Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss401-450

Internet Message Format | 1992-06-06 | 864.1 KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04389;
          20 May 92 2:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10143
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:38 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14619
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:30 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:30 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #401

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 May 92 00:29:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 401

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Steve Forrette)
    Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (Kurt Cockrum)
    Pricey 800 Calls (John Gruber)
    Call Forwarding Billing (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:46:55 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors


In article <[e-mail]> 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 deleted]

Well, Pat, welcome to the club!  I had a very similar experience about
a month ago, but the villian in my case was AT&T.  Only with the help
of my LEC (US West) was the problem solved.  This is interestingly
just the opposite of your experience.  I guess I'll start from the
beginning:

I live in Seattle, and my home phone is served from US West's 206-527
exchange.  I was trying to call a friend's cellular phone on 206-921,
which is in Vancouver, WA, and in the Portland LATA, thus an
inter-LATA call.  When I called, I got a "Your call cannot be
completed as dialed.  Please check the number and try your call
again." recording.  I did both, and got the same result.  I have
successfully dialed this number on at least a weekly basis for over 9
months, so I'm sure the number was correct, and I do know how to dial
properly, so the problem was not at my end.  From the voice, format,
and lack of identifying code, I could tell that it was a US West
recording, as opposed to a Cellular One or AT&T recording (the
Cellular One recordings have a distinctive voice that nobody else
uses, and the AT&T ones have a switch identifier at the end.  US West
uses a common voice, but with no switch identifier).  Also, by the
length of time before the recording started, it appeared that the
recording was at the far end.

So, I called the AT&T operator to ask for call completion assistance.
I knew that even if it wasn't their problem, they would be able to get
an inward operator in the Portland area which would be able to deal
with the problem.  At least that's what I thought.  (As an aside, I
had been a Sprint customer for over 6 years since I had a lot of calls
that were billed out to a client and my personal calls got to take
advantage of a substantial volume discount.  Now I just have personal
calls, and I thought that the superior operator service in times of
need was enough of a reason alone to pay the small premium for AT&T
service).  The operator tried to place the call, and she got the same
result.  I explained to her how I was sure the number was correct, and
how it had worked just a few days before.  I persisted that I wanted
her to look into it further.  Since she was getting the same
recording, this ruled out US West's part of the call on my end.  It
now had to be either in the AT&T network, or with US West on the
terminating end.  I asked her if she would contact an inward operator
with US West in Portland to have her try it.  The AT&T operator
responded that *this was not possible*.  She said that AT&T itself
handled all inward operator functions in US West territory, and that
it was not possible to contact a US West operator.  Her demeanor and
tone throughout the call indicated to me that she was honestly trying
to help, and that she was not making this up.  She did something which
connected her to an AT&T operator in Portland, but he was of no help.

I let it slip that this was to a cellular prefix, and this turned out
to be a mistake.  At this point, all blame was put on the cellular
carrier and the cellular subscriber.  Here are some of the
possibilities offered: perhaps the subscriber's phone was off, perhaps
they didn't pay their bill on time, perhaps they cancelled their
account, etc.  I kept pointing out that the recording was a US West
recording, and thus the call was never getting to the Cellular One
switch.  Whatever problems the subscriber might be having (and they
were having none) were irrelevant, since the call was never getting
that far.  This was a difficult point to try to get across to the
operator, and I don't think she ever got this point.  I eventually got
passed to a supervisor, who tried the call again, with the same
results.  She refused to do anything to correct the problem, and would
not offer any solutions other than to contact the cellular subscriber
through some other means and ask him what the problem was with "his
phone."

At this point, I decided to do some more investigation on my part, as
well as contact the cellular subscriber as suggested.  He knew nothing
of the problem, and his phone was working just fine for local calls.
I next tried to use another long distance carrier.  Using either 10222
or 10333 resulted in a call that completed normally.  So this
definately pointed the finger at AT&T, although it was still a mystery
as to why a US West recording was being played.  Also, since I had
contact the cellular subscriber at his residence, there was apparently
no general problem with calls to that area (I know this doesn't really
prove anything).

Armed with this irrefutable evidence that it was an AT&T-specific
problem, I called the AT&T operator back, and naturally got a
different one.  We tried the call again, with the same result, and
with no suggested solutions.  I did get one expert piece of advice,
however, from the AT&T operator: "I thought cellular phones went over
radio lines, not AT&T lines!"  It was clearly time for a supervisor.

The supervisor basically said the same thing as the previous one;
namely, that it just MUST be a problem in the cellular switch.  I
pointed out the evidence about the problem happening only when using
AT&T, and that it was a US West, not Cellular One, recording.  She
said "Well, it's definately not an AT&T recording, because our network
never gives recordings!"  And this was the supervisor. :-( Then she
tried to blame it on a billing problem, such as me not having paid my
bill on time.  I explained that this was definately not the case, and
there was no billing mistake, as I was able to call any other long
distance number using AT&T just fine.  It was only this specific
number that was having the problem.  "Well then, maybe the party you
are calling did not pay HIS AT&T bill on time!"  Why would this have
anything to do with it, as I was paying for the call!  "Well then,
maybe the other party as requested to not be able to receive AT&T
calls on his cellular phone."  First, this isn't even an option
anywhere I know of, and second, the recording is coming from US West -
the call isn't even getting to the cellular switch.  Basically, every
possible reason, and some impossible ones, were suggested as to why
this wasn't an AT&T problem, even though the problem only happened
when using AT&T!

She finally admitted to the possibility of this being an AT&T and/or
US West problem, and suggested that I call US West repair in Portland.
She said that the non-supervisory operator, who was still on the line,
could place the call for me to repair, but that they did not have the
number handy, and that I would have to be billed for the call for the
AT&T operator to call Portland Directory Assitance to get the number,
and then left the call.  Can you believe this?  At this point, I
became quite irate, and I think not unjustifiably so, and explained to
the first operator (still on the line) that the whole reason I
switched back to AT&T from Sprint was because of the supposedly
superior operator service, and was very disappointed that their
wanting ME to pay to report what was clearly THEIR problem, as
evidenced by 10222 and 10333 completing the call normally.  She said
she understood, and placed the DA call without charging me.  We put in
a trouble ticket with US West in Portland, and they said someone would
call me back within 24 hours.  I was still unconvinced that it was
impossible to reach an inward US West operator in the Portland area.
I asked "Can't you just dial 503-121?"  I ordinarily would not reveal
my knowledge of such "proprietary" information, but I was getting
desparate.  The response?  "That just gets me an AT&T operator in
Portland."  (She didn't seem the least bit surprised that a customer
would ask this question).

After this conversation, I decided to call AT&T Long Lines Repair to
open a ticket with them.  Note that despite almost ten minutes on the
line with the AT&T operator supervisor (and a total of two regular
operators and two supervisors), that no suggestion was ever made that
AT&T even had a repair department, let alone giving me the number to
call.  If I had not known the number myself, I would have been out of
luck.  I put in the ticket, and decided to wait it out.

Surprisingly, I got a call about an hour later from someone from US
West.  This really surprised me, as it was a Sunday afternoon, and I
fully expected to have to wait until at least Monday to make any more
progress.  I carefully explained all of the details, and was pleased
to find that she seemed to fully understand everything I was saying,
as well as how all of the carriers handle the different parts of the
call (four total in this case!)  She said she would look into it.

About two hours later, she called back, and said she thought the
problem had been fixed, and would I try the call now?  I tried on the
other line, and it was indeed fixed.  She literally screamed with
excitement: "Yessssss!"  Since she seemed genuinely interested in the
problem, had been the only one I had spoken to all day that even
understood the problem, and had been the one to come through to solve
it, I decided to engage her in a few minutes of friendly conversation.

As it turns out, she is in MARKETING of all places with US West.  I
asked why it is that a marketing person was in the office on a Sunday,
and why she was handling customer trouble tickets.  Apparently, she is
the marketing rep with US West that interfaces with Cellular One in
the Portland area.  She's the one that Cellular One calls when it
wants to order more trunks, etc.  Since Cellular One is quite a big
customer of US West, they apparently get a marketing person that's
really sharp.  She was in the office to deal with a sudden service
outage that Cellular One was having earlier that Sunday, and was just
about to leave, when she overheard someone else talking with US West
repair about my trouble ticket.  She said "I thought that as long as I
was in the office, I might as well take care of this problem too, to
make sure that it gets solved properly."

She continued: "Sir, I apologize for all you've gone through.  I tried
to get through to someone at Repair that knew what was going on, and
all I got was the run-around.  I was never able to get a hold of
anyone at US West (my own company) that seemed to know anything about
this!  I really feel sorry for you customers that have to deal with
this all the time."

What finally solved the problem for her was the "magic number" to get
directly in touch with the techs at the AT&T office in Denver, CO.
(The same office that help Pat with his problem).  Apparently, this is
where the Routing Administration is, at least for this part of the
country.  She referred to it as the place that administers the routing
for AT&T, anyway.  The problem turned out to be in AT&T's 4ESS in
Seattle.  It was mis-routing calls from this area that were bound for
my particular called prefix in such a manner that they were handed off
to US West, but such that US West couldn't complete the call.  I
commented on how it must be really nice to have all of the secret
numbers to get a hold of the proper people directly.  She said "Yea, I
don't think I'm really supposed to call those people, but it does come
in handy in cases like these."

So once the right person was aware of the problem, it was solved
immediately.  But it took a lot of persistance, and some luck, to get
through to them.  Oh, by the way, someone from AT&T Long Lines Repair
did call me two days later to inform me that they had checked my
account, and that my bill had been paid on time, so I should not be
having any problems.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Subject: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:00 GMT


I must admit to falling for it, even though I knew that the hoax has
been around for years.  Does anybody care to argue that just because
it has always proved to be a hoax in the past, that it will always be
a hoax each time one hears about it in the future?  Given the antics
of the current administration, virtually anything seems possible.
Repeated hoaxes may even be part of the strategy of defusing
opposition to eventual imposition of a "modem tax".

If I were charged with formulating telecom policy with a goal of
consolidating governmental power (and were a True Believer in that
goal, which I most emphatically am not) in an era of telecom
revolution, where the greatest threat comes from the potential
grass-roots empowerment implied by such revolution, I would give
serious thought to such a strategy.  Let's not forget that the same
government gave us the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, COINTELPRO,
MKULTRA, Iran-gate, etc., etc., ad nauseam.  The modem tax scheme (and
the idea of repeated hoaxes) seems pretty plausible compared to such
wild historical schemes.

Additional plausibility is gained in light of FBI proposals for
surveillance of the switched telephone network (with the delicious
twist of getting the sheep to subsidize their surveillance *directly*
via a billing surcharge!  Sounds like somebody's been getting chutzpah
lessons from the Israelis, and passed the course with flying colors).
If this doesn't make anybody paranoid, I'd like to hear why.

Fred Goldstein's chain letter tax posting was pretty funny,
nonetheless!


[e-mail] (Kurt Cockrum)

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 14:46:27 -0400
From: John Gruber<[e-mail]>
Subject: Pricey 800 Calls


We ran into a billed 800 number in another way.

We have all 900 numbers blocked on our PBX, of course. We ran into a
charge for a call to a 800 number, billed through our LEC, GTE.

Folks here (some students) called an 800 number. The IP claimed that
they sought permission of the student to bill back. They put through a
charge for a *collect* call to some regular number and put that charge
through the regular channels to have GTE bill it. The collect call was
billed at $4.98/minute to our main number and to some of our
individual trunk numbers. (We have our student numbers listed for call
screening so that the LEC and so that LD carriers shouldn't allow
collect or third party billing to those phone numbers.)

Although GTE was adamant about it for awhile, we refused to pay it and
finally won. Our claim was -- the charge on the bill is for conveying
a collect call to a particular number, and we can prove, using our
SMDR data, that no such call was made, so the charge is false. We
suggested that if someone provided information, for a price, to
someone here on campus, that person might owe the IP some money, but
that the information provider should take that up with whoever
authorized the charge, not the University (the way they would for a
traditional IP 800 call, perhaps billed through a credit card).

Last we heard, the charges were credited, after a couple of arguments,
and now the number is out of service.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Call Forwarding Billing
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 20:48:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Lines A, B, and C are all in different and distant cities (different
states or in state should both be considered).

Line A calls line B which forwards to line C.

I would expect line A to be billed for the call to line B and line B
to be billed for the call to line C.

If A-B is local or B-C is local I can expect that call to be hidden in the
local calls.

But why would it be any different if line B is an 800 number and line
C is a 900 number?

But I'd still like to know where the PHONE NUMBER and the CHARGE come
from for billings of 900 service.  If the called 900 number equipment
is asking the caller if they want to bill by number or not, then
doesn't that equipment have to somehow give the information back to
the phone company (either right then or later) for the billing to take
place?

I'm still convinced this mess is REALLY caused by an error in the way
the billing scheme is set up.  It should always bill to whatever line
selected the 900 number to be called (line B in the above example).


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #401
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06397;
          20 May 92 3:07 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03632
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17416
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #402

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 May 92 01:13:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 402

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    IEEE Communications Society Workshop on Feature Interactions (N Griffeth)
    950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Andy Jacobson)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Len E. Elam)
    Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (Tony Harminc)
    Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Integretel Past Due (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: nancyg@banshee..bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: CFP: IEEE Communications Society Workshop on Feature Interactions
Reply-To: banshee![e-mail] (Nancy Griffeth)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 17:46:38 GMT


                   International Workshop
                           on
Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Software Systems

     St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, December 3-4, 1992

       Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society

This workshop is planned to encourage researchers from a variety of
computer science specialties (software engineering, protocol
engineering, distributed artificial intelligence, formal techniques,
and distributed systems, among others) to apply their techniques to
the feature interaction problem that arises in building telecommun-
ications software systems.  The feature interaction problem refers to
interference between two features of a telecommunications system.
This interference hinders the development of new features; it can be
thought of as a special case of the extensibility problem for software
(see discussion at end for more details on the problem).  We welcome
papers on preventing, detecting, and/or resolving feature interactions
using either analytical or structural approaches.  Submissions are
encouraged in (but are not limited to) the following topic areas:

Classification of feature interactions.

Modelling, reasoning, and testing techniques for detecting
feature interactions.

Software platforms and architectures for preventing or resolving
feature interactions.

Tools and methodologies for promoting software compatibility and
extensibility.

Environments and automated tools for related problems in other
software systems.

We hope to promote a dialogue among researchers in various related
areas, as well as the designers and builders of telecommunications
software. To this end, the workshop will have sessions for paper
presentations, including relatively long discussion periods.  Panel
discussions and a short tutorial on issues in the feature interaction
problem are being organized.

Attendance:

Workshop attendance will be limited to 75 people. Attendance will be
by invitation only. Prospective attendees are asked to submit either a
paper (maximum 5000 words) or a single page description of their
interests and how they relate to the workshop.  About 16--20 of the
attendees will be asked to present talks.  We will strive for an equal
mix of theoretical results and practical experiences.  A set of
working notes will be provided at the workshop.  Papers with the
highest quality will be considered for publication in a special
section of IEEE Computer Magazine or IEEE Communications Magazine.

Submissions:

Please send five copies of your full original paper or interest
description to:

Nancy Griffeth
Bellcore, MRE 2L-237
445 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07962-1910   USA
E-mail: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]

Important dates are:
1 June 1992:   Submission of contributions.
1 August 1992: Notification of acceptance.
15 September 1992: Submission of camera-ready versions.

Workshop Co-chairpersons
Nancy Griffeth (Bellcore, USA)
Yow-Jian Lin (Bellcore, USA)

Program Committee
Chair: Hugo Velthuijsen (PTT, The Netherlands)
E. Jane Cameron (Bellcore, USA)
Steven Harris (BNR, Canada)
Gerard J. Holzmann (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)
Michael Huhns (MCC, USA)
Luigi Logrippo (University of Ottawa, Canada)
Harm Mulder (PTT, The Netherlands)
Jan-Olof Nordenstam (ELLEMTEL, Sweden)
David Notkin (University of Washington, USA)
Akihiro Shimizu (NTT, Japan)
Yasushi Wakahara (KDD R&D Laboratories, Japan)
Pamela Zave (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA)

Discussion:

The feature interaction problem has been a major obstacle to the rapid
deployment of new telephone services.  Telecommunications software is
huge, real-time, and distributed; adding new features to a
telecommunication system, like adding new functionalities to any large
software system, can be very difficult.  Each new feature may interact
with many existing features, causing customer annoyance or total
system breakdown.  Traditionally, interactions were detected and
resolved on a feature by feature basis by experts who are
knowledgeable on all existing features.  As the number of features
grows to satisfy diverse needs of customers, managing feature
interactions in a single administrative domain is approaching
incomprehensible complexity. In a future marketplace where features
deployed in the network may be developed by different operating
companies and their associated vendors, the traditional approach is no
longer feasible.  How to detect, resolve, or even prevent the
occurrence of feature interactions in an open network becomes an
important research issue.

The feature interaction problem is not unique to telecommunications
software; similar problems are encountered in any long-lived software
system that requires frequent changes and additions to its
functionality.  Techniques in many related areas appear to be
applicable to the management of feature interactions.

Software methodologies for extensibility and compatibility, for
example, could be useful for providing a structured design that can
prevent many feature interactions from occurring.  Formal
specification, verification, and testing techniques, being widely used
in protocol engineering and software engineering, contribute a lot to
the detection of interactions.  Several causes of the problem, such as
aliasing, timing, and the distribution of software components, are
similar to issues in distributed systems.  Cooperative problem
solving, a promising approach for resolving interactions at run time,
resembles distributed planning and resolution of conflicting subgoals
among multiple agents in the area of distributed artificial
intelligence.  This workshop aims to provide an opportunity for
participants to share ideas and experiences in their respective
fields, and to apply their expertise to the feature interaction
problem.

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

Date: 19 May 92 20:56:00 EST
From: "Ken Jongsma x7702" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS


Remember that funny AT&T number we were talking about a few months
back?  The one that looked like a Feature Group B Access number, but
wasn't?  Well, AT&T has a two page ad in {Communications Week} this
week entitled:

          "AT&T InterSpan Information Access Service 950-1ATT"

                         Service Highlights

     * Toll-free, nationwide 7-digit number access (800 access available)
     * Extra Security via SecurID "random" password generator card
     * International access to 112 networks in 105 countries
     * Billing rendered on a corporate, division or end-user basis
     * Detailed billing available via EDI
     * No extra cost for ubiquitous access at speeds up to 9600bps
     * No extra cost for DTE rates up to 19.2Kbps (MNP5 Protocol)
     * No hidden local dial access charges
     * No additional surcharges as in other X.25 networks
     * Helps eliminate separate modem banks
     * Supports multiple protocols (Async, SDLC, TCP/IP and X.25)

In the same issue, there is an article on how Dominos Pizza is
planning on using 950-1430 to connect callers anywhere in the country
to the correct local Dominos. The article says that they should be
fully operational (except for Alaska) within two years. The number
will work as follows:

"When a customer places a call by dialing the 950 number, the call is
forwarded to a switching device called a Digital Link Splicer in an
AT&T central office in that city. The caller's number is known to the
splicer by means of Automatic Number Identification (ANI). The splicer
queries a database of local phone numbers provided by Metro Mail
Corp., Lincoln, Neb., which runs on a network of AT&T 6386 PCs. The
call is then routed to the store that delivers pizza in that area,
Gonos said. Unlisted numbers are directed to the most likely store
based on caller's zip code and telephone exchange.

"The time required to place the 950 call and reach the correct Domino's
Pizza store is eleven seconds or less, compared to four to seven
seconds for normal calls, Gonos said.

"The 950 exchange has historically been reserved for long distance
carriers. Through its agreement with AT&T, Domino's can "own" the same
950 telephone number throughout the United States. Alaska lacks the
technical capability to support 950 service, Gonos said."

Later in the article, they mention that one of the advantages to a
single national number is that a potential customer won't have to open
the phone book and see a competitor's advertisement.

I suppose Bellcore or someone thinks that the need for preserve the
identity of 950 numbers as FGB only has passed. Given that there are
only 10,000 950 numbers and many of the 950-1/0XXX numbers were
assigned to carriers, I wonder what they think the market for this
type of number is? It seems like many national or franchised companies
would be asking for this type of number, plus Comnpuserve and the
others as well. I also found the fact that they are using a commercial
mailing list/database for address lookups interesting.


Ken

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

Date: 18 May 92 23:15:00 PST
From: "Jacobson, Andy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number


Pat,

Refresh my memory on this one, but didn't the nxx-0000 numbers in
Chicago actually serve as seven-digit translations for the 911 system?
As I remember it, this was (is it still?) a method used by the police
to direct emergency calls to regional dispatch centers throughout the
city instead of to one big center for the whole area.


A Jacobson    <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Some of them, such as 312-SUPerior-(787)-0000 are
used in the way you suggest. I'm not sure why, but I know our 911 here
is not the most modern. It has been in service since the mid-1970's.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:37:41 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Len E. Elam)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 12, Issue 395, Message 2 of 11, clements@BBN.
COM writes:

> 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.

This brings back memories!  When I was in the U.S. Air Force ('75-'79,
Kessler AFB, Texas [tech school], Hahn Air Base, Germany and Kessler
AFB, Mississippi), I was a telephone switching equipment repairman.  I
remember that a hunt group was set up by strapping specific terminals
for the numbers that were to hunt on the terminal blocks where the
numbers were jumpered to the outside cables.  If the first number in
the group was dialed and it was busy, that number being jumpered for
hunting would cause a relay in the linefinder to pulse, stepping the
switch to the next number in the hunt group.

It's been a long time since I worked on any telephone switching
equipment, and I'm recalling this from memory, so if I've gotten some
of the details wrong, please forgive me.


Who Am I?: Len E. Elam
Email:     central.sun.com!gdfwc3!lelam
Disclamer: I speak only for myself.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 13:46:12 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted


[e-mail] (John Pettitt) wrote:

[request for information on dial-up transatlantic video conferencing]

> 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?

My first thought is that if you are paying 8K$ to fly from California
to the UK, you should choose a different airline.  Even business class
air fare is under $5000, which leaves quite a bit for a hotel stay and
a couple of taxi rides.  If you are willing to travel economy class
and book ahead, even at peak season the fare will be under $1000
return.


Tony H.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:14:16 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 15-MAY-92, 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.

Here in Omaha, we get out-of-state, out-of-areacode CLID data from the
offices in Iowa (both east and west of the river ;-) that are local to
the Omaha metropolitan calling area.  This includes most* of the city
of Council Bluffs and some of the outlying towns and rural areas.

* One CO on the south side of Council Bluffs, 712-366, which was cut
from a 'directorized' SxS to DMS about '86 or so still shows 'out of
area' on the CLID display.  I would assume that the office equipment
can handle it, but that for some reason the interoffice stuff cannot.
Two offices in small towns outside of CB that were cut from step to
some kind of electronic system BEFORE 366 show up CLID data.  I dunno
why.


Good day.    JSW      Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS, Omaha  (1:285/666.0)

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: Re: Integretel Past Due


Message regarding VRS bills deleted.

> [Moderator's Note: Are they still billing you for the calls?   PAT]

We received one bill for each set of disputed calls.  No follow-up
bills (or credits or *any* other commmunications whatever) was
received.


kath mullholand    university of new hampshire   durham nh

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service?
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 15:46:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


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

> 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?

I had a long conversation with an AT&T rep about this.  She seemed to
know her stuff (which is why I don't call her a salesdroid.)

According to said rep: The call can be dialed with or without a PIN.
If the caller uses a PIN, the EasyReach subscriber pays.  If the
caller does NOT use a pin, the caller pays the same rate that the
subscriber would pay.

It's not clear whether the caller can charge the cost of the call to a
calling card.


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] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 15:57:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I called the Pac Bell number and asked what their group's charter was.

I was told that they were there to serve ALL of the business office
needs of people with complex residence service needs.  This includes
work-at-homes, residential centrex (Commstar II), modem users, BBS
operators, and fax users.

I asked about conversion to business rates.  The rep quoted me the
tariffs and the customer actions that would be required to result in
an unrequested conversion.  These mostly are answering in a business
name, and requesting billing to a business.  She swore up and down
that they don't care whether we run BBS systems or not, as long as we
are not in the business of online services.

Surprisingly literate.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #402
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29361;
          21 May 92 10:27 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08717
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #403

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 May 92 00:31:02 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 403

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation (Don Jackson)
    Re: ISDN Fantasy (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: ISDN Charging (Patton M. Turner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 11:31:37 PDT
From: Don Jackson <[e-mail]>


The complete text of the press release is attached to the end of this
message, and I have extracted the ISDN relevent sections immediately
below:

The SPARCstation 10 is also the first workstation with built-in
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) capabilities, which give
users a new way to use the telephone by merging computer and phone
functions into a single system.  The standard for global digital
telephone and networking services, ISDN is expected to enable a wealth
of new applications for integrated computing and telephony to provide
global wide-area networking and multimedia solutions.

The SPARCstation 10 gives users a clear path to the future, ensuring
that they will be able to take advantage of new technologies as they
evolve while preserving their current investment in hardware and
software. For example, anticipating the integration of telephones and
computers, the SPARCstation 10 is the first RISC workstation to
provide an ISDN chip on the motherboard as a built-in feature at no
additional cost. Already widely available in Europe and Japan, ISDN
has the high bandwidth needed for sending multimedia information such
as video, images, audio and data across digital phone lines. To
facilitate this, SMCC is also providing CD-quality (16-bit) audio and
a microphone as standard features on the new systems.

In effect, ISDN allows users to extend their networks to include
anyone who can be reached over a digital phone line, including
telecommuters and employees working at remote sites.  By building ISDN
into the SPARCstation system -- the highest-volume RISC/UNIX(R)
workstation on the market -- SMCC ensures that its customers will be
able to take advantage of a new generation of ISDN applications from
third-party vendors. With ISDN, users will soon be able to access all
of the functions of today's phones -- including dialing, answering,
transferring and possibly identifying calls as well as sending faxes
and receiving voice mail messages -- from their workstations.

As more technical information is publicly released about the ISDN
capabilities of this product, I will forward.


Don Jackson      Sun Microsystems Inc.


     The following announcement was made today, May 19, 1992.


SMCC UNVEILS NEXT-GENERATION WORKSTATION

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- May 19, 1992 -- Sun Microsystems Computer
Corporation (SMCC) today introduced the world's fastest desktop
workstation: the SPARCstation(TM) 10. With this new computer, SMCC has
completely redesigned the SPARCstation architecture, taking an
innovative new approach to the memory, bus, disk and networking
subsystems that significantly boosts application performance. Built
around the fast new superscalar SuperSPARC(TM) chip from Texas
Instruments, the SPARCstation 10 achieves a multiprocessing
performance rating of up to 218 (SPECthruput89) and more than 400 MIPS
in its four-microprocessor configuration. It employs a modular design
that makes possible the industry's easiest, most cost-effective
upgrade path to higher-performance -- and multiple -- microprocessors.
All SPARCstations are binary compatible, meaning that they can run the
same software.

The SPARCstation 10 sets the standard for the next generation of
desktop computers by being the first RISC workstation from a major
vendor to include multiprocessing capabilities, which greatly improve
performance, upgrade-ability and scalability. The SPARCstation 10 is
also the first workstation with built-in Integrated Services Digital
Network (ISDN) capabilities, which give users a new way to use the
telephone by merging computer and phone functions into a single
system.  The standard for global digital telephone and networking
services, ISDN is expected to enable a wealth of new applications for
integrated computing and telephony to provide global wide-area
networking and multimedia solutions.

Reinforcing its commitment to open systems, SMCC also announced today
that it has licensed for resale the logic chips for the SPARCstation
10.  The five SPARCstation 10 ASICs are all available immediately from
LSI Logic.

SPARCstation 10: Leading Application Performance

The design of the SPARCstation 10 has been tuned to maximize
application performance even when the system is running under the most
demanding conditions.  The new SuperSPARC CPU delivers two to four
times the performance of previous SPARC(R) microprocessors.  SMCC has
quadrupled the speed at which data can be processed through the memory
on the SPARCstation 10 and has more than doubled the rate at which the
system can retrieve data from disks. Bus speed -- the rate at which
the system can send and receive information from peripherals -- has
been doubled over previous SPARCstation systems. The SPARCstation 10
is also the first RISC workstation with a 1-megabyte external memory
cache, called SuperCache(TM), which gives an added boost to
application performance.

By offering multiple processors on its new systems, SMCC addresses
users' desire for ever-greater performance on the desktop.
Multiprocessing systems can achieve high performance because they use
more than one processor to execute multiple applications -- or parts
of single applications -- simultaneously. Multiprocessing also
provides the power and throughput needed for multithreading,
object-oriented software and multimedia applications.

SMCC is aiming the new workstation at "power users": professionals in
both commercial and technical markets who need fast application
performance for such areas as computer-aided software engineering
(CASE), financial modelling and simulation, electronic design
automation (EDA) and mechanical computer-aided design (MCAD).  It
comes in four versions:

            Model 30    Model 41        Model 52   Model 54

No. of Processors       1           1               2          4

MHz            36        40                45           45

SPECint92*        44.2        52.6         -            -

SPECfp92*        52.9        64.7         -          -

SPECthruput89** (est.)    -        -                109        218

MIPS            86.1        96.2        200+       400+

* SPEC 92 ratings are measured on a different scale than SPEC 89
ratings and thus are not comparable.

** SPECthruput ratings are a measurement of computing speed for
multiprocessor systems.

The new workstation rounds out the high end of the best-selling
SPARCstation desktop product line, which already includes the
entry-level SPARCstation ELC(TM), the low-cost color SPARCstation IPC
(TM) and SPARCstation IPX(TM), and the SPARCstation 2.

Ready for Future Innovation

The SPARCstation 10 gives users a clear path to the future, ensuring
that they will be able to take advantage of new technologies as they
evolve while preserving their current investment in hardware and
software. For example, anticipating the integration of telephones and
computers, the SPARCstation 10 is the first RISC workstation to
provide an ISDN chip on the motherboard as a built-in feature at no
additional cost. Already widely available in Europe and Japan, ISDN
has the high bandwidth needed for sending multimedia information such
as video, images, audio and data across digital phone lines. To
facilitate this, SMCC is also providing CD-quality (16-bit) audio and
a microphone as standard features on the new systems.

In effect, ISDN allows users to extend their networks to include
anyone who can be reached over a digital phone line, including
telecommuters and employees working at remote sites.  By building ISDN
into the SPARCstation system -- the highest-volume RISC/UNIX(R)
workstation on the market -- SMCC ensures that its customers will be
able to take advantage of a new generation of ISDN applications from
third-party vendors. With ISDN, users will soon be able to access all
of the functions of today's phones -- including dialing, answering,
transferring and possibly identifying calls as well as sending faxes
and receiving voice mail messages -- from their workstations.

Optimum Expandability; Easy Upgrade Path

The SPARCstation 10 features a modular design that helps minimize user
costs and enables an easy upgrade to multiple CPUs and future
microprocessor technologies. Users can simply pull out the SPARC
module -- containing one or two processors -- that plugs into the
motherboard via the MBus interconnect and replace it with one
containing new, faster CPUs, including the 50-MHz SuperSPARC chip when
it is available in volume later this year from Texas Instruments. This
modular design also allows users to expand the system with up to 26
gigabytes of disk capacity, up to 512 megabytes of highly reliable ECC
memory and other options such as more powerful graphics. Peripherals
can be added through four SBus expansion slots, two serial ports and a
parallel port.

For current Sun customers, upgrading to the new SPARCstation 10 is
easy.  SPARCstation 1, 1+, 2 and IPX users can simply exchange the CPU
system cabinet for a new one, retaining their existing investments in
monitors, keyboards, SCSI disk drives and SBus boards. Upgrades from
the SPARCstation IPX and SPARCstation 2 are "no penalty": in other
words, customers pay no more to upgrade from these systems than if
they had purchased a new SPARCstation 10. Owners of
previous-generation (Sun-3(TM) and Sun386i(TM)) workstations can
upgrade their entire computer to a SPARCstation 10 system.  Once
customers have upgraded, achieving even higher levels of performance
will be as simple as swapping SPARC modules.

Existing applications among the more than 4,000 SPARC hardware and
software solutions will run on the new workstations without
modification. The SPARCstation 10 runs SunSoft's Solaris(R) 1.1
operating environment (which includes the SunOS(TM) operating system,
the OpenWindows(TM) graphical windowing environment, the ONC(TM)
networking standard and DeskSet(TM) productivity applications) and is
being submitted for SCD compliance.  Later this year, the SPARCstation
10 will run Solaris 2.0, which provides support for symmetrical
multiprocessing and which will feature a multithreaded kernel. The
Solaris 2.0 environment is based on UNIX System V Release 4 (SVR4) and
is source compatible with Solaris 1.1 so that applications that adhere
to Sun's Solaris 2.0 migration guidelines will only need to be
recompiled to run under Solaris 2.0.

SPARCengine 10: Power for Embedded Applications

Also unveiled today by SMCC was the SPARCengine(R) 10.  Available in
two models, the new board-level version of the SPARCstation 10 extends
the company's lead as the world's largest vendor of RISC-based,
single-board computers for embedded applications such as factory
automation, medical instrumentation, telecommunications, laptop
computers and ruggedized command and control systems for the military.

Pricing, Availability

The uniprocessor models of the SPARCstation 10 will be available with
Solaris 1.1 in the third quarter of 1992.  The SPARCstation 10/Model
30 is priced at $18,495 (U.S. list); the SPARCstation 10/Model 41 is
priced at $24,995 (U.S. list).  The SPARCstation 10/Model 52 is priced
at $39,995 (U.S. list) and will be available in the fourth quarter of
1992.  These workstations will be shipped with a future version of
Solaris 2.0 in the fourth quarter of 1992.  The SPARCstation 10/Model
54 is priced at $57,995 (U.S. list) and will be available in the first
quarter of 1993.

The SPARCengine 10/Model 30 and SPARCengine 10/Model 41 will be
available with Solaris 1.1 in the third quarter of 1992.  The
SPARCengine 10/Model 30 is priced at $11,500 (U.S. list).  The
SPARCengine 10/Model 41 is priced at $18,000 (U.S. list). A server
version of the SPARCstation 10, with prices beginning at $16,995 (U.S.
list), is also available.  (See separate press release.)  The new
products will be available through all Sun distribution channels
worldwide.

Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation, a subsidiary of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., is the world's leading supplier of client-server
computing solutions, which feature networked workstations and servers
that store, process and distribute information. Sun Microsystems,
Inc., founded in 1982 and headquartered in Mountain View, Calif., is a
multibillion-dollar corporation doing business worldwide.

###

Sun, Sun Microsystems, the Sun logo, SuperCache, Sun-3, Sun386i,
SunSoft, Solaris, ELC, IPC, IPX, SunOS, OpenWindows, ONC and DeskSet
are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. All
SPARC trademarks, including the SCD Compliant logo, are trademarks or
registered trademarks of SPARC International, Inc. SPARCstation,
SPARCengine and SPARCserver are licensed exclusively to Sun
Microsystems, Inc.  SuperSPARC is licensed to Texas Instruments, Inc.
Products bearing SPARC trademarks are based on an architecture
developed by Sun Microsystems Inc.  UNIX is a registered trademark of
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.  All other products or service names
mentioned herein are trademarks of their respective owners.

For reader inquiries, telephone [phone].

PR contact:

Sun Microsystems Computer Corp.
Carol Sacks [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 08:12:37 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: ISDN Fantasy
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> 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.

   Our ISDN system (AT&T 7506 ISDN sets, plus Electronic Directory)
has a mechanism for leaving and retrieving text messages.  I believe
only the "Message Center" can currently enter arbitrary text messages.
However, all the sets here have a button labeled "Leave Word" that,
when depressed, will leave a "prebuilt" text message with the current
active called party -- even if the call has been answered or forwarded
to Voice Mail.  Leaving such a message will light the same "Message"
lamp that Voice Mail uses.  Pressing Leave Word when the line has a
forwarding number (but hasn't yet forwarded) also flashes the "Call
Forward" lamp briefly to indicate that forwarding will occur if you
stay on the call.

   Retrieving messages uses the "Retrieve" button (and others to scan,
display and delete).  Leave Word prebuilt messages indicate the
calling number (and associated name if available), the date and time
of the message, and the text phrase "Please return my call."  If you
Leave Word multiple times, the date/time reflects the latest use and
the text states "N Please return my calls.", where N is the number of
uses.  The "Auto Call" button can automatically call the party whose
message is currently displayed.

> 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.

   As Miss Manners says, "Eeeeeewwwwww!"  The voice version of a
business card would surely be in "your" voice, no?  And a voice-
stored version of the "text" card would be a bit-mapped, compressed,
file stored as 1200 baud FSK audio, right?  Such things would be very
much like a business card that was MAILED to you, or stuck in your
door/mailbox.  Very cold, compared to a personal message (or a
handwritten note).  Of course, if your intent is blanket
message-leaving, rather than the personal touch, so be it ...


Al Varney - these are my opinions, and not Official AT&T Opinions.

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 23:49:27 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Charging


> 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.

Well that may be an option but Centrex is usually only available for
lines from the same CO.  The prefixes must also be the same, but this
wouldn't be a problem.  Here in Alabama (SCB) (Mississippi too I
think), Bellsouth does not have a tariff for their ESSEX (Centrex)
service for less than 8 lines.  I understand they have filed for a
three line Centrex tarriff, but it has not been approved.  If anyone
is interested, bare bones 2B + D will run $35 more than a regular
Centrex line

Residential ISDN will have to wait until after January when they will
file a tariff for it.  Unfortunataly I won't be arround then.

Personaly I like Fred Goldstein's suggestion, but I wonder if it's
legal.  I suspect it work for any call that wouldn't be subject to a
u law/A law conversion, rather than just local ones.


Pat Turner     KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #403
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01608;
          21 May 92 11:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27114
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30597
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:47 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #404

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 May 92 01:16:49 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 404

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Phil Howard)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Tom Watson)
    Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Rob Warnock)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Joe Konstan)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:24:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Charlie Mingo) writes:

> [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 ...)

In 217-384 IBT does block 10xxx for local and MSA calls.

I suppose you could still use the 800 numbers for calling cards and
just refer to a local number (I doubt if they try to distinguish the
difference).

[e-mail] (Kath Mullholand) writes:

> 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.

> [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]

Maybe LDN is doing that to get MSA calls.

But clearly if 700 numbers have distinct spaces per LD carrier, then
one needs to direct the call to that carrier, else the switch can't
know which one applies (and would have to assume the default).

Yes, someone having LDN as their LD carrier will have to dial 10288 in
front of calls to AT&T's 700 numbers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 16:07:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [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]

Probably all of them.  The AT&T rep I spoke to agreed with me that
instructions to callers should include 10288.

One thing that's not clear is if 10288 + 0 + 700 is required in order
to enter a PIN.  We won't know until we're up, I guess.


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 20:39:47 -0700
From: johana![e-mail] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors
Organization: FBN/GRQ Ink.


I had a very interesting experience with 'routing' errors (this was
back in late 1987).  I was 'corresponding' with a friend in a remote
part of Washington state (509/826) and after a few calls (they were
about twice a week) I got a recording '... your call cannot be
completed as dialed ...' or some such.  I begin to think, that's wierd
she didn't move, or stop paying the bill, so I become 'possessed' with
trying to complete the call.

Attempt #1, call operator (AT&T), they get same results.  Attempt #2,
use another carrier (MCI, no same recording), Sprint, seems to work
(that's weird!!).  Next call (a few days pass), Attempt #1, dial
direct (nope!), Attempt #2, call operator (AT&T again.) nope. Attempt
#3, ask operator "please try that thru 509 inward" (by golly, it
works!!).  I think nothing of this until the next day, when I get a
call at work from "Long Distance repair" (no, I didn't call them, they
called me!!).  I talk to the guy, seems that they called me (I wasn't
at home), so they called my 'correspondent' and she told them where I
worked.

Then the explanation.  Seems that a new #4 ESS was installed in
Seattle (206 area which routes for 509) and they forgot to program in
the routes for the prefix I was using (509/826, it was a small town),
and my astute information (using 509 inward) helped them find the
'problem'.  I asked what to do if I had similar problems, and they
said to call them on their 800 number (which I have forgotten, but is
probably available at 800 information) and they will take care of it.

Interesting saga ...

I am no longer 'corresponding' with this person (another story ...
doesn't belong in this news group).


Tom Watson     johana![e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:20:01 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> Well, Pat, welcome to the club!  I had a very similar experience about
> a month ago, but the villian in my case was AT&T.  Only with the help
> of my LEC (US West) was the problem solved.  This is interestingly
> just the opposite of your experience.  I guess I'll start from the
> beginning:

> I live in Seattle, and my home phone is served from US West's 206-527
> exchange.  I was trying to call a friend's cellular phone on 206-921,
> which is in Vancouver, WA, and in the Portland LATA, thus an
> inter-LATA call.  When I called, I got a "Your call cannot be
> completed as dialed.  Please check the number and try your call
> again." recording.  I did both, and got the same result.

> The problem turned out to be in AT&T's 4ESS in Seattle.  It was
> mis-routing calls from this area that were bound for my particular
> called prefix in such a manner that they were handed off to US West,
> but such that US West couldn't complete the call.

   Let me formally apologize for the run-around you got with the AT&T
Operators.  They usually do far more than required, and are a good
reason to "Choose AT&T".  But out of the thousands of queries they get
every day (including some really off-the-wall cellular ones), some are
bound to go to the wrong place or get the wrong answer.  (Of course,
this isn't an OFFICIAL apology, 'cause I'm only giving you my opinion
on this ...)

> I commented on how it must be really nice to have all of the secret
> numbers to get a hold of the proper people directly.  She said "Yea, I
> don't think I'm really supposed to call those people, but it does come
> in handy in cases like these."

   For future reference, the official listed/advertised number for
AT&T Long Distance Repair Service is: 1-800-222-3000.  It's in almost
any telephone book under: "AT&T COMPANY, Maintenance & Repair, Long
Distance Services Repair". Note that some telephone books are not very
consistent in listing AT&T in the front of the 'A' section, with the
rest of the capitalized business listings -- sometimes its in the
alphabetical order as if it were "At&t".

> So once the right person was aware of the problem, it was solved
> immediately.  But it took a lot of persistance, and some luck, to get
> through to them.  Oh, by the way, someone from AT&T Long Lines Repair
> did call me two days later to inform me that they had checked my
> account, and that my bill had been paid on time, so I should not be
> having any problems.

   Your description sounds like the Seattle 4 ESS(tm) switch was
routing the cellular NXX to the wrong Point of Presence (POP), or to
the wrong switch.  When an incoming call arrives at the first switch
in the terminating LATA, the called number is checked to determine if
this switch is a "sub-tending switch" for that number.  This prevents
an IXC from delivering a call to one end of a LATA and forcing the LEC
to tandem the call across the entire LATA.

   The LEC tells the IXCs which NXXs can be delivered to specific
switches.  In the case of direct trunks to an CO, only the NXXs
defined in that CO should arrive there.  A tandem in the LATA will
usually serve as the first terminating switch for some group of COs
(the "sub-tending COs" for the tandem).  Cellular NXXs are usually
arbitrarily allocated to tandems, since the call has to switch back
out to the cellular switch.  But this isn't always the tandem that
gets other normal LEC calls; sometimes the LEC plays games by
assigning portions of the NXX to different switches, or changes the
"location" of the NXX.  I don't know what the problem was in Seattle,
but there are certainly occasional problems relating to cellular NXXs.

   That said, I must also say that the announcement you received,
"Your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please check the number and
try your call again.", is not appropriate for the sub-tending
screening failure I described, or for any other terminating-LATA
failure I can imagine.  I know that's what Bellcore recommends for the
screening failure (No. 40 announcement), but (as you found out), it
makes finding the problem a real PAIN for the LEC and the IXC!
Bellcore required every switch vendor to provide for a special
announcement for this failure, but then they just recommend the same
old Vacant Code announcement!

   Since this announcement can also occur for any call to Vacant
Codes, but usually goes to AIS ("The number your have reached, N N X
 ..."), one could ASSUME the announcement these days means you have hit
a situation involving sub-tending screening.

   Note that it's also an announcement that is permitted for calls
that require 10XXX dialing (non-presubscribed lines) and for calls to
800 numbers from an area not allowed to call that number
(out-of-band).  But those are probably low-probability situations.
Successfully completing the call through another carrier doesn't
assure the IXC is at fault, but does indicate there is a mis-match
between the IXC and the LEC interface.

   Hope this clears up (rather than muddies) the issue.


Al Varney - not an Official spokesperson or apologist for AT&T.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 23:54:25 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> 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.

So *that's* what shot me down ... Bummer.

> ...there are some points of their ISDN offering that they are doing RIGHT:
> 2. Offering 2B+D as the standard BRI.  Isn't some RBOC back east
> offering an ultra-lame 1B+D as their base offering?

Well, 2B+D is "standard" only if you get PacBell's "Feature Package C"
or "D".  Here a short summary of the ISDN Feature Packages and their
monthly prices:

-  Analog line on your ISDN Centrex (voice only, obv.):    $15.65/mo.
A. ISDN "Voice package" = 1B, voice use only:        $17.50/mo.
B. ISDN Voice on 1B + D-channel packet data:        $26.00/mo.
C. "Full ISDN", voice or data on 2B + D-channel packet:    $29.50/mo.
D. ISDN "Double voice package" = 2B, voice use only:    $25.50/mo.

Only Feature Package C is full 2B+D ISDN as we usually think of it.
And even then PacBell requires that you specify at *service-order*
time which B channels on which lines will be used for voice or data
(pick one only). Other notes:

1. All of the "Feature Packages" include all of the usual "voice
extras" for B channels used for voice: call-waiting, 3-way calling,
call-forwarding, etc.

2. Feature Package D is about 18% cheaper than two analog lines. This
is what PacBell is pushing to their large customers to get them to try
ISDN.

3. By "D-channel packet" I mean that in addition to using the D
channel for call setup of the B channels, you can use the D-channel to
access a *PacBell*-provided "X.25"-like packet switch. *Much* more
expensive per bit than sending data full speed down a B channel, but
may be useful to some very light data users (e.g., credit-card
verification, security alarms, etc.). There is a small extra charge if
you want more than one open virtual circuit at a time on your
D-channel packet ($1.00/mo/15_circuits/device).  Plus you pay
additional per-packet rates for out-of-Centrex packets. This is
basically similar to Telenet or Tymnet packet service, and priced the
same.

4. You can also get a B-channel permanent virtual circuit to a PacBell
packet switch (like "D-channel packet", but 64 Kb/s), but the rates
are outrageous: $350/mo (+$5/mo/15-vir-circuits over 15), *plus* per
packet charges for out-of-Centrex packets. (Priced like a 56K line to
Telenet/Tymnet, ne?)


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone] <-- New number!
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.        "Please make a note of it..."
Mountain View, CA  94043

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

Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:52:22 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics


In TELECOM Digest V12 #396 our Moderator writes:

> [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]

Indeed, I can't think of many worse scenarios.  The "best possible"
given the current phone interface would be two codes (e.g., *67 and
*68) each of which set a specific mode (block vs. send) regardless of
the default for the line.

I've been discussing "toggle" and other relative controls (in the
domain of stereo/video equipment) in comp-human-factors, and it is
pretty clear that even at their best these controls are terribly
non-programmable.  Imagine the confusion an autodialer would have if
you could set your phone so that 1+ meant out-of-area code or 1+ meant
within area code (with other calls being 7D or 10D without 1+).

Also, imagine the error messages that our phone companies are likely
to have: "The caller you have reached does not accept blocked calls,
please call again without entering *67" "But operator, I didn't enter
*67!"

I heartily encourage Tony Harminc to pressure the CRTC to avoid such a
poor interface.


Joe Konstan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But the message would not be 'please call again
without entering *67'; it would be 'please dial again without blocking
your ID; if blocking is by default, then prepend *67 and dial your
call again.'  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 17:26:29 GMT


There are many other features that are activated with *xx and #xx
codes.  I am not aware of any other features, where the same code is
used for activating and deactivating the feature.

While I agree that both commands are needed, they need different
command codes. Ideally, all such features should use a common syntax,
such as *xx for enable, and #xx for disable. Or *xx for enable and xx*
for disable.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer    Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
CMC (Rockwell Digital Systems)    Telephone: [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-5503    TeleFAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:54:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I do believe it would have been better to have a DIFFERENT prefix for
block and for unblock.  The only reasons I can see for a toggle is to
save space in the prefix space.  I don't see that need.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #404
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03030;
          21 May 92 11:31 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02708
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20358
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #405

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 May 92 02:09:29 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 405

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Norm Nithman)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (John R. Levine)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Bud Couch)
    EasyReach 700 and International Calls (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Phil Howard)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Michael F. Eastman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 14:36:13 GMT


> [e-mail] (Phil Howard) 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).

US Telecom had a 700 number that provided sports news and such for a
fee but I don't know if it still exists since their absorption by MCI.

They also had a "test drive" 700 number that was free for that
service.


Norm


[Moderator's Note: They still offer the Voice News Network via a 700
number (prepend 10835) if Telecom*USA is not your default carrier) and
the same service is available via *1 when using a Telecom Calling
Card. In addition, they also allow local calls by dialing 1-700 plus
the seven digit number. But I think 10835 is only by pre-subscription.
You cannot be a casual user.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 19 May 92 17:25:20 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> 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.)

If you're dialing from behind a PBX, there's no way to tell what
actually gets passed to the CO when you dial.  In particular, it's
quite possible that since switching primary carriers costs $5/line,
when your employer switched to Sprint they merely told the PBX to
prepend 10333 to any toll call and saved the $5.  But you can't dial
10XXX in front of 800, 900, and some other special numbers so when you
dial a 700 number, it probably doesn't stuff the 10333.

Or it might be even more complex -- at this point the only widely used
700 numbers I've seen other than 555-4141 are the numbers for AT&T's
Alliance automated conference calling.  Furthernore, 700 numbers on
Brand X long distance carriers are totally unregulated and can be
charged like 900 calls.  Someone at the PBX might have set it up to
stuff 10288 in front of any 700 number regardless of who the usual
presubscribed carrier is.


Regards,

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

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 17:13:58 GMT


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

> 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.

710 *was* used for four-row TWX service( it's somebody's area code
now). AT&T Switched 56 Accunet Service reserved the 700-560-xxxx and
700-561-xxxx series numbers to that service.


Bud Couch    If my employer only knew ...     standard BS applies

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 05:29:05 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: EasyReach 700 and International calls


As I understand it, inward calls to the US from abroad may be carried
over any one of a number of the US LD networks.

So what happens if I want to call someone in the US who has a 700
number? Do I have to keep re-dialing until, by the luck of the draw,
the call gets routed over AT&T?

(Oh sorry, I forgot, the civilised world consists only of the USA --
and occasionally Canada, Hawaii and Alaska :^/ )


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]


[Moderator's Note: No need to be sarcastic. What makes you think that
when the European switch sees 700 it won't automatically default it to
AT&T? For that matter, maybe 700 will be treated like 800 and not auto-
matically extended. They may require going through USA Direct like 800
numbers do now. I know if I get a 700 number I don't want to have to
pay for international calls.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service?
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:59:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) writes:

> I had a long conversation with an AT&T rep about this.  She seemed to
> know her stuff (which is why I don't call her a salesdroid.)

Who?

What number did you call to reach her?

> According to said rep: The call can be dialed with or without a PIN.
> If the caller uses a PIN, the EasyReach subscriber pays.  If the
> caller does NOT use a pin, the caller pays the same rate that the
> subscriber would pay.

> It's not clear whether the caller can charge the cost of the call to a
> calling card.

This all comes across to me as a means for AT&T to get more business
by hosting a number of subscribers that will give out numbers that
have to be dialed through AT&T.  I certainly very much doubt if one's
Sprint or MCI cards will work.  I would expect the AT&T card(s) to
work.

I'm not knocking AT&T for doing this ... I would certainly WANT them to
if I were a stockholder.


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course there is nothing preventing the other
carriers from starting a similar deal is there?    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 9:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud


mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail] writes:

> 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?

According to what I have read and experienced, it is nearly impossible
(if not totally impossible) to get DISA fraud taken off one's bill.  A
local TV station had DISA fraud against them to the tune of $10,000 or
so (I didn't see the bills, so that is a rumored number and may be way
out of line).  They never collected from the RBOC or their LD carrier
or their switch installer, who left the DISA ports open in the first
place.

A major corporation that constructs aircraft for the feds (as well as
other things) has a huge case pending with AT&T for DISA fraud.  I
have not read that the case has been resolved, but what I have read to
date makes me believe the corporation is out several hundred thousand
dollars.  This in DISA fraud that took place over a single weekend.

So, what got stolen?  Services, which are always difficult to define.
If my mechanic adjusts things on my car without using any parts, and I
don't pay him, what got stolen?  If I buy pirated software or musical
recordings, what got stolen?  Literally, nothing, but the *impact* of
the theft on *whoever* is left holding the bag is that the TV station
(for instance) increases their advertising rates, which increases the
cost of doing business for their advertisers, which increases the cost
of the products you and I buy.

The end result, and the real reason we support laws against victimless
crimes, is that the answer to "from whom was it stolen?"  is me and
you and everyone else.


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire   durham, nh


[Moderator's Note: I only disagree with you on one point: There is no
such thing as 'victimless crimes'. All crimes have victims. It is just
that sometimes it is easier to discern the victim(s) than other times,
and that the process of victimization can be very slow, with little
immediate notice. When it is decided there are no longer any victims
 -- or never were any -- then the activity which was formerly a crime
is redefined and decriminalized or decodified.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:26:31 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud
Organization: AT&T


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

> 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.

So if I steal the diamond bracelet mentioned later in your
explanation, that's OK as long as I don't tie up the resources of any
employee to do it (like at night after store hours)? C'mon, theft is
theft.

> 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; ...

Is that so. How does the company PROVE this? How do you know the
charges are removed? In fact, AT&T went to court with a customer over
this very issue. ONE or BOTH items! Try thousands of these items!

> 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.

Ah, but how did the network get to be nonblocking and able to handle
PEAK loads? By estimating the number of PEAK calls, building the
network to meet the capacity and then determining the charges to
recover costs. So if we add X more calls to network for phreaking and
the network size grows, who pays for this?

> 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?

Ah, those foreign PTTs must be printing their own money to cover these
costs. A PTT is a business, albeit, a regulated one. They provide a
service and charge to recover costs plus some profit.

> Do you really think that most phreakers could afford that call?

Do you really think that I can afford that diamond bracelet you
mention later? Why can't I just have it? If I take it, do I get
treated like someone else who litters? Are you trying to justify
stealing?

> So nobody's actually missing any money or service, just some
> administrative time cleaning up the billing and not much of that.

Oh, how naive we are!!! What happens when NO ONE pays for their phone
service? Well, I, for one, am out of a job along with about 300,000
other people. It is estimated that phone fraud costs at least one
billion dollars a year and is growing. How do you think the
(collective) phone companies recover this money? They don't print
their own money, so they have to get it from someone. They get it from
higher rates from all of the HONEST customers. I would rather see
tougher enforcement and treating it like the crime it is.

> 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.

Where is the analogy to the phone system? No one answers the phone at
the PBX to validate the phone "transaction" to place the call to
Pakistan.

> 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.

Oh my, now we change our standards don't we? A service (like phone
service) is not merchandise because we can't hold it in our hands?
Only "real" money pays for the real property, but not for the service?
Well, believe you me, I work for a telecommunications company and I
get paid in "real" money or I walk!!!

> 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?

Nice try, but no! Why don't you turn the argument around. It was only
one bracelet out of hundreds of thousands produced every month. So who
cares? The people that make and sell bracelets care. They aren't in
business if no one pays for the service/merchandise -- NOW do you see?

> 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?

Phone fraud is of the same proportions, so you've now just justified
what you are arguing against.

> And don't forget those social costs!  Retired phone phreaks
> practically invented the personal computer industry.

Oh really! I bet they never stole phone services!

> 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?

How to put holograms on credit cards for one!

> 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.

That's because, as YOU stated earlier, they generally are not out any
money, it's the merchant or the issuing bank.  The merchants and the
banks rely on the police to CATCH the card thieves, and the courts and
the lawyers to get CRIMINAL charges.  Then you forget insurance costs
and the write off of bad debt on tax returns which we all pay for!

> 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.

I am sorry, but I do have sympathy for the victim. Not everyone
believes that thieves only victimize those that deserve it!  If NO ONE
feels sympathy for the victim, then why do we bother to try to catch
the "crook" at all. What would happen to YOUR job if no one ever paid
for their transactions done by credit card and we had to go back to
cash on the spot? Maybe we should go to a system of PAYPHONES only for
all calls? Think about what you are saying.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpm!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566


[Moderator's Note: Mike, you will never convince phreaks and hackers
(using the perjorative meaning of the latter word) and their Socially
Responsible defenders that they are nothing more than your common
garden-variety thief. To them, its always a matter of persecution by
the evil government, and a chilling of their intellectual curiosity,
free speech, et al, ad nauseum.  So quit trying already.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #405
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17689;
          22 May 92 3:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00974
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:46 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31774
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:37 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:37 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #406

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 May 92 01:53:35 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 406

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) Wanted (Sean Petty)
    DECnews/Digital, RAM, and Bellsouth Agree (Monty Solomon)
    Some Things Work Out (Ronald Elliott)
    Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Carl M. Kadie)
    Ordering Voice Service (Tim Gorman)
    Best Voice-Fax Switch? (Sandy Kyrish)
    Introductory Reference Wanted (S. Jonathan Silverman)
    CALLER-ID Arrives July 1 in Area Code 516 (Dave Niebuhr)
    Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sean Petty)
Subject: Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) Wanted
Date: 21 May 92 21:07:13 GMT
Reply-To: Sean Petty <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


Presently, a local ambulance organization of which I am a member is
looking into getting some type of telephone line monitor.  Our setup
is as follows:

The main emergency line people call runs through our PBX system, and
rings on all the phones in the building, however, we don't answer it,
we just let it ring, and our main dispatch center answers it.  The way
it works now, the phone rings, our dispatch center answers it, and
takes the call.

Unfortunately, we can't hear what's going on when the dispatcher
answers the phone.  What we would like to be able to do, is listen to
the conversation via a speaker as the dispatcher talks, so we know
exactly what we're going out for.

However, the unit should be totally automatic.  It should kick the
speaker on when the call is answered, and disconnect the speaker when
the call is disconnected.  The unit cannot interrupt or alter the
normal use/audio of the line.

I have a good electronics backround, and can assemble just about
anything from a good schematic.  What I am looking for is just that, a
schematic for this device.  Or, possible alternatives include
commercial units, pointers to schematics, suggestions, etc.

Any help is greatly appreciated.


Sean Petty                           undr![e-mail]
ICBMnet: 39'58'12"N 75'84'26"W       [e-mail]

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

From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: DECnews/Digital, RAM, and Bellsouth Agree
Date: 19 May 92 15:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Organization: DEC Palo Alto

                                              Digital Equipment Corporation
                                          Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571
Editorial contact:
See End of Release


          DIGITAL, RAM, AND BELLSOUTH AGREE TO DEVELOP
                 MOBILE DATA SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE


ATLANTA -- May 18, 1992 -- Digital Equipment Corporation, RAM Mobile
Data, and BellSouth Enterprises, Inc. today announced a worldwide
agreement to provide mobile data solutions based on the Mobitex mobile
packet radio network.

     Under the agreement, Digital will offer two-way wireless
electronic mail to its more than three million existing ALL-IN-1
integrated office system customers. Digital is developing a version of
its Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 software that will enable users of portable
MS-DOS PCs to access ALL-IN-1 electronic mail applications without a
connection to a telephone outlet.

     Digital plans to provide the same services on the Mobitex mobile
network in the United Kingdom. In addition, wireless electronic mail
services will be offered to customers in several other countries where
RAM and BellSouth plan to operate Mobitex networks. Digital's wireless
electronic mail offering will be available in the first quarter of
calendar year 1993.

     Digital also announced the DECmobile program, under which the
company will deliver fully integrated, end-to-end mobile data
communications solutions that extend enterprise computing networks to
mobile users. The announcements were made at the ICA
telecommunications industry conference held here May 18-21.

     "With these announcements, Digital is moving aggressively into
the fast-growing mobile data market," said Ernst E.  Wellhoener, vice
president of Digital's Telecommunications Business Group. "We are
supporting our commitment with substantial investments of time, money,
and resources to build the kinds of mobile data solutions our
customers require."

Digital Becomes RAM Mobile Data Systems Integrator

     Under the DECmobile program, Digital will offer customers
complete mobile data solutions, acting as systems integrator for RAM
Mobile Data and other service providers.  Digital will provide a
single point of contact for customers seeking to benefit from new
mobile data communications services.

     Digital is entering into business relationships with leading
suppliers of radio modems, handheld PCs, and cellular devices.  The
company currently has relationships with Ericsson Mobile
Communications AB, Fujitsu Personal Systems (formerly Poqet Computer
Corporation), and Husky Computers, Inc.

     "The move into mobile data represents a natural progression for
Digital, a leader in providing networked computer systems and one of
the computer industry's foremost systems integrators," Wellhoener
said.  "Our ability to provide 'one-stop shopping' for mobile data
solutions helps simplify what might otherwise be a difficult process
for our customers, enabling them to get up-to-speed faster and more
cost-effectively."

     Wellhoener said Digital chose Mobitex networks because they are
feature-rich, sophisticated, and highly efficient. "And perhaps most
important, the worldwide scope of Mobitex networks will enable us to
meet the needs of today's multinational enterprises," Wellhoener
added.

