they'd like to
see, I'm happy to include it.

A call to the downtown San Francisco store reveals that this is TRUE
digital transmission (they verified this by tuning into the unit's
operating frequency with a scanner).

Hope this helps.


Brian Crawford, KL7JDQ      INTERNET: [e-mail]
PO Box 804                            [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85281                 [e-mail]
USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 08:37:39 PDT
Subject: Tropez 900DX 900 Mhz Phone Review


Well, I've had my phone for several days now, so here is an update
on it.

The 900DX is one of the first of the new breed of 900 Mhz cordless
telephones. It uses 20 channels from 925.5 to 927.4 Mhz (handset to
base), and 20 channels from 905.6 to 907.5 Mhz (base to handset).
They do not list a power level, but simply state that it uses the
"maximum power allowed by FCC". The signal path is fully digital from
base to handset, and handset to base. This prevents casual
evesdropping from people with scanners, but will not provide high
security.  The signal, when tuned in on a scanner, sounds like a dead
carrier, with the occasional 'pop' or two. Nothing even resembling
voice is present.  The weight of the handset is 335 grams, and is 19.5
cm x 5.8 cm x 3.5 cm, excluding the short antenna.

Range is extrordinary. They claim 2600 feet, on level ground. I was
able to use the phone for almost a 1.5 block radius around my house,
in a typical suburban environment. Because the signal is digital,
there appears to be a go/no go type of response. When you are on the
edge of the coverage area, there is a slight 'popping' sound, as the
signal comes in and out, but no static at all. When you have moved out
of range, the handset is silent, except for a 10-30 second 'beep' tone
to let you know that you are out of range. Noise is non-existant, even
in the harmonic-rich environment of my computer room, where my 46/49
Mhz Sony unit is almost unusable.

The base unit comes with a hands-free option, and a separate keypad so
that it may be used even if the handset is not present. An intercom
facility is provided, and works well.

Now, for the bad news.  The audio quality is best described as
'acceptable'.  True, there is no additional noise. The level of the
received audio is low, even with the four position digital volume
control at maximum. The level of the transmitted audio, however, is
even worse.  On international calls, callers were often unable to hear
me, and I was forced to change to either the Sony or a regular wired
phone. There are several artifacts audible to the user, and to the
called party when using the phone, especially when high audio levels
(like ring signals, SIT tones, and touch-tones) are present. I suspect
that it is using an 8-bit A/D, D/A convertor, with (perhaps) some form
of delta compression.  Even on local calls, the most often heard phase
when using this phone is "pardon me?".  I started to get in the habit
of shouting when using the 900DX!

So far, I have tried three of the 900DX phones. The first one was
significantly worse on the RX audio, but all were not really good
enough.  Calls to the 800 number for tech support (800-624-5688)
yielded a good response, but they are not able to adjust the outbound
volume level. Bottom line: The phone is going back to Macy's.

I really like the idea of a fully digital phone, but the Tropez unit
is just not quite there yet. I'll try the Panasonic unit next -- I've
had good luck with their cellular phones, and answering/fax machines.


Dave Rand
{pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr    Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Positions Available at Hayes
Date: 9 May 92 16:56:11 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


The following advertisement appeared recently in several newspapers.
I thought I'd pass it along in case anyone is interested.

        -- Toby

    ------ Begin Ad ------

Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. is a global company whose
professionals are widely recognized as experts in the computer
communications industry. To maintain our leadership position in a
rapidly changing and challenging market, we have the following
opportunities available in our Norcross office for experienced
engineers with a BSEE/BSCS or equivalent.

FIRMWARE ENGINEERS

Requirements include 2+ years experience in the development of
communications systems or software and a demonstrated ability to
expand expertise into new areas.  Experience in one of the following
is desired: LANs, multiplexors, transmission systems, or network
management systems. Excellent written and verbal communications skills
are essential. A Masters degree would be a plus.

SENIOR HARDWARE ENGINEERS

Working with the design and development of hardware designs for
microprocessor-based communication equipment, these hands-on
professionals will be involved from inception through manufacturing
and delivery. A minimum of 6+ years hardware design experience with
microprocessor-based equipment for high volume production is required.
Additional experience must include designing with 68000-family
processors, FPLAs, SMT, and PCB layouts for RFI. Design of ASICs
desirable. Masters degree a plus.

SOFTWARE ENGINEERS

A minimum of 3+ years experience developing software applications in
DOS, OS/2, or UNIX environments for data or telecommunications
products. We are also seeking individuals with a minimum 2+ years MS
Windows application development experience.

Hayes is a progressive company that respects and recognizes the work
and contribution of every individual. We offer a competitive salary
and comprehensive benefits package. For confidential consideration,
please send resume with salary requirements to: Human Resources, Hayes
Microcomputer Products, Inc., P.O. Box 105203, Dept. 01-595, Atlanta,
GA, 30348.  An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer M/F/D/V.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 May 92 10:11:12 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Career Change Time


The defense market being what it is, even my current employer, one of
the best in the business, has contracted greatly and will continue to
do so.  There are some real financial worries at our facility of late,
which leads me to wonder out loud exactly how much longer we'll likely
remain here.  The question at the fore, then, is this: having about
five years of real-time software development under my belt, what kind
of software jobs are available in the telecom area right now?  More
specific questions:

* What kinds of experience are managers looking for?

* Who's hiring? And where? (Sorry, but we don't get Usenet news at our
  site.)

* What kind of degree requirements are these folks asking for?

* What else can I do to help sell my skills?

If it's any help, I'm particularly interested in work in the cellular
telephony area.

If I get enough responses, I'll post them, assuming Pat doesn't object.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Thu, 07 May 92 23:01:57 GMT


I heard on the radio the other day that some cellular providers will
soon provide a "hotline" to the Coast Guard by pressing #CG{Send}.

Perhaps that will obsolete Marine Band channel 16?


[Moderator's Note: I don't think it will simply because there are
different transmission characteristics between the two, and the VHF
radios have a better coverage area in some applications. Certainly
cellular phones can supplement VHF, but not replace it.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #377
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05634;
          10 May 92 22:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28623
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25707
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:45 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 20:12:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #378

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 May 92 20:12:47 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 378

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Ron Dippold)
    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Eli Mantel)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Mark Wuest)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Mike Rosen)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Build Ultimate Call Screener) (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Moderator's Surprise (Brad Hicks)
    Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (Toby Nixon)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (D. Griffiths)
    Re: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 19:39:47 GMT


[e-mail] quotes a press release:

> According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are
> fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information
> services.  There have never been charges for making calls to 800

> "This is the type of service for which "900" numbers were
> created.  But with increased regulation of 900 numbers, some
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> information providers are switching to 800 numbers, taking advantage

There's your problem right there.  900 numbers existed for a reason.
If you called them and got burned, you had yourself to blame, and the
company if they used false advertising.

With legislation to basically regulate 900 numbers out of existence
(by requiring that you mail in consent in advance, or other such
measures) it was inevitable that companies would move to other means
of continuing their operations, including ones that had previously
been left alone.

I continue to be astounded by the idiocy of those legislators who
think they can get rid of a problem by regulating it.

Superstition sees the Finger of God even in trivialities.

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 10:13:40 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers


You mean there have been some cases where an 800 number was printed on
a phone bill along side the charge?  In other words, it would say
something like "SWEEPSTKS" (in this example, "sweepstakes") for place
called, and the 800 (instead of 900) number?

And did anyone learn what would show up on the phone bill if the $120
charge for that psychic service was accepted?  And what if you had
called from a pay phone and had asked (via the keypad) that the charge
be assessed to the phone you were calling from?  (I stopped short of
doing that, but stayed on long enough to hear the correct phone number
 -- all the way down to area code 410 -- read back to me.)


[Moderator's Note: In the {USA Today} case, the number on the bill was
given as 900-555-5555 even though 800-555-5555 was dialed. I don't
know how the fortune tellers handled it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 16:44:58 GMT


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

> According to CA Director Ken McEldowney, "The problem we are
> fighting is the use of 800 numbers to bill for 900-type information
> services.  There have never been charges for making calls to 800
> numbers.  However, in the past month we have heard of phone bills or
> look-alike phone bills for information received over the phone.

[text omitted]
> [one] service promised adult conversation at $4.95 a
> minute.  Students at some midwestern universities and colleges called
> the service at an 800 number from campus phones.  Four months later,
> the schools received charges for the calls on their phone bills.  In
> some cases, the institutions did not know who made the calls: in
> others, callers had already left the institution.

So do these schools have any actual legal liability for the calls
placed?  My understanding was that, in general, a telephone subscriber
accepts responsibility for the charges incurred for calls placed
through his phone line ... but does this include other goods or
service purchased via my telephone?  Am I any more responsible for the
purchases someone makes using an 800 number (and says to bill it to
*my* phone) than Southern Bell is responsible if I go to a Southern
Bell pay phone, place an order, and tell them to bill it to *my*
credit card.  It might be argued that someone billing the charges to
my phone is guilty of fraud, just as I would be if I billed something
to a someone's credit card without authorization.  But that's a vastly
different issue.

> "We are especially concerned about any charges that appear on
> a phone bill," said McEldowney, "because in some states people can
> lose phone service if they don't pay such bills."

Can someone identify the states or phone companies that are still
trying to do this?  The local phone companies only have a contract to
provide billing services ... I assume that, by tariff, the phone
companies must provide service to all comers who are not in arrears
*with the local phone company*.  If the local phone company STILL
doesn't understand this, then the state public service commission
needs to get involved.  If the state public service commission doesn't
understand this, then they need to be booted out.


Eli Mantel, [e-mail]

   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] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 14:26:52 GMT


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

> After many frustrating years of owning a phone I've decided to declare
> war on the following groups:

> 1. Telephone Sales People
> 2. Telephone Sales Computers
> 3. Hanger-Uppers
> 4. Wrong Numbers
> 5. Bill Collectors
> 6. Late Night Callers
> 7. Family/Friends/Children who make 1-900, 976, and long distance calls
> 8. Radio Stations
> 9. And anyone/anything else that uses/abuses my phone

> <etc. deleted>

What happened to:

1. Answering machine with ringer turned off.  If you're taking calls,
turn up the volume and screen them, otherwise just turn volume all the
way down.  Our AT&T digital model doesn't even make all the clicks and
whirs when it answers our phone.

2. Caller ID for when you just *have* to know who didn't leave a
message.

??????

This takes care of all but number 7.  Did someone decide that this wasn't
kosher?


Mark Wuest   [e-mail]    [e-mail] (NeXT Mail Welcome!)

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 10:17:33 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)


As regards wrong numbers, be sure to have enough of an overview to
know what is going on.  As I have said previously in the Digest, I am
amused to recall that I have picked up one call intended for Marilyn
in Beverly Hills and a few calls for a gynecology clinic; but in these
cases I knew what had happened and was able to explain such to the
caller.  (The call for Marilyn had a messed-up area code, and the
calls for the gynecology clinic were a case of two digits transposed.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 9 May 92 07:02:15 GMT


I believe that CallerID won't read numbers that are out of your
calling area.  What would your system do with these calls?


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 12:52:51 GMT


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

> I know that a PC can do much of this stuff but PCs in general are too
> big and/or too expensive for this dedicated task.

If your PC is an Amiga or runs UNIX you don't need to dedicate the
computer to this task. OS/2 should be able to do the same thing ... I
know OS/2 is a hog and is seven years late, but it seems to finally
bring DOS into the '80s.

You'll need to drop at least a grand into the computer that'll support
this, unfortunately, unless you go with Coherent or Minix.


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Mon May  4 20:15:56 -0400 1992
Subj: Re: Moderator's Surprise


Pat, in light of the explicit .sig I think that dragging MasterCard
and its policies into this argument is flatly inappropriate.  Besides,
you obviously have the same misunderstanding that most people have.  I
don't work for the "MasterCard billing center", as there is no such
entity.  MasterCard doesn't bill cardholders; issuing banks bill
cardholders.  Nobody bothers to hack MasterCard, because there isn't
much worth hacking at a not-for-profit corporation with only around 1k
employees.

Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to
try and phreak that.  But since neither or telecom manager nor our
security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number.  And in my
entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much,
much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out
calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks
of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or
less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill"
Jones.  (And if it's true that there are PBXs out there that come
installed with DISA turned on and standard passwords, anybody who buys
one of these should, in my opinion, sue the installer for negligence.)

I will not comment on the credit fraud case you mentioned or any other
specific case; it's not my department.  Contact Richard Woods,
MasterCard International, 888 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10106.  In
general, well, you don't have to work here to know that yes, credit
card fraud is up, and MasterCard's security department has been very
successful in helping to track down and prosecute credit card fraud
rings, world-wide.

But given that credit card frauds are stealing real merchandise, the
comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is inappropriate.

Steve Forrette wrote to remind me that if a Dutch phreak blue-boxes
his way into the international trunk lines and calls elsewhere, the
PTTs end up having to fork real money over to each other for trunk
time.  Look, a mechanism already exists for disputing charges.  When
no customer can be proved to have made the call and when the
originating PTT can't collect, the receiving PTT should waive the
charge ... and they should BOTH work on making it harder to phreak.

If all the money that went into phreaking investigations and
prosecutions went into network security and customer education
instead, there wouldn't be phreaking.

And finally, to that nameless person in 206: You admit yourself that
your own telecom department knew about the dangers of unprotected
DISA.  And you let uneducated end-users manage their own phone
systems, knowing how dangerous it was?  No wonder you asked that your
name and company be withheld.


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office
Date: 9 May 92 23:49:36 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


Ted Koppel wrote:

> Good luck, Toby.

and PAT wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: We all second that motion. Good luck, Toby.   PAT]

Well, thanks!  I was a little disappointed in the press coverage I got
locally from my campaign announcement, but I guess I can take some
comfort now in knowing that the news has been spread around the world
via Telecom Digest!

Of course, if anyone is interested in making a campaign contribution,
send me email and I'll send my campaign committee mailing address to
you (I won't be so crass as to post it publicly).


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 18:21:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> AT&T ship sets trans-oceanic cable installation record

> SOUTHAMPTON, England - AT&T's new cable ship, the Global Link,
> completed its maiden voyage here April 3 after battling snow squalls,
> rough seas and the threat of waterspouts in the wintery North
> Atlantic. It marked what was called the longest, fastest single
> installation of trans-oceanic communications cable.

> The Global Link installed 5,621 kilometres (3,500 miles) of the
> next transatlantic fibre-optic cable system, TAT-10, in 21 days. This
> tops the record set by AT&T's cable ship the Long Lines in 1988 when
> it installed 5,224 kilometres (3,250 miles) of cable for the
> transpacific system, TPC-3.

This was a very interesting message that made me think of a few
questions.  If someone in the know can spend some time letting us know
more details about the techniques used to lay trans-oceanic cables, or
point to a good reference source, I'd appreciate it.

Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the
cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250
miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. Does another ship provide
additional cable every mile or so?  How do they lay a cable part way?
I assume that if it's half way across the Pacific they don't simply
let it drop to the bottom and hope they find it again. Is it anchored
to a buoy?  Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go
down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a
serious concern?


Cheers,

Darren Alex Griffiths         [e-mail]
Open Systems Solutions, Inc   [phone] x139
Fujitsu                       Fax: [phone]
6121 Hollis Street
Emeryville, CA 94608-2092

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Perks For MCI (Int'l) Customers
Date: 9 May 92 19:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> "Friends and Family ... as a special offer you can add *anyone*
> to your calling circle regardless of their PIC ... The letter
> says that MCI will write or call on my behalf."

My mother gave my unlisted phone number to F&F half a year ago.  The
slimeballs won't stop calling.  I recommend that you get permission
before giving somebody's number to these people.


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 9:58:27 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam


It has been brought to my attention (in the "Chicago Telemarketing
Scam" and followup items in telecom) that some people have been talked
into giving out their checking account numbers.  I fail to see where,
in legitimate deals, you'd give out your checking account number.  In
the matter of CREDIT CARD numbers, I've previously seen advice that
you should not give out such a number in a call you did not originate;
however, the checking account numbers, according to what I have read,
were given out during calls originated by the VICTIMS.


[Moderator's Note: One legitimate 'deal' where you give out your
checking account number is when you ask Compuserve to bill via
Check-Free each month. Another legitimate 'deal' where you would give
out your checking account number is when you apply over the telephone
for (such as) the AT&T Credit Card. I consider both Compuserve and
AT&T to be reputable organizations. They both do it ... The important
point to remember about 312-296-9000 is they don't call anyone and ask
for information ... they let their GREEDY victims -- people who expect
to get a free vacation, etc -- call them. It seems to work nicely.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #378
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05817;
          12 May 92 12:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21882
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:51 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20017
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:35 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 08:00:35 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #379

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 May 92 08:00:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 379

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (John R. Levine)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (John Nagle)
    Re: Phone War Escalation (Doug Sewell)
    Re: Phone War Escalation (Peter da Silva)
    Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Scott Colwell)
    Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Jack Haverty)
    Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Terry Kennedy)
    Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (John Higdon)
    Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (Andrew Green)
    Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam (Karl Denninger)
    Re: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam) (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office (David Lesher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 01:47:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Darren Alex
Griffiths) writes:

> questions.  If someone in the know can spend some time letting us know
> more details about the techniques used to lay trans-oceanic cables, or
> point to a good reference source, I'd appreciate it.

> Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the
> cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250
> miles of continuous cable on a big spindle. Does another ship provide
> additional cable every mile or so?  How do they lay a cable part way?
> I assume that if it's half way across the Pacific they don't simply
> let it drop to the bottom and hope they find it again. Is it anchored
> to a buoy?  Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go
> down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a
> serious concern?

I know just a little bit.  I've seen sample pieces of the North Pacifc
Fiber.  The topology is of considerble importance, and the differences
in types of cable are good indicators.  Some of the cable is as small
as about 1 inch in diameter (most of which is sheathing for protec-
tion).  It gets larger and larger depending on how much armor is added!
There are five or six different sizes in use.  At the point where it
comes on shore it is about five inches, and the added part is almost
all steel armor.  That portion is also buried.

The North Pacific Fiber is presently being repaired due to problems
just off the Oregon coast.  I could guess at various ways they might
locate the cable, but I really don't know what they do to find it.  I
do know that it is located and hauled up very quickly.  My
understanding of the current situation is that it is up on three
buoys, they have replaced one repeater and spliced in some new
cable ... and it was supposed to go on line Friday night but it did
not pass a 24 hour bit error rate test.


Floyd

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 10 May 92 23:48:20 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250 miles of continuous cable on a
> big spindle.

I believe that you assume incorrectly.  I've seen pictures of a cable
vault in the Long Lines and it is truly enormous -- there was a guy
supervising as they laid cable into the vault and he looked like a
fly, the vault must have been over 50 feet high.

They've got to splice the cable into a continuous trans-Atlantic
length at some point, and it'd seem to me a heck of a lot easier to do
it while the ship's at the dock so they can test it and if need be
repair it before they go out into the middle of the ocean.

> Finally, what if the cable develops problems; can they go
> down and fix it and is the topology of the ocean floor and the depth a
> serious concern?

Yes to both, there were some notes a few months ago about how a
trans-Pacific cable had failed and they went back to inferior
satellite conections while a ship steamed out to the middle of the
ocean and spent a few weeks fishing around looking for the cable so
they could pull it up and fix it.

I'd expect that with modern navigation aids they should be able to
record within a few feet the route that the ship took as it laid the
cable.  Close to shore they bury it, but once it gets deep they lay it
on the ocean floor so it's just a matter of trawling until they find
it.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 07:48:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes:

> Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the
> cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250
> miles of continuous cable on a big spindle.

       No, they actually do carry enough cable to do the whole job.
Cable is carried in big round holds, but they don't rotate; the cable
is pulled out layer by layer from the top, having previously been
carefully loaded in port.

       Splices between sections are done on shipboard when necessary.

       The cable isn't just dropped overboard; the ship tows a heavy
plow that makes a furrow and buries the cable, at least in areas where
other ships are likely to be dragging anchors.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: Phone War Escalation
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Mon, 12 May 1992 15:17:03 GMT


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

>  From {The New York Times}, May 6, 1992 at D4.

> "Service Makes It Harder To Override Caller ID" By Anthony Ramirez

>    In the cold war between those who find Caller ID appealing and
> those who find it appalling, Bell Atlantic is marketing a service that
> will disconnect callers who try to mask their telephone numbers using
> another service, also available from the Bell Atlantic Corporation.

Speaking of this, is 1-900-stopper still around?  Has anyone tried
it? (1-900-stopper basically gave you a dial tone to call on, and
the phone you called received the ID of the service bureau, not your
phone number.  I guess this is the high-tech alternative to a pay phone,
as far as anonymous calling goes).


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
[e-mail]       [e-mail]    <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone War Escalation
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 14:57:28 GMT


YES! With Caller-ID, free Call-Block, and this service everyone wins.
Hopefully you'll be able to turn Call-Rejection on or off relatively
easily (though a charge for doing so is reasonable).

This is the combination of services I've been wishing for for some time.
Now if only SW Bell gets a clue ...

In article <[e-mail]> Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.
n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> A unit of the Philadelphia-based regional phone company, the
> Cheasapeake and Potomac Phone Company of Virginia, said the new
> service, known as Anonymous Call Rejection, might be so attractive
> that even people who do not have Caller ID devices may want to
> subscribe.

Sort of like putting out fake dog dishes or using dummy car alarm
stickers.


Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS. [phone]/1032

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 92 14:24:28 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Scott Colwell)
Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill


Even $0.10 per minute seems high.  Could you please let us know over
what distance this applies.  As a data point the rate in Australia is
19.2c for the first 110 seconds and 7.2c for each additional 110
seconds.  i.e. 3.9c per minute.  (AUD$1 ~= US$0.75)

This is for unrestricted data within the local calling area which is
in my case an area 80km across, 3.1KHz audio and outside business
hours is less than this.

I am _very_ interested to hear how your ISDN pricing compres with your
switched 56 pricing.

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

From: Jack Haverty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill
Date: Mon, 12 May 92 13:48:14 PDT


Out of curiosity, can you post the comparable charges for a non-ISDN
switched service, e.g., a "switched 56/64"?  At $1.00 per minute, ISDN
sounds very high; my recollection (which may be totally wrong) is that
switched services are about an order of magnitude less costly.


Jack

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets
Date: 12 May 92 07:08:36 EDT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been
> installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our
> neighborhood.  What is most interesting about it is that this
> lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR
> Cable Television.

  Well, it could be a number of things. When I was in the planning
stages for a fiber run between my office and my home, NJ Bell
suggested that I might want to use the installation services of the
local cable company, as they did a bit of fiber work. [This is in
Jersey City, and the local cable company is Cable TV of Jersey City].

  They ran my fiber for me. While they were doing that, the mentioned
that their antenna to studio feeds were on fiber, and that some of the
local- origin programming was delivered to them via fiber. They're in
the middle of some upgrade work right now - they may be using fiber
for their main trunks these days.

  Perhaps your local cable company is doing something similar?


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 May 92 12:43 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative?


[e-mail] (Michael A. Covington) writes:

> A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines
> in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem.  Now I
> discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now
> positive, green negative).  I discovered this while checking some
> wiring with a voltmeter; it has not caused problems.  Should I call
> Repair Service?

First, why worry about it if it is not causing any problems? Most
modern telephone equipment is designed to be polarity insensitive. Old
2500 sets will not work if the polarity is reversed, and many PBXes
are sensitive to polarity reversals, mainly because polarity is
significant on trunks.

However, given that there are so many opportunities for the polarity
to get switched (in the CO, in the outside plant's many terminal
locations, and even in your home), telco repair would be run ragged if
everyone called about such a trivial problem. In essence what I am
saying is, if the polarity reversal bothers you, flip it yourself. And
if the only reason you know about it is because you happened to
measure it with a voltmeter, then find something else to worry about.


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:19:23 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative?


[e-mail] (Michael A. Covington) writes:

> Do telephone company standards still call for the red wire to be
> negative and the green wire to be positive?

> A few weeks ago the phone company (Southern Bell) replaced some lines
> in the neighborhood and got rid of a pesky line-noise problem.  Now I
> discover that the polarity of my line has been reversed (red is now
> positive, green negative).

Good question. Count me in as another person waiting for an answer.
I'm the one who asked why my recently-purchased used touchtone phone
wouldn't generate DTMF; the answer was to swap the red and green
wires. This worked fine, but I noticed that (1) the phone's original
polarity had therefore been wrong for not one but two houses in two
different towns that I tested it in, and (2) the internal wiring of
the phone had obviously never been disturbed before; wires meeting at
terminals in the phone agreed in color, etc. Now, either I found at
least two houses 16 miles apart that were both wired backwards by the
phone company, or something HAS changed regarding color assignments in
the local wiring. Comments, anyone?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Chicago Telemarketing Scam
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 17:24:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> A recent Moderator's Note had MCS Associates, 2708 N. Halsted Street,
> Chicago, IL (60614), tel. [phone].  This telephone would
> apparently be Chicago North (it was given as being part of
> Chicago-Lakeview CO).  I don't yet know if it duplicates a prefix
> which went into 708 (is there a 296 in Des Plaines?).

> [Moderator's Note: (312) <==> 708-296 has been a prefix in Des Plaines
> for many years. The one in Lakeview (312-296) started a while back.

Yikes.

Just for information, this is not the same MCS that I've run for a
number of years now, and we've never been at that address!


Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions


[Moderator's Note: The fine organization we have been discussing is
operated by Morris and Carl Spector of 1550 North State Parkway in
Chicago. (That is their residence.)  PAT]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 10 May 1992 10:13:06 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Offical Spokesmen Can be Wrong (was Beeper Scam)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wm
Randolph Franklin) says:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, of course whether or not the information was
> worth the charge is a very subjective decision. That's why once the
> information is delivered, the payment is due. How do you go about
> giving it back to the seller as with undesired merchandise? Do you get
> hypnotized to clear the knowledge out of your brain cells? :) PAT]

I wonder if it were a IP that provided the weather or time report ...
and it was wrong (recent posts to comp.risks indicate that even NTP
Servers screw up.)


Pete


[Moderator's Note: Yes of course IP's can be wrong, but in the example
you gave above, the information was clearly wrong. What about opinion
and commentary type services where there is no 'wrong' or 'right'
answer, just information being passed?

Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900 scam works,
where you call an 800 number, yet get billed as though you made a 900
call, ie, USA Today and Mystic Marketing: They are using programmable
type 800 numbers with ANI. Incoming calls are *forwarded* to an unmen-
tioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the 900 number sees is not
that of the phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of the original
caller. In effect, a call *is* made to a 900 number via call-forwarding
from an 800 number. So you protest to telco, but everything they see
indicates you called a 900 number and should pay.  This information
came from a supervisor in AT&T Long Lines repair. Neat scam!   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toby Nixon a Candidate For Public Office
Date: Sun, 10 May 92 21:23:30 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


Toby said:

> Well, thanks!  I was a little disappointed in the press coverage I got
> locally from my campaign announcement,

and:

> Of course, if anyone is interested in making a campaign contribution,
> send me email and I'll send my campaign committee mailing address to
> you (I won't be so crass as to post it publicly).

What!?  Mail!?!?

Where's your 800 number, Toby?

I bet you can get a deal on that Mistake Marketing one. When the
reporters call and ask for your economic forecast, just charge'em
$120.00 for it.

:-] for the humor-impaired...


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: See earlier message in this issue for details on
*how* Mystic Marketing was able to pull this off.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #379
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20590;
          13 May 92 4:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03927
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:26:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24903
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:25:59 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 02:25:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #380

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 May 92 02:26:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 380

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CWA May Strike GTE (Phillip Dampier)
    AT&T TeleTicket Service (Tom Lowe)
    AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Phillip Dampier)
    For Sale: 92A ROTL Transponder Set (Aaron Nabil)
    Michigan Bell Deregulation Rears Ugly Head (Ken Jongsma)
    800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Sean Williams)
    800 Converted to 900 (Bob Frankston)
    Are we Thy Neighbors' Keepers? (Brad Yearwood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 18:48:20 -0500
Subject: CWA May Strike GTE


DALLAS, MAY 11 -- The Communications Workers of America announced that
the union is taking a strike vote, as the May 15 contract expiration
date approached (sic).  Union negotiations said the parties are still
far apart on major issues, and charged that the company is demanding
19 separate givebacks from its workers, despite its profitable
financial outlook.

The results of the strike vote by the 5,670 union-represented workers
will be announced on Wednesday, May 13, 1992.

"We are fighting for our future with GTE," said Communications Workers
of America Vice President T.O. Moses.

"GTE's proposals would destroy the good American jobs our communities
have come to depend on," Moses charged.  "GTE is attacking the
existence of a full-time, stable workforce in this company.  They want
to undermine good, stable jobs, that contribute to a good standard of
living in our communities -- in favor of substandard out-of-town
contractors, temporary low wage clerical jobs, and part-time jobs with
inferior wages and benefits.

"GTE's insistence on destroying good jobs with good pay, benefits, and
a future with the company has forced CWA to seek authorization from
our members for a strike," Moses said.  "We must let the company know
that we are serious about protecting good jobs for the people of our
community, and quality service for the customers."

CWA is bargaining with GTE Southwest for a new three year contract
covering 5,760 workers in Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas,
represented by CWA Local 6171, based in San Angelo, Texas.  Bargaining
began on March 31; the current contract expires on Friday, May 15.
The results of the secret ballot strike vote will be announced on
Wednesday.

One of GTE's principal demands is the right to unlimited
subcontracting.  CWA contends that this would mean no guarantee that
ANY union members would have jobs at GTE.  The union also argues that
contract labor not only threatens good jobs for the communities served
by GTE, it erodes the quality of service to the customer.

"CWA has been running ads to reach out to customers and apologize for
the inferior service they get from subcontractors," Moses said.  "We
want them to clearly understand that the veteran, skilled workforce
that has provided years of quality telephone service is getting pushed
out by GTE.  We want to do a good job for the customers, but the
company just wants to cut corners."

"The community knows us," Moses said.  "The wages and benefits we make
and the service we provide benefits our communities.  But GTE's
subcontractors bring in people from all over the country. That means
that local telephone rate-payers' money goes to benefit communities
all over the country, but not your friends and neighbors right here at
home.  Our communities are losing money through this practice, and it
should stop.

"GTE is also degrading good clerical and accounting jobs and giving
the work to temporary agencies," Moses stated.  "Those jobs are
primarily held by women, and GTE is jeopardizing some of the only
decent paying jobs that clerical workers have in our communities.
We're fighting for good paying, stable jobs with benefits and an
opportunity to advance.  GTE's clerical workers deserve no less."


Communications Workers of America

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon May 11 22:46:43 EDT 1992
Subject: AT&T TeleTicket Service


    NEW YORK CITY -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T TeleTicket(sm)
Service, which allows visitors to the United States to pre-pay for
international news, U.S. weather reports, currency exchange
information and interpretation services, as well as telephone calls.

By purchasing AT&T TeleTicket Service, customers will be able to
conveniently access services and place phone calls by simply dialing a
toll-free 800 number.  AT&T is providing nine different toll-free 800
numbers, one each for the nine languages in which AT&T will provide
access to the service.

Initially, AT&T TeleTicket Service will be offered in Dutch, English,
French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish.

Recorded messages will guide customers as they select their desired
service, including placing a telephone call within the United States
or to more than 190 countries.  The same instructions are printed on
the back of the TeleTicket in one of the nine languages chosen by the
customer.

If a customer needs more information about AT&T TeleTicket Service,
they will be able to speak directly with an AT&T customer
representative in one of these nine languages.

"Anyone who has tried to get important information or use an
unfamiliar phone in another country for the first time will understand
the value of AT&T TeleTicket Service to visitors to the United
States," said Marbgaret Barrett, director, global consumer services,
AT&T.  "AT&T wants to help make an international visitor's stay in the
United States easier by providing services in the language of their
choice.

The AT&T TeleTicket Service can be purchased in denominations of 10,
25, or 50 units.  A 10-unit TeleTicket is $6 U.S., 25 units are $15
and 50 units are $30.  Each unit is valued at $.60 U.S.  An attachment
shows prices for the services, including the price of calls.
[sorry ... don't have the attachments..but will tell what I know later].

The first U.S. distributor of the AT&T TeleTicket is the San Francisco
Convention and Visitor's Bureau.

The AT&T TeleTicket Service can be purchased directly from AT&T by
calling an AT&T representative who speaks one of the nine languages.
Customers can call a toll-free number in the United States.  Outside
of the United States, customers can call AT&T collect.  The numbers
are:

 Language       Ouside U.S.      Within U.S.

 Dutch          408-428-2739     1-800-354-2210
 English        408-428-2734     1-800-462-1818
 French         408-428-2735     1-800-537-5510
 German         408-428-2736     1-800-682-4410
 Italian        408-428-2737     1-800-772-1155
 Japanese       408-428-2740     1-800-223-7707
 Korean         408-428-2741     1-800-628-2290
 Portuguese     408-428-2742     1-800-772-0710
 Spanish        408-428-2738     1-800-752-2280

[To fill in the blanks about the attachment mentioned above ... calls
to domestic numbers are one unit per minute; international calls range
from three to five units per minute, depending upon country.  I don't
remember what the information services cost at this time.  Call the
above numbers for more information.]


I have typed this in directly from a published News Release and cannot
give any more information at this time.  Any questions should be
directed to the above customer service numbers.


Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs [e-mail]   or  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 18:43:49 -0500
Subject: AT&T Offices To Be Closed


The following AT&T offices have been scheduled to close their Operator
Services Offices because of introduction of voice recognition,
automated operators:

Alcoa, TN           Des Moines, IO          Redwood City, CA
Anaheim, CA         Glen Burnie, MD*        Santa Rosa, CA
Billings, MT        Grand Rapids, MI        Shreveport, LA
Birmingham, AL      Howell, NJ*             Smyrna, GA
Brookhaven, IL      Kansas City, MO         Springfield, MA
Burbank, CA         Lakewood, CO            Syracuse, NY
Charlotte, NC       Lansing, MI             Tacoma, WA
Commerce, CA        Middleboro, MA          Westchester, FL
Collinsville, IL    Orlando, FL             Youngstown, OH
Dallas, TX          Pensacola, FL
Davensport, IO      Pittsburgh, PA

* - Offices closed or Previously Announced to Close.

Earliest Possible Close: November, 1992
Latest Possible Close: December, 1994

Voice Recognition technology will first be deployed in Seattle, WA and
Jacksonville, FL effective June, 1992.

(Source: Communications Workers of America - May 8, 1992)

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

From: [e-mail] (Aaron Nabil)
Subject: For Sale: 92A ROTL transponder set
Date: 12 May 92 03:32:05 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


Since this is of such specific interest to the c.d.t crowd, I thought
I'd offer it here first.

If you don't know what a ROTL is, skip to the next article.

I don't know if any CO's in my area still have ROTL's hooked up, and
even if they did I don't think I'd have the, uh, "moxie" (b***s) to
screw with them.  Most lines had the security dial back enabled for
all of the interesting functions anyway.  Chaos-in-a-suitcase for the
uninformed, given sufficient time you could busy out the whole CO with
one of these stupid things.

So other than chucking it in the rubbish bin, I thought maybe someone
out there would like one of these beasts.  It's your basic suitcase
sized set, 'cept it's missing the manual (I have the number of the BSP
around here someplace) and all of the hook up widgets that would
normally go in the top.

Make me an offer I can't refuse.  $50?


Aaron   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Michigan Bell Deregulation Rears Ugly Head
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 12:30:10 EDT


Some of you may recall that Michigan Bell was able (after extensive
lobbying to get a rather extensive deregulation bill passed in
exchange for "freezing" local rates. The fallout from that bill is
starting to become apparent to the general public, as evidenced by the
following excerpts from a recent local newspaper article:

[Description of Caller-ID scenario deleted]

The effects of deregulation are already prompting calls for a return
to tighter regulation. Meanwhile, phone companies are chafing at what
little regulation was retained by the state.