     Mike Harrell, president of BellSouth Mobile Data, Inc., said the
alliance would enable mobile data network subscribers to take
advantage of Digital's worldwide systems integration capabilities.
"Aligning ourselves with an experienced systems integrator ensures our
network subscribers have the most effective solutions," Harrell said.
"We can now expand the market for Mobitex into a broad range of
networked computer applications."

     Carl Robert Aron, chairman and CEO of RAM, said, "ALL-IN-1 is the
world's leading host-based application that includes electronic mail.
RAM's Mobitex network is the only mobile data network in operation
which automatically delivers E-mail messages to mobile professionals
wherever they are within the network service area. The marriage of
Mobitex and Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 was inevitable."

Digital Develops Mobile Data Products and Programming Tools

     In addition to developing a wireless interface for its Mobilizer
for ALL-IN-1 product, Digital is developing an open software
architecture and a single set of application programming interfaces
that will be available to software developers. The architecture and
application programming interfaces, or APIs, facilitate the
integration of new and existing mobile applications for RAM's and
other service providers' networks.  APIs make it easy for developers
to write mobile data applications.

     BellSouth Mobile Data is a subsidiary of BellSouth Enterprises,
Inc., the holding company that manages a group of companies for
BellSouth Corporation that provide wireless telecommunications,
advertising and publishing, and information-based services throughout
the world.

     RAM Mobile Data operates a wireless data communications service
in major metropolitan areas across the nation.  Using RAM's service,
companies exchange two-way messages and data with field personnel
equipped with mobile, portable, or handheld terminals.  RAM Mobile
Data Ltd. operates a similar, compatible system in the United Kingdom.
RAM's radio-based data communications network architecture is Mobitex,
an international, open standard supplied by Ericsson.

     RAM has exclusive use of the Mobitex technology in the United
States. Mobitex was developed by Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and
Swedish Telecom. Digital and Ericsson last year signed a cooperation
agreement under which the two companies will develop software tools
for the integration of Digital's products with the Mobitex network.

     Digital Equipment Corporation, headquartered in Maynard,
Massachusetts, is the leading worldwide supplier of networked computer
systems, software and services.  Digital pioneered and leads the
industry in interactive, distributed and multivendor computing.
Digital and its partners deliver the power to use the best integrated
solutions - from desktop to data center - in open information
environments.
                              ####

Note to Editors:  ALL-IN-1, DECmobile, the Digital logo, and
                  Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 are trademarks of
                  Digital Equipment Corporation.

                  Mobitex is a registered trademark of Swedish
                  Telecom.

                  MS-DOS is a registered trademark of Microsoft
                  Corporation.

                  RAM Mobile Data's legal name is RAM Mobile
                  Data USA Limited Partnership


Editorial Contacts:

Digital:       Bob Keener
               Hill and Knowlton
               [phone]

RAM:           Donna Hayes
               [phone]
               ICA Booth #1434

BellSouth:     Tim Klein
               [phone]


DECnews is sent as a courtesy to members of the press.  For
subscription information please contact:

  David Price, USS Press Relations, Digital Equipment Corporation
  Voice:603-884-3467   FAX:[phone]   Internet:[e-mail]

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

From: caron![e-mail] (Ronald Elliott)
Subject: Some Things Work Out
Date: 19 May 92 08:22:41 GMT
Organization: Science and Technology Center, Apple Valley Ca.


Briefly, I've got two lines and had requested U.S. Sprint carry the
long distance on the data line (it was a promotion and I already had
their Phon card). The letter came today saying they'd switched the
wrong one of course (the order was entered but had not yet gone
through). Called their 800 number and they said I'd have to talk to
the local teleco. Well hold on I said and flashed a conference call.
Less than five minutes of conversation and I hung up and tried the
"guess your carrier" number that had returned ATT just minutes
earlier. Bingo, its now Sprint!

Unfortunately I don't recall the Contel (GTE) representatives name so
I'l just say to both companies, Thanks, some things do work out.


Ronald Elliott                   Science and Technology Center
caron![e-mail]              P.O. Box 2968
                                     Apple Valley, Ca 92307

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 13:38:39 GMT


The Silent Talk Conference on Fidonet has been discussing the
(secret?) recording of telephone calls by TDD users. Here are two
short excerpts:

Hugues Blanchet writes:

> We have the right to complete and total privacy in our
> communications and we will not accept a surveillance
> system that will affect even one iota of our confidentiality!!!

Jack O'Keeffe writes:

> This is not only a Canadian concern, Hugues.  In an article in the
> current ACM "Communications", Karen Kukich, a BellCore researcher
> in Morristown, NJ, reports that, "One deaf relay service center was
> helpful enough to provide a 40,000-word corpus of TDD transcripts
> for study".

Can any comp.dcom.telecom readers give the inside scoop on TDD privacy
policy?


Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
[e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 May 92 11:31:29 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ordering Voice Service


David Clapp <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #400:

> 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.

This does not seem unreasonable. We provide this all the time in
Kansas SWBT. The three kinds of trunks we see all the time are:

   Bellcore Service Code                   Use
   ---------------------       ---------------------------------
         DI                      DID  (from the ntwk to the PBX
         DO                      DOD  (from the PBX to the NTWK)
         TK                      2way PBX outdials

The TK service is typically line side terminated in the CO using loop
or ground start service.

The DI and DO service is typically trunk side terminated in the CO and
using E&M supervision with wink start address signaling is not only
possible but, in my opinion, is the preferred method at least where T1
facilities are used.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that negotiating service
arrangements like this is one of the biggest problems we have. I have
spent the last ten years trying to train our marketing people in the
right questions to ask in order to fully define the service. I have
seen some small progress. But sometimes I despair of ever being able
to get fully out of the loop.

I assume PacBell tariffs are such that they offer trunk side
connections for calls from the PBX to the network. If not, you don't
have a prayer.  If they do, you just need to get to a technical type
that knows the tariffs and understands what you want. I would ask your
account rep to get hold of a design support person (if they have them
in their heirarchy-we do) or a provisioning/translation person that
can explain the situation. If this doesn't do, keep escalating it up
the lines of organization.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 15:34 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Best Voice-Fax Switch?


My father has purchased a fax machine and uses it on the second line
in his house.  Now that the college kids are home for the summer, they
use the line too.  Please advise on the BEST vioce-fax switch.  My
father does not trust electronic gadgets such as these and as a result
I don't want to buy him one until I'm sure it will be 99% foolproof.
Kindly reply to my e-mailbox at [e-mail].


Thanks!

Sandy Kyrish

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

From: [e-mail] (s jonathan silverman)
Subject: Introductory Reference Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 16:57:29 GMT


I've enjoyed "lurking" in this newsgroup for the past few weeks, but
periodically encounter a variety of acronyms that I don't understand.

More generally, I would like to learn more about the way telephone
systems work.

Is there a decent introduction to the technology of telecommunica-
tions, especially telephone networks?  If so, I would appreciate a
reference, either posted here or by email if that is more appropriate.


Thanks,


Jonathan Silverman    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The references you are seeking will be found in the
Telecom Archives files, which are accessible using anonymous ftp from
my account at MIT  (ftp lcs.mit.edu). Login anonymous, and give your
name@site as password. Then 'cd telecom-archives'. Look at the files
which contain acronym references, the 'frequent.asked.questions' file
and the others.  Everyone is welcome to use it.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 13:19:03 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Caller-ID Arrives July 1 in Area Code 516


According to a legal notice in yesterday's {Newsday} and a follow-up
talk with a representative of New York Telephone, CLASS services will
be made available to certain exchanges in the 516 AC on July 1st.

Included are CALLER-ID at $6.00, Call Return at $3.00, Call Trap/Trace
at $1.50 per pop and both per-call and per-line blocking.  There are
other services being added also such as Speed-Calling (8 and 30).

My home phone, 516-281-XXXX is one of the affected exchanges as well
as 395/399/874/878.  I would guess that the larger ones will be
activated at this time also.

The public announcement to the ratepayers will be made in the June
"Hello" blurb that NYTel puts in each bill.

In addition to the above, the rep said that I could have my name put
on a "pre-release" list and that I would get a call from them for the
installation of these services.

As of right now, Call Trap/Trace and Last Call Return are available in
some exchanges even though the announcement hasn't been made (other
than the tariff filing notice).

I inquired about boxes and was referred to a company in Connecticut
that will ship but just to Connecticut and New York.  They have two
boxes: 14 number memory for $39 + $5 shipping and handling and another
one that has 70 number memory for $79 + $10.  The local AT&T Phone
Center has an 85 number job for $89 plus tax.


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

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 01:27:33 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!


The Electronic Show at McCormick Place in Chicago is open to the
public this year for the first (and possibly last?) time ever. I have
wanted to attend this show for many years and never could get in ...
so this year I am definitly going.

It is open to the public all day Saturday, May 30 and Sunday, May 31.
Admission tickets are about eight dollars each. Anyone from the area
plan on attending a week from Saturday?  Even out of towners -- if you
don't have to travel *too* far, might enjoy coming in for the weekend.

I just found out about this today.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #406
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20047;
          22 May 92 4:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29314
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28459
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:09 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #407

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 May 92 02:38:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 407

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Stopping Unwanted Incoming FAX Traffic (Jack Decker)
    Headset Recomendation Wanted (Jeff Crilly)
    Facility Data Link (FDL) (Doug Walker)
    Cellular One/Boston Update (Monty Solomon)
    MCI Mail Billing (Randy Gellens)
    Peter Wright: Spycatcher's Encyclopedia (Heinemann Australia) (N. Roberts)
    Calling France from Interop (Thomas K. Hinders)
    Pacific Telesis Studies Telco Divestiture (Richard T. Wurth)
    Australian Telecom Busts ([e-mail])
    Meridian Manuals Wanted (Tom Link)
    800 Number With "Routing Error" (Warren Burstein)
    One More Number (Doug Faunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 17:08:18 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stopping Unwanted Incoming FAX Traffic


I thought readers of the TELECOM Digest might like to see (and maybe
comment) upon the following message, which is my reply to a message
that originally appeared in the Fidonet FCC echo.  As I wrote this, I
was thinking about the guy who bills telemarketers for the time he
spends talking to them on the phone (I don't recall his name, but he
was the subject of a previous thread here in the Digest):

* From : Jack Decker, 1:154/8 (19 May 92 12:19)
* To   : Tom Jorgenson
* Subj : Re: Pet Peeve

On 17 May 92, Tom Jorgenson wrote to All:

> I was wondering if anyone else out there had the same pet peeve
> as I do - and if anyone had come up with a way to deal with it.
> Our company receives 50-60 faxes a week, not from customers who
> the fax machine is operated for, but from other companies who barrage us
> with price lists and pitches who got our number from a directory of fax
> numbers which somebody is selling out there. Typically we end up with a
> pile of paper on the floor from these guys. To tell any one company to
> -stop- we have to make a long distance telephone call - and many of them
> still won't stop, and keep sending their price lists over and over
> again. Note that I'm not talking about companies that we've ever contacted,
> but companies who simply got our telephone number off a list that somebody
> sold them. Unlike regular phone calls, every time they send us one of these
> faxes, it costs us money - the paper plus the lost time to customers of the
> fax availabilty. Very few companies actually do this, but since the
> listings are sold for the entire county and broadcast faxes are easy to set
> up, it's beginning to become a major problem. You'd think that these
> companies would realize that they were aggravating and stop (my own company
> would never consider sending faxes that weren't requested), but some of
> them will barrage you with them even when you've contacted them repeatedly.
> In one case I filed a complaint with the local telephone company, and this
> only caused them to stop for 2 months - then it started all over again (12
> pages per fax, 1 fax per day).

> I'm seriously considering taking the issue to the FCC, since the phone
> companies say that there is little that they can do.

> Any suggestions?

Sorry for the long quote, but you need to have read the whole post to
understand my remarks which follow:

I'd definitely write a letter of complaint to the FCC, and also to my
congressman and senators.  But I have another, slightly more perverse
suggestion:

Set up a division of your company that does advertising/price list
analysis (that's YOU!).  When you get a "junk fax", send them a letter
that says something like "Thank you for sending us your advertising
and promotional material for analysis.  As you may be aware, our fees
for this service are $500 for account setup, and $25 per page we
analyze.  For each page you send or FAX us, we will offer our
professional opinion of your advertising material and/or product
pricing.  Please note that our FAX number is for the use of clients
only, and therefore, if you continue to send advertising material to
this number, we will open an account for you and perform our analysis
and bill you accordingly.  If you do not wish to avail yourselves of
our service, please do not FAX any more material to us.  Since we have
not done business with your firm in the past, we will hold this
initial batch of FAXed material for up to ten days until we receive
further instructions from you.  If we do not hear from you within that
time, your material will be destroyed, unread.  Ethical and legal
considerations prohibit us from examining materials sent by
non-clients.  However, we must emphasize that should your firm
continue to send materials to our FAX machine, we will consider this
acceptance of our offer of service, and we will bill you accordingly."

Make it sound as much like a legitimate business as possible, and if
you manage to collect from even a small percentage of the offenders,
it will pay for an awful lot of fax paper.  In any case, I'll bet a
lot of the faxes will stop when the first bill from you arrives in the
mail!

I'll let the attornies comment on what a court might do if you
actually tried to collect in court for this service, but I'll bet that
if you could show that a company contined to send you advertising even
after you started billing them for your service, that would constitute
acceptance of your offer and they'd be on the hook.  Of course, the
law is always a bit of a crap shoot in matters like this, but I'll bet
sooner or later you'd find a sympathetic judge and win one!

My fee for this idea is only 10% of whatever you take in ... ;-) ;-)


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

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

From: markets![e-mail] (Jeff Crilly N6ZFX)
Subject: Headset Recomendation Wanted
Organization: AMIX Corp., Palo Alto, CA
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 16:56:21 GMT


We're thinking about getting a few headsets here and I'm wondering if
anyone would care to make a recomendation.  I know about Plantronics,
but don't have any current literature.  I also have a catalog from a
mail-order place called Hello Direct.  They seem to sell they own
stuff, but it may just be relabled OEM products.

I also have literature for headsets from a company called ACS.  These
units have amplifiers with noise removing ciruits (like an AGC, I
guess) which prevents the operator from get blasted by modems and
other annoying loud signals.  They also have noise cancelling
microphone, clickless mute, variable volume, etc.  These headsets are
supposedly OSHA approved (They keep the noise to the ear below 85dB).

Cost is important, but we don't want to spend money on something that
has problems, or won't last.


Thanks,

Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX)
AMIX Corporation  2345 Yale Street  Palo Alto, CA  94306
[e-mail], {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff, N6ZFX@N6IIU.#NOCAL.CA.USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Facility Data Link (FDL)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 16:00:22 -0400
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


I have heard a rumor that AT&T plans to apply a surcharge to T1 lines
which do not support the Facility Data Link (FDL).  Can anyone back
this rumor up?  Any more details?

Respond by mail if possible and thanks in advance.


Doug Walker                [e-mail]
MITEL Corporation
Semiconductor Division     Witty disclaimer t.b.a.
Kanata, Ontario

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 01:45:04 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One/Boston Update


Cellular One/Boston has added a new service:

*FAX (329) will connect you to FaxLink which will transcribe and send
a fax to any domestic destination for $3.95 and any international
destination for $9.95.  Additional destinations for the same fax are
$1.00 each.  Airtime charges apply as well.

You can send them graphics (letterhead, signature, form letters, etc)
ahead of time which they will store on disk for you for no additional
charge.

The service is available from 9am thru 11pm M-F.

Cellular One/Boston has also announced that they will be installing
fully digital-ready equipment at all of their cell sites and switching
locations in the third quarter.  They are going to be using AT&T
equipment and will begin selling dual analog and digital phone sets.
They claim they were the first in the country to install a fully
digital-ready system (Washington/Baltimore 2/92) and that they are now
converting Chicago and Dallas.

They have also installed microcells and fiber optics in the Sumner and
Callahan tunnels to provide continuous service in the tunnels.  These
two tunnels connect downtown Boston to Logan Airport.


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

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 20 MAY 92 20:18
Subject: MCI Mail Billing


In Telecom 12.382, [e-mail] (Patty Winter) writes:

> 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. ...

> 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.

When I first signed up, I overpaid my bills to (I thought) save time.
Rather then send a check for $2.35 or whatever, I'd just send $20 and
use up the credit.  Hah!  I was assuming that a big company like MCI
had a decent billing system.  Turns out their billing system can't
handle credits.  Credits, overpayments, and such never show up.  I
finally gave up on their 800-number, and started sending mail to
MCIHELP.  They claim it is a free mailbox.  I hope so.


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
If mail bounces, forward to [e-mail]<
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 92 00:19:12 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts  21-May-1992 0850 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Peter Wright: Spycatcher's Encyclopedia (Heinemann Australia)


A couple of months ago, while on my travels, I bought a copy of 'The
Spycatcher's Encyclopedia' at a European airport.

This is a sort of sequel to the notorious 'Spycatcher', but is in my
view, perhaps more of a essay into the technical background of the
goings-in described in 'Spycatcher'. I believe that in any event this
book would probably be of interest to a number of Digest reader's
anyway, but in addition there are a number of things described in the
book which deal directly with telephony.

The telephone technology mentioned is, of course, 25 years out of
date, but it's highly interesting stuff nonetheless. [I reached a
_very_ interesting hypothesis about the British phone system -- run by
the Post Office at the time -- from reading this book, but I don't
intend to elaborate, just in case my guess turns out to be correct!
Read the book for yourself].

I would guess that the book is freely available in the U.S.A., but
somehow I don't expect it to be distributed in the U.K. Like the
original `Spycatcher', this book is probably only available to
residents of the United Kingdom by ordering it by post from a bookshop
in another EC state, such as the Netherlands or the Republic of
Ireland.


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Date: 20 May 92 09:43:11+0400
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Calling France from Interop


I'm at Interop in DC this week and encountered a telephone issue that
someone on the net might be able to help with.

I ran into a French woman who was trying to place an International
call with her bank card.  It looked similar to my AT&T Universal Visa
card (it had Visa on it).  But she could not use it to place a call
charged to it.

My first suggestion was to place a collect ... but she indicated that
France does not have collect calls.

Then I got on the line with the International Operator (AT&T, I think)
and tried to discover who her provider from the US would be.

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance ... BTW Mitch Kapor is the keynote speaker.  He
proposes that the country get on the ISDN bandwagon now!

                    Thomas K Hinders
           Martin Marietta Computing Standards
                4795 Meadow Wood Lane
                  Chantilly, VA 22021
            703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)

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

Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:51:14 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard T Wurth)
Subject: Pacific Telesis Studies Telco Divestiture
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs/Lincroft, NJ


In the 1Q92 quarterly report, in the letter to shareowners, signed by
its Chairman and CEO, Sam Ginn, Pacific Telesis Group has announced:

[...] our Board has decided to undertake an in-depth analysis of
whether a new structure for Pacific Telesis is a better vehicle with
which to pursue future success.  This analysis will focus on a
proposal to separate the Bell Operating Companies (Pacific Bell,
Nevada Bell and Pacific Bell Directory) from the other operations of
Pacific Telesis.  We will examine whether a spin-off of the Bell
Companies to Pacific Telesis' shareowners would better serve the
interests of our shareowners, customers, and employees, and would
better position the resulting companies to pursue future
opportunities.

This story has been kicked about in the press (I have seen it in the
NY Times and the WSJ) for about a month or more, but I haven't seen
any mention here.  I thought some might be interested, especially
since this is finally something from an official source.


Rich Wurth / LZ 1H-303 / AT&T-Bell Labs / 307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd.
Lincroft, NJ  07738-1526 / 908 576 6332
att!mtuxj!rtw or [e-mail] (Mail to cbnewsj!rtw may get lost.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Australian Telecom Busts
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 06:01:54


    On 5th March earlier this year, the house of Simon Williamson
(Sysop of Liberty WHQ/ Ripmax) had his house raided by the Australian
Federal Police. Meanwhile two users of the BBS, Raul Soban and Marcus
Pinder, had there houses raided. The arresting officers being Det
Serg. Glen Birman and Det. Peter Middlehouse.  Computer equipment,
TV's and Amplifiers, Osc. Scopes were confiscated for evidence.

    The first hearing on the 7th saw the case remanded to 21st May
and bail was renewed. The following hearing (21st May) saw the bail
bonds renewed for all three parties, with the case remanded again,
this time to Friday 10th July. The federal police claiming they needed
more time to go through the evidense and also to work out what
property would be forfeited.


The Iron Eagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Link)
Subject: Meridian Manuals Wanted
Date: 21 May 92 18:29:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I have a telephone system to play with and I'd like to have the
manuals for it.

The system is made by Northern Telecom and is call "Meridian" or maybe
"norstar" (both name are on the equipment)

Does anyone have spare manuals or the address/phone/fax number of
Northern Telecom?


Thanks,

Tom Link -- N3JNN                      Internet: [e-mail]
University of Pittsburgh               Bitnet:   tml@pittvms
WPIC Drug and Alcohol Epidemiology     Phone:    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: 800 Number With "Routing Error"
Date: 19 May 92 07:47:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


I'm in Israel.  I needed to call a company, Solution Systems, for
help.  So I dialed USA Direct, the number in their manual, (800)
821-2492 and my card/PIN.  A recording told me I had reached the sales
line, if I wanted technical help I should dial 1-800-999-9663.  So I
redialed USA Direct, the number (w/o the 1) and card/PIN and got
several rings, followed by an intercept and a "number cannot be
completed as dialed" message.

The company's address is is Boston, and they also have a Mass. phone
number (which gets to the same place as the first 800 number).

So I called the sales number to check that the support number was
correct.  I stayed on the line to talk to a human who verified that
the number on the recording was correct.

I tried three more times, each time I did not dial the number myself
but let the ATT operator do it for me.  I explained to them what was
wrong, the first two just put my call through.  I told the third one
that there was no point doing this again and to please stay on the
line.  So she did, heard the recording, and said "it's a routing
problem, nothing we can do".

I called the sales number again and convinced them to transfer me to
support.  This worked, and I got a voice mail system.

I suppose I had better try reading the manual again ...


[e-mail] is worried.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 92 09:31:46 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: One More Number


Satz line is 688-7808.  That can be changed, also.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #407
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04492;
          23 May 92 11:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25370
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29341
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #408

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 May 92 10:03:27 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 408

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (David Lesher)
    Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (Sandy Kyrish)
    Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (J. Winslade)
    Re: AT&T VideoPhone Delayed (Darren Alex Griffiths)
    Re: 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16 (Joe Talbot)
    Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Jim W. Lai)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Jim W. Lai)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Cellular and ANI (Tim Gorman)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Willie Smith)
    Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice? (John Gilbert)
    Re: 950 Sprint Access (John R. Levine)
    Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Peter Z. Simpson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 18:46:01 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


> 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.

While I don't doubt this, I can thing of another benefit. Once the
cable is down there, it's only easy for somebody's anchor to find ;-}

But if the repeater-mike is working, you could drag a noisemaker
(PING, PING) and get the shore station to pipe it back to you.  Two
syncronized pingers, with space between them, some timing
measurements, and you could rapidly locate the repeaters, and the path
of the cable.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 00:48 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted


A summary of videoconference vendors can be obtained by contacting the
International Teleconferencing Association at 202-833-2549.  Be aware
that in most cases you will arrange your transmission with a carrier
and your room equipment from a vendor.  ITCA will provide you with
both equipment vendors and transmission carriers.  UK-US
videoconferencing is much more common than you think.  Good luck!

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 08:45:26 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 16-MAY-92, Michael Rosen writes:

> 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!

I just made something like this out of spare parts.  It took all of
ten minutes and cost close to zip.  It's basically two relays (low
voltage, low current) with the coils in series with the path to each
set and normally-closed contacts in series with the path to the
opposite set.  The only thing else I added were two nonpolarized 10 uf
capacitors, one across each relay coil, but it works without them.

This simply interrupts the circuit to the opposite set when either set
goes off hook.  It could be used for such things as preventing
interference with modems, etc.


Good day.        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1       DRBBS, Omaha  (1:285/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Subject: Re: AT&T VideoPhone Delayed
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 23:27:27 GMT


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> writes:

> From the 5/15/92 {Wall Street Journal}:

> 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.

Less than $30 a _day_????  Surely this must be less than $30 a month,
or maybe even a week, but not a day.  Assuming, as is usually the
case, less than 30 means $29.95 then AT&T would make the equivalent of
one sale for every 50.05 days.  They'd be getting a full return on
their money every month and a half, which, even for AT&T, is more than
a little exorbitant.


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] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16
Date: 22 May 92 18:46:08 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lauren
Weinstein) writes:

> 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.

And to show that most PBX programmers know more about what's going on
around them than the boobs at GTE California here's some of what
happened:

1) Cellular prefixes couldn't be reached at all. Dialing from 310 to a
cellular prefix in 213, intercept saying that the number's area code
had changed to 213. Helpful.

2) 520, the high volume prefix for radio and TV. Still cannot be
reached from 310. A recording tells you that the area code is now 213.
It isn't. It is supposed to work from 213,310, and 818 like 976. I
don't know about 554 (weather), I'll have to try that.

Try to get a problem corrected? Just dial 611, wait and talk to the
bozo. They'll commit to a time that the problem will be corrected
"{ME} The central office is on fire!" "{GTE CLERK} That'll be fixed
tomorrow before five PM." Once the report is in. They'll "clear" it.
That means delete it. No other action will be done. However, GTE is
scored for quality in customer service for the speed in which trouble
reports are "cleared". Prepare to make the same report several times
(thank God that they are also scored on repeated troubles
reoccurring).

I HATE GTE. Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 22 May 1992 02:17:39 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.

I know someone in the (416) area who has Caller-ID but gets "unknown
number" for my number in the (519) area, which is in-province, but
showed the number for a call that was out-of-province and not Quebec.
All this is in Ontario, for those who don't know the two exchanges
listed above.  Something is very odd about the setup.  My local
exchange is slated to be Caller-ID capable this August, by the way.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 22 May 1992 02:25:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy
Sherman) writes:

> 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.

> PacBell could get hoist on their own
> petard with this one.  [...]  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.

The v.32 and v.32bis standards use trellis-coding to achieve the
higher data rate over a 2400 baud carrier signal, achieving speeds to
4800 bps, 7200 bps, 9600 bps, 12 kbps, and 14.4 kbps.  v.42bis or
MNP5/7 compression are independent of the baud and bps rates
transmitted over the line.  But is it possible that the nature of this
4800 baud cap might possibly cause artifacts impairing these higher
speed encodings?

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

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 21:31:26 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Loren Amelang) writes:

> 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.

> 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!

I wonder if the fine folks at Pac*Bell haven't just shot themselves in
the foot with this specification?

As most readers of the Digest are aware, there is a _vast_ difference
between "baud" and "bits per second" (also referred to as "bps"), even
though common usage has equated the two.  I seem to recall that a
standard dialup line can support somewhere around a 600 baud
connection, although modulation trickery can pass better than 2400
bits per second on a 600 baud signal.  More trickery, and you can
achieve 14,400 and above.

Now, it would seem to me that, if Pac*Bell writes a tariff that
specifies "up to 4800 baud", then subscribers to that tariffed service
can expect exactly that ... and expect to get a line supporting
somwhere around eight times the current technical limit.  John Higdon
could probably comment with some authority on how closely a carrier
may be held to its tariff (given his experience with Pac*Bell), but
I'd bet that the carrier won't be able to redefine baud after the fact
if this language is adopted.

John, is this a blessing in disguise?


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

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

Date: 22 May 92 12:51:12 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular and ANI


Several messages have appeared in the past few Digests concerning
equal access from cellular subscribers.

Software is apparently available for several types of MTSO's that make
them into equal access end offices. This allows them to either
directly connect to the IC's (as stated in Steve Forrette's posting of
May 17) or via an access tandem.

The use of an RBOC access tandem requires the RBOC tariffs to support
this type of connection (we do in Kansas). From the Access Tandem (AT)
viewpoint it just looks like an equal access trunk from another end
office. The AT expects proper routing codes, etc.

 From my vantage point the main hangup with the AT arrangement has
seemed to be the requirement for the cellular customer to provide AMA
data to the LEC to allow access billing to the IC's. Most have not
seen enough advantage, I guess, in providing equal access to go
through the hassles involved in setting up the links and doing the
data processing. (Note: Direct trunking gets around passing data to
the LEC.)


Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: [e-mail] (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 17:07:12 GMT


Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]> writes:

> Shakespeare makes a 2' and 4' fiberglass cellular antenna for boats.
> There are well made and include RG-8X coax rather than RG-58.
  ...
> 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.

I'd want to use a better wire than RG-8X, as it has something like 12
db loss per 100 feet at 900 MHz, which means 50 feet of it is going to
pretty much null out the gain of the antenna.  Of course, getting the
antenna up higher probably helps a lot, but a decent cable (say 9913)
would give you most of your lost gain (canyou say that?) back.


Willie Smith     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 10:36:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) wrote:

> I was told that they were there to serve ALL of the business office
> needs of people with complex residence service needs.  This includes
> work-at-homes, residential centrex (Commstar II), modem users, BBS
> operators, and fax users.

I can vouch for this ... when I had my residence phones installed last
year I was put onto this lot of people (called "our computer expert"
by the typically-illiterate Pac*Bell account person you get when  you
call the well-known number to establish residence service) ... what I
got was this department, and they are exactly as Ed describes them.

Surprisingly pleased with this service, I am,
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice?
Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 23:46:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Gauthier) writes:

> 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

I recommend keeping the pager and then using the phone to return the
pages. The coverage of most paging systems is MUCH more reliable than
cellular systems when used with portables. 250-350 W simulcast
transmitters can give that in-building saturation that cellular can't
touch. Put the phone inside your winter coat and see how many calls
you miss.  Also, you can't yet get a vib alerting cell phone.


John Gilbert  KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, Illinois [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: 950 Sprint Access
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 21 May 92 23:45:23 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> Does anyone know what 950-1033 is for, and how to use it?

To the best of my understanding, the current more-or-less-equal access
800 system provides an interface between the local telco and the long
distance carrier which is technically similar to that from a FGB 950
number, with good voice quality, ANI, and supervision.  The cost to
the LD company also seems to be about the same.

When Sprint became able to handle their own 800 number, they decided
to switch their entire FONcard system to 800-877-8000 since 800
numbers are far less likely to be screwed up than 950 numbers by
antique phone exchanges, misprogrammed PBXes, crooked COCOTs, and the
like.

At this point, 950-1033 remains for the few Sprint subscribers who do
not have equal access, and who make calls via 950-1033 + account
number + number to call.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Z. Simpson)
Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference
Date: 22 May 92 11:45:41
Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA


    [discussion of phone numbers containing "666"]

    A long time ago, I was the proud owner of [phone]. It was
the phone in my dorm room at UMASS/Amherst (probably still is :-)

    It was on an old CENTREX system, where you only had to dial the
last five digits of the number from anywhere else within the system.
It was a favorite "fun thing" to do on Fri. and Sat. nights, I guess,
to dial 6-6666 and see what happened (more fun after a few beers).

    We finally removed the bells from our phone. That way, we could
still hear it (softly) ring but could also roll over and sleep through
it if we didn't feel like getting up to answer it.

    Oh yeah, this was before the 666 = "mark of the beast" stuff.
Just an old memory ...


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>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #408
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04410;
          24 May 92 1:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09502
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 May 1992 23:48:58 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08600
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 May 1992 23:48:50 -0500
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 23:48:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #409

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 May 92 23:48:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 409

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Christopher Wolf)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (David Lemson)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Jerry Durand)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Ben Black)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Bob Frankston)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Wiring Question for Old Phone (David Niebuhr)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Michael Ho)
    Re: High Speed Modems (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (John Higdon)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: MCI Mail Billing (John C. Fowler)
    Re: Headset Recomendation Wanted (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 07:54:59 GMT


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> The Electronic Show at McCormick Place in Chicago is open to the
> public this year for the first (and possibly last?) time ever. I have
> wanted to attend this show for many years and never could get in ...
> so this year I am definitly going.

All you need to get into most such shows is a business card that has
some plausible connection to the industry; surely you have some sort
of "Telecom Consultant" card you can lay on them ...

Pre-registration is also a way to get into most so-called restricted
shows that works like a charm.



Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 09:16:17 EST
From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm


Just to warn you that a lot of companies are going to be pulling out for
the two days that are open to the public, and all of the interesting
sessions are going to be earlier in the week.  Don't expect it to be like
a regular CES.

If you had asked, I would have given you some of the free tickets that
vendors keep sending me ... I must have thrown ten pairs away so far.


Scott

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

From: [e-mail] (CHRISTOPHER WOLF)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 11:38:47 EDT


I'm a college student whose job will be taking me within two hours of
Chicago next week.  (Benton Harbor, Buchanan: MI area).  I was
wondering about the electronics show you mentioned in the Digest.
What sort of companies or people will be there.  Which electronics
show is this?


Christopher Wolf    Electrical Engineer   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Dozens of companies in the electronics industry
will be there. This is the major annual consumer electronics show held
each year. Many exhibits will be of things to be introduced during the
next year to the public.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 00:43:38 GMT


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> It is open to the public all day Saturday, May 30 and Sunday, May 31.
> Admission tickets are about eight dollars each. Anyone from the area
> plan on attending a week from Saturday?  Even out of towners -- if you
> don't have to travel *too* far, might enjoy coming in for the weekend.

A portable phone/beeper store on S. Dearborn that I walk by on my way
to work had a sign on the door this morning offering free CES tickets.
I am going to try to get some tomorrow!  (I always thought you should
get free tickets to that sort of thing from vendors ... not PAY!)


David Lemson                                                 [phone]
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant  / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : [e-mail]                 UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail accepted                                   BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Date: Fri 22 May 1992 18:33 -0400


Minor point, the official time for the public is noon Saturday onward.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 21:53:31 PDT


> The Electronic Show at McCormick Place in Chicago is open to the

That's the Summer Consumer Electronics Show.

> public this year for the first (and possibly last?) time ever. I have
> wanted to attend this show for many years and never could get in ...
> so this year I am definitly going.

It may be the last time.  We had a booth in the last CES in January and I
talked to several of the other exhibitors there about opening the show to
the public.  I didn't find anyone who thought it was a good idea since
nothing is for sale at this show and a lot of the items on display are
prototypes (we are just now starting production on the items we were
showing) and may not even be for sale in this country.

The show rules say we must keep our booths open every day of the show
(12 hours on the 30th!!)  but we may block off a part (but not all) of
the booth.  We will be leaving about the first foot open to the public
and will not demo equipment to anyone not wearing an industry badge.
We are not doing this to be mean; but the units we will have on
display are the only ones we have at the moment and they are currently
only for sale in Europe, not of much interest for the general public.
We also only have two people to work the booth and by the weekend we
won't be in much of a mood to talk to anyone (the setup for the show
is the 27th and we won't be packed up until late Sunday night).  I
would assume you will find quite a few closed booths, but you can
still look.

The booth is NOT listed under our normal company name, so if you want
to find me, you'll have to do a bit of looking. 8-)


Jerry Durand    Durand Interstellar, Inc.   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well gee, I wish you had included the name you were
using at the show; that way we could all keep our distance and not
cause any inconvenience for your people by possibly asking dumb
questions or showing any interest in your products.  :(    PAT]

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

Date: Sat May 23 03:17:54 1992
From: [e-mail] (Ben Black)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!


Hi Pat,

I'm planning on going to CES on Sunday. Sounds like it'll be pretty
fun. The new digital cellular stuff should be there.


Ben/Nashville


[Moderator's Note: There should be lots of interesting stuff to see.
Maybe a few Digest readers will see each other there.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Fri 22 May 1992 22:08 -0500


Toggle?? Toggle??  Really, a roulette implementation with a 50/50 shot
of *67 doing what one expects?  Or is there a way of deterministically
testing which mode one is in so that one can, for example, have a
modem place a call with a known Caller-ID state?

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 18:17:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Tony Harminc <TONY@VM1.
MCGILL.CA> writes:

> 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?

Indeed, this question was raised to the Massachusetts DPU when
Caller*ID was debated.  They ruled that Caller*ID is okay, but must
have per-line and per-call blocking, AND the "block" and "unblock"
codes must be DIFFERENT!  The *67 "toggle" was ruled out.

Of course, NETel refused to go along, and we still can't get the
feature.  NET doesn't say it's because their switches don't have that
toggle fixed yet (and I agree that it's a misfeature), but it wouldn't
surprise me.


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

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 18:56:14 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Wiring Question for Old Phone


In article <[e-mail]>, John_David_Galt@cup.
portal.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 was in the local AT&T Phone Store yesterday and there were old style
Princess phones (rotary and touch tone) there.  Maybe they might have
the transformer there.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Ho)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Organization: Mystic Software Pittsburg, Ca
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 01:22:30 GMT


As a side note to the "Hey, *I* have a 9000-series home number, too"
thread:

Pacific Bell initially offered me XXX-3825.  I chuckled a little bit,
then said I didn't want that particular number, because it spelled
something lewd.

"What's it spell?" the Pac*Bell employee asked.

"Er, DUCK.  Now use your imagination with the first letter."

Maybe I should have kept it.  Sure would have been easy to remember.


Michael Ho ([e-mail])     was: [e-mail]
Michael Ho, Pleasant Hill 94523
Internet:  [e-mail]    UUCP:  ...!seeker!mikeho
R/O Capable on RIME (DISNEY/QMAIL/WRITERS): Michael Ho -> WOL

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Subject: Re: High Speed Modems
Date: 23 May 92 03:55:46 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.


moon!cyberden![e-mail] writes:

> What I mean is, does the v.32bis have downward compatibility with
> v.32 modems?

Yes.

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 14:04 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines


cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

> John, is this a blessing in disguise?

My Pac*Bell contacts have been remarkably silent on this issue. My
inclination is to believe that the final tariff version will have the
"correct" language in it and will discuss 'bps' or 'data speed' rather
than baud. Or (as occurs several places in the CPUC tariffs on other
matters), the term 'baud' may be redefined.

Andy Sherman and I discussed this (heatedly at times) off the air.
Even before the announcement I had this conspiracy theory about how
the telcos and IECs are going to start compressing the data that
carries phone calls, rendering high speed modems useless. Then (and
only then) would ISDN, switched 56, and all the other direct data
formats become a commodity worth paying real money for--given no
alternative. I was never really serious about this, but this latest
announcement gives one pause.

If in fact Pac*Bell is promising only 4800 bps throughput on ANY
dialup voice line, we may be seeing the beginnings of this attempt.
Notwithstanding all the hoo-hah that has been posted about the
wonderfulness and availability of ISDN (it is still too expensive for
casual residential use and its availability leaves a lot to be
desired), high speed modems are going to be the only practical method
of data transport for the common man for some time. It would not take
much effort by the carriers to take this all away.

Right now, it takes six telephone lines with high speed modems to
provide sufficient bandwidth for data flow through my home computer.
Even though my CO is ISDN-capable (what a shock!) and I live within
the requisite distance, a recent pricing and reality check relating to
obtaining ISDN reveals that the phone lines are still the best way to
go. Salient points: the required business grade Centrex is a waste of
money and expensive for local calling; the ISDN interface equipment
would still top $1000; and exactly one of the other sites I talk to
has ISDN-capability.

But take away those high speed modems and what other choice would
there be?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 15:28:16 GMT


> 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

I have this modem that operates on three different baud rates,
approximately 7, 10, and 22.  (No, not 7,000, or 700, but seven
symbols per second.  The baud rate goes DOWN as you approach maximum
throughput.)  It gets up to 18,000 bits/second raw data throughput,
and then you add the effect of compression on top of that.  Telebit
has sold lots of them.

Now, let's suppose I speed up this modem by a factor of 200.  The baud
rates are now 1,400, 2,000, and 4,400, still under the 4800 spec.  And
I'm getting 3,600,000 bits/second.  Of course, in the process, I had
to use a lot more bandwidth, but I guess PacBell will just have to
provide a nice, clean line that gives me 600 KHz of bandwidth.  (This
isn't how Telebit implemented "Turbo PEP", which presumably works on
real lines that exist now).

Of course, I could always leave the baud rate where it is, and design
a multi-carrier scheme that requires clean bandwidth between about 300
Hz and cosmic rays.  Now I just exceeded the combined bandwidth of all
of PacBell's fiber optic cables.

> 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?

V.32 HAH!  I could drive the main bus of every computer system ever
built, plus every satellite channel, every fiber optic cable, and
every local loop through that loophole simultaneously!


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Date: Sat, 23 May 92 14:19:20 BST
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Southern Bell apparently blocks PIC (10xxx) dialing on intra-LATA
calls here.  It's cheaper for me to use my LD carrier to make some
intra-LATA calls from my home, but I cannot prepend the PIC without
getting an intercept message from SB.  I can, however, use the FGB
number without surcharge.

I have also tried prepending an acceptable PIC (10288, for instance)
which would otherwise work on cellular here (A or B) and gotten the
same intercept in both cases and from both carriers.  Inter-LATA calls
go through fine in both cases.


Bill

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 15:01 GMT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Billing


Just for the record, I used to overpay my MCI Mail bills, and they had
no problems with it in their billing system.  On one occasion, they
only credited the monthly balance even though the check was more, but
they only cashed the check for the balance amount, so I assumed they
had just made a simple mistake in that instance.

Note that MCI Mail also has a system where they will bill your monthly
balance to a credit card instead of sending you their own bill each
month.  Write to MCI Help (yes, it's a free mailbox) for more details
on that.

(I am not a spokesperson for MCI Mail: just a normal customer.)


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 9:49:03 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Headset Recomendation Wanted


That reminds me, there was a little blurb in the "Regional" section of
the (Wilmington, Del.) News-Journal about some operators in Cumberland
(in western Maryland; I'm in northeastern Md.) getting shocked by some
headsets.  The phone company would be C&P.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #409
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05351;
          24 May 92 18:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27588
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 16:26:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22914
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 16:25:58 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 16:25:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #410

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 16:25:57 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 410

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective (Vance Shipley)
    Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Derek Andrew)
    Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Mark Henderson)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (James Buster)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! ([e-mail])
    Re: EasyReach 700 and International Calls (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Mark Cavallaro)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Richard A. Hyde)
    Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Cellular One/Boston Update (Kenneth Crudup)
    Re: Have I Been Slammed? (Michael Rosen)
    Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991" (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 21:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Availability - Outside Plant Limitations


In the proceedings of the International Symposium on Suscriber Loop
Services held in Boston, September, 1988, authors E.Arnon, W. Chomik
and S. Aly of Bell Norther Research in a paper entitled "Performance
of 2B1Q transmission system for ISDN basic access" found as follows:

> Abstract
>   Based on extensive studies by the ANSI T1 Committee, the 2B1Q
>   line code was chosen as the carriage mechanism for ISDN basic
>   rate deployment. To explore the performance limits of this code,
>   a system was built and tested. The system is described, and
>   issues and performance measurement techniques are addressed. It
>   is demonstrated from analysis of the measurement results, the
>   LOOP loss distribution, and the worst-case crosstalk values that
>   up to 98% of the North American nonloaded loops can be covered
>   with adequate performance and noise margin

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 01:17:50 GMT


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

> [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]

Actually it may be!

In the case of the {USA Today} fiasco you suggested that a routing
table entry error by AT&T caused the 800 -> 900 leaks.  AT&T then used
some creative billing to recoup their losses.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 18:44:15 +0100


My CLID box today showed me an incoming long distance call from
Toronto, some thousands of miles away across a couple of area codes.
Toronto is served by Bell Canada, but I am served in Saskatchewan by
SaskTel, a different phone company. Bell is regulated in Canada by the
CRTC but SaskTel is not.

This CLID might just be working all across this country!


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Henderson)
Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 03:59:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom


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.

> My exchange is (514) 289-xxxx and the person that called me is
> (613) 741-xxxx.

I've also noticed this. Some calls from area code 416 (Toronto, Ont.
and environs) are showing up on my Caller ID device in New
Westminster, B.C.  (area code 604). So, it isn't just Bell Canada
switches between Quebec and Ontario which are transmitting the
Caller-ID Data (B.C. is served by B.C. Tel).

The first time I received Caller ID data from Toronto was on 17 May.


Mark Henderson, [phone], [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Buster)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 06:54:43 GMT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Scott Dorsey <kludge@grissom.
larc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Just to warn you that a lot of companies are going to be pulling out for
> the two days that are open to the public, and all of the interesting
> sessions are going to be earlier in the week.  Don't expect it to be like
> a regular CES.

Why pull out? Surely the managers of some of these companies realize
that although they do not directly sell to the general public, demand
from the general public created by exposure to what they sell might
cause their customers to buy more in order to meet this demand.


James Buster    [e-mail]

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

From: Ron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 12:01:29 CDT


> The Electronic Show at McCormick Place in Chicago is open to the
> public this year for the first (and possibly last?) time ever.

> It is open to the public all day Saturday, May 30 and Sunday, May 31.
> Admission tickets are about eight dollars each.

Just wanted to correct the above.  My information shows that the
Summer Consumer Electronic Show is open to the public:

Sat. May 30th  12:00 (noon) till 9:00pm
Sun. May 31st  9:00am       till 6:00pm

Tickets are $8.00 in advance and
       $10.00 at the door

There are a limited number of tickets available.  Children 2 and over
pay full price -- children 10 and under must be accompanied by an
adult.  I don't have any information on where tickets can be
purchased.

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 00:28:07 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EasyReach 700 and International Calls


> [Moderator's Note: No need to be sarcastic.

Wasn't Oscar Wilde who said that sarcasm is the highest form of wit?
Well, he was half right. In any case, I can't help it, that's just my
way of looking at the world sometimes.

> What makes you think that when the European switch sees 700 it won't
> automatically default it to AT&T?

You are expecting an awful lot of European telcos here. I just don't
believe it would happen, especially with BT or Telekom. In any case, I
beleive MCI or Sprint would complain were that to happen.

> For that matter, maybe 700 will be treated like 800 and not automatically
> extended.

That was exactly the case some weeks ago, when I tried 700-555-4141
from England and got a BT intercept.

> They may require going through USA Direct like 800 numbers do now.

Yes, but this is exactly my point -- anyone with a 700 number will be
isolated from the rest of the IDD world. 99% of Europeans don't have
US calling cards and have never heard of USA Direct. (O.K. So I'm
different, I know I'm strange).

> I know if I get a 700 number I don't want to have to pay for international
> calls.   PAT]

I don't believe you've thought about this carefully. As I understand
it, a 700 subscriber only picks up the tab for inward calls if he or
she has given out a PIN number; otherwise the call is charged to the
caller as a normal long-distance call. The charge to you (the 700
subscriber) for the forwarded part of the call ought to be the same no
matter where the call originates.

You'd never have to pay for an international call unless you'd given
out the PIN, even assuming this is technically possible. In any case,
in the unlikely event of this actually being possible, it sounds to me
like a good deal -- if the call gets were charged at AT&T rates
instead of Telekom or BT rates.


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Oscar Wilde said he did not care what the Usenet
newsgroups said about him as long as they spelled his name correctly.
Or maybe it was the {London Times} he was referencing.  PAT]

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

Date: 24 May 1992 09:13:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?


> The Silent Talk Conference on Fidonet has been discussing the
> (secret?) recording of telephone calls by TDD users. Here are two
> short excerpts:

> Hugues Blanchet writes:

>> We have the right to complete and total privacy in our
>> communications and we will not accept a surveillance
>> system that will affect even one iota of our confidentiality!!!

> Jack O'Keeffe writes:

>> This is not only a Canadian concern, Hugues.  In an article in the
>> current ACM "Communications", Karen Kukich, a BellCore researcher
>> in Morristown, NJ, reports that, "One deaf relay service center was
>> helpful enough to provide a 40,000-word corpus of TDD transcripts
>> for study".

> Can any comp.dcom.telecom readers give the inside scoop on TDD privacy
> policy?

I don't know what they are talking about a "surveillance system"??
Please elaborate.

Many TDDs (now legally called TTs -- Text Telephones under the ADA
Act) have printout capability.  Since many TTs only has a one-line
display screen and is of about 24 characters in length, you can see
why the printer is needed in order to follow the converstation.

There have been some legal dispute over the legality of TT printouts.
One law enforcement agency who had arrested a deaf person (I believe
it was several years ago) allowed the deaf person to make a call -- a
TT call -- but the call contained his admission to the crime so the
officiers confiscated the TT printout to use it against him in court.
So far, there is no such law on books in federal or state levels that
controls the use of TT printouts.  In other words, the TT printouts
can be used against you unless Congress amends the privacy laws to
include TT printouts.

I read the article you mentioned.  The article said it was santized
for privacy -- all names, company names, etc. were removed.  However,
I don't agree with the relay center providing the information for
research with or without permission from each callers.  Once the relay
call is completed, it should be erased from their terminal.  This
ensures both parties (caller and callee) the confidentiality from the
third-party (relay service).


Curtis E. Reid                [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID    [e-mail] (DECUS)
P.O. Box 9887                716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice
Rochester, NY 14623-0887        716.475.6500 Fax

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?
Date: 24 May 92 08:50:36 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


All telephone use and conversations are subject to some monitoring as
a normal course of maintenance and repair activities. This monitoring
activity is done within the restrictions of the communications act of
1934 and subsequent legislation.

The recording of any conversation is not permited without the consent
of at least one participant, without a court order. I am not sure how
the law would apply to this case, as the translator may be considered
as the one party that consented.

Any leagal beagles out there that can answer that last part?


Mark Cavallaro      Opinions are my own.

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 14:21:25 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard A Hyde)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: Customer Service [e-mail]


Dialing 950-1288 from most places in the US will connect you to the
AT&T packet switched network.

I anticipate a very high demand for a *use the same number anywhere*
system.


Richard Hyde  |  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 18:20:52 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes


I thought 710 turned up as one of two N0X/N1X codes (other than N11)
which were not available as geographic area codes (610 being the
other).


[Moderator's Note: The present use of 710 is for something called
'Government Special Services' or 'Special Government Services'. I am
not sure what it does. Anyone know?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Cellular One/Boston Update
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 14:45:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> They have also installed microcells and fiber optics in the Sumner and
> Callahan tunnels to provide continuous service in the tunnels.  These
> two tunnels connect downtown Boston to Logan Airport.

About freakin' time! I wonder why it took so long. I would imagine a
lot of traffic could be generated by airport-area folks while they
endure that loooooong wait in the tunnel.


Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142    [phone]
[e-mail]    OSF has nothing to do with this post.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: Have I Been Slammed?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 23 May 92 05:47:35 GMT


> 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]

No, you're incorrect here.  On a phone with no LD service, you can
make a 0+ call in order to use a calling card.  I should know because
my friend called me with his from such a phone.  He lives in a house
with about four other guys and, in order to make paying bills easier,
they have no LD service and each one gets his/her own calling card.
That way they only have to split the base fee and not squabble over LD
charges.

Of course, I wonder if he's paying a surcharge per call for using a
calling card for every call.  I believe he's getting an MCI card.  Is
there no surcharge if the call originates from your home prefix?  This
is what I was told freshman year when getting an AT&T calling card.
Do most of the companies operate this way?


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: The "Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991"
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 13:35:15 GMT


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

> 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.

So the *customers* of the service are breaking the law?

This is one of those laws that have made the whole population
unwitting violators of one or another of them, so the state has a
handle on everyone one way or another and the only way to remain safe
is not attract the state's attention.

Oh sure, you would probably be acquitted of leaving a message for your
aunt Trudy ... but the hassles of unremitting court cases can be
punishment enough in themselves.


Peter da Silva   [e-mail]   Taronga Park BBS
[phone]/1032    Houston, TX, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #410
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06712;
          24 May 92 18:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29931
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 17:11:24 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28889
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 17:11:17 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 17:11:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #411

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 17:11:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 411

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (John Nagle)
    Re: Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) WANTED (John Adams)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (Marc Unangst)
    Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic (Lynne Gregg)
    310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Gloria C. Valle)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Andy Finkenstadt)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Jeffrey Porten)
    Using *8 For Outside Lines (Robert M. Hamer)
    Third Line Problems (Scott Colbath)
    AT&T EasyReach From Abroad ([e-mail])
    Last Laugh! A Very Old CENTREX Indeed! (Michael Scott Baldwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 07:14:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> Even before the announcement I had this conspiracy theory about how
> the telcos and IECs are going to start compressing the data that
> carries phone calls, rendering high speed modems useless. Then (and
> only then) would ISDN, switched 56, and all the other direct data
> formats become a commodity worth paying real money for--given no
> alternative. I was never really serious about this, but this latest
> announcement gives one pause.

> If in fact Pac*Bell is promising only 4800 bps throughput on ANY
> dialup voice line, we may be seeing the beginnings of this attempt.

I'll join you in that conspiracy ... a couple data points to make for
a gloomy day:

The portion of FTS-2000 that I see is all 64Kbps per channel, but I
have heard that users are advised that it will not work at speeds
greater than "4800 baud", and in practice they have found that it will
not work at 9600 bps.  That sounds to me like 32Kbps per channel
transmission facilities are being used somewhere for the FTS system.

Our circuit engineering people have found that it is now necessary to
specify 64Kbps transmission facilities, rather than assume it, when
purchasing facs for leased lines that extend out of our area.  It
becomes loads of fun to turn up a leased line for service and find out
the customer can't pass data on what appears to be a very good
channel, but turns out to be encoded somewhere at 32 Kbps for one
hop ...

The PSTN is next?

Well I don't know.  I heard through the vine that AT&T does not
compress *any* domestic traffic.  (They petitioned the FCC to force
Pacific Telecom and Alascom to compress traffic on the North Pacific
Fiber to Alaska, and the definitive answer was that AT&T doesn't do
that to their customers ...)

When the NP Fiber has broken (twice now), Alascom has used three to
one compression on almost all restoral routes.


Floyd

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 18:02:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


It would seem appropriate to insist that Pac Bell comply with the
CCITT standards on telephone line quality assumed in the V.32
specification.

One might also point out that standard Group 3 FAX is 9600 bits/sec.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) WANTED
Date: 24 May 92 09:12:00 GMT
Organization: /home/fsg/jna/.organization


What you are trying to do is quite simple.

Get yourself a low-voltage DC relay, like a 3v relay ...

Set it up as follows:


         Audio Isolation
         Transformer
 To      <--)||(---------------------+
            )||(                     | <==== Relay Contacts
 Speaker <--)||(---+    +--------o/  o
          600ohm   |    |        ,,,,, DC 3v Relay Coil
                   |    |       |     |
  RED   -----------|----+-------+     +----------> To Dispatcher's Phone
                   |
  GREEN -----------+-----------------------------> To Dispatcher's Phone

  |                               |
 -+- indicates a connection,     ---  is not connected.
  |                               |

You may have to use a diode or two to make this telephone-line / FCC
clean ... I'm not saying this is a clean circuit at all. It's cheap and
dirty! You may have to use a Op-Amp (Use an LM386, they're good for
speakers) on the speaker. Depends. Experiment!

Circuit Theory:

When the Dispatcher picks up the phone (in a standard circuit, I have
NO clue what your PBX does ... this will work on standard home phones,
and I used to use it for a tape-recording controller) Hey, there's an
Idea. spend $25 on a telephone recording device, and hitch it to a
nice loud amp and speaker combo, instead of a tape deck. It'll save
you loads of time ...

Anyhow ... the voltage will turn into DC , approx 6-10VDC when the
phone is picked up, (which is why you've gotta put it before the
dispatcher's phone) and click the relay. The relay will connect the
transformer, and feed the speaker. It might be towards your advantage
to use a SPDT relay, and connect _BOTH_ ends of the transformer, and
not just switch one end in and out. That might prevent some line
noise.

Hope this helps tons ...


John Adams \/ [e-mail]
Bell*Net: <617> 266-4088   Boston,MA <USA>

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 13:12:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David
Lesher) writes:

>> 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.

AT&T has, for many years, installed hydrophones on the ocean floors
under contract to the U.S. Navy.  There are a great many submarine
cables other than the ones that connect opposite shores.  Lots of
cables only fan out to hydrophone installations, part-way across.
While I had not previously heard about piggybacking hydrophones on
trans-oceanic communications cables, it is probably a sensible re-use
of an expensive resource, isn't it?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 01:11:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:

[Describes elaborate scheme whereby the U.S. Gov't distributes the
"Modem Tax" letter over and over again, each time it being a hoax,
just so they can spring a REAL modem tax on us someday.]

> If this doesn't make anybody paranoid, I'd like to hear why.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."

There is enough turnover in the Usenet and general modem/BBS
community, and enough naive but helpful people out there, that it's
very easy to believe that someone new to BBSing could find this file
on a BBS somewhere, get all worked up about it, and start spreading it
to every BBS and message system in town -- deathly afraid that this
wonderful new communication tool they've just discovered is under
attack by the government.  And other similarly naive users are all too
happy to help "spread the word."

The other concern I have is that there has NEVER been an attempt by
the FCC to implement a "modem tax."  There have been two types of
incident, as far as I can remember, with regards to modems and
taxes/fees: 1) The CompuServe/LD access fee event; and 2) attempts by
the RBOCs to make BBSes use business lines.  (1) has been adequately
explained by another participant in this forum, I believe -- it
relates to the fact that CompuServe and similar services do not have
to pay the Long Distance Carrier Access Fee, while you, me, and
everyone else has to.  At one point the FCC wanted to change this;
CompuServe tried to get its subscribers to write letters to the FCC
protesting this.  The FCC has since tabled the measure, and has no
plans to reopen the issue at this time.  (2) has also been debated at
length; basically, some RBOCs feel that BBSes, either through uploads
and downloads or through accepting donations to support the BBS, are
businesses and should therefore pay business phone rates.  BBS sysops
have complained about this, since most of them aren't making a profit,
are doing it as a hobby, and business lines cost quite a bit more than
residential lines in some areas.  I don't know what has happened with
this issue; since it's usually somewhat regional, there has never been
the kind of national controversy about it that (1) had.

However, it is interesting to note that neither of those two measures
would actually directly charge modem users money.  If CompuServe has
to start paying LD access fees for its phone lines, it may end up
raising rates as a result, but that still is not a direct fee.  And if
BBSes have to start using business lines, more sysops may tend towards
the commercial spectrum of the BBS market (mandatory usage fees,
etc.), but again, your average modem user will not be charged a direct
fee.

Finally, I don't think that the federal government, or some nebulous
entity called "The Phone Company", is sufficiently organized that they
could successfully pull off something like the hoax that Kurt
described.  As much as I hate the bureaucracy of our system of
government, it does have one redeeming value -- it tends to be
somewhat difficult to do any sort of large-scale operation without
someone finding out.


Marc Unangst    [e-mail]    <backbone>!sharkey!mudos!mju

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

Date: 24 May 92 13:46:08 EDT
From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic


In response to the matter of JUNK FAXES raised by Jack Decker ...

Cute idea about charging the solicitors for sending, but in my mind
(and probably wouldn't stand in court either), junk faxes are really
just another form of telemarketing.  I receive lots of unwanted phone
calls as I'm sure most of you do, too.  They're a hassle, but frankly
NOT illegal (after all, this IS a free, capitalist country).  So, many
of us buy phone answering machines to screen these calls out or we
answer them -- in any case, it costs us to handle these voice calls,
too.

I guess what I'D do if I had a particularly odious repeat fax offender
is, I'd dump fistfuls of his faxed solicitations right back into my
machine and call in an off-peak hour.  I'd slap on a cover that asked
the company to remove my name from their list forever and I'd let them
know that if they didn't comply, I'd fling every page and MORE back at
them.

How common, though, IS this type of fax solicitation?


Lynne Gregg

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 23 May 92 19:05:00 UT
Subject: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault


I really get pissed when someone who shoots his mouth off when he does
not know what he is saying about the telecomunications industry. First
the problems with the 213/310 change over where not GTE's problem. We
cut all of our switching centers at once. PacBell and a few if the
Interlata carriers set their cuts for one or two at a time. That caused
major problems since people were dialing from different areas. I don't
say GTE did not make any errors as this was one major cut and the
problems in LA sure did not help any. Get your facts straight.

Sorry Pat, I have just been in this business to long to let that one
go.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Finkenstadt)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Vista-Chrome Incorporated
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 14:46:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Ho) writes:

> Pacific Bell initially offered me XXX-3825.  I chuckled a little bit,
 ..
> "Er, DUCK.  Now use your imagination with the first letter."
> Maybe I should have kept it.  Sure would have been easy to remember.

Note .signature, they gave this to me when I requested phone service
for the first time.  :) (Yes, I think the service representative at
CenTel helped out just a little.)


Andrew Finkenstadt         +1 904 222-ANDY home    GEnie:  ANDY
Homes & Land Publishing    [phone] work    ...!uunet!rde!andy
Vista-Chrome, Inc.         1600 Capital Cir SW     [e-mail]
GEnie Unix Sysop/Manager   Tallahassee, FL 32310

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey  Porten)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Date: 24 May 92 21:29:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


> Pacific Bell initially offered me XXX-3825.  I chuckled a little bit,
> then said I didn't want that particular number, because it spelled
> something lewd.

> Maybe I should have kept it.  Sure would have been easy to remember.

The telephone numbers around here are 382-XXXX, so presumably someone
has, to use Michael's euphemism, DUCK-YOU.  I've been tempted to try,
just to see if Bell of PA is smart enough not to issue it, but it's
too similar to a crank call for me to give it a shot.

Still, THAT'S a memorable number.


Jeff Porten, Annenberg School for Communication, UPenn
             Graduate Group in American Civilization, UPenn
As per usual, my opinions are my own, not Penn's, Pugwash's, or anyone else's.

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 09:43 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using *8 For Outside Lines


This university uses a centrex system from C & P for its telephone
system.  To get an outside line, one dials 9, gets a dial tone, and
then dials the local number.

We received a memorandum from the university's communications office
(or whatever it is called; I don't have a copy in front of me) saying
that the centrex service from C & P was currently disrupted, that the
form of the disruption was difficulty in getting an outside line by
dialing 9, and the temporary work-around was to dial *8 to get an
outside line.

Does anyone have any idea of what might be going on here, and how the
*8 might be working?

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: Third Line Problems
Date: 24 May 92 12:59:56 GMT


Hi all,

    I have had several requests for more information on the UDC
device which replaces the SLC-1 as the additional (second) voice line
carrier over a single pair. As of yet, I have heard nothing more on
how it functions other than the statement made to me by the USWEST
engineer that "It is everything the slick-1 should have been". He is
waiting for one of these devices to come in (they are very new). A
soon as it does, he said I would get it for "testing" purposes,
providing him with feedback on the performance of the device.

    I will post again to the newsgroup as soon as I have this
thing in my hands and have had a chance to use it.


Scott Colbath   Stratus Computer   Phoenix, Az.  [phone]
Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 92 13:06
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T EasyReach From Abroad


 From reading TELECOM Digest I understand that each IEC has its own
700 number range. So an AT&T 700 number has a different address than
the same number in the MCI, SPRINT, ... networks.

While it is no big deal in the US, foreign callers can not dial 10xxx
to specify the destination network. This creates problems since either
no 700 number can be dialed from abroad or the 700 area code is
assigned to one IEC (presumably) AT&T. But how can other networks then
be reached from foreign countries?

Suggestions?

Juergen @ University of Karlsruhe, Germany

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 92 15:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Last Laugh! A Very Old CENTREX Indeed!


Peter Simpson writes:

> It was on an old CENTREX system... this was before the 666 = `mark
of the beast' stuff."

Wow!  That system was *really* old!  The `666 stuff' was first written
down in The Revelation to John (verse 13:18) in approximately AD 95. :-)


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, well it was one of the first prototypes, when
the centrex software was still in beta testing.   :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #411
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08427;
          24 May 92 19:41 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26810
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 17:59:32 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31956
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 17:59:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 17:59:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #412

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 17:59:18 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 412

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Virgin Islands Phreak Arrested and Convicted (W5YI Report via John Rice)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Brad S. Hicks)
    Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Eli Mantel)
    ASCAP and BMI Lose One (Ken Jongsma)
    Where to Learn About the Phone Network? (Mike Rose)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Virgin Islands Phreak Arrested and Convicted
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 23 May 92 18:03:55 GMT


With the on-going discussion of the 'legalities' of unauthorized use
of long distance access codes (or phone credit card numbers), the
following is forwarded from alt.ham.radio, as it might be of interest
to readers.  Apparently you don't have to be 'caught with the card' so
to speak, to be found guilty of toll fraud using un-lawfully obtained
access numbers.

Additional details of this story have been published a number of places.

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

[relayed from packet]

 Msg #1083
 From: KZ1D
 Date: 15-May 0309Z
 Subj: The Compleate KV4FZ (1)

OK, you asked for it, and here it is!  The WHOLE, unexpungatetd (sp?)
article as it appeared in the May 15 W5YI Report ...

KV4FZ: GUILTY OF TELEPHONE TOLL FRAUD

St. Croix ham operator, Herbert L. "Herb" Schoenbohm, KV4FZ, has been
found guilty in federal court of knowingly defrauding a Virgin Islands
long-distance telephone service reseller.  He was convicted April 24th
of possessing and using up to fifteen unauthorized telephone access
devices in interstate and foreign commerce nearly five years ago.

The stolen long distance telephone access codes belonged to the
Caribbean Automated Long Lines Service, Inc. (CALLS) of St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.  Schoenbohm was found to have made more than
$1,000 in unauthorized telephone calls -- although the prosecution
said he was responsible for more (make that far more).

According to the {Virgin Islands Daily News}, Schoenbohm, who is also
the St. Croix Police Chief of Communications, showed no emotion when
he was pronounced guilty of the charges by a 12 member jury in U.S.
District Court in Christiansted.  The case was heard by visiting
District Judge Anne Thompson.

Neither Schoenbohm or his defense attorney, Julio Brady, would comment
on the verdict.  The jury deliberated about seven hours.  The
sentencing, which has been set for June 26, 1992, will be handled by
another visiting judge not familiar with the case.

Schoenbohm, who is Vice Chairman of the V.I. Republican Committee, has
been released pending sentencing although his bail was increased from
$5,000 to $25,000.  While he could receive a maximum of ten years on
each count, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alphonse Andrews said Schoenbohm
probably will spend no more than eight months in prison since all
three counts are similar and will be merged.

Much of the evidence on the four day trial involved people who
received unauthorized telephone calls from KV4FZ during a 1987 period
recorded by the CALLS computer.  Since the incident took place more
than five years ago, many could not pinpoint the exact date of the
telephone calls.

The prosecution produced 20 witnesses from various U.S locations,
including agents from the Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service,
Treasury Dept. and Federal Communications Commission.  In addition
ham operators testified for the prosecution.

Schoenbohm was portrayed as a criminal who had defrauded CALLS out of
hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Schoenbohm admitted using the
service as a paying customer, said it did not work and that he
terminated the service and never used it again.  He feels that there
was much political pressure to get him tried and convicted since he
had been writing unfavorably articles about Representative DeLugo, a
non-voting delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands, including his
writing of 106 bad checks during the recent rubbergate scandal.

Most, but not all the ham operators in attendance were totally opposed
to KV4FZ.  Bob Sherrin, W4ASX from Miami attended the trial as a
defense character witness.  Sherrin told us that he felt the
conviction would be overturned on appeal and that Schoenbohm got a raw
deal.  "They actually only proved that he made $50 in unauthorized
calls but the jury was made to believe it was $1,000."

Schoenbohm's attorney asked for a continuance due to newly discovered
evidence but that was denied.  There also is a question as to whether
the jury could even understand the technology involved.  "Even his own
lawyer couldn't understand it, and prepared an inept case," Sherrin
said.  "I think he was railroaded.  They were out to get him.  There
were a lot of [ham] net members there and they were all anti-Herb
Schoenbohm.  The only people that appeared normal and neutral were the
FCC.  The trial probably cost them a million dollars.  All his enemies
joined to bring home this verdict."

Schoenbohm had been suspended with pay from the police department job
since being indicted by the St. Croix grand jury.  His status will be
changed to suspension without pay if there is an appeal.  Termination
will be automatic if the conviction is upheld.  Schoenbohm's wife was
recently laid off from her job at Pan Am when the airline closed down.
Financially, it could be very difficult for KV4FZ to organize an
appeal with no money coming in.

The day after the KV4FZ conviction, Schoenbohm who is the Republican
Committee vice chairman was strangely named at a territorial
convention as one of eight delegates to attend the GOP national
convention in Houston this August.  He was nominated at the caucus
even though his felony conviction was known to everyone.  Schoenbohm
had even withdrawn his name from consideration since he was now a
convicted felon.

The {Virgin Island Daily News} later reported that Schoenbohm will not
be attending the GOP national convention. "Schoenbohm said he came to
the conclusion that my remaining energies must be spent in putting my
life back together and doing what I can to restore my reputation.  I
also felt that any publicity in association with my selection may be
used by critics against the positive efforts of the Virgin Islands
delegation."

Schoenbohm has been very controversial and vocal on the ham bands.
Some ham operators now want his amateur radio license pulled -- and
have made certain that the Commission is very much aware of his
conviction.


John Rice         K9IJ    |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
[e-mail]     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's....
(708)-438-7011 - (home)

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Sun May 24 15:12:58 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud


In TCD 12.405, Michael F Eastman responded to my earlier comments
with:

> Organization: AT&T

(In other words, NOT an unbiased source.)

> Ah, but how did the network get to be nonblocking and able to
> handle PEAK loads? By estimating the number of PEAK calls, building
> the network to meet the capacity

In other words, the network has sufficient capacity to meet peak
demand, so off-peak usage (unless it's so extreme that it creates an
artificial peak, in which case it should be easy to detect) uses up,
fills, or blocks no network components.  That's my point.  Thank you
for confirming it.

> A PTT is a business, albeit, a regulated one. They provide a
> service and charge to recover costs plus some profit.

That's right.  And several of them are making money hand over fist
without bothering to chase blue-boxers and DISA hackers.  Maybe, as I
said (and you didn't respond to), the costs imposed by blue-boxers and
DISA hackers are lower than the costs of enforcement.  If they're not,
then how are those PTTs making money?  What do they know that you
don't know?

>> Do you really think that most phreakers could afford that call?

> Do you really think that I can afford that diamond bracelet you
> mention later?  Why can't I just have it?

Because if you have it, then nobody else can.  Which doesn't apply to
phone service.  But my point was, you can't figure the amount actually
stolen from the telco by figuring what some business user is capable
of affording; they couldn't have sold that much service at those
prices.  And that keys directly into my major point, which you fed me
just the straight line for:

> It is estimated that phone fraud costs at least one billion dollars
> a year and is growing.

I love those passive verbs.  It is estimated BY WHOM?  And how?  The
same kind of phone companies that included the complete replacement
costs of two Sun workstations in figuring the "fair market cost" of an
administrative document that was written on them, in Craig Neidorf's
trial?

Show me how AT&T, or even the aggregate of all telcos, has had to
spend billions of dollars because of phreaking.  Who did they pay this
money to?  And what did they spend it on?

> Where is the analogy to the phone system?

Well, I =don't= think it's a very good analogy.  And that's my point.
As you point out, I had to stretch logic around to show ANY comparison
between phone fraud and credit card fraud.  That's part of what I was
trying to prove, that it was unfair of Pat and others to make that
analogy.

> A service (like phone service) is not merchandise because we can't
> hold it in our hands?

Oh no, phone service is definitely a service, and stealing it is
definitely stealing.  But then, parking spaces are definitely
merchandise, too, and parking at a broken parking meter is stealing,
too.  Theft is not just theft, there's a spectrum from taking the
extra change that a vending machine sometimes gives you to shoplifting
to petty theft to grand theft to armed grand theft, with appropriate
levels of investigation and appropriate levels of punishment at each
increment.

And phone service is a service like few or no others; it's a service
which (if used off peak) adds no incremental cost to the provider.
(What, am I supposed to believe that you guys roll up TAT-9 at night?)
Yeah, you really ought to pay for it when you use it and I'm glad that
most people do.  But if a tiny handful of people figure out ways to
fool you out of it, so what?

The contrary example that's supposed to make me recoil in horror is if
somebody steals my car to go joy-riding in but brings it back before I
need it the next time.  Look, if I had a fleet of cars so there was no
way I'd have to worry about needing one and not having it, and if the
thieves always returned the car in original condition or better and
with a full tank of gas, yes, I'd be irritated but I wouldn't treat it
as the same crime as holding somebody up at gunpoint.

> It was only one bracelet out of hundreds of thousands produced every
> month. So who cares?

If there is ever a time when those bracelets are made by
fully-amortized automated equipment from cheap and common raw
materials, that is to say, when there is no incremental cost in one
more diamond bracelet, nobody will care.

>> And don't forget those social costs!  Retired phone phreaks
>> practically invented the personal computer industry.

> Oh really! I bet they never stole phone services!

(*buzz*) Sorry, wrong answer.  Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak honed
their electronics and sales skills making and selling blue boxes.  (I
dare say that someone with an axe to grind could probably use this to
prove that part of the money that went into founding Apple Computers
was derived from criminal activities.)  Would the world be a better
place if Apple had never existed?  And Jobs and Wozniak aren't the
only examples, just the most prominent.

> I am sorry, but I do have sympathy for the victim.

Well, to be fair, I have =some= sympathy for them.  But my God,
leaving no or a default password on a DISA line with outbound dialing
privileges is just the same as leaving a pile of hundred-dollar bills
on the doorstep.  If you do this and get ripped off for so much money
that your business goes under or you end up homeless, yes, that's a
tragedy ... but it may also be a good example of evolution in action.

And Pat, PLEASE remember: I'm NOT trying to argue that phreaks and
hackers aren't doing anything wrong ... just that what they're doing
isn't that IMPORTANT.


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: Well, if 'making money hand over fist' is an excuse
for being stolen from, then you've authorized hacking at least a couple
of your own franchisees, Brad. Service One Corporation, a/k/a Bank of
Hoven MasterCard has ripoff (although legal!) interest rates and
service charges on their secured credit cards. They've made enough
money over the years, protected by banking laws and all ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Date: 21 May 92 20:00:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


I tried pretty hard to use AT&T to dial from Portland Oregon (503-682)
to Vancouver Washington (206-254).  Even using 10288, GTE insisted on
carrying the call.  These two points are only thirty miles apart, but
they're in different states and different area codes.  Could they be
in the same LATA?  GTE operators are clueless, and the phone book (the
FM in RTFM) doesn't help.


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


[Moderator's Note: It is possible for two communities close to each
other to be in the same LATA although they are in different states.
This is the same thing you will find in northwest Indiana where the
towns of Hammond and Whiting are considered part of Chicago.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 21:05:50 GMT


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

> Southern Bell apparently blocks PIC (10xxx) dialing on intra-LATA
> calls here.  It's cheaper for me to use my LD carrier to make some
> intra-LATA calls from my home, but I cannot prepend the PIC without
> getting an intercept message from SB.  I can, however, use the FGB
> number without surcharge.

I believe that whether or not an IXC may compete with the LEC for
intra-lata calls is determined by the state PUC.  Even if the PUC
allows it, many of the IXC's will choose not to get tariffed for it.
In any case, if the IXC is not tariffed, then I expect that Southern
Bell is required to block it.

Here in NC, US Telecom IS tariffed for intra-lata calls, and as long
as I dial US Telecomm's 10xxx code, an intra-lata call will go through
US Telecom.  But if I try the same thing with MCI or AT&T, the call is
blocked.

I believe it's considered to be of questionable legality if an IXC
that is not tariffed for intra-lata calls is allowing them to go
through using Feature Group B (950 number) or any other form of
access.


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

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

Date: 24 May 92 12:02:00 EST
From: "Ken Jongsma x7702" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASCAP and BMI Lose One


Some months ago, we were discussing the need to pay royalties to ASCAP
and BMI for music on hold. In the 5-19-92 {Wall Street Journal}, a
small article indicated that according to a recent Supreme Court
ruling, retail stores were not obligated to pay royalties for the
privilege of playing a radio station over the store's PA system.

I'd be interested in hearing the details on the ruling and if it
applies to music on hold, etc ...


Ken    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Rose)
Subject: Where to Learn About the Phone Network?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 18:31:22 GMT


I see lots of info in this group where I don't even understand the
question, let alone the answer.  I'd like to learn more.

What are some good sources for learning about the phone network?


Mike Rose, [e-mail], 410-338-4949

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #412
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10183;
          24 May 92 20:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01587
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 18:40:29 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01726
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 18:40:21 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 18:40:21 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #413

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 18:40:12 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 413

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FutureCulture - New Mailing List ([e-mail])
    MCI Message Call Ignored as TeleSlime (Randy Gellens)
    Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card (John C. Fowler)
    PC-Based Voice Response Systems (Boaz Shmueli)
    TDD Detectors/Switches (Jeff Sicherman)
    Multi-Phone Line Protection (Jeff Sicherman)
    Phone Wire Colors? (Craig Harmer)
    Tip? Ring? Which Way is UP? (Paul Cook)
    How Much Line Noise is Too Much For a 2400 or 9600 bps Modem? (Steve Chafe)
    British Telecom Standards (Jens Johansen)
    DSP World Expo - Update (Amnon Aliphas)
    Used Natural Microsystems (Watson/VBX) Boards (Joel Breazeale)
    Looking For Telecommunications Publication (Vicki Kourkoulis)
    I Tried 404-666-6666 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (jabba the slut)
Subject: FutureCulture - New Mailing List
Date: 23 May 92 02:51:57 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


    |     F  U  T  U  R  E    C  U  L  T  U  R  E
    |___________________________________________________________


                  Tomorrow's Reality Today.


subscription/deletion requests:         [e-mail]

requests for FAQ:                       [e-mail]
(for those that don't want to be on the mailing list but would still
 like to receive the resource-guide/FAQ)

list administrator:                     Andy / Hawkeye
                                        [e-mail]

Just What Is the FutureCulture Mailing List???

History: One day someone sent me mail on the Internet: "hey man, could
you send me that cyberpunk bibliography you posted about?"  Sure, I
replied.  But, much to my dismay, I could not find what the fellow
cyberpunk was looking for among the volumes of papers, printouts,
folders, and disks that lay scattered across my room.  This happenned
to me all the time, so I decided to gather all of these miscellaneous
printouts and articles into one giant source.  But the more I got
involved in this task, the more I realized just how vast and infinite
this could turn out to be as I kept finding new resources to add to my
list.  At this point, the list included: cyberpunk, virtual reality,
music, movies, videos, books, ftp sites, e-mail addresses, and company
addresses.  The one thing all of the information included in my list
had in common was that it was all on the fringes of culture and it was
all oriented towards the future.

That is what FutureCulture is meant to be about -- the future and the
fringes of culture.  Topics discussed here range from computers and
the computer underground to cyberpunk genre to virtual reality to
fractals to cybernetics to post-modernism to industrial to raves to ???.

Admittedly, this is a large variety of topics, but they all have basic
underlying threads in common.

This mailing-list operates from a non-scientific perspective, although
discussions of a technical nature are welcome to some extent.
Basically, my aim is to have a mailing-list where all the "high-tech
lowlifes" (Cyberpunks, Ravers, Industrialists, Po-Po-Mo's, VR freaks,
Post-hippies and still-hippies) have a place to hang out in cyberspace
and discuss whatever they want to in terms of the developing culture
and technology.

Please realise that since the variety of topics is so big, basically
limitless and constantly changing, understand that there will be times
when the general conversation will not interest you.  But sooner or
later it will revert back to something you care about -- and you can
always start up a new topic to discuss.

The FutureCultureFAQ -- This file is an ever-growing/ever-changing
monster of a resource guide that should help you out with some of the
topics discussed on the list. If you don't like the mailing-list but
DO like that article, send mail to [e-mail] and I
will see that you only receive that article when it is updated.
Updates of the article will be regularly posted to the FutureCulture
Mailing List.


Andy / Hawkeye
[e-mail]
maintainer of the FutureCulture mailing list

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 23 MAY 92 19:59
Subject: MCI Message Call Ignored as TeleSlime


While on vacation recently, I used the MCI message center (or whatever
they call it) service.  I had been getting a busy signal while trying
to call my aunt all day, and needed to get in touch with her regarding
my visit (which was next on the trip).  So I decided to try MCI's
service (which is much like ATT's similiar service).  After getting
yet another busy, I pressed "#" for two seconds, then pressed *44, and
answered the prompts.

Turns out when it called my aunt, she answered the phone, heard
something like "This is the MCI message center with a message for",
<her name in my voice>, and she hung up, assuming it was a junk phone
call.  (She didn't recognize my voice).

I think the prevelence of teleslime will hinder the usefulness of
these services.


Randy Gellens            [e-mail] =
>If mail bounces, forward to [e-mail]<
= Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself =

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

Date: Sat, 23 May 92 14:53 GMT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card


I've now seen U.S. Sprint's advertisement on TV and in magazines for
their new calling card, which is based on the recipient's phone
number.  One of the magazine ads even said that the number is dialable
using their FGD code, 10333.  My question is, how is it that Sprint is
allowed to do this if AT&T is not?

And, if the card is based on phone number now, does that mean that the
"devious" carriers may now charge to it, as they were able to charge
to the old AT&T card?


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Boaz Shmueli)
Subject: PC-Based Voice Response Systems
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 17:46:25 GMT


We are currently looking for a cheap, PC-based, interactive voice
response (IVR) system.

Does anybody know of such a system?

Can anyone share his/hers experience?

We guess it should have an adaptor board for the telephone line and
some neat software, and it should be fluent with Hebrew ... ;-)

Any response will be highly appreciated.


Boaz Shmueli    Israel Institute of Technology
e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 92 01:18:34 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Detectors/Switches
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


Being wolefully ignorant of TDD protocols:

Are there automatic detector-switches, like fax-voice switches, that
will detect a TDD call(er) and switch the call to a TDD terminal or
modem instaed of a voice phone?

Referecnce on basic TDD operation, design, and use would be
appreciated.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Multi-Phone line protection
Date: 24 May 92 08:27:20 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Having been underwhelmed by the response to my question on the
availability of surge protectors for multiple phone lines and not
finding them on my own (hey, if they're not there, what can I expect?)

I have been examining alternatives. Pulled out my (old) Graybar
catalog -- which I should have done first -- and found some "Pico
Protector (tm)"s which are block-clip like devices that fit across
connections on a punch-down (type 66) block. They are made by Siemon
Company.

  Anyone have any experience with these? Am I being paranoid in
addressing the line-entry protection in the first place? Any lower
cost sources than Graybar (they don't seem very expensive there,
though).


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig Harmer)
Subject: Phone Wire Colors?
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 17:40:55 PDT


What is the correct ordering and pairing of phone wires, based on
color?

When using two-pair wires, I know that red/green is the standard phone
connection, and yellow/black can be a second connection. Apparently
polarity no longer matters, so there's no longer an issue of whether
red corresponds to black or yellow. The red/green pair is generally
used first.

I'm running four-pair wire, and the colors available are blue, green
brown, orange, and green (actually they're pairs:
blue-on-white/white-on-blue, green-on-white/white-on-green, etc.)

I'm inclined to order them on the punch down block (from top to
bottom) as brown, orange, green, and blue (based on the resistor color
code of black, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, grey,
white). I put the white-on-color wire of each pair first.

However, I was looking at another installation and noticed that it was
wired blue, orange, green, brown. Is their some standard for this?
I'm sure it makes life easier for phone folks if a standard ordering
is followed for punch down blocks.

What about 25 pair cable, were there are more colors involved?

I'm thinking of eventually running both twisted-pair ethernet and
phone lines down the same four-pair cable. Will that work?


Thanks for any info,

craig
{apple,uunet}!veritas!craig    [e-mail]
[phone] (h)        [phone] x220 (w)
[views expressed above aren't Veritas' views, nor should
they be mistaken for the views of any responsible person.]

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 17:27 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tip? Ring? Which Way is UP?


[e-mail] (Jim Redelfs) writes:

> In the old scheme of "quad wire" - the color RED has always been RING,
> or positive.  GREEN always was (and remains) TIP, or negative.

Yes, Red is Ring, but Ring is always negative with respect to Tip.

> In the more modern, PIC (polyethylene insulated conductor) cable, RED
> is a TIP color.

No, Red is the color for Ring.

> 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.

Nope.  If the red is negative and the WECO set breaks dialtone, all is
well.

MPA15AB![e-mail] (Randy Gellens) writes:

> 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.

GTE never worried about tip/ring polarity.  Their tests on phones in
their manufacturing and refurbishing facitlites always included a
reverse polarity test for the dial to make sure that the diode bridge
was working properly.

> Others have said that digital switches adjust polarity to match
> your phone when you go off-hook.

HUH???  How in the world can a CO possibly sense what sort of polarity
something that is hung across the line wants to see?


Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Subject: How Much Line Noise is Too Much For a 2400 or 9600 bps Modem?
Date: 21 May 92 22:10:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Organization: University of California, Davis


Does anyone know off the top of their head (or know of a good article
or book that would help me find out) what are the best parameters to
measure on a POTS line to see if it is too "noisy" for use with a
standard 2400 bps modem? I have occasional spurts of garbage
characters on my line at home, and have access to transmission test
sets that measure loss, noise, envelope delay, signal to noise, etc.
I talked to Pacific Bell about this and all they will do is listen
with a butt set for noise.  If they cant hear any, then the line is
fine.

Which measurable quantities could cause noise that would not
necessarily be audible? And what specific values of those quantities
prevent a line from passing modem data?

Any info or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!


Steve Chafe     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jens Johansen)
Subject: British Telecom Standards
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 00:46:43 GMT


Hullo netters,

I was wondering if there was some way of obtaining the British Telecom
standards for communications devices &c. particularly in the area of
short range wireless devices (such as cordless phones, and so forth).

What is required for such a device to get a little round green sticky?

Thanks in advance!

I have problems reading this newsgroup, so please respond via
e-mail ... thanks.


Jens Johansen ([e-mail])
DISCLAIMER:  Hey, if you seriously believe I am speaking for anyone
else, we might both be in quite serious trouble ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Amnon Aliphas)
Subject: DSP World Expo -- Update
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 15:56:29 GMT


DSP WORLD EXPO - LATEST UPDATE  (As of May 20, 1992)

A preliminary list of companies to be exhibiting at DSPWorld Expo:

    Analog Devices              Ariel Corporation
    AT&T Microelectronics        CADIS GmbH
    Catalina Research        Comdisco Systems Inc.
    CSPI                Data Translation
    DSP Research            DSP Software
    Dynetics            GEC-Plessey Semiconductor
    hema Electronik GmbH        Heurikon
    Hyperception            IEEE Spectrum Magazine
    Image & Signal Processing    Intelligent Systems Int'l.
    Ixthos                Loughborough Sound Images
    Momentum Data Systems        Motorola
    National Instruments        Sharp Microelectronics
    Signal Proc. Assoc. Pty.    Sonitech International
    Spectrum Signal Processing    Star Semiconductor
    Sunnyside Inc.            Texas Instruments
    Zoran.


Exhibit space is still available.

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]

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

Subject: Used Natural Microsystems (Watson/VBX) Boards
Organization: Houston Unix Users Group
Date: 24 May 92 13:34:08 CDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (Joel Breazeale)


Anyone out there know of some company which sells/buys used Natural
Microsystems (VBX & Watson) boards?

I'd like to make contact with those who are interested in
buying/selling such equipment as well.


Thanks,

Joel Breazeale    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 92 18:07:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Vicki Kourkoulis)
Subject: Looking For Telecommunications Publication


I am in pursuit of "Telecommunications" publication, (North American
Edition), and have limited information about how to acquire it.  The
publisher is Horizon House.  Any info from the Telecommunications
Group that might prove helpful would be appreciated.  Thanks in
advance.


Vicki Kourkoulis, Mentat Inc.
Suite 315, 1145 Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90024
[phone] x26; Fax [phone]; [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 92 12:55:08 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Tried 404-666-6666


In response to a recent Digest item, I tried 404-666-6666 via MCI
(default carrier) and it failed!  It went thru via AT&T (10288).


[Moderator's Note: As was noted a few days ago, maybe you forgot to
pay your AT&T bill, or perhaps the person at 666-6666 forgot to pay
their AT&T bill.  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #413
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12498;
          24 May 92 21:31 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04778
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 19:46:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08274
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 19:46:07 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 19:46:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #414

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 19:46:04 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 414

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Summary: Telephone Line Monitor Wanted (Sean Petty)
    Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic (Bob Sherman)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard)
    AT&T Digital Answering System 1337 (Joshua Hosseinoff)
    Re: Using *8 For Outside Lines (Phil Howard)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Summary: Telephone Line Monitor Wanted
From: Sean Petty <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Sean Petty <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 92 22:20:47 EDT
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


Recently I wrote:

> Presently, a local ambulance organization of which I am a member
> is looking into getting some type of telephone line monitor.
> Our setup is as follows:

> The main emergency line people call runs through our PBX system,
> and rings on all the phones in the building, however, we don't
> answer it, we just let it ring, and our main dispatch center
> answers it.  The way it works now, the phone rings, our dispatch
> center answers it, and takes the call.

> Unfortunately, we can't hear whats going on when the dispatcher
> answers the phone.  What we would like to be able to do, is
> listen to the conversation via a speaker as the dispatcher
> talks, so we know exactly what we're going out for.

> However, the unit should be totally automatic.  It should kick
> the speaker on when the call is answered, and disconnect the
> speaker when the call is disconnected.  The unit cannot
> interrupt or alter the normal use/audio of the line.

> I have a good electronics backround, and can assemble just about
> anything from a good schematic.  What I am looking for is just
> that, a schematic for this device.  Or, possible alternatives
> include commercial units, pointers to schematics, suggestions,
> etc.

And did I get responses!  Wow!  I had several by the following
morning.  I would like to thank the following people very much for
their help and information.  I may have missed some people, and some
people may still send responses.  I thank everyone, however, who has
or will respond.  I gained much useful information, and have gone with
the telephone line recorder.  It was put in service today, and it
works perfectly!

Again, thanks very much everyone, especially:

 From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
 From: Michael A. Covington <[e-mail]>
 From: jeffrey wisniewski <[e-mail]>
 From: Ray Berry <gvls1!widener!uunet!ole!ray>
 From: [e-mail] (Samuel W. Ho)
 From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
 From: Mark Cavallaro
 From: [e-mail] (Michael de Kraker)
 From: [e-mail] (Tjp)
 From: Robert Warren <[e-mail]>
 From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)

And here is the information I got, for everyone:

Date: Thu, 21 May 92 22:40:45 EDT

I'd suggest connecting a simple audio amplifier to the line through a
capacitor (maybe 0.1 uF 400 V) and a large (maybe 1-megohm) resistor.
And maybe include a pair of Zener diodes back-to-back across the input
to protect the amp from the AC ringing voltage.

The ringing will sound horrible, the audio will sound normal, and the
line should be silent when not in use.  (There's no dialtone unless
someone has picked up a receiver to dial.)

    --------

Idea: At radio shack there is a telephone tap device.  It plugs into a
phone jack and when any activity on the line goes on it starts
recording.  plug the tap into a jack and then into an old stereo.  You
coudl have speakers anywhere in teh building, record the calls (if you
want) and well, who knows.  For $19 bucks seems worth it.  Take it for
what its worth ... probably not much!

    -------

You don't even need to warm up your soldering iron.  Waltz down to
Radio Shack and pick up a telephone recording adapter.  THey have 2-3
different types, make sure you get the one that doesn't have to be in
series with the subject phone.  It has outputs for driving a cassette
recorder- on that has the audio, the other drives the 'remote'
connector to start the recorder automatically when the line goes into
use.  For $25 your 2/3 the way there.  THen all you need is an amp and
speaker, and maybe hook the remote output to a relay to enable the
speaker etc.

    -------

It's probably easiest to get a telephone recording box (Radio Shack,
et al) and hook it up to either an audio amp or your existing paging
system.  The typical audio recording box has a mic-level audio output
and a relay that closes when the line is off-hook.

If you want to do it yourself, use a 600 ohm audio transformer to get
the audio off the line, and a reed relay that closes at 20ma current
to get on-hook status.  The relay should be in series with the wire
going to the dispatch phone.

  --------

Here are some general considerations in place of a schematic
drawing ...

Plainly, you need to bridge the monitor somewhere that provides an
indication of answered(off hook) vs not-answered(on hook) status.
That MIGHT appear at every extension, or it might be only on the
dispatcher's extension; it depends on the PBX.  The indication
generally is the DC voltage: around 48vdc on hook, and much lower (I
forget, but you can measure it), say 8vdc, off hook.  So you need a
circuit that uses a high-impedance DC-coupled connection to the proper
extension line, and which indicates either ON or OFF hook status.

All connections to the line should be "balanced", by the way -- nearly
equal impedance to ground from each tap.  Otherwise you get hum at
least, and maybe confuse the PBX.

For audio, make a high-impedance AC-coupled connection to an audio
amplifier.  Use a DC-blocking capacitor in series with a resistor, say
1K, from each side of the extension, connected to an audio
transformer.  A 1:1 ratio modem transformer should do, and they are
cheap surplus.  Put the audio amp on the other side.

Control the amplifier to be silent unless the extension shows OFF
HOOK.  By the way, the status detector above must not respond to
ringing voltage: ca 100 V, either 100 VPP AC (peak to peak), or
interrupted DC.  Put a scope on the extension and see what the PBX
uses, or ask someone who knows.  And the amp must not be bothered by
the ringing voltage.  It might help to put a 1 or 1/2 sec delay before
amplifier turn-on if you get loud clicks or the like.

If you're lucky, someone will sell you the exact box you want.

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

I think you may be able to get this to work without any custom
equipment.  Talk to your PBX vendor about a paging circuit in your
PBX.  The operator would conference the page trunk into the call, and
the conversation should then broadcast (one way) on paging speakers.
When the operator hangs up, both the outside trunk and the paging
trunk would disconnect.

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

A cheap and simple way would be to place a telephone amp (RADIO-SHACK)
and it's inductive pick-up on the line although not automatic it's
cheap.  Add a 9V xformer and no batteries to worry about not to
mention part 68 acceptance.

A non approved way is to take the same amp and wire it up with a
blocking cap and isolation xformer.


             Ceramic cap almost any value

telco  Tip----||------------| |------------ AMP -
jack                        | |
       Ring ----------------| |------------ AMP +


PS I do not recommend using a power supply with the direct connect
method use batteries only.

It would be somewhat simple to add the ring detect. Just fee a
rectified ring signal to the gate of an scr and when the call is
terminated the loss of DC flow should drop the SCR thus power to the
amp.

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

Buy three things at Radio Shack:

1) Telephone listening device (little suction cup thing that plugs into a
   mini-jack)
2) Speaker with build in amplifier.  (not sure if theres has enough gain,
   but if not then a cheap amp will be needed and a speaker)
3) battery eliminator for the speaker/amp.

Fancier systems could be built with the passive or vox phone monitor
(then you could tape them to replay stuff on the way, or stuff that
came while you were 'out')

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

    I duly read your post and I think I can help you ... the
easiest way to build such a device is to use a relay to turn a phone
tap on/off. A phone line witch is in use goes to 5VDC while it is
around 50VDC at idle and8VDC 20Mhzhz when ringing (Might vary).

    What you want to do is put a relay in parallel to the phone
line with a diode to prevent the relay coil to short the AC (voice)
signal. Here's a little diagram:

Tip (Green) -------------------------------------------------------------
                |
                |
 From Telco            -
                ^  Diode (1N4001)
                |
                 -------
                 |     ()
                 V     () Relay Coil
         Other Diode -     ()
                 |     ()
                 -------
                    |
Rig (Red) -----------------------------------------------------------------

When the phone is not in use the relay will stick therefore keeping a
set of contacts closed and another open. When it is in use, one set
will close and make a current path for the phone tap. The first diode
prevents the coil from shorting the AC (voice path) while the bottom
diode is there to prevent freeback from the coil when it de-energises.
Depending on phone line polarity, you might have to swap the Tip n'
Ring.

Now comes the phone tap:

Tip  (Green) --------------------------------
                |
 From telco             |
            ---------
    Relay contacts  |
  Closed when relay off ---------
                |
                ---)|--
                      |  Capacitor Around 0.01pf
                      |
        -----------------()||()
    To Speaker or            ()||()  Audio output transformer 1:1
    amplifier          ()||()
            -----------------()||()
                      |
                      |
Ring (Red) -------------------------------------

Ok, when the relay de-energizes, current will flow thru the circuit,
where the capacitor will keep DC current from going thru the
transformer, the transformer will further seperate AC from DC and
output an audio signal. You can either put this signal to a speaker or
an amplifier. In the later case, you might have to add a resistor
before the amplifier to keep it from overloading.

This device is, to put it mildly, crude. If there are too many phones
on the line, the PBX will think one phone is always off-hook. You
might want to add a resistor to the relay. The relay must be energized
when the phone is on-hook and deenergized when off-hook. A variable
resistor might help you. The component values aren't critical and
while the detector circuit sucks the phone tap is the standart way of
doing things.

Please also note that just after pickup, you'll hear a [clack] on the phone
line, this is the relay going off.

This isn't the best circuit in the world, but it will work. If you
really want to get fancy, you can add an inverter IC to the circuit to
drive the relay with a transistor and loose a bit of line-noise. You
could also use an opto-isolator before the transformer to cut-back
even more on the noise.

If you have further question / comments (Thanks... :) Complaints?! :( ) E-mail
me!

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

Radio Shack sells telephone recording controllers. (Page 82, 1992
catalog) They supply open collector outputs to start a cassette motor,
and audio outputs to tape from. Use one of these to supply audio to a
small amplifier. If you need to, you can use a relay on that motor
control to switch a relay in the speaker lead.

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

There it is.  Do with it what you want.


Sean Petty    undr![e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic
Date: 24 May 1992 19:53:38 -0400


> In response to the matter of JUNK FAXES raised by Jack Decker ...

Perhaps the news media has got the right idea. Several of them in this
area have recently removed their fax machines from regular phone
lines, and replaced them with 900 numbers. One tv station now charges
you $1.50 per minute to send them a fax ... of course, they also have
a fax on a private number for faxes that they want you to send ... and
yes folks, they tell me the faxes are still coming, at a buck fifty a
minute. Suddenly they like all of the junk faxes they get.. :-)


[e-mail] |                      | MCI MAIL: BSHERMAN

>>  Miami's Big Apple - 305-948-8000 - 24 hours - 300/1200 - PCP'able  <<
>>  Oldest Apple support board in Southeast. Now in its eleventh year. <<

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 23:53:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Jeffrey  Porten) writes:

> The telephone numbers around here are 382-XXXX, so presumably someone
> has, to use Michael's euphemism, DUCK-YOU.  I've been tempted to try,
> just to see if Bell of PA is smart enough not to issue it, but it's
> too similar to a crank call for me to give it a shot.

If you ask for someone, at least you might be able to make it sound
like a legitimate wrong number.

What do you USUALLY do when you get a wrong number?

Then try 382-5OFF, 522-5OFF, etc.

Alternatively, call up your customer representative and ask to have
the numbers assigned to you.


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


[Moderator's Note: There was a person a couple years ago who had (and
actually requested) the number 800-EAT-7448. He wanted to find out
what sort of people would call that number; apparently many did
because the phone rang constantly, I am told.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 19:54 EST
From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Digital Answering System 1337


I recently bought the AT&T digital answering system and I was
wondering if there is any way to expand the capacity of the the
memory.  According to the manual it holds about seven minutes of
messages, (but when I tested it with continuous speaking from a radio
I only got about five minutes).  It would seem that it has about one
megabyte of memory, probably a ram chip.  Does anyone know if it's
possible to replace a chip and increase the capacity or will AT&T have
some upgrade service to increase the capacity to 15 minutes or so?

I've never run out of room on it from messages but having some extra
capacity would be nice for vacations and things like that.  The only
other problem with this answering machine that I've noticed is that it
produces terrible interference to AM radios that are less than half a
meter away from it.


Joshua Hosseinoff      [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Using *8 For Outside Lines
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 00:06:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Robert M. Hamer) writes:

> We received a memorandum from the university's communications office
> (or whatever it is called; I don't have a copy in front of me) saying
> that the centrex service from C & P was currently disrupted, that the
> form of the disruption was difficulty in getting an outside line by
> dialing 9, and the temporary work-around was to dial *8 to get an
> outside line.

Try the *8 later on when 9 is working again and see what happens.
Maybe it's just a back door and they hope everyone will forget it once
the 9 is working again.  Perhaps it goes to a set of isolated lines
separate from the ones that 9 goes to.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 16:38:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy
M. Silvernail) writes:

> As most readers of the Digest are aware, there is a _vast_ difference
> between "baud" and "bits per second" (also referred to as "bps"), even
> though common usage has equated the two.  I seem to recall that a
> standard dialup line can support somewhere around a 600 baud
> connection, although modulation trickery can pass better than 2400
> bits per second on a 600 baud signal.  More trickery, and you can
> achieve 14,400 and above.

By splitting up the band into 512 channels at up to 6 bits per baud
per channel, you can get 22000 bits per second at 7 baud. At 4800 baud
using this technology the data rate could be quite impressive.


Peter da Silva  [e-mail]  Taronga Park BBS
[phone]/1032     Houston, TX, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #414
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21072;
          25 May 92 1:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14725
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 24 May 1992 23:29:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19048
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 24 May 1992 23:29:48 -0500
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 23:29:48 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #415

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 May 92 23:29:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 415

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation (M. Solomon)
    Re: ISDN Fantasy (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: TDD Detectors/Switches (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Kenneth Crudup)
    Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Kenneth Crudup)
    MetroMedia 10xxx Number? (Javier Henderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 13:17:06 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation


Here is some more info on ISDN in the Sun SPARCSstation 10:
(Excerpted from Sun's Worldwide Product Announcement Information)

  - What Becomes Available When:

  o ISDN
       Chip on the motherboard         Q3 CY92
       ISDN Drivers on Solaris 2.x     Q4 CY92 Solaris 2.x
       Teleservices API                Q1 CY93 Solaris 2.x
       Wide Area Networking software   Q1 CY93 Solaris 2.x

The chip on the motherboard provides a BRI (basic rate interface) ISDN
connection that is integrated with workstation audio.  The drivers
provide a low level interface to the hardware.  The Teleservices API
enables application development for workstation/telephony integration
 -- providing functions like call setup, transfer, hold, confer, etc.
The API is hardware independent so that it will work with third party
non-ISDN telephony hardware and software.  The WAN software enables
data communication -- running IP over ISDN (in other words, applica-
tions that run over ethernet will run over ISDN).

In the first release, Sun will support data communications in the US
(for the AT&T 5ESS switch), the UK, France, Germany and Japan.  We
will support voice services in the US (for the AT&T 5ESS switch) only.

ISDN

Q: Why did Sun put ISDN on the motherboard?

A: ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) is a key technology that
enables our vision of integrating desktop tools (such as the
telephone) into the workstation, and enables collaboration with other
people regardless of location.  ISDN is the only worldwide standard
for telephone connectivity.  By providing this capability to every Sun
user, we are extending our customers' networks worldwide and enabling
a new generation of applications through workstation/telephone
integration.  Sun was the first company to include ethernet as a
standard part of every workstation, and now we have further innovated
by bundling ISDN.

Q: What does ISDN do for my customers?

A: ISDN provides worldwide connectivity - customers will be able to
communicate with anyone in the world who has a connection to an ISDN
phone line.  Integrating the workstation with the telephone enables a
whole new generation of applications.

    Wide Area Networking applications:
        - telecommuting
        - database/information services access
        - still image transfer
        - remote back up

    Workstation Telephony applications:
        - desktop integrated telephony (e.g., answer, dialer,
            integrated rolodex, single in-box for email, fax and
                telephone messages)
        - corporate telephony: telephone capabilities integrated
        into corporate applications (e.g., customer service and
        financial traders)
        - worldwide collaboration (e.g., video conferencing, shared
        white board, shared documents)
        - remote access (e.g., ability to access information on your
        workstation through any telephone using text to speech
        and phone integration technologies).

Q: Why is Sun making such a big investment in ISDN when there's very
little U.S. support for ISDN in the near future?

A: ISDN is the worldwide telecommunications standard for telephone and
networking services. Sun is investing in ISDN because it is a key
technology to enable our vision of integrating desktop tools into the
workstation and enabling collaboration with people regardless of
location.  More than 50% of Sun's business is overseas - in Japan, the
UK, Germany and France all businesses have access to ISDN.  In the
United States 40% of all telephone customers will have access to ISDN
by 1992 and this will increase to 60% by 1994. Metropolitan areas will
be 10-20% higher.

Q: Does ISDN replace Ethernet?  Leased lines?

A: No.  Ethernet will still be used for Local Area Networks where it
is used today.  Large companies who send large amounts of data will
still use dedicated, leased lines between major sites.  ISDN provides
users with an inexpensive way to connect to another site -- to a
customer, a supplier, a remote office, or an employee at home.

Q: How many types of ISDN are there?

A: There are three types of ISDN, that each offer different
bandwidths.  Basic Rate ISDN offers up to 128 kbps and is generally
available worldwide.  Primary Rate ISDN offers up to 2 Mbps, but is
not yet a worldwide standard.  Broadband ISDN offers rate as high as 6
Gbps but is not likely to be generally available at least until 1995.

Q: Why did we choose Basic Rate ISDN?

A: Basic rate is the only interface that is standard today.  Although
PRI (Primary Rate Interface) provides higher bandwidth than BRI, it is
not readily available and it is expensive today.  Third party SBus
boards will provide PRI capabilities.

Q: Does my workstation have to be certified?

A: Yes, Sun is in the process of getting the SPARCstation 10 certified
by the respective regulatory agencies in each country (e.g., the FCC
in the US).  The workstation is shipping with a blocking plate over
the ISDN connectors which can be removed when certification is
complete.  In the US, the UK, France, Germany and Japan, we expect
certification by Q1 CY93.

Q: How is ISDN integrated with audio?

A: They are very tightly integrated -- which allows users to use a
headphone connected to the SpeakerBox as a telephone.  Also, telephony
applications use the audio hardware for input and output, freeing the
CPU for other functions.

Q: Our office phone system is already digital -- why is ISDN important?

A: Your office phone system is digital, but not standard.  Most
offices today use their own PBX (private branch exchange) and use a
proprietary digital system offered by the PBX vendor. As with any
proprietary standard, there is no interoperability except between the
equipment from the same vendor.  ISDN brings the concept of "open
systems" to telephony.

Q: Does ISDN require special fiber optic cables?

A: No, existing copper wiring will work.

Q:  Does SPARCstation 10 support cross-platform audio?

A: Yes, it supports seven different sampling rates -- from 8-bit, 8
KHz voice quality audio to 16-bit, 48 KHz CD-quality audio.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: ISDN Fantasy
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 24 May 1992 17:05:54 GMT


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

> 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.

Oh, I can just see it.

"Well, I got a FAX for Joe but he's out of the country so I OCR-ed it
and used my Amiga to put a message on his voice-mail. He can play it
back with his speech-to-text under Windows. He usually leaves me a
message on the company BBS, and I'll download it and FAX it back to
them."

Text-FAX-OCR-speech-text-Email-FAX mail.

And they'll probably come up with standard synthesizer parameters like
they came up with standard fonts to use when you expect the receiver
to OCR the message.


Peter da Silva      [e-mail]   Taronga Park BBS
[phone]/1032     Houston, TX, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 00:14:18 GMT


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

> I am arguing for what used to be called "decriminalization" [of
> phreaking], or treating it as a crime on a par with illegal parking or
> littering

But it isn't. It's a crime on par with shoplifting and income tax
evasion.

> [the costs of] 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.

Yep, like shoplifting and income tax evasion.

> 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.

You don't make many long-distance calls, do you? Some countries are
quite hard to get into. Plus, the phone company still has to pay
Pakistan or whoever for the access.

Let's apply this to shoplifting. The store budgets for shrinkage, and
since the volume of business is so large, there's no significant loss
to the store and nobody is denied access.

> 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.

I think you're giving Apple more credit than it's due. Have you
forgotten the massive number of other computers around at that time?
It wouldn't have taken more than a slight change in the Apple design,
or a marketing fumble, and another computer company would have been
the winner. Heath, maybe, or Tandy (hell, Tandy sold a whole shitload
of machines ... maybe they'd have been able to sell more CoCos and
we'd all be running OS/9 on our Macintosh-equivalents ... wouldn't it
be great), or Exidy, or any of the other vendors from garage shops to
multinationals.


Peter da Silva [e-mail]    Taronga Park BBS
[phone]/1032   Houston, TX, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year!
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 01:39:39 GMT


[e-mail] (James Buster) writes:

> Why pull out? Surely the managers of some of these companies realize
> that although they do not directly sell to the general public, demand
> from the general public created by exposure to what they sell might
> cause their customers to buy more in order to meet this demand.

Alas, it doesn't work that way.  The purpose of summer CES is to get
buyers to place orders for goods for sale in the coming _winter_
season.  Most of these orders will be placed within a month or so
after CES (Most major industries work the same way; toys are the most
notable examples).

Any positive word-of-mouth effect from the public who come to the show
will (a) not be measurable until after the orders have been placed,
(b) be restricted mostly to the Chicago area, and (c) be miniscule
compared to the effects of media coverage.

Buyers for big chain stores basically earn their money for correctly
predicting what will be hot (in the eyes of the media, and thus, the
public by and large) and ordering enough to satisfy the demand and not
too much.  Getting stuck with extra inventory is bad; getting stuck
with not enough of a hot product is even worse.

Moreover, given the product life-cycles of electronics goods, by the
time any positive word-of-mouth can manifest itself _and_ be acted
upon by the buyers (at the next Winter CES) the product will most
likely be obsolete.

Therefore, showing stuff to the consumers at CES is mostly a waste of
time; at best it is consumer PR.  And the poor people working the
floor are dead-tired after 4-5 days of standing on their feet
answering the same questions over and over again -- take it from
someone who has done it many times!  After the first couple of hundred
times it kinda wears on you.

If you are really serious about learning about the products, then you
will find a way to get in during the industry days -- it _isn't_ hard,
it just takes preparation.  In a way, the pseudo-"closed" nature of
the show is just a method the organizers use for selecting the people
who their exhibitors most want to see.

Heck, Pat could almost certainly get a Press Pass -- lots of free
goodies there.  Call em up and give it a try -- tell them you'll post
a report on C.D.T that can be read by millions and they'll byte ...


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I usually don't resort to that sort of thing
(using a press pass for free goodies, etc). I really don't think it is
right. I prefer to go wherever I go just as a member of the public.
But frankly, I think I will skip going this weekend; listening to all
the whining about having to deal with the public has turned me off.  PAT]

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

Date: 24 May 1992 21:43:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Detectors/Switches


> Being wolefully ignorant of TDD protocols:

> Are there automatic detector-switches, like fax-voice switches, that
> will detect a TDD call(er) and switch the call to a TDD terminal or
> modem instaed of a voice phone?

> Reference on basic TDD operation, design, and use would be
> appreciated.

None that I know of.  If there is such one, I want it NOW!  ;-) I've
needed that for ages.

When a TDD/TT call comes in, it is silent.  The callee will recognize
that it is silent in response to verbal "Hello" that it is a TDD/TT
call.  I know of no such switches that can recognize a silent call
other than requiring the message be in TDD/TT telling the caller press
a touch-tone button or some equivalent response but it is very
cumbersome.  Incidently, there are a couple telecom companies such as
Rolm that are offering a TDD/TT front-end access to the voice mail
system.

As for references to TDD/TT specifications, they can be found in the
Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu. (Use anonymous ftp).  It is quite
complete.


Curtis E. Reid                [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID    [e-mail] (DECUS)
P.O. Box 9887                716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice
Rochester, NY 14623-0887        716.475.6500 Fax

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 02:17:43 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: There was a person a couple years ago who had (and
> actually requested) the number 800-EAT-7448. He wanted to find out
> what sort of people would call that number; apparently many did
> because the phone rang constantly, I am told.  PAT]

Maybe this is a result of something I (vaguely) remember from Summer
'87(?)  where 1-800-328-7448 would actually connect to something,
asking for DTMF "access codes" (?), and service numbers (?). It was
"big news" on a couple of the Usenet groups, as people picked thru,
coming up with codes to get them further and further thru the menus,
and posting the results as more was gained. Phreaking/Cracking?
Probably. 'Course, I never tried it. Never. Ever.

Maybe someone had heard about that, and tried it. Of course, the
"Don't like my driving? Call 1-800-EAT-S**T!" bumber stickers piqued
some folks' curiosity.


Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142    [phone]
[e-mail]    OSF has nothing to do with this post.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: A Musical Telecom Reference
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 01:07:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter Z. Simpson) writes:

> [discussion of phone numbers containing "666"]
> Oh yeah, this was before the 666 = "mark of the beast" stuff.

You went to U-Mass in A.D. 33!!! Wow! How many in the graduating
class? :-)

> Just an old memory ...

No kidding!


Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142    [phone]
[e-mail]            OSF has nothing to do with this post.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: MetroMedia 10xxx Number?
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 24 May 92 20:38:40 PDT


Hello, good people,

I recently switched LD companies, to MetroMedia. So far so good. The
only gripe I have is that to use their calling card, I must first dial
a 800 number, which is kind of inconvenient.

I called their customer service number, and the lady I spoke with
tried to help, but ...

So my question is ... does anyone know of the 10XXX number to dial to
use MetroMedia as the LD carrier, from a phone other than my own?


Thank you.

Javier Henderson, N6VBG    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #415
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26413;
          25 May 92 3:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00448
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 25 May 1992 01:29:51 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08111
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 25 May 1992 01:29:43 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 01:29:43 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #416

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 May 92 01:29:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 416

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Memorial Day, 1992 (TELECOM Moderator)
    Carrier Selection and 700 Numbers (Eli Mantel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 00:59:42 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Memorial Day, 1992


Here's to the memories of the Bell System past -- the men and women
who made America's telephone system what it is today, despite the many
difficult years since divestiture, now almost a decade ago. It is a
tribute to the workers of years past that the network continues to
function as well as it does today.

Let's look back for a few minutes to one of those workers who made the
System work so well. His name was Walt, but names don't really matter
since there were thousands like him across America. Walt was employed
by Illinois Bell for thirty plus years; he started before World War
Two and retired in the middle seventies. He was in the repair service
most of that time, and for the last several years of his career he
worked for what was called 'night plant'; that is, he reported for
work in the evening, and was on call all night to handle emergency
repairs for important customers: police and fire departments; hotels
with switchboards suddenly out of order; hospitals and such. The rule
was back then that such customers received immediate service at any
time of the day or night when vital communications equipment went out
of order.

And so it was in a warm April, 1968 when riots were rocking several
cities in America including one on the west side of Chicago which to
this day 24 years later remains as an ugly scar in our urban area.
Walt was on duty all three nights of the worst rioting here, and the
work orders coming in dealt mostly with wires down due to fires and
vandalism by looters and rioters.

Walt tells the story in his own words, as best as I can reconstruct
them from my notes of our conversation:

"The company had a rule we had to work in a 'buddy system'. Two of us
would go out, even for minor stuff. My partner and I went over to a
liquor store on West Madison Street. The owner of the store had called
in to report someone had yanked the payphone down off the wall. I had
been there the night before at the same place to hang the same
payphone up, but I guess it wasn't done good enough 'cause they did a
number on it the next night.

"A lot of the guys I worked with were going out of their way to avoid
that riot area. They'd say something like 'F--- the animals! Let the
phone stay out until tomorrow; let the day shift get it tomorrow.' But
I always figured the people living out there were entitled to phones
like anyone else. Besides, most of them living in the housing projects
did not have private phones anyway. They had to go out at night to the
store nearby and they depended on the payphone. Anyway, my experience
was the rioters never hassled the phone guys. Same as the Edison
(electric) crews. They knew we were just there to do our job and not
to cause them trouble. So they left us alone, or me at least.

"I remounted that payphone and did a better job on it the second
night. My partner was outside talking to a couple of cops, and when I
got my stuff packed up to leave it was almost midnight. I had been
working since about 4 PM and was going to go home and try to get some
sleep but my partner said we better call the office and let them know
they could reach us at home if anything came up.

"The clerk in the office told me they just got a call from Bethany
Bretheren Hospital, a little futher west but right in the middle of
the riot zone. The operator had called to say there had been a leak in
the basement from a broken water pipe and her switchboard had totally
gone out. I called her back; the operator was practically hysterical
about it. She 'knew for sure' no one from Bell was gonna come over
there at midnight in the middle of the riot and work on her board. I
told her we would get over there in a few minutes, but I don't think
she believed me.

"When we parked in the lot at Bethany and went in, the poor woman
almost kissed the ground we walked on. It turned out the problem was
not that bad; this was a three-position board and it was lit up like a
Christmas tree from short circuits due to wet pairs. Buzzing like
crazy and lights flashing ... and this woman about to tear her hair
out.

"I put up a couple jumpers so two of the outside lines rang straight
through to the Emergency Room, and we set about getting the basement
wiring dried out. Turns out there was only one small section of cable
that was pretty sloshed. My partner punched up a new piece in about
thirty minutes or so while I was drying out a place where the water
had been about two inches deep. I guess they shut off the leak awhile
before we got there because the water had drained away, but you could
see on our terminal block where it had been.

"It was probably around 1 AM when we came upstairs and this lady was
just as pleased as punch that her board was working again. To tell the
truth, the board wasn't working that great; it still seemed sort of
cranky and out of synch to me, but that's just routine cleaning stuff
to be done now and then. This gal was going to give us a tip -- money
from her own purse -- for coming out there. I told her 'hey, we don't
work like that, if you want to do something nice, take my partner here
down to the cafeteria and get coffee for the two of you. Bring me a
cup when you come back. I want to check things out so I'll work the
board until you come back.'  They left and I refreshed my memory on
taking calls and running a switchboard like that. In between calls I
cleaned up the contacts under the front panel with the ringing keys on
it.

"They came back maybe twenty minutes later. We all drank more coffee
and sat around chatting awhile. I guess it was almost two o'clock by
then and when I called the office they did not have any more work for
us so we decided to go home. Usually I kept the truck at my house so I
would drive my partner home then go to my place. If I got home by
three, I'd sleep awhile and check in with the office around noon the
next day.

"We went out to the parking lot, and I'll be damned! Some looters had
broken into our truck, stole all the tools and phone equipment, then
set the truck on fire. We went back inside and called the office. The
boss said he was having a couple other crews come in there to get us
out. Maybe twenty minutes later another truck showed up with four
guys, we climbed in the back and got out of there.

"The rioters had a code of honor if you want to call it that. They
burned block after block on the west side, and all the buildings on
both sides of Bethany Bretheren Hospital, but they left the hospital
alone, and they left the old people's home on Pulaski Road alone. They
might have torched Kedzie Bell (the IBT central office known as
Chicago-Kedzie which serves that area of the west side) but we had
lots of armed security guards there to escort the operators in and out
from work and watch after things so I guess they thought better of it
and left us alone also.

"I don't recall ever getting back over to Bethany after that. The only
time I would have gone would have been nights so they probably did
anything else that needed work there during regular hours."

[Moderator's Note: Walt related the above around 1975 to me. He
retired later that year. The riots took a terrible toll on that part
of the city. All the business places and factories were gone.
Homeless people were left jobless and with no place for shopping. When
people are homeless, jobless and othewise without money, they still
get sick and have accidents; but the doctor and the hospital will be
the last places to get paid, if they ever do. The end result was that
within a few years, the four hospitals which had been in the area had
merged into two. Two closed their doors, and the other two, including
Bethany stayed open but filed for bankruptcy; then shortly thereafter
the two hospitals and a couple small clinics found themselves a rich
suburban benefactor and reorganized as the Evangelical Health Care
Corporation, with (what was then named) the "Bethany Pavillion of the
EHCC" as the main facility. They still try to collect from their
patients and today, 1992 write off in excess of a million dollars each
year which their benefactors make up.  PAT]

But Walt had more to say:

"A couple months after I retired, (1975 ?) I went downtown to the
monthly meeting of the Telephone Pioneers, and the program that day
was some computer guy explaining the new electronic system they hoped
to have installed everywhere someday ... I got to talking to a guy in
sales who started with the company about two years before I retired.

"He remembered me and told me something that threw me for a loop. He
sold that 'new' service the company has called 'Centrex', in the
offices where they have put these new computers. He said the company
got an inquiry from Evangelical Health Care about installing Centrex
in Bethany and their other facilities out there on the west side.
There was a couple other PBX salesmen out there trying to close the
deal also but he got called back a second time and made a presentation
to the Board of Directors. You know what clinched the sale for us?
This woman was there at the meeting; an older black lady, she was the
Vice President - Telecom for EHCS, and this lady mentioned *my* name
from seven or eight years before and said I had come out there to fix
the board at Bethany when she was the night operator over there. The
salesman said she did the whole sale for him almost; said she wanted
to know for sure where repair was coming from and when, all that sort
of stuff. But can you beat that? She remembered me being out there in
April, 1968 to get her board running and the cables dried out. "

[Moderator's Note: EHCS has since ditched Centex and went with some
PBX they liked better. But frankly, I was not that surprised at his
story. Telco customers do remember good incidents with the company and
the names of the people who treat them properly. Alas, whether it is
divestiture or just society in general, the times are changing and
such loyalty by customers, while still possible is much less likely.
But since you never know when a customer is going to remember you
years afterward and give you a big sale as a result of some kindness
or extra effort now, why not treat all customers that way?

Lauren Weinstein remembers the old days of the Bell System. And in a
song he wrote, which first appeared in TELECOM Digest July 12, 1983,
he tells us of his personal sadness the 'Day the Bell System Died'.
On this day for memories, this is a fitting article to reprint.  PAT]


  12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001
  Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT
  Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT
  From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Subject: "The Day Bell System Died"
  Return-Path: <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
  Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21)
      id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue)
  To: TELECOM@ECLB

Greetings.  With the massive changes now taking place in the
telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly
endless news items and points of information regarding the various
effects now beginning to take place.  However, one important element
has been missing: a song!  Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from
the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own
light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of
telecommunications.  This work is entirely satirical, and none of its
lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner.  The
song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American
Pie".  I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"...

 --Lauren--

**************************************************************************

           *==================================*
           * Notice: This is a satirical work *
           *==================================*


                    "The Day Bell System Died"


              Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein

                      (To the tune of "American Pie")

             (With apologies to Don McLean)


  ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM
  UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren

**************************************************************************

Long, long, time ago,
I can still remember,
When the local calls were "free".
And I knew if I paid my bill,
And never wished them any ill,
That the phone company would let me be...

But Uncle Sam said he knew better,
Split 'em up, for all and ever!
We'll foster competition:
It's good capital-ism!

I can't remember if I cried,
When my phone bill first tripled in size.
But something touched me deep inside,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Is your office Step by Step,
Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet?
Everybody used to ask...
Oh, is TSPS coming soon?
IDDD will be a boon!
And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon...

The color phones are really neat,
And direct dialing can't be beat!
My area code is "low":
The prestige way to go!

Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime!
Well, I suppose it's about time.
I remember how the payphones chimed,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Back then we were all at one rate,
Phone installs didn't cause debate,
About who'd put which wire where...
Installers came right out to you,
No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo,
And 411 was free, seemed very fair!

But FCC wanted it seems,
To let others skim long-distance creams,
No matter 'bout the locals,
They're mostly all just yokels!