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. began offering Caller-ID -- which displays
the caller's phone number on the receiver's end of the line -- to about
one million customers in Southeast Michigan on March 1. Just 11,400 are
paying the $6.50 monthly charge and about 900 are businesses, said
Bell spokesman Phil Jones.

[Interesting! This is the first hard statistics I've seen on usage.
The Bells usually keep that data pretty close to the chest. - Ken]

[Additional Caller-ID blocking arguments deleted]

Bell is also opposing the continued regulation of touch-tone service,
used by 70% of it's 2.9 million residential customers. Last year, Bell
lobbied to lift oversight on touch-tone rates, now about $2.45 a
month.

Lawmakers instead left it up to the Michigan Public Service Commision,
which has decided to continue regulation. PSC staff say it costs Bell
less than 50 cents a month to provide the service.  [I'd bet it's
closer to 0 than 50.]

Bell and other phones companies are challenging that PSC order because
they say touch-tone is not vital to the public and therefore should
remain unregulated.

"This is a competetive service and doesn't need to be regulated," said
Harold Krauss, executive vice president of the Telephone Association
of Michigan.  "You can buy equipment that does the same thing with the
telephone handset."

In order to win deregulation, Bell was forced to agree to a two year
freeze on basic residential service. Consumer groups say Bell's motive
in challenging the PSC is to circumvent its freeze on basic rates with
price hikes on touch tone.

"If you deregulate touch tone, you make a mockery of any kind of rate
control," said Rick Stoddard, president of Michigan Citizens Lobby.
"What they're doing is looking for back door ways to jack up rates."

[Article goes on to talk about recent increases in operator service
charges after degregulation and new auto connect after directory
assistance option for .30. Mentions that rates charged for intralata
calls (using auto connect) would be Michigan Bell rates and cost about
30% more than other carriers.]


Ken Jongsma                       [e-mail]
Smiths Industries            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan   [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 May 1992 18:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider


In a previous message, PAT noted:

> They are using programmable type 800 numbers with ANI. Incoming calls are
> *forwarded* to an unmentioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the 900
> number sees is not that of the phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of
> the original caller. In effect, a call *is* made to a 900 number via
> call-forwarding from an 800 number.

So who do you think is responsible for initiating this sort of
'scamming'.  Have the Long Distance companies told the IPs how to do
this sort of thing, or is it something that the IPs have thought up on
their own?

I personally find the latter difficult to believe, and furthermore it
seems that the telcos win either way (aside from a heightened number
of customer complaints), so it really doesn't matter to them.


Sean E. Williams, Student   ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences
Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology
Rochester, New York 14623-5689


[Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out
through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to
others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with
call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to.
The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the
900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone
at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Converted to 900
Date: Tue 12 May 1992 16:29 -0500


Cute scam.

I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an
"oops" and will be blocked in short order.  But that does raise
interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information
through forwarding.  What are the technical rules?

More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with
forwarded calls.  Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded
and via what forwarding path?

I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would
be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to
access control and privacy considerations).  There are a number of
attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the
caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing.

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

From: [e-mail] (Brad Yearwood)
Subject: Are we Thy Neighbors' Keepers?
Date: 13 May 92 04:02:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


A recent twist in bill collecting appears to involve calling up
neighbors of alleged deadbeats, trying to obtain information or to
have messages delivered.

Someone called this morning claiming to be from "Century Research, in
Chicago", asking about a neighbor Lisa (name changed) in (place two
doors down).  I'd received another similar call a couple of months ago
asking about another neighbor.  The earlier call claimed to be an old
school buddy wanting to get back in contact.  Exactly how many old
school buddies have street-address-order phone directories?

I guess this is what I get for doing things the old-fashioned way:
keeping my phone number listed.

I let this morning's caller know in no uncertain terms what I thought
about receiving this type of call.  The chirpy twit even had the
unmitigated gall to opened the call with "Hi, Brad howya dooin", as if
we were actually acquainted.

A call to Chicago information found, of course, that there is no
listing for Century Research.

This is the most cynically predatory and invasive non-lewd practice
that I've yet seen involving a telephone.  Anyone know whether this
practice is legal, and what the real name and location of "Century
Research" (or other organizations doing this) might be?


Brad Yearwood   [e-mail]    {uunet, pyramid}!optilink!brad
Petaluma, CA


[Moderator's Note: The rules for this sort of thing are outlined in
great detail in the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, signed
into law by President Carter. But bear in mind skip tracing services
operate under somewhat different rules than collection agencies, and
the agencies in turn have different rules than creditors who are
collecting their own debts or attornies. The general rule is a third
party collector cannot 'publish' someone's indebtedness in order to
collect. If they do skip tracing, they are entitled to talk to the
neighbors (if the neighbor wishes to speak with them), but must NOT
reveal the reason for their call. If asked point blank if they are a
collection agency, they must tell the truth, but reveal nothing
further.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #380
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21273;
          13 May 92 5:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11643
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29258
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:31 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 02:46:31 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #381

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 May 92 02:46:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 381

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Announcing the PRIVACY Forum Digest! (Lauren Weinstein)
    Oddities with 800-CALL-ATT (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Senate Debate on Caller ID (Jack Decker)
    Internet in Emergencies (was Telecom While LA Burns) (Jim Haynes)
    USWEST Third Line Problem (Scott Colbath)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Announcing the PRIVACY Forum Digest!
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 00:09:18 PDT
From: [e-mail]


Announcing the global Internet PRIVACY Forum!

The PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and
analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both
personal and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and
beyond.  Topics include a wide range of telecommunications,
information/database collection and sharing, and related issues, as
pertains to the privacy concerns of individuals, groups, businesses,
government, and society at large.  The manners in which both the
legitimate and the controversial concerns of business and government
interact with privacy considerations are also topics for the digest.

Except when unusual events warrant exceptions, digest publication will
be limited to no more than one or two reasonably-sized digests per
week.  Given the size of the Internet, this may often necessitate that
only a small percentage of overall submissions may ultimately be
presented in the digest.  Submission volume also makes it impossible
for unpublished submissions to be routinely acknowledged.  Other
mailing lists, with less stringent submission policies, may be more
appropriate for readers who prefer a higher volume of messages
regarding these issues.

The goal of PRIVACY Forum is to present a high quality electronic
publication which can act as a significant resource to both
individuals and organizations who are interested in these issues.  The
digest is best viewed as similar in focus to a journal or specialized
technical publication.  The moderator will choose submissions for
inclusion based on their relevance and content.

The PRIVACY Forum is moderated by Lauren Weinstein of Vortex
Technology.  He has been active regarding a wide range of issues
involving technology and society in the ARPANET/Internet community
since the early 1970's.  The Forum also has an "advisory committee"
consisting of three individuals who have offered to act as a "sounding
board" to help with any questions of policy which might arise in the
course of the Forum's operations.  These persons are Peter Neumann of
SRI International (the moderator of the excellent and renowned
Internet RISKS Forum digest), Marc Rotenburg of Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility (a most clear and articulate spokesman for
sanity in technology), and Willis Ware of RAND (one of the U.S.A.'s
most distinguished champions of privacy issues).

Feel free to distribute this announcement message to any interested
individuals or groups, but please keep this entire message intact when
doing so.  Thanks!

 How to subscribe to PRIVACY Forum
 ---------------------------------

Individual subscriptions for the PRIVACY Forum are controlled through
an automated list server ("listserv") system.

To subscribe, send a message to:

   [e-mail]

       or:

   [e-mail]

with a line in the BODY of the message of the form:

   subscribe privacy <your full name>

where <your full name> is your actual name, not your e-mail address
(your e-mail address is determined automatically by listserv).  Also
please note that the subscribe command must be in the BODY of your
message, not in the "Subject:" field; the "Subject:" field of all
messages to listserv is ignored.

Example:

   subscribe privacy Dr. Sidney Schaffer

Please note that the "subscribe" command is used to create your own
individual subscription to the PRIVACY Forum mailing list.  Site
managers who wish to establish site-wide local redistribution mailing
lists for PRIVACY Forum should contact a human at:

   [e-mail]

and provide the requested local redistribution mailing list address
and any other details.  Individuals who wish to subscribe directly to
PRIVACY Forum (not to a local redistribution mailing list) should
*not* contact "[e-mail]" unless they are having
problems with the automatic listserv "subscribe" command.

For more information regarding the listserv system, follow the same
command procedure described above, but send to:

   [e-mail]

       or:

   [e-mail]

the command:

   help

in the BODY of your message instead of "subscribe".

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

Date: 11-MAY-1992 03:58:30.89
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oddities With 800-CALL-ATT


I've been playing around with AT&T's 800-CALL-ATT calling card service
lately, and noticed something interesting.

Let's say you place a calling card call from Armonk, NY, a suburb of
New York City, near White Plains, in Westchester County. You dial
800-CALL-ATT, then 2, then 1, and then the destination number.

After you enter your card number and finish your call, you hit the "#"
sign for a sequence call. You then enter ONLY 686-9950 (and then "#"
to make the call go through faster, which will help with seven OR ten
digit sequence calls.)

You will get a recording, in NYC, that says that 686-9950 is not in
service.  You can then sequence call to other seven digit numbers, and
they are all in area code 212. They are NOT in area code 914, where
Armonk is.

If you drive up to Pittsfield, Mass, and try the same thing, you will
be dialing seven digit numbers in the 413 area code, which is the
correct area code for Pittsfield. But, when I tried this from Vermont,
sequence-calling to seven digit numbers got me people in Boston (area
code 617).

It would seem what is going on here is that the 800-CALL-ATT system
connects you to the nearest "center" (POP?) for calling card calls.

But how are you billed for this? Let's say I'm in Vermont, and I call
some out of state number via 800-CALL-ATT. I then hit "#", and do
343-7626, one of Cell One/VT's roam ports.

Will the AT&T equipment be smart enough to say "Hey, the call is
coming in from the 800 from VT, and going to VT, so don't bill the 80
cent surcharge, but only the 40 cent (or whatever) VT in-state Calling
Card surcharge, and apply In-state VT rates."? Or will it bill as a
call from Boston to VT?  IE, is there any sort of splashing problem,
or did AT&T (as one would assume) figure this out and take measures to
prevent it?

Note that this may be especially useful in states that don't allow
AT&T to handle Intra-LATA traffic, but where you tend to make multiple
sequence calls from Intra- to Inter-LATA calls. Thus, rather than
having to hang up each time you switch from Intra to Inter, you can
use 800-CALL-ATT and make all your calls that way.


Doug    [e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 May 92 16:25:26 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Senate Debate on Caller ID


The following message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:

* From : Donn Dubuque, 1:170/707 (07 May 92 10:46)
* To   : All
* Subj : Senate Debate on Caller ID

For those with access via their own disk [sic - I think he means
"dish" -Jack] or cable system, CSpan2 has been running debate from the
Senate floor the past couple of days on the legislation on regulating
Caller ID.

The bill and proposed amedments seems to have wide support among both
Demos and Repubs, but there was one issue that had me laughing on the
floor a bit.

Seems that the bill as it is worded in the House allows you to
purchase caller ID blocking 'per line' as well as 'per call' (where
your number is 'blank' on the called parties terminal).  The Senators
were all basically agreeing they liked the idea of 'per call' blocking
(where you'd have to set up the blocking on each call with a code)
rather than being able to have your individual line set up to never
allow your number to be shown.

Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking +
speed dial = line blocking.  Apparently no one sat down for 2ms and
figured that if all you needed was at 2-10 digit 'pre-code' to set up
a blocked call, you could easily just assign such a code to the
beginning of EVERY number listed in your speed dial directory, right
on your memory telephone.  Of course, if you can't AFFORD a memory
telephone, then it gets a little tiring pushing all those buttons all
the time ...

Call your senator, point this out.  I have mine (Boren).


Star-Net v1.0
* Origin: DigiVision BBS 918-250-6477 *Orderline 254-1718 (1:170/707.0)

                    -----------

This message is a reply to the previous message:

* From : will summers, 1:114/18.6 (08 May 92 14:14)
* To   : Donn Dubuque
* Subj : Senate Debate on Caller ID

 > Cspan2 has been running debate from the Senate floor the past
 > couple of days on the legislation on regulating Caller ID.

Hmmm.  S652 had been on "hold".  The feeling among Az Caller-IDites
was that they would wait for the FCC to sort out the issues before
acting on this extremely complex subject.  I fear that the PhoneCos
pulled some strings to get this one out before the full FCC docket
record is available to the congress.

 > Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking
 > + speed dial = line blocking.

Not necessarily.  As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then
_wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone".  According to the
company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may
_not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to
line-blocking.  The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds
after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given.
The caller _must_ wait.  (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds
or less 95% of the time, to be sure you would have to program the
speed dialer to wait 10 seconds).

Even with speed dial or other Customer Premises Equipment designed
with caller-ID in mind, per-call blocking is not the same as line
blocking ... unless _every_ user of a phone uses the speed dial on
_every_ call.  This gets into one of the troubling areas in the
Caller-ID debate -- though numerically insignificant from a political
standpoint, there are nonetheless many people in our society who for
one or another legitimate reason will suffer dire negative results if
their number "gets out".  Examples are: Members of disfunctional
families, persons dealing with relatives/acquaintances with mental
instabilities, victims of "stalkers" ... these people cannot depend on
all their children and all their visiting friends to dial *67 or use
the speed dialer _every_ time they use the phone.

In the Arizona hearings we heard of some techniques those wishing to
persuade a child or other family member to call them back without
dialing *67.  Telephone preditors are far more sophisticated in
techniques of deception than the average user is aware of how to
render them ineffective.

> Call your senator, point this out.  I have mine (Boren).

I hope you will point out to your senator that there is no need for a
national prohibition on the offering of line blocking (that is what
S652 as passed by committee would do).  Even on interstate calls,
whether a call was blocked as result of line or per-call blocking is
only significant as far as the originating caller's central office --
from that point on the call is handled exactly the same.

The US Congress simply cannot devote as much time and attention to
this issue as the individual PUC's have/will.  (Arizona held nine days
of evidentiary hearings, for example.)

I feel line blocking should be offered at no charge except perhaps a
"paperwork" charge for a change status after the initial deployment
period.

A major problem with Federal law/regulation prohibiting line blocking,
or with any national pre-emption that would _limit_ the protections
local PUC's could order, is that such action would be grossly
premature.

Calling Number Delivery is but the first of many pieces of information
that will be delivered with the call for a fee.  In Az, US West was
pioneering delivery of the name the originating phone was registered
to along with the number.  This was test-marketed in Boise Idaho, but
Az was to be the first large market.

With Calling Name and Number Delivery, at the called-party's switch a
query to a centralized data base is sent and the response added to the
packet that is sent to the called party.

I found it disquieting that the design of the information packet is
such that not only subscriber name, but any information linkable to
phone number could just as easily be retrieved from the data base and
injected into the packet: the packet is a variable-length record.

There is no technical reason that the database querried could not, for
example, be Equifax's national credit database, or MasterCard's, or ...
whoevers.  There's plenty of time during call set-up for a query to
travel cross country and back to any database (or up-and-back to a
satellite).

The change being contemplated here is, in the word of expert witness
Dr. Lee Selwin, "epochal".

How it will all play out is anybody's guess.  But one thing is clear:
to decide on a national level that individual subscribers will not be
afforded an opportunity to opt-out of this Brave New World of
telephony by retaining their "plain old telephone service" that does
not participate before _significant_ experience with how it all plays
out is premature to say the least.

Some early jurisdictions offered Caller-ID with no blocking at all.
As experience with the system grew, per-call blocking became
commonplace.  Then jurisdictions began mandating the per-line blocking
for a fee be offered.  Bills now are pending in jurisdictions without
blocking to offer at least per-call blocking.  [..Garbled sentence in
message deleted ...]  Lately jurisdictions like Nevada, New York, and
Arizona have been saying that per-line blocking be offered at no
charge to those who choose it during a window (90 days in Az, 180 in
NY and Nev) after time Caller-ID is initially deployed.

So support the parts of S652 which mandate minimum protections (free
per call blocking), but let your Senator know that it is quite
premature to prohibit states from adding requirements above the
Federal Minimum, including deciding that it should not participate at
all until more experience is gained in other jurisdictions.

I was an intervenor in the Arizona Caller-ID hearings, Feb-March of
this year.

Existing modems probably cannot accurately distinguish between a
"blocking request accepted" and a "blocking request failed" status
either.  The question was put to US West's witness.  He was the
product implementation manager for a 14-state region.  His answer was
that he knew of no compatability tests for either existing
speed-dialers or modems.  In my opinion, blocking was an afterthought
added to neutralize public resisance that was neither well designed,
well thought out, nor well tested.


ConfMail V4.00    Origin: . (1:114/18.6)

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

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

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet in Emergencies (was Re: Telecom While LA Burns)
Date: 12 May 92 19:01:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael A. Covington) writes:

> All of this suggests that we need a plan for using the Internet as a
> carrier of emergency message traffic when the telephone network is
> overloaded or inoperative.

I agree.  We had a similar situation here after the '89 earthquakes.
We got some computers up fairly quickly after the quake, thanks to the
cogeneration plant being undamaged and turning out some electricity
for us.  Right away I started getting messages from sites around the
country offering to make phone calls for people, and other messages
addressed to people here; so I got to live out my childhood ambition
of being a Western Union operator :-) Ham radio came in too; but
there's no computer connection near where the ham station was.  Radio
was carrying a lot of traffic for such things as requesting various
kinds of supplies from state agencies and the Red Cross.


[e-mail] [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: USWEST Third Line Problem
Date: 11 May 92 19:26:05 GMT


Well, It seems there may be a solution on the way for my third line
problem.  There is a very new device called a UDC which is supposed to
replace the slick-1 as a carrying device for the additional signal
over the same line. The engineer I spoke with said they have ordered
some of these devices for testing and he is trying to get me one right
now. More to follow.


Scott Colbath   nStratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.    [phone]
Internet:       [e-mail]
All opinions are my own and do not reflect that of my employer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #381
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06247;
          14 May 92 11:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24032
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 May 1992 08:02:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29406
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 May 1992 08:01:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 08:01:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #382

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 May 92 08:01:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 382

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Andrew Robson)
    Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Nick Sayer)
    Telecom Digest Mentioned In June '92 Scientific American (William L. Urton)
    MCI Mail -- Problems With "Free" Dow Jones Offer? (Patty Winter)
    Need Telephone Specs for Music Project (Benjamin Denckla)
    Phone Company Advertising in Australia (David E.A. Wilson)
    All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Dave Mausner)
    Cellular and ANI (Tom Lowe)
    Looking For Pay-Phone Key (Joseph W. Stein)
    700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Phil Howard)
    CLID in California (Chris Calley)
    Seeking Companies for Hardware/Firmware Technology Interchange (T Barrios)
    Looking for Sources of 2500 Sets (Joe Konstan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 May 92 13:25:21 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Robson)
Subject: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA


*** Problems with International Routing to 7-096 (Moscow Cellular) ***

I have been having problems resolving troubles experienced by people
trying to call numbers on the new Moscow Cellular service.  Many
switches world wide have not had their routing updated to include the
new exchanges.  Apparently the world letter that was sent out when
these exchanges were established was unclear, and many services either
block these calls or mis-route them.

The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and
7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow
gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular
MTX AXE10.

Moscow still has a serious problem with trunk availability which
causes a large number of calls to be routed to a recording.  This is a
separate problem, but it makes identification of the routing problem
more difficult since it can mask the real problem.  The trunk shortage
is expected to be resolved by equipment to be installed by year end.

If you are in a position to place a test call, or to send a copy of
this message to your international carrier's routing group, I would
appreciate your assistance.  Problems have been reported in reaching
these exchanges from Scotland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Hong Kong.
Other areas may well be affected, but not reported to Moscow Cellular.
Test calls can be placed to Thomas Poland 7-096-0031, trouble tickets
filed with your international carrier.  I would appreciate hearing of
your results.


Andrew Robson     U S West NewVector Group
Network Engineering  Bellevue, WA USA   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 22:20:11 GMT


I just got a tricky piece of literature from Pac$Bell.  Ostensibly it
is an offer for some service that purports to help those who work at
home, and includes a card which you mail back to make an appointment
for a sales drone to call you, etc, etc.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that Pac$Bell used calling
patern data to pick out those customers who seem to use their
residential lines for business purposes with the intention of using a
response to this "offer" as ammunition to get them switched to
business rates.

Did anyone else get this mailer? Am I just paranoid, or is Pac$Bell
trying to be tricky?


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] (William L. Urton)
Subject: Telecom Digest Mentioned In June '92 Scientific American
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:55:00 PDT


You'll probably get a million pieces of mail about this, but TELECOM
Digest was mentioned in the June, 1992 {Scientific American}, in a
piece about the FBI's request that tapping capabilities be built into
digital communications equipment called "Tap Dance" on pp. 115-116.  I
quote:

     The idea that digital technology could make it impossible to
     intercept communications appeared to be somewhere between
     incomprehensible and flat wrong.  Soon after, participants in
     the TELECOM Digest, an international on-line discussion of
     communications-related issues, outlined how existing digital
     switching technology could be used to perform completely
     undetectable taps.

The story goes on to describe how the FBI was "not pleased at having
its technical prowess impugned" and several solutions to the problem
of tapping digital communications.  My personal favorite comes from
Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; his solution was to
give the FBI the funding they need to develop better taps and to leave
the telephone and computer networks alone.


Bill Urton.  Columbia, SC.  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Patty Winter)
Subject: MCI Mail -- Problems With "Free" Dow Jones Offer?
Date: 14 May 92 04:25:33 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Last fall, MCI Mail offered its subscribers a free 30-minute trial of
WIRES, one of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval databases.

I tried out the trial offer, and was promptly rewarded with a $43
charge on my next MCI Mail bill. When I called them, they said they
were aware that there had been some billing errors, and that I would
be credited on my next bill. Which I was. (More or less. They tried to
charge me for time I spent in the main DJN/R menu before going into
WIRES -- as though I could have done it any other way! Sheesh.)

Anyway, I recently received a past-due notice from them for the $43!
There was absolutely no indication that I'd received a credit for any
of the amount.

My question for netters: Did any of you try this offer, and if so,
have you had any billing problems from it? I appears that I wasn't the
only one who accidentally got billed for it in the first place, and
perhaps not the only one who wasn't credited properly after the
billing errors were supposedly fixed. If the mistakes on my bill
weren't an isolated incident, I'd be happy to bring the matter to the
attention of an appropriate government agency.


Patty Winter N6BIS    Internet: [e-mail]
Sunnyvale, California    AMPRNet: 44.4.0.44

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

Subject: Need Telephone Specs for Music Project
From: [e-mail] (Benjamin Denckla)
Date: 13 May 92 17:14:02 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


I'm interested in using my phone as a signal source in an electronic
music piece.  I've got the specs for my phone as far as power
requirements, etc., and I found a listing of the frequencies for the
touch tone system already.  Just thought I might ask to see if any of
you had any tips as far as how to get the audio signal out.  I was
thinking about running on batteries or maybe a small DC power supply.

Thanks in advance.


Ben Denckla

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Company Advertising in Australia
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 03:27:42 GMT


I thought you might be interested to see how our current phone
monopoly is advertising itself just before the second carrier is
established.  Here are the words from two currently running AOTC
(formerly Telecom Australia) adverts.

America has more freedom of choice than a hungry man can handle.
Breakfast in America is the first nightmare of the day.  Eggs over
easy, eggs over difficult, pancakes with pepperjacks, crushed wheat
fried in the pan, flapjacks with sugarpops, puffed free range rice
twice with freshly squeezed guava juice.

By the time you finish choosing you have to break for lunch.  If you
read the whole lunch menu you'll miss your dinner.  And if you think
the foods complicated what about the phone system.  Here it can take
three different phone companies to get from one part of the country to
another.  In Australia its much simpler because only Telecom connects
you from anywhere in the country to anywhere in the world.  America's
dream is Australia's reality.  Telecom, Australian for so much better.

The Germans like to be in the forefront of technology.  Their big
high-tech cars are built to carry powerful men in the back flat out
between cities.  When the powerful man pulls off to refuel, he wants
his powerful man's snack of cream cake with extra cream, the famous
schmaltzkruger with extra schmaltz to have been whipped by lasers.

In a country where two out of every three children are born with a PhD
in electronics high-tech is a way of life.  So its no wonder their
telephone system is being replaced with new high-tech optical fibre.
The Germans realize that optical fibre delivers the clearest sound
quality; what they don't realize is that Telecom already uses optical
fibre to link the capital cities of Australia.  Telecom, Australian
for so much better.


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

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

Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 11:00:13 CDT
From: Dave Mausner <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number


TELECOM has previously discussed zeros in the area code and zeros in
the exchange.  Now I would like to know what is, or was, so special
about all zero subscriber numbers?  One rarely saw a number like
201-234-0000 although every number from 0001 to 9999 could be found.
In the last few years, 0000 is in evidence in many exchanges.  Was
there a technical problem, or was it "cultural"?  I will summarize
interesting e-mail replies. Thanks.


Dave Mausner, Senior Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue May 12 08:27:28 EDT 1992
Subject: Cellular and ANI


As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  For kicks, I
called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular
phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number
(609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch.  This
was on the US-West side of things.  The Cellular-One et al side of the
house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne.  I tried the same
thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the
Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk
line.  Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell
phone number to the network?

If anyone would like to try this out from their neck of the woods,
send me a note and I will give you my 800 ANI demo number.  I don't
want to publish it to the general public because of what has happened
to past 800 ANI demos that have been published.


Tom Lowe     [e-mail]   or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph W. Stein)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1992 23:28:04 -0700
Subject: Looking For Pay-Phone Key


Hello all!

An associate recently aquired an old [circa 1950's] American Electric
Pay Phone ... you know, the ones with three coin slots up top?  25c,
10c and 5c?

He is interested in placing it service (with the permission of Telco,
of course, and hooking it up WITH telco [he's not a slime ... I
explained about COCOT's and AOS's]) but has no keys to it.  Are there
any places where keys can be had [excluding locksmiths]?

Any information would be helpful.


[e-mail]  UUCP !m2xenix!therose
INTERNET: therose.fidonet.org     FIDONET: 1:105/7.0

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: 700 Numbers, Calling cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 02:52:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John L. Shelton) writes:

> 1.  Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD
> provider has it's own "namespace".  My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in
> AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM.  And the cost to the
> caller could be different, too.

I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating
AT&T.

I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I
got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not
necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have
dialed.

I believe my employer (U of I... three prefixes on campus) has turned
off the carrier access code ability (not sure how this is implemented).

Given the distinctive namespace for 700 numbers, it would seem to me
that it is VERY necessary to dial a carrier access code.

Likewise, if one wants to charge a LD call to a non-AT&T carrier card
(for personal purposes) they would have to dial the access code for
their carrier (but this is not possible here).

Any ideas on what I can do to get them to allow the carrier access
code for these two categories of calls?

Are there any replies I should give when I get a remark like "it
cannot be done on our computer"?  I've gotten this before from people
I am sure don't know what a computer even looks like.

Are there any legal requirements I could invoke (kinda doubt it since it
is a "internal" situation).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Calley)
Subject: CLID in California
Date: 11 May 92 18:43:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


Last I heard, an administrative law judge was going to make a decision
on whether or not CLID would be made available in California.  Does
anyone know the status on this?


Christopher A. Calley     email:  [e-mail]

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

From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Tim Barrios)
Subject: Seeking Companies for Hardware/Firmware Technology Interchange
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 15:55:18 GMT


We are seeking companies to exchange ideas about processes
(methodologies, etc.) of hardware and firmware development.  At AG
Communication Systems, we develop large-scale, embedded telephone
switching systems.  We would like to meet (in person, via conference
call, whatever) with companies involved in hardware development to
exchange ideas on the processes used to develop these systems.

Please contact me at the email address or phone number below if you
are interested. [do not post since this is not of general interest to
the rest of the newsgroup readers]


Thanks in advance,

Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!asuvax | att}!gtephx!barriost
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]
voice: [phone]        fax:   [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 13 May 92 10:35:49 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Looking for Sources of 2500 Sets


I know this has been covered in the past, but I couldn't find any
summary in the Telecom Archives.  Basically, I'm looking to buy a
couple of old, well built, "Bell System" 2500 sets and wanted a list
of reasonable suppliers (the local electronics shop had no idea) and a
guide as to what prices would be reasonable.

Since there isn't an archives article on this, I'd be happy to collect
responses, if there are enough, and put together a list for the
archives.  (Pat, why don't you decide whether this is worth discussing
in the Digest or just having responses mailed directly to me with a
summary posted afterwards.)

To make this of greater relevance, I'd be happy to collect source and
price info for other old Bell System phones (500, wall-mount 2500,
panel, whatever).  I'll include your name/email unless you
specifically ask to remain anonymous.


Joe Konstan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Readers can reply direct to Joe; he'll summarize. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #382
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12256;
          15 May 92 1:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27384
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16408
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 23:43:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #383

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 May 92 23:43:08 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 383

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement (Andy Sherman)
    Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Correction) (Andrew Robson)
    LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Joshua Hosseinoff)
    Training For New Telecom Engineers (Richard Smith)
    VSAT History and Latest Developments (Harold Sanchez)
    Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone (Martin McCormick)
    Toronto Star Line Hits Six Million Call Mark (David Leibold)
    OTA Has Issued a Report re "Software Property" (Jim Warren)
    Need Advice on Transportable Cellular Phone Purchase (Scott D. Brenner)
    A Musical Telecom Reference (Scott Fybush)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:08:58 EDT


Quoted from an AT&T press release:

    To help business customers detect and prevent the theft of
long-distance telephone service, AT&T today announced an aggressive
program that includes a service to relieve customers from liability
for international long-distance fraud.

    Long-distance calling fraud is a problem that nationwide costs
companies more than $1 billion annually, according to the
Communications Fraud Control Association, an industry group.

    Called the AT&T NetPROTECT program, the family of products and
services sets a new standard of fraud protection for the industry.
The program includes products, services and education that help
customers secure their communications systems against unauthorized
remote access and detect and prevent fraud.  This week, AT&T began
monitoring 800 Service to prevent thieves from using its network to
commit fraud.  On August 1, AT&T will begin monitoring its
international long-distance service from the U.S. to countries
experiencing high amounts of fraud, and deploy additional domestic 800
service security measures for all its business customers,
automatically and without additional charge.

    Customers also will be able to choose the additional NetPROTECT
products and service options that best meet their individual security
needs.  These options include services that enable customers to limit
or even remove their financial liability for international
long-distance and domestic 800 Service fraud involving customers'
business telephone equipment, pending Federal Communications Commission
approval.

    For all business customers, the program includes AT&T NetPROTECT
Basic Service, offered at no additional charge with AT&T's long-
distance and domestic 800 services.  This service monitors calling to
countries experiencing the highest amounts of long-distance fraud and
domestic 800 service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  NetPROTECT
Basic Service is designed to spot possible fraud as it develops.  Once
suspected fraud is spotted, AT&T attempts to notify affected
customers.

    In addition to the basic service, customers can purchase other
options to meet their security needs, including AT&T NetPROTECT
Enhanced Service, which includes all NetPROTECT Basic Service options
and provides more customized monitoring and offers a $25,000 per
incident limit on customers' financial liability for fraud caused by
thieves using the customer's PBX; AT&T NetPROTECT Premium Service,
which also includes Basic and Enhanced Service features and frees
customers who follow AT&T's specific PBX security requirements from
financial liability for international long-distance and domestic 800
Service fraud; AT&T SDN NetPROTECT Service, which provides enhanced
network management services and information designed to prevent,
detect and control network fraud, for customers of AT&T's Software
Defined Network service; AT&T Hacker Tracker, a software package that
works with AT&T's PBX Call Accounting System Plus to detect and alert
customers to unusual calling patterns that may indicate that
fraudulent calls are being made; AT&T Security Audit Service, a
consultative service that helps companies identify and minimize
security risks in their AT&T PBX and voice messaging systems; AT&T
Fraud Intervention Service, that gives AT&T's PBX and voice messaging
customers easy access to a team of technical security experts who can
help them detect and stop fraud while it is in progress; and AT&T
Security Handbook and training, that provides technical documentation
and individualized training tools on the security features of AT&T's
PBX and voice mail systems.


[Moderator's Note: When they say they will 'monitor' those lines, what
do they mean? Will they listen, detirmine some 'appropriate' calling
pattern, or what?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 11:39:09 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Robson)
Subject: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Correction)
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA


[Moderator's Note: This is a reprinted version of yesterday's article,
which screwed up the phone number given.  PAT]

The previous posting of this article lost four characters (at the
brain-finger interface) in the worst possible place. Please accept
this correction and my apologies. My thanks to Carl Moore for being
the first to point this out (before my newsreader got a copy).

   ------

*** Problems with International Routing to 7-096 (Moscow Cellular) ***

I have been having problems resolving troubles experienced by people
trying to call numbers on the new Moscow Cellular service.  Many
switches world wide have not had their routing updated to include the
new exchanges.  Apparently the world letter that was sent out when
these exchanges were established was unclear, and many services either
block these calls or mis-route them.

The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and
7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow
gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular
MTX AXE10.

Moscow still has a serious problem with trunk availability which
causes a large number of calls to be routed to a recording.  This is a
separate problem, but it makes identification of the routing problem
more difficult since it can mask the real problem.  The trunk shortage
is expected to be resolved by equipment to be installed by year end.

If you are in a position to place a test call, or to send a copy of
this message to your international carrier's routing group, I would
appreciate your assistance.  Problems have been reported in reaching
these exchanges from Scotland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Hong Kong.
Other areas may well be affected, but not reported to Moscow Cellular.
Test calls can be placed to Thomas Poland 7-096-901-0031, trouble
                                                ^^^^
tickets filed with your international carrier.  I would appreciate
hearing of your results.


Andrew Robson     U S WEST NewVector Group
Network Engineering     Bellevue, WA USA     [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 15:27 EST
From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?


I recently got a call from one of those annoying telephone pollsters,
but as I wasn't in a hurry I figured I would answer it.  It was mostly
about my opinions on my long distance and local phone companies.  One
of the questions that most surprised me was: "If there was a new
service whereby you would receive your local telephone service through
your current long distance carrier, would you get that service?"

Are there any rumors of such a service coming up or was this just a
way to gauge how much [little] I like my local phone company?  This
didn't sound like AT&T's phone number for life that I've heard so much
about.


J. Hosseinoff    [e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, it is possible now, although only
marginally legal. You can use a carrier's 800 number then dial your
own area code and a local number. You can't do that through either one
plus dialing or 10xxx dialing, of course.  (Telco examines what digits
follow the 1/0 plus or the 10xxx prior to handing them off to the LD
company of choice.)  PAT]

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

From: Richard Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Training For New Telecom Engineers
Organization: Simon Fraser Univeristy
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 19:56:45 GMT


I have an issue I would like to raise in this group for comment and
suggestions. It is based on the following assumptions:

1) The Telecommunications industry is technologically fast moving and
intensely competitive. It is also subject to numerous external
pressures in the form of public policy, regulation, and globalization.

2) Engineering schools are able to provide adequate training in the
basic and theoretical elements of telecom, but the external
environment, as well as business issues and plain old practical
requirements (what "family" of switches a company uses) are beyond the
scope of a university program.

I would like to solicit comments from:

a) people who have been in the industry for some time and can comment
on the calibre of new graduates and how long it takes them to
assimilate enough knowledge in order to be productive in the corporate
world.

b) people who have recognized this need and sought to enhance
engineering training with training specific to the telecommunications
industry, either via a university program or in-house program or a
joint venture between university and industry.

Although I would welcome comments in the area of continuing education,
I am not chiefly concerned with upgrading or enhancing the skills of
engineers already established in a company. What I would like to
determine is how are other people dealing with the problem of getting
new graduates 'up to standard' as fast as possible.

Thank you for your responses. I encourage replies directly to me
([e-mail]) or postings in this group (since I anticipate this
might be a topic of some debate). I will summarize your responses, as
well as my own research and post it in this group in three weeks.