And so one day it came to pass,
That the great Bell System did collapse,
In rubble now, we all do mass,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

I drove on out to Murray Hill,
To see Bell Labs, some time to kill,
But the sign there said the Labs were gone.
I went back to my old CO,
Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago,
But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn...

No relays pulsed,
No data crooned,
No MF tones did play their tunes,
There wasn't a word spoken,
All carrier paths were broken...

And so that's how it all occurred,
Microwave horns just nests for birds,
Everything became so absurd,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

We were singing:

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?

<End>


[Moderator's Note: And once again, thank you Lauren. My best wishes
for a happy Memorial Day holiday to all readers.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Carrier Selection and 700 Numbers
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 03:11:25 GMT


I had obtained a 1-700 number as a toll-free call to reach a
particular company, and knowing this service was being provided by
MCI, I knew that I would have to dial 10222 if the phone I was using
was not presubscribed to MCI.

The question arose as to how I might call this number from an LEC pay
phone.  I believe that *all* LEC pay phones route 1+ inter-lata calls
to AT&T -- and you cannot override this.  (In Southern Bell territory,
you can dial a carrier access code, but it goes to AT&T anyway.)

I called up MCI customer service to see if they had any suggestions.
These folks had very little idea what I was talking about, claiming
that it was just like an 800 number, and that I shouldn't have to
worry about the carrier access code.  When I was dissatisfied with
that, they suggested contacting MCI's business customer service.

The business rep I got in touch with was at least aware of this
particular 700 service that MCI was providing.  But he insisted that,
like 800 numbers, certain exchanges are associated with certain IXC's.
(Is this going to be changing on the 800 side?)  Actually, he seemed
to be claiming that there would be a default IXC associated with each
700 exchange, but that perhaps this could be overridden by dialing a
carrier access code.

Is there any truth to what these folks at MCI are saying?  Are there
any authoritative references (either people or Bellcore pubs) that I
can point these people at in order to get accurate info?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #416
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17418;
          26 May 92 1:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08294
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 25 May 1992 23:23:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05081
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 25 May 1992 23:23:36 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 23:23:36 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #417

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 May 92 23:23:37 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 417

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Phone Wire Colors? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Phone Wire Colors? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: Electronic Key System for Sale (Jose Guerrero Garza)
    Re: ASCAP and BMI Lose One (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 21:28:16 EDT


On 23 May 92 14:53:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John C. Fowler)
said:

> I've now seen U.S. Sprint's advertisement on TV and in magazines for
> their new calling card, which is based on the recipient's phone
> number.  One of the magazine ads even said that the number is dialable
> using their FGD code, 10333.  My question is, how is it that Sprint is
> allowed to do this if AT&T is not?

> And, if the card is based on phone number now, does that mean that the
> "devious" carriers may now charge to it, as they were able to charge
> to the old AT&T card?

The following is conjecture on my part.  Sprint is probably issuing a
card that only works for inter-LATA traffic on Sprint.  Period.  Thus,
they can use your phone number and a PIN of your choosing.  As long as
that PIN is different from your PIN on the RBOC card, nobody but
Sprint should be able to verify that number.

AT&T's problems were a little different.  First of all, there was an
existing shared database of card numbers that had to disappear the
first of this year under the terms of the MFJ.  Second of all, AT&T's
market positioning seems to be (and I do *not* have authoritative
information on this) that an AT&T customer should be able to get by
with only an AT&T Card, for both interLATA calls carried by AT&T and
intraLATA calls carried by the LECs.  I suspect that the current LEC
based switch implementations can not handle verification of non-LEC
phone-number based cards.

Hope this sheds some light on the situation.


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] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sprint's New 'Phone Number' Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 02:55:50 GMT


"John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've now seen U.S. Sprint's advertisement on TV and in magazines for
> their new calling card, which is based on the recipient's phone
> number.  One of the magazine ads even said that the number is dialable
> using their FGD code, 10333.  My question is, how is it that Sprint is
> allowed to do this if AT&T is not?

AT&T *can* do this. They *chose* not to because of the problems.

> And, if the card is based on phone number now, does that mean that the
> "devious" carriers may now charge to it, as they were able to charge
> to the old AT&T card?

Yep. Now you know why I laugh when I see that commercial. Anybody that
goes for that card is in for a rude shock when they run into COCOTs
and the AOS companies.


Leonard Erickson              [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]             [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56     [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 12:29:00 GMT


Area code boundaries and LATA boundaries need not coincide.  Here in
NJ, we have three area codes, and three LATAs.  Two of the LATAs are
both in area code 609.  The third LATA includes all of area codes 201
and 908.

Calling across the 201-908 boundary, intra-LATA, calls are carried by
NJ Bell, and are delivered with Caller*ID, even though we dial eleven
digits to place such a call.  Calling between Camden and Atlantic City
requires dialing only seven digits (both are area 609) but the call is
handled by your default inter-exchange carrier, and delivered with
"OUT OF AREA" Caller*ID.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 02:44:36 GMT


[e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

> I tried pretty hard to use AT&T to dial from Portland Oregon (503-682)
> to Vancouver Washington (206-254).  Even using 10288, GTE insisted on
> carrying the call.  These two points are only thirty miles apart, but
> they're in different states and different area codes.  Could they be
> in the same LATA?  GTE operators are clueless, and the phone book (the
> FM in RTFM) doesn't help.

The map in the US West phone books makes it *very clear that Vancouver
is in the same LATA as Portland. In fact there seems to be a
"corridor" running down the Columbia from Goldendale to the coast that
is part of "North/Central Oregon LATA". It even extends as far north
as Castle Rock.

Take a look at page A26 of the US West White Pages.

Leonard Erickson              [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]             [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56     [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 03:19:49 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Wire Colors?


Craig Harmer writes:

> I'm running four-pair wire, and the colors available are blue, green
> brown, orange, and green (actually they're pairs:
> blue-on-white/white-on-blue, green-on-white/white-on-green, etc.)

> I'm inclined to order them on the punch down block (from top to
> bottom) as brown, orange, green, and blue (based on the resistor color
> code of black, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, grey,
> white). I put the white-on-color wire of each pair first.

> However, I was looking at another installation and noticed that it was
> wired blue, orange, green, brown. Is their some standard for this?
> I'm sure it makes life easier for phone folks if a standard ordering
> is followed for punch down blocks.

> What about 25 pair cable, were there are more colors involved?

The correct sequence is WBL, BLW, WO, OW, WGN, GNW, WBR, BRW, WSL, SLW
W = White, BL = Blue, O = Orange, GN = Green, BR = Brown, SL = Slate
(not grey). The first color refers to the wire, the second to the
band.  For the next five pairs (6-10) Red replaces white. 11-15 use
Black, 16-20 use Yellow and 21-25 use Violet. Examples are pair 17-
YO/OY pair 21 VBL/BLV, etc.  If you need to number individual wires
then the wires with a BL, O, GN, BR,and SL wire color are numbered
1-25, and the W, R, BK, Y, V wires are numbered 26-50.  This may be
confusing, and is really only important when installing RJ-21X
connectors.  The first method is always used when punching down wires
on a 66 or 110 blocks. (Actually I know your using 66 blocks as 110
blocks have the color coding built in :-).)

Tip is the first wire, Ring is the second, ie WBL, BKSL, VO are all
tip's.

For cable with above 25 pair two color binders are wrapped around the
25 pair bundle, using the pair numbering method above. (ie pair 1-25
in WBL binder, 26-50 in WO binder, 126-150 in RBL binder).  Binders
are plastic strips about 1/8 in wide of the aproprate color.  There is
no distinction between a XY and a YX binder.  Somewhere before 625
pair cable, there is a second set of binders installed, I can't recall
exactly where.

PIC (outside plant cable) doesn't use striped wires, but instead
twists two wires of the aproprate color together.  Other than that,
the coding is the same.  The striping probally originated with 1A2 50
conductor cabling where the pairs aren't twisted together, although
the whole cable is.

> I'm thinking of eventually running both twisted-pair ethernet and
> phone lines down the same four-pair cable. Will that work?

I've been told ringing voltage can can cause errors in the ethernet.
You could always give it a test.  I've never run 10BASET cabling and
analog pairs in the same cable, although I have in the same conduit
w/o any problems (or so I have been told :-))


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Phone Wire Colors?
Date: 25 May 92 15:17:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig
Harmer) writes:

> When using two-pair wires, I know that red/green is the standard phone
> connection, and yellow/black can be a second connection. Apparently
> polarity no longer matters, so there's no longer an issue of whether
> red corresponds to black or yellow. The red/green pair is generally
> used first.

    This color scheme is usually used on hateful "quad wire". This
is untwisted and usually only used in residences. It gives rise to
noise and crosstalk. Avoid it at all costs. Use twisted pair only. If
using Ethernet, or even regular old modems never use quad.

> I'm running four-pair wire, and the colors available are blue, green
> brown, orange, and green (actually they're pairs:
> blue-on-white/white-on-blue, green-on-white/white-on-green, etc.)

> I'm inclined to order them on the punch down block (from top to
> bottom) as brown, orange, green, and blue (based on the resistor color
> code of black, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, grey,
> white). I put the white-on-color wire of each pair first.

    Cute, but wrong.

> However, I was looking at another installation and noticed that it was
> wired blue, orange, green, brown. Is their some standard for this?
> I'm sure it makes life easier for phone folks if a standard ordering
> is followed for punch down blocks.

    Yes, this is correct. There is a logical reason for this.
Using the simple telco wiring colour code, a single pair can easily be
identified out of hundreds.

> I'm thinking of eventually running both twisted-pair ethernet and
> phone lines down the same four-pair cable. Will that work?

    Yes, if you are careful and avoid sloppy wiring that will give
rise to crosstalk. It is not reccomended though.


> What about 25 pair cable, were there are more colors involved?

    Below is part of my 25 pair info file:

 Wire color codes used on telephone wire in USA, Canada and UK.

 Pair #  Wire #    Colors
   1       1       white/blue
           2       blue/white
   2       3       white/orange
           4       orange/white
   3       5       white/green
           6       green/white
   4       7       white/brown
           8       brown/white
   5       9       white/slate
          10       slate/white
   6      11       red/blue
          12       blue/red
   7      13       red/orange
          14       orange/red
   8      15       red/green
          16       green/red
   9      17       red/brown
          18       brown/red
  10      19       red/slate
          20       slate/red
  11      21       black/blue
          22       blue/black
  12      23       black/orange
          24       orange/black
  13      25       black/green
          26       green/black
  14      27       black/brown
          28       brown/black
  15      29       black/slate
          30       slate/black
  16      31       yellow/blue
          32       blue/yellow
  17      33       yellow/orange
          34       orange/yellow
  18      35       yellow/green
          36       green/yellow
  19      37       yellow/brown
          38       brown/yellow
  20      39       yellow/slate
          40       slate/yellow
  21      41       violet/blue
          42       blue/violet
  22      43       violet/orange
          44       orange/violet
  23      45       violet/green
          46       green/violet
  24      47       violet/brown
          48       brown/violet
  25      49       violet/slate
          50       slate/violet



        Primary Colors         Secondary Colors
             White                    Blue
             Red                      Orange
             Black                    Green
             Yellow                   Brown
             Violet                   Slate


These little two lines will have you always remeber the standard Bell
system color code ...


    Primary Colors        Secondary Colors
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    White  - Why        Blue   - Bell
    Red    - Run        Orange - Operators
    Black  - Backwards    Green  - Give
    Yellow - You'll            Brown  - Better
    Violet - Vomit        Slate  - Service

Primary   - Why Run Backwards You'll Vomit?
Secondary - Bell Operators Give Better Service.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 9:56:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic


Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]> writes:

> I guess what I'D do if I had a particularly odious repeat fax offender
> is, I'd dump fistfuls of his faxed solicitations right back into my
> machine and call in an off-peak hour.  I'd slap on a cover that asked
> the company to remove my name from their list forever and I'd let them
> know that if they didn't comply, I'd fling every page and MORE back at
> them.

I liked the solution I read about awhile ago -- I'll credit {Teleconnect
Magazine}, but it may have been elsewhere:

Take the offending fax and a letter saying "take me off your list"
plus enough sheets to do the following: tape each sheet to the next in
line, dial the offending fax, and when the first sheet clears, tape it
to the last sheet to form a continuous loop.  Shut out the lights and
take off for the weekend!

Warnings: Better know where the offending fax is (if it's in Hawaii or
India, you may not want to pay the bills).  Don't try this at
home ...


kath mullholand          university of new hampshire           durham nh
if advice is only worth what you pay for it, mine would put *me* in debt


[Moderator's Note: Actually, you read that suggestion here in TD.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Electronic Key System for Sale
Date: 26 May 92 01:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hello:

We are working in the configuration of a wide area network. We are in
the stage of definition of all the elements and we need the best
software arround to document the entire diagram. Can anyone recommend
a software for this purpose?. Is AUTOCAD a good option for doing this?

Thanks. (Gracias)


Jose Guerrero Garza
ITESM Centro de Electronica y Telecomunicaciones
Monterrey N.L. Mexico

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: ASCAP and BMI Lose One
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 12:35:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma x7702) writes:

> Some months ago, we were discussing the need to pay royalties to ASCAP
> and BMI for music on hold. In the 5-19-92 {Wall Street Journal}, a
> small article indicated that according to a recent Supreme Court
> ruling, retail stores were not obligated to pay royalties for the
> privilege of playing a radio station over the store's PA system.

Sorry, I missed the article in the Journal.  Did the ruling apply
specifically to stores?  How about offices?

Three weeks ago, I was working in the telephone closet at the local
bank (installing a StarLAN hub) and noticed an audio amplifier and a
black box connected to a cable pair coming into the building through
the telco service entrance.  A card attached to the black box
indicated that the Muzak feed was licensed for a maximum of ten
loudspeakers.  The building is not a publically-accessible bank
branch, but a 'back office' facillity occupied only by bank personnel.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #417
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18446;
          26 May 92 1:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00736
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 May 1992 00:03:15 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09571
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 May 1992 00:03:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 00:03:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #418

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 May 92 00:03:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 418

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (John Higdon)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Joe Talbot)
    Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Used Natural Microsystems (Watson/VBX) Boards (David Lemson)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Leonard Erickson)
    Ohio: Consumer Group Blasts Proposed Regulations (Vindicator via D Sewell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 13:02 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault


[e-mail] writes:

> I really get pissed when someone who shoots his mouth off when he does
> not know what he is saying about the telecomunications industry. First
> the problems with the 213/310 change over where not GTE's problem. We
> cut all of our switching centers at once. PacBell and a few if the
> Interlata carriers set their cuts for one or two at a time. That caused
> major problems since people were dialing from different areas. I don't
> say GTE did not make any errors as this was one major cut and the
> problems in LA sure did not help any. Get your facts straight.

And this, dear friends, is exactly why GTE is the lousy operating
company that it is. The general (no pun intended) arrogance and
inability to even consider for one moment that there might be
something that could be improved in that organization is what keeps
GTE the undisputed laughing stock in the industry. (Yes, Gloria, GTE
IS a laughing stock.)

The problems experienced in the cut could have been caused by NONE
OTHER than GTE incompetence. ONLY from GTE telephones was it
impossible to reach cellular numbers. Whose fault was that?
Pac*Bell's? The cellular carriers? ONLY from GTE telephones did you
get non-sequiter recordings when you tried to reach the choke prefixes
from 310 exchanges. For decades, this has been GTE's line: it is
always everyone else's fault. GTE has yet to discover that it needs to
coordinate just a little bit with the other players, among other
things.

I have been in the telecommunications industry for over thirty years.
Yet, when I deal with GTE I am always treated as some ignorant street
person -- much in the style of Gloria's post. GTE is a disease. No one
who has any experience in telecommunications would dispute that. To
this date, that record remains unblemished. My laughable experiences
with that excuse for a telephone provider would fill volumes.

I suspect that GTE and all who work within may never discover that
arrogance does not substitute for competence. This is unfortunate,
since GTE is now the largest single telephone service provider in the
country. Scary, is it not?

> Sorry Pat, I have just been in this business to long to let that one
> go.

Same here. (And that is TOO long!)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault
Date: 25 May 92 20:37:42 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


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

> I really get pissed when someone who shoots his mouth off when he does
> not know what he is saying about the telecomunications industry.

Agreed. GTE appears to have many such people employed, as is evidenced
by consistant errors of all types. Knowledgable telecom pros would
know better!

> the problems with the 213/310 change over where not GTE's problem. We
> cut all of our switching centers at once. PacBell and a few if the
> Interlata carriers set their cuts for one or two at a time. That caused
> major problems since people were dialing from different areas. I don't
> say GTE did not make any errors as this was one major cut and the
> problems in LA sure did not help any. Get your facts straight.

The only confusion this would cause is for people dialing 213. Since
it's only a translation change, what the terminating office does is
irrelevant. My annoyance, was with the fact that many prefixes were
undialable with ANY area code (notably the cellular prefixes). 520 is
STILL not right. My trouble reports were discarded, oops, I mean
"cleared" as I predicted. No call back from them, and when I finally
called repair again, no report was "in the computer".

> Sorry Pat, I have just been in this business to long to let that one
> go.

Me too! So NOW I'm going to tell you about a few more amazing screwups
that are not uncommon at all with GTE. Many people try to get problems
solved by "normal channels", but just give up.

A friend of mine (who's reading this I'm sure) has had GTE centranet
service for several years (it's not a bad deal). We just reported his
DISA and cancel call waiting as not working ... "VISA?". To be fair,
the DISA hasn't worked in a year and the CCW, never. They never
understand what the DISA is, and won't follow up to find out. It's
been reported over and over but the report is always "cleared" when
checked up on by the customer. The cancel call waiting report goes the
same way. I was on the line with him when he called 611 one time after
midnight. The clerk said that the computers go down at midnight and
there was nothing he could do. He couldn't even put in a report for
them to lose. There were some features that were offered to him that
they just couldn't figure out, these were voice mail (how does call
forward-no answer work? in the same central office switch?), busy
number redial and others.

I work for several radio stations doing technical work. Not long ago a
building down the street burned down melting the cables overhead,
killing phone service to the station and disabling the remote control
line. Several calls to repair resulted in the "cleared" problem. I
finally got pissed and read sombody the riot act, talking about the
FCC and having to explain that it was GTE's fault that the station
couldn't be controlled (It was a lie, but with GTE, WHATEVER WORKS!).

They finally dispatched and repaired the cable. Of course, I suppose
it's partially my fault. Several months earlier, the station was
cutover to a carrier system. A fuse blew one afternoon, and all the
phones went out, for THREE DAYS! We called repair, "cleared", you know
the drill. Finally, I called Thousand Jokes (Thousand Oaks, GTE HQ)
and told the people there about the problem and informed them that we
were no longer going to be on this carrier system. They DID change us
over, after some subtle threats about "Free airtime" and a talk show
about thier next rate case.

I could (and might) go on and on. My biggest complaint, is that the
attitude at GTE precludes change. They think everybody else is screwed
up, and that they are perfect. When talking to anyone from the
lowliest repair clerk to the Business office manager, THEY are the
experts. THEY must know more than the customer. There is NO chance
that they are reponsible for errors, thousands of "little generals"
are treating customers like this daily. GET OFF IT GUYS! If you
weren't so arrogant, people might cut you some slack. Learn about the
business. Learn how things work. Listen to the customer once in a
while, they may be right on occasion.

To illustrate, if you call the Pacific Bell newsline, there is a
telecom story. If you call GTE's newsline and didn't know they were a
telephone company, you couldn't tell from the recording. They talk
completely in managementspeak about promotions, blood drives,
carpooling. What's a phone? Don't learn about the business, put in
your eight hours and go home and watch the Sylvania TV you bought at
the company store.

I have a BIG attitude about GTE (can't you tell?). It comes from years
of dealing with people who don't know, and don't care.


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 21:48:38 GMT


[e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) writes:

> I asked about conversion to business rates.  The rep quoted me the
> tariffs and the customer actions that would be required to result in
> an unrequested conversion.  These mostly are answering in a business
> name, and requesting billing to a business.  She swore up and down
> that they don't care whether we run BBS systems or not, as long as we
> are not in the business of online services.

The problem is in how "the business of online services" is defined.

Here in Oregon, we *still* don't have a clear answer as to the status
of BBS lines ...


Leonard Erickson              [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]             [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56     [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 19:09:45 EDT


On 24 May 92 01:17:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Vance Shipley) said:

> In the case of the {USA Today} fiasco you suggested that a routing
> table entry error by AT&T caused the 800 -> 900 leaks.  AT&T then used
> some creative billing to recoup their losses.

Please note that I am speaking for Andy Sherman, not AT&T.  To the
best of my knowledge (which is decent) it was not "creative billing".
What happened was quite simple and uncreative.  Calls to
800-555-whatever were accidentally routed to {USA Today's} 900-555-
whatever.  This call arrived at the 900 number with all the usual ANI
information for billing.  I don't think there is a "actual dialed
number" field in the call setup, but even if there was, would you
write a biller that checked it?  These calls were simply billed
routinely, like any other call arriving on the information provider's
doorstep.

This was not creative billing.  This was ordinary hum-drum business as
usual.  I realize that this will disappoint the conspiracy theorists
among us ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Used Natural Microsystems (Watson/VBX) Boards
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 02:48:59 GMT


[e-mail] (Joel Breazeale) writes:

> Anyone out there know of some company which sells/buys used Natural
> Microsystems (VBX & Watson) boards?

You're likely to find many distributed around, because of a scheme
about five years ago that spread a lot of them around.  I don't remember
the bogus company name, but a good friend of mine got into it (and I
almost did, too).  An 'entrepreneur' (who was being investigated by
the Postmaster General already, it turned out) put ads in papers
(including the {Sacramento Bee}, where I found it) looking for people
with PC's to make money.  They would give you a Watson board and the
deluxe VBX software/hardware so that you could make them some money.

They sent you disks with voicemail messages on them.  You sat at home
every night and typed in numbers from the residential pages of the
phone book (Allegedly from instructions: "Don't put in lawyers' office
numbers").  Each day, the Watson board woke up and called each person,
waited until a person answered, then delivered a message that was
actually an oldies song recognizing game.  If you got the three (which
was easy) you got a number on the east coast to call with your special
security password -- you must call in 30 minutes. (Number never changes,
as you imagine.)

When you call, you supposedly can win $50 ... but only after listing
to a pitch for storm doors or something.  Big problem: They accepted
deposits for the Watson boards from many people.  They never paid
ANYONE the big money they promised ($500/week or something like that).
My friend did get the deposit back after the government froze the
company's assets.  He did do the job for about four weeks while it was
iffy whether or not it was legit, though.  The government investigators
supposedly got everyone their deposits back (they got up to $600 per
person) and also let almost everyone keep their Watson boards.  I
think the scam originated in Florida, but I don't remember for sure.
It really was a big production, and it wasn't meant to be a 'scam' per
se ... the guy just never could pay his bills, nor his employees.
(They had an 800 number BBS set up, etc.)


David Lemson                                                 [phone]
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant  / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : [e-mail]                 UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson
NeXTMail accepted                                   BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 02:12:25 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Toggle?? Toggle??  Really, a roulette implementation with a 50/50 shot
> of *67 doing what one expects?  Or is there a way of deterministically
> testing which mode one is in so that one can, for example, have a
> modem place a call with a known Caller-ID state?

The "toggle" is for the duration of one call (just like call waiting
disable) it "toggles to the line to the opposite of the "default"
state. At the end of the call, the line resumes the default state.

So if you have a "normal" line, *67 blocks Caller-ID transmission for
that call only.

If you have "line blocking" *67 *enables* Caller-ID transmission for
that call inly.

To know the state with which you are dialing, you need to know the
"default" state of the line.


Leonard Erickson              [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]             [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56     [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Ohio: Consumer Group Blasts Proposed Regulations
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 03:23:52 GMT


These are taken from an AP article in the 5/25/92 {Youngstown
Vindicator}, D2.

"The state consumer's counsel says proposed regulations for Ohio's $3
billion-a-year telephone industry pose a threat to affordable basic
telephone service."

 ...

"The PUCO [Public Utilities Commission - DMS] has agreed to use
proposals by the Ohio Telephone Association, Ohio Bell, and other
major phone companies as the basis for new regulations which could be
in place by this summer."

"Proposals include replacement of flat-rate local service with measured
call service and automatic local rate increases indexed to a national
price index."

"'We think the state should control the utility.  The utility should
not control the state,' said Consumers' Counsel William A. Sprately,
who offered counterproposals."

"His proposals included review of profits, rates and services, and
called for maintaining flat-rate residential service and uniform rates
state-wide, and keeping the PUCO and the public involved in telephone
rate-setting."

"K. Patric Collins, executive vice president of the Ohio Telephone
Association, responded "The material presented by the Consumers'
Counsel is misleading and full of inaccuracies.  This organization
continues to misrepresent the telephone industry's proposals in an
effort to justify its own existence."

On Caller ID: "The PUCO had said Ohio Bell could offer the service
only if it gave customers free blocking, which would allow customers
to prevent their numbers from being received on the devices."

"Ohio Bell then asked for new hearings, saying the blocking would make
Caller ID unattractive and would cost the utility $2 million over five
years."

"The PUCO changed the ruling by allowing Ohio Bell to charge $1.10 per
month for blocking for its 521,731 customers with unlisted phone
numbers and dropping a requirement that the company offer two other
services [call trace and call return, I suspect - DMS] consumer groups
said were cheaper alternatives to Caller ID."


Doug Sewell ([e-mail]), Computer Center, Youngstown State University

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #418
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20126;
          26 May 92 2:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16642
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 May 1992 00:40:28 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07360
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 May 1992 00:40:18 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 00:40:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #419

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 May 92 00:40:10 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 419

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Three Day Course: Understanding Data Communications (Ying Leung)
    The Hype of the Information Age (InfoText via Peter Marshall)
    Telecom Museums (Jim Haynes)
    Motorola 8000H Case, CellDyne (Mark Earle)
    New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS (Bill Garfield)
    Caller-ID in Michigan? (John Goggan)
    Autoline+ Problems (Douglas Camp)
    MetroMedia 10xxx Number Query (Mark Earle)
    Re: Looking For Telecommunications Publication (Darren Ingram)
    Modem Help Needed (Alfredo Cotroneo)
    Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Kenneth Freeman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ying Leung)
Subject: A Three Day Course: Understanding Data Communications
Date: 25 May 92 04:17:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Centre, Swinburne Inst. of Tech., Melbourne, Australia.


        A three day short course

        UNDERSTANDING
        DATA
        COMMUNICATIONS

Date:    6 - 8 July 1992

Venue:  Swinburne Institute of Technology,
    Hawthorn, Victoria

Cost:    $540

This course is structured to be eligible training qualifying for the
1% levy under the Training Guarantee Act, and also has been allocated
18 PCP hours by the Australian Computer Society.

For further information please contact Ms Rosemary Shaw, Department of
Computer Science, Swinburne Institute of Technology, John Street,
Hawthorn, Victoria 3122.

Phone:       [phone]
Fax:        [phone]


Course Outline

With the proliferation of personal computers and computer networks in
recent years, data communications has become a fundamental part of
computing. Over the last decade, communications technology has enjoyed
phenomenal growth and industry predicts this trend will continue well
into the 1990's.  In order for this technology to be utilised
effectively and efficiently it is essential that computing personnel
have a thorough understanding of data communications.

Unfortunately, the topic of data communications is jargon-ridden.  As
a result, many fundamental concepts are either not understood well or,
worse still, totally misunderstood.  The objectives of the course are
as follows:

*    To introduce the fundamental concepts of data communications and
     computer networks;

*    To provide an understanding of the current advances and applications
    of communications technology;

*    To introduce various industry standards used in data communications.

This course is aimed at all levels of personnel engaged in the
computing field and assumes no prior knowledge of data communications.
However, practitioners in this field may also find the course useful
as it serves to consolidate knowledge which may have been gained in a
fragmentary manner.


Schedule:

DAY 1

Module 1 - Introduction

Course overview
Evolution of data communications technologies
Standards organisations

Module 2 - Communications Principles

Information codes
Basic electrical engineering concepts
Transmission media
Signal attenuation and distortion problems
Error detection schemes
RS232 & RS449 standards
Signal Types
Modulation techniques and modems
Communications software
Functions of the data link layer
Error control - Idle RQ and Continuous RQ
Flow control - sliding window mechanism
Data link management
Character oriented links and bit oriented links
Demonstration of communications software and hardware systems


DAY 2

Module 3 - Terminal Based Networks

Historical review of terminal based networks
Elements of terminal based networks:
*    terminal multiplexers
*    statistical multiplexers
*    front end processors
The BISYNC protocol
The HDLC protocol
Industry standards

Module 4 - The ISO Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)

The OSI layer concept
OSI terminologies
OSI service primitives
Comparison of proprietary network architectures

Module 5 - Local Area Networks (LANs)

LAN topologies
Media Access Methods - CSMA/CD, token passing
IEEE 802 LAN standards
Internetworking
High speed LANs: FDDI & DQDB
LAN management
Demonstration and hands on session on Banyan Vines networks.


DAY 3

Module 6 - Public Data Networks

Circuit-Switched Data Networks
Packet-Switched Data Networks - virtual circuit and datagram services
X.25, X.21 and their related standards
Integrated Services Data Networks (ISDNs)
Telecom Australia data communications services: Datel, DDS, DMS, Austpac,
Megalink, Fastpac


Module 7 - Current Advances in and Applications of Communications Technology

Message handling systems
The X.400 and X.500 recommendations
The Australian Academic Research Network (AARNet)
Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale (EFTPOS) systems
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems


Module 8 - Demonstration and Course Review

Demonstration and hands on session on AARNet services.
Course review and evaluation.

For further information please contact Ms Rosemary Shaw, Department of
Computer Science, Swinburne Institute of Technology, John Street,
Hawthorn, Victoria 3122.

Phone:       [phone]
Fax:        [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 24 May 92 15:46:45 -0700
From: ole!rwing![e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Subject: The Hype of the Information Age


[From an article by Michael Schrage in the 5/92 issue of {InfoText}]:

 ..I am one of the people responsible for perpetuating a real myth,
one garbed in a lot of hype. And this myth is the myth of the
Information Age.

I think that has been a bunch of rubbish. When I was a reporter at the
{Washington Post}, I was covering high technology ...

I came to the realization after participating in this propaganda
effort that we were looking at the opportunities from the wrong end of
the telescope.

I would like you to recall that the Bell system's most successful
advertising campaign ... was reach out and touch someone ...

AT&T ... was peddling its network as a medium to create and maintain
relationships ... Too many marketers, pundits, and visionaries are
much too enthusiastic about the Information Age model of the world....
They believe the real value is in the data and the information that
they either own or distribute.

I flat out don't think so anymore. The real value of a medium lies
less in the information it carries than in the communities it
creates ...

This is an important design question. How are you designing a medium?
Primarily to manage information, or primarily to create relationships?

I'm not saying that information is unimportant. The majority of the
discussion that goes on regarding new media opportunities and
technology has been around: how do we manage the information better?

 ..The real value that Reuters has generated today is that it offers
networks, unique relationships for people who subscribe. Their
proprietary nich has shifted away from the information they provide to
the network access they offer.

 ..I really believe the question ... is not so much what kinds of
information should we provide, but what kinds of relationships do we
want to build?

 ..What business to the Bells think they are in?  All of it is laden
with this Information Age rubbish. They are trapped in this mindset
 ... Their approach is very brand extension. "Let's take the info we
have and slap it onto a new technology ...

I think the last year reveals that the RBOCs are much better at
lobbying and lawyering and public relations than at technological
innovation.

Speaking personally, I thought their whining was disgraceful ...

Fundamentally, the RBOCs have, in a market economy, a very flawed
culture, because they are basically monopolists. They're the last
legal monopolies in America ...

This new liberty is a market-share game for the RBOCs. It shouldn't
be. It's an infrastructure game ...

This is the smartest approach the RBOCs could take. Don't be
exclusionary, encourage people to come on in. Work out equity or
barter arrangements. Building coalitions is not only smart business,
it's smart public policy ... move away from exerting power to exerting
influence ...

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Museums
Date: 25 May 92 19:04:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


A friend sent me a couple of items.  One is a newspaper clipping
with a picture of children:

    "The Independent Telephone Pioneers Association's traveling
    telephone museum has been in the area for several days.  The
    museum has been seen by scores of people at schools in
    Coleville, Yerington, Lake Tahoe, and Alpine County as
    well as Douglas County.  It will be open to the public
    May 16, 10 am to 2 pm in the Contel parking lot in Gardnerville,
    and today at Douglas High School..."  (from the Gardnerville
    Nevada Record-Courier, Thursday, May 14, 1992)

The other item is a book "Keys, Keys, Keys" intended for collectors of
telegraph keys, by Dave Ingram, K4TWJ, copyright 1991.  Mentioned in
the book is a museum "located in the mezzanine area of the Western
Union Telegraph offices at 655 South Orcas Street, Seattle,
Washington.  Over 100 items, including early telegraph apparatus,
diagrams of systems, photos of stations, wax statues, and early
Western Union uniforms are featured in this unique collection."
Wonder if anybody knows what's happened to it.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 15:39:28 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Earle)
Subject: Motorila 8000H Case, CellDyne


Celldyne makes a nice case for the Motorola 8000H portable phone.
It's "leather" (fake) with a zipper up the back, and a clear front
over the display/button area. One may operate the phone in the case
easily. I'd like one, but the local place wants $85! Can someone post
a source of accessory items for CMT users. The source should take
phone orders without hassle, major credit cards, and I shouldn't have
to pretend to be a volume reseller -- they should be willing to deal
with a "joe average" consumer type person.

As an aside: The bag that comes with the phone is fine, but one must
remove the phone from the bag for use. The leather (real) case I have
is fine, except: it makes the phone quite bulky, and the front of the
phone is unprotected from rain, salt spray when on a boat, etc.


mwe

[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
FidoNet at       Opus 1:160/50.0
Bitnet           [e-mail]1
Internet  [e-mail]

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

Subject: New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 12:49:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


I just received my complimentary "friend" copy of Robert Rickets' (The
PC Consultant) latest endeavor in DOS programming.  In summary, Neat!

His latest version of "NPA" (vers of 05-16-92) combines the latest
North American telecom V&H tables with a fast lookup utility.
Searches can be based on either city, state, NPA or NXX.  Wildcard
searches are supported and can, of course produce copius amounts of
output.  Command line switches support multiple NXX's within rate
centers, county names, population, zipcodes and lat/long.  Operates
full screen mode with online help or from the DOS command line.
Accompanying documentation is a 'must read' for proper program
operation.

Available as Shareware under the title of NPA0516.ZIP on finer bbs' in
the Houston, TX area.  $25 registration removes the beg/nag screens.
VISA/MC accepted.

Inquiries/orders to Robert K. Rickets, The PC Consultant, PO Box 42086
Houston, TX 77242-2086    [phone]


Standard disclaimer applies.  I speak for no one.  I am not an
employee of The PC Consultant and receive no remuneration for telling
others about this nifty product.

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

Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 25 May 1992 13:18:27 EDT
From: John Goggan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID in Michigan?


Does anyone have any exact dates when Michigan Bell began offering
Caller-ID to the public?  I've been waiting to see what would happen
(to see whether or not it would be approved for Michigan, how the
blocking would be handled, what types of blocking would be required,
etc ...) and haven't heard much lately.  Then, all of a sudden, I read
an article in a local paper about how a lady with Caller-ID ("a new
feature offered by Michigan Bell") caught a man who was harrassing her
by giving his number to the police.  Any/all information on CLID in
Michigan is appreciated!  Thanks!


John Goggan ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 17:40:20 -0500
From: douglas camp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Autoline+ Problems
Organization: Indiana University


I recently purchased an AUTOLINE+ from ITS Communications which
detects distinctive ringing patterns to route calls to different
devices. I'm having some problems: (1) I'm getting complaints about
how long the phone rings before I answer it. Althought the AUTOLINE+
is only supposed to absorb one 'ringing sequence' it seems to get at
least two and sometimes three. Also, my fax machine seems a little
finicky when attached to the switch -- although the call is routed to
the correct device (fax), about half the time the fax is unable to
receive an incoming fax, and quits after connecting.

One final complaint -- I bought this thing direct from the company,
and they don't take American Express -- so I had to pay COD. I hate
doing this because once they've cashed the check, I don't have any
recourse. When asked about their return policy, they would only say
'don't worry, we'll make it work'.

Anyone had/solved similar problems (at least the technical ones :>)
with this device?


Thanks,

Doug

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 15:36:07 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Earle)
Subject: MetroMedia 10xxx Number Query


The access code is 10ITT (10488). Be aware that when you use this, it
may take 60-90 days for the calls to show up on your bill, so you may
be in for a bit of "sticker shock" if you forget about LD calls made
with this code.

There is another way to access them, at least with some calling cards:

950-1011 xxx xxx xxxx AAA-BBB-CCCC where the x's are your magic code.
Note, the magic code does not correspond to any phone number, and I've
had variations of these for a long time (I routiely request, and
receive, new access / authorization codes at no charge).

I've used the 950-1011 before the days of equal access, so I don't
know if the calling card magic numbers in use these days will work for
you or not. I don't even recall what the 800 access procedure is. In
some ways, I should find out; there are some situations where 800
access would be desireable.


mwe
[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]-=  +
FidoNet at       Opus 1:160/50.0
Bitnet           [e-mail]1
Internet  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 13:16 GMT
From: Darren Ingram <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Looking For Telecommunications Publication


> I am in pursuit of "Telecommunications" publication, (North American
> Edition)

Horizon House are the publishers of many different telecomms
newsletters. Its editorial offices are based in Norwood, MA.
Tel [phone]  Fax [phone].


Regards,

Darren Ingram - (contributor to Telecommunications International, published
by Horizon House)
Darren Ingram/Satnews        : Standard disclaimer rules apply, even if I am
[e-mail]  : very nasty towards you....  Drink plenty of
Coventry, West Midlands, U.K.: traditional real ale and relax.....

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 10:30:31 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alfredo Cotroneo)
Subject: Modem Help Needed


I am currently using latest commercial mdem technology (v32bis+v42
compression) to transfer huge binary files via phone lines.

Is there any other better (faster) modem solution over conventional
lines?

Or: Would pehaps ISDN allow higher speed? In this case, all I need is
to link two MS-DOS computer, which have RS232 serial intefaces which
may transmitt data up to 115k bauds. That would be enough.  I need a
very fast and CHEAP solution.  Any idea?


Alfredo, Milano, Italy     email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Freeman)
Subject: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 07:16:05 GMT


This is probably as old as the hills, but when our answering machine
recently went on the fritz, we didn't have the number to ring our own
phone. Is it one of the *11 numbers? I am not going to go through the
sequence; I assume it's a proprietary service code, because I've yet
to find it in the public domain.


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


[Moderator's Note: I've never heard of the *11 numbers. What are they?
How do they work? To answer *your* question, this changes from one CO
to the next. Whatever it is here means nothing elsewhere.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #419
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19648;
          27 May 92 1:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04525
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 26 May 1992 23:20:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28052
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 26 May 1992 23:20:13 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 23:20:13 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #420

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 May 92 23:20:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 420

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Typical GTE (John Higdon)
    GTE Stories (David G. Cantor)
    'Gab' Line Liabilities? (Jayson Raymond)
    V.32bis Dial-Back Modems (Brad S. Hicks)
    Free to Good Home (Stephen Friedl)
    New Sprint Access Method (Robert M. Hamer)
    Looking For Information About DSC Incident (David Cornutt)
    Source for ANSI/CCITT CCS#7 and ISDN/PRI Wanted (Corey C. Minyard)
    CWA Members Give Leaders Strike Authorization (Phillip Dampier)
    Stupidest Message Ever Recorded (Don Lynn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Typical GTE
Date: 25 May 92 17:35:24 PDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)


Here is an recent incident that is quite representative of how GTE
operates its LEC business:

Late Friday night the telephone goes dead and callers receive a
"disconnected" recording. A call to GTE repair (by calling a number in
213 collect -- no kidding!) gets a trouble ticket launched. By noon
Saturday the trouble has not yet been corrected and another call to
GTE repair reveals that "there is no trouble report in the computer".
(Yet another case where GTE just clears out the problem without doing
a blessed thing on the trouble itself.) Another report is filed.

By noon Sunday there is still no fix. This time a supervisor was
summoned. He told me that he would look up the records and see if the
phone was disconnected for some reason. This would take a couple of
hours(!). He actually did call me back and tell me that there was no
reason the phone should be disconnected (no excrement, Sherlock!), and
that he would see about restoration.

Late Sunday night I found out that the central office is run from a
location hundreds of miles away and the indication was that there were
no longer any jumper wires on the frame for that line. This meant that
someone would have to be dispatched to physically reconnect the
telephone in the CO. In actuality, the trouble was repaired late
Monday.

It is unbelievable that GTE has absolutely no presence in northern
California. All billing, repair, and switch maintenance is done from
southern California. I am so tired of dealing with Bozos in Thousand
Oaks, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica for service in Los Gatos. I am
equally tired of having trouble reports "cleared" without a trace
several times before any sort of remedial action is ever performed. I
am tired of "service" that is as reliable as a rusty mousetrap. In
fact, I am tired of GTE, period.

Late note: GTE has just set up some "experimental" SS7 links between a
few offices in southern California and will "have meetings" in August
about linking to Pac*Bell. How remarkably advanced, considering PB has
been using SS7 for years and it is commonplace elsewhere in the
country. Leave it to GTE to forge ahead and pioneer new technology and
procedures in the telecommunications industry. NOT!!!


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE Stories
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 12:25:12 -0700
From: David G. Cantor <[e-mail]>


For many years GTE provided my phone *service*.  My first encounter
with GTE was when I purchased a new tract home in an LA suburb served
by GTE.

A couple of weeks before moving in, I called GTE and arranged for
single-party residential service.  The GTE rep was sweet and pleasant.
She said service would be ready the day I moved in and gave me our new
telephone number.  When I moved in, sure enough I had dial tone and
the telephone worked.  The second time I picked up the telephone, I
heard someone else talking.

I called repair service and after some referrals was told that I had
four-party service and that I was lucky to get that.  I was told that
the tract developer had failed to notify GTE that it was building this
tract and that, as a result, GTE hadn't installed telephone cables.
But that, because GTE was so concerned with providing high quality
service, etc., it had quickly installed temporary service. Unfortunately,
it would have to be party-line service for a couple of weeks until GTE
could install regular cables.

This was, of course, a bald-faced lie.  GTE had prewired the homes two
months earlier (this was a LONG time ago).  In addition, the tract had
underground utilities and the underground telephone conduits had been
installed by GTE before the street was paved.  They had simply
forgotten to pull the cable.

The sad part is that the GTE reps I spoke to really believed the
nonsense about it being the developers' fault.  They weren't concerned
with the obvious contradictions between the "cover story" and the
actual facts.

Much later, when I had some serious problems that were being reported
by an {LA Times} columnist, I received a call from GTE public relations.
After a few minutes it became clear that they had no interest in
solving my problems, but were simply concerned with "damage control"
in regards to the {LA Times} columns.


David G. Cantor    Department of Mathematics   University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555   Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: Jayson Raymond <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Gab' Line Liabilities?
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 12:41:28 PDT


    As a hobby, I am considering providing an information provider
service, that among other things, will allow the participants to
freely communicate with each other, such as in a 'gab' line. Please note
that this will not add to the 900 cr*p out there, no sex, no
datelines, just good clean fun interaction.

    I seem to recall reading about a case where the information
provider was liable for the rape of 13 year girl whom had given her
address out over a GAB line.

    The participants I envision would include young and old alike.
Many questions arise, such as: Would a BBS operator be liable in a
similar situation? Would this require me to acquire common carrier
status, and just what does this mean?

    If anyone could shed some light on this subject, perhaps even
providing references where a legal laymen such as myself could find
out more, I would be greatly appreciative.


Sincerely,


Jayson Raymond    [e-mail]

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Tue May 26 14:59:14 -0400 1992
Subject: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems


Does anybody make a V.32 (or better, V.32bis) external modem that
supports dial-back in hardware?  If so, does anybody know about how
much they'd cost and where we could get them?  Reply via email to the
address below, and I'll summarize to the list if there's interest.


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.

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

Subject: Free to Good Home
Date: 25 May 92 13:47:28 PDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)


Hi net.folks,

     I had a four-wire leased line deinstalled from my house some time
ago, and today while cleaning my office I ran across the interface box
that sits between the line and my equipment.  Pac*Bell doesn't want it
back (I just called them) and I hate to throw away things like this.

     It's an "Inteliport 1" from Teltrend, and it has model number
SDS5486.  It has housing and power supply, and it was working fine
when removed from service.  I have no manual for it.  Note that all
the chips have had their identifications ground off, so it has limited
value to one who wants to rip it apart for junk value (else I would
have done this myself!)

     I'm happy to give this to anybody who wants it, but I'd prefer
that it go to somebody who really knows what it is and has a real use
for it.  It goes at no charge to the first person with such a real
need, or to the first just-curious asker if no serious users request
it.

     Mail goes to [e-mail] or uunet!mtndew!friedl.


     Telecom-ically yours,

Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 15:18 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer 908-932-2696" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Sprint Access Method


Just when it appeared that AT&T was joining reality by having an 800-
number to access their network, it appears that Sprint is losing
reality.  (John Higdon will have fun with this one.)

I just got two new Foncards from Sprint.  My old one still works;
these are for my daughter and son.  (When ordering them I remembered
to ask them _not_ to send me ones with my home phone number embedded
in the Foncard number.)  These are their "new Global Foncards."  The
Foncard numbers printed in raised large print across the center of the
card are the same format (14 digits) as their old ones, but underneath
it in small nonraised print is a "Global Calling Number" which has a
six digit prefix (common to both cards.  common to all cards?), and
then ten digits of the Foncard numbers, then one digit unrelated to
the remaining four digits of the Foncard numbers.  But it is on the
back of the cards where the dialing instructions are that the fun has
started.  They have changed the instructions from dialing
"1-800-877-8000" to dialing "10333."  So as AT&T is recognizing that
10288 won't work for everyone, Sprint is trying to push 10333 on
everyone.  (In small print the cards says "If you do not hear 'Welcome
to Sprint,' dial 1-800-877-8000.")

Additionally, on the sheet of paper that accompanied the cards are
computer-printed, next to the Foncard numbers, two four-digit numbers
labelled PINs, with no explanation of what they might be used for.  So
I tried to call Sprint customer service ("1-800-877-4646" listed
helpfully on the card).  Bzzztt!  I got a SIT and a message that "The
number you have dialed, 541-0110, has been changed to a nonpublished
number."  I figured I'd dialed wrong, so I tried it again.  Five
times.  I figured maybe the keypad on my phone was sticking or
bouncing, or something, so I got another phone and tried again.
Bzzztt!  It is pretty bad when you can't call customer service.

I looked under Sprint in my Princeton-area phone book (ignore the fact
that this is coming to you from a computer in Virginia; I live in
Plainsboro, NJ, just outside of Princeton) and under Sprint, there was
a local Princeton office listed (for business customers).  I called
them and got an airhead whose reaction when I told her the problem I'd
had was "Gee."  I suggested that she keep me on hold, get another
line, and try the 800- customer service number.  She did, and got
through.  At that point I thought "misprogrammed switch" (her exchange
is different), but didn't persue it further with her because I figured
it would be pointless.  Instead I used "00" to ask the Sprint operator
to connect me with customer service.  I reported the problem to
customer service, who seemed happy to take it.  Who knows what'll come
of it.

Two remarks: does anyone know if my phone (609-520) and the Princeton
Sprint office (609-544) are on different switches?  And: in the phone
book is yet another number for Sprint customer service: 800-877-7746.
It was busy.  Repeatedly.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Cornutt)
Subject: Looking for Information About DSC Incident
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 13:55:31 GMT


I'm working on a research paper for a software project management
class that I'm taking at the University of Alabama-Huntsville.  I've
chosen to do an example of a causal analysis, where you examine an
incident of a software fault and attempt to determine how the error
got there, and how similar errors could be prevented in the future.

The example that I've chosen is the notorious SS7-protocol software
fault that caused outages of long-distance service in the Northeast
and other areas about a year ago.  I understand that the error
occurred in a binary patch to some software that was supplied by DSC
Communications.  I had hoped that, given the widespread publicity that
accompanied this incident, I would be able to find some information
about the process that led up to the fault.  But concrete information
has been hard to come by (rumor and innuendo are plentiful, though);
all I've got to show for my searches so far is one article in {IEEE
Spectrum}.

So, I am requesting pointers to information about the incident.  If
you know of any articles or other sources of information (or even
perhaps have firsthand knowledge), please get in touch with me.  You
can respond to this article, mail me at [e-mail],
or call my work phone at [phone].  Confidentiality will be
protected if desired.

Please note that it is NOT my intention to trash AT&T, DSC, or any
other party involved.  Actually, the paper will probably focus on the
still-widespread practice of binary patching, and whether or not it
is an appropriate thing to be doing in this day and age, instead of on
the specific incident.


Thanks in advance,

Dave

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

Date: 26 May 92 16:06:00 CDT
From: Corey (C.) Minyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Source for ANSI/CCITT CCS#7 and ISDN/PRI Wanted


I am interested in obtaining source code for CCS#7 (ANSI and CCITT)
and ISDN/PRI.  I am doing research on a project to supply a test tool
that supplies these capabilities.  Free source would be ok, but source
supported by a company would be better.  If anyone sells this or knows
how to get source, I would appreciate an e-mail.


Thanks,

Corey    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 17:22:58 -0500
Subject: CWA Members Give Leaders Strike Authorization


CWA MEMBERS GIVE LEADERS STRIKE AUTHORIZATION AT AT&T
Communications Workers of America

WASHINGTON -- The Commmunications Workers of America announced on May
26 that the union's members have authorized a strike against AT&T if
contract negotiations are unsuccessful.

The members voted by a better than four to one margin to authorize CWA
President Morton Bahr to call for a strike if necessary after contract
expiration at midnight on Saturday, May 30.

CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers began
joint negotiations for new three-year contracts with AT&T on Monday,
March 30, 1992 in Washington, D.C.  Intense negotiations between the
parties continue this week on behalf of 100,000 CWA-represented
workers, and 27,000 workers represented by the IBEW.

The IBEW announced earlier that its members voted to authorize a
strike.

CWA's bargaining goals for AT&T include: employment security, improved
standard of living through substantial base wage gains, as well as
family care improvement, improvement of health care benefits, and
pension increases; improvements in working conditions, expanded
education and training programs, and initiatives to eliminate
monitoring, and manage technology to improve worker satisfaction,
instead of threatening jobs and job content.

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 09:00:59 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Stupidest Message Ever Recorded


I would like to submit the following as evidence that I have received
the stupidest message ever left on an answering machine.  To the best
of my ability, I have transcribed it exactly.  Items in parentheses
are things that are not actually quoted from the speakers.  I have Xd
my phone number, in case I (or Pedro, depending on the area code used)
couldn't handle those who might try to intentionally out-stupid this.
A lot could be discerned from this in the areas of operator behavior,
the ability of the public to deal with even simple technology, the
operator as an authority figure, and how this scene came to be
recorded.

Don Lynn

A: dialed the wrong number ...

B: Hello, this is the operator.
   Hello, this is the operator.
A: Yes, why did I
B: What happened on the call?
A: I didn't dial the wrong number, and I don't know why it got some other
number.
B: You didn't dial the wrong number?
A: Nuh-uh.
B: What number did you want?
A: 775-uh
C: (not understandable)
A: 775-um-XXXX
B: What area code?
A: Um, I guess 619.
B: What city?
A: Indio.
B: OK, you didn't dial the area code.  That's what the problem is.  Hold on.
A: All right.
   (in a quieter voice) Hey, cause you didn't dial the area (not
understandable)
   Hello operator?
B: Do you want this call returned?
A: Yes, thank you.
B: All right, hang up and re-dial your call please.  It's out of my service
area.
A: 619, right?
B: 619.
A: All right, thank you.
C: No man, you gotta use the calling card now.
A: Oh yeah.
(Touch Tones (R))
D(female): GTE operator.
A: Well, I'm trying to dial 619
C: (not understandable) Pedro?
(Touch Tones)
D: Sir. (Touch tones) Sir, you are dialing with an operator on the line.  It
isn't getting you anywhere.
A: Oh. Well, see
D: You have to hang up and get a dial tone.
A: All right, sir.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #420
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23255;
          27 May 92 2:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02884
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 May 1992 01:05:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32077
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 May 1992 01:05:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:05:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #421

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 May 92 00:05:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 421

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (James Olsen)
    Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (Robert L Ullmann)
    Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? ([e-mail])
    Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Gregory Paris)
    Re: Memorial Day, 1992 (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Scott McClure)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Ring-Back Codes (Nigel Roberts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 10:07:09 EDT
From: [e-mail] (James Olsen)
Subject: Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


[e-mail] writes:

> CompuServe and similar services do not have to pay the Long Distance
> Carrier Access Fee, while you, me, and everyone else has to.

Not quite.  What 'you, me, and everyone else' pay is a subscriber line
access charge, currently $3.50/line/month.  Compuserve pays this too.

What the FCC wanted to charge Compuserve is the carrier-type access
charge, on a per-minute basis.  The FCC plan was thwarted by massive
popular reaction, and (for now) Compuserve and other ESP's still pay
only the line access charge, like you and me.

IMHO, the opposition to the FCC plan was due to the unfairness of the
carrier access charge, for both ESP's and IXC's (long-distance
companies), since the carrier access charge perpetuates the tradition
that IXC's should be overcharged in order to subsidize local service.
Since this tradition did not extend to ESP's, the access charge
inequity was quite evident.

I have two questions about FCC access charge policy:

 - Why do we still have the subscriber line access charge?  While it
   might have been a valuable transition tool, it seems unnecessary
   now.  Why doesn't the FCC tell LEC's: 'The line access charge will
   be abolished on <date>.  Adjust your tariffs accordingly.'

 - Why does the FCC perpetuate the local-service subsidy, via the
   carrier access charge?  If the subsidy were eliminated, the ESP
   'exemption' would presumably become a moot point.

(Note that the 1987 FCC access-charge plan was extensively covered in
TELECOM Digest.  Interested readers should look at the files 'fcc.threat',
'fcc.policy', and 'pc.pursuit' in the Telecom Archives on lcs.mit.edu.)


Jim Olsen     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert L Ullmann)
Subject: Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf
Organization: The World in Boston
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 00:17:32 GMT


In this case, there is a way to tell a Real Wolf from a cry about a
non-existant wolf: A real wolf will be an FCC Notice of (Intended?)
Rule-Making, which has a _number_.

If someone brings up a "modem tax", ask them for the FCC notice
number, if they don't have it, forget it. If they _do_ have one, note
that it contains (if I remember correctly) the year as part of the
number.  (If it looks like 87-nnnn, forget it :-)

If it _is_ a Real Wolf, be sure to tell us all, and give us the number
so we can all cite it in our complaints.


Robert Ullmann        [e-mail]    [phone] x226

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 04:50:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Marc Unangst) writes:

> The other concern I have is that there has NEVER been an attempt by
> the FCC to implement a "modem tax."  There have been two types of
> incident, as far as I can remember, with regards to modems and
> taxes/fees: 1) The CompuServe/LD access fee event; and 2) attempts by
> the RBOCs to make BBSes use business lines.  (1) has been adequately
> explained by another participant in this forum, I believe -- it
> relates to the fact that CompuServe and similar services do not have
> to pay the Long Distance Carrier Access Fee, while you, me, and
> everyone else has to.  At one point the FCC wanted to change this;
> CompuServe tried to get its subscribers to write letters to the FCC
> protesting this.

As the semi-official Debunker Of The Myth, I'd like to clarify what
really happened ... Marc's note is very good but one point could stand
clarification (his point 1).

The FCC proposal stems from the fact that there are not two but three
different types of rates for which a line can be charged.  There's
residential, which often doesn't pay its own way.  That's charged to
most hobby BBSs, but we know how some telcos are fighting them.
Number two is business.  That more than pays its own way.  The third
is the Carrier Common Line rate, which is what AT&T, MCI et al pay to
the local Bells.  This is as much as 5c/minute on either side of the
call, though it's tending to decline and varies place to place.  It
isn't usually distance sensitive: It often covers an entire LATA at
one rate.  This frequently comes out to about $5/hour.

If you are a long distance carrier, that fee (CCLC) covers your share
of the local network.  It more than pays its own way -- it subsidizes
the cheap residential rate.  The question that arose ca. 1987
concerned the distinction between packet and circuit-switched
carriers.  A packet carrier can use business rates, but
circuit-switched carriers use CCLC rates.  And since packet carriers
are "value added", as goes one, go other information providers who
carry information (not necessarily in real time) across state lines,
and that means CompUServe et al.  And some non-data IPs too.

The amount of interstate bandwidth used by a packet carrier or IP is
lots, lots less than the amount used by a voice/circuit carrier.  The
former are connected just like business lines, the latter as carriers.
The FCC proposal would have applied a value judgement to some business
lines to see if they should pay hte higher CCLC rates.  It was
rejected under intense Congressional pressure, and is unlikely to be
revived.

The latest brouhaha concerns "Open Network Access" rates.  These
useful services are only provided with CCLC rates, so the FCC has in
effect applied its original proposal to those who want to attach to
the local network with anything other than a dumb old line-side
connection.  But it's stil not a "modem tax"; it is a tariff for a
service.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Stopping Unwanted Incoming Fax Traffic
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 07:12:00 GMT


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

> Take the offending fax and a letter saying "take me off your list"
> plus enough sheets to do the following: tape each sheet to the next in
> line, dial the offending fax, and when the first sheet clears, tape it
> to the last sheet to form a continuous loop.  Shut out the lights and
> take off for the weekend!

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, you read that suggestion here in TD.  PAT]

Actually, it doesn't work.  There is a maximum length for a fax page,
and the machine will abort the send (it assumes something is screwing
up).

You can avoid this on machines with an optical end-of-page sensor by
including a short segment of transparent film, and on machines with
mechanical sensors, by cutting a notch or slot in the appropriate
position.  Practice using the COPY mode of your fax.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron)
Subject: Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?
Date: 26 May 92 16:12:59 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


> One law enforcement agency who had arrested a deaf person (I believe
> it was several years ago) allowed the deaf person to make a call -- a
> TT call -- but the call contained his admission to the crime so the
> officiers confiscated the TT printout to use it against him in court.

Depends who the call was to.  If to an attorney, then it probably
could have been successfully argued that it was priveleged
communications, just as if it were a fax.  Other communciations (TT or
regular phone) from jails are frequently monitored, and the phones
usually are marked that this is the case.


Ron

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregory M. Paris)
Subject: Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 22:07:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> I read the article you mentioned.  The article said it was santized
> for privacy -- all names, company names, etc. were removed.  However,
> I don't agree with the relay center providing the information for
> research with or without permission from each callers.  Once the relay
> call is completed, it should be erased from their terminal.  This
> ensures both parties (caller and callee) the confidentiality from the
> third-party (relay service).

We toured New England Telephone's relay center for Massachusetts on
their anniversary several months back and I can tell you that they
were very concerned about privacy issues.  In fact, the software they
use clears the screen automatically at the end of each call; the
operator can't avoid it.  They don't record calls (at least, they said
they don't) and the operators are forbidden from discussing calls with
others.

I don't know about other relay services, but the above mentioned
service seemed very professional.  Too bad they don't operate in Rhode
Island (yet).


Greg Paris <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA  02048-1193
Office: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; Home: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 03:21:52 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Memorial Day, 1992


Pat writes about Walt, a Illinois Bell employee, and his experiences
during the 1968 riots in Chicago, of which Walt observed:

> "A lot of the guys I worked with were going out of their way to avoid
> that riot area. They'd say something like 'F--- the animals! Let the
> phone stay out until tomorrow; let the day shift get it tomorrow.' But
> I always figured the people living out there were entitled to phones
> like anyone else. Besides, most of them living in the housing projects
> did not have private phones anyway. They had to go out at night to the
> store nearby and they depended on the payphone. Anyway, my experience
> was the rioters never hassled the phone guys. Same as the Edison
> (electric) crews. They knew we were just there to do our job and not
> to cause them trouble. So they left us alone, or me at least.

But in Los Angeles, where the cops are perhaps less scrupulous, the
recent batch of rioters did NOT leave the utility people alone.  LAPD
had been known to pose as utility employees in order to gain access to
places they might otherwise be denied.  Since this was done without
authorization from Pac*Bell, there are now areas of town where
telephone repair folk are shot at.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott McClure)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 06:07:32 GMT


[e-mail] (Richard A Hyde) writes:

> Dialing 950-1288 from most places in the US will connect you to the
> AT&T packet switched network.

> I anticipate a very high demand for a *use the same number anywhere*
> system.

That's great, but *what* is it, and what is it for?  When you connect
to it, all you get is:


>                   WELCOME TO AT&T INFORMATION ACCESS SERVICE

> Please Sign-on:


That doesn't say much.  Anyone from AT&T care to comment? Anyone?

(Disclaimer: If there was a previously posted explanation, it expired
here already.)


Scott

INTERNET:  [e-mail]
ARPANET:   ryptyde![e-mail]
UUCP:      {crash nosc}!ryptyde!scott


[Moderator's Note: There are a variety of things going on there,
including connections to AT&T Mail. I use 950-1288 here in Chicago to
to a 9600 baud connection to the mail service. And there are numerous
other organizations reachable through the service. At the 'Please Sign
On' prompt you would enter 'ATT Mail' or similar.  We had a lengthy
message of explanation here about this several months ago. PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 15:42:14 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS


"Ken Jongsma x7702" <[e-mail]> writes:

> In the same issue, there is an article on how Dominos Pizza is
> planning on using 950-1430 to connect callers anywhere in the country
> to the correct local Dominos. The article says that they should be
> fully operational (except for Alaska) within two years.

> "The time required to place the 950 call and reach the correct Domino's
> Pizza store is eleven seconds or less, compared to four to seven
> seconds for normal calls, Gonos said.

Domino's appears to be trying awfully hard to take advantage of modern
technology already. Local outlets here have installed PC's to track
their customers and orders by phone number, making heavy use of
personalized printouts on coupons and mailings (including apology
postcards issued if the pizza arrived late). Their first question to
you when you call is now for your phone number, which retrieves your
info (name, address, etc.)  from their database. Ironically, it now
takes LONGER to get your order placed, with frequent pauses while the
employee enters your order via hunt-and-peck typing skills and recites
the stored information back at you in case something has changed since
your last order. A final oddity: with all this reliance on the phone
number to identify the calling party, they do not subscribe to Caller
I.D.

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 02:34:54 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault


Let me tell my GTE story:

I was in in TN working on an I&R project for a non-GTE independant in
a really rural area.  While in town I met the engineer for the local
FM station, and he asked if I'd be interested in installing a key
system for them.  They had bought it, and had run the wiring, but
hadn't gotten arround to programing it or punching down the wiring.

Anyway I was at the station at about 5pm installing a backboard when
one of their announcers called up and said they couldn't send any
audio over a dry pair they had to the local high school.  The local
telco (GTE) had stolen the pair for someone else's service (I thought
everyone knew either to put a battery on the pair and alarm it, or
drive it with your program bus). Anyway we went out there and tried to
find a set we could couple to, for a really poor substitute.  After
patching their mixer into the coach's 1A2 set, we called GTE.  After
going through _one_ repair operator, We were put in touch with a tech
who said he would drive out to the CO and patch the dry pair into one
of the schools lines, if we could get the school's OK.  To make a long
story short, they had a link before the game started.

John, I can't speak for GTE in CA, but around here they are just like
Bell South, they have good people and they have clock punchers.  If
you have the patience (or time) to wait, you will generally be
satisified. Of course, while SCB is 100% SPC switches in AL, GTE still
has step switches.  Such is the price of offering telephone service in
the rural south.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 05:44:31 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring-Back Codes


As PAT has already said, this is not standardised anywhere.

However, back in the dim and distant past when I only had one phone
line, there was a completely standard way to get a ring-back anywhere
in the United Kingdom. It should still be a usable method.

    Dial 100.

    "Hello, Operator, can you test the bell on my telephone"

    "Certainly, sir, just replace your receiver and I'll call
     you right back".

Worked every time.


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #421
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24933;
          27 May 92 3:36 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 May 1992 01:47:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14296
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 May 1992 01:47:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:47:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #422

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 May 92 01:47:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 422

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls (Trentonian via Monty Solomon)
    Radio Station Contest Takes Down Phone System! (FIDO/FCC via Jack Decker)
    Problem With Dimension 2000 and New PI Modem (Patrick M. Landry)
    Sources of Ring Boosters Wanted (Jack Winslade)
    Info Wanted: US Robotics Courier V.32 bis modem (Holger Reusch)
    Self Dialing Number in Toronto ([e-mail])
    Re: TDD Detectors/Switches (Craig T. Anderson)
    Re: TDD Detectors/Switches (Dick Barth)
    Re: TDD Detectors/Switches (Gregory M. Paris)
    Re: Headsets (Jim Langridge)
    Re: 900 Blocking Not Guarenteed Effective (John Levine)
    Re: Frustrated Phone Owner (Bill Berbenich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:40:30 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls


 From the 5/23/92 {Trentonian}:

If the phone company gets its way, 28,000 customers in New Jersey will
be billed for two months of long distance calls they dialed for free
because of a computer glitch.

A computer that recorded the time, number and cost of AT&T calls from
Feb. 17 to April 27 failed to put the data on the customers' bills,
officials said.  They were charged just for calls placed through New
Jersey Bell, Karen Johnson, a Bell spokeswoman, said yesterday.

But the free calls are over, Johnson said.  Records of the calls are
stored in computer memory banks, and the customers soon will be
billed.

NJ Bell must prove the mistake was not caused by negligence before the
company can collect, according to a spokesman for the Board of
Regulatory Commissioners, which oversees utilities.  If Bell does not
make a good case, the board could deny permission to bill for the
calls, said George Dawson.

The computer snafu affected about two million calls placed by
customers in 15 exchanges in the 201 and 609 area codes, Johnson said.

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 10:02:11 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Station Contest Takes Down Phone System!


This message is from the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:

* From : Paul Maserang, 1:392/6 (18 May 92 19:30)
* To   : Craig Carlton
* Subj : Phoneco Slime Continued

CC> While creating jamming loads might sound like fun sometimes, that
CC> extra load is ONE of the reasons that TELCOs are trying to get more
CC> money from those use use their iines for BBS's.  Creating traffic just
CC> to fill up the network sounds to me like a rather stupid idea that
CC> just adds fuel to the fire.

What about commercial radio stations that have call-in contests?
Every time one of the more popular ones runs such a contest, people
start getting reorder (all circuits busy) signals until a winner is
announced.

   A few years ago, a local station (KORQ), which operates on 100.7
MHz, had such a contest going for almost an hour straight, as they
were giving away a major prize worth over $1000 to the 100th caller.
During that time I could not get a dial tone, and many other people
were in the same situation. I even heard of one business, which
operated automated gas stations around town at the time, that
threatened to sue the radio station for disrupting their business for
almost an hour. No one was able to buy gas at any of their affected
stations, because their remote sites could not dial up the company's
central computer system and verify the customer's account.

   Just imagine all the other similar devices that were put out of
commission by this contest, such as automated teller machines (ATMs),
convenience store & gas station card readers, alarm systems not using
leased lines, and especially EMERGENCY SERVICES (including LifeLine
alarm systems)!

   During that one particular contest, I had my phone off the hook
waiting for a dial tone during the entire contest and never got one
until the winner was announced. How would I have gotten help in case
of fire or serious accident? Fortunately, being a ham radio operator,
I probably could have gotten help by radio.


RBBSMail v18.0
* Origin: The CD-ROM BBS Abilene, Tx. 915-673-8014 [HST] (1:392/6.0)

                               --------

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

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

Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Patrick M. Landry)
Subject: Problem With Dimension 2000 and New PI Modem
Organization: The Center for Advanced Computer Studies
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 04:22:20 GMT


I have just purchased some Practical Peripherals PM14400 modems.
Problem is, they refuse to auto-answer my phone. The university where
I work operates a Dimension 2000 PBX. I understand that other people
on campus have had similar problems with answering machines not
answering phones. I am assuming that it is either a voltage problem or
a duration problem. (My personal guess is voltage; duration seems to
be pretty normal to me.)

Many other modems have been used here without problem. Calls to the
modem manufacturer were not fruitful. I can try to get through to
someone who knows something there (as opposed to the guys who answer
the tech support phones) but I know little about phones and would feel
much more comfartable if I knew specifically what the problem is.

I am looking for ANY suggestions. If I need to provide more info
please ask.  I do not read the telephone groups so if you are reading
this ther please reply via e-mail. Thanks in advance as always!


patrick    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 16:47:42 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Sources of Ring Boosters Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


At times, I've heard of devices for subscriber lines that will boost
the CO-supplied ringing signal so that it will drive more ringers than
can be driven directly from the CO.

As of now, I am at a loss to find anything.  Does anyone know of a
source of these?

Please reply by mail, and if there is interest, I'll summarize.


Thanks.   Good day.        JSW    [e-mail]
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha   Fertilizer ???   Aisle 9  (1:285/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Holger Reusch (Dipl. ALF in spe))
Subject: Info Wanted: US Robotics Courier V.32 bis Modem
Organization: Technical University Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 08:53:36 GMT


I intend to buy a V.32 modem and, after visiting different sellers at
the Austrian computer fair IFABO, became interested in the V.32 bis
modem from the Courier series of US Robotics.  Since there must be
some people out there in net.land knowing that brand of modems, I
would like to get some impressions about it.

Points of primary interest are:

-  What's the manufacturing quality?  Is US Robotics an "el cheapo"
   brand or are they known as a high standard company?
-  Are there any problems with setting up or maintaining?
-  Do you know of any other quirks and problems not mentioned in the
   manual?
-  If you own a Courier V.32 bis, are you satisfied?

Thanks in advance for your help.


Greetings,

Holger Reusch    Technical University of Vienna, Austria
Dept. for Real-Time Systems    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tuesday, 26 May 1992 15:02:55 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Self Dialing Number in Toronto
Organization: York University


Dear friends:

Does anyone happen to know the self-dialing number in Toronto?  The
old number of 41091 doesn't work anymore. (It used to work on pulse
phones only.


Brad    YSPY0120 @ VM1.YorkU.CA
YSPY0120 @ YORKVM1.BITNET   71511,3727 @ compuserve.com


[Moderator's Note: I am not sure what you mean by 'self-dialing
number'. Did you by chance mean 'ring-back number' ... a number which
when dialed then causes your phone to ring when you hang up?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig T. Anderson)
Subject: Re: TDD Detectors/Switches
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Craig T. Anderson)
Organization: The Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 16:46:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Curtis E. Reid) writes:

>> Are there automatic detector-switches, like fax-voice switches, that
>> will detect a TDD call(er) and switch the call to a TDD terminal or
>> modem instaed of a voice phone?

> When a TDD/TT call comes in, it is silent.  The callee will recognize
> that it is silent in response to verbal "Hello" that it is a TDD/TT
> call.  I know of no such switches that can recognize a silent call
> other than requiring the message be in TDD/TT telling the caller press
> a touch-tone button or some equivalent response but it is very
> cumbersome.

There are distinctive ring switches that route calls based on the way
the phone rings.  You pay the phone company a few bucks a month for a
new number that uses the same line but rings the phone differently.
Or you can subscribe to a service that allows you to program in a few
numbers and if someone calls from one of those numbers the phone rings
differently.  In either case the distinctive ring switch eats the
first ring and routes the call to the appropriate device.


Craig Anderson     [e-mail]

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

From: rbarth@ka3ovk (Dick Barth)
Subject: Re: TDD Detectors/Switches
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dick Barth)
Organization: Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 03:25:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Sicherman <sichermn@
beach.csulb.edu> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 413, Message 5 of 14

> Being wolefully ignorant of TDD protocols:

> Are there automatic detector-switches, like fax-voice switches, that
> will detect a TDD call(er) and switch the call to a TDD terminal or
> modem instaed of a voice phone?

> Referecnce on basic TDD operation, design, and use would be
> appreciated.

I'm not aware of any commercially available switches of this type, but
it would be relatively simple to design one.

A TDD does not send tone unless you type on it.  This is necessary
because it operates in half-duplex mode, using the same tone pair in
each direction.  Ideally it should shut up within a fraction of a
second after the last outgoing character has been sent.

BBSes have been built (mine being one of them) that handle both TDD
and ASCII calls using a protocol like this: Answer in ASCII mode.  If
originate tone is not heard in a short time, switch to TDD mode.
There are a couple of complications.  First, the commercial TDD modems
provide ASCII capability only at 300 baud and under using a Bell-103
compatible tone pair.  This makes it relatively simple (and quick) to
determine whether the caller is using ASCII.  Within ten seconds a
decision can be made and a switch to TDD implemented.  (I accept
higher-speed ASCII calls on a second phone line.)

If an ASCII modem accepting protocols other than -103 is used, it
takes a while for the modem to lock in and decide that this is an
ASCII call.  A TDD caller who is waiting for all this to happen, and
who does not expect the delay, may decide that all the steady tone he
sees on his TDD lights indicates dial tone and an aborted call.  He's
likely to hang up.  In this case it would be better to send a brief
"wait" message in TDD mode before bringing up ASCII answer tone.

All this could be implemented in a single computer if somebody would
build a TDD modem that operates at ASCII baud rates above 300.  Or if
you're able to kludge up a combined ASCII/TDD modem of your own.  It's
been done but requires users with enough technical savvy to do
hardware modifications on their own, so there were few of them ever
made.


Richard Barth, W3HWN **** HEX, the Handicapped Educational Exchange BBS
[phone] (TDD and 300 baud)    | Domain: [e-mail]
[phone] (300-2400 MNP)        | UUCP:   uunet!media!ka3ovk!rbarth

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

From: [e-mail] (Gregory M. Paris)
Subject: Re: TDD Detectors/Switches
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 21:49:10 GMT


[e-mail] (Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> When a TDD/TT call comes in, it is silent.  The callee will recognize
> that it is silent in response to verbal "Hello" that it is a TDD/TT
> call.  I know of no such switches that can recognize a silent call

Isn't it common practice for a TDD (TTY, TT -- choose your favorite
abbreviation) caller to press the space bar to alert a hearing callee
that the call is not a voice call?  I know that my wife's friends and
associates do this.

The detector device, if such existed, would be welcome at this
household too, especially if it could answer incoming TDD calls with a
"this is an answering machine" message and then route the call to a to
a printer.  Even if you have an answering machine that will record TDD
tones (many won't), the only way to alert a TDD caller to the fact
that they've reached an answering machine is to record TDD tones on
the announcement -- this tends to discourage voice callers, as the
tones are rather obnoxious and usually unexpected.


Greg Paris <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA  02048-1193
Office: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; Home: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 08:34:53 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Headsets


In vol 12 issue 407 Jeff Crilly writes:

> We're thinking about getting a few headsets here and I'm wondering if
> anyone would care to make a recomendation.  I know about Plantronics,
> but don't have any current literature.  I also have a catalog from a
> mail-order place called Hello Direct.  They seem to sell they own
> stuff, but it may just be relabled OEM products.

I evaluated headsets last year for one of my companie's helpdesks.
Among the sets were Plantronics, AT&T, GN-Netcom, Starkey and others.
A lot of the bigger outfits are willing to send "evaluation units"
with a 30 or 60 day return policy.  I found the best evaluation test
was to assign the sets to operators on the desk and ask them what they
liked or disliked about each one, have them put in writing.

You're correct about Hello Direct.  Most of them are Plantronics.
AT&T is also Plantronics but some of theirs are unique to AT&T and not
available as Plantronics sets.

> I also have literature for headsets from a company called ACS.  These

I had some literature from these folks too.  They were one of the few
who would not send a set for evaluation.

We ended up with Plantronics Starset II's.  I wouldn't want to
recommend any of them.  You really have to go with whatever the folks
like who'll be using them ... otherwise they won't.


Jim Langridge  |  [e-mail]  |  [phone]

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

Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 26 May 92 12:16:58 EDT (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> Please note that I am speaking for Andy Sherman, not AT&T.  To the
> best of my knowledge (which is decent) it was not "creative billing".
> What happened was quite simple and uncreative.  Calls to
> 800-555-whatever were accidentally routed to {USA Today's} 900-555-
> whatever.  This call arrived at the 900 number with all the usual ANI
> information for billing.

When I filed a written informal complaint with the FCC, AT&T promptly
responded and said exactly this.  Adam Gaffin's article on the topic
that appeared in January included an ambiguous quote from a local AT&T
rep which at sounded like they were deliberately fudging the bills,
but which upon rereading could also have meant that it was a
mechanical mistake.  (He also said that we were trying to rip off
AT&T, which was uncalled for.)

What AT&T actually did in this case is relatively inoffensive:
misrouted calls, overcharged by mistake, removed the charges when
requested.  But they went out of their way to be unpleasant about it,
e.g. what the guy said to Adam Gaffin, and also when I called to have
the bill fixed the woman said "are you aware that the *only* way that
these calls could have appeared on your bill is for someone to have
dialed them from your house?"  Perhaps they went to GTE charm school.
Sheesh.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: Frustrated Phone Owner
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 11:40:54 BST
From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


This thread has reminded me of some sage advice I've received from my
parents and grandparents -- "if it isn't yours, leave it alone or ask
permission first."  It seems that lately, the remaining (implied) part
should actually be stated.  "If you don't get permission from the
owner or other responsible party, leave it alone until you do get
permission."

A good, simple ethic.  I might add my own corollary: "If in doubt,
ask."


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #422
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25892;
          27 May 92 4:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00424
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 27 May 1992 02:16:38 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09219
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 27 May 1992 02:16:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 02:16:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #423

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 May 92 02:16:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 423

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (Jack Decker)
    Re: MetroMedia 10xxx Number? (Bill Huttig)
    Re: MetroMedia 10xxx Number? (Doug Rorem)
    Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking (Jack Decker)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Jim W. Lai)
    Centrex/Single Line Phone Recomendation Wanted (Jeff Crilly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 10:01:47 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael Rosen) wrote:

> 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!

I think you probably would need one for each phone.  I built such a
device quite some time ago, and several months ago I think that Pat
printed it in the Digest.  In case you missed it, here's the text of
that message:

[Begin recycled text:  :-)  ]

There's been some talk in this conference in the past (a month or two
ago, I think) about telephone privacy adapters (devices that prevent
others from interrupting or listening in to a conversation or data/FAX
call from another phone on the line) and I just thought some of you
might be interested in a CRUDE but workable circuit I built a long
time ago that achieved the purpose.  Now, I have to warn you that what
follows is a pictorial diagram drawn as best I can with ASCII text
characters (in fact, one reason I am sharing this is in the hope that
someone who's more into electronic schematics can provide me with a
"real" schematic diagram for this).

The device used three components which, in the units I built, all came
from surplus electronic part paks from a now-defunct (I think) outfit
called "Poly Paks" (anybody remember them?).  The bridge rectifier was
an epoxy-encased unit rated 1 Amp at 400 PIV (or greater).  The
Silicon Controlled Rectifier (SCR) was similarly rated at 1 Amp, 400
PIV or greater.  The Zener Diode could be just about any amperage (it
only has to carry enough current to momentarily trigger the SCR) and
according to my notes, anything from 9 through 24 volts would
generally work (you might have to increase the voltage if the phone
that this device was connected to could still break into a
conversation on another line; conversely, if the phone was always dead
even though no conversation was in progress, it would mean that the
Zener Diode voltage would have to be decreased).


                  +---------+
   TO LINE  >-----|AC     - |-----------+            ZENER
                  |         |        t  |            DIODE ||
                  | BRIDGE  |       /   o  \          +----||
                  |RECTIFIER|       |  SCR o-------===|    ||-----+
                  |         |       \   o  /          +----||     |
                  |         |           |                  ||     |
   TO PHONE >-----|AC     + |-----------O-------------------------+
                  +---------+


One note about the portrayal of the SCR above: The units I had were in
a metal can similar to the type used for transistors.  If you viewed
the SCR from the bottom (where the wires emerged), the small tab on
the can would be at approximately the location indicated by the "t".
Now, I know that SCR's have an anode, cathode, and gate, and I know
that the Zener Diode (specifically, the lead coming from the "top" of
the "top hat") connected to the gate, but it's been so long since I've
done any real electronics experimenting that I can't tell you much
more than that ... however, any electronic experimenter worth his salt
can probably figure this out in a few microseconds.  I have no real
idea how this circuit would look pictorally if built with today's
modern components.

The way this would work is that you'd put one of these units inside of
(or in series with EITHER wire of the pair leading to) each phone or
device on a line.  If some phones were connected to a line with these
devices installed, and some without, the ones without the devices
would be able to "break into" a conversation (in fact, as soon as one
of the "non-protected" phones was picked up, all the "protected" ones
would lose the connection), so you'd almost always want to put one of
these inline with EACH device on the line, except in special circum-
stances.

The units basically operated on telephone line voltage.  When all the
phones are on hook, the line voltage is high enough to allow voltage
to flow through the Zener Diode and trigger the SCR, thereby allowing
the circuit to be completed to the phone (once current flows through
an SCR, the gate voltage is no longer necessary; the SCR will keep
conducting until current flow is stopped or seriously reduced
elsewhere, thus the trigger voltage need only be a momentary pulse).
But when another phone is already off the hook, the line voltage is
not great enough to flow throgh the Zener Diode and trigger the SCR,
so the phone will not be connected in such a case.

I am providing this circuit for experimentation on private systems
only ... I don't guarantee it to work, nor do I guarantee that it
won't place nighttime calls to Botswania. :-) And, if you build it,
keep in mind that it won't be FCC approved and therefore cannot be
legally connected to the public telephone network (if your components
are all good, I'd be hard pressed to understand what damage it could
possibly do, other than possibly making your phone inoperable if you
mis-wire it ... but regulations are regulations!).

I have never seen the "innards" of any of the commercial telephone
privacy adaptors (even if I needed one, I'd probably be too cheap to
spend $10 to buy a commercial one when it can be built for
considerably less from parts) so if this happens to copy any
commercial design, I can assure you that I didn't deliberately steal
it from anyone, I figured it out myself.  I also suspect that if a
TRIAC were used instead of an SCR, it might make the bridge rectifier
unnecessary, but I had lots of surplus bridge rectifiers and SCR's but
no TRIAC's to play with at the time I designed this.

Maybe someone will find this interesting, or perhaps can come up with
something better (a better schematic diagram, at least, would be real
nice!).


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 12:38:23 -0400
From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: Re: MetroMedia


They access code for MetroMedia Communications can vary ... in FL they
have two that I know of 10488 (10ITT) and 10011 (this one always
belonged to MetroMedioa).

They merged a couple years ago with ITT and are still changeing their
calling card system.. The will not issue new 950-1011 or 950-0488
calling cards they new cards use 1-800-275-1234 and are 14 digits long
there is no per call surcharge with the full minute billing but they
per min rate is higher then direct dial ... the six second billing
card has a .20/.40 surcharge depending on where the card is used from.

the 10xxx codes show up right away if you have a account with them.
The rates are a little on the high side for the evening/night-weekend
times ... not sure about the day rates.

(I have accounts with MetroMedia and several other carriers. If you
have any questions you can email me.)


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Rorem)
Subject: Re: MetroMedia 10xxx Number?
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 22:05:15 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> So my question is ... does anyone know of the 10XXX number to dial to
> use MetroMedia as the LD carrier, from a phone other than my own?

I've never used their 10XXX number but you can access their network
via 950-0488 (950-0ITT because they used to be ITT). This should be a
free call from most telephones.


Doug Rorem

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

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 10:01:24 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Call Blocking Equals Line Blocking


In message <[e-mail]>, Stephen Wolfson <Stephen_
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

I may have mentioned this before, but in "Telecom Gear" magazine,
there is an advertisement from a company that offers a "Caller I.D.
Stopper" at $35 (dealer cost).  The diagram in the ad shows a phone
plugged into the I.D.  Stopper, which is in turn plugged into a
standard RJ11C phone jack.

I called the number given in the ad and was told that the way it works
is that when you pick up the phone, it outdials the *67 code (or
whatever the code is in your area) and then gives a second dial tone
until you begin dialing the number you want to call (it wasn't clear
to me whether the device emits the dial tone or the telco central
office does ... I don't think the person that I spoke to really knew
that much about it).  It works only on tone dial lines (that is, it
won't outpulse the code using dial pulses).

The company name and address is:

New Tech Industries, Inc.
2000 S.W. 71st Terrace
Suite B-5
Davie, Florida  33317
800-822-2604

This is the only device of this type that I've seen so far, but if it
works it would meet the needs of those who want the equivalent of
per-line blocking in areas where it isn't offered (or is offered only
with a monthly service charge).

If anyone actually obtains one of these, I'd be interested in hearing
about how it works.  We don't have Caller I.D. yet in my area (906
area code) yet, so at present I have no need for such a device on my
home line.


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 11:41:50 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner) writes:

>> I tried pretty hard to use AT&T to dial from Portland Oregon (503-682)
>> to Vancouver Washington (206-254).  Even using 10288, GTE insisted on
>> carrying the call.  These two points are only thirty miles apart, but
>> they're in different states and different area codes.  Could they be
>> in the same LATA?  GTE operators are clueless, and the phone book (the
>> FM in RTFM) doesn't help.

> The map in the US West phone books makes it *very clear that Vancouver
> is in the same LATA as Portland. In fact there seems to be a
> "corridor" running down the Columbia from Goldendale to the coast that
> is part of "North/Central Oregon LATA". It even extends as far north
> as Castle Rock.

   Bellcore's "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986" shows
Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR are both in the "Portland" LATA (#
672).  >From the state LATA maps, this LATA appears to start west of
Roosevelt, and covers a 25-mile-wide swath north of the Columbia River
all the way to the coast.  North of Longview, it seems to include
Riffe Lake, but not Centralia/Chehalis.

   In general, the rules for the LATA maps were based on the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).  In the middle of drawing up
the LATAs, the Feds changed SMSAs to MSAs, and merged/altered them
somewhat.  The LATA maps were changed in some cases to fit the new MSA
boundaries.  LATAs could not divide an exchange area (a switch can't
be in two LATAs).  This forced some "funny" boundaries such as the two
small Oregon areas across the Washington border near Walla Walla that
are part of the "Spokane" LATA (# 676).

   After the initial LATAs were drawn up, including areas that were
GTE and "Independent", GTE signed their own consent decree, similar to
the Bell System's.  In general, the LATA maps determine not only
"permitted" intra-BOC traffic areas, but also determine which GTE and
other "Independent" areas can directly connect to the BOC.  Also, many
LATAs exist that contain no BOC exchanges.


Al Varney - The above are not the Official words of AT&T.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 19:43:57 GMT


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

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

>> I am arguing for what used to be called "decriminalization" [of
>> phreaking], or treating it as a crime on a par with illegal parking or
>> littering

> But it isn't. It's a crime on par with shoplifting and income tax evasion.

On a side note, I've noticed that in my area and in Toronto (and no
doubt other major centers in Ontario) that they've been replacing some
older payphones with new sets that accept credit cards.  I tried one
out and found that the payphone didn't require any PIN or other
identification.  Presumably the card number is checked against a list
of stolen numbers, but it is now possible to steal service via credit
fraud.  I suppose it's technically toll fraud, but the phone company
is paid by the credit card company, assuming the telco is treated like
another retailer.

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

From: markets![e-mail] (Jeff Crilly N6ZFX)
Subject: Centrex/Single Line Phone Recomendation Wanted
Organization: AMIX Corp., Palo Alto, CA
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 23:29:57 GMT


We are expanding into a new building real soon now, and will be using
centrex for the phone system.  The system will be mostly analog, but
about 1/10 of the phones will be isdn (centrex/is).  Voice mail is
something we are also planning on buying from the phone company, but I
just found out last friday that the way a person knows if he/she has a
message waiting is by 'interupted dial tone'.  There is not going to
be any visual indicator on any of the analog phones that a message is
waiting.  I am told that this will require a software upgrade to the
switch (DMS-100) and that it is waiting on tariff from the PUC.  (Its
not clear yet if there is will be a visual message waiting indicator
on the ISDN sets.  I'm told that it can't be done because we have too
many other features on the ISDN sets and there isn't enough signal
room for the message waiting feature.  [Yes, it was explained to me
that way.])

My question is: Is there any phoneset out there that solves this
problem?  Right now, I'm only interested in solving the problem for
the analog side.  Possibly there is a phone that detects the
unanswered call and then checks for interupted dial tone to see if a
message was left, turning on a visual indicator if so.

The phone sets which were suggested by the phone company are Northern
Telecom Unity II sets.  These are pretty basic and cost about $50.
They have the message waiting lamp, but I'm told it won't work till
the switch upgrade is implemented.  There is also a Nothern Telecom
Unity that has speaker phone which we are considering for conference
rooms.

I'm not real comfortable with these phones and am wondering if there
is a better alternative.  Anyone have any suggestions?  I also need
distinctive ringing (i.e. each phone can be configured with three
different to ring tones).

Also, all these problems related to message waiting might not exist
outside california, as this problem appears to be a tariff problem.

Thanks in advance.


Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX)
AMIX Corporation  2345 Yale Street  Palo Alto, CA  94306
[e-mail], {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff, N6ZFX@N6IIU.#NOCAL.CA.USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #423
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25833;
          28 May 92 2:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01201
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 May 1992 00:02:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16986
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 May 1992 00:01:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 00:01:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #424

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 May 92 00:00:03 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 424

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Ben Delisle)
    Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Anthony DeBoer)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (David Niebuhr)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (John R. Levine)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Hans Mulder)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (John R. Covert)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Dennis Peterson)
    Re: Typical GTE (Phil Howard)
    Re: GTE Stories (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Subscription Info for Telecommunications (Eli Mantel)
    Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey ([e-mail])
    Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land ([e-mail])
    Re: The Hype of the Information Age (Cliff Barney)
    Re: New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS (Bill Garfield)
    Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Jim Morton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 May 92 12:15:13 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?


   Well, here in Washington State, at least for the Puget Sound area,
they announced on the news that if you dial *CG on your cellular
phone, you will be connected with the United States Coast Guard.


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users?
Organization: Linda's Dragon Memorial Society
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 21:20:39 -0400
From: herboid![e-mail] (Anthony DeBoer)


Rob Schultz <[e-mail]> 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.  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.

One caveat, if you're thinking of using both a cellular phone and
traditional marine VHF comes from a story from my license examiner for
my (still very fresh) VHF ticket:

It seems a man was out racing his sailboat just outside Toronto
harbour when his mast broke.  No problem, he thought, and made a call
to Toronto Coast Guard Radio on channel 16.  Unfortunately, his
antenna was now over the side talking to nothing but fish.
Fortunately, he had a handheld cellular along, and was able to call
911, but the dispatchers had a bit of a hard time understanding how a
lost mast was an emergency or that the Coast Guard would understand
and that he needed to talk to them.

The conclusion would be that a mast antenna and/or power from the
boat's battery would not be a bad thing, but having a handheld that
you can still unplug and use on its own would be a Good Thing.  Also,
you might consider unplugging it in rough weather and/or when not in
use for routine calls so a lightning strike can't fry all your
communications in one strike.

Make sure you have the phone number(s) for the Coast Guard handy.

Also, note that some car antennas depend on having the car body for a
ground plane, although not all or you wouldn't be able to put a phone
in a fiberglass-bodied Corvette, so watch for this when you buy a boat
antenna.

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 10:14:08 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS


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

> "Ken Jongsma x7702" <[e-mail]> writes:

>> In the same issue, there is an article on how Dominos Pizza is
>> planning on using 950-1430 to connect callers anywhere in the country
>> to the correct local Dominos. The article says that they should be
>> fully operational (except for Alaska) within two years.

>> "The time required to place the 950 call and reach the correct Domino's
>> Pizza store is eleven seconds or less, compared to four to seven
>> seconds for normal calls, Gonos said.

> A final oddity: with all this reliance on the phone number to
> identify the calling party, they do not subscribe to Caller I.D.

Dominos may or may not have Caller ID based on where the stores are
located.  My local one doesn't (neither does my local Pudgies) since
CID won't be available until July.  In addition, if memory serves me,
CID can't be carried across any boundary unless any and all exchanges/
LATAs/Area Codes in between have the capability to pass such calls.


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

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

Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 27 May 92 12:35:40 EDT (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> Dialing 950-1288 from most places in the US will connect you to the
> AT&T packet switched network.

> I anticipate a very high demand for a *use the same number anywhere*
> system.

Perhaps, but perhaps not when people see the price.  950 numbers pay
Carrier Common Line rates (see Fred Goldstein's informative article a
day or two ago) which means that AT&T pays about $5/hr for incoming
calls to the number, a cost which presumably has to be passed on to
the customer as a surcharge on a service's hourly rate.  How much is
it worth to you not to have to look up a phone number?

Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of access and rates that the
infamous 1987 "modem tax" flap was about, and which packet nets have
so far successfully avoided.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: I am not aware of any charges on my bill as a
result of using 950-1288 to access AT&T Mail or the FYI News Service
they bought from WUTCO.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 19:21:27 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics


In <[e-mail]> Leonard Erickson writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Toggle?? Toggle??  Really, a roulette implementation with a 50/50 shot
>> of *67 doing what one expects?

> To know the state with which you are dialing, you need to know the
> "default" state of the line.

That's the problem: after you order per line blocking, you don't know
the default state of your line.  Probably it will change some time
after you place your order, and maybe the CO will hiccough some time
later and your default state will be restored from a backup and that
might change it back.

So, if you don't want to give out your number, and you diligently dial
*67 before every call, until you're absolutely sure that per line
blocking is activated on your line, then the time will come, without
warning, when all of a sudden your number appears on the callee's CID
box, despite your using both per-call and per-line block.

That's why a toggle is a stupid idea.


Hans Mulder    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:47:32 PDT
From: John R. Covert  26-May-1992 1745 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics


The Massachusetts DPU instructed New England Telephone that in order
to get Caller ID approved in Massachusetts, per-line call blocking
would be required, and that the unblock code from a blocked line would
be required to be different from the block code from an unblocked
line.

N.E.T.'s response was to refile for the other CLASS features, omitting
Caller ID altogether.

It is not known whether the omission will be permanent, or only until
N.E.T. can get all of its switch manufacturers (AT&T, NT, etc.) to
provide updated software supporting different block and unblock codes.


john

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

From: astroatc!nicmad![e-mail] (Dennis Peterson x2495)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Organization: Nicolet Instrument Corp.
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 15:24:51 GMT


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

> Toggle?? Toggle??  Really, a roulette implementation with a 50/50 shot
> of *67 doing what one expects?  Or is there a way of deterministically
> testing which mode one is in so that one can, for example, have a
> modem place a call with a known Caller-ID state?

Maybe the answer is an implemantation similar to the access/option
setting on my phone mail system.  A number you can call which will
allow the user to review the phone setting such as call waiting,
fowarding, blocking and any other options with password protection for
changes.  I do not think this would be difficult for the phone system
to setup and would solve most of these problems.


Dennis Peterson      Compuserve 70244,[e-mail]
UUCP: uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!peterson
Internet: nicmad![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Typical GTE
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 21:18:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Late Friday night the telephone goes dead and callers receive a
> "disconnected" recording. A call to GTE repair (by calling a number in
> 213 collect -- no kidding!) gets a trouble ticket launched. By noon
> Saturday the trouble has not yet been corrected and another call to
> GTE repair reveals that "there is no trouble report in the computer".
> (Yet another case where GTE just clears out the problem without doing
> a blessed thing on the trouble itself.) Another report is filed.

I wonder what would happen if you called back before the report is
cleared.  Call back in 59 minutes and see.

> By noon Sunday there is still no fix. This time a supervisor was
> summoned. He told me that he would look up the records and see if the
> phone was disconnected for some reason. This would take a couple of
> hours(!).

They need a computer system.

> In fact, I am tired of GTE, period.

How do we go about boycotting GTE?

> Late note: GTE has just set up some "experimental" SS7 links between a
> few offices in southern California and will "have meetings" in August
> about linking to Pac*Bell. How remarkably advanced, considering PB has
> been using SS7 for years and it is commonplace elsewhere in the
> country. Leave it to GTE to forge ahead and pioneer new technology and
> procedures in the telecommunications industry. NOT!!!

It seems obvious to me that GTE just has managers whose job is to copy
the technology from PB and others.  In general anywhere managers as a
group don't know what they are doing (there are some exceptions) but
they do know how to tell others what to do.  Too bad that GTE doesn't
have anyone for the managers to tell to do things.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: GTE Stories
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:57:45 GMT


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

> A couple of weeks before moving in, I called GTE and arranged for
> single-party residential service.  The GTE rep was sweet and pleasant.
> She said service would be ready the day I moved in and gave me our new
> telephone number.  When I moved in, sure enough I had dial tone and
> the telephone worked.  The second time I picked up the telephone, I
> heard someone else talking.

I worked at a radio station in GTE-land quit a few years back, when a
number of voices started appearing in our on-air signal.  At first we
suspected that it was interference from a local land-mobile site, but
after a quick visit to the transmitter site (a few miles away) it
became evident that what was happening was crosstalk on our four wire
line from the studio to the transmitter.  Telephone calls were leaking
into our equalized 16KC line (and it was a high-cost 16KC loop, not
one of the cheap 48F lines which many stations have used to cut
expenses).

We called GTE.  They 'cleared' the trouble.  We called them again.
They told us that such a thing was not possible, and after two hours
on the telephone talking with a young woman and later with her
supervisor, the chief engineer was hung up on.  A call to the local
FCC office helped considerably, to the point of at least getting
someone from GTE out to look at the problem and to admit that
something was wrong, but he disappeared and never came back.  The
trouble call was 'cleared' again and the problem was not fixed.

The problem was eventually solved by installing a microwave STL.


scott

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Subscription iIfo for Telecommunications
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 6:49:45 EDT


To subscribe to Telecommunications, write to:

    Telecommunications
    685 Canton Street
    Norwood, MA 02062

Subscriptions are free to qualified readers.  This would include
anyone working directly in the communications industry, including
governmental and educational facilities.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron)
Subject: Re: Seeking Morrison & Dempsey
Date: 26 May 92 16:00:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I think the patent dispute was just the stuff to make the phone ring,
which it did rather anemicly anyway on the AB1X.  I've got a
pre-lawsuit one, but they manufactured them for some time without the
ring circuit.  I have no idea where they are now.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron)
Subject: Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land
Date: 26 May 92 16:05:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


My favorite is our local cable company uses a "special six digit
telephone number" to order the PPV movies.  I first said, "What?"  but
a quick examination of the number showed what was going on:

    103-800

Or as more conventionally written:

    10380-0

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 09:51:55 PDT
From: Cliff Barney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Hype of the Information Age


Michael Shrage is right on.  How can I get a copy of the 5/92 issue of
{InfoText}?


cliff barney

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

Subject: Re: New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 07:17:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]> writes:

> Does he actually include the V&H database?  I would think it is
> copyrighted, and very expensive.

Yes ... on both counts.  He actually licenses the V&H tables from a
vendor who obtains it from Bellcore.  Obviously then the database
which accompanies 'NPA' is considerably large.  However, the V&H
tables you receive with 'NPA' scarcely resemble their original form
and completeness. If you're asking, "Can I take the V&H tables which
accompany 'NPA' and somehow make pirated use of them in my own SMDR or
call accounting package?" that answer is no. (unless your C/A package
is very rudimentary) I do not believe there's enough there to do the
whole job ... but I've been wrong before.


Standard disclaimer applies. I speak for no one.  Opinions are
solely my own and NOT those of my employer.

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

From: applix![e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women
Date: 26 May 92 21:59:36 GMT
Organization: Applix, Inc., Westboro, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=
CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes:

> Reported by Distribution plus:

> 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 is a problem that is well known by a lot of administrators of
Northern Telecom Meridian Mail voicemail systems. Northern called this
problem "talk-off" and it was a big problem in releases 3 and 4 of
Meridian Mail ... not just a Rolm problem!


Jim Morton, Applix Inc., Westboro, MA  ..uunet!applix!jim  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #424
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27778;
          28 May 92 2:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23242
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 28 May 1992 00:53:43 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31117
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 28 May 1992 00:53:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 00:53:32 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #425

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 May 92 00:53:21 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 425

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Javier Henderson)
    Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? Patton Turner)
    Re: Radio Station Contest Takes Down Phone System! (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Jim W. Lai)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (David Esan)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Carl Moore)
    Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted (Irving Wolfe)
    Re: Meridian Manuals Wanted (Matthew Waugh)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Phil Howard)
    Re: Sources of Ring Boosters Wanted (Paul Cook)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Phil Howard)
    Re: MetroMedia 10xxx Number? (Norm Nithman)
    V&H to Latitude/Longitude Translation (Amit Bhargava)
    Need Ringback Number for 508-526 (Conrad Nobili)
    Consultant Wanted on Mobile Data Satellite Terminals (Jane Fraser)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion from RelayNet
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:01:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> aimla!ruby!rudholm@
uunet.UU.NET (Mark Rudholm) writes:

> 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.

I was in LA last week, and LA Cellular STILL has the 213/310 split
messed up.  I was unable to call someone in 310; I kept getting an
immediate reorder (over the air, not from the phone directly, but fast
enough that it had to have been from the cellular switch).  Dialing
with 213 (which should be invalid as the prefix in question is not
currently assigned in 213) put the call through to the 310 prefix.
Apparently the cellular switch is doing the translation for me, even
though permissive dialing is over (convenient), but dialing it the
correct way does not work! (inconvenient).  From what I've been able
to gather, there is some difference as to whether you are an LA
Cellular customer or a roamer.

On another note, it recently came to my attention that LA Cellular is
owned by Lin Broadcasting (sp?).  This now explains the quality of
both the cellular service, their customer service, and their attitude
toward their customers: it's run just like a cable TV franchise!  :-(


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What do they say when you ask them when it will be
dialable again? Why don't you ask them when their service will be able
to call people in the other area code and see what they say?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 26 May 92 21:32:29 PDT


In GTE areas in So. Cal, you can dial your own number, and hang up,
and your phone will ring.

You can dial 114 to find out what your number is.


Javier Henderson, N6VBG    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 03:02:06 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?


Jack Decker writes:

> I think you probably would need one [RS Teleprotector or equilvent
> device] for each phone.

This should be in the FAQ list.  Anyway, if you don't want anyone to
pick up on your modem, and you wish to only buy one, insert a splitter
in your demark.  Plug the terminal block into the Teleprotector, and
the Teleprotector into into the splitter.  Connect the modem to the
other side of the splitter.

If you don't have the one of the nice new Network Interfaces, the same
topology applies, you just have to splice it in.

If multiple devices are hung off the unprotected side of the splitter,
they can each have their own Teleprotector to prevent them from going
off hook on each other or interupting a voice call.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Radio Station Contest Takes Down Phone System!
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 08:29:47 GMT


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

> Just imagine all the other similar devices that were put out of
> commission by this contest, such as automated teller machines (ATMs),
> convenience store & gas station card readers, alarm systems not using
> leased lines, and especially EMERGENCY SERVICES (including LifeLine
> alarm systems)!                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This could be the basis for a new commercial: "Help, I've fallen, and
can't get dialtone!"


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 19:43:57 GMT


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

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

>> I am arguing for what used to be called "decriminalization" [of
>> phreaking], or treating it as a crime on a par with illegal parking or
>> littering

> But it isn't. It's a crime on par with shoplifting and income tax evasion.

On a side note, I've noticed that in my area and in Toronto (and no
doubt other major centers in Ontario) that they've been replacing some
older payphones with new sets that accept credit cards.  I tried one
out and found that the payphone didn't require any PIN or other
identification.  Presumably the card number is checked against a list
of stolen numbers, but it is now possible to steal service via credit
fraud.  I suppose it's technically toll fraud, but the phone company
is paid by the credit card company, assuming the telco is treated like
another retailer.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Date: 27 May 92 19:19:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 412, Message 3 of 6

> I tried pretty hard to use AT&T to dial from Portland Oregon (503-682)
> to Vancouver Washington (206-254).  Even using 10288, GTE insisted on
> carrying the call.  These two points are only thirty miles apart, but
> they're in different states and different area codes.  Could they be
> in the same LATA?  GTE operators are clueless, and the phone book (the
> FM in RTFM) doesn't help.

The two exchanges mentioned are in the same LATA.  This is not a
particularly odd arrangement.  In fact :

There are 138 active NPAs in the NANP at this moment.

There are 247 lata/sublata combinations in the NANP plan.

There are 472 unique combinations of npas/lata/sublatas.

Of these 472 unique combinations, 115 latas are in more that 1 NPA,
and 95 latas cross state lines.

LATA was designed to take into account population density and traffic
flow.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 10:19:58 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?


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

> In general, the rules for the LATA maps were based on the Standard
> Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).  In the middle of drawing up
> the LATAs, the Feds changed SMSAs to MSAs, and merged/altered them
> somewhat.  The LATA maps were changed in some cases to fit the new MSA
> boundaries.  LATAs could not divide an exchange area (a switch can't
> be in two LATAs).  This forced some "funny" boundaries such as the two
> small Oregon areas across the Washington border near Walla Walla that
> are part of the "Spokane" LATA (# 676).

This is also true in New York where a small portion of Connecticut is
is a New York LATA, as are small pieces of Massachussetts and
Pennsylvania.


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 10:28:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?


The Philadelphia LATA covers Delaware and most of the 215 area in
Pennsylvania.  The Washington LATA covers DC and parts of Maryland and
Virginia.

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

From: [e-mail] (Irving_Wolfe)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:50:22 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seng Gan) writes:

> Could someone recommend any cordless phone between US $50 to $100?  I
> had used three cobra phones, they are unreliable

No.  If you disliked the Cobras, you'll dislike all the rest.

I have used Cobra cordless phones, AT&T phones, Panasonic phones, and
Southwestern Bell phones, including high-end models.  Although the
Panasonic had the most intuitive features, for me, it had the worst
connection quality.  None of them had what I'd call acceptable
connection quality, let alone good, except at distances short enough
to have been accomodated by a 25 foot line cord on a conventional
phone.  In addition, all were poorly built, so dropping them from face
level usually caused damage and exposure to moisture was a serious
problem too.  (These become an issue if you actually try to use the
things outdoors despite their poor range.)

I know of no consumer product that is consistently, across all the
manufacturers, so badly designed, so over-priced relative to its
quality (and to the cost of much more complex cellular phones), and so
over-rated in its advertising.  The only way these phones even might
go 500 feet, let alone the 1,000 they all claim, is if the portable
and its base unit were at opposite ends of a long, electromagnetically-
shielded room with no electric service in the walls.  And even then,
the user would probably have to hold the phone just so.


[e-mail]      Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101
4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Meridian Manuals Wanted
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 18:35:50 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Link)
writes:

> I have a telephone system to play with and I'd like to have the
> manuals for it.

Well I wouldn't say I have one to play with, but I have one to look
after :-)

> The system is made by Northern Telecom and is call "Meridian" or maybe
> "norstar" (both name are on the equipment)

Are there any mailing lists on specific switches, or manufacturers I
guess would be about as small as you'd want to get. We have Meridian
with Voice Mail, and hey, NT's documentation sucks big time. Like UNIX
documentation, if you know what is you want to do, and what the magic
word to do it is, the documentation will flesh out the details, but
it's terrible at telling you what you might be able to do.

Anyway -- if there is no mailing list for NT PBXs I'm willing to start
one (in fact if it doesn't get too hectic we could start one on other
switches if people want, I'm just interested in NT PBXs at the
moment).  Send me e-mail if you think it's a good idea, and if there's
much response at all I'll get one fired up.


Thanks,

Matthew Waugh    [e-mail]
RTP Network Services   Data General Corp.  RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 20:58:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> And this, dear friends, is exactly why GTE is the lousy operating
> company that it is. The general (no pun intended) arrogance and
> inability to even consider for one moment that there might be
> something that could be improved in that organization is what keeps
> GTE the undisputed laughing stock in the industry. (Yes, Gloria, GTE
> IS a laughing stock.)

I once lived in a town where the local carrier was GTE.  That
experience alone (but reinforced by what I hear from some friends who
live in towns served by GTE) keeps me from living in any town in which
GTE is the local carrier.  I'm almost tempted to put it in the
"geographic preferences" section of my resume.


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 18:20 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sources of Ring Boosters Wanted


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> At times, I've heard of devices for subscriber lines that will boost
> the CO-supplied ringing signal so that it will drive more ringers than
> can be driven directly from the CO.

> As of now, I am at a loss to find anything.  Does anyone know of a
> source of these?

Although designed as an OPX adaptor for PBX's and key systems, the
Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adaptor has been used for this.  It takes a
standard tip/ring connection and boosts the DC voltage back up to 48
VDC, and when it detects ringing voltage on the input, it regenerates
it at 105 VAC at 20 Hz.  The ringing generator has about the same
capacity as a CO line (about 5 REN), but the trick for using it at a
subscriber premise is that the input side only has a .3 REN (3/10th of
a standard Ringer Equivalence) load on the line.  So you wire some of
your phones across the input, and up to 5 REN across the output.  This
unit will pass hookswitch flashes, but not rotary dial pulses.

Contact us at one of the addresses below for more information.


Paul Cook                         206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates         MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.            fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 20:52:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: There was a person a couple years ago who had (and
> actually requested) the number 800-EAT-7448. He wanted to find out
> what sort of people would call that number; apparently many did
> because the phone rang constantly, I am told.  PAT]

He should have tried 900-EAT-7448 :-)


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


[Moderator's Note: I believe someone does have that 'service' going
now, for reasons best left to the imagination.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: MetroMedia 10xxx Number?
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 20:44:35 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> So my question is ... does anyone know of the 10XXX number to dial to
> use MetroMedia as the LD carrier, from a phone other than my own?

Use 10999.  Say, it would be handy if someone could dig up a current
list of 10XXX numbers and post it!


Norm


[Moderator's Note: We have such a list in the Telecom Archives,
accessible using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Amit Bhargava)
Subject: V&H to Latitude/Longitude Translation
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 15:52:54 GMT


I would appreciate any hints/formulas to convert from V&H cooridinates
to Latitude/Longitude and vice versa.


Thanks.

Amit Bhargava      [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 May 92 19:49:11 EST
From: Conrad C. Nobili <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Ringback Number For 508-526


The subject says it all: I need the ringback number for 508-526
(somewhere in Massachusetts).

Please reply to me directly, as my news access is temporarily broken.
If you *also* want this information, send me e-mail directly and I
will forward you the answer(s).

My information follows .... thanks in advance.


Conrad C. Nobili  N1LPM  [e-mail]  Harvard University OIT

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 92 15:05 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Consultant Wanted on Mobile Data Satellite Terminals


The Toronto office of Deloitte & Touche is looking for a consultant on
mobile data satellite terminals, specifically on quality assurance and
structural integrity. If you want more info or think you are qulified
contact Gordon Perchthold at 416-601-5861 (voice), 416-601-5700 (fax).
(Don't contact me; I don't know anything more!)


Jane Fraser   The Ohio State University
Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #425
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00980;
          29 May 92 2:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09691
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 May 1992 00:40:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15936
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 May 1992 00:40:06 -0500
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 00:40:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #426

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 May 92 00:40:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 426

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    History, North-Central Oklahoma Telecom (Martin McCormick)
    Historical Musings (Martin McCormick)
    Some Answers About AT&T 700 (Douglas Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: History, North-Central Oklahoma Telecom
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 08:52:11 -0500
From: [e-mail]


     Through conversations with people who have spent their entire
lives, here, and chance acquaintances, I have been able to piece
together a little history of telephony in Stillwater.

     There were telephones, here, almost from the beginning of white
settlement in Oklahoma Territory in 1889.  They were, most likely the
crank-type phones since that's what most people had in those days.  By
World War I, Stillwater was a thriving little town supported by local
agriculture and the Oklahoma A&M college.  There was a newspaper,
here, and one of the stories from around 1915 is about a young man who
would anonymously make kissing sounds when girls were on the phone.  I
don't know exactly how he did this since all calls went through an
operator who knew everybody by name, but my guess is that he would
just pick up and listen on the party line until he heard a kissworthy
voice.

     Sometime before 1957, the crank phones gave way to common-battery
type phones, but the friendly operator still served as the ultimate
voice-recognition switching system.

     In 1956, a man, at the beginning of his working career, his wife
and small children was moved to town by Southwestern Bell.  He was
armed with new knowledge and he and a whole army of craftsmen swarmed
over a brand new crossbar switch.  According to long-time residents,
people had rotary-dial phones in their houses for a long time before
those dials actually did anything useful.  Tulsa and Oklahoma City had
had dial exchanges in wide use since the 1920's, but a do-it- yourself
phone call was a whole new world for Stillwater.  People said that
Southwestern Bell gave lengthy training sessions to the population on
how to use the new system and an operator tested every single
telephone when the new switch went on-line in 1957.

     Before that time, people had very short phone numbers.  A man who
is a Stillwater native, told me that his number was 4.  I asked him
who was 1.  I expected that the mayor or somebody like that would have
been 1, but the number 1 line went to a fraternity house.

     The O.S.U. campus got its Centrex system around 1962.  It was
like the vast majority of Centrex systems in use across the U.S.  The
dial tone was probably a reed relay as it sounded like a perturbed
horsefly which had just found itself trapped against a window pane.
Dialing 9 gave one a burst eardrum from the click and then you could
get an outside line.  The busy signal was the same roughly 150hz buzz
as the dial-tone, but the cadence was 120 beeps per minute.

     All offices on campus were wired with the standard office desk
sets of the day consisting of a rotary dial, a hold button, up to four
lines, and an intercom which had a buzzer system operated by the dial.
I never got to examine the Centrex switch, but I did happen to walk
past the room where it was, once.  I noticed a couple of closed doors
with all kinds of racket coming from them.  It struck me as odd that
there wasn't the usual human voice chatter that one hears when walking
past an office and then I realized that the noises were the
rata-tat-tat of selectors.  There was probably nobody in there and all
that noise was just the heart of the campus phone system stepping
away.

I was a student, here, in the early 70's, and I remember the Centrex
system as being noisy and clunky, but it did work.  If you had to call
the PBX operator and she tried to connect you to a line that was busy,
you got a terrific burst of static.  There must not have been a single
clipping diode in the whole system, because I can remember voices and
switching sounds that could almost blow the top of one's head off.
All that changed in 1976.  As chance would have it, I was in
Stillwater to enroll for graduate school on the first working day
after the campus cutover from the old stepper to a new electronic PBX.
What a circus.  The new PBX had some glitches and there had been
several wiring errors which were unknown until the system went into
use.  You could say that the system was dislexic.  When you dialed a
number, you caused a telephone to ring, somewhere, but there were no
guarantees as to where.

     I also later learned that the line switching in the O.S.U. PBX
was accomplished by actuating little reed relays called ferreds.
There had been some crosstalk between banks of those little things
when the system first went on and it wasn't unusual to have a stray
magnetic pulse disconnect several parties at once.

     The system also had some of the most interesting crosstalk and
artifacts that I have ever heard.  When picking up a receiver, one
could hear the dial-tone mixed with little snippets of touchtone
signals as other users dialed.  I could also hear what sounded like
rotary-dialed numbers being pulsed out by a touchtone sender.  The
background noise between digits was more touchtone crosstalk plus a
fluttering sound that sounded like an electric motor spinning at about
10 revolutions per second.  I think that it was some kind of poling
device, but I really have no idea what it was.

     Calling one extension from another, produced an initial long ring
or sometimes a split ring followed by the normal cadence.  The ring
was the standard pitch of todays ringing progress tone, but there was
a high-pitched sampling artifact clearly audible.

     The PBX at O.S.U. and the #5 crossbar in Stillwater grew in size,
but otherwise stayed about the same until the mid 80's.  O.S.U.
decided to buy its own telephone system at which time the Ericsson
MD110 was chosen.  The #5 Xbar was schedule to go silent and make way
for a DMS100.  The man who began his career installing that switch was
now nearing retirement.  His wife, who I met as a result of my
membership in the local Apple II users group, asked me if I and my
wife would like to tour the switch, one day.  I said, "of course," and
didn't hear anything else about it for a long time.

     The cutover date moved from Fall of 86 to Spring of 87.  One
Sunday afternoon, my friend from Apple users Group said that there was
a minor problem that her husband needed to take care of and we were
welcome to come along and look at the switch.

     Being a Sunday afternoon, the four of us were the only people
there. One could sure feel the transition from the old to the new.
Most of the room was filled with the frames of the Xbar.  They gave
off a sound like light rain on a metal roof.  If you stood close, you
could hear when somebody was dialing with pulse.  When a call made or
tore down, there was a floury of clicks from many relays at once.
Ever so often, a mechanical gong, like half of a doorbell would ping
several times and a printer would spit out a trouble ticket.  My host
explained that all those cheap telephones you could buy, now,
mutilated digits so badly that the registers got confused.

     On the other side of the room, was a computer console connected
to a completely closed rack with a series of LED's on the front panel.
This was some Northern Telecomm gear used to multiplex and demultiplex
carriers onto a cable leading to a small town north of Stillwater.

     Back at the Xbar frames, again, we looked at the chattering
relays, the panel with all the heat coils, which reminded me of fuse
holders, and the massive spinal cord of pairs coming up out of
openings in the floor and terminating at those heat coils.

     We looked at the frames which were marked with the beginning
digits of the number group in that frame and found our group.  We,
then, saw a relay with our home phone number written on it's tag.

     I asked my friend if he was going to be sorry to see all this
stuff go.  I seem to recall that he said something to the effect that
he wasn't going to have to worry about it after he retired.  It
occurred to me that here was a man whose whole working life was in
those frames.  He said that he could show me the "college switch,"
that flaky PBX I described earlier, but there really wasn't anything
to look at.  If you've seen one closed rack that stands there and
hums, you've seen them all.

     On the last Friday in May, 1987, I remember the O.S.U.  PBX
seemed flakier than usual.  The evening paper said that tonight was
the night.  People were warned that there would be some disruption in
telephone service around midnight.  My friend, the switchman, had
recently retired, but he had told me that at midnight, the technicians
would cut all the wires leading to the Xbar.  At midnight, I picked up
the phone to hear total silence, not even DC.  Things stayed like that
for no more than five minutes or so, then the new dial-tone came on.

     The O.S.U. campus was also connected to the new switch, a DMS100,
and used the Plexar service from Southwestern Bell until the Ericsson
switch installation was complete in August of 1988.

     Things stayed the same until recently.  Rumors have it that
Southwestern Bell may pull the DMS100 out and replace it with some
kind of multiplexer controlled from Oklahoma City.  This is supposed
to be so because the DMS100 is not profitable to operate since O.S.U.
bought its own system.

     The town of Stillwater, Oklahoma has around 30,000 permanent
residents.  There are about 10,000 telephone lines coming into the
Stillwater office.  The Oklahoma State University campus has about
18,000 students.  Until the installation of the Ericsson switch, all
residential student telephones were connected to the Stillwater office
and not part of the campus PBX.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Subject: Historical Musings
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 08:49:52 -0500
From: [e-mail]


     There have been past postings in this group regarding telephone
company efforts to provide public training opportunities for school
children.  As a student at the Oklahoma School for the Blind in 1965,
or so, I remember a really interesting demonstration courtesy of
Southwestern Bell.

     We all gathered in the auditorium for this demo which was really
great because we not only got to hear something interesting, but we
didn't have to go to our regularly scheduled class, the true meaning
of the expression "win- win."

     The presenter had some pieces of hardware which were rather
dazzling for 1965.  One was an electric pen and tabulate connected to
a mysterious box with a space-age-looking glass dome containing a
nixy tube.  When the presenter wrote numbers and letters on the
tabulate, they showed up on the nixy readout.

     He also had a 2500 style Touchtone telephone connected to a DC
supply and audio amplifier so we all could hear it beep.  There was
also a fancier style office-type Touchtone set with memory.  You stuck
a punched plastic card in the slot and it dialed the number encoded in
the card.

     In addition to the hardware, he had a really fascinating set of
phonograph records with various telephone sounds on them.  I seem to
recall MF tones, high-speed data, (probably all of 600 baud), and
something that sounded like the mother of all tomcat battles.  I think
that this last sound was what is known as Telautograph.  I remember
our speaker saying that hand writing could be sent over the telephone
with it.

     After the demonstration, he answered questions from us.  I
remember asking how the electric pen and tabulate worked.  While I
knew nothing about computers, at the time, I realized that the ability
to decode hand writing would be really useful.  He somewhat sheepishly
admitted that there was no magic, there.  The pad had certain areas
that when touched with the pen closed a circuit which lit the correct
character on the nixy.  This was essentially like the concept cars we
sometimes see at auto shows which only demonstrate a possibility
rather than a working system.

     One of my classmates, who, I am fairly sure is not a rocket
scientist, today, asked if it was possible to send solid objects
through the phone.  The roars of laughter from the other students
probably wiggled seismographs around the world.  Fortunately, the rest
of the questions were more normal such as when could we actually have
Touchtone telephones?

     After the questions, we got to go up on the stage and inspect all
of the goodies.

     It is interesting to reflect back on that time and look at where
we've actually gone.  The magic pen and tabulate, as demonstrated, is
still a bit out of reach.  I don't think that the punch-card dialer
ever really caught on, that much, and probably the last Telautograph
system in the universe was retired, here at Oklahoma State three years
ago when the people who used it got tired of trying to resuscitate its
electromechanics.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: 27-MAY-1992 04:09:57.34
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some answers about AT&T 700


I called the FCC today and had a rather interesting conversation with
one of the Telecom people whom I speak to every so often regarding
AT&T's "EasyReach" 700 service.

Some of the things that were clarified:

1. EasyReach numbers are accessed via 0-700-NXX-XXXX. They are not
accessed via 1-700. We couldn't figure out how one would call a 700
number from a payphone, that is, if one could call a 700 number and
pay in coins to call it, like they can any other number which has a
"regular" area code.

2. AT&T claims that the calling party dials 0-700-number, and then
hears a voice prompt, which will direct the caller to enter a PIN so
that the 700 subscriber pays (like a collect call), or not do anything
and the calling party pays.

This seems a bit curious and awkward -- I don't think many callers
will appreciate going through a voice prompt just to reach me. Perhaps
the voice prompt is intended to notify callers as to the price of the
call?

3. There is no charge for using "Administrative Features", such as to
reset forwarding from your home number (the "main" number the 700
service is generally routed to), or to control PINs, etc.

4. Calls can not be forwarded to 700, 800, 900, 976, 555 and other
special access/feature codes, and presently not to 011. Canada was not
specifically mentioned as being available, but it was not excluded,
either.

5. You can not make "collect" or 3rd party calls to a 700 number.

6. Calls for in-state service will be different than the $.25/$.15
rate for out-of-state calls. The person at the FCC said that AT&T had
requested that its in-state filings for rates remain confidential, yet
AT&T reps who I have spoken to about this have mentioned preliminary
numbers pending local approval (and guess what, in-state rates for
ReadyLine service are higher ... surprise, surprise ...)

7. There are no extra charges to forward calls to another number other
than your "primary" number, so at most you would pay the $.25/$.15 if
the calling party used their pin. You would not have to pay additional
toll charges for the forwarding.