NOTE: I have browsed the Telecom Archives as best as I could, and I
have found some references to GWU's Continuing Engineering Education,
USC's Centre for Telecom Management, and a graduate program at
Northwestern. I also have some questions posted by Bruce Klopfenstein
asking for info to create a telecom course for undergrads in
communication.

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 10:41:45 UCR
From: Harold Sanchez <[e-mail]>
Subject: VSAT History and Latest Developments


Could someone help me please with general info on VSAT (Very Small
Aperture Satellite Telecommunications)?  Thanks.


HAROLD SANCHEZ
Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo - DOT - San Pedro
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad
Apartado 10032
San Jose    COSTA RICA

VOICE (506) 343543 (HOME)
FAX   [phone] (WORK)

BITNET: hsanchez@ucrvm2
X.400 : C=ch;A=arcom;P=itu;O=rpoa;OU1=ctr;OU2=ice;S=sanchez;G=harold

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

Subject: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 16:06:15 -0500
From: [e-mail]


In the never-ending battle for viewership, the TV stations in the
Oklahoma City and Tulsa metro areas are slugging it out again this
spring to see which station can sound the shrillest severe weather
alarm and provide the most graphic pictures of destruction after the
storm hits.

One of the new toys being used by stations in both cities, this year
is something called "first pix," or possibly "first pics."  With
"First Pix," the storm chase crew uses a digitizing still camera to
snap a picture of a bad cloud or the pile of rubble caused by said
cloud and send the image back to the station via cellular phone.
Usually, while the station shows the stills on the screen, the chase
crew members provide a running commentary on the progress of the
storm.  While the ads for "First Pix" mention the use of cellular
phones to send the photos, I have not heard any of the details such as
whether the cameras also contain the modems for transmitting the
pictures, the data rate used, or the time it takes to send one
picture.

     Oklahoma, like much of the Central United States, is in Tornado
Alley.  The National Severe Storms Laboratory, in fact, is in Norman,
Oklahoma, just south of Oklahoma City.

     The ABC affiliates in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa have a system
called "First Alert."  It allows them to put warnings on the air about
ten seconds after they come in on the National Weather Service wire.
The "First Alert" system formats the message along with a map of
Oklahoma showing the trouble-spot.  The control-room people can
preview the graphic to make sure that it is alright, (no centerfolds
slipped in by pranksters), and then they push a button which puts it
in a box on your screen.

     Like all things, the broadcast coverage of local weather has its
pros and cons.  Such things as "First Alert," and input from the
sophisticated Nexrad, (Next-generation Radar), in Norman give us some
of the technically most current weather alerting capabilities in the
world.  Such efforts have saved untold numbers of lives.  Other
things, though, such as "First Pix" and interviews with shaken or
grief- stricken survivers standing next to mountains of trash that
used to be homes, businesses, or schools, border on shere hype and
only provide more excuses to interrupt normal programming more often
than is already necessary.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 18:44:32 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Toronto Star Line Hits Six Million Call Mark


{The Toronto Star} reported today that its StarPhone automated
touch-tone activated service line has received six million calls in
its first 7.5 months of operation. The {Star} notes that some large
U.S.  papers with such information lines have only seen their five
millionth callers after longer periods up to three years, but doesn't
factor in whether these lines are in cities with local measured
services or much smaller local calling areas. Information services on
the StarPhone include stock quotes, entertainment info, lottery
numbers, public service and health info, etc.

StarPhone is at [phone] and needs tone phones to skip through
the menus. Examples of available services are Blue Jays line at 2055,
or news headlines at 2071. There should be an on-line index available,
or a printed service index occasionally appears in the {Star}.

Disclaimer: I have no formal connection to {The Toronto Star} other
than as a reader.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:55:13 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Warren)
Subject: OTA Has Issued a Report re "Software Property"


Hi, all.  I just received this and thought you'd be interested.  --jim


  From autodesk!megalon!wsgr Thu May 14 08:31:36 1992
  To: megalon!jwarren
  Subject: Software Patent Report

Jim -

Just in case you hadn't heard, Congress' Office of Technology
Assessment has released a new report on the state of protection for
computer software.  According to an article in the Daily Journal, the
report entitled "Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual
Property and the Challenge of Technology Change" has drawn praise for
its sophisticated look at the unique problems in safeguarding
technology rights.

The report is available through the U.S. Government Printing Office
($11).

MarkB

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

From: [e-mail] (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: Need Advice on Transportable Cellular Phone Purchase
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 17:05:29 GMT


I'm about to jump into the world of cellular telephony with the
purchase of two transportable cellular phones for my wife and I.  I
expect us to be very light users (ten minutes/month).  The primary
reason I want the phones is safety; I want to be able to call someone
if my wife or I get stuck in our cars.  I want a transportable so I
can use it away from the car as well.

I'm trying to decide between the OKI 891 transportable, the AT&T 3035
transmobile, and the Motorola transportable.  Does anyone have any
comments, good or bad, about these phones or other transportables that
might be of interest to me?

I'm mainly concerned with standby time, ease and time of battery
recharge, adjustable power output level, call timers, volume controls,
changable antennae, and modular cords (both handset <--> transciever
and transciever <--> power source).

All comments would be appreciated.  Please respond directly to me at
either email address below.


a T d H v A a N n K c S e

Scott D. Brenner    AT&T Consumer Communications Services
Basking Ridge, NJ   [e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 21:19 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Musical Telecom Reference


While browsing a record shop tonight, I came across a new album by the
British band Beautiful South.  The album's title is: "0898 Beautiful
South."  I of course immediately recognized that this is a play on
British 0898 numbers, which are the premium-charge lines like US 900
numbers.  This being an American record shop, I have this weird
feeling that I was the only one in the place who got the joke.  And
who ever said TELECOM Digest never taught me anything? :-) :-) :-)


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]
*New e-mail address coming soon -- thanx for the suggestions!*


[Moderator's Note: Did you buy the record? How about a review if you
did?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #383
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15285;
          15 May 92 2:45 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01849
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:30 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:50:30 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #384

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 May 92 00:50:33 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 384

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Bill Janssen)
    Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (John Higdon)
    Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID (Phil Howard)
    Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages! (Phil Howard)
    Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency (Gregg Kasten)
    Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (Martin Schuessler)
    Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill (David E. Martin)
    Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (John David Galt)
    Re: Pope's Phone Number (Tim Tyler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Janssen)
Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:09:46 PDT


Perhaps the right thing to do in response to some of the caller-ID
hysteria is to let the market decide.  It would help if we had smarter
phones.

In particular, I'd like to buy a phone that would do the following:

1) Allow screening of calls based on caller-ID and time.  That is,
allow me to specify five different groups of caller-ID's that could
cause my phone to "ring" between, say,

 9 AM -  4 PM -- any caller, including caller-ID blocked callers,
 4 PM -  6 PM -- any caller with caller-ID,
 6 PM -  9 PM -- any caller in some restricted set of caller-ID numbers
 9 PM - 11 PM -- any caller with caller-ID,
11 PM -  9 AM -- any caller in some *small* set of caller-ID numbers

2) Calls that don't qualify to "ring" the phone could be directed to
either an answering machine or just hung up on, based on caller-ID.

3) While the phone is ringing, or the answering machine is answering,
entry of a code number could either cause the phone to ring (in the
case of the answering machine), or switch the call to the modem on my
computer.

Any manufacturers out there?


Bill Janssen      [e-mail]      [phone]
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center      FAX: [phone]
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California   94304

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

Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> quotes Will Summers:

> Not necessarily.  As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then
> _wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone".  According to the
> company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may
> _not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to
> line-blocking.  The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds
> after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given.
> The caller _must_ wait.  (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds
> or less 95% of the time, to be sure you would have to program the
> speed dialer to wait 10 seconds).

The reality is that this is a non-issue. Dialing a *67 is the same
type of thing as dialing a *70. It is nothing more than a class of
service change for the calling number whose purpose is to provide a
temporary feature associated with that temporary class of service. The
software that drives *67 is available in every generic (in other
words, spec or no spec, the feature has already been created), and the
confirmation in all of them is instantaneous. Why? There are no
facilities that must be waited for. A 0.5 second pause would be more
than enough to ensure success with any equipment, proposed or in
common use today.

The only switch that I am aware of that requires ANY wait whatsoever
is the 5ESS (tm). With the 0.5 second wait, there is no problem. Ever.

> In the Arizona hearings we heard of some techniques those wishing to
> persuade a child or other family member to call them back without
> dialing *67.  Telephone preditors are far more sophisticated in
> techniques of deception than the average user is aware of how to
> render them ineffective.

Doesn't *67 toggle a line's status? For instance, it is my
understanding that dialing a *67 on a normally blocked line unblocks
that line. Even if it is another code entirely, how much trouble would
it be for one of those "sophisticated preditors" to convince the child
to call back using the "unblock" code? If there is no unblock code,
does this not remove options from a caller who might want to reach
some one who does not accept anonymous calls?

> In my opinion, blocking was an afterthought added to neutralize
> public resisance that was neither well designed, well thought
> out, nor well tested.

IMHO, it appears that the full effects of "per-line" blocking have not
been thought out by the anti-CNID folks, either.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:45:18 GMT


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

>> Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking
>> + speed dial = line blocking.

> Not necessarily.  As the spec is written, one must dial *67 and then
> _wait_ for a confirming "stutter dial tone".  According to the
> company's witness in the Arizona hearings, existing speed dialers may
> _not_ be capable of reliably converting per-call-blocking to
> line-blocking.  The spec allows software to take up to 10 seconds
> after receiving *67 until a confirmation (or denial) tone is given.
> The caller _must_ wait.  (Though response is supposed to be 7 seconds
> speed dialer to wait 10 seconds).

This doesn't quite make sense.  The *67 for per-call blocking is just
setting a flag in the local switch that will be acted upon when the
call setup packet finally goes out.  Why should it take any time at
all?  Is it not just like *70 for cancel call waiting as far as the
processing time required (more or less?)  Sure, if the switch is busy,
things can take awhile, just like it can take "7-10 seconds" to get
dialtone.  But the switch is virtually never in a state where this is
the case -- certainly not enough to worry about the effects this will
have on speed dialers.

Stutter dialtone can usually be dialed "on top of" with no delays on
1AESS and 5ESS switches, and can't be on DMS-100's.  Modem users on
DMS-100's should be familiar with putting a comma after the *70 in the
dialing string.  This is not required on the ESS switches however.

While there are good arguments on both sides of the per-line vs
per-call blocking issue, I don't see it as a technical issue.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Senate Debate on Caller ID
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 19:55:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> Of course, what they don't understand is that per call blocking +
> speed dial = line blocking.  Apparently no one sat down for 2ms and
> figured that if all you needed was at 2-10 digit 'pre-code' to set up
> a blocked call, you could easily just assign such a code to the
> beginning of EVERY number listed in your speed dial directory, right
> on your memory telephone.  Of course, if you can't AFFORD a memory
> telephone, then it gets a little tiring pushing all those buttons all
> the time ...

> Call your senator, point this out.  I have mine (Boren).

In this case, I'd just as soon leave my senators in the dark.  If they
knew what was going maybe they'd end up screwing around with it too
much.  And anytime Congress screws with anything, they are doing it to
the people.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages!
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 00:33:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregg
E. Woodcock) writes:

> "Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with
> more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward
> Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds
> to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage.

[details deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: It will never become law. Telephone service is
> governed by tariffs, one of which clearly specifies that the most a
> customer can expect in the way of compensation is a pro-ration of the
> month's bill based on the length of time the service was out.  PAT]

Yes, but is the tariff not just a form of administrative law that has
the force of a "real" law because the legislature has given the
authority to the PUC to set the details of the regulated utilities'
rates?  The legislature is free to change the tariff-making and
enforcing authority of the PUC at any time through additional
legislation.  It's much like the US Tax Code.  The IRS, under the
authority granted to it by the Congress, creates the Tax Code
provisions to implement the tax laws that Congress passes.  The Tax
Code is administrative law (and the Tax Court is an administrative,
not judicial, body).

If, however, the Congress decides that it doesn't like something in
the Tax Code (because the legislation it implemented was
misinterpreted), it can pass new legislation which effectively forces
an immediate change to the Tax Code.  I believe the same would hold
true with public utility tariffs.  I'm sure someone will correct me if
I'm wrong.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Phone Companies to Pay *Dearly* For Outages!
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 03:19:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


"Gregg E. Woodcock" <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Phone companies may have to start paying for service outages with
> more than their public image. Under a bill proposed by Rep. Edward
> Markey (D-Mass.), carriers would pay fines to regulators and refunds
> to customers scaled to the severity of a network outage.  When 25,000
> lines or more go down for one to six hours, carriers would have to
> refund 1/4 of the previous month's phone bill to their customers. When
> the outage lasts 6 to 12 hours, customers would get back 1/2 their
> bill; outages over 12 hours would require carriers to refund the
> entire bill. Moreover, carriers found to be 'negligent' could also
> face penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 PER MINUTE (!) for disrupted
> service."

Can we apply this, instead, to my cable TV and electric power service?

The outages of both of these are **MUCH** greater than telephone
outage here in Urbana, Illinois.

Yes, I *DO* know how to make my VCRs stop blinking "--:--".  I have done
it quite a lot.


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

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

Subject: Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 11 May 92 16:32:12 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Ptasnik) writes:

> If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance
> calls when local calls are blocked.  These calls often use different
> facilties than the local calls.  Most calls in these kinds of crises
> tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell
> people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing
> you just saw, etc.

Does this mean that you might do better using a long distance company
under those circumstances?  Remember the days with Sprint access
numbers, in which a call from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be
cheaper if you called your Sprint node to the Las Vegas Sprint node to
the local number in SF?  Could it be more reliable, as well?
(WARNING: NOT RECOMMENDED, because it does use telecom resources
needed by disaster relief teams, but would it work?)

> As a result, if your city has a disaster, and you need to contact your
> family, call a long distance friend or relative, tell them that you
> are OK, and leave a message for your family.  Have them call the same
> place to send and receive messages to and from you.

Yes, that's the correct way to do it.


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.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregg Kasten)
Subject: Re: Phoning Home in an Area Wide Emergency
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 00:28:41 GMT


[e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:

> If the crisis is not nationwide, you can frequently make long distance
> calls when local calls are blocked.  These calls often use different
> facilties than the local calls.  Most calls in these kinds of crises
> tend to local -- calls to families, calls for help, calls to tell
> people not to come to work, calls to tell your buddy the cool thing
> you just saw, etc.

There is a good article that explains some of these things in a recent
issue of {Smithsonian}. I believe it was the March issue, but I'm not
certain.

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Schuessler)
Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:58:00 GMT


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

> Even $0.10 per minute seems high.  Could you please let us know over
> what distance this applies.  As a data point the rate in Australia is

Yeah, but just think -- you can talk so much faster on your ISDN line
!!!  BIG :-)


Martin Schuessler   Advanced Micro Devices   ISDN Product/Test Engineer

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 12:49:22 -0500
From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Real-Life Residential ISDN Bill
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> I am _very_ interested to hear how your ISDN pricing compres with your
> switched 56 pricing.

The usage charges for Switched 56 and ISDN BRI CSD are the same.
Illinois Bell uses their Switched 56 network to carry ISDN CSD calls
and thus charges the same outrageous rates.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 21:10:20 PDT


I just got hold of a Princess phone myself, and have a different question.
Does anyone out there know where I can get the transformer you need to power
the lighted dial?


John David Galt

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Pope's Phone Number
Organization: UMCC
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 04:19:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Linc Madison) writes:

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

>> The Pope is listed in what phone book?

>> [Moderator's Note: Rome, Italy, or more precisely, within the Vatican
>> City listings of that directory.  PAT]

> Even more specifically, the telephone numbering space of Vatican City
> is rather limited: there is only one number in the entire country,
> which is the main switchboard.  Evidently, they don't have DID to
> individual extensions.  It's a local Rome number.

   The above is totally incorrect.  The Pope's number is 698-3131.
Even though I'm agnostic, don't tell him you got the number from me.


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


[Moderator's Note: You agnostics are all alike according to Madalyn E.
Murray O'Hare, who has said uncharitable things about agnostics from
time to time. The founder of American Atheists, MEMO was invited to
speak at the Chicago Temple several years ago, and she noted in her
remarks that agnostics were 'that way' so they could retain the option
of chickening out at the last minute ... :).  Don't worry, the Pope's
private phone number is safe with us here.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #384
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18631;
          15 May 92 4:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 May 1992 02:05:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04739
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 May 1992 02:04:55 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 02:04:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #385

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 May 92 02:04:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 385

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Phil Howard)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Paul Zawada)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Jim Rees)
    Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Roy Smith)
    Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Tom Reingold)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Roger Theriault)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Rob Schultz)
    Re: An Incident in DC (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:31:52 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out
> through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to
> others in the industry.

Such as to {USA Today}?

> Apparently all you need is an 800 line with
> call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to.
> The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the
> 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone
> at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them.   PAT]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant here.  In order to get the ANI for
an 800 call from AT&T, you must have an ISDN BRI direct to AT&T.
Sprint and MCI require regular T1 direct access.  On these lines, is
there such a thing as "call forwarding?"  Forgetting call forwarding
for a moment, a general feature of outbound calls placed over
dedicated facilities to a long distance carrier is that calls to 800
or 900 numbers (even those of the serving carrier), calling card
billing, etc., cannot be made.  Only regular DDD or IDDD calls can be
made.

Also, at least in the Mystic Marketing situation, all calls to the
number are not billed to the calling line.  Only if the caller chooses
that option is the charge made (other options included credit card
billing).  How would this selective billing be accomplished with call
forwarding?

Can you or your contact elaborate on exactly what configuration is
involved?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Forwarding is quite possible on 800 numbers. I am
not sure what took place, but apparently there was some error which
did not preclude forwarding the call to a 900 number. I don't know
what to think about the {USA Today} thing. Apparently, the fortune
tellers routed the call from the 800 answer onward based on what the
caller dictated: If credit card billing was desired, it terminated
then and there (and was passed to customer service to set up an
appointment with the psychic of choice). If billing to the phone
number was requested, then the call was shoved along through the 900
maze and on to customer service that way. Customer service was told
which direction they got it from, and responded accordingly. During
the interval while 'your phone number is being verified', the path via
900 was being set up somehow.  Other ideas?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 20:06:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out
> through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to
> others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with
> call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to.
> The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the
> 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone
> at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them.   PAT]

Why do they even have to go this far?

Why not take the ANI data right off the 800 number w/o call forwarding
and report it back for billing under the 900 service?

Well obviously they would be in a more vulnerable legal position by
doing that.

My big concern here is that the process of billing using ANI data puts
the data itself through the company doing the charging.

Details on my bill should ALWAYS reflect the number I *DIALED* to get
at any charging service, NOT the number connected to.

If I dialed a regular number that was forwarded, I would see the number
I dialed, not the number I forwarded to, right?

Just because 800 numbers are not billed to the caller, the process works
differently.  But I really am concerned that a charge can be generated
by someone without being associated with an actual phone call which has
the actual dialed number recorded.


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


[Moderator's Note: I may be mistaken, but I don't think the information
provider is ever in a position to 'report back for billing purposes'
the caller's phone number. I think telco has to be the one to see the
number and capture it. And this makes me then wonder how did they
accept the 800 call, yet manage to bounce it back to telco so it could
come into their system 'the right (revenue-producing) way' *without
either telco complicity OR an error which allowed forwarding to 900
numbers over the carrier's dedicated facilities.* Or perhaps they used
POTS to forward the 800 call, along with its ANI to some service
bureau or the carrier's POP (point of presence) and somehow it was
diddled with there and sent back to the IP as a 900 paid call.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 09:34:54 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Zawada)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record


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

> [e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes:

>> Some of the things I'd be interesting in hearing about include how the
>> cable is spliced together. I assume that the ship didn't have 3,250
>> miles of continuous cable on a big spindle.

>        No, they actually do carry enough cable to do the whole job.
> Cable is carried in big round holds, but they don't rotate; the cable
> is pulled out layer by layer from the top, having previously been
> carefully loaded in port.

>        Splices between sections are done on shipboard when necessary.

Not only are they done on shipboard, they are done well in advance of
being deployed.  This is done while there is still a substantial
amount of the current piece cable still on board the ship.  Repeaters
are also spliced in in the same way -- well in advance of being
deployed.  The reason this is done is so they don't have to stop every
time a repeater or splice is put in.  This was a real problem with the
old coaxial cables which had repeaters spaced one mile apart.

>        The cable isn't just dropped overboard; the ship tows a heavy
> plow that makes a furrow and buries the cable, at least in areas where
> other ships are likely to be dragging anchors.

The cable plow was first introduced to combat fishing trawlers off the
coast of Newfoundland.  The cable is buried to a depth of about two
feet in coastal areas.  At one time the placing of a "Y" 200 miles
offshore was considered, but redundant terminations were not as cost
effective as burying the cable.  In the middle of the ocean however,
the cable is not buried; it just lays there ...

It is interesting to note how the cable is let overboard in a
controlled manner.  The cables for TAT-1 and TAT-2 were wound around a
large drum several times.  The drum acted as a braking device to keep
the cable from uncontrollably flying out of the ship.  The drum,
however proved to be unsatisfactory with the advent of rigid repeater
housings.  (TAT-1's repeaters had flexible housings.)  Consequently,
Bell Labs developed the "linear cable engine" which could control the
release of cable without winding it around any parts.  Since the
linear cable engine could grip the cable in lengthwise, repeaters
could pass through it without problems.


Paul J. Zawada             KB9FMN
NCSAnet Network Engineer   [e-mail]
National Center for Supercomputing Applications   ..!pur-ee!zawada

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 22:49:05 GMT


There is a fascinating book about the laying of the first
trans-Atlantic telegraph cable.  I believe the title of the book is
"Great Eastern," which was also the name of the ship that laid the
cable.  I read the book in junior high school, so my apologies if it
isn't really as fascinating as I remember it.

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

Date: Thu, 14 May 92 10:02:20 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)


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

> I noticed that someone has been installing lightguide cables along the
> utility poles in our neighborhood.  What is most interesting about it is
> that this lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but
> of TKR Cable Television.

    The other day, I noticed a crew working on what appeared to be
fiber in a downtown Brooklyn manhole.  I stopped to chat.  Turned out
to be private fiber belonging to the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
All sorts of people own fiber.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Reingold)
Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets
Organization: Noo Joizy, USA
Date: 13 May 92 18:16:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> While taking a walk last weekend, I noticed that someone has been
> installing lightguide cables along the utility poles in our
> neighborhood.  What is most interesting about it is that this
> lightguide appears not to be the work of New Jersey Bell, but of TKR
> Cable Television.

> Anybody else in New Jersey know what TKR has planned for us?  They
> still have co-ax to our house, and do a reasonable job of delivering
> about 40 channels of one-way television over it.

A few months ago, I read in the New Jersey section of {The New York
Times} (which is distributed to New Jersey readers of this newspaper)
that New Jersey Bell was proposing to build a fiber optic network
throughout the state.  It said that this would be by far the biggest
fiber network in the world.  A consumer group -- I don't remember
which -- was lobbying against it because it claimed that NJ Bell would
have all of its customers pay for it by building in the cost of the
new network into phone bills.  NJ Bell's point of view was that they
can build it without increasing bills.  I don't remember how they
explained this.

I don't know what happened since I read the article.  To me it seems
like an neat opportunity to have the first area with much more modern
technology, but of course I don't fully understand all of the
downsides of this.

So the conclusion may be that while Bellcore and the Baby Bells (and
everyone else) may be developing technology that *could* be delivered,
regulation and other forces can prevent it from happening.

I don't know what the TKR cable TV company has planned, but if their
hands are bound more loosely than NJ Bell's they stand to profit.
That doesn't mean we can buy the type of service we would like,
though.


Tom Reingold    [e-mail]  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Theriault)
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 7:53:41 PDT
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division, Vancouver, CANADA


BC Cellular, the "B" wireline carrier in British Columbia, recently
announced (last week) in their subscriber newsletter that the coast
guard can be reached with "#16" for marine emergencies.

It went on to claim that VHF channel 16 was often too busy to get
through on. Strange, I assumed a good holler "Mayday!" would be
effective in clearing the channel ... assuming the call is serious.

BC Cellular has also improved their coverage in the Gulf Islands
recently -- perhaps the cell sites are now in better range than the
Coast Guard radio sites.

Any boaters contemplating giving up their VHF radios: remember that if
you call for help on your cell phone, you will only be heard by the
Coast Guard operator. If you've only got a minute to call for help,
use VHF 16 -- the chances are very good that a nearby boater will hear
your call, and be able to come and help you before the Coast Guard.
The cellphone can be useful, but almost every boat over 20' has a VHF
radio listening on channel 16. If the coast guard does not hear, the
boater should relay the mayday call.

(The coast guard WILL broadcast your distress call over VHF 16, if it
is necessary. I think the "#16" will be most useful for people on
shore who spot a boater in trouble ... especially a boater without
either VHF or cell phone. Readers with boats probably know all this.)


Roger Theriault                [e-mail]
{uw-beaver,uunet}!van-bc!mdivax1!theriaul   1+604 241 6421
I am not a spokesman for Motorola or anyone else besides myself.

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

Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Date: The, 14 May 92 14:05:11 EST
From: [e-mail] (Rob Schultz)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
writes:

> I heard on the radio the other day that some cellular providers will
> soon provide a "hotline" to the Coast Guard by pressing #CG{Send}.

> Perhaps that will obsolete Marine Band channel 16?

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will simply because there are
> different transmission characteristics between the two, and the VHF
> radios have a better coverage area in some applications. Certainly
> cellular phones can supplement VHF, but not replace it.  PAT]

I race sailboats on Lake Michigan.  For the past several years, there
have been at least two cellular telephones on board for the
Chicago-Mackinac race (Chicago is at the extreme south end of the
lake, while Mackinac is at the extreme north end).  Cell coverage near
Chicago is fine, however, as we head north, reception gets worse.
Indeed, there are several places on the lake that have no practical
coverage at all.  I can't imagine relying solely on a cell phone for
help even on Lake Michigan.  I would expect that the coastal waters
are probably even worse.

There would also be a very big problem if the boat was sailed outside
the US coastal waters.

On a side note, all of the cell phones we have tried are handhelds.
(One is a Panasonic, and there have been several Motorola MicroTACs
[Pocket Phones]).  A bag phone might work somewhat better, but we have
also considered installing a car phone in the boat with the antenna at
the top of the mast.  Does anyone have any experience with this?
Would a normal car antenna work?  This should give us much broader
coverage due to the increased power and the higher mount of the
antenna.  We should also be able to use the phone more since it would
run off the boats batteries and engine rather than the smaller
handheld batteries.

Does anyone have an idea as to the legality of this?


Rob Schultz  At work: [e-mail]         At Home:  [e-mail]
      {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms   {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms
                    [phone]                        [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: An Incident in DC
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 03:26:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, at the business office, with tariff schedule in my lap, I called
> up the billing office to ask about this.  They informed me that my
> service would be turned back on in two hours.  I never had to even ask
> which so-called tariff it was.  The service was restored in about an
> hour and a half.

Next time, no matter what the issue, challenge them on the tariff in
the first place.  Claim that there is no such tariff and if they want
to insist there is, for them to get the number of conference with
their supervisor.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #385
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12114;
          16 May 92 14:45 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17154
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 May 1992 12:32:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17988
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 May 1992 12:31:55 -0500
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 12:31:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #386

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 May 92 12:31:56 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 386

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey (Julian Macassey)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (cavallarom@cpva)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Phil Howard)
    Calling Number/Forwarding (was 800 Calls Converted) (David G. Lewis)
    800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (Jack Decker)
    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Wes Perkhiser)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Don Newcomb)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Phydeaux)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:22 EDT
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey
Organization: The Matrix


In article <[e-mail]>:

> I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison &
> Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter". My US
> Mail to the manufacturer's address was returned as undeliverable.
> Directory assistance to Northridge, CA and 800 DA came up empty.

I have one of these units.  They are an AMPS standard to POTS adaptor
and work reasonably well ... but can be cranky at times.

As I recall, the manufacturer was sued by Tellular, Inc.  of Chicago
in a patent dispute, and manufacture of the AB1X was discontinued.  I
have no other direct knowledge of the fate of M&D.

I do have the user's manual here for it.

There is no identification information in the manual, but there were
several versions made, for the different flavors of AMPS compatible
cellphones that were out there.

As I recall the versions went something like:

 Std. AMPS - Fujitsu, OKI, Audiovox/Toshiba, Harris, E.F. Johnson,
        Panasonic, ATT/Hitachi and a couple others
 NEC AMPS
 Motorola AMPS

Note that all of these are older models of cellphones, made in the
1986-8 era.  My AB1X is used with a 1987 version Fujutsu cellphone.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey
Date: 16 May 92 03:28:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
Org (William Degnan) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 377, Message 2 of 10

> I have a cellular to bridged tip and ring adapter unit from Morrison &
> Dempsey Communications. It claims to be a "AB1 Data Adapter".

    Yes, This is one of their products. It made a cellular phone
work like a regular phone. You could have a Mickey Mouse phones in the
back of the limo. You could also connect phone answering machines and
even a PBX. What a nifty gadget.

    I just tried calling them and their number is no longer in
use.  But here is the entry from my Roladex:

Morrison & Dempsey
19201 Parthenia Street Suite D
Northridge, California 91324
Phone: [phone]

I called an old distributor of theirs and they are still in business.
Here is their number; maybe they know what happened to Morrison &
Dempsey.

Cellabs Phone [phone]

    The name Morrison & Dempsey was taken from a joke (Urban
Legend) that the word modem is a combination of the names of the
inventors -- MOrrison & DEMpsey.


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]
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Date: 15 May 92 08:13:59 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


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

> [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out
> through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to
> others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with
> call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to.
> The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the
> 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone
> at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them.   PAT]

I have followed this discussion for awhile.  This is pretty simple to
implement.  You order a regular 1mb phone line with call forwarding.
Then you call AT&T, and order an 800 number to be sent to the 1mb
line.  Then you call forward the 1mb to the 900 number. To the CO, the
call came from the 800 number; that's all there is to it.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:38:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Forwarding is quite possible on 800 numbers. I am
> not sure what took place, but apparently there was some error which
> did not preclude forwarding the call to a 900 number.

> Apparently, the fortune tellers routed the call from the 800 answer
> onward based on what the caller dictated: If credit card billing was
> desired, it terminated then and there (and was passed to customer
> service to set up an appointment with the psychic of choice). If
> billing to the phone number was requested, then the call was shoved
> along through the 900 maze and on to customer service that way.

I want to have blocked on my line, any and all numbers which might be
able to charge back to my line any charge, regardless of what is said
over the line.  I want to be able to allow visitors to use my line
with no more charge to me than the cost to place the call.  I can
block toll calls if I need to, but I'd like to NOT have to block 800
numbers.  As it turns out some equipment assumes 800 is toll free and
cannot block it anyway.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Calling Number/Forwarding (was 800 Calls Converted)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:32:27 GMT


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

> I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an
> "oops" and will be blocked in short order.  But that does raise
> interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information
> through forwarding.  What are the technical rules?

There are no "technical rules" (standards or Bellcore specifications)
regarding the propagation of ANI (Billing Number) on forwarded calls.
ANI is only specified (in T1.104 and a Bellcore FSD) across an
Exchange Carrier / Interexchange Carrier interface.  Forwarding is
outside the scope of these specifications.

For Caller ID, the feature interactions specified in the Bellcore TRs
require the original calling party number to be delivered to the
forwarded-to address, if the forwarded-to address subscribes to CID.

Note that in a SS7 Network Interconnect environment, this could lead
to both the original calling party number and the forwarding number to
be sent to an IXC; the original CPN in the Calling Party Number
parameter, and the forwarding number in the Charge Number parameter
(since the forwarding is billed to the forwarding party).

> More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with
> forwarded calls.  Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded
> and via what forwarding path?

Draft proposed American National Standards for Calling Line
Identification Presentation and Call Forwarding call for the original
calling party number to be carried in the Calling Party Number
parameter (in SS7) or CPN IE (in DSS1 - ISDN access signaling) and up
to two forwarding numbers (first and last) to be carried in the
Redirecting Number parameters (SS7) or IEs (DSS1).  The Redirecting
Number IE also has a "Reason for redirection" field, which would
presumably be set to "Call Forwarding Unconditional" or whatever the
case is.

> I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would
> be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to
> access control and privacy considerations).  There are a number of
> attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the
> caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing.

Interrogating the "links" is questionable, since links don't have any
intelligence ... interrogating various exchanges is more technically
feasible, but still unlikely.  Interrogating the calling user is more
likely -- there are several mechanisms in draft standards for user-user
communication via ISDN.  I can provide more info if anyone's
interested.


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

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 18:03:49 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing?


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

> [ ..... Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900
> scam works, where you call an 800 number, yet get billed as though
> you made a 900 call, ie, USA Today and Mystic Marketing: They are
> using programmable type 800 numbers with ANI.  Incoming calls are
> *forwarded* to an unmentioned 900 number, and of course the ANI the
> 900 number sees is not that of the phone doing the forwarding to
> it, but that of the original caller. In effect, a call *is* made to
> a 900 number via call-forwarding from an 800 number. So you protest
> to telco, but everything they see indicates you called a 900 number
> and should pay.

Apparently, what this means is that when call-forwarding is in effect,
the ANI of the caller is also forwarded.

What I'm wondering is, couldn't the central office switch designers
offer an option to block forwarding of the original caller's ANI *if*
the call is forwarded to a 900, 700, or 976 type number?  In such a
case it could substitute the number of the phone actually doing the
forwarding.

It seems to me that if the ANI is being forwarded this, is incorrect
operation anyway.  After all, consider this scenario: Let's say (just
as an example) that you have an 800 number that offers access from
Canada, and at the receiving end it is call-forwarded to a 900 number
that is only accessible from within the United States.  Let's further
suppose that the 800 and 900 numbers terminate at the same physical
location, so that in essence the forwarded call only travels to the
interexchange carrier's switch and back ... it's essentially a very
short distance toll call.

Now, a call comes in from Canada, and it is billed to the 800 number
(as it should be).  So the 800 line shows a bill for a call from
Canada.  Then, the call ALONG WITH THE ANI?!?! is forwarded to the 900
number, and it ALSO gets (incorrectly) billed for a call from Canada,
rather than the (correct) bill for only the distance of the forwarded
call.

You may say, "So what?  This is exactly what the customer wants, and
they're charging so much for the call that they don't care if they get
double-billed."  Ah, but what about tariffs?  Even if the customer
wants it (in this particular case), is it really legal for a phone
company to double-bill for the same call?

Suppose you had the 800 number forwarded to another 800 number ...
let's say an interstate-only 800 number forwarded to an intrastate-
only 800 number ... would the intrastate-only 800 number receive the
ANI, and therefore bill for calls from out of state?

Or let's extend that logic a bit and say that I inadvertently set up
call forwarding on my residential phone to forward to some company's
intrastate, intraLATA only 800 number ... and then I leave for the
weekend and my Uncle Fred calls from Nome?  Would both Uncle Fred AND
the company owning the 800 number get billed for a call from Alaska?

It just seems to me that something is REALLY fishy here ... either
this is a major software bug, or the telephone companies are knowingly
allowing double-billing of calls to take place.


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


[Moderator's Note: This technically is not 'double billing' since at
the customer's request, two calls were placed over the network; not
just one. If someone called a number and *telco* billed each end of
the connection for just the one call, *that* would be double-billing.
If two or more actual calls take place, from A to B, and at B's
request the call is forwarded to C (even if B and C are the same but
at two different places, etc) then telco has done its job twice and
should be paid for two calls. If B manually intervened and forwarded
the call to C it would work that way; the fact that telco follows
instructions and handles B's forwarding for him makes no difference.
What's needed is a change to prohibit forwarding POTS/800 ==> 900.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 22:18:20 CST
From: [e-mail] (Wes Perkhiser)
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <09 May 92 10:13:40>, Carl Moore (11:30102/2) writes:

> And did anyone learn what would show up on the phone bill if the $120
> charge for that psychic service was accepted?  And what if you had
> called from a pay phone and had asked (via the keypad) that the charge
> be assessed to the phone you were calling from?  (I stopped short of
> doing that, but stayed on long enough to hear the correct phone number
> -- all the way down to area code 410 -- read back to me.)