BTW, Pat noted that there is little reason to forward to an 800 number
 -- I would generally agree, however, if you were doing business at a
firm who only gave out an 800 number (or if you only knew that number)
and you were given permission to receive calls there, you'd want to
program in the 800 number until you get a non-800 to forward to. (Ie,
if you were there to fix their mainframe, and wanted to have calls
reach you, but didn't know the exact DID number you would be at for
the day, or if there was no DID number and all calls had to go through
the switchboard, you may have to forward your 700 number to the
switchboard's 800, if you didn't know the non-800 number. AT&T, for
example, generally gives out its 800-222-03/400 numbers, which route
to center nearest to or which serves your area, rahter than give out a
regular number.)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #426
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05028;
          29 May 92 3:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16184
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 May 1992 02:12:35 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06175
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 May 1992 02:12:25 -0500
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 02:12:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #427

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 May 92 02:12:22 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 427

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One (TELECOM Moderator)
    PC Voicemail Advertisement (Ken Jongsma)
    Watson Under Windows (Brian Hendrix)
    Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop? (Monty Solomon)
    The Purpose of the Three Tones ([e-mail])
    Payphone Xenophobia (David Leibold)
    Lottery Poses Threat to Texas Long Distance (Edmund Hack)
    RFI: Frame Relay Networking (Rom M. Kieffer)
    Usenet and Obscenity in Canada (Charlie Mingo)
    Patent Swap (Ericsson Corporate Relations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 00:45:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One


So ... Centel and Sprint have decided to merge, and the resulting
company will be the third largest telecom organization in the world,
coming behind only Mother, and her nemesis MCI.

And the new comgomeration will be the only one of the three (only one
anywhere?) to offer not only long distance service AND local exchange
service, but cellular service as well. Ironically, in the merger,
Sprint (f/k/a United Telecom) will be getting back some of the
cellular companies they sold to Centel a few years ago.

Exciting times ahead!


Patrick Townson

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

Date: 27 May 92 10:23:00 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Voicemail Advertisement


While reviewing the latest copy of The Programmer's Connection Buying
Guide, I came across an interesting advertisement. Since the subject
has come up in the Digest several times, I thought I'd pass along the
information. Note that I know nothing more than what I've just read
and transcribed.

[ad begins]

Developing Voice Applications Just Became Easier ...

Announcing ProVIDE 4.0

Develop Voice Applications FAST!

TRT proudly announces ProVIDE- the Professional Voice Interactive
Development Environment. ProVIDE makes the development of voice
applications faster and easier than ever before. Voice VAR's can
develop voicemail systems, information hotlines, automated fax info
services, and hundreds of other applications on MSDOS based PC
platforms.

[...]

New Application Processor

With built-in support for Voice Recognition, applications can accept
spoken commands like "Yes", "No" and all numeric digits without the
need to train the system for individual speakers (requires special
hardware from DiaLogic.)  Built-in print spooler and LAN time and
print support.

[...]

ProVIDE's Flexibility The Best Choice

ProVIDE supports voice processing components from DiaLogic Corp., the
leading international supplier of PC-based voice processing
components. Voice modules available for 2 to 12 lines. Multiple PC's
can run on Novell LAN's for greater line densities.

INTELEFAX "Demand Publishing"

Create a FAX download hotline like the FAX Connection product
information service, developed by Programmer's Connection, for FAXing
customized information to your callers. Prospects can receive
literature instantly.  Data can be input and stored as ASCII text
files, scanned documents, or high quality images directly converted
from your favorite word processor or dfesktop publishing program.

Optional Modules

Optional modules can be added at any time and include: Database
Access, I/SCRIPT system, C User Function Toolkit, and more.

Call 1-800-336-1166 (or [phone]) to receive additional
information.

[end ad]


Ken      [e-mail]

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

Subject: Watson Under Windows
From: [e-mail] (Brian Hendrix)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 10:34:13 +0100
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada


This is somewhat off topic, but I'm desperate!

Does anybody out there have any experience getting a Watson board to
run under Windows 3.1?  So far many months of fiddling have resulted
in nothing but gnashing of teeth.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, and I'll post a summary if there
is enough interest.


Brian Hendrix     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 14:50:24 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop?


Cellular One recently installed a software upgrade from Motorola.

This upgrade prevents a call forwarded from one cellular phone to a
second cellular phone to get further forwarded to the second phone's
Message Plus when the second phone is off.  The caller gets a
recording stating that the called phone is off or out of the area.

This forwarding worked before the upgrade.

The unsatisfactory explanation I was given is that this second
forwarding causes some sort of a billing loop.

I don't understand this claim.  Does anyone here know anything about
this?

Thanks.


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

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

From: tuu <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Date: 28 May 92 00:33:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


    What is the purpose of the three tones (I believe ascending in
pitch) that you hear before you hear the "We're sorry, you must first
dial a 1" message or the similar messages?

    Does it tell the phone system that there *wasn't* actually a
billable "off hook"?  That's the only thing I can think of, but if
that's true, it would seem that phreakers could just record it and
play it right after someone answers when they make a long distance
call.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 02:36:38 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Xenophobia


In the U.S., it is standard practice for payphones not to accept coins
other than U.S. ones. In Canada, the phones tend to accept just about
anything resembling Canadian coins, such as the U.S.  counterparts (up
to a quarter), or even such things as UK five pence which has the same
diameter as a quarter. I've seen Dominican Republic ten centavo coins
that resemble dimes as well.

The Millennium payphones popping up all over Toronto can accept the
Daffy Duck currency (ie. Canadian $1 "loony" coins) yet won't accept
U.S. $1 Susan B. Anthony coins. Not coincidentally, the loony coins
have the same diameter as the U.S $1 coins. The differences are in
colour (SBA's are silver coloured, while Canadian loons are gold
coloured when fresh, dull brass when stale) and shape (loons are
11-sided, while U.S. $1 coins are round, though having an 11- sided
border stamped just within the diameter).

The approach to foreign coins in Canada is overall more tolerant than
in the U.S. This contrasts to an experience I had in the U.S. where
even so much as a single Canadian penny gets thoroughly rejected at a
coffee shop.


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


[Moderator's Note: Interesting you mention it. Here in Chicago there
were problems for quite awhile with some Brazillian coin (I think it
was a two centavo piece or some such worthless item) which turned out
to be the same size (hundredth of an inch smaller) than Transit
Authority subway tokens. The collection agents would not accept them,
but the automated turnstyles would. Lots of them were circulating
around here ostensibly for the purpose of 'costume jewelry' until the
CTA started putting heat on the coin dealers. And number ten brass
washers with tape over the hole in the center used to work the old
style payphones quite well, I'm told.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 May 92 13:04:46 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Lottery Poses Threat to Long Distance


Tomorrow at 6 AM, will the phone system in Texas crash?  A recent
article in the {Houston Chronicle} raises this as a possible side
effect of the beginning of the Texas Lottery on May 29, 1992. The
article reports that computer problems last year in Louisiana caused
lottery ticket validation equipment to not be able to connect to the
central computer to validate winning tickets.  The resulting flood of
autodialing by the terminals was said to have cut the entire state off
from all long distance service for two days.  The fear is that a
similar event could happen tomorrow morning when the Texas Lottery
starts up with the scratch and win game.  A lotto (pick 5 or 6) as
other states have is to go on line in September, with even greater
need for reliable communications with the central computer in Austin
(512), or the backup in Irving (214).

About 15,000 locations will be on line tomorrow to sell lottery
tickets with over 17 million tickets expected to be sold over the
weekend.  The tickets have to be validated before being sold -- each
pack has a special card with a bar coded number on it, which the
lottery terminal reads and sends to the central computer which records
that pack of tickets as valid.  When a winner is to be paid off, the
ticket is read through the terminal, getting a bar coded number from
the ticket and comparing it with the valdidated ones at the central
computer.  If ticket sales projections are valid, over two million
winners will be issued over the weekend. That is a lot of phone calls.

One note: the assertion that the Louisiana long distance service was
jammed for two days does not ring any bells with me.  Anyone remember
that?

Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL

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

Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 15:28:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail] (ROM M. KIEFFER, TRANSCANADA PIPELINES)
Subject: RFI: Frame Relay Networking


Greetings,

We are thinking about building a wide-area frame relay network with
upwards of fifty nodes. The various vendors have presented their
capabilities to us, we have been impressed by a lot of the technology,
we have heard of some flagship implementations, etc. However, I would
like to query the community about actual network experiences, vendor
support and expertise, general reliability, etc.

Furthermore, because of the size of the network, we are looking for
modelling tools capabable of handling frame relay. From what I know so
far there are no commercially available packages. If you have learnt
of any, I would be most interested to hear about them.

Finally, the frame relay muxes will operate over microwave links,
which are nowhere near of the noise immunity that a fiber link could
provide.  If you have done this, or if you know of anyone who has
tried/succeeded please let me know.

If you answer to the net, great; if you answer to me, I will summarize
and rebroadcast in a week or so.

Thanks,


Rom Kieffer    TransCanada PipeLines
PO BOX 1000 Station M    Calgary, Alberta   403-267-6452

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:56:47 -0500
Subject: Usenet and Obscenity in Canada


[The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC Radio's
news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored on 9755
KHz at 2300 UTC All spelling and punctuation has been added, and may
be incorrect.]

Computer Porn.

Canadian police can't seem to control it.  A wave of obscene material
is being transmitted to universities through a computer network.  Much
of the pornographic writing comes from the US, where laws against
obscenity are more relaxed.  Police here say the material is clearly
obscene and they say they'd be willing to prosecute if they could just
figure out who's responsible.  David McLaughlan has more ...

A recent Supreme Court ruling holds that depicting sex involving
violence or children is obscene and it is a criminal offence to
publish or distribute it in Canada.  But that's the type of material
that has been appearing on computer terminals across the country, the
equivalent of about a magazine per day, generated by something called
'newsgroups.'

Much of the material comes from subscribers to wizvax [sp?], a
computer timesharing company in the United States.  "...that's because
our machine does provide a service to the community, through the
alt.sex.bondage newsgroup."  Stephanie Gillgut [sp?] operates her
business from Massachusetts.  What she calls a 'service' is basically
a how-to manual on sex with partners getting strangled, or with
children or animals.  Gillgut says the written material comes
anonymously from any of her subscribers; computers do the rest.  "I
have no direct link with Canada, so I'm really pass[ing] it on to
another machine, which in turn passes it on to other machines, and so
on and so forth."  And it end up on the computer terminals at most
Canadian universities.

University spokespeople downplay it, but most make it freely available
to professors and students.  The University of Manitoba recently began
censoring the material.  Professor Brian Fortinski objects.  He says
it's as offensive to comb through the computer and remove obscene
materials, as it would be to raid private office files.  "I don't
think most people in any institution would like the idea that you
could have someone that could go from office to office, open up every
drawer and file cabinet, rifle through and see what was there."

Police say the material is obscene, but they can't arrest a computer,
so who do they put the cuffs on?  Good question, according to Roland
Penner; he's dean of law at the University of Manitoba.  "Even if the
computer services director was merely passive in the sense that he
knew about it, might have done something to stop it but doesn't, he
hasn't committed a crime."  Penner says law enforcement officials are
having a hard time unravelling the problem because computer
pornography is so new.  Police want to shut it off, but they're
limited so far in what they can do.  Do the violent pronography
continues to flow along with academic papers and the latest scientific
information.

David Mclaughlan, CBC News, Winnipeg

<end of excerpt>

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 12:14 +0200
From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Patent Swap


ERICSSON AND MOTOROLA SIGN GSM LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT

Ericsson Radio Systems and Motorola's Cellular Infrastructure Group
announced today that they have signed a licensing agreement regarding
essential GSM patents. According to the terms of the contract both
parties will license all of their existing and future essential GSM
cellular patents required to conform to the GSM standard. The
agreement also extends to Orbitel Mobile Communications Ltd., a joint
venture of the Vodafone Group of the United Kingdom and Ericsson which
provides GSM equipment.

Additionally, the companies formally agreed to a program which will
enable Motorola's GSM base station (RF) equipment to operate with the
Ericsson GSM switching platform, the AXE switch. The certification
process will commence shortly and will be completed when customer
requirements emerge, calling for Motorola base stations to work with
an Ericsson system.

"This agreement reinforces Motorola's commitment to totally open
architecture", said Jack Scanlon, Corporate Vice President and General
Manager of Motorola's Cellular Infrastructure Group. "This new
relationship with Ericsson solidifies our commitment to providing
totally compatible cellular infrastructure equipment. Understandings
such as today's will provide GSM operators the freedom to select the
switch of their preference when they deploy Motorola RF equipment.
This cooperation continues the momentum for similar agreements between
Motorola and all major GSM switch and radio equipment manufacturers."

Kurt Hellstr|m, President of Ericsson Radio Systems stated, "We
recognize that open architecture will be a key element in the
acceptance and success of the GSM standard. Our policy has always been
to make this technology readily available because we believe everyone
benefits from expanding a new market as quickly as possible. Ericsson
will continue to offer complete GSM networks with its own switch and
its own radio equipment."

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Per Bengtsson, Information Manager,
Ericsson Business Area Radio Communications
 Tel. [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]

David A. Pinsky, Motorola CIG
 Tel. [phone]

Julian Long, Motorola ECID
 Tel. [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #427
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10039;
          29 May 92 6:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00302
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 29 May 1992 02:36:39 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16137
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 29 May 1992 02:36:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 02:36:28 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #428

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 May 92 02:36:25 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 428

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Michael J. Strait)
    CPB 25th Anniversay Retrospective (Michael J. Strait)
    V.32bis Dial-Back Modems (Bill Garfield)
    Solutions Quarterly (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 12:41:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Corporation for Public Broadcasting


While the traffic in TELECOM Digest overwhelmingly equates telecom
with telephony, some readers may be following the current media
attention on another part of telecommunications -- public broadcasting
 -- and may find this background information helpful.

                      WHY AND HOW CPB WAS CREATED

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private, nonprofit
corporation, authorized by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to
promote the growth and development of public radio and television in
the United States.  The corporation was specifically created as an
independent corporation rather than a federal agency so that the
recipients of its money, engaged in First Amendment-protected
programming activities, could be free from the potential of editorial
interference that might come from direct federal funding.

Prior to CPB's formation, the educational television climate was full
of promise but lacking in resources.  The number of local stations was
increasing, but they lacked an adequate supply of high-quality
programming that could be made generally available throughout the
country.  This fact, and the tenuous financial condition of the local
stations, limited their potential service to the public.

In response to this problem, the Carnegie Corporation in 1965
established the Carnegie Commission, which was asked to review the
state of educational television in the United States and to recommend
solutions to any problems it discovered.

In January 1967, the Carnegie Commission presented its report, Public
Television: A Program for Action.  The principal conclusion of the
Commission was that a well financed and well directed educational
television system, substantially larger and far more pervasive and
effective than that which existed in the United States at the time,
must be brought into being if the full needs of the American public
were to be served.  The key to achieving this goal was the expansion
of federal funds available to educational broadcasting.

The dilemma: How could the federal government provide funds to public
broadcasting, engaged in a First Amendment-protected activity, without
running the risk of interfering with those First Amendment rights?
The solution: a private, independent organization that would not be a
part of the federal government and so could make program and other
funding decisions for educational broadcasters without the concern of
government interference in First Amendment-protected matters.

The new organization was conceived by the Commission as the
"Corporation for Public Television."  Legislation to implement a large
number of the Carnegie recommendations, amended to include radio,
moved through Congress.  On Nov. 7, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson
signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, establishing the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

When the Carnegie Commission recommended the creation of the
Corporation, the report emphasized "the long-standing American
tradition of fostering the expression of ideas and the communication
of information free from government control or oversight ..."  With
this in mind, Congress directed that CPB be organized as a private,
independent entity, which was not subject to the many requirements
that are imposed on federal agencies.  CPB was exempted from these
requirements to bolster its non-government status, the critical
component for federal support of public broadcasting.

In exempting CPB, Congress was not removing CPB from normal
requirements of accountability and responsibility for the funds it
managed.  In fact, those obligations are specifically imposed on CPB
through the Public Broadcasting Act.  CPB's non-government status is
intended to protect public broadcasters from governmental scrutiny of
the day-to-day programming operations of these broadcasters.  In
recommending the creation of the Corporation, the Carnegie Commission
stated that "Public television programming should free the creative
artist and technician to explore the full uses of the medium, allowing
them to give priority to the aesthetic motive, to the moral and
intellectual quest."

Although CPB's board is appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, and CPB receives federal funds to fulfill its mandate, the
Public Broadcasting Act emphasized that the Corporation "will not be
an agency or establishment of the United States government." [47
U.S.C. 396(b)] CPB is to facilitate the development of public
telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous
interference and control.  [47 U.S.C. 396(a)(8)] The Corporation must
"carry out its purposes and functions and engage in its activities in
ways that will most effectively assure the maximum freedom of the
public telecommunications entities and systems from interference with,
or control of, program content or other activities."  [47 U.S.C.
396(g)(1)(D)] And the Public Broadcasting Act specifically does not
authorize any U.S. government official to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over public telecommunications, CPB, any of
CPB's grantees, or any educational institution.  [47 USC 398(a)]

To further insulate CPB and public broadcasting from interference in
program content, Congress instituted a unique funding arrangement.
CPB is authorized to receive appropriations in three-year periods, and
the actual appropriations are made two years in advance of the current
fiscal year.  This funding technique not only gives public
broadcasters more time to plan and aggregate additional money needed
for program productions, but also prevents concerns about current
broadcasts from affecting current operating budgets and creating a
chilling effect on producers and stations.

CPB acts as a catalyst for the productions created by others.  The
Corporation's mandate in the Act included helping to ensure production
of high-quality programs from diverse sources; developing television
and radio systems that would reach and serve all Americans with
alternative programming; and providing training, instruction,
research, and development.  Today, CPB distributes direct grants for
operations and programming to 327 public radio stations and to 199
public television grantees operating 349 stations in the U.S. and its
territories.

The Public Broadcasting Act also directs CPB to strive for objectivity
and balance in controversial programs that it funds.  To this end, CPB
closely monitors the programs available in the national public
television and radio schedules and attempts to fill in gaps in the
wide range of issues and topics through its own program funding
decisions.  However, this provision of the Act has been interpreted by
the Courts to reserve to Congress the final determination of how CPB
executes this objectivity and balance obligation.  Congress has made
it clear that CPB is to emphasize maximum protection from interference
in program content to allow the greatest freedom for the expression of
ideas from diverse sources.

Although it shares certain similar interests with other national
organizations, CPB is distinctly different from the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), both of
which are owned by their member stations.  CPB helped to establish
each.  CPB provides grants to qualified public television and radio
stations and also funds some television and radio program production.
PBS buys programs and distributes them to public television stations,
and NPR produces and distributes programs to public radio stations.

The national commitment made in 1967 with the Public Broadcasting Act
has turned into a remarkably rich investment for the American people.
Through the leadership and contributions of CPB, public broadcasting
has enriched the United States -- educationally, culturally, and
socially.  The distinctive voice of public broadcasting flows from its
public service orientation and its ability to be excellent without
dependence on market share.

3/2/92
Michael J. Strait, Ph.D.
Project Officer for Research and Evaluation
Annenberg/CPB Projects   Corporation for Public Broadcasting
901 E Street NW  Washington, DC   20004-2006
202-879-9649 (Voice)   202-783-1056 (Fax)  [e-mail] (Email)

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

Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 12:45:37 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: CPB 25th Anniversay Retrospective


FURTHER INFORMATION:
Rozanne Weissman, 202/879-9689
Melissa Duprat, 202/879-9695
Joan Shaffer, 202/879-9687


Back to the Future ...

                FUTURISTS PREDICT MORE VITAL ROLE
                     FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

         Washington, D.C., May 7, 1992 -- Growing globalization.
Increasing individualization.  Complex events.  Fast-paced changes.
Dramatic diversification.  Overwhelming choices.  All further
accelerated by a revolution in telecommunications and broadcasting.

         These escalating trends will make public broadcasting even
more vital in the future than it was in its first 25 years, note two
leading futurists in a new publication, From Wasteland to Oasis: A
Quarter Century of Sterling Programming.  The 25-year retrospective by
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) examines not only the
history and milestones of public broadcasting but also its future
potential through the eyes of futurists Alvin Toffler and John
Naisbitt.

         "We're a society starved for synthesis," says Alvin Toffler,
author with his wife Heidi of Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Power
Shift.  "We need more than sound bites.  We need interpretation and
analysis."  Adds Megatrends author Naisbitt, "It will become
increasingly important to be able to put events into broader and
deeper contexts."  Both futurists note public broadcasting's unique
strengths in these areas.

         "I'd hate to see the public broadcasting alternative
deteriorate," says Toffler, who foresees a faster pace of change
moving the world toward dramatic diversification--in family
structures, social structures, markets, and media.  In this dynamic
environment, he also urges public broadcasting to "experiment more and
invent more forms" as communications systems infuse our experience and
move increasingly to "interactivity, convertibility, ubiquity, and
mobility."

         To mark the Silver Anniversary of the Public Broadcasting Act
this year, the retrospective takes a dramatic look at what the public
might be missing without the farsighted statute in a section titled
What If Public Broadcasting Had Never Been?

         The answer:

         o no Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow, setting standards
           of creativity and excellence for children's television
           at home and in the classroom;

         o no NPR, bringing a renaissance to radio programming
           and radio news, with in-depth, intelligent, and
           engaging coverage of our complex world;

         o no PBS, delivering fresh, mind- and spirit-expanding
           television to America's living rooms;

         o no CPB, to fund and foster a steady and ambitious
           stream of imaginative, high-quality, alternative
           programming for public radio and television;

         o no closed captioning of television for people with
           hearing impairments nor descriptive video for people
           with visual impairments;

         o no school satellite services giving rural students a
           chance to learn the likes of Russian, Japanese, or
           calculus;

         o no development of radio and television as powerful
           forces to cope with social challenges through outreach
           programming;

         o no multicultural programming, addressing the diverse
           groups that make up the nation and creating bridges of
           understanding among people of different cultural
           heritage.

         With the flavor of Frank Capra's Christmas movie classic It's
A Wonderful Life, the section appropriately concludes with a
delightful photo of Big Bird and Mister Rogers hugging captioned:
"What if America's children didn't have their friends Big Bird and
Mister Rogers to comfort them?"

         From Wasteland to Oasis: A Quarter Century of Sterling
Programming opens 30 years ago with Newton Minow's famous "vast
wasteland" remark from his speech to commercial broadcasters about the
television landscape at that time.  The former FCC Chairman later in
the retrospective describes public broadcasting today as an "oasis"
and makes a forceful case for stable, adequate funding of public
broadcasting -- known for its "tin cup, begathon" image.

         "I've never understood why, when it comes to funding, we
distinguish public broadcasting from other public service institutions
like hospitals, libraries, and schools and universities which meet
essential needs and serve the public good," Minow says.  "Yet public
broadcasting is a stepchild, struggling to provide outstanding public
service while remaining in the role of perpetual beggar in the richest
country in the world."

         Minow concludes the retrospective with an optimism about
public broadcasting's future similar to that of the futurists: "Public
broadcasting has made enormous progress.  But it's only just
beginning."


Michael J. Strait, Ph.D.
Project Officer for Research and Evaluation
Annenberg/CPB Projects   Corporation for Public Broadcasting
901 E Street NW   Washington, DC   20004-2006
202-879-9649 (Voice)  202-783-1056 (Fax)   [e-mail] (Email)


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sharing these articles with
the Digest readership. For readers with specific interest in the field
of radio broadcasting, I call your attention to a recent addition to
the net, 'rec.radio.broadcasting', available as a newsgroup or mailing
list. For information, contact the Moderator, William Pfieffer, via
his site:  [e-mail].  PAT]

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

From: yob![e-mail]
Subject: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems
Date: 27 May 92 06:59:00 GMT
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


> Does anybody make a V.32 (or better, V.32bis) external modem that
> supports dial-back in hardware?  If so, does anybody know about how
> much they'd cost and where we could get them?  Reply via email to the
> address below, and I'll summarize to the list if there's interest.

MultiTech Systems - 2205 Woodale Drive - Mounds View, MN 55112
1-800-328-9717 Has exactly what you are looking for, and has had for
several years ... long enough in fact that the feature is fully
debugged and works flawlessly.

In fact, dialback in hardware has been a standard feature in all the
MultiTech modems from 2400 bps on up for at least the past two years
that I know of.

The specific MultiTech models (current production) that you seek are:

MT932BA  (V.32/V.42/V.42bis 9600 bps - includes 9600 bps FAX too)
MT1432BA (V.32bis - ditto - 14,400 bps  - ditto)
MT224BA  (V.22bis - ditto - 2400 bps -  ditto)
and ...

Soon to come, is the MT1432MU -- an as yet unannounced shirt-pocket
sized portable with 14.4 (v32bis) and all the other trimmings.

Needless to say, the above do not fall into the 'cheap Taiwan clone'
modem category.  The V32bis MT1432BA carries a list price of $899.
Your local MultiTech Distributor can possibly improve on that number.

The company I work for has been using MultiTech products in
considerable quantities for the past seven years.  I know of no
problems.

Standard Disclaimer applies.  Opinions are my own.
I speak for no one.  I am not an employee nor representative
of MultiTech Systems, Inc.


Bill Garfield ([e-mail])
Voice: 713.989.0000   Data: 713.520.1569   Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 02:37:06 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solutions Quarterly


Bell Canada puts out a quarterly called Solutions, intended for Bell
Canada's business customers, but available on request at 1 800 363
2917 or writing Solutions 1050 cote du Beaver Hall, Bureau 620,
Montreal PQ H2Z 1S4, or fax at [phone]. No guarantees on
whether Bell will mail these outside Canada, or even outside Ontario
and Quebec, though interested folks could check this out.

Current issue has articles on new products, an article that in effect
cuts up the reseller industry and a few other items of interest.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #428
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00877;
          30 May 92 16:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14878
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 15:10:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27656
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 15:10:38 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 15:10:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #429

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 15:10:19 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 429

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CWA Members Gear Up for Possible Strike (Phillip Dampier)
    ANI Curiosities and GTE Horror Stories (Mark Rudholm)
    Alternative Telephone Mic (Dan Harkless)
    GTE-SW Seeks Approval to Offer ISDN in Dallas, TX (Len E. Elam)
    GTE Bashing (Rob Schultz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 02:00:45 -0500
Subject: CWA Members Gear Up for Possible Strike


CWA MEMBERS GEAR UP FOR AT&T CONTRACT COUNTDOWN
Communications Workers of America
29 May 1992     1400 EDT



WASHINGTON -- With just over 24 hours to go before the expiration of
the AT&T contract, members of the Communications Workers of America
engaged in intensified mobilization activities on the job and in their
communities, to demonstrate to AT&T the union's solidarity behind
their bargaining goals.

"As a CWA officer who has been involved in national negotiations since
1974, I cannot recall when we were this far apart with only 48 hours
to go," CWA President Morton Bahr said in a nationwide teleconference
with CWA members last night.

"We would describe AT&T's meager wage and benefit offers as so
inadequate as tobe insulting," CWA negotiations said.

AT&T is an extremely profitable company, expected to make between $3
and $4 billion dollars in profits next year.  CEO Bob Allen has
received compensation increases of 31%, and management increases range
between 20 and 30%, while union members received only 9%, since 1989.

"AT&T has been completely unresponsive to our proposals for employment
security," CWA negotiators stated.  "If profitable, successful
companies like AT&T callously eliminate good American jobs, regardless
of the negative impact on communities and customer service, then where
can American working people turn for a decent future, and good middle
class jobs with good pay, benefits, security, and an opportunity to
advance?" asked CWA's chief negotiator.  "We're fighting to protect
good jobs for communities all over this country."

AT&T has cut more than 100,000 union jobs since the divestiture of the
Bell System in 1984, 25,000 of those cut since the last round of
bargaining in 1989. More layoffs have been announced -- including the
replacement of 6,000 operators (one-third of all AT&T operators) with
voice recognition robots.

CWA's employment security concerns include AT&T's excessive reliance
on subcontracting, temporary workers, and reclassification of union
work under "management" titles.  AT&T has erected artificial barriers
between the union- represented workforce and its new non-union
subsidiaries, like American Transtech and the Universal Card, and
tolerated vicious anti-union campaigns at NCR and Paradyne in Largo,
Florida.

These practices have left union members extremely uncertain of job
security, and along with numerous plant and office closings, have had
devastating effects on the communities that have lost good jobs.

CWA members have voted to give strike authorization to the union's
leadership. In addition, development of a new strategy, the electronic
picketline, has given union leaders the power to switch tens of
thousands of long-distance customers away from AT&T to another
long-distance carrier.  CWA members have been collecting tens of
thousands of "carrier switch" cards, essential proxies, that authorize
the union to switch the customer away from AT&T if a settlement is not
reached by the contract expiration date.  And CWA members around the
country have solicited letters of support from thousands of small
businesses that will also switch carriers.  Support from the labor
movement and its 15 million union families, as well as from the
Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone International (representing
communications workers around the world) give CWA the ability to mount
a worldwide electronic picketline around AT&T, affecting millions in
AT&T revenues every week.  The electronic picketli!  ne could be
implemented in addition to, or as an alternative to, a strike, if no
agreement is reached by contract expiration.

CWA, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and AT&T
have been negotiating since March 30, 1992 for a new three year
contract.  The current contract expires at midnight on Saturday, May
30.  The CWA Public Affairs office will be open starting at 5:00 pm on
Saturday through the evening's negotiations.

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 17:44:47 PDT
From: aimla!ruby![e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: ANI Curiosities and GTE Horror Stories


I have been playing with Tom Lowe's ([e-mail]) 800 ANI and
got some interesting results.  From my (L.A.) Cellular phone, I get
213-727-0691.  This is a Montebello, CA (a city of ~60,000 adjacent to
L.A.)  prefix, which makes sense since L.A. Cellular has their main
operations there.  From home (a WE 5ESS), ANI was delivered correctly.
Also from home, I had the AT&T LD operator dial the number for me and
I was surpirsed to hear that ANI was correctly delivered.  Sprint and
MCI operators both refused to attempt the call for me.  The Pacific
Bell TOPS operator dialed it for me and ANI was delivered as
000-000-0000.

There is some strange Software Defined Network that I have access to
through the Centranet (unfortunately, my office is in GTE California
land) system at work and it delivers ANI 213-473-xxxx which makes no
sense at all because not only are we in 310, but if you dial a number
from this SDN into 213 without first dialing 1-213, you get GTE's
recording telling you that the number you have dialed is in 213 and to
try again with the 213 area code.  Also, there is no 473 prefix in 213
anymore (it became 310).  The 213-473 number used to belong to a
residence customer but is now disconnected.

So if I dial Alliance Teleconferencing from this SDN, where will the
bill go?  What if I dial a 900 (or an 800 number that bills against
ANI) number, where will the bill go?

Of course, keep in mind, this is GTE California Land.

While I'm on the subject of GTE California, allow me to relate a
little story.  Last July, I moved into a house in Venice (where they
don't even offer Cancel Call-Waiting or three-way calling that
actually works) with two roommates.  Each of them already had phone
service in the house and there was a third, unused drop-line and
station protector.  I thought, great, I can just call GTE and have
them activate my new line on the unused protector.  Well, my GTE
Disservice Representative insisted that "The Computer" says there are
only two drops going to that house.  I said, "No, I'm sure there are
three, I do know what they look like."

   "I'm sorry sir, but I only show two drops, we're going to have to
send an installer out to the house to connect the line"
They assured me that if in fact, I was correct and there was an available
station protector, there would be no "Visit Charge."

I thought, oh well, the installer will note on his report that there
was in fact an available line and I wouldn't be charged the additional
$80 in any case.  Well, surprise, surprise, I was billed for the
"Visit" of the installer and was only able to have the charged removed
after about three weeks and two hours on the phone to no less than 5
GTE employees.

   I consider myself a pretty astute telephone customer and I had
problems being billed correctly.  It really makes me wonder how many
people they successfully overcharge.  Funny thing, too, it seems that
every time you call them to inquire about the cost of various things
like connecting a new line, or moving an existing service to a new
address you get a different answer.  When we were bored we would
sometimes joke about entertaining ourselves by playing "GTE Rate
Roulette" and see how much phone service costs today!  The winner
would be the one who gets the lowest quote!  Who wants to play?!  Not
me, thank you, I moved to Hancock Park, well within Pacific Bell
territory.  But I guess I'm just some Telecom-Ignorant person who's
mouthing off, right, Gloria?

By the way, if anyone knows where I could get a Western Electric (or
even Automatic Electric) "Panel Phone," please let me know.  These are
the phones that are installed flush with a wall, they were often found
in kitchens in the 70's.


Mark D. Rudholm      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Harkless)
Subject: Alternative Telephone Mic
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 30 May 92 04:58:36 GMT


    What I've been trying to do is attach a different microphone to an
old phone of mine.  But when I connect the leads that originally went
to the old mic, my external microphone acts as a speaker.  I tried
switching the wires back and forth several times, but in either
orientation the mic acted as a speaker.  I don't get this ...


Dan Harkless    [e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 13:45:17 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Len E. Elam)
Subject: GTE-SW Seeks Approval to Offer ISDN in Dallas, TX


The following was published in the 27 May 1992 A.M. edition of the
{Fort Worth Star-Telegram} (Fort Worth, Texas, USA).  I thought that
the readers of the TELECOM Digest might like to see it and comment on
it.

Note:  _Underlined_Text_, *Bold*Text*

*BEGINNING*OF*NOTICE*

                            *PUBLIC*NOTICE*

    GTE Southwest Incorporated ("GTE-SW" - now a part of GTE
Telephone Operations-Central Area) has filed an application with the
Public Utility Commission of Texas ("Commission") to seek approval to
provide a new service to its multiline business or residential
customers.  GTE-SW is seeking approval of Integrated Services Digital
Network-Primary Rate Interface ("ISDN-PRI"), a central office-based
service which will allow customers to integrate voice and data
services on a general-purpose trunk.  This will allow the customer to
consolidate various trunk types on a single facility. ISDN-PRI can
serve customer-premise equipment, such as a Private Branch Exchange
("PBX"), Local Area Network ("LAN") gateway, or a host computer. It
also can serve as a trunk interface between central offices.  This
service is _optional_ and if not ordered, will not affect a customer's
existing service or rates. The estimated annual effect on GTE-SW's
revenues in the first year is $68,840.00.

    Due to technical limitations, this service will not be
available in all of GTE-SW's serving areas. Upon approval of its
application, GTE-SW will offer this service in the following central
office serving areas: D/FW Airport, Irving North, Carrollton Main,
Carrollton-Crosby West and Plano Northwest. By 1994, GTE-SW intends to
offer this service in the Irving-Walnut Hill, Irving-West, Piano-Main
and Plano-West central offices.

    In this application, GTE-SW is proposing the following
services:

    *ISDN-PRI*Access* - This element provides exchange access and
trunk termination at the serving central office. One PRI Access
provides 23 B-channels and 1 D-channel and is required at one end or
each end of a PRI facility to terminate in an ISDN-PRI serving central
office. The B-channels on the PRI can carry switched voice and/or
switched data at speeds up to 64 Kbps. The D-channel is only used for
signaling.

    *ISDN-PRI*Facility* - The PRI facility provides the 1.544 Mbps
digital transport between the customers' location and the customers'
serving central office.

    *ISDN*TIE*Channel* - This feature will provide for
connectivity between the customers' multi-location customer group. The
TIE will support feature interworking among the locations and
transparent feature access.

    *IC*Service*Channel* - This feature will provide for
connectivity to IC's ISDN-PRI services.  On a per-demand basis, the
user will be able to access those features via the B-channels that the
IC supports on the PRI facility. The proposed rates for the
above-referenced services are as follows:

                  Non-recurring        Monthly
                _Charge_        _Charge_

ISDN-PRI Access            $200.00            $350.00
ISDN-PRI Facility        $300.00            $200.00
IC Service Channel        $200.00             $35.00
ISDN-TIE Channel        $200.00             $l5.00

    The effective date for this service is September 26,1992.
Persons who wish to intervene or otherwise participate in these
proceedings should notify the Commission. A request to intervene,
participate, or for further information, should be mailed to the
Public Utility Commissions of Texas, 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite
400N, Austin, Texas 78757. Further information may also be obtained by
calling the Public Information Division of the Public Utility
Commission at [phone], or [phone], teletypewriter for the
deaf.

*END*OF*NOTICE*


Who Am I?: Len E. Elam
Email:     central.sun.com!gdfwc3!lelam
Disclamer: I speak only for myself.

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

Subject: GTE Bashing
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 15:52:56 EST
From: [e-mail] (Rob Schultz)


While we're on a GTE-bashing bent here, I thought I would add in my
recent experiences with them.

A few weeks ago, I moved (not far, just across the apartment complex).
About two weeks prior to the move, I called GTE to have my phone
service turned off at the old place and turned on at the new place.
In the process, I decided to get two lines (I previously had only
one), and had both of them set up as unlisted.  I decided to hook up
the second line myself (It cost about $3.00 for the new wallplate, as
opposed to something like $80.00 if GTE did it), since the place was
already wired with four-wire line.  GTE promised to label both lines
at the Network Interface Box so I could tell which was which.

No Problem.

Until I moved in, that is.  I had specified that my new service be
turned on the Friday that I started moving.  I got in to the new place
late Friday, but when I plugged in the phone, I got no service.  As it
was pretty late, I decided to bag it and deal with it in the morning.
Well, it was afternoon before I got to it (moving took more time than
I had anticipated :-().  I hooked up the new wallplate, and tried
every combination I could think of to get the phones to work.  No
success.  Finally, I went out to the NIB.  Well, the two lines were
labelled, all right, but they were just dangling there!!  GTE had
apparently turned on the service, came out, labelled the lines, and
never physically connected them!  Using an old phone, I managed to
determine where to hook up each of the lines in the NIB, and got
everything working.  (After a little more trouble: apparently whoever
ran the wires in the first place never bothered to connect the second
line on the inside -- but that's another story.)

On Monday, I called GTE to complain and ask them to refund the Site
Call fee that they were to have charged me for installation.  Well,
the Customer Service Rep I was talking with had a real hard time
understanding why I thought I should get some money back.  She offered
to put me on line with a supervisor.  OK.  When she came back, she
said that the supervisor had said to simply offer me my first month of
service free.

Wanting to be fair :-) I tried to find out how much the installation
fee was for the site call, and have them refund that amount instead.
The rep then got really confused and a little rude.  I finally asked
again to speak with a supervisor.  Here comes the happy ending :-) I
finally got on with the supervisor, who told me she had been
monitoring the call (for improving the quality of service), and that I
had a legitimate complaint.  She explained to me that the installation
fee was now a single charge, whether or not a site visit was made.
She again offered the one month free service, and I gladly accepted
(not trivial for two-line unlisted service).  I never asked what would
happen to the original rep.

On a side note, when requesting my service, I asked what type of
switch I would be on.  The rep went to find out, and came back with
the answer: GTS-5.  I asked if this was a 5ESS or similar, and all she
could tell me was that it is GTE's latest and greatest switch.  Can
anyone help identify this?

Well, sorry for rambling like this, but someone has to give PAT some
work to do around here :-) (just kidding, PAT).


Rob Schultz   At work:  [phone]
[e-mail]      [e-mail]
{uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms  {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #429
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07053;
          30 May 92 19:47 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09486
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 18:04:28 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12800
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 18:04:19 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 18:04:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #430

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 18:04:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 430

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up (J. Truitt)
    "Bulk" Equalizer Wanted (Fred Bauer)
    Multi-Ring Detection Laser Products (Steve Garrett)
    Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Peter Hayward)
    USWEST/Third line problem (Scott Colbath)
    PacBell Data Access Lines (Matthew Holdrege)
    Coin-Phone Numbers (Randy Gellens)
    HDTV Information Needed ([e-mail]@cc.usu.edu)
    Fare War Clogs Phone System; Strange Behavior (Mike Coleman)
    Cabin Connection and Cordless Phone Question (Thomas K. Hinders)
    AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS? (Peter Capek)
    Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories) (Rob Warnock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 22:04:49 -0700
From: Joseph Truitt <[e-mail]>


I read this in the June '92 {Scientific American}:

TAP DANCE

Keeping Communications Networks Safe for Debugging

     The Federal Bureau of Investigation was once fond of pointing out
that "it always gets its man."  One of its most heavily used
techniques -- as the recent murder tiral of mob boss John Gotti--is
the trusty wiretap.  But the bureau fears that new digital
communications systems could leave its agents listening to an
uninformative cacophony.  So this spring the U.S. Department of
Justice proposed legislation requiring makers of electronic
communications equipment to ensure that their equipment could be
tapped.

 ...

     Faced with an uncertain future, law enforcement officials might
well prefer to get their taps directly from the telephone switching
system, but engineers will guard their systems jealously.  Schwartz
contends that adding convenient wiretapping to the long list of other
features for call routing and tracing on a digital switch at best
would be expensive and at worst could make the phone system
unreliable.

     Cost is also a sensitive issue.  Under the proposed legislation,
telephone companies and equipment makers would be allowed to charge
customers for the privilege of being tappable.  FBI director William
Sessions has estimated the cost at a mere $250 million to $300
million.

     And the U.S. telephone system is only the beginning of the
problem.  The FBI's proposal applies equally to private branch
exchanges (internal corporate telephone systems), local-area networks,
computer bulletin boards and even the Internet, which links computers
across the U.S. and throughout the world.  All these systems,
according to the FBI's bill, would have to conform to (potentially
unpublished) ease-of-tapping standards promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission.  Violators would face fines up to $10,000 a
day.

     After discussing the issue only with telephone companies, the FBI
met privately with some computer companies in mid-April.  On Capitol
Hill, public discussions were scheduled for the end of the month, amid
a growing sense that legislation bending all the nation's
communication systems to the current needs of the FBI is a wrongheaded
way to attack the problem.  Mitchell Kapor of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation suggests, "Give the FBI the funding they need" to develop
better taps and leave the telephone and computer networks alone.

Phone follow-up:

I called around Washington for the last couple of days, running the
usual strenuously circuitous route to someone who had the slightest
idea what I was referring to.  I finally ended up at the FBI
Congressional Affairs office (reachable through the main FBI number
202/325-3000), speaking to a very helpful and nice gentleman named
Barry Smith.

Mr. Smith confirmed the essential points of the proposal as outlined
in the above article.  I asked for a bill number, and he took a wild
guess that it would be a month before the proposal would be assigned a
number.  He indicated that the proposal was a clarification,
affirmation, and modernization of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, which orders the telecom provider to "assist in
intercept" and gives the FBI the right to tap particular conversations
as long as they have "probable cause" of criminal activity and a
court-ordered warrant.  They are supposed to adhere to the principle
of "minimization," which means that they will only listen to the
conversation directly pursuant to the criminal activity, and they will
stop listening immediately if they stumble upon the wrong
conversation.

Mr. Smith indicated that the new proposal continues in the same vein,
and is intended to allow a similar ease of tapping with the new
digital and optical equipment.  The intent is to enforce the "proper"
design of the communications equipment -- and as a last resort, issue
[expensive] contempt citations and force retrofits anyway.  Oh (this
is the most disturbing point, IMO) -- he also confirmed that the
standard is _not_ just for telephone companies.  The proposal covers
_all_ transmitted communications between any kind of equipment, data
as well as voice, on any sort of wire or network--large or small,
public or private.

 Questions:

I want your expert opinions.  Is this proposal a reasonable
clarification and modernization of the Omnibus Act?  Or is it too
general and invasive to be acceptable?  Is this a convenient
opportunity for Big Brother to extend his reach?  Should I/we be
particularly concerned?  Write letters of protest to Congress, and all
that?  If so, what are the most effective points and methods of
rebuttal?  If not, why?


Joseph   ([e-mail])

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

From: Fred Bauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Bulk" Equalizer Wanted
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 17:18:50 EDT


I am looking for a manufacturer of telephone line equalizers
(Amplitude/ Delay) for use in equalizing data circuits to CCITT M.1020
Specs.  There are many manufacturers of equalizers with four-wire
interfaces, but I am looking for a "Bulk Equalizer", with a T-1
interface (presumably using DSP technology to do the equalizing.)  If
any readers know of a source for such a device, please let me know.

Thanks.


Fred Bauer                IDB Communications/Network Engineering
[e-mail]   [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 23:08 GMT
From: Midwest Laser Products <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi-Ring Detection


     Illinois Bell offers a service called Multi-Ring.  It allows one
telephone line to have several different phone numbers. Incoming calls
placed to the primary number have the standard ring cycle, while those
to a secondary number have a double ring.

I am not sure how they work third and fourth numbers...  Anyway I have
heard that there is a device available that detect the double ring and
routes those calls to a seperate device, such as a FAX machine.  This
allows the small business owner to have only one physical phone line,
but a separate fax number.  Does anyone know where such a device can
be purchased?


Thanks,

Steve Garrett [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Hayward)
Subject: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Organization: Somewhere between the Stillwater and Penobscot Rivers
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 16:44:57 GMT


I wish to turn an unused trunk mount cell antenna into a permanently
mounted ground plane antenna to use on my house in rural Maine for the
(quite often) times that the phone lines go out. What is the proper
length for the radials?


Thanks.

Peter B. Hayward                University of Maine               WX9T
[e-mail]  (yeah, I know I didn't post from there)

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: USWEST/Third Line Problem
Date: 29 May 92 18:17:37 GMT


Here is the latest in my quest for that elusive third line.

1) I can not get the UDC device because of a limited test area which
was not previously known and did not include my CO. Bummer ...

2) Due to many complaints to the ACC (the equivalent of PUC),
regarding the $1,000 price tag for the third line, USWEST has been
asked by the ACC to show cause for the price increase. I now get to
sit tight waiting for the answer on this one. The ACC might reduce the
cost, revert to the original charges or leave it the way it is. Who
knows ...!!!

The saga continues.

BTW: Has anyone else seen or heard anything about the UDC since I
first posted about it?


Scott Colbath   Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.  [phone]
Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 23:36 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Data Access Lines


I just had a meeting with my Pac Bell rep and his and his Technical
Support Manager. In regards to the removal of Data Access Line service
they had this to say:

Pac Bell believes that Data Access service is no longer necessary. With
today's modern modem's and fax machines, extra-clean lines are not
needed. Therefore they planned to grandfather all existing Data Access Lines
and no longer sell new lines. They also would convert all grandfathered
lines to 1mb in 1994.

However, the PUC stopped them because some people were worried about
customers who had older modems and FAX machines that would have
trouble over certain 1mb lines. So nothing has happened yet. This
would _not_ affect any 1mb tariff.

BTW, they gave me a copy of the spec sheet for Data Access Lines if anyone
is interested.


Matt Holdrege                 [e-mail]
Pacificare Health Systems     714-229-2518

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 30 MAY 92 04:04
Subject: Coin-Phone Numbers


In Telecom 12.393, Pat, the Moderator, notes:

> ...they probably 'knew' that 'payphones always begin 9xxx'

I remember that when I would try (about fifteen years ago) to call
home in Delaware collect from my school in PA, the local operator
always called the Delaware operator for a "coin check" because the
number I was calling fit the local coin phone pattern.  So it wasn't
the same everywhere.  (In fact, my current home number is 9xxx, so I
would have been challenged by Mystic!)


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
>If mail bounces, forward to [e-mail]<
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

From: [e-mail]@cc.usu.edu
Subject: HDTV Information Needed
Date: 30 May 92 18:45:56 MDT
Organization: Utah State University


Hello Netters,

    Could somebody provide me the information about HDTV, like the
basic concept, how it works, research done till now and the future
scope, etc.

Thanks a lot in advance, I will really appreciate the help.


Pallavi

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Fare War Clogs Phone System; Strange Behavior
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 09:33:49 GMT


With the temporary reduction of air fares to historic lows, it seems
that nearly everyone in America is trying to dial the airlines' 800
numbers.  I've been trying, and like most people, am getting mostly
slow and fast busy.

I have noticed that occasionally, at about the moment I'm expecting a
busy signal, I get a dial tone instead.  Can anyone explain this
phenomenon?  Is this the "same" dialtone I get when I life the phone,
or is it a "different" dialtone?


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

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

Date: 30 May 92 13:35:10+0400
From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Subject: Cabin Connection and Cordless Phone Question


A friend of mine has a cabin that is five miles away from the nearest
telephone line/pole.  His cabin is also not within any celluar phone
coverage.  Is there any alternative phone connection he could get?
Also, if he requested a line, is the local phone co. required to run a
line to his cabin, at no cost?

Second question, we recieved a no-name cordless phone as a gift. I
have noticed a couple things about its operation that I do not
understand:

 - Every once and awhile it rings (sometimes once, sometimes up to three
 times), although no other phone in the house is ringing.  Pick up the
 handset and you do not hear anything.

 - If I pick up the handset, and unplug the base unit I can hear the
 conversation of my neighbors five houses up the street.  If I switch
 the base unit on, the neighors connection is dropped.

 The unit claims to encrypt the connection from the handset to the base,
 but I guess that only works if the base is turned on.

 Thanks for your help ...


                       Thomas K Hinders
               Martin Marietta Computing Standards
                    4795 Meadow Wood Lane
                     Chantilly, VA 22021
                703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f)


[Moderator's Note: The ringing is caused by spurious radiation from
some transmitter nearby. Possibly a CB'er is on the air with a little
bit too much power. Certain signals in the 49 megs range cause the
handset to think the base is calling it, whether it is or not. When
the base is turned off, the handset is just another radio receiver
tuned to the 47/49 megs territory, and any signal, even a weak one
fairly close (like your neighbor) is fair game for its reception. But
when the base is turned on, the base by comparison is so much stronger
signal-wise, and closer, that it overwhelms the signal from the people
down the street.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 00:06:04 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS?


When AT&T announced its 700 service about a month ago, the coverage in
the {New York Times} said that the service was made possible by new
software in its number 5 ESS switches.  Was that an error?  I'm under
the impression that AT&T's domestic network is implemented entirely
with number 4 ESS switches and that the number 5 is sold to RBOCs and
other companies, but not generally used in the domestic network.  Is
that true?

Has anyone seen any public descriptions of the technical aspects of
the implementation?  It would seem that the service could be provided
basically by having the switches interrogate a (replicated) data base
for the translations, in a way similar to that done with 800 calls
today.  It doesn't sound like that big a deal; am I missing something?


Peter Capek

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 22:45:37 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> I worked at a radio station ... when a number of voices started
> appearing in our on-air signal ... It became evident that what was
> happening was crosstalk on our four wire line from the studio to the
> transmitter. Telephone calls were leaking into our equalized 16KC line
> (and it was a high-cost 16KC loop

Circa 1964, I was "chief engineer" of a Part 15 carrier-current campus
radio station at Emory University. Because of the blocking effect of
the transformers on each building, we had twelve separate transmitters
(one in each dorm), with leased lines ("message grade", a.k.a. grade
"E", $0.75/quarter-wire-mile/month, *cheap*!) from the studio in the
student center to the transmitters. Since we only broadcast during the
waking-up/breakfast hours and from mid-afternoon 'til midnight, we
were constantly having Southern Bell installers bridging our pairs
with POTS lines to install some new student's phone, even though each
pair was very carefully marked at every cross-connect with a big, red
"special services" tag. Typical lame excuse: "Well, you can't always
believe those red tags. And when I checked it, the pair was quiet. So
I used it."

We often got irate calls from students saying that they were hearing
the radio station *loudly* on their phone (we sent at +3 dBm). Or else
during one of our "quiet" times a whole dorm might suddenly hear some
intimate conversation being broadcast on 560 KHz!

We finally gave up fighting them ... whenever the studio was closed we
left an infinite-loop tape cartridge on-air repeating our call-sign,
frequency, and program times. "W.E.M.O. 560, the bottom of your dial.
Wherever you go, WE-MO!"


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510      [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94043

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #430
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09566;
          30 May 92 21:06 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30052
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 19:21:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21542
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 19:20:49 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 19:20:49 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #431

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 19:20:39 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 431

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    User-User Signaling in ISDN (David G. Lewis)
    LATAs Crossing State Lines (David Esan)
    One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines (Paul Robinson)
    Where to Find BELLCORE Documents? (Steve Chafe)
    Computers/Telecom/Society Event at ROM (David Leibold)
    Calling Number Transport (was 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS) (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: User-User Signaling in ISDN
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 14:52:16 GMT


A while back, I mentioned in passing methods for the originating and
terminating parties on a call to exchange data out-of-band, and said
something to the effect that "I'll post more if anyone's interested."
Well, a couple people said they were interested, so I'll post more.

Currently, two methods are under definition in Subcommittee T1S1
(American National Standards for Telecommunications, Switching and
Signaling Standards).  These are known as "User-to-User Signaling"
(a.k.a. UUS) and "User Signaling Bearer Service" (a.k.a. USBS).  Both
are defined in the context of ISDN; UUS is an ISDN Supplementary
Service, and USBS is an ISDN Bearer Service.  (A Bearer Service is a
service which on its own transports information; Basic Call Processing
of 3.1kHz Audio is an example.  A Supplementary Service is a service
which "supplements" some other Bearer Service; Call Hold is an
example.)

UUS, for anyone familiar with CCITT standards, is the same as
User-to-User Signaling Method 1 requested implicitly.  For those of
you unfamiliar with CCITT standards, that's Greek.

UUS enables a calling user to include user-to-user information (UUI)
in a SETUP message.  This information is passed transparently by the
network -- it is not interpreted or changed in any way, merely
delivered with the SETUP message to the called user.  Up to 128 octets
of information may be included.

When the called user accepts the call and indicates alerting is taking
place by sending an ALERTing message to the network, it may also
include up to 128 octets of UUI in the ALERTing message.  This is,
again, carried transparently to the calling party and delivered in the
user-network ALERTing message.

Similarly, when the called user indicates that the call is answered by
sending a CONNect message to the network, it may include up to 128
octets of UUI in the CONNect message.  Again, the information is
carried transparently by the network to the calling party and
delivered in the CONNect message.

Once the call has been connected, either party may include up to 128
octets of UUI in the DISConnect message used to initiate call
clearing.

Examples of the use of UUS are left as an exercise to the reader.

Note that this does not allow the "query the originating end" that one
poster originally mentioned.  UUS can only be invoked by the calling
party -- if the UUS service is not invoked by the calling party, any
UUI included by the called party in ALERTing or CONNect messages is
dropped by the network.  The other CCITT-defined UUS services may
allow invocation by the called party, but I'm not as familiar with
them -- and they're not (yet) being worked in T1S1.

The second method of exchanging data out-of-band is USBS.  USBS
essentially creates an end-to-end signaling connection between the
calling and called parties.  It is not explicitly associated with a
call, so either party can invoke it -- in fact, it can be invoked
whether or not a call is being set up or active between parties.

USBS is invoked by the requesting party sending a SETUP message to the
network and indicating that it wishes to set up a USBS connection to a
called address.  This indication is delivered to the called party and
an abbreviated setup procedure is used to establish the 'connection'.
Once the connection is established, either party can send a USER
INFOrmation message to the network; the network delivers this to the
other party transparently.

Only the access signaling protocol is defined in the draft standard
for USBS; the interswitch and internetwork protocols are undefined and
therefore determined by network options and bilateral agreements.
(AT&T's version of USBS uses SS7 ISUP for interswitch signaling.)

USBS could, therefore, be used for a "called party query"; however, as
it's not uniquely associated with a call, some mechanism external to
the network would have to be used by the calling and called party to
identify the call about which the query is being sent.

As to the status of the services, UUS has passed all T1 balloting and
is in preparation for publication; USBS is in the T1S1 Default Letter
Ballot stage, which means it's essentially stable, and members of T1S1
and T1 are entering final comments against the document -- it's
several months from publication.

Of course, deployment status then depends on level of interest in the
services by the LECs, IXCs, and equipment vendors.

AT&T currently offers UUS to our PRI customers, as well as a version
of USBS called "Non-Call Associated Temporary Signaling Connections"
(which I've heard pronounced "N-cats", although I don't know what
marketing's name for it is).  Because of the current status (or lack
thereof) of SS7 Network Interconnect and the not-yet-standard status
of the services, both the originating and terminating ends of these
AT&T services must be directly connected to the AT&T network, which
currently limits the use of the services to Software Defined Network
customers using PRI access and egress.

(That's not a sales pitch; it's a report on deployment status... ;-))


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Latas Crossing State Lines
Date: 29 May 92 18:19:54 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


I didn't realize that there would be such a rush of articles saying
that "my LATA crosses state lines too!", or I would have sent this
list sooner.

Attached are all the LATAs in the NANP that I am aware of, and the
states and NPAs in which they are.  The information is derived from
the BellCore V&H tape, but errors are generally my fault.  I have
skipped the LATAs in the 809 area code.  There is a second LATA in the
808 NPA, but it is for Midway, which is non-dialable and therefore is
not in my database.

The format is LATA: NPA (State)

     120 :207 (ME)
     122 :603 (NH)
     124 :802 (VT)
     126 :413 (MA)
     128 :508 (MA), 617 (MA)
     130 :401 (RI)
     132 :203 (CT), 212 (NY), 516 (NY), 718 (NY), 914 (NY), 917 (NY)
     133 :717 (PA), 914 (NY)
     134 :413 (MA), 518 (NY)
     136 :315 (NY), 607 (NY)
     138 :607 (NY), 717 (PA)
     140 :716 (NY), 814 (PA)
     220 :609 (NJ)
     222 :609 (NJ)
     224 :201 (NJ), 908 (NJ)
     226 :215 (PA), 717 (PA), 814 (PA)
     228 :215 (PA), 302 (DE)
     230 :814 (PA)
     232 :215 (PA), 717 (PA), 814 (PA), 908 (NJ)
     234 :412 (PA)
     236 :202 (DC), 301 (MD), 410 (MD), 703 (VA)
     238 :301 (MD), 410 (MD)
     240 :301 (MD), 304 (WV), 717 (PA), 814 (PA)
     242 :301 (MD), 410 (MD)
     244 :615 (TN), 703 (VA)
     246 :703 (VA)
     248 :703 (VA), 804 (VA)
     250 :804 (VA), 919 (NC)
     252 :804 (VA), 919 (NC)
     254 :304 (WV), 703 (VA)
     256 :304 (WV), 412 (PA)
     320 :216 (OH)
     322 :216 (OH), 412 (PA)
     324 :614 (OH)
     325 :216 (OH)
     326 :313 (MI), 317 (IN), 419 (OH)
     328 :513 (OH)
     330 :812 (IN)
     332 :219 (IN)
     334 :219 (IN), 419 (OH)
     336 :217 (IL), 219 (IN), 317 (IN)
     338 :812 (IN)
     340 :313 (MI), 517 (MI)
     342 :715 (WI), 906 (MI)
     344 :517 (MI)
     346 :517 (MI)
     348 :517 (MI), 616 (MI)
     350 :414 (WI), 715 (WI)
     352 :612 (MN), 715 (WI)
     354 :608 (WI), 815 (IL)
     356 :414 (WI), 815 (IL)
     358 :219 (IN), 312 (IL), 414 (WI), 708 (IL), 815 (IL)
     360 :608 (WI), 815 (IL)
     362 :618 (IL)
     364 :815 (IL)
     366 :217 (IL), 309 (IL), 815 (IL)
     368 :309 (IL), 815 (IL)
     370 :217 (IL)
     374 :217 (IL)
     376 :217 (IL)
     420 :704 (NC)
     422 :704 (NC), 803 (SC), 919 (NC)
     424 :919 (NC)
     426 :919 (NC)
     428 :803 (SC), 919 (NC)
     430 :704 (NC), 803 (SC)
     432 :803 (SC)
     434 :803 (SC)
     436 :803 (SC)
     438 :205 (AL), 404 (GA), 706 (GA), 912 (GA)
     440 :803 (SC), 912 (GA)
     442 :404 (GA), 706 (GA), 803 (SC), 912 (GA)
     444 :912 (GA)
     446 :912 (GA)
     448 :205 (AL), 904 (FL)
     450 :904 (FL), 912 (GA)
     452 :904 (FL)
     454 :904 (FL)
     456 :904 (FL)
     458 :407 (FL), 904 (FL)
     460 :305 (FL), 407 (FL)
     462 :502 (KY), 606 (KY), 812 (IN)
     464 :502 (KY), 615 (TN), 901 (TN)
     466 :606 (KY), 615 (TN)
     468 :502 (KY), 601 (MS), 901 (TN)
     470 :205 (AL), 502 (KY), 615 (TN)
     472 :205 (AL), 404 (GA), 615 (TN), 704 (NC), 706 (GA)
     474 :606 (KY), 615 (TN), 704 (NC)
     476 :205 (AL)
     477 :205 (AL), 601 (MS)
     478 :205 (AL), 912 (GA)
     480 :205 (AL), 601 (MS), 904 (FL)
     482 :205 (AL), 318 (LA), 504 (LA), 601 (MS), 901 (TN)
     484 :504 (LA), 601 (MS)
     486 :318 (LA), 501 (AR), 903 (TX)
     488 :318 (LA)
     490 :504 (LA), 601 (MS)
     492 :504 (LA)
     520 :314 (MO), 618 (IL)
     521 :314 (MO)
     522 :316 (KS), 417 (MO), 501 (AR), 918 (OK)
     524 :712 (IA), 816 (MO), 913 (KS)
     526 :417 (MO), 501 (AR), 918 (OK)
     528 :314 (MO), 501 (AR), 901 (TN), 918 (OK)
     530 :318 (LA), 501 (AR)
     532 :316 (KS), 405 (OK), 417 (MO), 719 (CO), 918 (OK)
     534 :308 (NE), 402 (NE), 719 (CO), 913 (KS)
     536 :405 (OK), 806 (TX)
     538 :316 (KS), 918 (OK)
     540 :505 (NM), 915 (TX)
     542 :915 (TX)
     544 :806 (TX)
     546 :405 (OK), 505 (NM), 719 (CO), 806 (TX)
     548 :817 (TX)
     550 :915 (TX)
     552 :214 (TX), 817 (TX), 903 (TX)
     554 :501 (AR), 903 (TX)
     556 :817 (TX)
     558 :512 (TX)
     560 :409 (TX), 713 (TX)
     562 :409 (TX)
     564 :512 (TX)
     566 :512 (TX)
     568 :512 (TX)
     570 :409 (TX)
     620 :319 (IA), 507 (MN), 515 (IA), 605 (SD), 712 (IA)
     624 :218 (MN), 715 (WI)
     626 :218 (MN), 605 (SD), 612 (MN)
     628 :612 (MN)
     630 :402 (NE), 507 (MN), 605 (SD), 712 (IA)
     632 :319 (IA), 507 (MN), 515 (IA), 712 (IA), 816 (MO)
     634 :309 (IL), 319 (IA), 608 (WI), 815 (IL), 816 (MO)
     635 :319 (IA), 507 (MN)
     636 :218 (MN), 605 (SD), 701 (ND)
     638 :406 (MT), 605 (SD), 701 (ND)
     640 :307 (WY), 308 (NE), 402 (NE), 406 (MT), 507 (MN), 605 (SD), 701 (ND), 712 (IA)
     644 :308 (NE), 402 (NE), 605 (SD), 712 (IA), 816 (MO)
     646 :303 (CO), 307 (WY), 308 (NE), 605 (SD), 913 (KS)
     648 :208 (ID), 406 (MT)
     650 :307 (WY), 406 (MT), 701 (ND)
     652 :208 (ID), 307 (WY), 503 (OR), 702 (NV), 801 (UT)
     654 :208 (ID), 303 (CO), 307 (WY), 308 (NE), 406 (MT), 605 (SD), 801 (UT)
     656 :303 (CO), 308 (NE), 719 (CO), 801 (UT)
     658 :719 (CO)
     660 :303 (CO), 602 (AZ), 702 (NV), 801 (UT)
     664 :505 (NM), 915 (TX)
     666 :602 (AZ), 619 (CA), 801 (UT)
     668 :505 (NM), 602 (AZ)
     670 :503 (OR), 916 (CA)
     672 :206 (WA), 503 (OR), 509 (WA)
     674 :206 (WA), 509 (WA)
     676 :208 (ID), 503 (OR), 509 (WA)
     720 :503 (OR), 702 (NV), 916 (CA)
     721 :702 (NV)
     722 :408 (CA), 415 (CA), 510 (CA), 707 (CA)
     724 :916 (CA)
     726 :916 (CA)
     728 :209 (CA)
     730 :213 (CA), 310 (CA), 602 (AZ), 619 (CA), 714 (CA), 805 (CA), 818 (CA)
     732 :619 (CA)
     734 :805 (CA)
     736 :408 (CA)
     738 :209 (CA)
     740 :805 (CA)
     832 :907 (AK)
     834 :808 (HI)
     840 :403 (AB)
     842 :604 (BC)
     844 :204 (MB)
     846 :506 (NB)
     848 :709 (NF)
     850 :403 (AB), 819 (PQ)
     852 :902 (NS)
     854 :416 (ON), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 705 (ON), 807 (ON)
     856 :902 (NS)
     858 :416 (ON), 418 (PQ), 514 (PQ), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 819 (PQ)
     860 :306 (SK)
     862 :403 (AB)
     920 :203 (CT)
     921 :516 (NY)
     922 :513 (OH), 606 (KY), 812 (IN)
     923 :216 (OH), 419 (OH), 513 (OH), 614 (OH)
     924 :814 (PA)
     927 :703 (VA)
     928 :804 (VA)
     929 :703 (VA)
     930 :804 (VA)
     932 :304 (WV), 703 (VA)
     937 :317 (IN), 513 (OH)
     938 :217 (IL), 812 (IN)
     939 :813 (FL)
     949 :919 (NC)
     951 :919 (NC)
     952 :813 (FL)
     953 :904 (FL)
     956 :615 (TN), 703 (VA)
     958 :402 (NE), 712 (IA), 913 (KS)
     960 :208 (ID), 406 (MT), 509 (WA)
     961 :915 (TX)
     963 :406 (MT)
     973 :619 (CA)
     974 :716 (NY), 716 (NY)
     976 :217 (IL)
     977 :217 (IL), 309 (IL)
     978 :618 (IL)
     980 :602 (AZ)
     981 :801 (UT)
     999 :504 (LA)


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Paul Robinson, Contractor" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 92  20:10:03 EDT
Subject: One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines


Some people asked why some L.A.T.A.'s cross state lines.  Here's one
good reason.