In the case of the Mystic Marketing, if you called from a pay phone,
and tried to charge it to the phone, it would work (including reading
back the correct number) until you pushed the button to accept the
charges.  Then it said "Please hold while the number is verified ..."
After a few seconds, it came back and said that the charge could not
be billed to that number.  It then went into a loop of advertisements
for 1-900 numbers.  I don't know how long the loop was, or who ended
up paying for the time on the phone (the local phone company, the long
distance carrier, or someone else?) but, alas, you couldn't get a free
psycic reading. :(

Of course, the psycic knew you were calling from a pay phone: just
like he/she knew you were going to call.

Of course, this is all heresay:  I never would call a company like this. :)


Wes     msged 1.99S ZTC     Perk's 'Puter, Omaha  (1:285/666.20)


[Moderator's Note: I think you are wrong, at least in the early days
of this. The pay phone number was read back, verified and you were
given your PIN number to be used when setting up an appointment. I
think after the abuse became very heavy the psychic's business office
started following it a little closer. And of course the COCOTs were
wide open all along.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Newcomb)
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Don Newcomb)
Organization: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 13:56:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Roger Theriault) writes:

> BC Cellular, the "B" wireline carrier in British Columbia, recently
> announced (last week) in their subscriber newsletter that the coast
> guard can be reached with "#16" for marine emergencies.

Two of the largest cellular phone systems in North America cover the
Gulf of Mexico from Mobile, AL to somewhere down the coast of Texas
and out a couple hundred miles into the Gulf. Towers are located on
oil and gas production platforms and signals are relayed to shore by
either microwave or satellite. In both cases, dialing *911 will
connect you with the U.S. Coast Guard. Many boaters in the western
Gulf now carry cellular phones *in addition to* their VHF marine
radios.


Donald R. Newcomb                * Views expressed are strictly
U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office  * those of the author. Mention
Stennis Space Center, MS 39522   * of commercial products or
[e-mail]            * organizations in no way
Phone [phone]             * constitutes an endorsement.

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 08:29:35 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?


> I race sailboats on Lake Michigan.  For the past several years, there
> have been at least two cellular telephones on board for the
> Chicago-Mackinac race (Chicago is at the extreme south end of the
> lake, while Mackinac is at the extreme north end).  Cell coverage near
> Chicago is fine, however, as we head north, reception gets worse.

> On a side note, all of the cell phones we have tried are handhelds.

A coworker with a boat has a bag phone and an external antenna mounted
on top of the mast.  According to her, the three watts of phone, plus
the height of the antenna allow it to be used most anywhere on Lake
Michigan.  I do know that near the middle reception is not very good.


-- *-=#= 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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #386
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09033;
          17 May 92 18:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11883
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29541
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:00 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 16:20:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #387

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 16:20:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 387

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Keith Smith)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Jack Decker)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Patrick Tufts)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Chris Ambler)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Nigel Allen)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Stephen H. Lichter)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (B.J. Herbison)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (zeta@yngbld)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Keith Smith <ksmith![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 20:39:12 GMT


Mine sorta already is.  US Sprint own's Carolina Telephone.  Ain't
that some stuff?


Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 13:40:08 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF) writes:

> I recently got a call from one of those annoying telephone pollsters,
> but as I wasn't in a hurry I figured I would answer it.  It was mostly
> about my opinions on my long distance and local phone companies.  One
> of the questions that most surprised me was: "If there was a new
> service whereby you would receive your local telephone service through
> your current long distance carrier, would you get that service?"

 ... and Pat (the Moderator) comments:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, it is possible now, although only
> marginally legal. You can use a carrier's 800 number then dial your
> own area code and a local number. You can't do that through either one
> plus dialing or 10xxx dialing, of course.  (Telco examines what digits
> follow the 1/0 plus or the 10xxx prior to handing them off to the LD
> company of choice.)  PAT]

Actually, Pat, in some states (such as here in Michigan) it is
possible to do it now by dialing 10xxx plus the number (or 10xxx + 0 +
number for an operator assisted local call).  It really works from my
phone, but I can't see any advantage to doing it that way because the
carrier will always charge you for the call as though it were a TOLL
call (the shortest distance toll call if the call is within your own
exchange).  I think they started charging for the calls because at one
time, I heard that some businesses were routing all their local calls
via their LD carrier to avoid paying per-call charges to the local
telco.  Of course, the carrier had to pay access charges for such
calls, so they lost money.  Even with the toll charge, if all of your
local calls were one minute or less, I could see where placing a local
call through a long distance carrier might be less expensive during
the off-peak hours if you're a business customer (since the charge for
each local call on a business line is about 9 cents, and a one-minute
off-peak toll call would be around 5 to 7 cents).

One little glitch that came about as a result of this was that for a
short time after equal access was implemented (in 1985 here), you
could place local calls from a coin phone by dialing 10288 plus the
local number; the call would just complete and no coin deposit would
be requested!  Now I think you actually get an AT&T recording that
says "please deposit 20 cents for this call." For many years now, in
Michigan it has been possible to place a sent-paid call from a coin
phone to a location up to 20 miles away for a flat rate of 20 cents
(the telcos wanted this to avoid having to use operators to collect
additional nickels on short-distance toll calls, back in the days when
the operators still used cord boards), so the flat 20 cent rate would
be correct for an in-Michigan toll call.  I would suppose that when
anyone actually dials a call using the 10288 prefix, Michigan Bell
actually makes MORE money on the call (and AT&T loses money) if the
call is of any length, because AT&T would be paying originating and
terminating access charges (on a per-minute basis) to Michigan Bell
for the entire duration of the call.  But on a short call (say a
one-minute call), Michigan Bell would lose money because they'd only
get about four or five cents in access charges, and AT&T would get to
keep the other 15 cents or so.

I'm not sure it all works this way EVERYWHERE in Michigan ... I can
only tell you how it works here!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick Tufts)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 18:28:52 GMT


Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls?  Since you'd have
to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this
sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you
made the call from your home phone?

Inquiring and enquiring minds want to know.


Pat

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 00:41:13 GMT


xxx-0000 numbers used to be traditionally assigned to COs. This has
changed. Pretty simple :-)


[e-mail]
Fubar Systems BBS     (805) 54-FUBAR     3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1


[Moderator's Note: I think when the very old stepping switches were in
common use, 0000 was impossible to assign due to the way the switches
worked. I notice we have a few 0000 subscribers in Chicago now.  PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Re: All Zeroes in the Subscriber Number
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


[e-mail] (Dave Mausner) asks in Volume 12, Issue 382,
Message 7 of 13:

> what is, or was, so special about all zero subscriber numbers?
> Was there a technical problem, or was it "cultural"?

In the old days of rotary dials and step-by-step switches, a number
like 232-1111 would take less time to dial (fewer total "pulls") than
one like 232-0000. (For the same reason, busy areas like New York City
got area codes like 212; smaller population areas got area codes which
would take longer to complete, like 902 for Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island.) With touch-tone and electronic switches, having zeroes
in your number today is no longer a disadvantage.

Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that
this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled.

In step-by-step days, when a company had more than ten lines (368-6041
for Canadian National's Toronto telegraph office, for example), the
call would complete after you dialled the *sixth* digit. I don't know
what the technical term for this was.


Nigel Allen      [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: What you say about the shorter time required for
shorter 'pulls' is correct, however there was a time when numbers
ending in double or triple zero were very fashionable ... that may
still be the case. That may be the reason you will find so many older
hotels and other businesses with many lines that have directory
numbers of X000 or XX00.  I find them easier to remember.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 15 May 92 01:28:00 UT
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number


For many years the telephone companies used numbers with the last four
digits as zero's as numbers for their switch rooms. In the last few
years you have started to see more of them used in non-telephone
company numbers. I don't understand why they were let loose to be used
as it will cause problems with people getting calls meant for
telephone company business. There are several other numbers with
zero's in them that are used for testing. Lets hope they don't start
issuing them or someone is going to get a surprise when they answer
their phone only to get a blast of tone.


Steven H. Lichter     GTECA COEI


[Moderator's Note: Telco test numbers may begin with zero where you
live; here they are 99xx style. 0XXX, 00XX, and 000X are valid numbers
for subscribers in Chicago. Payphones generally are 9{2-8}XX.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 11:14:35 PDT
From: B.J.  15-May-1992 1414 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes


Phil Howard ([e-mail]), talking about a phone system that
doesn't allow carrier access codes for 700 numbers, writes:

> Any ideas on what I can do to get them to allow the carrier access
> code for these two categories of calls?

If you can come up with a 700 number that you have a need to access
for U of I business, that should help.

> Are there any replies I should give when I get a remark like "it
> cannot be done on our computer"?  I've gotten this before from people
> I am sure don't know what a computer even looks like.

If you suspect that the person talking doesn't know much about the
`computer' in question, ask:

What is the make and model of the computer?

If they admit not knowing, ask how they know the computer can't do
what you want it to do.  If they won't tell you the model, ask to
speak with someone who knows.  If they respond with a make and model
number, try:

What [version of the operating system/generic] is running?

And respond to their answer as above.  These two questions should take
care of 99.9% of the front-line telephone support or customer service
people.  When you find someone who can answer these questions,
compliment them on their knowledge and ask why the computer can't do
what you want it to do.


B.J.

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

Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
From: [e-mail] (SYSTEM OPERATOR)
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 19:51:38 EST
Organization: TCS Constulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

> [e-mail] (John L. Shelton) writes:

>> 1.  Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD
>> provider has it's own "namespace".  My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in
>> AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM.  And the cost to the
>> caller could be different, too.

> I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating
> AT&T.

> I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I
> got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not
> necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have
> dialed.

> I believe my employer (U of I ... three prefixes on campus) has turned
> off the carrier access code ability (not sure how this is implemented).

> Given the distinctive namespace for 700 numbers, it would seem to me
> that it is VERY necessary to dial a carrier access code.

 From what I have been told (and I could easily have been told
incorrectly), the 700 number (555-4141) was created to take some of
the pressure off local phone companies when people called in asking
what their ld carrier was.  To my knowledge, I have yet to see another
1-700 number anywhere else (if anyone has some, i'd be interested in
seeing them).

Normally, there is no need for most people on a cellular switch, or
pbx, etc to dial that number (the person in charge of the system does,
but that's about it), and so in most cases the 1-700 is either not
defined, or blocked, so no one dials it.

As to the dialing of the long distance carrier codes, I block
10???1xxxxxxxxxx.  I do that because we have a special deal with our
long distance carrier on my switch for 1+ calls.  I don't want people
rerouting calls on a more expensive carrier.  NOTE that
10???0xxxxxxxxxx is not blocked and is allowed, and in fact defined in
my system for calling card calls.


Hope that helps.

Greg

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 09:44:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


We won't know until they go live with EasyReach, but I believe that
700-555-4141 is a special case.  It is used specifically to show what
carrier the phone is presubscribed for.  It may well be protected so
that you can't dial random 10xxx codes, looking for carrier ID's.

The ATT rep tells me that 10288 is expected to work with EasyReach.
We'll see.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: AT&T 700 Easy Reach Service
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 02:28:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Tom Reingold) writes:

> When I heard about this service this week, my initial response was to
> think that this is really neat.  I tried to think of why I would want
> it.  I still haven't thought of a reason.

I have ... at the end of this post.

> The phone number can follow me wherever I go.  So when I move, I don't
> have to call everyone I know and give out my new phone number.  But if
> I only give out my 700 number, I will be hit with a lot of forwarding
> charges.  So to avoid those charges, I give out my local number.  Then
> I'm back to where I was.

Give it out only on a limited basis.  If I had the service it would be
used sparingly anyway.  Anyone else can track me down if it is
important.

> If this is the first step in implementing personal telephone numbers
> for everyone, what will happen when all 700 numbers are exhausted?

600?  500?  400?  ...

What do these numbers do anyway?   PAT?????

> How is this whole thing implemeneted?  Is there a central database of
> forwarding information?  When this gets big, how will such a giant
> database work?

It appears that at the present it all goes through AT&T.  I have no idea
how the existent 700 numbers are routed or handled.   PAT?????

> I fear that if we are aiming for everyone to have a personal number,
> following each of us wherever we go, it will be expected of us to be
> reachable at all times.  We will lose the advantage of being able to
> walk away from our phones.

This is partly why I would limit the number of people I would give the
number to, as I do now with my unlisted second phone line (the "main"
line only gets an answering machine to keep the telemarketers at bay).

> Who can make the best use of this new service?

Another use I would make of it, in conjuction with the limited
distribution of the number, is a single number I can have routed and
rerouted to different wireline and cellular phone numbers wherever I
travel.  Doing regular forwarding, while possible, can be a pain (you
have to set up a box at your home where you can call in and invoke a
change of forwarding).

I wonder if, suppose I am visiting say, San Francisco (instead of
being at home in Urbana, Illinois) and I have my 700 number directed
to a number that is permanently based in San Francisco (wireline).  If
someone calls my 700 number FROM San Francisco or nearby, is the
charge based just on the shorter path the call would need to go
through?

When AT&T gets the information out, maybe I will find out.  If not in
the information they promised to send when ready, I will certainly
call up again and hit them with that question.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #387
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09442;
          17 May 92 18:35 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30352
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:50:00 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25453
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 16:49:51 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 16:49:51 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #388

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 16:49:51 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 388

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Joseph Grace)
    Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (David G. Lewis)
    Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: ISDN in Massachusetts (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Grace)
Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want)
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 21:15:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) writes:

>> Pac*Bell has not the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses ...
>> So what is Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along? Probably nothing.
>> Pac*Bell has ABSOLUTELY NO PLANS at this time to offer basic rate ISDN
>> to ANYONE, business or residence ...

> John, this is simply not true. I can get PacBell ISDN service at home
> *today*, for $45.15/month for two lines -- one analog, one digital
> 2B+D, or "three dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone" -- or $58.97/month for
> two ISDN lines (four dialtones for $15/mo/dialtone). True, the
> tariffs are a bit weird, requiring you to have Centrex service, with
> a whopping $585 installation charge -- of which $300 is "establishment
> of Centrex service". But the intra-LATA call rates are exactly the
> same as voice call rates. [Inter-LATA depends on one's ISDN IEC
> carrier. Some are the same as voice; some are a *lot* higher.]

> And ISDN Basic Rate service is only available within 18,000 wire-feet
> of an ISDN-provisioned CO, which at the rate they're going I will

My one quibble with a very nice summary: "ISDN-provisioned CO" is a
very big gotcha and a key to understanding the magnitude of PacBell's
failure to support ISDN in a serious, fair (to all subscribers, not
just big businesses) way.  First a CO (Central Office: where your
phone line goes/comes_from) must become digital before it becomes
ISDN-provisioned (ISDN-capable).  Then it must become
ISDN-provisioned.  Sounds easy: allocate money, gather money, go out,
buy digital box, install box, go out, buy ISDN appendage for box,
install appendage, make money.  This is what telephony is all about!
Oops, I forgot we're dealing with PacBell.

  Despite the fact we are in Silicon Valley and San Francisco where
technology frontiers are regularly pioneered, despite the fact San
Francisco is a world-wide port, the Northern California big city, and
the largest commercial and residential center within Silicon Valley's
direct influence, PacBell figger's [sic :-), first hand from PacBell]
they can just humptey-dumptey along with 3 of 8 of their San Francisco
COs digital for 1992.  By (beginning of) 1993, they will add another
for 4/8 digital COs.  Ohhh, ISDN you say?  Hmmm, don't see it on the
schedule.  Your CO, hmmm, no schedule even for digital-provisioned.

  Horror story (first-hand): when pressed for more informative,
explanatory and/or responsive ISDN service information, I was told by
a PacBell ISDN service representative "to move" my home to a CO where
PacBell chose to support ISDN (i.e., your "high-volume" downtown
district where micro-business, home-based business and residences are
price-prohibited).  "Yeah, that's the ticket!"  NOT.  Thumbs-down on
ISDN support.  Thumbs-down on customer service (why doesn't PacBell
move one of its ISDN COs withing 18000 feet of my home?); what was
that saying: the <PacBell???> is always right?

  BTW, this little story is one of the definitive details referred to
below which defines PacBell not only by its PacBell ISDN shortcomings
(you can't have it at a reasonable price throughout our monopoly's
most high-tech big city) but its generally poor quality service
("Sssssshhhhheeeerrrrr, we'll be nice ... we'll let you move to get
the service you need that we should provide from our utility monopoly.
Just move your residence within 18,000 feet of one of these 3/8 San
Francisco COs, pay us lots of money for Centrex [which you don't want]
and we'll let you pay us to receive ISDN service!  Aren't we
accommodating, reasonable and responsive.  [No.]  Thank you, I assure
you we are.  Have a nice day, and remember PacBell is your friend.")

  The breadth (not just ISDN junk) of such stories I have experienced
and recently heard draw a pretty uncompromising picture (to me, at
least) of top-level managemental incompetence at PacBell.  The Peter
Principle probably applies very well at PacBell.

> absolutely agree with you is nowhere near universal access ... yet.
> But PacBell *is* selling and installing ISDN today, in some
> non-trivial quantity.

> By the way, they've just about given up trying to push it based on the
> data transmission capabilities -- not enough of their anticipated
> audience seems to care (so says an ISDN Makreting Manager). What
> they're doing now is going after the high-volume business users,
> promoting the fact that a single ISDN line gives you *two* dialtones
> at a monthly cost *less* than two standard business lines. This
> marketing strategy seems to be working better for them than pushing
> the data capabilities.

> If you absolutely *must* have ISDN today and are outside the 18kft
> limit, there's a way to get ISDN in groups of eight lines ABSOLUTELY
> ANYWHERE AT ALL for about the same price as a T-1 line. In fact, that
> how they do it: They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every
> 6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing
> called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces.
> [Note that this is *not* ISDN PRI (23B+D), but merely eight BRI lines
> (each 2B+D).] Each of those can then be run in any direction up to
> 18kft from the termination. But it's not cheap. A typical
> "medium-short" run for "ISDN Extended" is over $7000 to install and
> $1200/mo (or ~$75/mo/"dialtone").

While John is "wrong" (that PacBell is selling "no" ISDN) and Rob is
right (with nice details and the best synopsis I've seen or heard of
PacBell ISDN pricing and gotchas (including from PacBell)), I think
John hits closer to the mark than Rob does in his overall assessment
of PacBell for the following reasons:

  0.  Very first off, I haven't done any definitive research on
PacBell or its management and my opinions follow.  But these opinions
are based on my experiences working at a government contractor (BBN)
for four years, a hard-core contract programmer house (TCI) and
soft-core development house (NetExpress "West") where I reached some
level of un-naivete about management, bureacracy and people systems.
I guess you could say I draw my picture from the details as in "It's
the details that count."  Especially when the details are inordinately
numerous, consistent and definitive.  (For example, see CO story
above.)

  Also, in "logical" arguments, "ad hominem" argument are always
considered "specious" and should be so, however, we are considering
not a "utility service product line" but (in my picture) an
organization of people -- where the only people who have final
authority are those being paid the big $$$ to do for the employees,
stockholders and community what best be done with the available
resources.  Not easy, I grant you (but be polite and step aside when
you're over your head; Ohh, you're not over your head ---
Eeeeexxxccuuuuuzzzzzeeeee me!).  These people can be good or bad, but
when they're bad, they and their entire organizations don't listen.
This is the biggest problem, so I'll repeat:

  THEY DON'T LISTEN.

Actually, I kind of like that!  Because sooner or later they should
get what they deserve.  Ideally.

    In practice, depending on how the system is setup, this may not
happen or may happen very late (too late to affect (much less punish)
the perpetrators) or never.  If the system has no accountability
feedback or the feedback loop is slow, unresponsive, or broken for
some reason (e.g., the stockholders are ill/mis/dis-informed on
market/technology directions, currents), then the system breaks: the
low calibre management perpetuates and promotes further poor personnel
and bureacracy.  These organizational features lead to definitively
poor, unresponsive, partial, expensive, slow or otherwise low quality
services and products.

    This explanation is the best I have for how the PacBell
organization behaves, including their approach to ISDN, their
customers and their Bay Area (especially San Francisco and Silicon
Valley) captive subscribers.

  1.  Let the customer order what the customer needs, not what PacBell
needs.  If I want ISDN, I want ISDN (not Centrex).  PacBell admits
this but perpetuates this expensive (for the customer, "lucrative" for
PacBell) charade.  This price charade may be particularly self-serving
for PacBell since it a) significantly confuses consumers, b) generates
unearned revenue (obviously for the unneeded Centrex charges), and c)
artificially depresses "market demand" for ISDN through consumer
confusion, exorbitant pricing and distasteful business practices
(boosting Centrex revenue at the cost of ISDN revenue).  Apparently,
PacBell "wants" Centrex "demand" to perpetuate artificially even
(especially?) at the expense of ISDN.  Board Meeting: "See, we did a
great job planning for ISDN: we invested virtually nothing and the
demand is ... virtually nothing!  In fact, for every ISDN connection
we get at least one new Centrex customer [guaranteed by our
ISDN-Sells-Centrex Sales Package].  Centrex is still hot stuff and we
forecast growth into 2010 and beyond.  Last year's plan still holds in
trumps for this year and probably for the next 15 years.  Don't I do a
good job?  [Isn't my artificially self-fulfilling marketing plan with
no serious feedback loops working?]  Can I have my raise?"

<If you've lasted 'til here, you probably get the picture.  To be
brief:>

  2.  "ISDN Marketing Manager".  Maybe a joke?  Who's got vision,
authority and the bank account to make ISDN progress at PacBell?
Somehow, I don't think such a beast really exists at PacBell.  And
won't as long as poor management is in authority.

  3.  High-volume business user.  Yeah, no kidding.  PacBell will do
anything for money, even stuff they don't want to do because of bad
planning/ managemental incompetence.  Short-term capital gain moves
bureacracies, despite themselves.  But let's not forget, this same
PacBell (is supposed to serve) serve the entire Bay Area.  Where's the
meat for the residences, home-based business, or micro-business?  Ohh,
they don't get any.  Hmm, that makes for a level business playing
field by an appropriate judge -- NOT.  If PacBell can't even get the
answer right planning their own business needs re: ISDN, why should
they be able to choose mine?  Oohh, it's a monopoly.  Oohh, they're
preferential.  Oohh, I forgot, it's PacBell.

So, Rob, congratulations on providing the local monopoly enough money
or promised money to make them bend over despite themselves.  Or for
happening to live in a location within 18,000 feet of a PacBell
preferred CO.  But you are in the distinct minority, and while SGI is
(by all the reports I've heard) a wonderful company, small business
can be wonderful too -- and crucial during these high-inertia times
(witness PacBell again).  PacBell's ISDN incompetence affects my
business and consulting plans in a very serious way.

For a final anecdote (second-hand): Steve Jobs recently tried to get
ISDN for *his* home.  One of his companies, NeXT, has plenty of money
to throw around, Steve has plenty of money to throw around, NeXT is
pushing real hard to make ISDN the standard telecommunications medium
(witness ISDN-Kit in NeXTstep 3.0) of the NeXT community (at least for
point-to-point) and Steve is an extremely high-profile, flagship kind
of customer.  What did PacBell *do* when Steve tried to get an ISDN
Basic Rate connection for his home?  They offered him the T1 option
you described above!  Well, I guess it's only fair :-)!  But if I were
PacBell, I would consider Steve's aggressive ISDN push a valuable
alliance and be wary of generating bad PR (with an $8000 charge for an
ISDN connection to the home of someone who is helping make ISDN real
in the U.S.).  Gee, what if people heard about it?  I guess nothing
 -- no significant, affordable feedback loop.

2.5 cents,

= Joe =    [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:52:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
writes:

> The company I work for is a memnber of the "Bay Area Gigabit Testbed",

I suppose it would be irreverent of me to suggest that this could be
abbreviated the "BAG-iT" ...

> They run a T-1 line [with the usual repeaters every
> 6000(?) feet] and stick a D4 channel bank on the end of it and a thing
> called a "Bright Card"(?) on that, giving eight ISDN "U" interfaces.

It's a BRITE card; BRITE stands for Basic Rate Interface Terminal
Extension.  It goes into either a D4 channel bank or a SLC-96 digital
loop carrier operating in the universal mode; there has to be a D4 or
SLC-96 on both the remote and CO end.  Generally, I believe that D4s
are used in other COs (so they can effectively colocate ISDN lines in
non-ISDN COs, and use the wire plant associated with your usual home
CO), and SLCs are used in outside applications.  There's also a
version of the BRITE card that is installed in the SLC-5 or D5 channel
bank.

Another fine AT&T Network Systems product.  (I don't support NS, but
hey, I can play up their stuff ...)

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 18:33:56 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


    That's "BRITE Card", for Basic Rate Interface [BRI] Transmission
Extension.  The "ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE AT ALL" is a little too far; the
practical limit is about 150 miles.  There are versions offering the
AT&T AMI "U" interface, the ANSI "U" interface and the 4-wire "T"
interface (no NT1 needed), that work with SLC96, D4-bank and Series 5
Remote Terminal units.

    But if you need more than a handful of ISDN "lines", the Remote
Integrated Services Line Unit (RISLU) will handle up to about 150 mile
T1 connection, supplying a mixture of Analog and ISDN lines (max. of
about 300 ISDN and 200 Analog).  No BRITE Cards needed -- just
standard line/ISDN cards.  For even more lines, it's time for Remote
Switch Modules.

   This information is directly from available customer "line
interface" documentation.


Al Varney - not officially representing AT&T's opinion(s).

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Massachusetts
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:20:15 GMT


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

(actually seems to be Ron Simmons writing)

> The conversation with NE Tel started out just rosy.  The sales guy
> informed me that ISDN was available out of my CO (a fact that I knew a
> year ago and which influence a relocation decision) and that it could
> be had by subscribing to their Centrex service with quantity one line.

Funny, but the PRM that I live in has a different ISDN deal from the
one he found out about.  Typical of somebody who doesn't read the
Digest _every day_ and thus missed the article when it ran around
February. :-)  Actually the fault is with the telco dweeb who obviously
does NOT know what's available or tariffed!

If you have Centrex, then intra-Centrex data calls are free.  You pay
the local message charge (1.6c/minute, which replaced message units a
few months ago) for calls outside of your Centrex.  So if you buy
Centrex, in which case ISDN costs considerably more than non-Centrex
ISDN, then you don't pay for calls.  Note that you have to make both
sides of the line the same Centrex, but that is doable within one
exchange.

You can also add ISDN to regular residential service, and pay for
flat-rate residential calling (contiguous, suburban, Metro, Circle,
Bay State East, or whatever calling option you pay for).  It costs
something like $13/month extra, vs. analog.  For a few bucks extra,
you get to use both B channels at the same time.

If you make the call specifying "bearer service=speech", then you pay
the usual rate (free for most residential local rates).  It'll usually
work just fine for 56k data; just don't come running to NET if you
have to redial a few times or if some paths don't work.  Most will,
since almost their whole network is digital fiber optics.  Many
devices, like the Gandalf and Digiboard bridges, are smart enough to
send data over this bearer service.  If you make the call specifying
"bearer service = clear channel" (data), then you pay the local
measured service rate, 1.6c/minute, even if your residential class is
flat-rated.  Kick yourself or don't kick yourself, it's your choice!

So you have two ways of not paying 1.6c/minute: Use speech bearer
service on a non-Centrex residence line, or use either bearer service
WITHIN a centrex.  And yes, private lines are useful too, if you want
to pay the $150 or so a month; I know people who have them at home.
Me?  I'm waiting to hear which side of the 18kf line my house is on.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #388
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16033;
          17 May 92 21:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13500
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18376
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:13 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 19:34:13 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #389

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 19:34:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 389

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Strowgerworld (Todd Inch)
    Consolidation of Northern Canadian Phone Services Approved (Dave Leibold)
    MCI Perspective (Keith Smith)
    310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16 (Lauren Weinstein)
    Canada Approves CT2Plus Digital Cordless Standard (Niall Gallagher)
    Namibia Dialing Codes (Carl Moore)
    Multiline Surge Protectors (Jeff Sicherman)
    CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Albert Pang)
    Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land (Linc Madison)
    AT&T VideoPhone Delayed (Monty Solomon)
    Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Thomas K. Hinders)
    Electronic Key System for Sale (Todd Inch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Strowgerworld
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:16:48 GMT


(Regarding a spoof "announcement" that NT is going back to ancient
technology.)

Well, it's a little scary, but primarily for monetary reasons --
nostalgia is just a side benefit -- I've just finished installing a
1A2 Key System Unit in my garage.  This weekend I'll run the cable.
1A2 is the old-style five-line phones that looked very much like
standard desk phones only a little longer, with the HUGE, short cable
to the wall.

Note for those shaking their heads disbelievingly: I picked up a bunch
of the five-line sets about four years ago for about $5 each at a
garage sale.  I had been not-too-seriously looking for the KSU to
match, and have been using them as totally featureless two-line phones
since then.

I noticed a KSU on the wall of our phone room at the business park at
work and made discreet inquires (some with my 1970 WECo butt set) and
found it disconnected but nobody knew if it was "available."

Then about a month ago GTE ripped it off the wall and was about to
shove it into a dumpster when I rescued it.

Well, what I have found (back to Strowgerworld) is that with a few
relays I can do almost anything with this baby.  There was no intercom
unit, but a line card and a resistor and the talk battery fixed that,
and two more relays made the buzzers buzz while the lamp flashed off
 -- a relay NOR and a relay AND for you digital folk -- if you put the
COM line on hold (okay, so I'm fascinated by simple things.)

I DID resort to solid state by later changing the COM line signalling
by using a laying-around RS paging adapter to decode the * tone into
relay contacts.  Still no direct station signalling, of course, but
good enough for the two of us.

Then I realized I could wire in the doorbell via a relay so we can
hear it downstairs.  Last night I was thinking that unused line 3
could conference lines 1 and 2 together if they were already on hold,
with the advantage that the hold circuit on the 1A2 lets go when the
call is dropped by the CO.  (Just a couple relays and isolation
transformers.)

Wow!  This Strowger-era technology really CAN be practical today (if
you have more time than money, that is!)

Seriously, though, I only resorted to the 1A2 because it was
cheap/free and I've spent hours trying to find a vendor for any
key/hybrid solution for two lines and ten + stations for under $400.
If you know of any, please do let me know -- I haven't drilled my house
full of huge holes for that 25-pair cable -- YET.

Hopefully our Tadiran Coral PBX system here at work will be installed
soon and I'll get to experience the flip side of the coin!

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 02:30:42 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Consolidation of Northern Canadian Phone Services Approved


[From a CRTC news release dated 1st May 1992]

CRTC APproves Amalagmation of Northern Telephone Operations Under
Northwestel

OTTAWA/HULL -- The CRTC today approved Bell Canada's (Bell) proposal
to transfer its assets in the eastern part of the Northwest
Territories (NWT) to Northwestel Inc. which already provides telephone
service to the western portion of the NWT, the Yukon and northern
British Columbia (Telecom Decision CRTC 92-6). The transfer to
Northwestel, which is expected to be completed by July 1, 1992, will
involve assets with an estimated net book value in the order of $18
million. [CAD$ - djcl]

The commitments made by Northwestel and Bell to citizens in eastern
NWT include the following:

* the services currently provided by Bell in Inukitut [language] to
the 22 eastern NWT exchanges will be maintained. The feasibility of
enhancing services in Inukitut will be examined;

* Bell will continue to operate Message Relay Service, although
inquiries and complaints will be handled by Northwestel;

* discounts for users of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf, as
well as calling card discounts for subscribers with disabillities,
will be continued;

* part-time community workers and community agencies will be
established over the next two years in all eastern NWT communities
where there is not currently a telephone company presence.

Northwestel is also committed to maintaining Bell's current quality of
service standards in the eastern NWT and to working with the CRTC to
develop one set of standards which would be applied uniformly
throughout the amalgamated operating territory.

The CRTC's decision also approved Northwestel's proposal to make local
and competitive service rates in the existing area and the eastern NWT
uniform. The Commission's view is that this restructuring of rates
will result in a minimal cross flow of revenues between Northwestel's
existing territory and the eastern NWT. The company plans to gradually
bring long distance rates charged to subscribers in the eastern and
western NWT more in line.


Contact:  Bill Allen, Director General
          CRTC Public Affairs
          Ottawa, Ontario [Canada] K1A 0N2
          [phone]
          TDD [phone]
          Fax [phone]

[list of regional offices in Halifax, Winnipeg, Montreal and Vancouver
from news release not repeated here; net mail me if interested.]

[More notes from djcl: there was a recent referendum in the NWT to
approve a new boundary splitting the NWT to create a new eastern
Nunavut territory largely governed by the Inuit; the remaining western
part of NWT (which includes Yellowknife) would be a separate
territory. Yukon Territory is not affected by the boundary change.
This development, which could happen by the turn of the century, could
prove interesting for telco/community relations.]


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Subject: MCI Perspective
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 02:26:25 GMT


Anybody else besides me in netland used MCI Perspective?  You get this
MCI mail account, where they throw you a compressed copy of your
itemized call detail over the phone into this DOS program written in
foxbase or filepro or something.  The whole deal is automated and runs
as slow as molasses.  The first time I tried it it ran out of disk
space on the drive after six hours, so I deleted files and tried
again.  No disk space again, so I reformatted the 20MB dos box, and
loaded just perspective and tried It took a 286/12 with 640K RAM over
8 hours before it barfed.  Finally I added another 2MB of EMS RAM and
I managed to get it to fly in about three hours.  Printed a report or
two.  Tried to get the MCI folks to listen, but their attitude is that
it is no problem to tie up monster PC all nite with this stuff.

Additionaly they reqire an error correcting modem for the connection,
as I think the protocols used don't do any.  The 9600 baud modem's
listed are limited to USR Duals, and Hayes ULTRA's; of course I've got
T2500's and T3000's and Non-mnp 24's.  There is *NO* ability to "roll
your own" chat scripts.

Anyway the problem is I'd like to use the Unix box to grab the data
off of the MCI Mail account, but noone at MCI will tell me how it
works so I can do it.  That way I can VP/ix the data in the 4GL on the
486/33 at any time later on, and print the reports on the High speed
Shuttle Matrix printers instead of some tinky PC printer.

When I mentioned to the MCI T/S folks that the programs ran terribly
slow with lousy kb response on a 286/12 they suggested a faster CPU.
When I mentioned that a task as simple as downloading some data out of
a mail account and processing some reports didn't really require a 4GL
I got dead phone.  When I asked for copies of the programs I got *NO
WAY*.  When I asked for Raw data specs, and MCI Mail commands to
retrieve it I got *NO WAY* and open a MCI Mail account to find out.

Can anybody here help?


Keith Smith       uunet!ksmith!keith   5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs   BBS 1-919-423-4216   Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 11:56:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16


Greetings.  The 310/213 permissive dialing period, which was extended
due to the recent problems in L.A., has ended as of Saturday, 5/16.
As of now, the correct area code must be used.  Re-use of some
prefixes will be beginning almost immediately (a number of re-used
prefixes will be opened in June).  Calls to a prefix in the wrong area
code, if it isn't being re-used, will result in a recording informing
the caller of the change until either the prefix is re-used or until
approximately six months has elapsed from the end of the permissive
dialing period, whichever comes first.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: 14 May 92 09:46:00 EDT
From: Niall (N.) Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canada Approves CT2Plus Digital Cordless Standard


Readers may be interested in the following, from the {Globe and Mail},
May 14th:

"A new generation of cordless telephone systems that could put a phone
in every purse and pocket will be operating across Canada within a
year, according to federal Communications Minister Perrin Beatty.

Mr. Beatty announced yesterday the adoption of a standard for digital
public cordless telephone services that will make it easier for
consumers to use portable phones ... new phones are expected to be
cheaper, about $150 compared with $350 to $1,000 for cellular ones."

The standard referred to is CT2Plus - it's digital, FDMA-TDD, an
extension to CT2 (UK digital cordless), 944-952 MHz band, 32 Kbit
ADPCM, in-band and common channel signalling, supports two-way
calling, roaming and hand-off. Cell sizes are about 100 metre radius.
Applications are both for public cordless (airports, shopping centres
etc.) and private cordless (home, office etc.)


Niall Gallagher   [e-mail]
Disclaimer: not speaking for BNR and not involved in the CT2Plus program

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 9:23:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Namibia Dialing Codes


Enclosed are city codes taken from the archives for:

1. Namibia
2. South Africa (only those codes starting with 6)

Today, I attempted a call to Windhoek using AT&T calling card from a
C&P pay phone.  Windhoek is city code 61, but it failed when I tried
+27, so I had to use +264 instead.  Recently, a radio station in
Delaware, as part of ongoing trivia contest, asked what Namibian port
was still part of South Africa; the answer was Walvis Bay
(Walvisbaai).  Would the "+27 6..." list be just a shortcut for
callers in South Africa?

Namibia +264
    61   Industria
    61   Olympia
    61   Windhoek
    6221 Okahandja
    626  J G Strydom Airport
    631  Keetsmanshoop
    6331 Luderitz
    6332 Oranjemund
    641  Swakopmund
       [642  Walvisbaai - see South Africa]
    651  Otjiwarongo
    661  Mariental
    671  Tsumeb
    673  Grootfontein (one source: 6731?)
    681  Gobabis

South Africa +27 6...
    61     Windhoek
    6221   Okahandja
    626    J G Strydom Airport
    631    Keetmanshoop
    6331   Luderitz
    6332   Oranjemund
    641    Swakopmund
    642    Walvisbaai (Walvis Bay)
    651    Otjiwarongo
    661    Mariental
    671    Tsumeb
    6731   Grootfontein
    681    Gobabis

Namibia was claimed by South Africa, at least when it (Namibia) was
called South-West Africa.

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 23:24:29 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiline Surge Protectors
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


Is anyone aware of phone-line surge protectors that will handle four
or more incoming lines. RJ-11 interfaces are preferrable but others
acceptable.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Albert Pang)
Subject: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 08:09:09 GMT


I have noticed today when I received a long distance call from Ottawa
that my caller ID display device shows the number (out of area code)
that called me including the area code.

I believe this is the first in North America (please correct me if I
am wrong).  I think this only works for certain switches operated by
Bell Canada within Quebec and Ontario.

My exchange is (514) 289-xxxx and the person that called me is
(613) 741-xxxx.


Albert Pang        <[e-mail]>
Information Networks & Systems Lab   McGill University

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 92 02:08:43 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land


I just heard something quite bizarre on the wee-hours-of-the-morning
radio (it's 2 a.m. and I'm graphing data for my master's project
report).  Specifically, it was a little public-service blurb for the
Rainforest Action Network, inviting listeners to call them at
1-200-xxx-xxxx.  (I'm scotching the number because I didn't catch it,
not for any editorial reason.)  The deejay clearly emphasized the
"200" part of the phone number, but no one answered when I called to
get the number repeated, so I tried a couple of experiments.

1-200-555-1212 rings with no answer (I let it ring about 12 times).
10xxx-1-200-555-1212 gets a Pac*Bell recording "it is not necessary to
dial a long-distance carrier code."
1-500-555-1212, with or without 10xxx in front, gets a recording, "we
are unable to complete your call as dialed."

Is there really an area code 200, or am I having end-of-semester
hallucinations?  If so, how is it assigned, billed, etc.?

Reply in the Digest and/or by e-mail.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 07:51:38 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T VideoPhone Delayed


 From the 5/15/92 {Wall Street Journal}:

AT&T said it will delay initial deliveries of its AT&T VideoPhone 2500
to make further improvements to picture quality, motion and color.

Originally scheduled to ship in May, the first products now will be
delivered this summer, the company said.  All the early models will go
to people and businesses that have placed orders at AT&T phone stores,
it said.  AT&T said the number of orders exceeded expectations.
People placing orders now won't be able to get a phone until late July
or early August.

The VideoPhone 2500, which costs $1,499, sends and receives video
calls over existing phone lines for the same price as a regular voice
call.  Customers also will be able to rent the phone for less than $30
a day, the company said.

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

Date: 15 May 92 09:49:39+0400
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women

Reported by Distribution plus:

VOICE MAIL HANGING UP ON WOMEN!

Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology
problem.  Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system,
sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the
computer hears their voices as a command.  That's the complaint of
several big users of voice mail, which lets callers leave messages for
office workers.


Thomas K Hinders
Martin Marietta Computing Standards
4795 Meadow Wood Lane  Chantilly, VA 22021
703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Electronic Key System for Sale
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 21:39:17 GMT


Well, it's not quite ready to sell just yet, but probably in a month
or so:

Iwatsu Omega-Phone III 24 line x 60 phones maximum configuration,
including ports and phones - about 40, and trunk cards for 12 lines.

This is an older (circa 1980) electronic key system but is working
well and would be perfect as-is for about 25 users (some phones have
minor problems) with plenty of expandability of phone/lines, but not
features -- it's a pretty dumb key system, not even a hybrid.  It will
be "freshly" removed from service, not sitting around untested and
gathering dust.

It's not compatible with single line devices and doesn't do anything
"automatically", but is reliable and easy to use and requires only
three pair station wiring.

We have seriously outgrown it and want to do DID, share trunks with
modems, faxes, etc, add autoattendant, voice mail, and least-cost
routing and use some single-line phones, none of which it will do.

Anyway, if you are interested or have questions, please e-mail me or
call at 206 743-6659.

It would be perfect for my home -- okay a little large -- but is worth
more than I'm willing to spend.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #389
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19052;
          17 May 92 22:28 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06647
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 20:50:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08331
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 20:49:59 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 20:49:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #390

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 20:50:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 390

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice? (Paul Gauthier)
    Cellular and ANI ([e-mail])
    Northern Telecom-Voice Mail Integration (David Appell)
    ISDN Payphones in Japan (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Call Return/Trace (David Niebuhr)
    High Voices Take #-ing (USA Today via Sean E. Williams)
    New French Magazine For Telecard Collectors (Nigel Allen)
    Area Code Discussion From Relaynet (Nigel Allen)
    Red, Right, Ring, Positive (Jim Redelfs)
    Integretel Past Due (Carl Moore)
    Help Identify Mystery Box (Jeffrey Jonas)
    The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Gauthier)
Subject: Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 20:51:26 -0300


I am exploring the possibility of getting a cell phone to replace the
pager I now carry. I need to be accessable during all waking hours
(and parts of the night sometimes) since I am the head technical
advisor for a large platform of computers. Currently I am using just a
numeric pager which will display the number which a person keys in
when they page me.

Here are the two models I've been exploring:

Nokia P4000 -- $529CDN or $9.95CDN/month to lease for 36 months

    This unit is a little large for me, since I am planning to carry
    the phone with me while I am biking around this summer. Normally
    I just wear one of those "fanny paks", so it'd be a tight fit to
    squeeze it in.

Motorola DPC 500 Plus -- $799CDN or $16.95CDN/month to lease for 36 months

    This one is small enough if I buy the $80 slim battery pack to go
    along with it. It, like the other model above, has a $10CDN buyout
    at the end of the lease.

Both phones are 0.6W ... is this enough for around town reception? Do
either have a "silent ring" mode where a light blinks when incoming
calls arrive, or do either have a "vibrate" mode like many pagers do?
I find it awfully pretentious if my phone kept ringing off in quiet
places. Note: I can't just shut it off in those situations, I need to
be in constant touch.

The airtime package I am looking at is as follows:

$299CDN for three years where I get 60min free per month for the first
year, and 30min free per month for the next two years. No other
charges, 'cept for the lease and a $50CDN gov't tax each year.

Is this a good deal? Is 60 or 30min enough for light usage?

Anyone in Canada know of a place to get better deals on (smaller
sized) cell phones?


Thanks,

Paul Gauthier / [e-mail]      | "All general statements have
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone] |  exceptions."

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

Subject: Cellular and ANI
From: [e-mail] (SYSTEM OPERATOR)
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 19:38:34 EST
Organization: TCS Constulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] writes:

> As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  For kicks, I
> called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular
> phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number
> (609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch.  This
> was on the US-West side of things.  The Cellular-One et al side of the
> house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne.  I tried the same
> thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the
> Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk
> line.  Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell
> phone number to the network?

First we'll look and see what kind of switches they have.  According
to my source (Cellular Business, August 1991) the following switches
are used: Cheyanne --not listed.
          Denver US WEST - Northern Telecom
          Cell One - AT&T

 From looking the MSA's over, US West appears to use a large majority
of Northern Telecom (NTI) switches.  These switches have to be set up
so that they pass ANI to the phone company (your cellular number).  It
used to be, and still is in a large area, that cellular carriers
didn't do this.  What I think caused this to start taking place was
the variety of long distance carriers.  By passing ANI from the
cellular switch to the phone company, individual cellular subscribers
could then choose which LD carrier they wanted to use ... it was a big
marketing plus.  [Personal theory -- saw this happening in '89 in
Atlanta].  Not all switches are set up to do this, for instance my
switch, a NovAtel, does not do this, and neither do a lot of others.

'Neither do a lot of others' is a poor choice of words.  I should
have said that many other carriers may have elected NOT to send ani to
the phone company for whatever reasons.  I did not mean to imply that
the sending of ANI from many cellular switches is not possible,
because I don't know other switches.


Greg
Cellular One-Newnan GA

The above are my personal opinions and not neccessarily the opinions of my
company.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri May 15 13:01:11 MDT 1992
Subject: Northern Telecom-Voice Mail Integration


   I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has experience integrating a
Northern Telecom PBX with a PC-based Voice Mail system.  We are
working to integrate a Dialogic-based VRU with a NT Meridian Option
61, and would like to be able to forward information (such as the
extension number) from the switch to the PC. We'd also eventually like
to send stutter dial tone to a phone that goes off-hook if it has new
messages.

   Some specific questions we have are:

   -- are any hardware or software modifications required on the switch?
   -- what physical connection between the PBX and PC is needed?


Thanks.

David Appell
e-mail: [e-mail]  Gold Systems, Inc.
phone: [phone]         P.O. Box 1227
fax: [phone]           Boulder, CO  80306

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: ISDN Payphones in Japan
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 12:35:30 GMT


While I was married (to the beauteous Natsumi) last year, for
technical reasons related to the gathering of friends and family from
various nooks and crannies of the globe, the wedding is set to go off
tomorrow.

Everyone is staying at one hotel -- the Royal Park Hotel near the
Tokyo City Air Terminal.  This excellent establishment has a feature I
had heretofore not encountered -- ISDN Payphones.

The phones look similar to the typical prepaid-card/coin phones used
in Japan, with the exception that they have a small crt screen and two
jacks -- analog and digital.  You can get instructions and help in
both English and Japanese, and use coins and cards to pay for the
call.  One very handy feature is a display of exactly how many coins
of the two possible denominations are currently being held, unused, in
the phone.

Not having an ISDN instrument or modem handy, I couldn't check out how
it actually worked (as a normal phone it seemed, well, normal) but it
was nice to actually see one.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 10:43:02 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Call Return/Trace


Last month PAT mentioned that certain CLASS features may be
implemented in a LATA without the official announcement.  I tried call
return and call trap and trace with no problems.

This month when I got the bill, it showed a $1.50 charge for trap and
trace.  Above the entry CALL TRACE there was an entry stating "Calling
number 516-281-XXXX" which equates to my home phone.

My question is: "Is that a boo-boo on the part of NYTel or is that a
standard feature of that option?"


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

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

Date: 16 May 1992 11:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: High Voices Take #-ing


By John Schneidawind
USA TODAY; Thursday, May 14

People with high voices are having trouble getting their messages through.

Voice mail, the computerized phone answering system, sometimes hangs
up on them or loses their messages because the computer hears their
voices as a command.

That's the complaint of several big users of voice mail, which lets
callers leave messages for office workers.

In many voice mail systems, the "pound" button -- the "#" key to the
right of zero on a touch-tone phone -- is used to transfer calls or
erase messages.

If your voice sounds like the "#" tone -- and this mostly affects
women -- you can kiss your voice mail message good-bye.

At the University of Rochester's Medical center, which has 6,000
phones using Rolm's PhoneMail system, the problem is a real pain.

"I have women who start to leave me a message and PhoneMail hangs up
on them," says John Fitzpatrick, a supervisor in the telecommunications
department. He often tells female callers to lower their voices.

Fitzpatrick says the problem also affects male callers with high
voices.  And, because of regional accents, "You also may notice that
there are more callers disconnected in one area of the country," he
says.

Rolm says it's working to solve the problem.

[A simple solution might be to require the # tone be one full second
in length ... -Sean]


Sean E. Williams, Student ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences
Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology
Rochester, New York 14623-5689

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: New French Magazine for Telecard Collectors
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Some hobbyists collect the prepaid telecards used in pay phones in
Jpan, France, and elsewhere. The first French ones, nicknamed "pyjama"
cards from the blue and white stripes, are now quite rare and
considered valuable by collectors.

These days, telecards come in as many different designs as
commemorative postage stamps. If you would like to receive Telecarte
Actualite, a free new monthly magazine that lists the telecards you
can buy from France Telecom, write to:

    Abonnements - Telecarte Actualite
    Bureau Nationale de Vente des Telecartes
    B.P. 456   54001 Nancy Cedex   France

The magazine is only available in French. All you need to do is send a
letter saying "Veuillez m'envoyer sans engagement de ma part Telecarte
Actualite." (Please send me Telecarte Actualite without any obligation.)


Nigel Allen           [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet
Organization; Echo Beach, Toronto

 * forwarded from RelayNet PHONES conference
 Original message from Max Moen to Matt Britt
 Original date: 05-15-92 (00:01)

> Chicago now has it's own area code and I believe NYC has two.  There
> are only so many numbers between 000 and 999 and as they run out
> something has to be done.  Keep in mind that adding and modifying
> things like this ...

MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!!  (213/818/310) That's just the city!

     When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual
city?  This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities
like L.A.  and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities
(like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census.  There
are several little towns completely surrounded by Chicago, but they
aren't included in our census figures and they do use the 708 "suburban"
area code.

     Here's some interesting NPA trivia.  There's a whole community of
people who grew up in the so-called edge cities surrounding Chicago.
Many of these folks never set foot in the big bad city until they got
old enough to drink, then they tool into town in Daddy's big car and
hang out in a "night club" area that is mainly populated with other
suburbanites trying to act like city slickers.  This was the area that
supposedly "rioted" after the Bulls NBA championship last year, making
the city look foolish.

     These kids drop a whole lotta money at places like the Hard Rock
Cafe, Rock & Roll McDonalds, etc. so the city isn't likely to do
anything about it, but Chicagoans are getting a bit fed up.  The area
is so desolate of Chicagoans on weekdays that Mike Ditka's Restaurant
went bankrupt.  A real backlash of resentment has arisen and the
derisive term for these people is "708'ers."  The area is called
"708ville" and the operative saying about the situation is "I hate
708!"

     Chicago's area code is 312.


 PCRelay:BMCBBS -> #351 RelayNet (tm)
 4.11              Bell Microcomputer Club, Chicago 312-727-5043
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: What you term the 'rock and roll McDonalds'
(actually, a McDonald's designed as three period pieces from the 1950,
1960 and 1970 eras, with wax statues of the Beatles, old jukeboxes and
other such memorablia on display) got raided by the police not long
ago. It seems the employees were selling cocaine along with Big Macs.
The Corporation yanked the franchise back from the guy who owned the
place (and has made millions of dollars on it) and is deciding what to
do with it. They even have an old fashioned wooden phone booth with a
seat inside and a three slot payphone (non-operative.) I've eaten
there many times, and the crowd changes with the time of day. It is
full of locals all day, but so-called 708'ers evenings and weekends.
Open 24 hours, the customers turn weird after 2 AM when the bars
close; they are the sort of people the young 708'ers (and especially
their parents!) don't know exist. Then comes dawn and the locals begin
to filter in again for breakfast.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 04:59:32 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Red, Right, Ring, Positive
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


In the old scheme of "quad wire" - the color RED has always been RING,
or positive.  GREEN always was (and remains) TIP, or negative.

In the more modern, PIC (polyethylene insulated conductor) cable, RED
is a TIP color.

If the RED lead on a RJ11C jack is NEGATIVE, and the 2500 Western
Electric set WILL break dialtone, the PHONE is wired in reverse.


JR  Tabby 2.2  MacNet Omaha   402-289-2899   macnet.omahug.org   (1:285/14)

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 10:05:58 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integretel Past Due


The $4.69 which I withheld because of the duplicate Integretel billing
has shown up as past-due on my latest phone bill, which arrived
yesterday.  This should be considered to be in dispute, with the rest
of last month's phone bill having been paid.


[Moderator's Note: Keep the pressure on them, Carl, and report back
again when you get some results (or give up trying).   PAT

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 17:36:22 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Help Identify This Mystery Box


I picked up a box of equipment as a bank building was being emptied.
I called the company and the technical support doesn't answer, so I
ask you what it is and why one would use one:

It's a small metal box about the size of a 1200/2400 modem, with a
lock through the center top.

Teltrend  model DAS 292A
Inteliport 1   SDS 5486LA  iss 2
It has a row of LEDS
    XMT  RCV  FAIL/TEST  ALIGN/LPBK  SC  PWR
    (first 3 red, 1 amber, last 2 green)

there are three cables:

"DEMARC RJ48" - 8 pin modular
a 4 wire cable (phone line red/black/green/yellow)
a 3 wire cable (probably cut from the power supply) (red/green/black).
    (I need to know what voltages to put where)

There's a bright orange sticker on top:

    ATTN NYNEX
    INSTALL SIDN CKT
    CURRENT DTC CKT
    NO 96 FDDC   23054

It apparently goes directly to a phone line and has NYNEX stickers on
it, and a pocket with a card with the "circuit assignment".  Is it a
four wire leased line, or a normal four wire ring/tip?  What does it
do?  Why would one use it?

Do customers ever get the key?  I thought the day of the telephone
company putting locked mystery boxes on the customer's premesis was
over.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 20:43:20 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today


In the current issue of that mad magasine of Christendom, {The Door},
one of their "Truth is Stranger than Fiction" items shows an ad which
claims "The Virgin Mary Speaks to America TODAY / Toll Free Message
800-882-MARY".

Indeed, as of this evening, it was reachable from Canada, and a
recorded message contained information on Mary's urgent statement to
America as made in a New York appearance, and allowed for people to
record their addresses afterwards to receive more info in the mail.

I only hope the creators of that message from Mary aren't pulling a 900
number forwarding stunt here ...


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if she will ever send a message to the
infidels on Usenet where her intervention is most needed?  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #390
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22120;
          17 May 92 23:36 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25791
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 21:54:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00168
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 21:53:54 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 21:53:54 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #391

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 21:53:46 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 391

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Actual Research Into Alleged FCC Surcharge on Modems (Joseph A. Truitt)
    Networks/BBS's and Computers as Social Change Tools (Matt Baya)
    Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Loren Amelang)
    ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations (Henry E. Schaffer)
    310 Area Code Switchover Foul-ups (Paul Eggert)
    Telephoning From Europe via MCI/AT&T (Jim Washburn)
    Limitations on Dialed Digits (David Esan)
    Philadelphia Scandal: 900 Calls From School District (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Actual Research Into Alleged FCC Surcharge on Modems
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 19:15:07 PDT


Well, I'm one of those silly bunts who were sucked into the age-old
rumor about the FCC regulating modems.  After being gently reprimanded
by some of my seasoned net friends that I passed along the alert
letter to, I decided to do some late homework.

I called KGO to try to verify whether a discussion about FCC-imposed
or related modem surcharges on phone networks was ever really a topic
on Jim's talk show; they could not help me because I did not have an
exact broadcast date.

I called various branches of the FCC umpteen times.  First, there was
the initial barrier of main numbers that they don't bother to answer
most of the time, and agents that promise to call back but don't.  I
was eventually promoted to status of probably-harmless-but-goddam-
persistent-nuisance, priviledged to be routed all over bureaucracy
hell in D.C.  After several days of this, I finally reached a helpful
person (gasp) in the Common Carrier Bureau, Policy Office today (May
15, 1992).  She said that, according to her notes, the division Chief
stated on May 31, 1991, that the FCC was _not_ in the business of
regulating modem usage.  There was indeed a proposal bouncing around
the FCC some unspecified time before May 1991 regarding a "surtax" on
modem usage, but for reasons they would not reveal, they dropped the
issue.  The Chief was not aware [or would not tell] if the proposal
was subsequently picked up by any other gov't agency, but he
apparently considered that a possibility.  (Ah, there's nothing like a
solid answer to refresh and soothe you :^)

Darn.  I had a really scathing letter that I was ready to unleash :^)

If you ever want to have your own cheery conversation with the FCC
about phone network regulations, here are the two most useful numbers
I could find:

  202/632-9342 Common Carrier Bureau, Policy Office
  202/632-7553 Common Carrier Bureau, Enforcement Office

Joseph  ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: I am *so glad* to finally get an article here which
debunks the latest round of 'modem surcharge' stories. I suppose I get
two or three long, tedious articles daily from different folks wanting
to warn the telecom readers about the 'new tax being proposed for
modems', each with a form letter to be sent in to the FCC, etc. I toss
them all out without comment. Typical of the letters I receive is the
one Mr. Truitt included as an example with his article, and I include
it here so you know what to look out for.  WARNING: What you read
below is FALSE. Do not act on this!   PAT]

      ----- begin offending alert -----

(Names deleted to protect the guilty until proven innocent!  :))

Subject: FCC to Charge Modems

Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of
protest) failed to institute regulations that would impose additional
costs on modem users for data communications.

Now, they are at it again.  A new regulation that the FCC is quietly
working on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and
modem.  The FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges
for use of the public telephone network which carry their data.  In
addition, computer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, &
Telenet would also be charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for
use of the public telephone network.  These charges would very likely
be passed on to the subscribers.

The money is to be collected and given to the telephone company in an
effort to raise funds lost to deregulation.

Jim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, CA) commented on the
proposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he said he
learned of the new regulation in an article in the New York Times.
Jim took the time to gather the addresses which are given below.

Here's what you should do (NOW!):

 1- Pass this information on.  Capture the information which contains
    the text you are reading now.  Find other BBS's that are not
    carrying this information.  Upload the ASCII text into a public
    message on the BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can
    easily get a copy to pass along.

 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your
    own) and send a signed copy to each of the following:

         Chairman of the FCC
         1919 M Street N.W.
         Washington, D.C. 20554

         Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee
         SH-227 Hart Building
         Washington, D.C. 20510

         Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee
         B-331 Rayburn Building

Here's the suggested text of the letter to send:

   Dear Sir,

   Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
   which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
   telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt
   to restrict the free exchange of information among the growing
   number of computer users. Calls placed using modems require no
   special telephone company equipment, and users of modems pay the
   phone company for use of the network in the form of a monthly bill.

   In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore
   should not be subject to any additional regulation.

   Sincerely,
   [your name, address and signature]

It is important that you act now.  The bureaucrats already have it in
their heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and
are now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear
that we will not stand for any government restriction on the free
exchange of information.

   ----- end offending alert -----


[Moderator's Note: To repeat, the above is bogus. When you see such a
message, delete it if you have the power to do so, otherwise let
others know it is false.  Thanks to Mr. Truitt for updating us.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Networks/BBS's & Computers as Social Change Tools
Date: 17 May 92 21:12:39 GMT
Organization: Wright State University


I am writing a paper on the use of Computer Bulletin Boards, USENET
NEWS, the networks (INTERNET, BITNET)and the idea of FREENET
(Cleveland Freenet and others) in the areas of social change.

What I am looking for is examples of places, companies, people or
groups that are using these resources to do something different.
Anyone with examples of how computers networks are being used to help
people, or to educate people in an effort to affect social change.

Also do you see networks accessable to those outside the computer
industry and educational institutions?

How can the threshhold to enter into this information source be
lowered to allow more people to access these?

Do you know of any BBS's that are being used to bring communities
together?  To help organize a group? Do you know of any
communities(cities,towns, villages, schools, groups) that use computer
BBS's or networks to assist in communication?

Please reply through Email since I can't get to NEWS very often.
Any help is greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Matt Baya  Antioch College, Yellow Springs, OH 45387
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I had a conversation today with someone in charge
of getting a new network on line later this year which will bring
vendors together with purchasing agents and decision-makers from the
telephone companies. More news when I have it available, but what I
heard sounds exciting. I guess it will be called 'The Exchange'.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 14:10:31 PDT
From: "Loren Amelang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines


Pacific Bell has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission
for permission to discontinue Data Access Line service.  In return,
they propose to "support analog data communication at up to 4800 baud"
on all of their standard voice phone lines.

Nine thousand DAL customers were notified of the proposed change by a
letter which did not give any technical details.  I am one of the four
who wrote a letter of protest to the PUC before the April 30 deadline
for public comment.  Friday I was contacted by Mr. Bob Benjamin of the
PUC San Francisco office, and found out that the tariff on DAL's
specifies support for data communication only up to 4800 baud, and
that this is the number Pacific Bell wants to have written into the
tariff for ordinary phone lines.

Of course we all know that ordinary phone lines in urban areas work at
9600 and higher rates.  But on the ragged edge of the network where I
live, it is often impossible to get any kind of phone line, let alone
one that will work with a modem.  What will happen a few years from
now when the big money has switched to ISDN or Switched 56 and Pac
Bell doesn't want to bother with us small fry?

Mr. Benjamin agrees with me that writing "4800 baud" into the general
phone tariff is not a good thing to do -- but he and his office
apparently do not have the technical resources to propose a more
enlightened specification.  I know there are ways to specify the noise
level, bandwidth, carrying capacity, and error rate of a phone line,
much more objectively than saying "4800 baud", and there are
instruments to measure the line quality.

I'm hoping some members of this forum have the expertise to compose a
meaningful specification for the quality of our phone lines, and that
we could submit it as more than just personal flames.  The PUC is
begging for input right now, and we could influence the future in our
favor!

California Public Utilities Commission
Chief, CACD Telecommunications Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3203
San Francisco, CA  94102
800 649 7570 or 415 703 1170

Kristine Curran
Pacific Bell Manager
2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4S250P
San Ramon, CA  94583

My primary mail is [e-mail] - Loren Amelang 707 895 3837

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 01:37:22 GMT

I wonder what fraction of the outside plant connecting the home to the
CO will support ISDN even if the home is within 18,000 feet (is that
the magic number?)  In a trial I heard of, over half of the homes to
be hooked up were "rejected".

Have tests been made to determine what percentage of subscribers are
connected by outside plant which would allow ISDN?


henry schaffer

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Eggert)
Subject: 310 Area Code Switchover Foul-ups
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:37:19 GMT


A few months ago, when I tried to get the definitive list of prefixes
that were migrating from the 213 to the 310 area code as a result of
the area code split, I got different answers from GTE and PacBell.
Their telephone directories didn't agree, their business offices gave
me lists that disagreed, and so forth.  I finally ended up with about
ten lists, no two of which agreed.

Today's {L.A. Times} ("310 Area Code Debuts Amid Glitches, Anger", by
Stephen Braun, pp.  B1, B3) reports that the problem wasn't just in
the lists given to customers -- the two phone companies actually
disagreed about some prefixes.  PacBell spokesperson Kathleen Flynn
said, "Apparently some GTE customers calling into the 310 area code
were being told to make their calls one way and when they do that,
they get a second message telling them they should make their call
another way."  Angry callers overloaded PacBell switchboards.  GTE
blamed the foul-ups on "differing conversion systems".

Left unreported was the question of which prefixes actually _did_
move.  Rumor has it that some cellular telephones operating out of
Gardena prefixes are still valid in both 213 and 310.  The phone
companies' previously published lists disagree about the following
Gardena prefixes: 200 213 248 400 500 505 561 700 703 706 708 709 712
718 760 810 819 899 918 999.  Other troublesome prefixes include 520
554 555 853 and 976, some of which are obvious candidates for
confusion.  I'd appreciate it if anybody who knows the _real_ rules
for area code splits in general, or this one in particular, could tell
us more.

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 12:35:58 MST
From: Jim Washburn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephoning From Europe via MCI/AT&T


In case you might have wondered which company gives better service, I
can speak from personal experience.  I have "calling cards" from both
MCI and AT&T.

In trying to reach the States from my home in Germany, I tried both
cards.  I wanted to reach an 1-800 number and, since I also had the
regular area code number for the company I wanted to call, I asked the
operator which would be cheaper -- calling the 1-800 or the area code
regular number.  AT&T said the cost would be the same.  The first MCI
operator I talked to said that she didn't know but would connect me to
somebody who did.  After a long wait (close to five minutes) I got
somebody who wanted to know what they could do for me.  When I asked
my question again -- which would be cheaper -- the person said they
didn't know.  I thanked them and hung up.

Later, I tried MCI again.  This time the operator said she didn't know
but would connect me with customer service who probably could inform
me.  After another five-minute wait, I heard somebody say "AT&T, what
can I do for you?"  On the MCI line, an AT&T operator, in the States,
came on line!  That's a switch!  The AT&T person said that all 1-800
numbers are free to the caller, that the business paid for the call.
She said that I could dial the 1-800 number direct.  I said that I was
calling from Germany and could she dial the number for me.  She said
that she could not.  I thanked her and hung up.

Still later, I tried AT&T's USA Direct again.  This time I got through
to the 1-800 number and got a recording which I couldn't use since
they were directing me to dial various buttons which don't exist on my
German phone at home.

More tries got me in touch with somebody who spoke English and knew
something about computers and their peripherals.  However, when the
person I was talking to didn't know the difference between one
computer and another, I grew suspicious and, after thanking them, hung
up.

I never did get my business taken care of.  Total frustration set in
and I decided to try another route.  Maybe if I just mail my order to
some company dealing with computers and their peripherals ... then
again ...


Jim Washburn

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Limitations on Dialed Digits
Date: 16 May 92 19:53:02 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


I am aware that the CCITT has recommended a maximum number of digits
in a dialing pattern.  That is the combination of the country code,
city code, and telephone number should not exceed some number.  Sadly,
I can not remember what that number is, and there has been a request
for that information.

Could someone please help?

Does the maximum number of digits include the international access
number?  Does someone have the address for the CCITT so that we could
obtain documentation, or actually ask them what the limit is?

I have been sent on this quest by a product manager, who is known to
ask one question, and on receiving the answer, ask a non-related
question and wonder why I didn't think of that.  I want to give him a
new place to bother.

[If the limit is 11, as I suspect, wouldn't this stop those people who
want to add an extra digit to the US dialling pattern?]

Thanks in advance.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 17:55:03 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philadelphia Scandal: 900 Calls From School District


KYW news-radio in Philadelphia had an item today: some school district
employees (mostly in administration) were found to have made calls to
"900" numbers (wih "sex lines" being mentioned on the air).  The
school system has been blocking calls to "900", but when it went to a
new phone system, the blocking was either omitted or turned off by
mistake.  The phone company will be paying for the calls; the people
who made them, according to KYW, are no longer working there.

Do the systems record any ATTEMPTS to reach blocked numbers?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #391
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26344;
          18 May 92 1:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21505
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:51 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13662
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:40 -0500
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:36:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #392

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 May 92 23:36:40 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 392

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (TELECOM Moderator)
    Southwestern Bell Introduces New Roamer Fees (Mark Earle)
    Re: Goliath and David? (Martin Harriss)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Dave Levenson)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Stan Brown)
    Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (John Nagle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:08:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors


This is a little story about an experience I had last week with
Illinois Bell, trying to get them to correct an error in their
handling of calls to an exchange near Green Bay, Wisconsin.

I was trying to return a call to someone from my office who had left
the number 414-592-xxxx. I got the message twice so I knew it was a
good number, yet when dialing it, IBT cut me after the 414-592 part
and sent me to intercept. It took me awhile to narrow it down to IBT
as the offender, but much longer to convince them to fix it. Finally I
had to get help from AT&T in getting the message across, but not
without a couple people at AT&T bungling the matter as well.

In our office, we dial 9, plus seven or eleven digits and our switch
then passes the call to IBT and our default carrier which is Sprint.
(Yes, I know what I have said about Sprint in the past, but politics
is at play here; I did not get a choice in using them this time
around. Because we have various offices in the USA, we are considered
one of their 'national accounts'.)

After dialing 414-592 and having it bomb out three or four times, I
decided maybe it was a Sprint error, so I used a different code
available to some of us in the office. I dialed 89, got an actual IBT
line and tried 10288 + 1-414-592-xxxx. Boom ... that crashed also,
with the same intercept recording as before. Then I tried a few other
OCC codes such as 10222 with the same results.

But when I dialed the call using the LD carrier's 800 number, for
example 1-800-CALL-ATT or 1-800-877-8000 (Sprint) and charging it to
my calling card with those companies, ** the call went through just
fine **. I can also dial into 'tie-lines' in our office which give me
dial tone from the PBX in our offices in Los Angeles or New Jersey.
Dialing out 9 + 1 + 414 + 592 + xxxx over the tie-lines worked fine
also.

Now my curiosity was really piqued. It seems that when I bypassed
Illinois Bell, my call completed; when I either one plussed it or zero
plussed it, the call was rejected.

Likewise, 10xxx + 1 + 414-592 failed, and although zero plus failed,
going double zero and (by default) passing it to the Sprint operator
got me through, as did 10288 + 0 through the AT&T operator. This told
me that the LD carriers saw nothing wrong with 414-592, but that IBT
did not have it in their tables. We know that on zero plus, one plus
and 10xxx plus style calls, the local telco examines the dialed digits
to see who -- if anyone -- to hand the call off to, or if they should
keep it for themselves, disgarding the customer's instructions.

Now the fun began: Find someone at IBT willing to listen, find the
error and make the required corrections!

In talking to the party at 414-592-xxxx, she commented to me that in
fact she'd had a lot of trouble getting long distance calls, and that
her local telco had excused it away saying that 'many small or new
long distance carriers may not have it programmed yet ...', and of
course no one at her local telco had bothered to pursue it further.
The 414-592 exchange is relatively new, having been opened a few
months ago.

I wasted my time with a call to 611 and the 611 supervisor. I wasted
my time on a call to the Business Office serving Chicago-Rogers Park.
Having gotten in the past couple year a dozen or more mailings with
gifts, special promotions and public relations chatter from something
called the 'AT&T Callers Club' (with a special number to reach trained
service reps and their supervisors instead of 800-222-0300), I decided
to try them. After all, their letters always indicate they are on call
to solve 'those special problems' of AT&T customers who (like me) are
known by the Company to be Complainers (although they don't phrase it
that way in their quarterly letters to me), so I figured let them try
to work on this one.

The woman I spoke with said this must be a local telco problem. I told
her that's funny, IBT just told me it was an AT&T problem. She asked
for a number to call me back, and I gave her my office number, with a
simple request: Ask her supervisor to send a FAX to Illinois Bell to
please get 414-592 put in the tables ...

 ... Instead what I got a couple hours later was a phone call back
from her saying she had noted our office LD carrier was Sprint, and
she had put in a call to our National Accounts Representative at
Sprint so *they* could clear the problem!!! Fortunatly (for me) our
rep at Sprint had 'stepped away from her desk' (aren't they always
away when you try to speak with someone with brains?) and she had not
gotten through ... but if *I* would call Sprint, she was sure they
would be able to solve this.

I told her if she was trying to cause me to have a heart attack, she
was doing a damn good job ...  and I patiently explained to her that I
got the very same results from home, where my default carrier is AT&T
and my patronage is so valued by her employer. When I finally spoke
with her supervisor, the supervisor seemed to understand what I wanted
and said the message could not be FAXed at her level of authority, but
that she would 'definitly get the word to someone who could talk to
IBT and clear it up.'