The L.A.T.A. for the Washington, DC area includes DC, the Virginia
Counties of Arlington and Fairfax and the "independent cities" of
Fairfax, Alexandria, Falls Church, Vienna as well as Loudoun County
(Dulles Airport) and certain parts of the 703 area code, as well as
the Maryland Counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges and parts of
Howard County.

Most of this area is a local call to people in this area.  A very
small part of calls to the edges are toll calls.

This is why this L.A.T.A. area crosses a state boundary, because
otherwise people here would have to pay a toll charge by time for a
call across the street.  (And I mean that literally: There is a
restaurant called "The State Line" at the Intersection of Georgia
Avenue and E/W Highway in Silver Spring, MD.  Across the street from
it is a Roy Rogers which is across the state line in DC.  A phone call
from one to the other is a local call.  If they weren't in the same
L.A.T.A. we would have to pay toll charges for calls which used to be
local calls.


Paul Robinson


[Moderator's Note: But there is no rule that two places close together
which happen to be in different LATAs have to have a (relatively) high
price attached to the call is there?  People along the Wisconsin and
Illinois boundary (with a couple of exceptions, Antioch, IL and North
Antioch, WI being one; Beloit, WI and South Beloit, IL being another)
are in different LATAs, yet the calls are at local calling rates.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Subject: Where to Find BELLCORE Documents?
Date: 30 May 92 17:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Chafe)
Organization: University of California, Davis


Does anyone know of a place I could go to look at parts of a Bellcore
document (specifically TRNWT334, formerly TRNPL334)?  Bellcore charges
$90 for this document which supposedly contains switched voice line
transmission parameters.  If I pay $90 and it doesn't contain what I
am looking for, that would not be pleasant.  Has anyone heard of
libraries stocking Bellcore documents?


Steve Chafe   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 02:36:25 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computers/Telecom/Society Event at ROM


Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum will feature an evening on "Heaven or
Hell? Computers, Telecommunications and Society" with Dr. Anthony
Wensley, assistant professor, information systems, University of
Toronto on 17th June, 6-8:30 pm. This is part of ROM's Connecting
series which is a singles event in the ROM's Members Lounge. Cost is
$12 ($10 for ROM members) and advance registration is strongly
recommended as most events in the Connecting series tend to sell out
early. For more information or to reserve, call [phone].


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Calling Number Transport (was 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 13:25:49 GMT


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

> In addition, if memory serves me, CID can't be carried across any
> boundary unless any and all exchanges.

> LATAs/Area Codes in between have the capability to pass such calls.

Not quite; calling number can't be carried between switches unless all
trunks are SS7-signaled.  This means that calling number can't be
carried across a LATA boundary unless the originating path is SS7
signaled, the originating LEC/IXC interconnection is SS7 signaled, the
IXC path is SS7 signaled, the IXC/terminating LEC interconnection is
SS7 signaled, and the terminating path is SS7 signaled.  The LEC/IXC
interconnections are what are most commonly not SS7, currently.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #431
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15495;
          30 May 92 23:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13919
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 22:10:52 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02449
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 22:10:44 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 22:10:44 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #432

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 22:10:22 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 432

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Jack Decker)
    Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective (Phil Howard)
    Re: Autoline+ Problems (Paul Cook)
    Re: MCI Message Call Ignored as TeleSlime (Phil Howard)
    TCP/IP and Rcp Performance Over Satellite? (Doug A. Chan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 06:51:13 GMT


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

> Perhaps, but perhaps not when people see the price.  950 numbers pay
> Carrier Common Line rates (see Fred Goldstein's informative article a
> day or two ago) which means that AT&T pays about $5/hr for incoming
> calls to the number, a cost which presumably has to be passed on to
> the customer as a surcharge on a service's hourly rate.  How much is
> it worth to you not to have to look up a phone number?

> Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of access and rates that the
> infamous 1987 "modem tax" flap was about, and which packet nets have
> so far successfully avoided.

> [Moderator's Note: I am not aware of any charges on my bill as a
> result of using 950-1288 to access AT&T Mail or the FYI News Service
> they bought from WUTCO.   PAT]

It is the subscriber to the 950 number that pays the access charge,
not the caller.  In the case of 950-1288, AT&T pays the $5/hour for
calls it receives.  It must somehow pass that cost on to its
customers, probably to the data services that are reachable via
950-1288.  These services must in turn cover the $5/hour plus whatever
the data charges that AT&T has along to the end user in the form of
usage costs for the data service.  One advantage of the 950 number is
that the $5/hour covers calls from anywhere in the LATA, so that even
after passing the $5/hour on to the caller in the form of usage
charges, it's still a lot cheaper than making most intra-LATA long
distance calls (many times cheaper in many cases).  To do this
otherwise would require separate numbers spread throughout the LATA to
provide local access, or require access via an 800 number.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 08:32:21 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

>> I anticipate a very high demand for a *use the same number anywhere*
>> system.

   High demand has already generated such a system -- it's called "800
numbers" (or 900 if the caller pays).  The big problem with 950
numbers is the small number space (sorta' like bandwidth -- there's
not enough to meet the demand).  Today there's 950-0XXX and 950-1XXX;
in a year or so, it's 950-XXXX.  But there's still only 10,000 numbers
(and carriers with 10XXX automatically get the 0/1 numbers today).
That's around 1% of the 800 number space.  That means number exhaust
and re-assignment problems.  It's also why Bellcore (as the North
American Numbering Plan Administrator) does not "endorse" the use of
950 numbers as "national" subscriber numbers.

   In their 1992 proposal, Bellcore's stated perspective is:

     "Short (7-digit) numbers have long been considered attractive for
     purposes not consistent with DDD planning.  One 7-digit number ...
     would have clear commercial advantages.  However, justification and
     means for providing such numbers in an even-handed manner to all
     applicants, particularly given the limitation of only 10,000
     possible subscribers nationwide, have yet to be found. ...  As
     custodians of a shared resource, the NANPA must not confer
     advantages on a few while burdening the many."

   Two other points are mentioned: 1) no new seven-digit national
prefixes will be assigned by the Administrator (950 was an "interim"
access plan for carriers -- requiring further dialing to reach a
destination.  The MFJ, FCC and the tariffs, unfortunately, did not
include a sunset clause.)  and 2) the Administrator is required to
"Administer the NANP resources fairly and impartially to the mutual
benefit of users and service providers ..."

> Perhaps, but perhaps not when people see the price.  950 numbers pay
> Carrier Common Line rates (see Fred Goldstein's informative article a
> day or two ago) which means that AT&T pays about $5/hr for incoming
> calls to the number, a cost which presumably has to be passed on to
> the customer as a surcharge on a service's hourly rate.  How much is
> it worth to you not to have to look up a phone number?

    The rate is the same that AT&T pays for just about any LEC-handled
call that hits it's network.  So it's no more than an 800 call would
cost (in access charges).  If Domino's can save you the hassle of
looking up their number -- and also the possibility of seeing someone
elses number -- then $5/hour looks pretty cheap.  Note that the
caller's charge for calling a 950 number is up to the 950-provider --
just like 900 numbers.  If the provider wants to eat the cost as part
of its service, that's fine.  But some other 950-provider might just
hit you with $120/call, just like a 900/976 number.

> Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of access and rates that the
> infamous 1987 "modem tax" flap was about, and which packet nets have
> so far successfully avoided.

   True -- wonder if IXCs could claim "exemption" if they could show
that calls are routed internally as "packets" in a SONET network???

> [Moderator's Note: I am not aware of any charges on my bill as a
> result of using 950-1288 to access AT&T Mail or the FYI News Service
> they bought from WUTCO.   PAT]

   Remember that this might not be true for calls to other 950 numbers.


Al Varney -- the above are not Official AT&T words or views.

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:17:13 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS


In message <[e-mail]>, "Ken Jongsma x7702"
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Remember that funny AT&T number we were talking about a few months
> back?  The one that looked like a Feature Group B Access number, but
> wasn't?  Well, AT&T has a two page ad in {Communications Week} this
> week entitled:

>           "AT&T InterSpan Information Access Service 950-1ATT"

>                          Service Highlights

>      * Toll-free, nationwide 7-digit number access (800 access available)

It's not nationwide yet.  In particular, calls from the 906 area code,
632/635 exchange (Sault Ste. Marie, served by Michigan Bell) are
routed to an intercept operator (a live one!) who asks for the number
you called, then apparently punches it into the computer.  Then the
canned recording of "The number you have reached, 950-1288, is not in
service ..." comes on.

Of course, MCI's 950-1022 doesn't work from up here, either.  Some
other 950 numbers do, though (I won't say which ones to protect those
carriers from calls made out of idle curiosity), but only from home or
business phones, NOT from telephone-company owned and operated coin
phones.

Given that we are a remote area, some of these glitches don't surprise
me much ... but I *do* find it odd that the AT&T number doesn't work,
since they are still pretty much the dominent carrier around here
(having been the ONLY carrier available when Equal Access was
implemented, as I pointed out in a previous message).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Not Guaranteed Effective
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 21:09:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


[e-mail] (Andy Sherman) writes:

> This was not creative billing.  This was ordinary hum-drum business as
> usual.  I realize that this will disappoint the conspiracy theorists
> among us ...

I'm not accusing of conspiracy.  I'm saying that the hum-drum is just
technically incorrect.

I still don't know how the call setup gets translated into a bill.
But it certainly should include a CALLED-NUMBER field.  Then if the
carriers need to make sure that they are not stuck with services being
acquired through forwarded 800 numbers, then they need to make sure
that either the calls don't go through as forwarded, or the data is
"fixed" on forwarding, or whatever.

Personally if I ever get a billing for a number that is different than
the number I actually called, my accusation to the phone company will
be that of "fraud" regardless of the technical reasons, and it will be
persued through legal channels if the phone company does not fix it
immediately on the first call to them about it.


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

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 19:04 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoline+ Problems


douglas camp <[e-mail]> writes:

> I recently purchased an AUTOLINE+ from ITS Communications which
> detects distinctive ringing patterns to route calls to different
> devices. I'm having some problems: (1) I'm getting complaints about
> how long the phone rings before I answer it. Althought the AUTOLINE+
> is only supposed to absorb one 'ringing sequence' it seems to get at
> least two and sometimes three. Also, my fax machine seems a little
> finicky when attached to the switch -- although the call is routed to
> the correct device (fax), about half the time the fax is unable to
> receive an incoming fax, and quits after connecting.

The ring detect is adjustable.  Sometimes it is more reliable to have
it detect two ring cycles.  This is because sometimes the "regular"
ring will come in as a partial ring, and be misinterpreted as a double
ring.  So while it takes longer to process the call, it is usually
more reliable if set for more than one ring.

If the fax machine seems finicky, try testing with a standard single
line phone in place of the fax.  Run a bunch of test calls and see if
you get the same problems.  You should be able to hear the phone ring
and talk on the phone without interruption.  The Autoline+ is supposed
to be passive to ringing voltage, so the fax machine should be seeing
the same signal that the phone company puts out.

> One final complaint -- I bought this thing direct from the company,
> and they don't take American Express -- so I had to pay COD. I hate
> doing this because once they've cashed the check, I don't have any
> recourse. When asked about their return policy, they would only say
> 'don't worry, we'll make it work'.

> Anyone had/solved similar problems (at least the technical ones :>)
> with this device?

Yep.  I put one in at a friend's house.  It works great, but there
were a few programming problems to iron out.  My friend has his set up
so that it sits only in front of the fax.  So all the phones in the
house give a double ring when a fax call comes in, and he doesn't
answer it.  For awhile he was convinced that "the darn thing wasn't
working" because a "fax call" would come in and the machine wouldn't
take it.  I managed to convice him that these were merely misdialed
calls to his second number, and not actually fax machines calling him.
I verified this by calling the number over and over, and the fax
machine always answered.

The folks at ITS are very helpful, and they mean it when they say
"don't worry, we'll make it work."  At one point my friend thought he
was having a problem (he isn't very phone savvy, and had bungled a
rewiring attempt) and ITS sent him a free advance replacement at their
expense.


Paul Cook                          206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates          MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.             fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: MCI Message Call Ignored as TeleSlime
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 20:46:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


MPA15AB![e-mail] writes:

> While on vacation recently, I used the MCI message center (or whatever
> they call it) service.  I had been getting a busy signal while trying
> to call my aunt all day, and needed to get in touch with her regarding
> my visit (which was next on the trip).  So I decided to try MCI's
> service (which is much like ATT's similiar service).  After getting
> yet another busy, I pressed "#" for two seconds, then pressed *44, and
> answered the prompts.

> Turns out when it called my aunt, she answered the phone, heard
> something like "This is the MCI message center with a message for",
> <her name in my voice>, and she hung up, assuming it was a junk phone
> call.  (She didn't recognize my voice).

> I think the prevelence of teleslime will hinder the usefulness of
> these services.

I would like to see some sort of access code system.  I would punch
into to my phone a few access codes (so I don't have to give everyone
the same one code).  When anyone calls me, they won't get ring yet,
but rather a beep prompt for the access code (falling back to a voice
recording to enter the access code if nothing entered soon, and then
on to an intercept if not entered or entered wrong).

I should be able to set my phone line to:

1.  No access code required for all access.

2.  No access code required to ring, but access code required to interrupt
    as in call waiting.

3.  Access code required to ring or interrupt.

I should also be able to define the access codes as ring-only or as
ring-or-interrupt.

I want at least four different access codes and a variable number of
digits per access code (at least 20).


I currently use the following technique to filter out teleslime: I
have my answering machine speaker at a high volume.  The recording
tells the caller that the phone does not ring (actually it does but I
don't answer it based on the ring) and that they need to announce WHO
THEY ARE.  I will pick up if I am and AND want to talk to them.  I
mention this is needed for collect calls and end the message
suggesting that if I do not answer they can leave a message.

The problem with this, which would also be the same with a DTMF access
system on the customer premise is that the caller gets tapped for the
connection.  My announcement is 15 seconds and if they want to talk to
me they have to deal with at least another several seconds to say who
they are and wait for me to come to the phone (most people have not
realized yet they have to wait as long as an ordinary ring time) so
they end up with a toll call if it is billable.

All outward calls to potential teleslimers or sources of numbers for
teleslimers are made from the same line the above system is on.  I
have another phone line that is unlisted, no machine, a distinctive
ring sound, and an extension by my bed.  My close friends get that
number, and it is not used to call any business.

I did once get a teleslime cold marketing call where they were
apprently going by number on my private line.  I answered with "hello"
and they started out with the pitch.  I figured they didn't know me
because at the end of the pitch they asked me my name.  My response on
this call was DEAD SILENCE.  I did not hang up; I just did not speak.
After a couple of "hello"'s, the guy just hung up and so far never
called back.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug A. Chan)
Subject: TCP/IP and Rcp Performance Over Satellite?
Date: 30 May 92 04:06:38 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA


I'm looking for info on the performance of TCP/IP-based software when
it is run over links with large end-to-end delays (ie. satellite
hops).

In particular, the performance of rcp (which is actually UDP based
 ...) over such connections. I'm not too familiar with the underlying
pieces which make up the rcp program so it's difficult for me to
calculate the performance.

 - How efficient is it as packet arrival times increase? (200ms...1sec)
 - Can anyone point out some published results/tests/calculations?


Doug    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #432
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16954;
          31 May 92 0:35 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15293
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 22:49:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01515
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 22:48:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 22:48:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #433

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 22:49:03 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 433

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (Bud Couch)
    Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Jay Ashworth)
    1-ESS And *67 (John Desmond)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Charles Stephens)
    Re: GTE Stories (Robert S. Helfman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 19:26:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Alan L Varney) writes:

>   In general, the rules for the LATA maps were based on the Standard
> Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).  In the middle of drawing up
> the LATAs, the Feds changed SMSAs to MSAs, and merged/altered them
> somewhat.  The LATA maps were changed in some cases to fit the new MSA
> boundaries.  LATAs could not divide an exchange area (a switch can't
> be in two LATAs).  This forced some "funny" boundaries such as the two
> small Oregon areas across the Washington border near Walla Walla that
> are part of the "Spokane" LATA (# 676).

What does it take to get "official" LATA maps? Do they change?  If so,
how often?

This also reminds me of another frequent question:

Is there an *accessible* database of what exchanges are in a given
area code or LATA? This info is of us to *lots* of people outside the
phone companies (FIDO BBS operators trying to set up call cost tables,
for one)


Leonard Erickson              [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]             [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56     [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 17:29:23 GMT


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

> After the initial LATAs were drawn up, including areas that were
> GTE and "Independent", GTE signed their own consent decree, similar to
> the Bell System's.  In general, the LATA maps determine not only
> "permitted" intra-BOC traffic areas, but also determine which GTE and

Their "own" consent decree? That's news to me, since I don't think
that the Justice department ever sued GTE in Federal Court on
anti-trust charges.  How could they "consent" to a legal action to
which they were not a party?

> other "Independent" areas can directly connect to the BOC.  Also, many
> LATAs exist that contain no BOC exchanges.

GTE may well use LATAs, but it is a matter of FCC regs and their own
tariffs, not a function of a federal court order.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think that once the AT&T case was concluded, the
Justice Department went to GTE and offered them the option of agreeing
to the same sort of thing or facing suit to force them to do as AT&T
had done.  I think GTE agreed to save much expense.  Thus, 'their own
consent decree'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Area Code Discussion From RelayNet
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 07:04:15 GMT


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

[stuff about LA Cellular and 213/310 split deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: What do they say when you ask them when it will be
> dialable again? Why don't you ask them when their service will be able
> to call people in the other area code and see what they say?   PAT]

They blame it on Pacific Bell and GTE.  Now that permissive dialing is
over when calling from either Pacific Bell or GTE, and calls to 310
numbers still get put through when calling from LA Cellular, this
pretty much points to some funny business going on in the cellular
switch.  It is changing the area code from 213 to the correct 310 for
those prefixes that have moved into 310.  This would be fine if
specifying the real area code of 310 worked for these numbers!

When permissive dialing was still in effect, the same problem was
happening, but it was harder to lay blame on LA Cellular, at least
from their point of view.  When I asked why I couldn't dial 310
numbers, I was told that "Pacific Bell hasn't issued us any 310
numbers for our subscribers."  I told them how even though this may be
true, that it should not affect me being able to dial into 310.  She
again repeated since they didn't have any 310 prefixes assigned to
them, that they could not complete calls into 310.  I then asked how
it was that I was able to call my office in Seattle, WA (area code
206), since LA Cellular obviously does not have any prefixes in 206
assigned to them.  All I got was silence.

Oh, and by the way, as if things weren't bad enough, all of those
calls where I dialed correctly using 310, but had the call end in
reorder, appeared on my bill as uncompleted calls.  LA Cellular
charges half a minute for uncompleted calls, which for roamers equates
to 49 cents for each reorder!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 13:47:44 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> I really get pissed when someone who shoots his mouth off when he does
> not know what he is saying about the telecomunications industry. First
> the problems with the 213/310 change over where not GTE's problem. We
> cut all of our switching centers at once. PacBell and a few if the
> Interlata carriers set their cuts for one or two at a time. That caused
> major problems since people were dialing from different areas. I don't
> say GTE did not make any errors as this was one major cut and the
> problems in LA sure did not help any. Get your facts straight.

I'm pleased to see that there is actually some representation from GTE
in this forum, since they are the largest independent telco in the
world.

Might I suggest, however, that it is usually unhelpful to take a
defensive posture when dealing in the world of ASCII intercommun-
ication?  Such a posture does come across quite clearly, and it tends
to lessen the impact of whatever facts you present upon those who read
it.

Sort of "nyah nyah, so there!"...

Glad to have you aboard, Gloria.


Cheers,

Jay R. Ashworth                                  [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy                 f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology                         petexch.relay.net}


[Moderator's Note: Actually as I understand it, 'Gloria' is a generic
account used by many different people. I don't think real Gloria has
ever posted here ... just people in that department.  True/false?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 23:38:24 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> If you have "line blocking" *67 *enables* Caller-ID transmission for
> that call only.

> To know the state with which you are dialing, you need to know the
> "default" state of the line.

I hate to have to point this out, particularly to a fellow FidoNet
resident (:-), but _that's the point_.  I don't know for certain (and
perhaps Andy Sherman, or someone at bellcore can clarify), but I don't
believe there's _any way_ to find out the default state of a line.
Short of calling a friend with CNID ...


Cheers,

Jay R. Ashworth                    [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy   f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology           petexch.relay.net}


[Moderator's Note: Simple. You would ask the person who owned the
phone line. In most instances, your use of *67 would probably be on
your own phone line anyway, and you *know* what that status is. So if
you use my phone for a single call, you ask me my status.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Desmond)
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 01:30:35 -0600
Subject: 1-ESS And *67


[e-mail] wrote:

> 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).

  An additional note.  In order for the 1A ESS to support CLASS/SS7,
the 1A must be equipped with a 3B20D (3B20 Duplex) attatched processor
and a CNI Ring. Currently 1A offices are being equipped with either
the 3D or the 3E generic for the 3B APS.  The 1A side should be on at
least generic 10. Genreic 11 is required for IXC/SS7 signaling.

  The CNI Ring is a 3B peripherial device and is the interface between
the A-links to the Signalling Transfer Points (STP's) and the 56Kb
DSU's.  Up to now, the task the 3B has played in the 1A switch has
been just that of a file storage system for the 1A processor.  Now
with SS7 on-board, it's job is much more important.  Previously a 1A
switch could run for quite a long time if the 3B were to have a duplex
failure.  The 3B is a VERY reliable piece if equipment though.  I have
never seen a complete duplex failure in one, and very little trouble
in general in the 3B.

  BTW, the AT&T 5E uses the CNI ring hardware since the Administrative
Moduel (AM) is a 3B20D too.  Looks like AT&T got two for one on the
development of the CNI ring.  :) There are some subtle differences of
course, but they are largely the same hardware.


John Desmond, K0TG
The Dark Knight's Table BBS [phone]
9600 V32bis V42bis HST  Minnetonka, Minnesota
Domain: [username]@tdkt.kksys.com  UUCP: ...!umn-cs!kksys!tdkt![username]

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 08:32:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> What is the purpose of the three tones (I believe ascending in
> pitch) that you hear before you hear the "We're sorry, you must first
> dial a 1" message or the similar messages?

> Does it tell the phone system that there *wasn't* actually a
> billable "off hook"?  That's the only thing I can think of, but if
> that's true, it would seem that phreakers could just record it and
> play it right after someone answers when they make a long distance
> call.

   They are "Special Information Tones (SIT)."  Bellcore (in "Notes on
the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986", TR-NPL-000275) uses the word
"Special" because the tones aren't there for subscribers.  The
original (and still primary) use was to allow automated call detection
devices to easily classify call failures by type (Service Evaluation
Systems, for example).  There are 7 SIT sequences defined by Bellcore,
using the CCITT-defined (see Q.35) combination of 2 Low tones, 2
Middle tones and 1 High tone, each of either a short (274 msec) or
long (380 msec) duration.

   The SIT tones are assigned to categories called Reorder, Vacant
Code, No Circuit, Intercept and Ineffective Other.  Each specific
announcement or tone-generating condition is assigned to one of those
categories.  For Inter-LATA calls, there are IC versions of Reorder
and Vacant Code that attempt to distinguish whether the condition is
due to LEC or IC problems.

   So the tones are really just an aid to allow some calls to be
monitored automatically, and classified as to type of completion.  For
privacy reasons, as well as capacity, this is not a job you would want
to assign to a person.  This means some mechanism is needed to
classify calls based on tone analysis.  Busy, reorder and other tones
are pretty easy to detect.  But it's very hard to tell the difference
between an call answered by an answering machine and a failure
recording without the SIT.  Anyway, that's the reason for SITs.  Some
modem manufacturers may also recognize the SITs (as well as busy,
etc.) and provide the user with a call failure indication.

   Telephone service providers that care about the quality of their
service need to have some idea of the percentage of calls that fail to
complete.  SITS help in that measurement.  But billing is not under
control of analog tones any more, except in those cases where a
service provider can't (or won't) get access to "answer supervision".
And having the caller play SIT wouldn't work in most cases, because
only the "backward" connection is monitored for the tones.  Of course,
if you want to play SITs when ANSWERING your telephone, you are free
to do so -- just expect most callers to hang up right away.


Al Varney - just my opinion, not one of AT&Ts

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


From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:19:40 GMT


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

> What is the purpose of the three tones (I believe ascending in
> pitch) that you hear before you hear the "We're sorry, you must first
> dial a 1" message or the similar messages?

Subscriber Information Tone (informally known as "oooWHHEEEooo") is
not detected anywhere in any switch I am aware of. It is intended to
alert the subscriber that the voice about to follow is not a human
being, and thus arguing with it or asking for somebody is useless.
This may sound silly, but you would be surprised how many people
immediately talk into a phone when they hear ringing stop. This is
getting trained out of people by the answering machines, but having
the phone answered by a tape recorder used to be a really odd
situation.


Kevin Wayne Williams    AG Communication Systems (nee Automatic Electric)

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 01:06:00 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted


Javier Henderson <[e-mail]> writes:

> In GTE areas in So. Cal, you can dial your own number, and hang up,
> and your phone will ring.

Last time I checked, this was dependent on whether you have call
waiting active.  If you don't have it or turn it off (prepend 70# to
your phone number), this 'service' doesn't work.


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

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

Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Charles Stephens)
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 12:17:59 EDT
Organization: COW Pastures


[e-mail] writes:

> In GTE areas in So. Cal, you can dial your own number, and hang up,
> and your phone will ring.

        Sometimes, when you have call forwarding on with call waiting
can you call the number you are dailing from you get a ring back.

> You can dial 114 to find out what your number is.

        In some BellSouth areas you can dial 311 to get the same effect.


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] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: GTE Stories
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 06:44:35 GMT


 From 1979 to 1983, I lived in Redondo Beach, CA, which is GTE
territory.  I had one 376- number, which was a GTE line, and a 772-
number, which was a Los Angeles foreign exchange line from PacBell
(using GTE battery in the local loop).

It used to be amazing to pick up both phones at the same time and note
that the dialtone would sometimes take 10-20 seconds to come up on the
GTE line but would be so fast on the PacBell line that you sometimes
couldn't even hear the delay at all.

During the first year (1979-1980), I had a partner in my condo and he
also had a 376- GTE line. One night, neither of our 376- lines could
get a dialtone at all -- battery, yes, but no dialtone. That condition
lasted four hours and there was absolutely no explanation for it -- no
natural disaster, no riots, nada! It disappeared as mysteriously as it
appeared.

The number of misdialed numbers on those GTE lines was also simply
unbelievable -- probably two out of five calls would not go through on
the first try.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #433
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18888;
          31 May 92 1:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16892
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 23:23:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12542
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 23:22:55 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 23:22:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #434

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 23:22:53 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 434

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop? (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop? (Carl Wright)
    Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Michael J. Graven)
    Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women (Arthur Rubin)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Charles Stephens)
    Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Bruce Albrecht)
    Re: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Typical GTE (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error" (Jack Decker)
    Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted (Roger Corron)
    Re: Multi-Ring Detection (Patton M. Turner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29-MAY-1992 05:09:35.97
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop


On Wed, 27 May 1992, Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Cellular One recently installed a software upgrade from Motorola.
> This upgrade prevents a call forwarded from one cellular phone to a
> second cellular phone to get further forwarded to the second phone's
> Message Plus when the second phone is off.

Right ... if you are running the new Autonomous Registration stuff
that Motorola has been pushing, then I think you are running the same
thing that we have in Metro Mobile (and Cell One/South Jersey).

Basically, you want Cell-A -> Cell-B -> landline/voicemail
destination.

What you do is UNforward "Cell-B" by hitting *73 (the usual Motorola
code, or maybe *70). This will get rid of ANY type of forwarding, with
the possible exception of voicemail. (although it should get rid of VM
as well, if you are allowed to control the "no-answer-transfer"
feature from your phone, usually via *71.)

After you UNforward "B", forward "A" to "B". Then have "B" forward to
wherever.  This will allow it to work properly.

> This forwarding worked before the upgrade.

Yeah, but if you are running the same software that we have here, you
need to do it. I know it is annoying and silly, but its not your Cell
co's fault -- Motorola did this.

> The unsatisfactory explanation I was given is that this second
> forwarding causes some sort of a billing loop.

That's more or less what I heard ... its not really a "billing loop",
but it was implemented to stop loops where one mobile forwards to the
other, and then the second forwards back to the first. From what I
understand, previous software releases just allowed this to go on, and
trunks were siezed over and over again, until all of them were used
up. This would be a problem if the numbers were located in two
different switches within the same system. Thus, if this loop would
occur, a call placed to a mobile number residing in one switch of a
given cellular system could not be connected outside the switch (ie,
to other switches in the system) since all the trunks would be tied up
with the forwarding, etc.

I think Motorola's response was a bit drastic, but perhaps I do not
understand the gravity of the situation. It seems to me that the EMX
can just check to make sure that after A forwards to B which forwards
to C, etc, that at no time in this chain will a call go back to A, or
even B or C, ie, "no loops allowed".  Othwerise, it should allow
forwarding just like it used to. But I'm not a Motorola switch-tech,
so perhaps someone with more detailed info on EMXs and software can
respond to why Motorola chose the "solution" which they did.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Wright)
Subject: Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop?
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 10:56:29 EDT
Organization: UMCC - Ann Arbor, MI  USA


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Cellular One recently installed a software upgrade from Motorola.

> This upgrade prevents a call forwarded from one cellular phone to a
> second cellular phone to get further forwarded to the second phone's
> Message Plus when the second phone is off.  The caller gets a
> recording stating that the called phone is off or out of the area.

> This forwarding worked before the upgrade.

> The unsatisfactory explanation I was given is that this second
> forwarding causes some sort of a billing loop.

Without getting my manuals out for Motorola output data, I would guess
that the loop is more likely a case of the billing data written by the
switch becoming either too complex for the billing system or the data
output by the switch doesn't have sufficent information to correctly
bill.

When the switches get more features, the call recording data doesn't
always get everything needed to do billing.

There are a surprising number of ways to get free calls on cellular
switches when you know how to structure the calls. I won't say more
because I don't want the cariers to lose deserved revenue. It is a
side effect of the constant changes that the cellular carriers are
undergoing.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Cellular One Forwarding Billing Loop?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 20:16:34 GMT


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

> Cellular One recently installed a software upgrade from Motorola.

> This upgrade prevents a call forwarded from one cellular phone to a
> second cellular phone to get further forwarded to the second phone's
> Message Plus when the second phone is off.  The caller gets a
> recording stating that the called phone is off or out of the area.

> This forwarding worked before the upgrade.

> The unsatisfactory explanation I was given is that this second
> forwarding causes some sort of a billing loop.

The answer I got is that it "ties up too many trunks."  The rep said
that some people with three or four phones want to have no-answer
transfer set up so that there is effectively a hunt group, with the
last phone going to voicemail if none of them are available.  This,
according to the rep, would tie up four or five "trunks."  Of course,
we all know this is balogna.  It may lead to longer than normal call
setup times, though.  I'm not quite sure what their motivation is for
doing this.  I can understand why they would want to put some limit on
the number of hops, so that somebody doesn't create a chain of ten
numbers that caused a call setup time of two minutes, but I would
think three or four hops would be reasonable to allow.  Perhaps it's
just one of the many ways that cellular carriers set up their service
so that it can't be too useful to someone.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 01:15:50 CDT
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)


Jim Morton (applix![e-mail]) writes:

> [Talkoff] is a problem that is well known by a lot of administrators of
> Northern Telecom Meridian Mail voicemail systems.

Talkoff is well-known by anyone who's read {Engineering and Operations
in the Bell System}.  And it's well-known by anyone who's had to
digitize voice for a voice-response system.  I've had a tough time
with a few AT&T Conversant and Conversant 2 systems as well as the odd
Voice Power board.

A good digital notch filter on three of the DTMF frequencies will cure
most of the ills without too much noticeable effect, especially if
you're digitizing at 64 kb/s.


Michael     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Voice Mail Hanging up on Women
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 30 May 92 17:16:23 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <[e-mail]> applix![e-mail] (Jim Morton
[ext 237]) 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 is a problem that is well known by a lot of administrators of
> Northern Telecom Meridian Mail voicemail systems. Northern called this
> problem "talk-off" and it was a big problem in releases 3 and 4 of
> Meridian Mail ... not just a Rolm problem!

A long time ago, I had an answering machine with a "tone box" to
generate a tone for remote access.  Apparently, a friend's voice
matched the tone well enough that he couldn't leave a message, but
heard the messages on the tape instead!


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

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

Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number
From: [e-mail] (Charles Stephens)
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 12:29:53 EDT
Organization: COW Pastures


[e-mail] (Phil Howard) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: There was a person a couple years ago who had (and
>> actually requested) the number 800-EAT-7448. He wanted to find out
>> what sort of people would call that number; apparently many did
>> because the phone rang constantly, I am told.  PAT]

        That number tells you call the 900 number.

> [Moderator's Note: I believe someone does have that 'service' going
> now, for reasons best left to the imagination.   PAT]

        At three dollars a minute, I think my imagination is going to
work over time on that one.


Charles Stephens, SysOp, COW Pastures BBS, Kennesaw, GA  [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >INTERNET: [e-mail]
Prodigy: NOT!  IVCNTWPAHR: [phone]  ICBM:  <CENSORED>

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 00:25:42 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number


Our fearless Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: There was a person a couple years ago who had (and
> actually requested) the number 800-EAT-7448. He wanted to find out
> what sort of people would call that number; apparently many did
> because the phone rang constantly, I am told.  PAT]

It's probably all the people who wanted to report someone's bad driving!


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 21:01:31 -0500
Subject: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded?


[e-mail] (Ron) writes:

>> One law enforcement agency who had arrested a deaf person (I believe it
>> was several years ago) allowed the deaf person to make a call -- a TT
>> call -- but the call contained his admission to the crime so the
>> officers confiscated the TT printout to use it against him in court.

> Depends who the call was to.  If to an attorney, then it probably
> could have been successfully argued that it was priveleged
> communications, just as if it were a fax.

   If the original poster is referring to a 1990 Wisconsin case, then
I believe there are a few additional facts: the call was not to an
attorney but to a friend and the phone was not in the jail area but in
an area accessible to the public.

   My understanding was that the accused made a TDD call asking a
friend to come bail him out, and subsequently threw the paper printout
from the call in the trash, where it was seized by the police.  He
would have been well advised to either turn off the printer (if that's
possible), avoid making incriminating admissions over the phone
(always a good idea) or keep the printout with him (swallow it?).

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines
Date: 30 May 92 19:37:17 GMT
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


John Nagle writes:

> It would seem appropriate to insist that Pac Bell comply with the
> CCITT standards on telephone line quality assumed in the V.32
> specification.

> One might also point out that standard Group 3 FAX is 9600 bits/sec.

I of course think it would be great if we could count on V.32 working
on regular phone lines, but this may be too much to ask for.

One might also point out that Group 3 fax uses V.29 modulation, which
is 9600 bps *half duplex* and can tolerate much worse line conditions
than can full-duplex V.32.

Yes, other modulation schemes are used by fax, but they are all half
duplex so the same reasoning applies.


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 13:20:10 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Typical GTE
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The only real solution to motivating a monopoly that can't or won't
provide proper service is competition and that means multiple sources
of dial-tone within a geographical area; cable companies if necessary.
And, since *their* reputations are so wonderful in that respect, the
phone companies should be allowed into the broadcast distribution
business also.

  Here we go again ...


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:17:36 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error"


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Warren
Burstein) writes:

> I'm in Israel.  I needed to call a company, Solution Systems, for
> help.  So I dialed USA Direct, the number in their manual, (800)
> 821-2492 and my card/PIN.  A recording told me I had reached the sales
> line, if I wanted technical help I should dial 1-800-999-9663.  So I
> redialed USA Direct, the number (w/o the 1) and card/PIN and got
> several rings, followed by an intercept and a "number cannot be
> completed as dialed" message.

I suspect that the first 800 number is an AT&T 800 number, while the
second is provided by some other carrier (maybe MCI?).  Seems I recall
reading that AT&T operators will only connect you to AT&T 800 numbers?
You might try to find out if MCI has an equivalent to USA Direct, and
see if the call can be placed that way.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Corron)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 18:58:02 GMT


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

> I know of no consumer product that is consistently, across all the
> manufacturers, so badly designed, so over-priced relative to its
> quality (and to the cost of much more complex cellular phones)...

Cellular phones are both more complex than common cordless phones and
*much* more expensive when miniaturized to cordless size. The low
up-front purchase prices of the bulkier units are generally subsidized
by expensive calling plans. When purchased independently of a service
plan, the minimum price of a cellular phone is about $300.

The cliche that applies is "Give them the razor. Sell them the blades."


Roger Corron    Silicon Graphics  One Cabot Road, Hudson MA 01749
Phone: [phone]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 20:34:01 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Ring Detection


> I am not sure how they work third and fourth numbers...  Anyway I have
> heard that there is a device available that detect the double ring and
> routes those calls to a seperate device, such as a FAX machine.  This
> allows the small business owner to have only one physical phone line,
> but a separate fax number.  Does anyone know where such a device can
> be purchased?

David, how about including this one in the FAQ.

Try:

Know Ideas Inc  [phone]
ITS Communications, Endicott, NY 13760  800-333-0802 607-754-6310
Hello Direct 800-HIHELLO or [phone]
Lynx Automation, Inc., 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036
 [phone].

Cost is around 80 - 100 dollars. I have one and am very satisified.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #434
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19238;
          31 May 92 1:38 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30523
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 30 May 1992 23:51:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03516
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 30 May 1992 23:50:58 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 23:50:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #435

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 May 92 23:51:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 435

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One (John Higdon)
    Re: Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One (Michael Nolan)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Frederick Roeber)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Jim Rees)
    Re: Have I Been Slammed? (Jack Decker)
    Re: New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS (Carl Wright)
    Re: Usenet and Obscenity in Canada (Carl M. Kadie)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Ridder
    Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 02:28 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One


On May 29 at  2:12, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> So ... Centel and Sprint have decided to merge, and the resulting
> company will be the third largest telecom organization in the world,
> coming behind only Mother, and her nemesis MCI.

So let me see if I got this right: AT&T used to provide local and long
distance service until divestiture when it agreed to relieve itself of
its local exchange companies. This ended The Bell System.

Now it is OK to start putting it all back together again? Does this
mean that Spentel (or whatever it ought to be called) can start buying
up Ma and Pa telcos around the country and become, say, "one company,
one system"?

> And the new conglomeration will be the only one of the three (only one
> anywhere?) to offer not only long distance service AND local exchange
> service, but cellular service as well.

Scary is what it is. Just watching the advantages that Pac*Bell gives
to PacTel Cellular is enough to give one pause. The "other" cellular
carriers don't have a chance. (I remind you of the famous pay phone
fiasco where Pac*Bell public phones allowed FREE calls to any PacTel
mobile phone, in any exchange anywhere in the Bay Area. Went on for
years.)

> Exciting times ahead!

Excitement some of us could do without.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: Centel < === > Sprint: Now Merged Into One
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 14:22:12 GMT


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> So ... Centel and Sprint have decided to merge, and the resulting
> company will be the third largest telecom organization in the world,
> coming behind only Mother, and her nemesis MCI.

Not so fast.  Centel management may have agreed to the deal, but the
stockholders seem to be a bit less enthusiastic about it, perhaps
because Centel stock was selling in the mid $40's before the
announcement, and the deal is worth $32 or so per share.  Can you say
'class action lawsuit'?

Wall Street's initial reaction was to drop the price of Sprint's stock
by about 5% as well.

Locally (I'm in Lincoln, NE), the reaction is also less than positive,
because it is assumed that 1000 or so jobs will be eliminated, and
there are a bunch of Centel employees in Lincoln that are _very_
nervous.


Mike Nolan

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 12:45:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Leibold <Dave.Leibold@
f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org> writes:

> In the U.S., it is standard practice for payphones not to accept coins
> other than U.S. ones. In Canada, the phones tend to accept just about
> anything resembling Canadian coins, such as the U.S.  counterparts [...]

This is simple: the US monetary unit is worth more than its Canadian
counterpart.  So if you charge a Canadian quarter, and somebody offers
an American one, they are offering more.  If you charge a US quarter,
and are offered a Canadian one, they are offering less what you asked.

> The approach to foreign coins in Canada is overall more tolerant than
> in the U.S. This contrasts to an experience I had in the U.S. where
> even so much as a single Canadian penny gets thoroughly rejected at a
> coffee shop.

This does seem to be typical US xenophobia (and I've encountered it
too).

The Swiss are also very careful about rejecting incorrect coins in
their automatic machines.  Supposedly this is the famed "Swiss
craftmanship" but I think it's more their banking attitude: they'll
take any money you have, but you have to pay through the nose for the
privilige.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 18:05:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Leibold <Dave.Leibold@
f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org> writes:

> The approach to foreign coins in Canada is overall more tolerant than
> in the U.S. This contrasts to an experience I had in the U.S. where
> even so much as a single Canadian penny gets thoroughly rejected at a
> coffee shop.

Of course!  That's because Canadian coins are worth less money than
their US counterparts.  Still, I find that US businesses are
unreasonably reluctant to accept foreign money at all, even at a very
reasonable exchange rate.

> [Moderator's Note: Interesting you mention it. Here in Chicago there
> were problems for quite awhile with some Brazillian coin (I think it
> was a two centavo piece or some such worthless item) which turned out
> to be the same size (hundredth of an inch smaller) than Transit
> Authority subway tokens.

There is a French coin (five centimes?) that works in the Boston
subway turnstiles.  There is always a rash of them after spring break
at the local Universities.  I used to get them all the time in rolls
of tokens sold to me by the MBTA.  When I did, I always just used them
in the turnstiles myself.


[Moderator's Note: Well, I have gotten foreign coins and slugs in
rolls of tokens also, but I give them back and make them give me
actual tokens -- no matter what *they* sold you in the roll, the
agents won't accept them back for fares later on.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:16:51 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Have I Been Slammed?


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
Litzinger) wrote:

> 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.

My first guess would be that you've been assigned to whichever carrier
has PIC 511 (that is, the carrier you'd get if you dialed
10511-1-number).  Try dialing 10511-1-700-555-4141 and see if you get
the same recording.

> [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.

Some smaller carriers do not offer operator services, thus dialing
"00" might easily get you a reorder tone if you are presubscribed to
such a carrier.  I think it's highly likely that Pat is dead wrong
this time, and that you HAVE been slammed.

> Incidentally, why are you making this (no LD carrier) imposition
> upon yourself?  PAT]

Don't feel bad about this comment ... I do EXACTLY the same thing on
my line.  In part it's a historical artifact from the days when "Equal
Access" came to town (in 1985) and we were all sent an equal access
ballot with only ONE carrier choice on it (you get one guess!).  I
didn't much care for the "Russian ballot", especially since Michigan
Bell sent us a letter saying that even though there was only one
carrier choice, it was still necessary for us to mark the ballot and
send it back!

I refused and sent them a letter saying that I did NOT wish to have
AT&T as my default carrier.  They left me connected to AT&T anyway (so
much for "necessary"), so I wrote a letter of protest to the FCC.
THAT got me disconnected from AT&T REAL fast!  Of course, I could
still place LD calls through a local carrier with a dial-up number, or
AT&T by dialing the 10288 prefix.  Even now, I like the idea that just
anyone cannot walk into my home and pick up the phone and make a call
to anywhere ... it would at least have to be someone knowledgeable
about 10XXX codes, which would leave out most of the friends of my
teenage son ... ;-)


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


[Moderator's Note: I'll invoke a sort of habeus corpus here: Let him
produce the long distance company, and an example of the rates and how
calls are handled, etc.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl Wright)
Subject: Re: New NPA/NXX Lookup and Cross Reference Utility For DOS
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 10:46:21 EDT
Organization: UMCC - Ann Arbor, MI  USA


Re: the inclusion of V&H data in the program. I believe that the
explanation of where the V&H data comes from must be wrong. It said
that he licensed the data from a vendor who licensed it from Bellcore.
I doubt that Bellcore is involved unless someone is cheating Bellcore.
Bellcore's licensing policies do not reduce costs for volume and do
not provide for free copying.

Vendor that provide the V&H information have to either typing the data
in from FCC filings or use NECA tariff data. NECA does provide for
copying.


Carl Wright                   Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]      2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST     Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Usenet and Obscenity in Canada
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:25:27 GMT


This article tells where to find other articles about the U. of
Manitoba's ban. I suggest that follow ups go to alt.comp.acad-
freedom.talk, news.misc, alt.censorship.

The discussion of the U. of Manitoba's alt.sex* ban has been scattered
in at least ten newsgroups. CAF-Talk tries to be the newsgroup/mailing
list of record for incidents related to computers and academic
freedom. (A CAF-Talk flyer is enclosed.)

CAF-Talk is archived. Articles about U. of Manitoba appear in archive
files batch/may_10_1992, batch/may_17_1992, and batch/may_31_1992.
The best articles from each week's CAF-Talk are selected and
abstracted into CAF-News. CAF-News v 02 n 21 (news/cafv02n21) contains
on article about U. of Manitoba. Forthcoming issues will almost
certainly contain more. (Access information is enclosed.)

You can contribute directly to CAF-Talk. Either by (cross)posting
articles to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk or by mailing articles to
[e-mail].

- Carl Kadie, co-moderater CAF-News

      =================

These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/batch/may_10_1992
  pub/academic/batch/may_17_1992
  pub/academic/batch/may_31_1992
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n21

To get the files my email, send email to [e-mail].
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/batch may_10_1992
send acad-freedom/batch may_17_1992
send acad-freedom/batch may_31_1992
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n21

  ===================== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf ===========
                Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List

Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles
of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,
due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and
networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the
principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be
defended?

Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has given the
discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of Sept, 1991, the list
has 375 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the
list via newsgroups.

There are four versions of the mailing list.

comp-academic-freedom-talk
     - you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.
comp-academic-freedom-batch
    - about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.
comp-academic-freedom-news
        - about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best
          notes of the week. (Helen O'Boyle or I play the editor for
          this one).
comp-academic-freeedom-abstracts
        - about one a week you'll receive the abstract of the current
          comp-academic-freedom-news (CAF-news). You'll also receive
          instructions on how to access the current CAF-news.

To join a version of the list, send mail to [e-mail]. Include
the line "add <name-of-version>". (Other commands are "delete
<name-of-version>" and "help"). If you have problems, send email to
[e-mail].

In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list
by addressing it to [e-mail].

Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as
newsgroups.  Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.

An abstract and archive of comp-academic-freedom-news is available via
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. See file "pub/academic/abstracts" and
"pub/academic/README". These files are also available via email (Send
email to [e-mail]. Include the lines "help" and
"index".)


Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
[e-mail], [e-mail]

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

From: Hans Ridder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 01:41:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> And this, dear friends, is exactly why GTE is the lousy operating
> company that it is.

I spent *many* years in GTE territory (So. Cal.,) so I wouldn't
normally defend them.  I know what it's like trying to keep data
circuits working through them ("... you can't do 9600 baud on an
unconditioned line?!?")  But after recently moving back into GTE
territory (Seattle area) I have a story to relate.

I was having an OPX installed at the house (in GTE land) from a PBX in
US West land.  I figured it was doomed from the start.  The order was
placed with US West because after spending the last eight years as a
US West customer, I figured they would be more compentent then GTE.

On the installation day the GTE craftsperson arrived at about 7:45 AM.
He showed me on the order where US West had indicated that they had a
busy day and wanted to get started "early," so he wanted to make sure
GTE had their part of the circuit setup properly.  He had run the pair
to the pole and installed the drop the previous day "just to be sure."
(Just to make sure I wasn't going crazy, I checked ... he had a real
GTE badge and a real GTE truck!  Honest!)

After he and the CO had set the levels and EQ on the GTE section, they
contacted US West (about 8:15) to see when they'd be ready.  US West
said their craftsperson wasn't due *at the office* until 9:00 and even
then, they hadn't been to the PBX end, so they couldn't be ready until
"sometime after 10:00." ("Early" eh?  "Busy" huh?)

So, the GTE guy went and waited in his truck .  I went to work.  US
West finally got their part working sometime after 11:00.  GTE was
never a problem.

Maybe I was lucky?


Hans-Gabriel Ridder        Digital DECwest Engineering
[e-mail]        Bellevue, Washington, USA
{pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 15:48:41 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land


The Bellcore document about the NANP referred to 200,300,400,500 and
600 as a last resort if area codes of the form N10 are all used up
before the 1995 "time T".  610 and 710 have been cited in the Digest
as not available for geographic area codes; 310,410,510 are in use
(410 still being permissive), 210 has been announced (not in use yet),
and (relying on what I saw in the Digest) either 810 or 910 will be
used in a split of 313 in Michigan.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #435
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21444;
          31 May 92 2:07 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23733
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 May 1992 00:24:00 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06708
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 May 1992 00:23:52 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 00:23:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #436

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 May 92 00:23:35 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 436

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (Nick Sayer)
    Re: History, North-Central Oklahoma Telecom (Jack Winslade)
    Re: CWA Members Gear Up for Possible Strike (John Higdon)
    Re: Fare War Clogs Phone System; Strange Behavior (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls (Phil Howard)
    Re: HDTV Information Needed (Maurice R. Baker)
    Re: GTE Bashing (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 19:14:00 GMT


I just took one of these apart. Here's what I found:

It's in the case of a normal modular Y adapter. One of the Y branches
is labeled "TEL" and is wired straight. The other is labeled "ANS"
(for answering machines). On that one, ring and the black/yellow pair
were wired straight through.  Tip is like this:

    green LED

       +---|=|---+   unknown glass-case diodes
       |         |
in ----+         +---|<|---|>|--------- out
       |         |
       +---|=|---+

    red LED

I couldn't tell by looking what sort of diodes they were. They looked
like typical 1N914, but that doesn't mean anything.  Nor could I tell
the polarity of the LEDs, though I suspect they were back-to-back, and
I also suspect that it really doesn't matter which is which. When I
was using this device, the phone answering machine going off hook
would light up the red one. I never saw the green one light up.

I also suspect that the diodes are zeners, and probably 9 volt ones.
The idea being that you want the line voltage present when no phones
or one phone is off-hook to be able to break through the zener (and
the forward-biased one will simply conduct), but a third phone will
lower the voltage too far.

Anyway, that's what I found.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 May 92 22:20:06 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: History, North-Central Oklahoma Telecom
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 27-MAY-92, <Martin McCormick> writes:

>     Calling one extension from another, produced an initial long ring
> or sometimes a split ring followed by the normal cadence.  The ring
> was the standard pitch of todays ringing progress tone, but there was
> a high-pitched sampling artifact clearly audible.

This is typical of the behavior of Ma Bell's #101 ESS <tm> and I have
yet to hear an authoratative reason why this odd ring cadence occurs.
Our campus was served by one of these monsters until the early 80's.
(Rumor has it that the 101 was responsible for the expression 'Gag Me
With A Spoon'. ;-)

The 101 had other quirks.  All of the usual 'features' were in there,
such as three-way calling, etc., but they seldom worked.  The 101 was
an analog TDM switch which used small capacitors to fill in the holes
between the time slices.  (An oversimplification, but that's basically
how it worked.)  Occasionally that first long ring would be continuous
 -- I remember a 5+ second ring at one time.

Yes, we did hear the 'motorboat' in the background, and one of our
people claimed that he could hear an 8k or so tone, apparently from
the sampling.  (I could not hear it.  I don't even think the receivers
went that high.)

Does ANYONE know why the odd ring cadence was there ???  I used to
(semi-jokingly) explain that it was because the ring generator was
made with 555 timers.  The classical 555 astable has a long first
half-cycle when first powered up.


Good day.        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha   (1:285/666.0)

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:19 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: CWA Members Gear Up for Possible Strike


[e-mail] (Phillip Dampier) quotes:

> "AT&T has been completely unresponsive to our proposals for employment
> security," CWA negotiators stated.  "If profitable, successful
> companies like AT&T callously eliminate good American jobs, regardless
> of the negative impact on communities and customer service, then where
> can American working people turn for a decent future, and good middle
> class jobs with good pay, benefits, security, and an opportunity to
> advance?" asked CWA's chief negotiator.  "We're fighting to protect
> good jobs for communities all over this country."

Notice the slant here. The premise is that AT&T as well as other
companies OWE jobs to "the people". As a former employer of some size
I can state without reservation that hiring people is an act of
desperation. When a business finds that it can no longer grow, thrive,
or serve its customers without help, it turns to the job market to
purchase labor. It does not do this because of some written or
unwritten rule that "the purpose of business is to provide jobs".

The paperwork, regulations, taxes, insurance, and attitudes of some
members of the workforce is enough to scare any potential employer
back into "do it yourself" thinking. If AT&T has found that these
positions are no longer necessary, where is it written that the
company owes make-work welfare to excess baggage? What chutzpah to say
that since a company is profitable, it can afford to carry along those
whose services are no longer required. It is more of this attitude
that if a company or individual is doing any better than a
hand-to-mouth existence, then it "owes" something to someone else.

> CWA members have been collecting tens of
> thousands of "carrier switch" cards, essential proxies, that authorize
> the union to switch the customer away from AT&T if a settlement is not
> reached by the contract expiration date.  And CWA members around the
> country have solicited letters of support from thousands of small
> businesses that will also switch carriers.

And to whom will they switch? Sprint and MCI are really going to bask
in this one since, of course, they are non-union and do not have to
worry about strikes. It smells of the hoopla that surrounded AT&T's
withdrawal of contributions to Planned Parenthood. Many on this forum
publically announced that they could not continue to do business with
such an unenlightened operation and took their business to firms who
NEVER DID support Planned Parenthood.

I am not anti-union. I am pro-productivity. If the union is really
concerned about the threat to quality service posed by elimination of
necessary, skilled personel then my hat is off and support is given.
But I do not hear that in this statement. It seems to be more about
what a "rich" company owes the "workers" than about what the workers
provide for the company.

It is the same old story again: the march of technology. If the union
would have had its way in the past, we would not only be placing our
long distance calls through the operator, but our local ones as well.


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


[Moderator's Note: At the time of this publication, shortly after
midnight Sunday morning, I was hoping to have heard some specific word
about the strike, and if it had been called. So far nothing. Maybe we
will have a report later Sunday.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 19:10:55 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Fare War Clogs Phone System; Strange Behavior
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Coleman) writes:

> With the temporary reduction of air fares to historic lows, it seems
> that nearly everyone in America is trying to dial the airlines' 800
> numbers.  I've been trying, and like most people, am getting mostly
> slow and fast busy.

> I have noticed that occasionally, at about the moment I'm expecting a
> busy signal, I get a dial tone instead.  Can anyone explain this
> phenomenon?  Is this the "same" dialtone I get when I life the phone,
> or is it a "different" dialtone?

   In general, fast busy is the Reorder tone applied when some switch
doesn't have enough (or any) "no circuit" announcements ("We're sorry,
all circuits are busy now.  Will you please try your call again
later?").  Some 800 providers don't seem to bother to provide the
announcement, so all you ever get is "fast busy" -- you have to figure
out the problem.  ("Fast busy" can also result from a temporary
failure at a switch or database, overload at a switch or database, and
is normally the first-choice alternate treatment for announcements
that are under-engineered.)

   This same treatment can also come from the originating LATA
switches when no circuit is available to the designated carrier --
which might be the LEC itself.  The "fast busy" is typical overflow
for the "no circuit to long distance company" announcement provided at
most LEC Access Tandems.  On the other hand, because of historical
reasons, "no circuit" treatment at your originating switch is usually
"fast busy"; no announcement is provided.

   Dial tone is typically the alternate treatment provided at the
originating switch if Reorder/fast-busy circuits are all busy.  The
tone should only come from your local switch -- some vendors don't
even provide a dial-tone source at a tandem.  Dial Tone can also be
provided about 10 seconds after a call is "killed" by an IXC because
it doesn't have any appropriate tone/announcement circuits.  Again,
you have to guess at the real cause.

   If dial tone is provided very soon (a few seconds) after end of
dialing, it's probably the local switch hitting "no circuit".  If it's
10-20 seconds after end of dialing, it's either the Access Tandem
running out of it's "no circuit" alternatives, or the 800 provider or
terminating LATA running out of the same alternatives.  Between about
four and ten seconds is unusual, unless SS7 is involved in the
originating LATA (might be true for some cases of 800 calls in the two
big Pac Bell LATAs), or you are calling from a PBX.  In the PBX case,
one cannot predict the results, since PBXs don't follow the LSSGR
(well, maybe on their LEC interfaces).


Al Varney - just my opinion

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 21:33:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> writes:

> If the phone company gets its way, 28,000 customers in New Jersey will
> be billed for two months of long distance calls they dialed for free
> because of a computer glitch.

I would not call it "free" just because it has not been billed yet.

> A computer that recorded the time, number and cost of AT&T calls from
> Feb. 17 to April 27 failed to put the data on the customers' bills,
> officials said.  They were charged just for calls placed through New
> Jersey Bell, Karen Johnson, a Bell spokeswoman, said yesterday.