Two days later, the problem still existed. Calls to 414-592 still
bombed at the IBT gateway to the LD carriers, probably at the CO known
as Chicago-Canal, a big switch downtown.

Last resort: An appeal to the Chairman (of IBT). I find this to be an
overkill most of the time, but it will yield results. I spoke with
Mrs. Lofton, an assistant to the Chairman, which basically means she
is a more highly placed service rep. She got the message ... at least
I thought she did. Within a couple hours, I received two calls; one
from a guy in the repair office at Chicago-Rogers Park and another
from a fellow at AT&T. The Rogers Park guy thought I was talking about
the local switch -- I assured him I was not, that I had had someone
else try it who is served by the Newcastle CO and someone who is
served out of the Hyde Park CO, with the same results as myself -- and
he did not see the problem. He thought I was talking about LD access
in general from my phone, which of course I was not.

The AT&T guy was more non-committal, and said he would 'look into it
and get back to me'.  Nothing more happened for another day, utnil one
evening last week I got a call in the late evening from a fellow at
AT&T who was in Denver, Colorado of all places. He said he knew
exactly what the problem was ... do tell me, I responded ... and he
said the problem was IBT had never updated their tables to include the
exchange.  ** Finally **, someone who actually understood!

So what happens from here, I asked ... he said he would take care of
it, and said something to the effect that part of his job was 'going
to battle with the telcos from time to time about stuff like this'.

"One thing though," he noted. "IBT is famous for arguing and arguing
about stuff ... they will NEVER simply listen to what is said, go and
locate the problem then correct it ... I need to have a full ten digit
number where you tried to make the call, and the full ten digit number
you tried to reach ... IBT will insist on actually going on your line,
trying to complete the call, then arguing further with me before they
finally agree to fix it."

He said simply telling them to fix something and telling them what
needed fixing was not sufficient. They'd have to see for themselves.
I told him, and he apparently told them, since the next day it was
working. Not a peep from IBT about it, but the guy from Denver did
call back the next night to ask if I had tried it. A day or so later I
got a call from Mrs. Lofton asking if I was satisfied, and saying that
the Chairman extended his apologies for the inconvenience.

 From start to finish: one week. No one with any technical expertise
at all from Illinois Bell ever did contact me. The AT&T guy from
Denver seemed to carry all the weight, or at least he was the one who
finally got IBT to correct their data. I got the impression from our
discussion over two days that perhaps when 414-592 opened, someone may
have screwed up in the way the telcos were (not) notified to program
it. So it may have not been entirely IBT's fault that several months
later, calls to that exchange in Green Bay, WI were still bombing out
at the CO here.

You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid
disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local
'not in service' message from that CO.


PAT

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 09:26:22 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Southwestern Bell Introduces New Roamer Fees


Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems is introducing a new charge for
customers who roam. Effective with July billing, on top of all other
roam fees, a $3.00 "roamer administration" fee will be assessed in the
miscellaneous services portion of the statement.

I called to inquire what this fee was being used for, and they said it
was due to the increased costs involved in preventing fraudulent
roaming. Although they would not confirm it directly, they inferred
that it was essentially a data base access fee.  Aparently, this fee
had been absorbed in the past. Now it's going to be passed on.

Also on roaming, an interesting note: In Texas, Houston and Austin are
GTE cities, so the B band wireline carrier is GTE.  Corpus (my home
system for cellular service) San Antonio, and the Dallas/Ft. Worth
metroplex are SWBMS. I roam in SWBMS cities for .50/min 24 hrs/day, no
fee. In GTE cities in Texas, it's .39/min 24 hrs/day no fee. So it's
actually cheaper by a significant margin to roam in Austin or Houston.

Makes no sense, but that's the way it really is. Ah well.  Probably
has something to do with the same voodoo economics that allow a high
cost cellular phone to be sold for 99 cents.

[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
FidoNet at       Opus 1:160/50.0
Bitnet           [e-mail]1
Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: Goliath and David?
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 15:34:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(eb4/91/92) writes:

> The exchange was built using dismantled equipment from the former
> British Telecom exchange in Locks Heath, which was modernised in 1989.
> It has cost the two boys just ten pounds in spare parts.

This is sounding rather familar to me ... many years ago, before I
moved to the US, I owned a ex-BT (actually, still the Post Office at
the time) telephone exchange.  It also cost me ten pounds.

This fearsome beast was in fact one module of a type UAX 12, which was
a "modular" system disigned in the 1930's and intended for use in
rural areas where up to 100 lines were required.  My module was
equipped for 25 lines.  I don't think it was ever in public service
anywhere -- it was, however, in service in the PO circuit labs where it
was used for developing new features such as STD access and local call
timing.

I spent the summer between (high) school and university getting this
thing going.  I built a large 50 volt power supply for it, along with
a ringing and tone generator.  It sat in my workshop, which was an
attic above the garage.  I had lines going into the house with phones
in various places.  Since it was designed for use in unheated
buildings, it had no trouble in a cold, humid environment.

It worked very well, despite its ancient technology and the fact that
most of the parts in it were probably 30 or 40 years old.  The switch
fabric consisted of four two-motion (Strowger) switches and
uniselector (stepper switch) line finders.  The numbering scheme was
2xx.  When you dialled '2', the switch would step up two notches.
When the C relay relased at the end of the first digit, a vertical
marking contact detected the fact that '2' was dialled, and dropped
the selector back to its home position.  The following two digits then
stepped the switch vertically and horizontally to the desired contact,
and switched to the line at that position.

If you dialled an initial digit other than 2, the switch would step up
to the selected level, then cut in and search for a free trunk.  An
additional marking bank indicated which of the 100 outlets on the
switch were allocated to trunks, and which were subscriber lines.
Thus, on each level on the switch, the first few outlets could be
trunks, and the remainder could be sub's lines.

Sadly, the UAX had to be scrapped when my parents moved out of that
house.  I think I still have the schematics, and I probably have some
parts somewhere.  I don't think there are any UAX-12's left in public
service anywhere, but maybe in some remote place up in the Highlands --
you never know.


Martin Harriss    uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 13:13:29 GMT


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

> Why not take the ANI data right off the 800 number w/o call forwarding
> and report it back for billing under the 900 service?

> [Moderator's Note: I may be mistaken, but I don't think the information
> provider is ever in a position to 'report back for billing purposes'
> the caller's phone number. I think telco has to be the one to see the
> number and capture it. And this makes me then wonder how did they
> accept the 800 call ...

AT&T may require that ISDN be used for real-time ANI.  But there are
other carriers out there.  Does anybody remember what carrier handled
the 800 number assigned to the 'fortune tellers'?  MCI delivers ANI
in-band using DTMF on some of their services.


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 17:43 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA


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

> [Moderator's Note: My contact at AT&T said an IP figured this out
> through some experimentation, and the news spread rapidly around to
> others in the industry. Apparently all you need is an 800 line with
> call forwarding on it and a non-published 900 number to send it to.
> The ANI generated on the 800 number is very handily given over to the
> 900 side for billing purposes. No one has to twist the arm of anyone
> at telco ... it just looks like any other 900 call to them.   PAT]

I've seen about half a dozen replies to this, and none of them mention
this point: I thought when you set up call forwarding, the number
originally dialed pays the freight for the forwarding.  That is, if
number A calls number B, and B's owner has it forwarded to C, A pays
only for getting from A to B and B pays for getting from B to C.

I've just spoken to an Ohio Bell operator who confirmed that that's
how toll calls work here.  (I didn't ask her about the specific case
of forwarding from an 800 to a 900 number, just forwarding from my
phone to another one that's out of my local calling area.)

It's hard to imagine that things would be different in other areas of
the country, though I suppose it's possible.  Or are you saying, PAT,
that 800 numbers are a special case?  If so, I gotta believe it was a
programming error.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing?
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 22:12:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: What's needed is a change to prohibit forwarding
> POTS/800 ==> 900.  PAT]

       Unfortunately, the ones to blame are the LD carriers offering
the 900 service, because they are the ones misbilling the transaction.
(One might even argue that failure on their part to prevent such
transactions consitututes participation in a fraud scheme, since the
LD carrier takes a big cut of the 900 number charge.)  The LD carrier,
though, isn't doing the forwarding.  The 800 carrier is.

       Question: does this "feature" occur when the 800 and 900
carriers are different?  If not, it should be easy to pressure the
carriers into fixing it.

       This is really a bug in call forwarding, but it illustrates a
fundamental problem: billing number and source number can be quite
different.


John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #392
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29271;
          18 May 92 2:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08696
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10102
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:49:48 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #393

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 May 92 00:49:49 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 393

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Weaver Hickerson)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Rolf Meier)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Ron Jarrell)
    Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Andy Sherman)
    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: holos0![e-mail] (Weaver Hickerson)
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (How to Build Ultimate Call Screener)
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 15:13:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

> Pat, in light of the explicit .sig I think that dragging MasterCard
> and its policies into this argument is flatly inappropriate.  Besides,
> you obviously have the same misunderstanding that most people have.  I
> don't work for the "MasterCard billing center", as there is no such
> entity.  MasterCard doesn't bill cardholders; issuing banks bill
> cardholders.  Nobody bothers to hack MasterCard, because there isn't
> much worth hacking at a not-for-profit corporation with only around 1k
> employees.

I don't know.  Tell us more about what you 1000 folks do, and what
types of computerized accounting records are around.  Are you on a
hunt group?  Do you use VMS systems?  UNIX systems?  CICS?  Tell us
more about all these 1000 folks and this trivial information that you
have.

> Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to
> try and phreak that.  But since neither or telecom manager nor our

Your expectations would probably be fulfilled.  Shortly, we will see
that you would readily excuse the perpetrators ...

> security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number.  And in my
> entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much,
> much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out
> calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks
> of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or
> less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill" Jones.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A similar defense was used in a Florida rape case a couple of years
ago, if I recall.  A woman was raped, according to the rapist, because
she had no panties on and was wearing a skirt.  He and his defense
lawyer actually used this to excuse his behaviour, the old "She asked
for it" defense.  I do not buy this type of defense.

Blaming the victim for the crime is much more moronic than installing
a DISA, in my opinion.  Spleen venting is okay, but you should not
purposefully insult DISA users.

> (And if it's true that there are PBXs out there that come installed
> with DISA turned on and standard passwords, anybody who buys one of
> these should, in my opinion, sue the installer for negligence.)

I don't know who Canada Bill Jones is.  Would you let him use your
lawnmower, freely, if you happened to leave it parked outside?
Continuously, any time you were not using it?  No real money changes
hands, and you don't lose the use of your lawnmower since he only uses
it when you don't want to.  I doubt it.

And should I sue Mastercard International for $50 bucks if somebody
successfully uses my credit card to buy something?  Would I be getting
what I deserved, for not using a credit card that is made of flash
paper instead of plastic?

And should I sue Home Depot if they install a door for me and don't
drive by every night to be sure it is locked?  Wonder how much I can
get?

> I will not comment on the credit fraud case you mentioned or any other
> specific case; it's not my department.  Contact Richard Woods,
> MasterCard International, 888 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10106.  In
> general, well, you don't have to work here to know that yes, credit
> card fraud is up, and MasterCard's security department has been very
> successful in helping to track down and prosecute credit card fraud
> rings, world-wide.

I'll comment.  Using your defense above, any successful credit card
fraud is simply proof that MasterCard International, what did you say
"more or less deserves whatever happens ..."

     "If MasterCard would spend all that money they currently
      spend on prosecution on customer education and security,
      there would be no credit card fraud."

Is that about right?  Please keep us all posted on the success of this
approach.

> But given that credit card frauds are stealing real merchandise, the
> comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is inappropriate.

Real merchandise?  I don't know about you, but I consider phone
service to be "real merchandise".  It's what brought this news feed to
me.  It's what allows me to call Domino's when I need a pepperoni fix.
By your standards, I can walk into Great Expections and force them, at
gunpoint, to give me a haircut at no charge.  No real merchandise?  I
did nothing wrong?  Tell it to the judge.  If the Mall Security would
spend more on "customer education", there would be no hair-eakers?

The comparison between phreaks and credit card fraud is right on -
like comparing one sociopath to another.  Both feel they are outside
the rules of society, both take things that law-abiding providers work
to provide and law-abiding consumers pay to use.

> Steve Forrette wrote to remind me that if a Dutch phreak blue-boxes
> his way into the international trunk lines and calls elsewhere, the
> PTTs end up having to fork real money over to each other for trunk
> time.  Look, a mechanism already exists for disputing charges.  When
> no customer can be proved to have made the call and when the
> originating PTT can't collect, the receiving PTT should waive the
> charge ... and they should BOTH work on making it harder to phreak.

I agree, all should work to make it harder to phreak.  Likewise, the
government is right on in acknowledging that phreaking is a crime and
creates real problems for phone companies, major corporations,
mom-and-pops, and individuals *if it happens to them*.  I fail to see
how you could have a problem with that side of it.  The bottom line
is, -- and you OBVIOUSLY disagree with this -- the fact that a crime is
easy (he had DISA with a standard password) does not make it *okay* to
commit.  There is no quantum leap of logic needed to understand this.

> If all the money that went into phreaking investigations and
> prosecutions went into network security and customer education
> instead, there wouldn't be phreaking.

Excuse me?  First of all, how much money are we talking about here?
Do you know?  Does anybody?  regarding customer education; Customers
are not the problem here.  Phreaks are.  Increased security will not
cut down on attempts, but rather will quite probably cut down on
**successful** attempts.  Last time I checked, attempting
unsuccessfully is a rather poor defense in court.  Try it sometime.
Oh, I don't know, take a shot at Bush with your BB gun, and miss on
purpose.  Let us know how your defense comes out.

You seem content to segregate "phreaking" from all other antisocial
activities, in a manner that somehow excuses it, makes it okay,
perhaps encourages it as some type of intellectual pursuit.  I
disagree with this segregation.  A crime is a crime is a crime,
usually.

> And finally, to that nameless person in 206: You admit yourself that
> your own telecom department knew about the dangers of unprotected
> DISA.  And you let uneducated end-users manage their own phone
> systems, knowing how dangerous it was?  No wonder you asked that your
> name and company be withheld.

In a society free of phreakers, no problem would be posed by the above
scenario.  The DISA is not the problem, the phreakers are.

You are wrong in blaming the victims rather than the criminals.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 02:37:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@
mhs.attmail.com writes:

> Actually, if our phone system supported DISA, I would expect people to
> try and phreak that.  But since neither our telecom manager nor our
> security manager are morons, we don't have a DISA number.  And in my
> entirely personal opinion, since it is cheap, practical, and much,
> much more secure to use something like AT&T's VTNS or even hand out
> calling cards than to use DISA, after all the publicity on the risks
> of DISA, anybody who installs DISA on a PBX is a moron, and more or
> less deserves whatever happens to them, to paraphrase "Canada Bill"
> Jones.

If a DISA were to have a 14 digit password like most calling cards, I
don't see why it would be intrinsically more dangerous than a calling
card.  Except, perhaps, that the calling card issuer will be on the
lookout for calling patters that look fraudulent, whereas the PBX
administrator would have to be on top of the SMDR output.  But it
would seem that DISA can be made secure if its passwords are treated
the same way as calling card numbers (which in effect they are) and be
a lot more appropriate than calling cards in certain situations.
Comments?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: Crossbar or Stepper: That is the Question
Organization: gte
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:52:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken
Dykes) writes:

> Talk to the transient student population and you get quite another
> perspective however :-) :-) I swear that students must synchronize
> their watches and have a conspiracy to go off-hook at 11pm (cheap rate
> time) and try to grab long-distance/inter-office trunks; normal
> sentient switch behavior returns around 11:15pm :-) I would suspect
> even the most radical and generous capacity-planning couldn't
> compensate for this conspiricy of the residents of Suitcase-U.

They do. I worked putting in the GTD-5 in Lafayette, Indiana (home of
Purdue). At 11 P.M., the building would have one resonant CLONK as
every student called home, and clatter like hell for 15 minutes.  Yes,
we did take it into account when engineering the replacement.


Kevin Wayne Williams
AG Communications Systems (nee Automatic Electric)


[Moderator's Note: An aquaintence working in the AT&T International
Center in Pittsburgh (there, is that better, Carl?) has said to me
that late Sunday evening and overnight into Monday is an absolutely
hellish shift for an operator to work there. Why? Its the start of the
business day 9-11 hours later in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc
 ... places without the greatest phone service in the world anyway,
whilst how many ever million American businessmen, bill collectors,
salesmen and others dial away trying to get their mideast connection
on the line first thing (mideast) Monday morning; banging their
traffic through Pittsburgh IOC for directory assistance, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 08:55:07 -0400
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> I am happy to announce that Qualcomm has released the entire text of
> the CAI (Common Air Interface) for its CDMA (Code Division Multiple

It is good that Qualcomm has made its spec public; however I have a
problem with calling it "CAI".

First of all, "CAI" is most often used in conjunction with CT2
technology.  To use "CAI" with the Qualcomm technology could cause
some confusion in the industry.

Second, "Common" implies that the standard is used broadly by a
variety of vendors such that interworking can occur with equipment
from different suppliers.  At present, the proposed spec is
proprietery to Qualcomm.


Rolf Meier   Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Jarrell)
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Date: 13 May 92 00:14:17 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA


In reply to Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 272, Message 5 of 11:

>> 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 ...

Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful?  Unless
you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and
plays the message you recorded.


Ron Jarrell   Virginia Tech Computing Center   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 15:59:45 EDT


On 10 May 92 23:43:49 GMT, [e-mail]
(Phillip Dampier) said:

> The following AT&T offices have been scheduled to close their Operator
> Services Offices because of introduction of voice recognition,
> automated operators:

[ List deleted ]

> * - Offices closed or Previously Announced to Close.
> (Source: Communications Workers of America - May 8, 1992)

I question the assertion (by the CWA?) that these offices are all
closing due to the deployment of voice recognition.  The closing of
the Howell, NJ OSC has been in the works for quite some time.  As I
recall, most or all of the operators at Howell are being redeployed to
the other two OSCs in New Jersey (Wayne and Mercerville).

1) I could wish that the CWA would be a little more careful with facts
in their press releases.

2) Although I am generally pro-union, I am uncomfortable with attempts
to hold back technology for short-term job preservation.  There has to
be a better way to deal with the dislocation caused by new technology
than banning it.  Should we have outlawed DDD? Or for that matter, the
dial telephone?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:49:20 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I think you are wrong, at least in the early days
> of this. The pay phone number was read back, verified and you were
> given your PIN number to be used when setting up an appointment. I
> think after the abuse became very heavy the psychic's business office
> started following it a little closer. And of course the COCOTs were
> wide open all along.  PAT]

I don't see how the phone being an RBOC payphone vs a COCOT would make
any difference.  If Mystic could tell that a number was an RBOC phone,
then they could tell it was a COCOT as well.  In order to determine if
a particular number is an RBOC payphone, they'd have to be subscribing
to The Database (TM) that holds this information.  The Database also
knows if it is a COCOT.  Have you ever tried to 10XXX+0+ a call from a
COCOT and ask for call completion assistance and have the call billed
to "my number?"  AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and the local telco will all know
that you are calling from a payhone.  This is the same database that
is used to verify collect and third-party billing, both to prevent
billing to an RBOC payhpone or COCOT, as well as to those customers
who have requested that such billing be blocked.  Any "phone company"
can subscribe to this database if they want to (and fork over the
$$$).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I doubt Mystic subscribes to any data base. I think
they probably 'knew' that 'payphones always begin 9xxx' and as good
little drones to always challenge those.  COCOTS of course use all
sorts of numbers.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: 800 Calls Converted to 900 by Information Provider
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:43:07 GMT


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

> I have followed this discussion for awhile.  This is pretty simple to
> implement.  You order a regular 1mb phone line with call forwarding.
> Then you call AT&T, and order an 800 number to be sent to the 1mb
> line.  Then you call forward the 1mb to the 900 number. To the CO, the
> call came from the 800 number; that's all there is to it.

Except that this will not work.  When forwarding a 1mb line, the
billing number of the line doing the forwarding is sent as the ANI.
As a separate issue, calls arriving from an 800 number to a POTS
number have no Caller ID or ANI information with them.  Assuming we
get to the point someday where all IXCs and LECs are interconnected
with SS7 and Caller ID is universal, the 800-to-900 scenario will
STILL not work, as when call forwarding in an SS7 environment, the
original caller's number is passed as the Caller ID, and the
forwarding line's billing number is passed as the ANI.  Since all
billing is based on ANI and NOT Caller ID, the line doing the
forwarding gets the bill, as it should.  It's still not clear how the
current situation with Mystic et al is being done.  But it certainly
isn't being done with POTS lines.  Can the Moderator elaborate on the
specifics of the current situation?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Sorry, I cannot. He did not elaborate.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #393
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02027;
          18 May 92 3:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15976
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:50 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28790
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:40 -0500
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 01:46:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #394

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 May 92 01:46:40 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 394

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Steve Forrette)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company ([e-mail])
    Re: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line (Jim Redelfs)
    Re: Electromechanical --> Digital (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: Cellular and ANI (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem (Michael F. Eastman)
    Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking (Stephen Wolfson)
    Re: Fiber in Our Streets (Jeffrey J. Carpenter)
    Re: AT&T TeleTicket Service (Howard Gayle)
    Re: HAL Catalog (Bob Yazz)
    Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-Up Extension (Michael Rosen)
    Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Michael Rosen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 04:53:59 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Telco test numbers may begin with zero where you
> live; here they are 99xx style. 0XXX, 00XX, and 000X are valid numbers
> for subscribers in Chicago. Payphones generally are 9{2-8}XX.   PAT]

My current home phone number ends in 99xx (in US West territory).  I
was quite surprised when I was assigned this number.  This has caused
me little grief, except for the deadbeat that USED to have the number
and has bill collectors who would like to speak to him!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Someone here with 95xx in their private number used
to have a terrible time convincing long distance operators to allow
collect calls through to them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: All Zeroes in the Subscriber Number
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:46:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that
> this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled.

Back when I was in high school, long before the breakup of Ma Bell, I
did lots of playing around with the phone lines (such as "WATS
DX-ing").  One of the things I tried was calling various 555-xxxx
numbers in different area codes.  The interesting thing was no matter
what xxxx was, I always got information.  I believe 555-1111 was the
first I tried, too.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: May 17 19:06 EDT (May 17 23:06 ZULU)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company


In West Virginia, at least, 10288+local number works fine, and, as a
matter of fact (and one only known to a small number of people), when
the large telecom failure hit the east coast last summer rendering
inter-CO calls impossible, it *WAS* possible to make them by dialing
through AT&T in the manner described above. And to top it all of, AT&T
forgave all charges incurred during the failure (imagine that ;^). My
associates and I are active in emergency communications and were able
to handle many calls that way.

The county E-911 system was totally out of service during the failure
and, since they don't know a CO from a VCR (or for that matter what
frequency they are transmitting on at any given time) our typically
uninformed emergency folks here didn't have a clue as to several
tricks I could have used to get around what they wound up with:
dispatching radio calls in the western part of the county by driving a
truck up on top of a mountain!

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 21:36:46 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Redelfs)
Subject: Re: An Unwelcome Guest On My Line
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Collin Forbes wrote:

> Can someone explain to me how two people can apparently be 'sharing'
> the same phone line? ...another person can pick up his phone and have
> it interfere with my data phone line...he does not respond to me
> asking him questions across the phone line when I encounter him...I
> have checked my outside hookup...Nothing.

Pat noted:

> [Moderator's Note: The most likely cause of this is that somewhere in
> the wire pair between yourself and the CO, a multiple was left in
> place ... report it to repair ASAP. PAT]

We call those "Left Ins".  Although Pat's scenerio is possible (and
even somewhat likely) I consider it more likely that his pair is
crossed with another working pair somewhere in the loop -- a wet,
buried splice is my guess.

> I have not spoken to the local telco about this because the line is
> being used to run a BBS. While I am almost sure that I am running a
> BBS that would be considered a hobby under Idaho PUC, I don't want to
> take any chances.

Your concerns are unwarranted (my opinion).

I *WORK* for US WEST Communications and run a (mostly) subscription,
one-line BBS on a FLAT-rate RESIDENTIAL line (no employee concession)
 -- and I do NOT hide it from them.  (I do not ADVERTISE it to them,
either.)

You are PAYING good money for your service -- regardless of how you
use it.  It should be perfect.  If it is not, you should be pestering
the repair service until it is fixed.

Unless the trouble is INSIDE your home *AND* you INVITE the technician
into your home to view your set-up, they will have NO idea that you
are using the line for a BBS.  Indeed, virtually ALL the techs I work
with have absolutely NO idea what a BBS *IS*.  If they heard "data
tone" while working on the pair, it wouldn't mean a THING to them
(beyond the fact that it was passing data).  It CERTAINLY wouldn't
arouse any suspicion.

If you run a busy board, you might ask the repair service clerk to add
a remark to the trouble ticket to call your VOICE line before working
on the data line.  When the tech calls, do him a favor and tell him
that it is OK to break the connection at any time while working on it.
This will surely endear you to the technician.  Then, while s/he is
doing the work, keep an eye on the board and tell the few, hapless
users that call during the time that the line is being tested and/or
repaired that their connection is likely to be broken at any time --
that downloads are NOT recommended.

I do NOT recommend busying-out the line!  The short on your end would
confuse the technician and confound the situation.

Good luck!


JR  Tabby 2.2   MacNet Omaha   402-289-2899   macnet.omahug.org   (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: Or he could just shut the board down for the couple
hours or so repair was likely to be on the line and explain to users
later why he was off part of the day.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: Electromechanical --> Digital
Organization: gte
Date: Sun, 17 1992 15:46:59 GMT


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

>         The one great thing about pure step-by-step offices is that
> although they are noisy, misroute calls, take huge amounts of space,
> and offer very few features, they have absolutely no single point of
> failure.  No component failure can take down more than one line; most
> just reduce the capacity of the exchange by one call.  Step-by-step
> switches are true distributed systems.  No component has more than a
> tiny fraction of the intelligence of the system.

>         In the entire history of the Bell System, no electromechanical
> CO was ever down for more than 30 minutes for any reason other than a
> natural disaster.

>         And now they're gone.

I could tell you the story of the 24" crescent wrench dropped across
the main -48V bars, but all I will say is that it did take more than
30 minutes to saw it loose so that the generator could kick in and run
the office again.

The U.S. Military still runs step and crossbar in highly critical
installations. The reason: any digital switch will get wiped out by
the EMP resulting from a nuclear blast. They are able to shield them
well enough that only memory contents are blown. The DoD commissioned
a study several years ago to see if anyone could come up with a reload
scheme that would reload a digital switch in 500 milliseconds.

The military does some other weird things as well. The GTD-5 is the
only digital switch that still supports magneto phones (per DoD
requirements).


Kevin Wayne Williams    AG Communication Systems (nee Automatic Electric)

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Cellular and ANI
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:48:57 GMT


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

> As I write this, I am sitting in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  For kicks, I
> called an 800 number I have setup that plays ANI from my cellular
> phone, and, by jove, it played my actual cellular phone number
> (609-290-xxxx) ... not a trunk line from the local cell switch.  This
> was on the US-West side of things.  The Cellular-One et al side of the
> house does not yet have any service in Cheyenne.  I tried the same
> thing in Denver, and the US-West call worked the same way, but the
> Cellular One (or whatever they are out here) just played a local trunk
> line.  Does anyone know what interace US-West uses to send my cell
> phone number to the network?

This may have to do with the fact that US West Cellular offers true
Equal Access for their cellular subscribers.  I got the list of
supported carriers from US West Cellular of Seattle, and there were a
lot -- it looked like the same list that would be available from
landline phones.  The only way for this to work in a practical manner
would be for the actual cellular number to be supplied for the ANI.
Since US West is also "the fone company," they would be able to figure
out how to do this I'm sure.

Accurate ANI is not an issue for cellular switches that don't have
Equal Access.  After all, who will even notice?  (or so the cellular
carriers think! :-)) I'm sure the few applications for 800 and 900 ANI
didn't even cross their minds.  They would probably have to subscribe
to that little-known option for PBX trunks that allows the "PBX" to
supply the ANI for the call.  I don't think this is even available in
many areas any more -- after all, if the customer wants accurate ANI,
they can replace their PBX with Centrex, right?

Also, some cellular carriers with so-called Equal Access don't provide
it in the same manner as landline Equal Access.  Cellular One of the
SF Bay Area comes to mind here.  They provide "equal access" to all
interested long distance carriers, but require that the carriers
provide dedicated facilities to the cellular switch, as opposed to
using the existing landine equal access facilities like US West does.
In the Bay Area, for the first year or so that they had this
not-so-equal access, the only choices were AT&T and MCI.  Then Sprint
decided to get in on the action.  The lines to these carriers were
provided accurate real-time ANI by the cellular switch (evidenced by
the fact that my Sprint account had an option on it whereby it would
prompt me for a billing code, which worked even from my cellular).
However, intra-LATA calls, as well as calls to 800 numbers, went over
regular lines to Pacific Bell which did NOT provide accurate ANI (I
checked with one of those 800 numbers mention here last year).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 12:00:56 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: Moscow Cellular Routing Problem
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Andrew Robson) writes:

> The affected exchanges are: 7-096-901-xxxx, 7-096-902-xxxx, and
> 7-096-903-xxxx all of which should be routed through the Moscow
> gateway (M1OC) to the "transit exchange" T4-1 to reach the cellular
> MTX AXE10.

I'm confused. Does Moscow have more than one gateway? What portion of
the number routes to the M10C gateway switch (7-096 or 7-096-90x)?
Once the call has been routed to the Moscow gateway, the carrier
sending the call has no control over whether the M10C switch now sends
it to the transit switch, what numbers get sent to the transit switch
from the M10C (unless the carrier is using compelled signaling through
the gateway for the international call?), etc. So what's the problem
being described?


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpm!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 10:52:20 -0700
From: Stephen Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking


It is fairly obvious that it would be quite feasable to build in per
call line blocking prefixes into phone hardware, or a device similar
to call controllers for long distance to add per call blocking
automatically to an entire line.

The biggest problem is the seven to ten second delay.  In these times
of rapid dialing with tone dialers, I wonder if people would get
annoyed with the delay (even if the complete sequence was being
handled automatically) until hearing ring/busy and not use it.


Steve Wolfson, Motorola Satellite Communications, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fiber in Our Streets


Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 13-May-92 Re: Fiber in Our
Streets Tom [e-mail] (1863)

> A consumer group -- I don't remember
> which -- was lobbying against it because it claimed that NJ Bell would
> have all of its customers pay for it by building in the cost of the
> new network into phone bills.

I'm sure they can see no possible benefit to subscribers by installing
a fiber network.

This attitude is similiar to the steel industry's attitude concering
modernization ...


jeff

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 07:55:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Howard Gayle)
Subject: Re: AT&T TeleTicket Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> NEW YORK CITY -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T TeleTicket(sm)
> Service, which allows visitors to the United States to pre-pay for
> international news, U.S. weather reports, currency exchange
> information and interpretation services, as well as telephone calls.

I phoned the English language number (800-462-1818) and got this
additional information.  Currently, the only way to get cards is by
phone or mail order, and currently they only accept VISA or checks (or
presumably money orders, but I forgot to ask).  They plan to add
MasterCard and American Express.  They also plan to install vending
machines in hotels and airports; the vending machines would accept
cash.  The mail order address is:

   AT&T TeleTicket
   Box 44289
   Jacksonville, Florida 32231
   USA

Cards are supposed to be supplied in five to ten days if you order
with VISA, longer for checks.

Comment: this would appear to be a way to make completely anonymous
calls in the US, without carrying cash.

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HAL Catalog
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 04:44:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Todd Inch) writes:

> I recently received a new catalog at work which had quite a few
> interesting goodies in it.  The company is Home Automation
> Laboratories (HAL) and can be reached at 800 HOME-LAB (800 466-3522)
> or 404 319-6000.

I phoned their 800 number at night and it just didn't answer.  Then I
tried their 404 number and got a painfully long-winded voice mail
system that -- surprise -- doesn't take messages if you don't know the
extension.

It did allow me to wait on musical hold for an operator, even tho it
was half-past midnite Eastern Time.

The ideas from the catalog sounded great.

The company itself -- I was unimpressed.


Bob Yazz

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 04:41:13 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: There are plenty of things like this. The easiest
> most convenient source would probably be at your local Radio Shack
> store. Price is just a few dollars.   PAT]

Yeah, here's something ...  "The Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard."  It
says it "prevents interruption of fax or modem when someone picks up
an extension phone."  It's $7.95.

Any idea how this works?  I see a picture of a box with a short phone
cord coming out.  Where does this get plugged in?  Do I plug my modem
in through it?  What does the person picking up the other extension
hear?  I would hope I wouldn't have to plug the other extensions into
the box, that would mean one for each extension!


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 05:15:42 GMT


Scott Fybush <[e-mail]> writes:

> British 0898 numbers, which are the premium-charge lines like US 900
> numbers.  This being an American record shop, I have this weird

Heh, funny, that's my phone number's last four digits here in the U.S.


Mike


[Moderator's Note: Just be glad your last four digits are not 0666;
the crazy people would be harassing you all the time.  PAT]

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V12 #394
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01185;
          19 May 92 0:31 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04869
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 22:42:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #395

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 May 92 22:42:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 395

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Charles E. Nove)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Bob Clements)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Phil Howard)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Arthur Rubin)
    AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Strange Phone Behaviour (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed (Phillip Dampier)
    Re: High Voices Take #-ing (Steve Elias)
    Re: High Voices Take #-ing (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today (Phillip Dampier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charles E Nove)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Organization: SCTC
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:24:41 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> For many years the telephone companies used numbers with the last four
> digits as zero's as numbers for their switch rooms. In the last few
> years you have started to see more of them used in non-telephone
> company numbers. I don't understand why they were let loose to be used
> as it will cause problems with people getting calls meant for
> telephone company business.

I've never received a telephone company-intended call on my xxx-0000
number.  It's always somebody trying to reach xxx-000y (or even
xxx-00yy) who fat-fingers the dial pad or has a cheap phone with
bouncy keys.

For *months* we had some old man in a nursing home in the next state
who called us two or three times a week looking for John.  When we'd
ask what number he was trying to dial, it was if he couldn't even hear
us.  Then he started leaving life-or-death messages on the answering
machine giving a phone number to call back.  No two call-back numbers
were ever the same.  Finally, one day he *could* hear us and said he
was looking for his son John at xxx-0009.  So we called John, left a
message on his answering machine suggesting he buy dad a memory-dial
phone, and soon afterwards we quit getting those calls.

Of course, there are the couple of late-night calls for the Regent
(Regency?) Hotel in Sydney, Australia.  Seems some folks confuse +6 12
with +1 612 ... :-)


Chuck

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

Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 11:00:00 EDT
From: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: I think when the very old stepping switches were in
> common use, 0000 was impossible to assign due to the way the switches
> worked. I notice we have a few 0000 subscribers in Chicago now.  PAT]

A slight slip of the tongue, Pat?  You could certainly assign the
number, but you couldn't make it the leader of a hunt group.

In Strowger step offices, large businesses typically had phone numbers
ending in xx11.  Hunting on a standard Strowger works by adding dial
pulses until a non-busy line is found.  The so-called "level-hunting"
Strowger switch (which had a LOT of extra relays in it) could hunt to
the next tens-level. E.g., from xx10 to xx21.  Ordinary hunting
switches could only hunt on the same level, restricting the size of a
hunt group to ten lines.

But from xx00, there was no higher number to hunt to.  Of course,
that's true for _all_ xx00, not just 0000 in Strowger equipment.

So the number xxx-0000 could be assigned but not hunted-from.  That
would make it undesirable as a business number.

As a historical note, the home-built Strowger switches in the phone
system at the famous MIT model railroad club had a different hunting
mechanism.  On those, a hunt group was assigned a number ending in
zero.  The switch stopped stepping BEFORE reaching the dialed number
rather then stepping further AFTER the dialed number.  So numbers 28,
29 and 20 might be in a hunt group, the published number would be 20,
and the call would ring on the first free number in 28-29-20.  I don't
think any switches like this were ever used in the "real world".


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]  [An old Strowger contact burnisher.]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:46:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> Directory assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. I expect that
> this is so people wouldn't lose track of the ones they had dialled.

Back when I was in high school, long before the breakup of Ma Bell, I
did lots of playing around with the phone lines (such as "WATS
DX-ing").  One of the things I tried was calling various 555-xxxx
numbers in different area codes.  The interesting thing was no matter
what xxxx was, I always got information.  I believe 555-1111 was the
first I tried, too.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 23:37:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (SYSTEM OPERATOR) writes:

> From what I have been told (and I could easily have been told
> incorrectly), the 700 number (555-4141) was created to take some of
> the pressure off local phone companies when people called in asking
> what their ld carrier was.  To my knowledge, I have yet to see another
> 1-700 number anywhere else (if anyone has some, i'd be interested in
> seeing them).

I've seen lots of 700 numbers, including at the TV station I used to
work for.  As far as I know all these numbers were some sort of TWX or
Teletype network.  I don't know if those 700 numbers are in the same
addressable space as the 700 numbers AT&T's service proposes.

> As to the dialing of the long distance carrier codes, I block
> 10???1xxxxxxxxxx.  I do that because we have a special deal with our
> long distance carrier on my switch for 1+ calls.  I don't want people
> rerouting calls on a more expensive carrier.  NOTE that
> 10???0xxxxxxxxxx is not blocked and is allowed, and in fact defined in
> my system for calling card calls.

Unless that carrier is AT&T, or if a carrier besides AT&T gets into
the 700 number business and each carrier constitutes a distinct number
space, then you will probably have to:

    block 10xxx1xxxxxxxxxx except 102881700xxxxxx
or
    block 10xxx1xxxxxxxxxx except 10xxx1700xxxxxx


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

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

Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 18 May 92 16:39:49 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


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

> [e-mail] (John L. Shelton) writes:

>> 1.  Area 700 is "special"; it's the only area code in which each LD
>> provider has it's own "namespace".  My phone number (700) CALL-MOM in
>> AT&T land isn't the same as MCI's (700) CALL-MOM.  And the cost to the
>> caller could be different, too.

> I dialed (from work) 9-1-700-555-4141 and got a recording indicating
> AT&T.

> I dialed 9-10222-1-700-555-4141 and before I could finish dialing I
> got the three tone beep and a recording that said "... it is not
> necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have
> dialed.

I don't have any trouble, from work or from home.  (Although
9-1-700-555-4141 reports AT&T and travelling service representatives
are issued Sprint cards.)


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: 18-MAY-1992 03:17:29.97
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service?


Although you can't call Easyreach numbers yet (or so it seems)
directly, you seem to be able to do so with a calling card.

When I dial 1-700-CALL-257 (just randomly picked that), I get an AT&T
"3T" intercept.

Yet, if I dial 0+ some number, and enter my card number, and then hit
"#" to sequence call to 700-CALL-257, I get an IMMEDIATE and HARSH
ring, (and no "Thank you for using AT&T"/"Thank You"), and then "The
AT&T Easyreach 700 number you have dialed is not assigned", and then
it dumps me out of the calling card system and returns a dial-tone
from the local CO ...

Odd how it won't give you a "Thank You" and you get that sudden ring!

Also, I am not clear on one aspect of AT&T 700 billing:

Does the calling party (not me) pay $.25 day/$.15 night to reach me,
and that's it, or is there also a toll charge that I pay to deliver
the call from Easyreach to the PSTN number I want to call to route to?
Can the AT&T Easyreach number be forwarded to an 800 number? Even a
non-AT&T 800 number?

Finally, as an aside, I mentioned a while ago an odd situation with
interconnected Motorola EMX switches, where they will pass features,
busy signals, and query phones outside of the "call delivery area"
(e.g., a Boston "A" customer can go to Philly, and use call-forwarding
and 3-Way, but still not get calls, and callers will get a re-order
when they try to reach his Boston number).

Well, I found out that Motorola has a name for this, and they call it
the "Curious Call Syndrome"! This "syndrome" only seems to be a
problem in Motorola EMX systems which do NOT use Autonomous
Registration, that is, callers calling roamers in "syndrome"-plagued
areas will cause the caller to get a re-order, while in Auton Regs
areas the reorder will no occur. Features will work, though ...

Any info on the AT&T Easyreach questions would be appreciated.


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


[Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why you would forward a 700
number into an 800, thus incurring two sets of charges when you could
simply give out the 800 number ...  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 17:09:07 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Behaviour
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Guy
Martin) writes:

> I try to call my sister in the East Bay (510) from San Luis Obispo
> (805) several times. I got a busy signal the first few times, which I
> didn't think was abnormal (she talks on the phone a LOT #:-)), but
> then when I did get a ring, it was one ring, followed immediately by a
> "static"y sound with no more ring tone ... I sat on the line, and
> after about two minutes of the static, I got ring tone again, but it
> just kept ringing out, until Boom!, I got fast busy (VERY LOUD I might
> add) ...

Another possibility is the involvement of a cellular telephone.
Perhaps your sister had her home phone forwarded to her cellular.
This type of behavior is not uncommon when placing calls to cellular.
At least in the switches I've had service from, the transmitted audio
from the cellular is superimposed on the ringing sound generated by
the cellular switch.  Since the mic is muted, this should normally be
silence.  But if there is a marginal connection, the caller can hear
static along with the ringing sound.  If the connection gets so bad
that the switch decides to drop it before the call is answered (or the
cellular phone is turned off while ringing), the cellular switch will
stop the ringing sound and return a reorder.  This all sounds very
strange indeed to people not accustomed to the "unique features" of
cellular.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:13:20 -0500
Subject: Re: AT&T Offices To Be Closed


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) wrote:

> I question the assertion (by the CWA?) that these offices are all
> closing due to the deployment of voice recognition.

All of the stuff I put up regarding the CWA comes directly from the
CWA.  As a side note, I am not a union representative, member, or even
working in the telephony industry.  I work in broadcasting.

I agree a lot of the stuff CWA puts out is chest beating and scare
tactics, but I think it's interesting to see what they have to say.

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

Subject: Re: High Voices Take #-ing
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 13:09:26 PDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Something happened to one of our voice mail customers years ago.  Our
system kept hanging up whenever he left a message.  After listening to
the guy talk, and via testing, we discovered that his voice was so
monotone and continuous that he was setting off our dial-tone
detector!  We upped the dial-tone time threshold and the problem went
away ...

So, it's not just high voices that take a #-ing.


eli

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 03:56:02 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High Voices Take #-ing


Sean Williams writes:

> [A simple solution might be to require the # tone be one full second
> in length ... -Sean]

I have had the same problem with a ham repeater.  The solution was, as
you suspected, to increase the ammount of time the tone was required
to be present.  I suspect this occours because to decoder looks just
for energy at the right frequencies, 1477 and 941 Hz in this case.
The original Bell Labs intent was a requirement that the energy be at
the two frequecies, as well as for there to be little energy at other
frequecies.  With voice, energy would be spread over a section of the
voice bandwith, thus the decoder wouldn't be spoofed.

Our repeater problem occoured mostly (95%) with women members and
usually resulted in *9 being processed (AU Police 911). Other codes
may have been decoded, but many were invalid or the problem wasn't
reported to me.

As you might expect * and # use the highest of the low frequency tones
for their pair.  9 uses the second highest of the low frequency tones.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:01:23 -0500
Subject: Re: The Virgin Mary Speaks to America Today


[e-mail] (David Leibold) wrote:

> In the current issue of that mad magasine of Christendom, {The
> Door}, one of their "Truth is Stranger than Fiction" items shows an ad
> which claims "The Virgin Mary Speaks to America TODAY / Toll Free
> Message 800-882-MARY".

This is the direct line for Our Lady of the Roses Shrine, an
"interesting" group of Mary worshippers who maintain constant vigil at
a shrine they erected at the site of the old NY World's Fair.  They
are headquartered in Bayside, New York and upon leaving your name and
address, you will receive an introductory booklet about their
ministry, a "rose petal blessed by Mary herself," and an invitation to
join in on the fun by being added to their mailing list.  If you like
pounds of goodies sent to your home, sign up.  I did.

It's all the work of one Veronica Lueken, a housewife in Bayside who
believes Mary delivers important messages for earthbound folk via Ms.
Lueken.

For extra fun, if you let them think you are a live one, beg and plead
for some of their literature and tapes.  My favorites:

Warnings About...
  Communism
  Cults of Satan
  Child Molestors of The Evil One

They also offer books on flying saucers that kidnap kids for Satan,
and "Heaven's Point of View," which was reviewed in one of the books I
have as a "zombo-Catholic classic."

I love it, and the best part of it is that most of it is free. This
has become a side hobby of mine, collecting tons of free rants and
goodies from hundreds and hundreds of, shall we say, "fringe" groups
across the country.

All things considered, these people are harmless.

If you want to write, the address is:

Our Lady of the Roses Shrine
P.O. Box 52
Bayside, NY  11361-0052

Have fun!


[Moderator's Note: You know, that list of topics, or 'warnings' sounds
like good material for some Usenet news groups. I wonder if it would
be possible to get Mary (via Ms. Luken of course) to enter into a
dialog with netters in one of the news groups? After all, they are
going to have those worthless presidential candidates participate in a
forum sometime soon; maybe Mary could have one also, perhaps in the
news group where all the Socially Responsible netters hang out. Maybe
Mary has had a vision she could share with them about Hackers From
Hell, or Communist Hackers who belong to the Cult of Satan. :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #395
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04726;
          19 May 92 1:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27380
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21542
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #396

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 May 92 00:00:10 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 396

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Voice Recognition in Boise (Phillip Dampier)
    *67 and Related Topics (Tony Harminc)
    900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective (Jim Rees)
    CCITT Recommended Number Lengths (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    WSJ Supplement on Telecommunications (Monty Solomon)
    AT&T System 25 / Cellular Trunks (Jerry Bass)
    Florida Areas 305 and 813 (Carl Moore)
    ISDN Fantasy (Bob Frankston)
    ISDN Charging ([e-mail])
    Georgia 404/706 Split - Prefix List (David Leibold)
    Anyone Try Forwarding to a 900 Number? (Phil Howard)
    Have I Been Slammed? (Brian Litzinger)
    Video Conference Information Wanted (John Pettitt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:30:18 -0500
Subject: Voice Recognition in Boise


VIP RATED A SUCCESS
(US West Communications)

BOISE, ID -- If residential phone users here are any indication,
customers may be establishing a more personal relationship with their
telephones -- phones that respond to their voice commands.

US West Communications and AT&T Network Systems recently worked
together on a "concept" test of a voice recognition system with 192
Boiseans, and customers liked the system.  The two companies today
released some of the findings of the trial and announced they will
conduct a second trial in Boise this fall to test whether customers
would use voice recognition to "sample" phone features on a per-use
basis.

In the first test, the Voice Interactive Phone (VIP) System used one
code (#44) and one word, such as "Messages," to activate some of the
services used by current US West subscribers with two or more optional
features.  The objectives were to test whether the VIP System would
increase use of these optional services and how customers rated the
voice activated system itself.

Said US West Project Manager Joni Boulware, "The first trial testing
the prototype system provided us with substantial information about
what these residential customers liked and didn't like about the new
technology.  Since the trial ended in January, we've been analyzing
the data to see what the next steps should be.  We're gearing up for
the second phase this summer."

Boulware said, "We discovered that the customers liked playing with
the system, learning how to make it work best for them. Some had never
used some of their features until they had VIP, and others said family
members started using features they never tried before.  Customers
also reported that the voice recognition system worked well with
cordless and wired phones, but not as well with speaker phones."

The AT&T Bell Laboratories-designed prototype was rated "excellent" or
"good" by three-fourths of the participants, and 82% said it met or
exceeded their expectations.

Even more exciting, said Boulware, is that customers felt comfortable
talking to a computer, and 84% preferred VIP to the existing method
for activating such telephone services as Voice Messaging, Call
Forwarding, Continuous Redial, Call Rejection, and Call Waiting.

"They liked not having to remember the codes for activating and
deactivating programmable features and found the system easy to use.
Even better, customers said the voice activated system increased the
value they placed on the services, and 74% said VIP encouraged them to
use the features more often," says Boulware. "For the project team,
this was a great success."

"The system trialed by US West and AT&T is unique in several
respects," said Gene Batcha, AT&T Project Manager.  "It's
central-office based; it gives positive confirmation of the request;
it has 'word spotting' capability that recognizes key words in a
sentence and screens out backround noise; and it has a 'talk-through'
function.  Most telephone-based systems only recognize 'yes,' 'no,'
and numbers 0 through 9."

Some customers in the trial were interested in using the system on a
per-activation basis on optional services to which they don't
subscribe -- maybe just to sample the service before subscribing or to
use a service on an occasional basis.  This fall, the team will go
back to different customers in Boise to test this concept.

"We haven't determined what to charge on a per-activation basis," says
Boulware, "but we are interested in testing this idea, based on the
first trial's results."

US West Communications, the largest subsidiary of US West, Inc.,
serves the communications needs of 25 million customers in 14 western
states.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 22:05:15 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: *67 and Related Topics


The CRTC has directed the telephone companies under its jurisdiction
to file proposed tariffs by 1 June 1992 providing, as a minimum, free
per call automated blocking of Call Display (Caller*ID) to replace the
75 cents/call operator assisted blocking now in place.

I intend to submit comments on this to the commission, but I would
like to confirm my understanding of how per call blocking works in the
US today.  I understand that to block Caller*ID info, *67 is prepended
to the number to be dialed.  I have heard, though it seems very
strange, that if *per line* blocking is in effect, *67 will *unblock*
for the one following call.  Is this true?  If so, I want to try to
make sure the CRTC disallows any such idiocy here.  Surely the risks
of having a toggle are obvious.

Also, Bell Canada has claimed that per call blocking is not possible
on calls placed from 1ESS systems.  I have the opposite impression --
could someone confirm or deny?


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, where 'per-line' blocking is available, *67
acts like a toggle for one call only, performing the *opposite*
function of the line's default status. Really, it seems like the best
possible scenario. Even the ID blockers occassionally want to make
their number known. Admittedly one has to know which way the toggle
will work before using it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 16:46:58 GMT


Allow me to throw some gasoline on the 800-as-900 fire.  When I called
my local Michigan Bell rep to complain about the {USA Today} scam, she
claimed that 900 blocking is not guaranteed to work, it's just a hint
to those 900 providers who decide to play nice.  She said that
Michigan Bell was not under any obligation to remove charges for 900
calls even if 900 blocking is in effect for the line.  So beware!

This may not apply outside of Michigan; we are one of the few states
in which telephone service is not regulated by the state Public
Service Commission (the state legislature removed most of the PSC's
authority over telephone service early this year).


[Moderator's Note: The rep is wrong. 900/976 blocking is a local thing,
right there at your CO; this decision is NOT left up to Information
Providers who 'decide to play nice'.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 15:13 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: CCITT Recommended Number Lengths


Answers to David Esan questions and PAT's comments regarding number
length:

E.163 Numbering Plan for the International Telephone Service:

2.1 -- International Number
The CCITT recommended in 1964 that the number of digits to be dialed
by subscribers in the automatic international service should not be
more than 12 (excluding the international prefix) ...

3 -- Digit capacity of international registers
 ... registers dealing with international traffic should have a digit
capacity, or a capacity that can be expanded, to cater for more than the
maximum 12-digit international number envisaged at present ... for new
applications a minimum digit capacity of 15 digits is recommended ...

E.164 Numbering Plan for the ISDN Era:

3.3 -- Number length
 ...The maximum number length shall be 15 digits...The length does not
include prefixes, language digit, address delimiters ...

An ISDN number is the same as a PSTN number, except for the possible
insertion of a DN (destination network) code before or after the trunk
code.  As far as I can tell, DN might be used like 10XXX to select the
carrier.

Call Global Engineering Documents at [phone] to order CCITT
Fascicle II.2 (E.100-E.333) by American Express, Mastercard/Visa, or
purchase order.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 23:08:02 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: WSJ Supplement on Telecommunications


The 5/18/92 issue of the {Wall Street Journal} has a special 22 page
supplement on Telecommunications which should be of interest to all
readers of this Digest.

Here is the table of contents:

What Are You Talking About?     Future Phone
Classrooms Without Walls        Cutting the Cord
Just Like the Big Boys          Smile!
Talk to Me                      Fighting Fraud
Picture This                    Investment Insights
Bell's Baby                     Taking Aim
Wats New?                       Information, Please
Is This Heaven?

Reprints are available by mailing a check for $2 per copy (to cover
postage) to:

    Telecommunications
    Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
    200 Burnett Road
    Chicopee, MA  01021

Checks should be made payable to Dow Jones & Company, Inc.  Allow four
weeks for delivery.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jerry Bass)
Subject: AT&T System 25 / Cellular Trunks
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:26:41 GMT


Please let me know if what I'm trying to do is possible.  I have an
AT&T System 25 PBX that is going into a prototype military mobile
shelter.  I would like to know (and how to) if I can connect / program
my switch to get dial tone from a subscriber line of another switch.
Also, I have two transportable cellular phones (Motorola) with THE
Cellular Connection(TM) interface boxes which emulate a wall jack (for
FAXes, etc).  I would like to be able to pick up any subscriber
extension on the System 25, dial an access code, and place a call over
the cellular phone.

The cellular interface box is such that I can plug a POTS phone into
it, pick up the receiver, and dial as if the POTS phone was plugged
into the wall.

If this makes sense:

What trunk cards would I need (I have TN760 cards, as well as ZTN78,
and ZTN79 cards)?

How would I program the trunks?

I'd appreciate any help and I can provide additional info if necessary.


Jerry Bass               [e-mail]
The MITRE Corporation    Bedford, MA

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 9:00:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Florida Areas 305 and 813


I have received the following from David Leibold (DLEIBOLD@vm1.
yorku.ca):

> I noticed that 305 (Miami, Ft Lauderdale) has gone to 1 + 305 + number
> dialing intra-NPA, as mentioned in the April 92 Ft Lauderdale book
> (but no mention of it in Miami's book from Sept. 1991). Haven't seen if
> 407 has gone the same route or not, but did see some of the 813 stuff
> (813 is interchangeable NXX, or soon will be) ...

The history.of.area.splits file in the archives does have a note about
813 using 1 + NPA + 7D for long distance within it.  But this is new
information regarding area 305, which was split four years ago
(Orlando, West Palm Beach, etc., went to 407 then), and at that time
WITHOUT N0X/N1X prefixes.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISDN Fantasy
Date: Mon 18 May 1992 11:40 -0500


Would it be nice if there were the electronic equivalent of leaving a
business card?  In particular, a text (ASCII?) message that I could
leave in addition to or in place of voice mail.  While one can
implement this without ISDN, ISDN provides the appropriate mechanism
for standardizing the necessary protocols.

Oh well, I'll have to setting for synthesizing voice so that the
receiving system can do speech to text following the precedent of
Text-> Fax-> OCR-> Text.

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

Subject: ISDN Charging
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:37:56 MDT
From: [e-mail]


One of the major drawbacks of residential ISDN service is the per
minute charging on the line.  In the case of PacBell, and probably the
other RBOCs, ISDN has been tariffed as part of Centrex.  If someone
wanted to use ISDN as a lower cost internet connection, couldn't they
set up a two line Centrex, one line in their house and the other at
the destination?  I don't believe that RBOCs charge for calls between
extensions in a Centrex group.


barry

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 15:55:06 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Georgia 404/706 Split - Prefix List


As of 3rd May '92, the 706 area code should be active for areas in
northern Georgia outside Atlanta Metro calling area. There will be
"permissive" dialing of either 404 or 706 area codes until 3rd Aug '92
at which point area 706 becomes mandatory, while 404 is only used in
the Atlanta Metro calling area.

A list of prefixes, plus an indication of whether or not they stay 404
or go 706 will be submitted for the Archives.


[e-mail] (and a cast of other addresses)


[Moderator's Note: I have the file from Dave and it will be available
in the next day or two in the archives, which is accessible using
anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu (then 'cd telecom-archives' when on line
at MIT). Use your name@site as password, please.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Anyone Try Forwarding to a 900 Number?
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 19:46:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Has anyone tried forwarding a REGULAR telephone to a 900 number?

Make sure you have two phones that are separately billed (in different
names would be better).  Verify what features are available on both
phone lines just to be sure of switch capabilities.

Pick a 900 service that you know is not a scam (there really are many
of them) and has a low rate or something you really want anyway (don't
know how many of these there are).

Line B needs call forwarding feature scubscribed to.  Set the
forwarding to the 900 number.

Make sure neither line A or line B have 900 blocked.

Call line B from line A and see if you even get to the 900 service.
If you get there, do whatever is needed to acquire some service and
ensure a billable charge.

Now wait and see which line the charge comes in on.

If the charge comes in on the bill for line A, then I see a serious problem.

I don't know, but I could suspect the possibility that whatever
happens could very well be different depending on the capabilities of
the switches, especially where line B is.

This might be tried with line A and line B on the same switch as well as
on different switches.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Litzinger)
Subject: Have I Been Slammed?
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 18:30:16 GMT


Through a clever bit of manipulation on my part (I least I think it
was clever) I was able to end up with no default long distance carrier
on my home phone line.  Thus I had a truly "equal access" phone
system.

(By the way, PacBell was dead set against my ending up with no default
LD carrier, but I managed it without their help.)

Now unfortunately, I seem to have been slammed.  When I dial '00' I
get a fast busy, but when I dial 1 700 555 4141 I get:

    Welcome to 1+ dialing, the carrier you have chosen has a code
    of 511. For further assistance please call your long distance
    company.

I'm afraid to dial a non-prefixed long distance number for fear of
astronomical charges.

Who are these people and how did they steal my default long distance
service?  Can I get rid of them?


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: No one stole anything from you!!!! The fact that
you get a rapid re-order tone with 00 should tell you that. The fact
that the message you get from 555-4141 says to 'call your long
distance company' rather than naming one in particular should give you
a few hints also. Try calling some long distance number with one plus.
If it starts to ring (which I doubt), just hang up if you are so
worried about 'astronomical charges'. In all probability you will
either get re-order tone or like in Chicago, a recording saying your
call cannot be completed as dialed. Then try zero plussing an LD call
as well, and note the same results. Incidentally, why are you making
this (no LD carrier) imposition upon yourself?   PAT]

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

Subject: Video Conference Information Wanted
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:27:57 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)


I am looking for companies that can supply a videoconference link
between London UK and Campbell Ca, USA.  We would like to have
equipment on our premises and be able to `dial' up a link on damand
(some set up delay is OK).  I am aware of services within the US that
use switched 56 or similar and services that are based on the providor
owned `studio'.

I have had no luck finding a customer primises based solution that is
usable on an international line.

The idea is that the company saves the 8K$ a month it costs to fly me
to london for one three hour meeting (not to mention the week of my
time spent travelling etc).

Any thoughts?


John Pettitt     Specialix International
([e-mail] or [e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #396
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05431;
          19 May 92 2:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16508
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11497
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:42 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:32:42 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #397

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 May 92 00:32:40 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 397

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Sharon Crichton)
    Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone (Jim Rees)
    Re: Polarity: Red = Negative? (Randy Gellens)
    Re: What Telcos REALLY Want (Chet Wood)
    Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:55:55 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: 800 to 900 Calls: Isn't This Double-Billing?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


   Let's stop at least some of the confusion on call forwarding
before we get someone rushing out a new set of requirements we don't
need.

   For example, in message <[e-mail]>, deej@
cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes:

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

>> I presume the ability to forward the 800 => 900 will be viewed as an
>> "oops" and will be blocked in short order.  But that does raise
>> interesting questions about the propagation of ANI and CID information
>> through forwarding.  What are the technical rules?

> There are no "technical rules" (standards or Bellcore specifications)
> regarding the propagation of ANI (Billing Number) on forwarded calls.
> ANI is only specified (in T1.104 and a Bellcore FSD) across an
> Exchange Carrier / Interexchange Carrier interface.  Forwarding is
> outside the scope of these specifications.

   To reword David's statement somewhat, there is no requirement to
"propagate" ANI beyond it's two intended uses.  These are:

1) ANI from non-AMA offices so that billing can be done at a
   CAMA (Centralized AMA) office.  This is in the LSSGR, FSD
   20-20-0000 (part of TR-TSY-000520).  The billing stuff is in
   the AMA part (Section 8.1, TR-TSY-000508).

2) ANI is sent from CO to IXC/INC on Equal Access (FG-D) calls,
   and it happens to be sent THROUGH an Access Tandem (AT), if one is
   involved in the originating LATA portion of the call.  (That is,
   the AT doesn't see or repeat the ANI digits -- it's already cut
   through to the IXC.)

   The "interim" FG-B capability allowed IXCs to receive ANI for calls
originating on the CO , but relied on the existing ANI capabilities of
1) above.  An AT was not required to repeat ANI on indirect IXC access
in this case.

   Note that there is no way to take either of these requirements and
arrive at a capability for "forwarding" ANI.  Some vendors have
implemented such capabilities in order to implement various Operator
and other "private" network capabilities, but these are not using
"Call Forwarding" to cause this "forwarding" of ANI.

   The above referenced AMA specification has a paragraph 8.1.1.8,
"Vertical Services - Call Forwarding" that states:

   "For AMA purposes, a forwarded call is treated ... as if the remote
    station [the 'forward-to' destination] were dialed by the base
    station [the 'forwarding' telephone]."

   That is, the original caller is NEVER charged for the forwarding
leg of the call.  And for the AMA stuff to work properly, ANI cannot
be forwarded from the caller to the remote station.  Regardless of
hearsay, the standard Call Forwarding feature wouldn't forward ANI for
incoming 800 to outgoing 900 calls, or for any other calls.

> For Caller ID, the feature interactions specified in the Bellcore TRs
> require the original calling party number to be delivered to the
> forwarded-to address, if the forwarded-to address subscribes to CID.

   True, and one -- of many -- reasons why ANI and Caller ID are not
the same, and cannot be used to replace each other.

> Note that in a SS7 Network Interconnect environment, this could lead
> to both the original calling party number and the forwarding number to
> be sent to an IXC; the original CPN in the Calling Party Number
> parameter, and the forwarding number in the Charge Number parameter
> (since the forwarding is billed to the forwarding party).

   Actually, the forwarding number is in the Original Called Number
parameter.  There may be a 'Billing Number' associated with the
forwarding number, and the Charge Number would not reflect the number
actually doing the forwarding.  In fact, Charge Number may not even be
a valid number -- it's only REQUIRED use is in billing.

>> More interesting, what are the ISDN protocols for dealing with
>> forwarded calls.  Can the caller find out that the call was forwarded
>> and via what forwarding path?

> Draft proposed American National Standards for Calling Line
> Identification Presentation and Call Forwarding call for the original
> calling party number to be carried in the Calling Party Number
> parameter (in SS7) or CPN IE (in DSS1 - ISDN access signaling) and up
> to two forwarding numbers (first and last) to be carried in the
> Redirecting Number parameters (SS7) or IEs (DSS1).  The Redirecting
> Number IE also has a "Reason for redirection" field, which would
> presumably be set to "Call Forwarding Unconditional" or whatever the
> case is.

   The "reason for redirection" is in the SS7 Redirection Information
parameter (separate from the Original Called Number and Redirecting
Number [last forwarding number]).  There are fields indicating the
reason for forwarding at both numbers, as well as a count of the total
number of forwardings encountered (limit is around ten).

>> I presume it would be too much to expect that the called party would
>> be able to use the back channel to interrogate the links (subject to
>> access control and privacy considerations).  There are a number of
>> attributes that would be of interest including the ability to ask the
>> caller for authorization for certain kinds of services and billing.

   That sounds like User-to-User information to me -- David's more of
an expert there.  But all the Numbers mentioned above are available to
ISDN switches -- but most users are set up to receive only one or the
other (depends on the 'service' being offered).  When we start to
interwork with Cellular, it'll be a mess, cause many of the services
depend on inter-switch calls "dropping" the forwarding information.
Perhaps "depend" is not correct -- but Users that have experimented
with forwarding and Voice Mail will complain when the SS7 "improvements"
come along, and change their "world view".

   Note that CCITT has defined a Redirection Number (not 'Redirecting')
that is sent in the backward direction (to the caller) to inform them
of the 'forwarded-to' number.  Fortunately, ANSI hasn't specified when
to use this one, or what to do with it if received.

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

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

>> [ ..... Incidentally, we've now discovered *how* the 800 <==> 900
>> scam works, ....  Incoming calls are *forwarded* to an unmentioned
>> 900 number, and ... the ANI the 900 number sees is not that of the
>> phone doing the forwarding to it, but that of the original caller.

> Apparently, what this means is that when call-forwarding is in effect,
> the ANI of the caller is also forwarded.

   Not with any standard Call Forwarding.  Anyone that can "send" ANI
not representing a number on the "forwarding" switch could send any
number they want for ANI on ordinary outgoing calls.  Very much
non-standard.

> What I'm wondering is, couldn't the central office switch designers
> offer an option to block forwarding of the original caller's ANI *if*
> the call is forwarded to a 900, 700, or 976 type number?  In such a
> case it could substitute the number of the phone actually doing the
> forwarding.

   But that's what real Call Forwarding does anyway.

   Now, that's not to say that "programmable" 800 numbers might not
work by playing games with ANI, but that's NOT Call Forwarding.  And
since the BOCs and IXCs control (or soon will) their 800 number
routing, there may be all sorts of unusual interactions to be worked
out.


Al Varney - the above is not an official opinion of AT&T.

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

From: [e-mail] (Sharon Crichton)
Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 14:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Nick Sayer) writes:

> I just got a tricky piece of literature from Pac$Bell.  Ostensibly it
> is an offer for some service that purports to help those who work at
> home, and includes a card which you mail back to make an appointment
> for a sales drone to call you, etc, etc.

> Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that Pac$Bell used calling
> patern data to pick out those customers who seem to use their
> residential lines for business purposes with the intention of using a
> response to this "offer" as ammunition to get them switched to
> business rates.

> Did anyone else get this mailer? Am I just paranoid, or is Pac$Bell
> trying to be tricky?

Ohio Bell sent a similar mailer to me -- but I've never used my
residential line for anything but residential purposes. Ohio Bell's
offer was for three different pamphlets that you could order by
calling a special number, all dealing with working from your home and
how Ohio Bell can (supposedly) help you. It would seem that this is a
standard mailer that goes to everyone or a randomly selected group of
people.


Sharon Crichton           Mead Data Central
[e-mail]      P.O. Box 933
uunet!meaddata!sharonc    Dayton, OH 45401
                          FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Wiring Question in Old Telephone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 16:11:42 GMT


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

> I just got hold of a Princess phone myself, and have a different question.
> Does anyone out there know where I can get the transformer you need to power
> the lighted dial?

I often see the WE transformers at garage sales and thrift shops for
about a dollar.  The part number is WE 2012A.  They are labelled "6-8
vac" but mine puts out 14 volts no-load, 10 volts into a single 1A key
set lamp, or 8 volts into a Princess or Trimline dial light.

You don't really need the official Western Electric transformer.  Any
source of about 8-10 volts will do it.  I use 5 2v gel cells
(scavenged from old Mac Portable battery packs) trickle charged from a
WE transformer.  That way, when the power goes out, my Princess and
Trimline phone lights still work.  The same battery also supplies the
lights on my multi-line 1A key sets, and loop current for my intercom
line (the last button on each multi-line phone).

Speaking of 1A sets, I use these without the closet full of
electromechanical gizmos and the thick-as-your-wrist 25 pair cable.  I
re-wire them so that when you push a button and lift the handset, the
light comes on and the phone connects to the corresponding line.  The
hold button doesn't work, of course.  I use four-pair black station
cable and a RJ-45 connector (is that the right number?  It's a
four-pair RJ-11).  That gives me three lines plus power for the
lights.

When people come to my house and ask to use the phone, I point to one
of the three phones in the living room and say, "use line two."

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 18 MAY 92 19:44
Subject: Re: Polarity: Red = Negative?


In TELECOM Digest V12 #373, Michael A. Covington asks if polarity
still matters, and notes that his polarity was reversed after recent
repair work.

I moved into a new apartment last month, and had problems getting my
second line installed.  The manager of repair came out with a
repairman, and got it all hooked up (not even the drop had been done
originally).  While he was there, I asked him a few questions,
including if polarity still mattered.  He told me that they (GTE)
don't worry about polarity any more, that most phones (except some WE
equipment) can handle it either way.  Others have said that digital
switches adjust polarity to match your phone when you go off-hook.


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
If mail bounces, forward to [e-mail]
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

From: arc![e-mail] (chet wood)
Subject: Re: What Telcos REALLY Want
Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA
Date: 12 May 92 13:26:31


On 2 May 92 20:34:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John Higdon) said:

> A recent story on the front page of the {San Francisco
> Chronicle} is a great indicator of the future of telephony as
> seen from the eyes of an LEC. "Pac*Bell to Unveil 'Dial-a-Movie'
> Plan" describes a system that would allow movies to be
> distributed to theaters and others digitally via fiber optic
> lines. It would take three minutes to transmit the
> highly-compressed data that represents a two-hour movie.

> There you have it, folks. Message to the EFF: Pac*Bell has not
> the slightest interest in offering ISDN to the masses. ISDN
> would only fulfill the public's basic communications
> requirements. It would not fill Pac*Bell's cash registers the
> way something as exciting as Dial-a-Movie would. So what is
> Pac*Bell doing to move ISDN along?  Probably nothing.

May I suggest another motive? One that John might sympathize with?
Perhaps Pac*Bell is pushing the movie idea as a way to get the PUC to
start allowing fiber in the local loop.

They can tell the PUC, "look, there _is_ a use for this technology."
Then they can cook some books and allege that the ratepayer will
ultimately benefit.


Just a thought. (My own -- not my company's!)


Chet Wood    [e-mail]   [phone] X269
Advansoft Research Corporation
4301 Great America Parkway, Suite 600
Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want)
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 05:18:07 GMT


Pacific Bell ISDN is not available solely in "downtown business
districts."  It is available in the CO "I grew up in," so to speak, in
Fair Oaks, CA.  There are no major businesses, big plants, etc.,
served from this CO.  It is in suburban Sacramento, definately not
rural, but not downtown, either.  I think that one of the big issues
right now is that ISDN is possibly offered by Pacific Bell only from
DMS-100's.  Most of Pacific Bell's switches are 1AESS or 5ESS at this
point.

Although I'm no big fan of Pacific Bell in general, there are some
points of their ISDN offering that they are doing RIGHT:

1.  Charging data calls in exactly the same manner as voice calls,
which means standard message units for local calls, and regular toll
rates for intra-LATA long distance.  Also, they support inter-LATA
data calls withing California in conjunction with several IXCs, at
least one of which charges the same as voice calls.  (Compare this
with what other RBOCs have done with ISDN -- charge large premiums for
"data" calls, which of course use the same 56/64Kbps channels that
voice calls do)

2.  Offering 2B+D as the standard BRI.  Isn't some RBOC back east
offering an ultra-lame 1B+D as their base offering?

3.  Supporting packet data on the D channel between subscribers.

4.  Making it available in dozens of COs in their territory.  Although
universal availability on all digital switches would be nice, the
current state of affairs is a lot better than many states.  I asked US
West what they're doing with ISDN in Washington State, and all they
have going is a trial in one CO in Olympia that supports intra-CO
calls only.  Oh, by the way, they HAVE recently announced a service
that allows FAX store-and-foward, as well as FAX overflow, which is
something that any company could provide.  They put their resources
toward something that anyone can do, while ignoring things like ISDN
that only TPC can do.

What they're doing WRONG, IMHO:

1.  Bundling with Centrex.

2.  No residential ISDN tariff, although you can have the business
version installed in a residence if you like.

3.  Not deploying it on the 5ESS switches.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #397
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07536;
          19 May 92 3:06 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29987
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19723
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 01:15:31 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #398

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 May 92 01:15:26 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 398

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Phil Howard)
    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Henry E. Schaffer)
    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Carl Moore)
    Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (David Lemson)
    Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Mark Cavallaro)
    Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet (David Kuder)
    Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet (David B. Whiteman)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Dave Strieter)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Sean E. Williams)
    Re: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Limitations on Dialed Digits (Alan L. Varney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 21:27:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes:

> This is a little story about an experience I had last week with
> Illinois Bell, trying to get them to correct an error in their
> handling of calls to an exchange near Green Bay, Wisconsin.

[long story not included]

This sounds like the problem I had with IBT calling Springfield which
is outside of my Market Service Area.  Calls via a LD carrier were all
being intercepted saying I did not need to dial a carrier access code
for the number (as if it were in my Market Service Area).  Dialing
with no access code (my default carrier is "none") yielded the
expected intercept.  The AT&T operator (10288-0) was able to put the
call through.  They were able to get through for themselves at 611 but
said they would get the problem fixed.  Two days later it was fixed.

But why does it take two days?  Would it have been possible, had I or
someone talked to the appropriate technical person, to have it added
to the table right on the spot (or delete from the wrong table
depending on the real cause of the problem).

I also had the reverse problem once calling within the MSA (to
Paxton).  That problem was intermittent (sometimes it would go through
and sometimes not but when not, I recall the intercept recording
suggesting I needed to use a LD carrier, wrong).  I don't know if it
was ever fixed.

> You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid
> disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local
> 'not in service' message from that CO.

I called from within U of I in Urbana (217-244) and I got the "not in
service" message so it seems to be working from here.

It might be nice if there was a standardized four digit suffix that
was usable to verify access to a specific exchange ... it should state
the number and location (city,state) of the exchange.  But I suspect
that it is now too late to have one single suffix for all exchanges to
do it.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 13:33:32 GMT


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

> You might like to see if 414-592 is working in your telco. To avoid
> disturbing any subscribers, try 414-592-0366 which will return a local
> 'not in service' message from that CO.

I tried it both with Southern Bell/AT&T and also with our State
network which is part of MCI's VNET.  In both cases I got the SIT/'not
in service' message.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:01:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors


In response just now:

I got through to "not in service" for 414-592-0366.  I used 9+ 0 + NPA
+ 7D from my office phone, then charged to my AT&T card number (the
carrier defaulted to AT&T).  (I am in area code 410 in Maryland.)

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 03:09:25 GMT


/PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@
sprint.com writes:

> Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology
> problem.  Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system,
> sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the
> computer hears their voices as a command.  That's the complaint of

This was reported late last week (maybe Friday?) in {USA Today} that
the major problem was on Rolm systems, where the # (hash or pound) key
means 'abort this message I'm recording'.  It seems that some female
voices are too close to the # for the Rolm systems (which is pretty
amazing to me, doing DTMF with one set of vocal chords).  I guess the
ROLM's are just pretty sensitive.


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the correct name for the '#' key on the
phone is 'octothorpe', as we discussed in great detail in a special
issue of the Digest back in 1989.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women
Date: 18 May 92 08:32:06 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


In article <[e-mail]>, /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/
OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes:

> Women with high voices are the victims of a strange new technology
> problem.  Voice mail, the computerized telephone answering system,
> sometimes hangs up on them or loses their messages because the
> computer hears their voices as a command.  That's the complaint of
> several big users of voice mail, which lets callers leave messages for
> office workers.

This is not a new problem.  In the early '80s when DTMF was first
being used in Com Lines in 1A2 systems, I found that we had similar
problems with high pitched voices.  In that case, the voice caused
additional stations to be buzzed.  We had to wait for the
manaufacturers to catch on and design proper filters into the system.
From the reports you have, any particular system or brand name having
this problem?


Regards,

Mark Cavallaro


[Moderator's Note: Per the {USA Today} article and the earlier message
here today, Rolm seems to be the culprit right now.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 22:46 PDT
From: [e-mail] (David Kuder)
Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA


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

> When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual
> city?  This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities
> like L.A.  and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities
> (like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census.

Just a quibble: The county of Lost Angels (aka Los Angeles) has
several dozen cities.  The city of LA has many neighborhoods.  Burbank
is a city with its own government.  As is Beverly Hills.  Hollywood is
just a neighborhood in LA.

There exists considerable confusion between which is a city and which
is a neighborhood.  The US Postal Service doesn't believe that Van
Nuys is a part of the city of Los Angeles and insists that mail be
addressed to Van Nuys.  Game shows try to make it seem like everyone
isn't from LA by making folks come from Encino or North Hollywood.
Also WEST Hollywood is a city, while Hollywood isn't.  Universal City
isn't a city or a neighborhood but an unincorporated chunk of the
county.


David A. Kuder   510 438-2003  [e-mail]
{uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon May 18 02:22:12 1992
From: [e-mail] (David B. Whiteman)
Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 09:22:09 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
writes:

MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!!  (213/818/310) That's just the city!

If you want to be a real trivia buff and nit picker according to the
city limits as defined in the charter of the City of Los Angeles there
are portions of Los Angeles in the following area codes: 213, 310,
818, 714, 619, 805 and maybe 209.  The trick is that the city owns
water and power facilities all over the state, and because the city
was chartered under some section of the state consitution as opposed
to most of the other California cities these facilites owned by the
city are considered to be legally in the city of Los Angeles.

Ignoring this loophole only, the LA consists of the area codes 213,
310, and 818.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 12:19:18 MST
From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 19:18:57 GMT


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

>>  (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 ...

> Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful?  Unless
> you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and
> plays the message you recorded.

I suppose one could make a case that the call was "initiated" by the
person who originally left the message, and that the service is merely
forwarding it.


    Dave Strieter,  AG Communication Systems,  Phoenix AZ 85072-2179
   *** These are not my employer's positions...just my ramblings. ***
UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd    (AG = AT&T + GTE)
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]     Voice: [phone]

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

Date: 18 May 1992 20:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"


[e-mail] (Ron Jarrell) writes:

> Wait, does this mean that AT&T's Message Service is unlawful?  Unless
> you request human delivery the computer calls your desired party and
> plays the message you recorded.

I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I do know that AT&T's
Message Service does honor the laws of individual states regarding
automated message delivery.

The last time I tried delivering a message within New York it told me
that to comply with state laws the message was required to be
introduced by an operator.  I can't recall if there was an extra
charge, however.


Sean E. Williams, Student ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences
Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology
Rochester, New York 14623-5689

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

Date: Sat, 16 May 92 12:28:50 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Televised Weather Coverage Using Cellular Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail]


If people on this list are more interested in followup on this topic
(and weather in general), a number of LISTSERV lists exist at UIUCVMD
(BITNET) or vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (internet) to provide weather information
and discussion.  A good start is to get on WX-TALK, the general
discussion list.  Since it is a LISTSERV, you send a mail message with
the single line:

  SUBSCRIBE WX-TALK <your full name>
  to the address LISTSERV AT UIUCVMD (BITNET) or
  [e-mail] (internet) to get on the list.


internet   mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)

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

Date: Sun, 17 May 92 03:30:00 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?


Rob Schultz writes:

> A bag phone might work somewhat better, but we have
> also considered installing a car phone in the boat with the antenna at
> the top of the mast.  Does anyone have any experience with this?
> Would a normal car antenna work?  This should give us much broader
> coverage due to the increased power and the higher mount of the
> antenna.

Shakespeare makes a 2' and 4' fiberglass cellular antenna for boats.
They use the standard 1" ratchet mount.  Cost is about $50 for the 2'
and $100 for the 4' w/o mount.  There are well made and include RG-8X
coax rather than RG-58.  I suspect you will experience quit a
difference in range compaired to the handheld as you will get a 7 dB
in power from the 3 W portable, and you should gain at least 10 dB by
replacing the rubber duckie with a ressonant high gain antenna.
Antennas make a big difference in rural AL, Pat says in Chicago,
anything will get the job done.

You probally know of a better source for the antennas that I do, but
if you can't find the let me know, and I will look up where I bought
one from.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Dialed Digits
Organization: AT&T Network Systems
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Esan)
writes:

> I am aware that the CCITT has recommended a maximum number of digits
> in a dialing pattern.  That is the combination of the country code,
> city code, and telephone number should not exceed some number.  Sadly,
> I can not remember what that number is, and there has been a request
> for that information.

  CCITT Recommendation E.163 identifies World Zones and the various
country codes, and may also identify the 'authority' responsible for
administering the codes within zones/countries.  Recommendation E.164
specifies other details of numbering plans, including the 12 digit
current limit.  E.165 discusses the conversion from the 12 digit to 15
digit plan.  At time "T" (one minute before 1997), CCITT will allow
international numbers to expand to 15 digits, and suggests up to six
digits may be needed in routing international calls.

  Unfortunately, I don't remember any maximum number of digits in a
dialing pattern -- E.165 says 12 (15 soon) digits in the actual full
telephone number.  But when you start adding prefix codes, you can
have all sorts of digits involved.  I think each administration sets
the "prefix" rules, including the digit prefix called the "interna-
tional number prefix".  If you are planning on building memory dialers
for telephones (for example), you'd better start allowing ten prefix
digits plus the 15 number digits in order to handle international
calls.  (101XXXX + Intl. Prefix + Intl. Number).  Even more, if you
want to allow *70 to keep call waiting off the call, etc.

> Does the maximum number of digits include the international access
> number?  Does someone have the address for the CCITT so that we could
> obtain documentation, or actually ask them what the limit is?

  Nope, international access prefix is not CCITT's responsibility.
They recommend '00', but countries/authorities are free to choose.
World Zone 1 mostly uses '01' for operator and '011' for direct dial.

   The E.160, 163, 164 and 165 documents are also published as
Recommentations Q.10, Q.11, Q.11bis and Q.11ter, so save yourself some
money if you don't need the E-series for anything else.  The E.16x
series is in Volume II, Fascicle II.2.

CCITT published Recommendations are available from:

      OMNICOM
      115 Park St., S.E.,      [phone]   FAX:[phone]
      Vienna, VA  22180        TELEX  279678 OMNI UR

> [If the limit is 11, as I suspect, wouldn't this stop those people who
> want to add an extra digit to the US dialing pattern?]

   The limit is currently 12 -- World Zone 1 has agreed on ten digits
for the national (significant) number, and the Country Code (1) is
pre-pended to make a total of 11 digits.  As I mentioned in a previous
article, the "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal
On The Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", published as an
Information Letter from Bellcore, Jan. 6, 1992, states there is no
reason for going beyond ten digits in the next 30 years or more.
There are 80 NPAs reserved for eventual expansion (and some games
could be played with the 'N' digit of 'NXX' office codes.  I agree
with the premise that seven billion numbers are unlikely to be
exhausted by then -- I never understood the rationale for wanting to
go to 11 (national) digits.  By mid-21st century, numbers will
probably not be "dialed", and it makes sense to go to 12+ digits when
the time comes.

The Bellcore document is IL-92/01-013, but it was a request for comments
by 4/30/92.  Further queries should be directed to Fred Gaechter at:

   NANP Administration
   Bellcore - Room 1B234
   290 West Mt. Pleasant Avenue
   Livingston, NJ 07039

Al Varney - this is not an Official view or opinion of AT&T.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #398
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09428;
          19 May 92 3:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06366
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06890
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:12 -0500
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 01:58:12 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #399

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 May 92 01:58:12 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 399

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Chuck Forsberg)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Andy Sherman)
    Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Mark D. Wuest)
    Re: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Integretel Past Due (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Charles Stephens)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Peter Simpson)
    Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers (Sean E. Williams)
    Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet (Mark Rudholm)
    What Ever Happened to Randy Borow? (Alan J. Brumbaugh)
    Area 917 Not Working From Canada? (Carl Moore)
    Last Laugh! Elephants (Nigel Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 23:55:32 -0500
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?


[e-mail] (Patrick Tufts) writes:

> Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls?  Since you'd have
> to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this
> sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you
> made the call from your home phone?

   Who says 10xxx is blocked for local calls?  Last June, C&P's
Switching system for local calls went down in Washington, DC, and
seven digit calls would not go through.  I merely prefixed my calls
with 10xxx + 1 + areacode and number.  Worked every time.  (MCI
charged me $.80 a call, so I wouldn't recommend doing this instead of
using C&P ...)

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 9:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?


>  Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls?  Since you'd have
>  to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this
>  sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you
>  made the call from your home phone?

I subscribe to Long Distance North for my home long distance sevice.
When I signed up they provided stickers that said:

      "Dial 1 700 for savings
       Remember, for instate long
       distance calls dial 1-700
       plus the 7-digit number."

I thought this was pretty cool.  Apparently when my call gets to their
switch, their switch strips the 700 and translates it to 603.


kath mullholand         university of new hampshire         durham, nh


[Moderator's Note: I wonder how that will work out when the new 700
service from AT&T gets started ... in fact I wonder how many of the
various special schemes going on in the 700 range will be forced into
prepending 10xxx to avoid conflict with the new bunch of numbers?  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 02:57:22 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations


henry schaffer writes:

> I wonder what fraction of the outside plant connecting the home to the
> CO will support ISDN even if the home is within 18,000 feet (is that
> the magic number?)  In a trial I heard of, over half of the homes to
> be hooked up were "rejected".

> Have tests been made to determine what percentage of subscribers are
> connected by outside plant which would allow ISDN?

Bell Labs released a nationwide survey of loops in 1982.  In 1987,
Bellcore updated this study and interpreted it with respect to ISDN.
There findings were that something like 34% of the several thousand
loops examined were unsuitable for ISDN due to bridge taps, load
coils, loop lengths, etc.

Loops that fail the length spec can have a ISDN repeater installed, or
prehaps the customer could be served off a BRITE card in a SLC-96,
though this will require three slots in the D4 shelf vs. one for a
POTS line.

Loading coils and bridge taps can also be dyked out of the loop, the
former is often removed to improve modem or FAX preformance.


Pat Turner     KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
Date: Mon, 18 May GMT 10:38:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Loren Amelang) writes:

> Mr. Benjamin agrees with me that writing "4800 baud" into the general
> phone tariff is not a good thing to do -- but he and his office

4800 baud should be plenty!  Just make sure they use the correct
definition for BAUD.


Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX   ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc    "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD   Portland OR 97231   503-621-3406

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 09:03:08 EDT


On 17 May 92 21:10:31 GMT, [e-mail] (Loren
Amelang) said:

> Pacific Bell has petitioned the California Public Utilities
> Commission for permission to discontinue Data Access Line
> service.  In return, they propose to "support analog data
> communication at up to 4800 baud" on all of their standard
> voice phone lines.

> Of course we all know that ordinary phone lines in urban areas
> work at 9600 and higher rates.  But on the ragged edge of the
> network where I live, it is often impossible to get any kind of
> phone line, let alone one that will work with a modem.  What
> will happen a few years from now when the big money has
> switched to ISDN or Switched 56 and Pac Bell doesn't want to
> bother with us small fry?

Careful here with terminology.  PacBell could get hoist on their own
petard with this one.  Everybody should please remember that baud is
not a synonym for bits per second.  The baud rate has to do with
carrier transitions.  If you put across more than one bit per
transition, then your data rate (in bits per second) will be some
integer multiple of the baud rate.  I am fairly certain that the high
speed modems operating at 9600 bps (and higher) do so at 2400 or 4800
baud, using a combination of multi-bit transmission and data
compression.  A tariff that specified only the baud rate and not the
data rate could leave you a loophole big enough to drive at least a
V.32 through.  I wonder if the regulatory dweebs at PacBell realize
that?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 12:37:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Albert Pang) writes:

> I have noticed today when I received a long distance call from Ottawa
> that my caller ID display device shows the number (out of area code)
> that called me including the area code.

> I believe this is the first in North America (please correct me if I
> am wrong).  I think this only works for certain switches operated by
> Bell Canada within Quebec and Ontario.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Bell Canada a regulated monopoly like
AT&T used to be here in the US?  If so, then you have the same
situation as when I call home (201 area code) from my office (908 area
code).  This is all carried by NJ Bell (they only split the 201 area
recently, though the grace period is long gone) and my Caller ID
displays all calls from the 908 area code, but not calls from across
the river in 212 land.


Mark Wuest   [e-mail]   [e-mail] (NeXT Mail Welcome!)

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 8:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: AT&T Fraud Prevention Announcement


So, let me get this straight.  AT&T, the company that developed long
distance calling, and the company that pressured the FCC into setting
guidelines that make unsuspecting customers responsible for fraud even
though their switches are purchased and installed by AT&T with fraud
magnets in place (unprotected DISA ports, for instance), will now
"save" us from fraud (for a price).


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire  durham, nh

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 10:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Integretel Past Due


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> The $4.69 which I withheld because of the duplicate Integretel billing
> has shown up as past-due on my latest phone bill, which arrived
> yesterday.  This should be considered to be in dispute, with the rest
> of last month's phone bill having been paid.

Don't forget that even after the charge is removed from your local
phone bill, you will then receive a bill from "VRS Billing Systems".

Funny thing about the VRS bill is it says in a nice black box at the
top "These calls were charged to your telephone number and have *not
been billed* by your local telephone company.  *Payment is due upon
receipt to ensure continued access to services.*"

(Italics *...* mine.)  Note that it says the calls have not been
billed, when in fact every VRS bill I have received has been a rebill
of disputed calls.  And since it implies that if you don't pay there
is no assurance of continued access to services, I assumed if I didn't
pay it they would block those services #8-).  With that in mind, I
called and asked them to block Integretel services from all of UNH's
lines.  They said it just couldn't be done #8-(.  After some
discussion I said, "well, we won't be paying this bill," and their rep
said "OK".

I like billing services that give me permission to ignore their bills
#8-).  The ones I have are all from 1991, and not a single word has
been heard since.


kath


[Moderator's Note: Are they still billing you for the calls?   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference
From: [e-mail] (Charles Stephens)
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 13:27:35 EDT
Organization: COW Pastures


[e-mail] (Michael Rosen) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Just be glad your last four digits are not 0666;
> the crazy people would be harassing you all the time.  PAT]

        You know, here in the 404 area code/dialing exchange you can
dial 666-6666 and get a great song from Ole Scratch himself!


Charles Stephens, SysOp, COW Pastures BBS, Kennesaw, GA  [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >INTERNET: [e-mail]
Prodigy: NOT!  IVCNTWPAHR: [phone]  ICBM:  <CENSORED>

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Z. Simpson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Date: 18 May 92 13:14:04
Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA


    Friend of mine once worked as an (engine room) engineer on the
"Long Lines." He (and others) told me about the amplifiers having
hydrophones in them for the benefit of the U.S. Navy. Seems
transatlantic cables are also handy for listening for submarines.


Peter Simpson, KA1AXY         voice: [phone]
Data General Corp.              fax: [phone]
4400 Computer Dr. E236     INTERNET: [e-mail] [128.221.228.82]
Westboro, MA  01580        #include  <std_disclaimer.h>

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

Date: 18 May 1992 20:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Fraud - Misuse of 800 Numbers


Pat notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I doubt Mystic subscribes to any data base. I think
> they probably 'knew' that 'payphones always begin 9xxx' and as good
> little drones to always challenge those.  COCOTS of course use all
> sorts of numbers.   PAT]

This is a very poor rule-of-thumb to use.  For the last few years
United Telephone, in central Pennsylvania at least, has been handing
out 9000 series numbers to all new subscribers.  Payphones are usually
issued numbers in the 99xx range.  I'm sure that this is not the only
occurrence.

Who was it that said "A little knowledge is dangerous ..."?


Sean E. Williams, Student ([e-mail])
Rochester Institute of Technology, School of Photographic Arts & Sciences
Department of Imaging and Photographic Technology
Rochester, New York 14623-5689

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Qualcomm CDMA Specs Available for FTP
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:57:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Rolf Meier) writes:

> First of all, "CAI" is most often used in conjunction with CT2
> technology.  To use "CAI" with the Qualcomm technology could cause
> some confusion in the industry.

You might do as we do, and whenever there is room for confusion call
it the CDMA CAI, or TR45-5.  Quite reasonable.

> Second, "Common" implies that the standard is used broadly by a
> variety of vendors such that interworking can occur with equipment
> from different suppliers.  At present, the proposed spec is
> proprietery to Qualcomm.

At present, the proposed spec is under the auspices of the TR45-5
subcomittee, which is indeed composed of a variety of vendors and
manufacturers.  Indeed, nor is Qualcomm the only company presently
implementing the CAI.

Having said that, "Common" only implies that this will be a common air
interface standard for CDMA phones, not that it is currently
widespread.

We might also note that Qualcomm CDMA also uses some frequency
division at a gross level, so that "CD" (Code Division) isn't
completely 100% accurate either if we want to make every word in every
ancronym pass a committee review.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 15:24:32 PDT
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet


In Volume 12 : Issue 390 Nigel Allen <[e-mail]> writes:

> MB> Los Angeles has 3 NPA's!!!!  (213/818/310) That's just the city!

> When you say "the city" do you mean the metro area or the actual
> city?  This is very confusing to folks in many places because cities
> like L.A.  and Atlanta include the whole county and even other cities
> (like Hollywood, Burbank, Beverly Hills, etc.) in their census.

This is incorrect.  First of all, the corporate limits of the city of
Los Angeles includes almost all of the San Fernando Valley, most of
the Los Angeles basin, and all of the Santa Monica mountain area that
is between the two.  The census information for the city of Los
Angeles (3,441,449 -1990 unadjusted for underenumeration) includes all
area that is part of the _city_ such as Hollywood, Westwood, Canoga
Park, Sherman Oaks, or Bel-Air.  These are all districts (or
"neighborhoods," if you prefer) of the city of L.A.

The census does not include "the whole county" or any area that is not
within the corporate limits of the city of Los Angeles, even if it is
totally surrounded by L.A., for example, Beverly Hills and West
Hollywood (these are independent cities with their own census data).
So that established, there are three area codes within the city of
L.A., 213 -roughly downtown and Hollywood, 310 -roughly the westside
and the south bay, and 818 -the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys.
If you consider the entire Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area,
(8,587,800 est. 1988) you are up to five codes; 213, 310, 818, 714,
and 805.

On another note, L.A. Cellular is still allowing 213/310 permissive
dialing.  This doesn't surprise me, they usually seem to take a while
to get their act together.


Mark D. Rudholm    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:24:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan J. Brumbaugh)
Subject: What Ever Happened to Randy Borow?


Pat,

Was there anything ever posted telling what happened after Randy
appealed his termination?  I didn't see it if there was.


Alan


[Moderator's Note: I haven't heard from Randy in several months. The
last I heard he was in the final appeals stage.  Anyone from AT&T
heard from/about him?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 9:14:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area 917 Not Working From Canada?


This also came from David Leibold:

While 917 was supposedly given to some NYC numbers already, I couldn't
raise up a directory assistance number for it last night, and all call
attempts to 917 from Toronto actually terminate after 1 + first seven
digits on some exchanges, indicating that Bell Canada has not
activated 917 yet.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Last Laugh! Elephants
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Brian Lingard of Toronto posted the following question in RelayNet's
PHONES conference:

How do you protect yourself from a herd of stampeding elephants on
downtown London, England with only a telephone to protect you?

Place a trunk call and reverse the charge.

<groan>


Nigel Allen       [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #399
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04173;
          20 May 92 2:07 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22050
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28979
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:03 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 00:09:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #400

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 May 92 00:08:56 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 400

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Brad Hicks)
    Modems Around the World (Jack Decker)
    Ordering Voice Service on T1 Using E&M Emulation (David Clapp)
    Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted (Seng Gan)
    1ESS and *67 (Arnette Schultz Baker)
    Local Calling Charges (Lizanne Hurst)
    System 7 Signaling in IEEE Proceedings ([e-mail])
    950 Sprint Access (Robert M. Hamer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Tue May 19 09:39:35 -0400 1992
Subject: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud


CLARIFICATION: Nowhere in any of my messages on this topic have I
denied that phreaking is a crime, nor did I intend to say or imply
that it shouldn't be a crime.  I am arguing for what used to be called
"decriminalization", or treating it as a crime on a par with illegal
parking or littering, because the social and financial costs of
wholesale investigation and prosecution exceed the social and
financial costs of ignoring all but the most egregious cases and using
the rest of that money to tighten up the network.

I hope that most people had enough common sense to know that stealing
a haircut at gunpoint differs from phreaking in several important
ways.  First of all, there is the obvious threat of violence.  More
relevant, though, is the fact that a haircut requires actual dedicated
resources and the full-time attention of at least one employee.  If
every phone call required the full-time supervision of one or more
phone company employees, this would be a valid metaphor.  It has a
been a LONG time since this was true.

NOW, to the point at hand.  Let's compare hacking a DISA to make
"free" long-distance phone calls to using a stolen credit card number
to obtain merchandise.  (Let me preface this: I know no more about the
subject than can be learned from any first-year college course on the
subject or than any credit-card accepting merchant gets told; it's not
my department.  I work in tech services, not rules and procedures.)

By now, y'all know what happens when somebody hacks a DISA.  They call
in to the company on the company's 800 number (which costs the
company), then they use the DISA to call Pakistan, or wherever, again,
on the company's phone bill.  In just about every case, the company
proves that they didn't make these calls, and gets one or both items
taken off their bill; it costs them only the minor administrative
headache of dealing with an RBOC's billing department, which seems to
me to be a fair price for practically leaving money laying on the
doorstep.

So, what got stolen and whom did it get stolen from?  Well, there were
trunk lines and so forth in use, both here and in Pakistan (or
wherever).  But since the exchanges are pretty well all non-blocking
and the capacity sufficient to handle peak loads, nobody was denied
use of it.  The company's LD carrier got stuck paying the foreign-PTT
interchange charge.  I certainly =hope= that there's a charge-back
procedure for errors in billing; I should think that it could be used
in these circumstances.  (If not, then what, is the Dutch PTT eating
the costs?  If so, then they obviously figure they can afford it; it's
probably less than the cost of enforcement.)  The money they would
have otherwise paid for a call to Pakistan?  Do you really think that
most phreakers could afford that call?

So nobody's actually missing any money or service, just some
administrative time cleaning up the billing and not much of that.

Now, let's compare this with the stolen credit card number.  There are
some similarities.  The thief makes a phone call to a mail order place
on their 800 number; they pay that.  He or she orders the merchandise
and if the merchant fails to make precautions like checking the
lost/stolen card list (mandatory) or address confirmation (a service
widely available but that some marginal operations refuse to pay for),
they ship a diamond bracelet or whatever to the thief.  They then bill
their bank for the transaction, and it bills the cardholder's bank,
and the cardholder's bank bills the cardholder.  (Notice, by the way,
that MasterCard, the corporation, doesn't enter into this transaction
in any way.)

Cardholder says he or she never made that purchase, and calls his or
her bank, and the bank initiates a chargeback.  The merchant's bank
charges back the mail order house, who admits they didn't do address
validation or whatever.  Sometimes it goes into dispute (and that's
where MasterCard, the corporation, gets involved, as a "court" for
such disputes between member banks), but it's a near certainty that
the cardholder isn't the one left holding the bag.  So either the mail
order vendor is out one diamond bracelet unpaid-for, or one of the
banks is out of the cash that should have paid for that diamond
bracelet.  In either case, either real money or real property is
missing.

In both cases, the person whose service (DISA, MasterCard) was used is
out nothing but the hassle of initiating a chargeback.  But in one
case, the service "stolen" was a tiny slice of bandwidth that impacted
nobody, and imposed no costs on anybody, and in the other, real
merchandise was stolen.  NOW do you see the difference?

Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of merchandise is being stolen
with stolen credit card numbers and forged cards.  Obviously, this
merits investigation and prosecution.  Tiny slices of network
bandwidth are being stolen by phone phreaks.  Does this cost-justify
the same level of effort?

And don't forget those social costs!  Retired phone phreaks
practically invented the personal computer industry.  If they had been
caught early and prosecuted and blacklisted, which some of you seem to
be calling for, America would be out one more industry.  What, if
anything, of value have credit-card thieves contributed to society?

By the way, I believe that the vast majority of what MasterCard spends
on credit card fraud DOES go into prevention and education; I know
that the part of member services that gives fraud-reduction seminars
and the part of the security department that helps merchants and banks
protect their transactions are much, much larger than the part of the
security department that investigates fraud after the fact.

OK, the PBX vendors have put some effort into warning people to
properly secure their DISA lines; that's why the person who wrote in
was embarrassed enough to hide his name.  He'd been warned that if he
didn't secure that feature, he'd get ripped off; he didn't, and he
was.  And MasterCard's member banks warn their merchants that if they
don't handle authorizations according to the rules, they'll get ripped
off.  Sometimes when they don't (most often, failing to check if the
card is stolen or to check the signature panel), they get ripped off,
too.  And guess what?  They were warned, so nobody feels any sympathy.
The theft was still a crime, and if the crook who was using the stolen
card gets caught, he'll be prosecuted -- but nobody should waste tears
on the victim.


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad

I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 16:13:12 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modems Around the World


This message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:

* From : Don Kimberlin, 1:379/37 (10 May 92 20:05)
* To   : Michael Shirley
* Subj : Re: Modems Around the World

(speaking of registering modems in the new Russia):

MS> Yup! During the coup attempt modems and fax machines are what the
MS> resistance communicated with. I'm willing to be that in the case of
MS> the former, somebody encrypted so that the KGB didn't quite know what
MS> was going on. Odds are that they are worried about it and want to get
MS> a handle on it.  What I can't figure is why worry when all that they
MS> really needed to do was to shut the phone exchange down.

This may be difficult for you to believe, so please take my word for
it, as I did 20 years-plus in travel to work _inside_ the "public
communications" of more than 70 countries on five continents.  The
real truth is, they are not equipped to do things like you might
think.

I got an insider`s story on the Russian coup that was really a typical
sort of thing.  It was that the beaurocrats in the USSR government-run
telephone system were so rigidly unthinking that it was _nobody's_ job
to send the written order to busy out the dial trunks to the US.  (You
may or may not have heard that the grand sum of them was 93 in total,
BTW!)

The result was that telephone dial service to the outside world was
never shut down, and some people from Yeltsin's crowd with fax
machines got messages out to Washington that got read in the right
places.

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction!  It's true: The Russians
never had a commissar sitting with a finger on the switch!


WM v1.01 [Unregistered]
Origin: BORDERLINE!BBS Kannapolis,N.C. [phone] (1:379/37)

                         ---------

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 20:51:45 PDT
From: David Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ordering Voice Service on T1 Using E&M Emulation


I'm currently trying to get some T1 circuits from PacBell that are
configured the way we'd like, but trying to find out just what is
possible seems to entail long delays. Perhaps a Telecom reader might
help?

Basically, we'd like a T1 cicuit that carries 12 DID lines and 12
outgoing lines. To get the supervision we need and to simplify the
interface to our equipment we'd like to use E&M emulation with
wink-start.

Our first attempt yielded 12 DID lines and 12 outgoing lines that were
configured as loop-start emulation. This does not provide any
supervision, so we called back and asked about E&M. At first we were
told "can't do it". A more knowledgeable colleague suggested I ask
about tie lines.

The repsonse was immediate. Tie lines were no problem to configure as
E&M. Of course, tie lines go premise-to-premise and not premise-to-CO.
However, if we really want premise-to-CO functionality and maintain
E&M signalling -- why not use Centrex?

They can easily provide ground-start emulation on the T1, but to get
E&M emulation we end up buying extra services that we don't need.

I keep having the feeling that if I knew the proper jargon to invoke,
I could get what I'm after. Thanks to anyone who can either tell me
what to ask for or can definitely explain why this can't or shouldn't
be done.


David Clapp       [e-mail]

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

Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted
Organization: Houston Unix Users Group
Date: 18 May 92 10:56:45 CDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Seng Gan)


Could someone recommend any cordless phone between US $50 to $100?  I
had used three cobra phones, they are unreliable.  Please e-mail me a
recommendation.


Thanks in advance,

Seng C. Gan     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:49 CDT
Subject: 1ESS and *67


I deleted the original message, but it was regarding the Canadian
Regulatory Ruling to require the Per-Call Privacy (Blocking) option
(*67) be made available.  The poster asked if it was "true" that *67
could not be used from a 1ESS.

The short answer is "yes, it is true."  The reason is that Caller-ID
is NEVER delivered from a Caller (DN) on a 1ESS.  The 1ESS, dependable
though it is, did not have the capacity to support the SS7 or LASS
software.  Without SS7, Caller-ID is never delivered outside of the
switch, and without LASS no one on a 1ESS can subscribe to Caller-ID
Delivery.  A Caller-ID subscriber will see "Unavailable", "Out of
Area", or some such designation on their "Box" for calls that
originate from a 1ESS, or other mechanical non-SS7 capable switch
(e.g. step-by-step, or crossbar).

Please note that the 1ESS is different from the 1A ESS.  The 1A ESS
does have full LASS, SS7, and Privacy Blocking Capability (with the
appropriate software).

The poster of the original article also expressed dismay at the fact
that *67 is a "Per-call Privacy Toggle".  Yes it is, now.  Once upon a
time there were two access codes, one for "force privacy" and one for
"force public" -- human factors studies and market trials of the CLASS
features brought in requirements for only one "toggle".  It seems that
there is still much debate on which way is "best" and I don't think
this has been totally settled yet.  However, for now there is no way
for your Telco to "allow *67 to block" but "disallow *67 to unblock"
and that is for ALL switches that offer per-call privacy toggle.  It
would take software changes in the switch, it is not something that
can be optioned.  Stay Tuned, next month's answer may be different! :)

[1A ESS and 1ESS are registered Trade Marks of AT&T.]


Arnette Schultz Baker    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 11:16:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Lizanne Hurst)
Subject: Local Calling Charges


I'd appreciate hearing from any colleges or universities who resell
service to students.  Here at Lehigh we have approximately 2000
student users who place the majority of their calls through our campus
switch, an InteCom IBX S/80.  Users are billed via an on-campus
billing system we developed several years ago, which uses IBX call
detail records to generate monthly bills.  Currently we charge only
for long distance calls; dial tone and local calling are free.

We're considering changing our billing structure so that it more
closely resembles residential LEC billing.  This means we'll have to
think about how to charge for local calls.  We're now trying to choose
the best option: a flat local calling/access charge, graduated local
calling packages, or a per-call charge.  Our billing system is quite
flexible, so all these options are feasible from that standpoint.

How are other colleges and universities billing their students for
local calls?  Please reply directly to me and I'll summarize for
comp.dcom.telecom if there's any interest.  Thanks!


Lizanne Hurst              Lehigh University
[e-mail]     Office of Telecommunications
[phone]             Bethlehem, PA  18015

Me, speak for Lehigh?  I can just about manage to speak for myself!

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

Subject: System 7 Signaling in IEEE Proceedings
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 08:22:21 -0700
From: [e-mail]


I don't think this has been mentioned yet in the Digest.

The April, 1992 issue of {IEEE Proceedings} has six papers on Signal
System 7.  The first three articles describe the nuts and bolts of
Signaling System 7 while the last three articles describe PacBell's,
Sprint's, and Motorola Cellular's approaches to the technology.

In detail and information, these papers are halfway in between the
pulp trade rags and the standards.  Check them out.  Most engineering
libaries should have IEEE Proceedings.


Malcolm

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 11:19 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 950 Sprint Access


My Sprint FON card gives 800-877-8000 as the number to which one calls
to access its long distance services.  There exists a 950 number,
950-1033, which also accesses the network.  However, it seems not to
accept my FON card number.  I remember historically, before equal
access, and before FON cards, I dialed a local number, entered my code
or PIN (I don't remember what they called it in those days), then the
number I was calling, etc.  I also remember that at some point they
changed the local number to a 950 number.  At some point, they sent me
a FON card, and whatever code I had been using on the 950 number no
longer worked.

Does anyone know what 950-1033 is for, and how to use it?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #400
******************************