> But the free calls are over, Johnson said.  Records of the calls are
> stored in computer memory banks, and the customers soon will be
> billed.

> NJ Bell must prove the mistake was not caused by negligence before the
> company can collect, according to a spokesman for the Board of
> Regulatory Commissioners, which oversees utilities.  If Bell does not
> make a good case, the board could deny permission to bill for the
> calls, said George Dawson.

As long as they don't charge interest and provide full ability to deal
with the complaints about errors in the bills, then I don't see why
these are simply no different than any other form of billing late.

I once worked for a timesharing service that billed on a daily basis.
Due to a system error, the billing file stopped being written and the
billing records piled up in buffers in the system main memory.  The
system later crashed and initially we though it was an ordinary memory
leak caused by something unusual.  I was going to eventually look at
the core dump, which obviously was a memory leak since it was so
large.

The next day, the billing staff reported a day and a half of data was
missing.  A quick check of the timing of the data and it was figured
out what had happened.  I then spent the next couple of hours writing
a program to extract the billing records from the core dump (it was a
DAMNED good thing we kept all core dumps as a standard practice).  Of
course in this case the bills were just a day or two late (from the
online access).  I heard that only one customer had complained about
it.


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

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 20:27:49 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Maurice R Baker)
Subject: Re: HDTV Information Needed
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]@cc.usu.
edu writes:

> Could somebody provide me the information about HDTV, like the
> basic concept, how it works, research done till now and the future
> scope, etc.

Frequently I see postings like this one, or people come to my office
with a request of a similar scope.  Now I'm normally happy to help
anyone out any way I can, but really have started to wonder:

Doesn't anyone do research anymore?  Don't people go to the library?
Do they know how to use it?

For instance, the original poster could begin by checking the Index of
IEEE publications for the past few years ... {Spectrum} has had a
couple of good tutorial articles.  Or on a more non-technical level
yet, the {New York Times} Index.  Then there's back issues of
{Radio-Electronics}, {Broadcasting}, etc., etc.  There have been
special issues of IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting & Transactions on
Consumer Electronics which give both an historical perspective and
fairly up-to-date info on HDTV.

I try to be understanding, but a glance at the poster's electronic
address reveals "[e-mail]" which I take to indicate some
association with the EE Department at Utah State University.  It's a
pretty safe bet that there's a university library (or better yet
engineering library) which is well stocked with at least one or two of
the above reference sources ... and at least one or two staffers ready
and eager to help someone search the subject.

Apologies for what might be considered a flame ... rather it's
intended more as a not-so-gentle reminder of what a great treasure we
have in our libraries.  And in this era of cost-cutting, "use it or
lose it" may be more accurate and prophetic than we'd like to think.


Maurice R. Baker    AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel   jj1028 at homxc.att.com


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your very good reminder. Typically here
at the Digest I get about a dozen inquiries daily on a variety of
things we have either covered here in recent weeks or are easy to
research through sources such as you note in your article. I print one
or two here most days, but really wonder if the writers bothered to
even try and find infrmation on their own.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 16:31 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing


[e-mail] (Rob Schultz) writes:

> On a side note, when requesting my service, I asked what type of
> switch I would be on.  The rep went to find out, and came back with
> the answer: GTS-5.  I asked if this was a 5ESS or similar, and all she
> could tell me was that it is GTE's latest and greatest switch.  Can
> anyone help identify this?

This is the switch that put GTE out of the switch manufacturing
business. It has wretched three-way, very clumsy feature
implementation, and more than likely will not be equipped for ISDN or
SS7 (and CLASS). It is worse than the very badly implemented 5ESS that
serves my house and that is bad enough.

Frankly, until the telcos get it together and work out some standards
of implementation, I would prefer that digital switches NOT be
installed in end offices. From where I stand (average telephone user),
both the GTD-5 and 5ESS stink big time. Unless one can have IDSN (at
reasonable rates, thank you), digital switches offer nothing but
disadvantages to the end user.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #436
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22940;
          31 May 92 2:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20621
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 May 1992 01:11:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00119
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 May 1992 01:11:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 01:11:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #437

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 May 92 01:11:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 437

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Why Can't I Use All Six Lines on a Six-Pair? (Scott McClure)
    Latest Switch News (Gloria C. Valle)
    AT&T Can Do T1 Over a Single Pair (John R. Levine)
    GTE to Refund Overcharges in California (John R. Levine)
    Caller ID and DID (Steve Forrette)
    Cellular Codes Used Locally (Paul Robinson)
    Ringing Sound When Calling a PBX's DID (Steve Forrette)
    Free 800 Calls From Costa Rica? (Harold Sanchez)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems (James S. Vera)
    Re: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories) (David Lesher)
    Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted (Gregory S. Youngblood)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (David Lesher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott McClure)
Subject: Why Can't I Use All Six Lines on a Six-Pair?
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 21:21:00 GMT


I just moved into an apartment complex where each unit is wired with a
six-pair cable.  I had PacBell set me up with four active lines
without a problem.  When I asked the installation guy about adding two
more, he said that he found one of the remaining pair was bad, and
that the other was used for a ground.  This doesn't sound right to me.
Why does one have to be used for a ground?  In a common two-pair
installation (like my last apartment), both pairs are usable, and there
wasn't any additional pair used for a ground.

I could really use another line, but the landlords aren't going to
allow me or PacBell to trench up the parking lot just to get me a few
more lines.

Ideas or comments, anyone?


INTERNET:  [e-mail]
ARPANET:   ryptyde![e-mail]
UUCP:      {crash nosc}!ryptyde!scott

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 30 May 92 22:48:00 UT
Subject: Latest Switch News


GTE California had been installing GTE-% switches for the most part
until somewhere up the line at AGCS (joint venture with ATT and GTE)
said that they were going to stop making the GTD-5 and it would not be
supported as far as ISDN. The California company had the choice
between the DMS from Northern or the 5ESS from ATT.  They picked the
ATT switch. As the 1 and 2EAX switches are being replaced the 5's are
put in place.

A side note is that it appears that the GTD-5 will continue to be
made, supported and work with ISDN. At this point we are only doing
line adds and remotes to the GTD-5. In time I have no idea what is
planned. Maybe one of the readers from AGCS can open my eyes. I for
one feel that all three switches have good and bad points, but I have
gone my own way to fiber and away from working on those good old
switches, I sure miss step by step, but ConTel Calif still has a few
and I guess I will see some of them in time.

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

Subject: AT&T Can Do T1 Over a Single Pair
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 19:20:42 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that AT&T Paradyne say they can run 1.5 megabit T1
data over a single copper pair of the kind used in local loops using
Carrierless, Amplitude/Phase modulation, or CAP, or 3Mb over a
four-wire circuit.  There was also some puffery claiming that this is
a blow to the fiber crowd, since these rates are adequate do run
multimedia services which otherwise would have needed fiber.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: GTE to Refund Overcharges in California
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 19:15:38 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


UPI reports that GTE, which is alleged to serve many telephone
customers in the state, will refund $29.7 million to California
customers.  They are entitled to a 13% rate of return; anything in
excess of that is refunded under the CPUC's incentive regulation.

Typical flat-rate residence consumers will get $2.03 back each month
from June to September.

I note that half of the excess over 13% is refunded, and half goes to
shareholders, which means that GTE has an incentive to overcharge as
much as possible since half of the take pumps up their dividends.  To
my stodgy East-coast eye, this is a peculiar approach to regulation.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 23:43:10 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and DID


Is there currently any provision for delivering Caller ID data to a
DID trunk, either analog or over a T1 (T1 to the LEC, not IXC)?  How
widely is it available?  Is it being worked on, or at least thought
about by someone?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 92  20:17:01 EDT
Subject: Cellular Codes Used Locally


In Washington, DC, a radio station allows Bell Atlantic (Telephone
Company) Cellular users to call its talk line by dialing *WRC.

In Baltimore, the local radio station there allows B.A.  Cellular
callers to call its talk line by dialing *WBAL.

In both cases the call is free -- no toll or airtime charge.

The call signs of those two stations are left as an exercise for the
reader.  :)


Paul Robinson

This is my opinion and not necessarily that of the owner of this
account.


[Moderator's Note: The calls are not free; the radio stations have
agreed to accept the charges in reverse. This makes good sense since
the cellular-equipped motorist is a good source of traffic and other
news for the radio stations.  We have a few of those here in Chicago.
Some align themselves with Cell One; others with Ameritech.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 14:42:27 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ringing Sound When Calling a PBX's DID


When calling into a PBX through a DID trunk, most seem to return a
ringing indication with a duration of one second per cycle, as opposed
to the two second cycles that the phone company uses.  Is there any
particular reason for this that anyone knows of?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 20:59:56 UCR
From: Harold Sanchez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free 800 Calls From Costa Rica?


Our international operators have a list of USA 800 phone numbers
available from Costa Rica. Appart from those they say you have to pay
for the call.  However, JDR Catalog (electronics) gives an 800 fax
number and Costa Rica is included in the JDR list of countries from
where such calls are free. It's not in the Costa Rica list. I suspect
this is not the only case.

How can an updated list be obtained?


HAROLD SANCHEZ

Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo - DOT - San Pedro
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad
Apartado 10032   San Jose  COSTA RICA
VOICE (506) 248622 OR (506) 244995 (WORK)
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

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 20:19:32 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna


> I wish to turn an unused trunk mount cell antenna into a permanently
> mounted ground plane antenna to use on my house in rural Maine for the
> (quite often) times that the phone lines go out. What is the proper
> length for the radials?

The correct length for 1/4 wave radials would be 3.5 inches.  An
easier solution would be to mount the antenna in the middle of a foot
square peice of sheet metal. This will make a better ground plane
anyway.  The same size plate will work for a VHF Marti antenna, and
should do wonders at 850 Mhz. If you don't want to mess with sheet
metal use a cake pan.

If your cable run is an appreciable length run 1/2" hardline or Belden
9913 with appropriate connectors (not UHF connectors).  Although 1/2"
hardline will cost more, it's lower loss and you don't have to worry
about water intrusion like you would with 9913.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James S. Vera)
Subject: Re: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems
Organization: Program Analysis and Verification Group, Stanford University
Date: 31 May 92 02:42:47 GMT


yob![e-mail] writes:

> MultiTech Systems - 2205 Woodale Drive - Mounds View, MN 55112
> 1-800-328-9717 Has exactly what you are looking for, and has had for
> several years ... long enough in fact that the feature is fully
> debugged and works flawlessly.

> In fact, dialback in hardware has been a standard feature in all the
> MultiTech modems from 2400 bps on up for at least the past two years
> that I know of.

I have one of these modems (Model MT932EA/25) and the only
documentation on the dialback feature (or Answerback as they call it)
is:

"Answerback &A:

The &A command controls the MultiModem V32's Answerback feature.
Answerbacks are used in some on-line realty applications, and
elsewhere, as a security measure.  Due the [sic] security aspect of
this feature and the fact that there is no requirement for the user to
do anything with the modem, we will not discuss Answerback here, other
than to say that it exists and that we recommend you avoid &A in any
commands or programming."

What's the deal?  Secret modem commands?  Anyone know more about this?


James S. Vera      |         Internet            |Standard Disclaimers
Stanford University|   [e-mail]   |Blah Blah Blah Blah
+1.415.723.1089    |    FAX [phone]     |

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories)
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 21:02:28 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


{crossed pair on b'cast loop}

Many years ago, I worked in the two-way radio business. We had a
remote base station at a good location, and remotes at several places.
They were connected by "LMC's" aka local miscellaneous circuits.

The problem was, and likely is still, "If there's no dialtone, it must
be available ..." attitude of the pole-climber. Hell, them guys in
Assigning never have it right anyhow, right?

The remote control scheme worked like this:

Normally, each remote listened to the receiver audio output.  This
actually was just those incoming signals with the correct selective
calling tones.

When a remote put audio on the pair, all the others would hear it, of
course. This was a useful intercom, as these remotes were spread out
over five miles, and three CO's.

To listen to everything on the frequency (i.e.  'monitor') a remote
put +150 vdc T-R on the pair.  To transmit, it put -150 T-R on it.

So one day I was in the shop when BEEP BEEP BEEP came over the
speaker.  I recognized it at once. I cycled the +150 vdc several
times, intermixed with "Hey, you lousy creep! This pair is in use. Get
your hands off.  Call Assigning and find a vacant one, or I'll have
Mr. X.  {the test board foreman} on your case now!"

Between getting the 150 v banged in his buttset, and my griping, he
got the message. He pulled his beeper, and did not come back.

However, I *DID* have a hard time explaining this to the other folks
with remote consoles, including the boss's mother ;_]


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In the early seventies I operated a recorded
message service (yes, I was a part time IP twenty years ago!) and
there were about a dozen lines in rotary hunt which were all set up as
one-way incoming calls only lines. Consequently, there was no dial
tone on the lines, although there was battery when the lines were not
in use. One or more of those was frequently getting ripped off from me
by installers searching for pairs in the building I was in.  I'd only
find out when the new subscriber complained that my rolled over calls
were landing on his phone; I got several hundred calls each on the
first several of the lines in the hunt group. Long before 900/976,
mine operated on straight POTS lines, 312- HARrison (7) - 1234.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Recommendations Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Gregory S. Youngblood)
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 08:58:43 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] (Irving_Wolfe) writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seng Gan) writes:

>> Could someone recommend any cordless phone between US $50 to $100?  I
>> had used three cobra phones, they are unreliable

> No.  If you disliked the Cobras, you'll dislike all the rest.

> I have used Cobra cordless phones, AT&T phones, Panasonic phones, and
> Southwestern Bell phones, including high-end models.  Although the
> Panasonic had the most intuitive features, for me, it had the worst
> connection quality.  None of them had what I'd call acceptable
> connection quality, let alone good, except at distances short enough
> to have been accomodated by a 25 foot line cord on a conventional
> phone.  In addition, all were poorly built, so dropping them from face
> level usually caused damage and exposure to moisture was a serious
> problem too.  (These become an issue if you actually try to use the
> things outdoors despite their poor range.)

I have used several cordless phones and have found a reliable good
quality with good coverage.  The Sony SP115.  It has 10 channels and
will change channels during calls sometimes, if it thinks it might get
a little better and cleaner signal.  It doesn't do that often, but
I've had it happen to me.  Even when used near another cordless phone
of similar make it blocks out the signal mostly (not 100%, but I'd say
it gets interfered with only 2% of the time, then just unplug the base
and plug it back in).  It also features a dual battery.  The second
battery plugs into the charger/base unit when not in the phone, and
will actually power the base unit in the event of a power failure.
Battery life is also very nice.  It has worked for me very well for a
good 12 months now, and has seen falls, concrete slides, and other
abuses I won't mention and has never missed a beat.  I'm very happy
with it.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 1:06:15 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


> but I don't believe there's _any way_ to find out the default state
> of a line.  Short of calling a friend with CNID ...

[Moderator's Note: Simple. You would ask the person who owned the
phone line. In most instances, your use of *67 would probably be on
your own phone line anyway, and you *know* what that status is. So if
you use my phone for a single call, you ask me my status.  PAT]

If only it was that simple.

Take an real case, one related to me by the people involved.  A law
enforcement operation has some lines that are line-blocked, but others
are not. Further, the officers manning it do *NOT* have per-line
blocking on their home phones for good reasons -- Bell South won't give
it to them UNLESS they get identifed as undercover officers to BS!

Then add one more intermittent variable. BS drops per-line blocking on
a pair during a generic upgrade. Ooops.

The official I know is convinced that the reason for identical codes
is to kill the demand for per-line blocking just so BS can go back to
the PSC and say "SEE! nobody in law enforcement uses it!"


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But how often is this *really* an issue? Of course
there will always be exceptions to the rule. If the undercover guys
want to have blocked ID, why doesn't the PD either have them make
their calls from cell phones or give them a loop-around/call-extender
to go through when dialing which would either show nothing or some
bogus Caller-ID?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #437
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15079;
          31 May 92 23:07 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32296
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 May 1992 21:13:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 May 1992 21:12:53 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 21:12:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #438

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 May 92 21:12:55 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 438

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area (Lauren Weinstein)
    Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia (Dobrovolsky Alexandr V.)
    The Number Plan Change Starts in 20 Minutes (Morten Reistad)
    Raising Funds: Modem Data Sheets by E-Mail (Steve Pershing)
    What is a POP and How Does One Get Established? (Jesse W. Asher)
    Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna (Vance Shipley)
    Multi-Ring Detection (Art Hunter)
    Bell Reregulation Bill Progresses in the House (John R. Levine)
    Area Codes/Telecom in United Germany (Richard Budd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 10:50:11 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area


Greetings.  I've sat and read all these messages bitching about GTE,
but my experience is different.  I've lived in GTE regions in and
around L.A. for much of the last four decades.  Sure enough, twenty
years ago, when everything was step and old outside plant there was
lots of trouble.

But the last ten years or so have shown a drastic improvement.  I'm
not a major customer by telco standards, but I have to deal with
Centrex (Centranet) services all the time, and I've never had trouble
getting them to fix the occasional problem.  In fact, when there
have been (not unreasonable) configuration problems during the setup
of complex configurations, I have even gotten calls back from the
people working at the switch consoles who would type in commands
while talking to me and asked if I wanted to verify the results with
them.

When the late night automatic line tester (you know, the device that
causes "dings" in the night) was causing some problems on lines used
for data, GTE asked me for a list of ALL lines I was concerned about
and put them on the exception list for the tester.  No trouble at all
since then.

One day I noticed a guy outside the offices holding a blueprint and
staring at all our phone drops we'd collected over time.  I went over
to ask who he was.  Turned out he was the cable planner for the
region.  "Where would you like your pole?" he asked.  They wanted to
put in a private pole and direct cable run to the terminal (B-box) for
us, since "I don't like to see multiple drops like that; they aren't
very reliable in the long run," he said.  And true to their word, they
replaced all the drops with one cable, and made sure there was also
some extra capacity in there for growth.  (By the way, the machine
that drills the hole and plants the pole is something to see ...)

The only proviso I recommend regards repair service.  When calling the
telco -- ANY telco -- with anything other than a very simplistic
problem, do not waste time discussing your problem with the person who
initially answers.  Ask for a supervisor (or a Centranet specialist,
or whatever).  The folks who answer are there to help filter out the
callers who don't know how a module jack plugs in -- they are not
usually in a position to deal effectively with more complex services.
This is a deficiency to be sure, but one I've noted with all telcos
everywhere in the country.

No, it's not all a bed of roses with GTE.  But having dealt with so
many telcos for so many types of services around the country, I can
honestly say that GTE really has improved and compares quite
favorably, at least in my experience.


 --Lauren--


[Moderator's Note: And isn't it true Lauren that the generic term
'GTE' does not mean a lot in and of itself. There are many, many GTE
telephone operating companies just as there are lots of Bell
companies, and the GTE company here in Illinois might be (probably is)
managed entirely differently. Readers here have been speaking poorly
of the California operation, but they might be quite content with the
same parent company under subsidiaries in other areas of the USA.  PAT]

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

Organization: Scientific Productional Co-operative TetraComp
From: [e-mail] (Dobrovolsky Alexandr V.)
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 00:07:46 +0400 (MSD)
Subject: Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia


     Hello!

Look, please, following letter, and help me, if you can:


My name is Alexandr.  I undergratuated from Moscow State University 6
years ago.  I had cybernatics degree, then became system programmer
for MS-DOS machines but now I am only (:-)) the chief of a small
venture that deals with anything around computers.

This summer I plan to visit USA to study US computer market, its
methods and to look for new and useful computer stuff unknown in
Russia today.  And, of course, I want to establish reliable
communication with my office, preferably -- by e-mail (because we are
got accostomed to this way of information exchange.)

So, (sorry for my long introduction!), here is my problem: I don't
know any possibilities to enter into US-to-world e-mail networks.  I
don't know taxes or prices. I don't know how I can get temporary
e-mail maibox and whether can I get it? Moreother, I possibly will be
moving across US, staying at one place about a day or two. How should
I act in this case?

Please, if you'll get any information that covers any part of my
problem -- send it, please, to [e-mail].  Or write,
please, where I can get this information and what else I should do for
it?

I had sent this letter to Scott Fybush -- [e-mail]
(he maybe changed his e-mail adress to his new workplace now), and he
redirected me to you -- he said there is the place where somebody can
help me and wrote your address.  So, please, help me or redirect me
once more -- there is almost no time left to make me my choice.


Thank you.

 _________      __                   /---------------------------------\
   \\    /\\    /    Dobrovolsky    | TetraComp,  Moscow [phone] |
    \\  /__\\  /        Alexandr V. | e-mail: tetracomp.msk.su          |
     \\/    \\/                     | Computer  Service, Repair & Trade |


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps one or more readers will either email this
fellow with details of services like MCI Mail / AT&T Mail, or perhaps
call and chat with him to help him get signed up here in the USA.   PAT]

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

Date: 31 May 92 23:36 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Number Plan Change Starts in 20 Minutes


It's 20 minutes to midnight, and June 1st, with the start of the Big
Number Plan Change in Norway.

If you are dialing from outside of the Oslo area (area code 2) you
have to dial the zero and the area code until sometime next year.
This is a part of the changeover from a seven to an eight digit
numbering plan.

Callers from abroad need not worry until late January, 1993.

We will keep you posted on developments. Might come in handy when the
US does it's big change sometimes in 1995 or 1996.


Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>; [phone]

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

Subject: Raising Funds: Modem Data Sheets by E-mail
From: [e-mail] (Postmaster Account)
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 14:37:26 PDT
Organization: Questor: Free Usenet News: Vancouver, BC: [phone]


Technical specifications/manufacturer's DATA SHEETS and Prices are
available by sending e-mail to our mail-server.  Data Sheets are in
the form of TIFF-files scanned in at 300x300dpi.  These files are
stored in *.ZOO archives which, when requested, will be sent to you as
a series of uu-encoded files.

In order to earn the funds necessary for the ongoing maintenance,
operation and upgrading of this site, it was decided to offer a few
very exceptional modem products for sale to the general public, at
prices just slightly above cost.  (We also have NS16550AFN UARTS on
hand.)

The Questor Project is a non-profit society operating the Questor
Project BBS/UUCP service.  It began over five years ago.  Its mandate
was, (and is still), to supply information in the areas of Medicine,
Health and AIDS.

 - To retrieve a copy of the current price list, which includes the Zyxel
   and Telebit product lines, send a blank e-mail message to:

        [e-mail]

 - To retrieve an index of files available, send e-mail to:

        [e-mail]

   and include in the BODY of your messgage, the word:   INDEX
   on a line by itself.

 - To retrieve a data sheet archive, send e-mail to:

        [e-mail]

   and include in the BODY of your messgage, the path and name of the
   file(s) you require, one per line.

   For Example...  to retrieve data sheets on Zyxel modems:

        GET PRODINFO/ZYXELS.ZOO

 - For more detailed help on using the mail-server, send e-mail to:

        [e-mail]

   and include in the BODY of your messgage, the word:   HELP
   on a line by itself.


[e-mail]     Steve Pershing, System Administrator

 The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS,  and
 more on a Telebit T2500 supporting PEP, v.42, v.32, v.21, up to 19,200bps
 .........................................................................
 Internet: [e-mail]     : POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
 Phones:   Voice/FAX:  [phone] :       Vancouver, British Columbia
           Data/BBS:   [phone] :       Canada  V6E 4L2

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

From: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Subject: What is a POP and How Does One Get Established?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 15:13:09 GMT


Until recently, I thought I understood what a POP (Point of Presence)
was.  Now I'm pretty sure I don't.  Can someone explain to me exactly
what a POP is and how companies create them?  One thing I was confused
about was I thought one the telcos had POPs.  But I recently talked to
an Internet connection provider and they told me they could establish
a POP in my area.  Can some explain this?  Thanks for helping this
poor confused soul!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 13:32:18 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 17:32:12 GMT


I will be moving my cellular telephone to a van I am about to
purchase.  I would like to mount an antenna in the roof the
conventional way, by drilling a hole.  This is unheard of to the
cellular folks!  They don't seem to know of any antennas that mount
this way.  Can any one recommend something?


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

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

Subject: Multi-Ring Detection
From: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 10:27:10 -0400
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Midwest Laser Products <[e-mail]> writes:

>      Illinois Bell offers a service called Multi-Ring.  It allows one
> telephone line to have several different phone numbers. Incoming calls
> placed to the primary number have the standard ring cycle, while those
> to a secondary number have a double ring.

> I am not sure how they work third and fourth numbers...  Anyway I have
> heard that there is a device available that detect the double ring and
> routes those calls to a seperate device, such as a FAX machine.  This
> allows the small business owner to have only one physical phone line,
> but a separate fax number.  Does anyone know where such a device can
> be purchased?

If you have CallerID there is a product called Call SecurID that uses
a normal telephone line and switches to one of three output ports on
this DOS based plug in board such that once the phone number is known,
a pre-determined port is connected to the telephone line.  This
permits a handset, a modem and a fax (or any three telephone devices)
to be used for all of the devices.  More information can be provided
by contacting:

    Mr. Glen Pearson
    ICON CS Canada Inc.
    21 Lynwood Ave
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1Y 2B4
    phone/fax  [phone]

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

Subject: Bell Reregulation Bill Progresses in the House
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 18:57:23 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


The House Judiciary subcommittee on economic and commercial law voted
10-6 in favor of H.R. 5096, the Antitrust Reform Act of 1992, which
codifies into law many of the restrictions on the Baby Bells that were
in effect until Judge Greene reluctantly relaxed them earlier this
year.  Rep. Jack Brooks, chairman of the full committee, is the
sponsor of the bill.

All of the RBOCs are adamantly opposed, which for me is already reason
enough to support it.  An Ameritech vice president said that the Baby
Bells represent the "public interest," while supporters of the bill,
notably the long distance companies and newspapers, are "special
interests."

I'll order a copy of the bill and post a summary of it.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 14:09:05 EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes/Telecom in United Germany


 From <[e-mail] I received the
below message announcing the elimination of country code 37 for the
former German Democratic Republic and the institution of new area
codes for united Germany.  The cutover date is July 22, 1992.
As for postal zip codes, the last I heard was that Germany will
introduce a new five digit zip code in the beginning of 1993.  It will
be based on the American (and East German) numbering system.  (Editing
and blocking off of telephone numbers are my own work, RCB)

--------------------------Original
Message--------------------------------<FH>- - TELECOM informs about:

Next week the re-unification of German Telecom will take place. From
the end of July *new* area codes will be introduced for new Federal
States. This process should be finished by the end of year 1993.

1) From last month the new area codes for "East" of Germany are
changing now. Until September this year about 70% will be transferred.

2) From abroad you can phone to the 5 new Federal States since April 15th
until July 21st with "NEW" and "OLD" area codes but with different ID:

   new: +49-new.area.code-phone.number
   old: +37-old.area.code-phone.number

   From JULY 22nd the NEW codes only are allowed!
   For example my personal phone should be dialed as follows:

   - new: [phone].XXXX   (Dresden got 0351 within Germany)
   - old: +37-51-493.XXXX    (until July 21st only)

   Please make sure that (+) should be the international code for Germany at
   your site, this is different from different countries!

 From:

   - 0049: Belgium, Greek, CSFR, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Swiss ...
   - 0749: Spain
   - 1949: France
   - 00949:Danmark  etc.

3) All of Berlin gets city code 030 (East Berlin had been City Code
37-2.

4) For the five new federal states uniform rates will be introduced by
German Telecom.

Next day a comprehensive new index of area.codes for 5 NBL will be
available.  I am wishing you all times good connections from abroad!


Regards from Dresden,

Frank Hoffmann   TU Dresden

     ----------------End message-------------

NBL = neue Bundeslaendern (new federal states).  What technically
happened 10/3/90 was that the Federal Republic of Germany admitted six
new states into the union.  The US did that a lot in the previous
century. ;-)

The May/June 1992 issue of {Networking Management Europe} has an
interesting article on telecommunications services for United
Germany. Deutsche TELEKOM for the first time granted licenses to
private organizations to operate trunked networks, all but one in
eastern Germany.  TELEKOM is in the second year of its seven year
Telekom 2000 project to construct a modern telecommunications
infrastructure in eastern Germany.  The expected cost is DM57 billion
($35 billion).

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

Richard Budd              | E-Mail: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer     |         Bitnet  [e-mail]
139 South Hamilton Street | Phone:  Daytime -[phone]
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601    |         Evening -[phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #438
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16826;
          31 May 92 23:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30699
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 May 1992 22:06:29 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27879
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 May 1992 22:06:20 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:06:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #439

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 May 92 22:06:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 439

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTE to Refund Overcharges in California (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE to Refund Overcharges in California (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Bob Frankston)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Jim Rees)
    Re: TCP/IP and Rcp Performance Over Satellite? (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Alternative Telephone Mic (Jack Winslade)
    Re: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems (Jess Anderson)
    Re: I've Been Slammed (David Niebuhr)
    Re: HDTV Information Required (Darren Ingram)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Jim Rees)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Frederick G.M. Roeber)
    Re: Caller ID and DID (Vance Shipley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 02:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE to Refund Overcharges in California


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> I note that half of the excess over 13% is refunded, and half goes to
> shareholders, which means that GTE has an incentive to overcharge as
> much as possible since half of the take pumps up their dividends.  To
> my stodgy East-coast eye, this is a peculiar approach to regulation.

Hell, my Wild West Coast eye considers it peculiar! But you have to
realize that since the Great PUC Giveaway of 1989 (soon to be made
into a Broadway musical by a Busby Berkeley decendant), cost of
providing service has nothing to do with the price a telco charges.
This is one reason I have been sitting back and watching with great
enjoyment the endless debates on flat vs measured calling, charges for
TT, etc. None of it has anything to do with the way rates are set in
California.

How are they set? It is very simple: rates in effect at the time of
regulation were "capped". Each year, an adjustment is made for
inflation and the cap is raised. In the meantime, telcos may cut costs
until the cows come home without having to lower rates. However,
"incentive regulation" requires that anything made over 13% must be
divied up 50/50 with the shareholders and the customers.

Pacific Telesis is smart enough to juggle the books to the point that
it "never" exceeds that 13% cap on rate of return. Hence, it never has
to split any excess with customers. Back in 1989 when I was screaming
at the top of my lungs against this screwy regulatory capitulation, my
prediction was that PB would NEVER exceed a 13% rate of return. So
far, I have been right. Incredible, considering the massive labor
force reductions, centralization, and other cost cutting measures that
the company has indulged in.

GTE, on the other hand, has been bitten by its own incompetence. I'm
sure the word "oops" might have been heard to have come out of the
bookkeeping office. GTE needs to learn how the game is played. Buy
switches at inflated prices from a marketing subsidiary. Lose a
fortune in the paging or voicemail business. You know, things like
that.


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 11:41:52 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE to Refund Overcharges in California


John Levine writes:

> I note that half of the excess over 13% is refunded, and half goes to
> shareholders, which means that GTE has an incentive to overcharge as
> much as possible since half of the take pumps up their dividends.  To
> my stodgy East-coast eye, this is a peculiar approach to regulation.

It's the PUC's responsability to avoid overcharging, GTE deserves some
incentive to reduce costs and increase revenue.  The USA has, after
all, a capitalistic economic system.

You don't really want GTE's profits to be just a function of their
plant value do you? Might get a lot of new switch upgrades, OSP, etc,
but there would be no incentive to offer new services.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Sun 31 May 1992 09:29 -0400


Remember that what you THINK the Caller-ID setting is on your line and
what it ACTUALLY is are not necessarily the same thing.


[Moderator's Note: Then that is your problem. Either you are in
control of your phone or you are not. Are you suggesting that in a
call to the Business Office to review your service they would mislead
you in order to get you to make an ID'ed call accidentally? :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 13:57:09 GMT


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

> I don't believe there's _any way_ to find out the default state of a
> line.  Short of calling a friend with CNID ...

> [Moderator's Note: Simple. You would ask the person who owned the
> phone line.

Someone else already pointed out that this doesn't work in general.
Suppose I don't have per-line blocking, and I call the phone company
Friday morning to order it.  They tell me that per-line blocking on my
line will go into effect "by Monday afternoon at 5:00."  Now it's
Saturday night and I want to make a call, with Caller-ID (sic) blocked.

What is the default state of my line?


[Moderator's Note: This DOES work in general since the 'general'
status of a phone line is not to be in limbo pending service orders,
etc.  How often do you expect that to happen, that a service order
would be pending overnight on a weekend precisely at a time when you
need to make a call on which you feel ID-blocking is critical? In such
rare instances, I suppose you could call Repair Service and ask them
to detirmine if the service order had gone through yet.  PAT}

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 01:04:51 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: TCP/IP and Rcp Performance Over Satellite?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] (Doug A. Chan) writes:

> I'm looking for info on the performance of TCP/IP-based software when
> it is run over links with large end-to-end delays (ie. satellite hops).
> In particular, the performance of rcp (which is actually UDP based...)
> over such connections. I'm not too familiar with the underlying pieces
> which make up the rcp program...

As I replied to Doug in other newsgroups, "rcp" uses TCP, not UDP. The
TCP throughput limit with large end-to-end delays is set by the
"offered receive window" (or simply, "window") size, and is simply
window size divided by round-trip time (RTT). With a typical 600ms
satellite RTT, a default Berkeley networking window of 4096 bytes
yields an upper throughput of (4096*8)/0.6 = 54.6 kb/s. If you use the
maximum TCP window of 65535, this rises to 874 kb/s. (In BSD-based
implementations the window can usually be set indirectly by setting
the "sockbuf" size with setsockopt SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF).

And if you use a TCP which implements the modifications suggested in
RFC 1072 "TCP Extensions for Long-Delay Paths" and RFC 1185 "TCP
Extension for High-Speed Paths", you can get many megabits/sec
(Ethernet speeds and higher, e.g., over 30 Mb/s across an 800-mile T3
link).

Unfortunately, many PC-based TCP implementations have TCP offered
receive windows even smaller than the BSD default of 4KB. Same
implementations (such as Phil Karn's NOS, alias "KA9Q") allow you set
set this parameter; many don't.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510    [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.    [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.  Mountain View, CA  94043

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

Date: Sat, 30 May 92 00:10:48 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: Alternative Telephone Mic
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 30-MAY-92, Dan Harkless writes:

> What I've been trying to do is attach a different microphone to an
> old phone of mine.  But when I connect the leads that originally went
> to the old mic, my external microphone acts as a speaker.  I tried
> switching the wires back and forth several times, but in either
> orientation the mic acted as a speaker.  I don't get this ...

You're probably using a dynamic (electromagnetic) or ceramic
microphone as the external one.  These can act as both a microphone
and a crude loudspeaker.  The 'old' telephones use carbon (variable
resistance) microphones which cannot act as a speaker.

You cannot use a dynamic mike in a 500 series (or similar) set unless
you are handy with electronics.  (If you are, an op amp and a couple
of resistors will do the trick.)  I HAVE, however, heard of people
getting inexpensive condenser mikes (such as those sold at Radio
Shark) to work in 500 series sets.  I haven't done this myself.

Hope this helps.


Good day.       JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha   (1:285/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: V.32bis Dial-Back Modems
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 10:36:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (James S. Vera) writes:

> yob![e-mail] writes:

>> MultiTech Systems - 2205 Woodale Drive - Mounds View, MN 55112
>> 1-800-328-9717 Has exactly what you are looking for,

> I have one of these modems (Model MT932EA/25) and the only
> documentation on the dialback feature (or Answerback as they call it)
> is:

> "Answerback &A:

> The &A command controls the MultiModem V32's Answerback feature.
> Answerbacks are used in some on-line realty applications, and
> elsewhere, as a security measure.  Due the [sic] security aspect of
> this feature and the fact that there is no requirement for the user to
> do anything with the modem, we will not discuss Answerback here, other
> than to say that it exists and that we recommend you avoid &A in any
> commands or programming."

> What's the deal?  Secret modem commands?  Anyone know more about this?

Hazarding a guess, the feature may work the same in the mt932 as it
does in the mt1432, the manual for which documents it reasonably well
in Appendix A under Callback.


Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: [e-mail] <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: [e-mail]  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 08:41:53 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: I've Been Slammed


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

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian
> Litzinger) wrote:

>> 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.

> My first guess would be that you've been assigned to whichever carrier
> has PIC 511 (that is, the carrier you'd get if you dialed
> 10511-1-number).  Try dialing 10511-1-700-555-4141 and see if you get
> the same recording.

I tried 10-511-1-700-555-4141 just to see what carrier this was and
received a message after pressing the last 0 in 700.  The recording
said "We're sorry; a long distance carrier access code is required.
Please hang up and dial again using the access code."  Trying 10-55-0
results in the same thing.  1-511 ends up with my phone number being
read back to me as does 0-511 and 511 (the latter is the same as 958,
just a different voice and cadence).

Cutting off after the last 0 doesn't make a complete long distance
call assuming that 1+ dialing is not necessary.

These were done from 516-281-XXXX and this being NYTel land, nothing
surprises me when it comes to phone service.  They still can't
straighten out a major billing problem that has been going on since
September of 1991 (that's another horror show).


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 13:46 GMT
From: Darren Ingram <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: HDTV Information Required


With people ever-increasingly depending on on-line library files and
Internetable services, whole generations of students etc. will
possibly forget how to search a manual index, cross-reference and lug
heavy books around!

After all, it is so easy to sit at your terminal and type out a
request. If it is raining or late at night, you may not want to trek
over to the library and wake up a librariandroid!  Although I am in no
way attempting to defend the anti-printed-books brigade!


Darren Ingram/Satnews        Standard disclaimer rules apply
[e-mail]  Coventry, West Midlands, U.K.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 14:11:55 GMT


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

> Of course, if you want to play SITs when ANSWERING your telephone,
> you are free to do so -- just expect most callers to hang up right
> away.

This works quite well.  I've had various intercepts, including SIT, on
my answering machine for the last eight months, and in that time have
only had two messages.  They were both from a telecom-literate friend
who knew what was going on.


[Moderator's Note: Aren't you working at odds with the purpose of the
answering machine? Why do you feel receiving only two messages in
eight months means it is 'working quite well'? By removing the machine
you could then receive zero calls ... it would work even better! :)  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 16:07:02 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia


Oh yes, I don't know why I didn't remember this immediately.

Last year, at Telecom'91 here in Geneva, a company whose name I forget
was showing a payphone that recognized coins based on a set of rules
(weight or mass, size, etc.) programmed in a microprocessor.  So its
first advantage is that it can be used in many countries, and can even
(if the owner wishes) take multiple currencies.  The advantage they
were really touting, though, was the ability to remotely call the
phone, log in, and download new rules.  This way when a country
introduces a new coin (as Italy did a few years ago) or replaces a
coin (as France did last year), one does not have to replace the
phone, or even physically visit it.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 17:55:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.
com> writes:

> Is there currently any provision for delivering Caller ID data to a
> DID trunk, either analog or over a T1 (T1 to the LEC, not IXC)?  How
> widely is it available?  Is it being worked on, or at least thought
> about by someone?

Yes, it's called ISDN Primary Rate Access.

Now knowing that Steve is quite aware of this let's assume he is
looking for a non-ISDN method.  MCI offer INBAND-ANI over analog and
digital access lines.  Northern Telecom have a software option for
their SL-1 PBX's that accepts the DTMF digits of the calling party
before routing the incoming call.  The digits are then displayed on
the telephone and included in CDR records.

Having reread what Steve asked I see I missed that he is looking for a
LEC service.  Northern Telecom's DMS-100 switches now have support for
BULK CALLING LINE ID.  An out of band circuit is used to deliver CLID
to a PBX or other CPE for a group of trunks.  Not having the feature
spec handy I can't give much detail of this now.

I am sure other manufacturers have similiar capabilities, I am merely
more aware of the NT stuff.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #439
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20006;
          1 Jun 92 1:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10847
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 31 May 1992 23:20:44 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15719
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 31 May 1992 23:20:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 23:20:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #440

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 May 92 23:20:28 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 440

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Strike Plans Still in Limbo (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: AT&T Can Do T1 Over a Single Pair (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories) (Barry Mishkind)
    GTE Employee Responds (Steven Lichter)
    Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault (Curtis E. Reid)
    An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:13:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: AT&T Strike Plans Still in Limbo


As of late Sunday evening, union and company negotiators were still
talking about a new contract, and employees were being advised to
report for work on their normal shifts Monday. According to the union,
talks will continue for at least a day or two more, since progress was
reported in bargaining sessions throughout the day Sunday.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: AT&T Can Do T1 Over a Single Pair
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 17:59:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.
cambridge.ma.us> writes:

> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T Paradyne say they can run 1.5 megabit T1
> data over a single copper pair of the kind used in local loops using
> Carrierless, Amplitude/Phase modulation, or CAP, or 3Mb over a
> four-wire circuit.  There was also some puffery claiming that this is
> a blow to the fiber crowd, since these rates are adequate do run
> multimedia services which otherwise would have needed fiber.

Is this the same as ASDL?  That service is asymetrical, delivering T-1
speeds but returning far less.  Good for graphical display
workstations or other applications where the amount of data sent in
one direction far exceeds the amount sent in the other.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry Mishkind)
Subject: Re: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories)
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 01:18:30 GMT


> {crossed pair on b'cast loop}

At one time I engineered a station with two transmitter sites. The
night site was out in an expanding part of the city.

I couldn't get the ownership to become interested in STLs -- this was
before the telcos socked everyone with a bazillion percent increase.
But the events at our night site finally opened the purse strings.

1. Despite an order over seven months in advance, the 15 kHz loop was
not ready when we were. Surprise, the telco people came out at 5PM the
date before the due date, announced there were no unloaded pairs, and
crawled back into their holes. We ended up using a RPU tranmsitter to
get audio to the transmitter for two weeks.

2. Our 15 kHz loop turned into an 8 kHz loop, flat to +/- _5_ dB, and
THD was kept to less that 6%! A few phone calls and promises later, we
finally got a 15 kHz loop.

3. The second week we were up, someone at toll test decided to put a
city of computer data line on our system. As soon as we turned on the
night transmitter, we heard "dee dee dee deeeeee dee dee" .... and
with NO commercial interruptions <g>! Telco repair said, at first,
that they'd have it fixed before 5 PM the following business day. Yes,
I went through two levels of supervisors before I would talk to anyone
further.

4. Two weeks later ... the 900 pair cable was cut. We were off the air
for seven hours. Over the next three months, probably a dozen outages
from ten minutes to eight hours. And this was only at night when we
KNEW about it.

5. Of course, we also had remote control, and this finally gave me
some idea of when the outages were happening ... and possibly setting
up some emergency audio feeds. I had the DJs log the carrier light on
the front of the remote control unit ... and if it was off, we called
telco immediately. Sometimes they actually admitted cutting the cable.
Other times, they pretended not to know.

6. Eventually, it was decided that instead of demanding a free backup
line ... as the PD wanted, I would push for the STLs. The reason: if
they were cutting one program line and the remote control line, what
would the chances be of the spare being up? Right.

7. After STL installation ... not one outage. And, as many other
stations have found ... much more economical.

I actually met up with one of the installers at another station still
on landline, a few months later. He wondered why we hadn't seen each
other for some time. After I told him ... he agreed with my actions
and wondered aloud if his department would be dissolved. I never heard
from him again.

After all, as was mentioned in another article today, GTE and other
telcos can make far more money by overcharging customers who don't
know better.

"Tariffs ... I don't got to show you no stinking tariffs ..."


Barry Mishkind

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 1 Jun 92 02:30:00 UT
Subject: GTE Employee Responds


I agree it may have been wrong for me to answer in a defensive tone as
I did, but I felt that the person who I had replyed to was way off
base. I don't have direct customer contact and I like it that way.  I
do have to deal with internal customers and do the best that I can.

I have also answered most of the replies that were sent to me and if
it appeared that there was a problem there I got all the information
on that problem and passed it up through the channals of repair and in
one case direct to staff in Thousand Oaks.

On tha matter of the GTD-5 and the 5-ESS, both switches have their
good and bad points. Both are capable of ISDN with the proper software
updates and regulary OKs.

GTE and AT&T went into a joint venture called AGCS to make the GTD-5
switch and improve it. Things that I don't fully understand started to
happen and we were told that the GTD-5 would no longer be made and
only line adds and updates would be done.

My job is to install the switches. At that point the company had the
choice of the DMS or the 5ESS. GTE Calif took the 5ESS and it is my
understanding it was price. Most other areas had been putting in DMS
systems.

Something happened and I think it may have been govenment intervention
and I hear that the GTD-5 will continue. Maybe someone from AGCS can
answer that.

In time AGCS will become fully owned by AT&T and that I don't agree
with as it will drive the price of switching equipment up since there
will be one less manufactor of it.

I have started to move towards fiber so I'm getting away from the
switch part of this business and I think I will feel better about it.

I have heard that ConTel uses mostly DMS and have also heard they
still have step switches, at least in California. That should prove
interesting.

One complaint that I heard was that GTE does not have local business
offices. That is starting to change. Just look at the gas company, I
live in Riverside and they are planning to close the office down here
unless the PUC gets into it.

If anyone has a problem that they feel was not handled right with GTE
Calif let me know here or on the UUCP address below and please be as
complete as you can since I still have to go through the same system
as the customer in most actions.


Steven Lichter     GTECA
Mad Dog (Steven)             Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
UUCP: [e-mail]    [phone]  1200-2400 bps 8N1

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

Date: 31 May 1992 15:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 310/213 Fiasco Was Not GTE's Fault


In a message received on 31 May 1992, TELECOM Digest V12 #433, jra@
psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) wrote:

> I'm pleased to see that there is actually some representation from GTE
> in this forum, since they are the largest independent telco in the
> world.

I'm not so sure if GTE is the "largest independent teleco in the
world" because my understanding is that Rochester Telephone Corp. is
the "largest independent teleco in the world."  :-)

Of course, I'm from Rochester so I'm biased.  Is there an official
source that will confirm which indepdent telephone company is the
largest?


Curtis E. Reid                [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID    [e-mail] (DECUS)
P.O. Box 9887                716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice
Rochester, NY 14623-0887        716.475.6500 Fax


[Moderator's Note: In the context of independent = 'not owned by the
Bell System/AT&T at any time in the past', then GTE would clearly be
the largest, however Rocheter Tel would certainly be larger than many
of the smallest of the GTE operating companies. GTE has more subsid-
iary telephone operating companies (ie California, Illinois, etc) than
AT&T ever had 'xxx Bell' companies -- or at least just as many.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:55:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake

About a block from my 'second office' (a place where I sometimes go to
work on this Digest, and do other things) near Howard and Western
Avenues in Chicago is a medical clinic specializing in treatment for
kidney disorders. It is a fairly large place, with four or five
physicians operating it as a partnership or professional corporation.

The clinic has a alarm system to detect break-ins to the building, and
for the past couple months the alarm system has been malfunctioning.
Instead of a silent alarm which would notify the police and/or some
responsible employee of the clinic, they prefer to use a combination
of sirens, lights, bells and whistles which when activated greatly
resembles one of those famous 'prisoner escapes from death row' scenes
in an old James Cagney prison movie. With sirens going which can be
heard two or three blocks away (I am less than a block away) three or
four times *nightly* for the past month, you can imagine how very
distracting this is, particularly when I have drifted off to sleep at
that office (I sometimes stay the night there) about 2 AM ...

There are no signs or notices on the door of the building about who to
contact in an emergency, real or bogus. The first couple nights I
heard it I simply closed my window and blocked it mostly out. But it
continued and one night about two weeks ago, I walked over there on
the *fifth* such occurrence in one night (it goes off, sounds for ten
or fifteen minutes, then recycles and goes off about an hour later),
and used some gummy, sticky tape to post a notice on the door saying
in effect, "For God's sake can you people get the alarm under control
or do you want *ME* to fix it???". Next day the sign was gone, and the
alarm was actually silent for a couple days.

Then last weekend, it went off again. I had copied down the name of
the doctor who appeared (from the names on the front door) to be in
charge of the place, and looked him up in the phone directory. Since
he had a couple offices listed, an answering service and a residence,
I decided to be a nice guy and call the answering service; it was 5 AM
on Sunday morning after all.

The answering service line rings a dozen times, and I get an abrupt
response, "??? Associates please hold" and a click. A couple minutes
later the answering service person comes on, totally disinterested and
in a big hurry to get off the line. The message will be relayed, she
says, no idea when or to whom, just as it happens ..."

An hour later, it goes off again, for ten minutes before I finally
decided maybe a call to the doctor himself was in order. He answered
the phone at his home, sounded very apologetic and said he would take
care of it.

Nothing more for a couple weeks. It went off again this past Friday
night at midnight. I called the doctor again, but this time his answer
was in essence, tough, call the answering service and tell them about
it, they will call an employee to go shut it off. I told him his
answering service was not very impressive and *he* could call himself
it he felt like it, but the alarm had better shut off in the next few
minutes either way.

All is quiet for a couple hours. Then about 3 AM there it goes again,
the prisoners are rioting and one or more must have escaped judging
from the sirens, etc.  I called the good doctor back at home and told
him if I don't sleep, then you don't sleep ... he accused me of making
threats to him, and said if I did not quit calling him on the phone he
was going to call the police on me (yuk yuk ...). I told him to give
me the name of his attorney ... "I'll call him on Monday and talk to
someone with some intelligence, then let him explain to you what is
being requested". He of course would not give me the name of his
lawyer, so I told him that's fine, when I get to the office Monday
morning I will do a corporate records search with the Secretary of
State's office myself and find out who his attorney is, since that
will probably be the person listed as the 'registered agent for
service of legal process' for the corporation. "And just so you
understand, you are fixing to get sued by Tuesday unless you shut that
damn alarm off unless/until you can get it repaired."

 From my window about 45 minutes later I see him and someone else pull
up in the car, go inside and do something. The rest of the day and
tonight all has been peaceful. I think in the morning I will pull the
file on his corporation, get the attorney's name and call him for a
pleasant chat. Afterward I know the attorney will call his client the
doctor, give him all kinds of hell and explain the rules to him about
the neighbor's rights to peace and quiet. I mentioned to the doctor
that he might consider changing answering services while he was at it,
and find one where the help had been trained a little better.

The doctor lives no where in the area of course. Only we poor people
with no where else available to go have to stay in Chicago. The doc
lives in a fancy area many miles away. What should he care about how
the neighbors of his clinic feel? The alarm could go off all the time
for all it matters to him.  I thought the disturbances we had when the
abortion clinic was located a couple blocks further down the street
were a nuisance, with the protestors screaming and ranting all day and
all night, waving fetuses, etc. This new development is worse.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #440
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24910;
          2 Jun 92 1:10 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12188
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Jun 1992 23:21:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21615
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Jun 1992 23:21:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 23:21:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #441

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Jun 92 23:21:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 441

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Tony Harminc)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Christopher Owens)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Conrad Kimball)
    Re: 1-ESS And *67 (David G. Lewis)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Mark Schuldenfrei)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (M. Bender)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (L. Erickson)
    Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS? (Edwin D. Windes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 00:28:40 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics


> [Moderator's Note: This DOES work in general since the 'general'
> status of a phone line is not to be in limbo pending service orders,
> etc.  How often do you expect that to happen, that a service order
> would be pending overnight on a weekend precisely at a time when you
> need to make a call on which you feel ID-blocking is critical? In such
> rare instances, I suppose you could call Repair Service and ask them
> to detirmine if the service order had gone through yet.  PAT}

My point in starting this thread was that there is surely no need or
advantage to having a single code (*67) toggle Caller*ID blocking on
and off.  Pat is doubtless right that the number of cases where the
line status is unknown is small, but why force people to take the risk?
Set up a separate code that always turns ID off and never turns it on.
No one seems to have an argument in favour of a toggle.


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Owens)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 14:43:29 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Then that is your problem. Either you are in
> control of your phone or you are not. Are you suggesting that in a
> call to the Business Office to review your service they would mislead
> you in order to get you to make an ID'ed call accidentally? :)   PAT]

Pat, you can't seriously be claiming that *67 (i.e. a command that
toggles the state of some parameter without any feedback as to what
the state was before or after the toggle) is acceptable user interface
design.  In fact, it's such staggeringly bad user interface design
that I find it hard to attribute it to simple error or stupidity,
especially considering the generally excellent user interface features
of the telephone system and the care that "the phone company" has
historically put into same.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 14:19:46 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> [Moderator's Note: This DOES work in general since the 'general'
> status of a phone line is not to be in limbo pending service orders,
> etc.  How often do you expect that to happen, that a service order
> would be pending overnight on a weekend precisely at a time when you
> need to make a call on which you feel ID-blocking is critical? In such
> rare instances, I suppose you could call Repair Service and ask them
> to detirmine if the service order had gone through yet.  PAT}

Granted, Pat; it's kind of stretching the point a bit, but still ...

I agree with the general concensus (as I see it): You should be able
to control _precisely_ every switchable feature on your line.  It
works with Call Waiting; it works with Call Forwarding; why shouldn't
it work with Call Blocking as well.  I liked 'FOZs idea: it a plot to
keep from having to give out per-line to cops ...


Cheers,

Jay R. Ashworth                    [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy   f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology           petexch.relay.net}

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1992 17:29:54 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
writes:

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

>> I don't believe there's _any way_ to find out the default state of a
>> line.  Short of calling a friend with CNID ...

>> [Moderator's Note: Simple. You would ask the person who owned the
>> phone line.

> Suppose I [have a service order pending....]

> [Moderator's Note: This DOES work in general since the 'general'
> status of a phone line is not to be in limbo pending service orders[.]

That's not the point, Pat.  The point is that it's a stupid design in
the first place.  I have real difficulty believing that the entire *xx
(or *nx, or whatever the valid set is) namespace is exhausted (present
or planned) so that they have to use this cheesy an approach to a
controversy-prone feature.  I have all the respect in the world for
the Bellcore folks, and 99.44% of the time they get everything fright,
but I'm sorry, this one was *stupid.*

(Not that it matters to me, out here with Pathetic*Bell ...)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Conrad Kimball)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: 1 Jun 92 22:44:16 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services (ESP), Seattle, WA


Hmmm.  First Pat says "simple", and describes a solution that may work
much of the time, but not always.  Someone then describes a situation
in which it is unlikely to work, and Pat suggests yet *another*
"simple" solution.  Gee, if these solutions get any simpler, nobody
will be able to figure them out ... "Hop up and down on one foot while
rubbing the top of your head with one hand and your stomach with the
other, and it will work just fine ..."

Force someone to use a cell phone?  Special hardware configurations?
All because CNID has a brain-dead design that has a toggle function
without any way to query the current setting and that has no way to
force the system into a known state?  What did the CNID designers use
for a brain when they designed the user interface? Clearly they didn't
check into human-factors research or user-interface design guidelines.

As a previous poster suggested, we are asked to either believe the
CNID designers were in fact exceedingly stupid, or else they
deliberately designed *67 to be sufficiently unreliable to effectively
inhibit its use, while still appearing "reasonable" to regulators.
Which do you believe?


Conrad Kimball          Deliv. Sys. Tech Support, Boeing Computer Services
[e-mail]    P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
[phone]          Seattle, WA  98124-0346

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: 1-ESS And *67
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 14:59:00 GMT


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

> [e-mail] wrote:

>> 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).

> An additional note.  In order for the 1A ESS to support CLASS/SS7,
> the 1A must be equipped with a 3B20D (3B20 Duplex) attatched processor
> and a CNI Ring...

> The CNI Ring is a 3B peripherial device and is the interface between
> the A-links to the Signalling Transfer Points (STP's) and the 56Kb
> DSU's.

> BTW, the AT&T 5E uses the CNI ring hardware since the Administrative
> Moduel (AM) is a 3B20D too.  Looks like AT&T got two for one on the
> development of the CNI ring.  :)

Actually, it's about six for one.  The 1A ESS (TM) switch, 4 ESS (TM)
switch, 5ESS (R) switch, 2STP Signaling Transfer Point, 1NCP Network
Control Point, and 1PSS Packet Switching System all use various
incarnations of the CNI ring.  (The 2NCP might as well, but my SS7
product information seems to have disappeared so I don't know for sure
 ...)  After all, CNI stands for "Common Network Interface" ...
Different ring nodes support SS7 interfaces, ISDN D-channel (Q.921)
interfaces, and X.25 interfaces.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Subject: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 16:05:01 EDT


Bob Frankston (a thoughtful guy) writes:

Remember that what you THINK the Caller-ID setting is on your line and
what it ACTUALLY is are not necessarily the same thing.

And our Moderator notes:

Then that is your problem. Either you are in control of your phone or
you are not. Are you suggesting that in a call to the Business Office
to review your service they would mislead you in order to get you to
make an ID'ed call accidentally? :) PAT]

Well, I'm flattered.  From reading the Digest for a few years, I
clearly got the impression that most folks have absolutely no control
about anything to do with their phones.  Even John Higdon seems to
have little control over his (although it's clear that his level of
knowlege allows him the luxury of naming the exact failure).

I wouldn't accuse the phone company of intentionally leading us astray
over CNID status for our phones.  I misdoubt they are that well
organized most of the time.  But some kind of basic, switch driven,
testable method of determining our CNID status would actually allow us
to take that control.

Pat, am I mistaken?


Mark Schuldenfrei

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 01:32:30 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up


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

> And the U.S. telephone system is only the beginning of the
> problem.  The FBI's proposal applies equally to private branch
> exchanges (internal corporate telephone systems), local-area networks,
> computer bulletin boards and even the Internet, which links computers
> across the U.S. and throughout the world.  All these systems,
> according to the FBI's bill, would have to conform to (potentially
> unpublished) ease-of-tapping standards promulgated by the Federal
> Communications Commission.  Violators would face fines up to $10,000 a
> day.

Does this mean that if I use my modem to call another computer system
and send encrypted data, perhaps using an encryption scheme that is
more robust and more difficult to decipher than the current DES, and
the FBI is "interested" in what data I am sending/receiving, they will
slap me with a $10,000/day fine unless I give them the decryption keys
and methods used in my scheme?

Does this mean that I will only be "allowed" to use a certain level of
encryption technology for my private communications, a level that can
be deciphered by the FBI in a reasonable period of time?

Will the FBI someday place a telephone call like this to John Gotti,
Jr.:

  FBI: Hi, John, uh, it seems that you're using an encryption method that
     we can't seem to decipher in a reasonable period of time, and since
     we're wiretapping all of your communications, we'd sure appreciate
     it if you would just let us know the decryption keys you're using so
     that we can get on with the business of keeping the streets safe and
     fighting the war on drugs ...

  JG, Jr.: Sure, I'll have Luigi and Bruno send the keys right over
     special delivery to your place -- what was your home address again?
     And, will your wife and kids be home so that we can be sure that you
     get our special delivery?

Scary ...


mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 09:26:41 GMT


Joseph Truitt <[e-mail]> writes:

> Mr. Smith indicated that the new proposal continues in the same vein,
> and is intended to allow a similar ease of tapping with the new
> digital and optical equipment.  The intent is to enforce the "proper"
> design of the communications equipment -- and as a last resort, issue
> [expensive] contempt citations and force retrofits anyway.  Oh (this
> is the most disturbing point, IMO) -- he also confirmed that the
> standard is _not_ just for telephone companies.  The proposal covers
> _all_ transmitted communications between any kind of equipment, data
> as well as voice, on any sort of wire or network -- large or small,
> public or private.

> Questions:

> I want your expert opinions.  Is this proposal a reasonable
> clarification and modernization of the Omnibus Act?  Or is it too
> general and invasive to be acceptable?  Is this a convenient
> opportunity for Big Brother to extend his reach?  Should I/we be
> particularly concerned?  Write letters of protest to Congress, and all
> that?  If so, what are the most effective points and methods of
> rebuttal?  If not, why?

If the above scope is what they are asking for, then sorry, they
should have no "right" to tap into those things in that way. If they
want to tap into things, and discover that they cannot understand the
data format or encryption, then that is too bad.


Leonard Erickson    [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]    [e-mail]
FIDO:   1:105/56    [e-mail]
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS?
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 13:21:21 EDT


On 29 May 92 04:06:04 GMT, [e-mail] said:

> When AT&T announced its 700 service about a month ago, the coverage in
> the {New York Times} said that the service was made possible by new
> software in its number 5 ESS switches.  Was that an error?  I'm under
> the impression that AT&T's domestic network is implemented entirely
> with number 4 ESS switches and that the number 5 is sold to RBOCs and
> other companies, but not generally used in the domestic network.  Is
> that true?

The workhorse of the AT&T network is, as you correctly note, the #4
ESS(R).  However, some aspects of AT&T service are implemented on the
5ESS(R).  Until I have a chance to see what has actually been
published, I'd rather leave it vague as to what the 5Es are used for,
since I like my job.  As the Times has pointed out, EasyReach 700 is
implemented on the 5ESS part of the network.  (Call completion might
also involve a trip into the 4 ESS land, but I don't know).

> Has anyone seen any public descriptions of the technical aspects of
> the implementation?  It would seem that the service could be provided
> basically by having the switches interrogate a (replicated) data base
> for the translations, in a way similar to that done with 800 calls
> today.  It doesn't sound like that big a deal; am I missing something?

I seriously doubt that anything technical will be published before the
service is actually rolled out.  A lot of technical papers on network
implementation appear in the AT&T Technical Journal (an openly
available journal), so something might appear there sometime in the
future.  Who knows?  I don't.

What you are missing is that the database is far more dynamic than the
800 database.  Subscribers can change the routing of their EasyReach
700 numbers at will.  That is a very different problem from 800
routing.

Non of this is authoritative.  I know nothing of the EasyReach
implementation other than the fact published in the Times that it is
implemented on the 5ESS.

**
ESS and 5ESS are registered trademarks of AT&T
**

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

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

Date: Mon,  1 Jun 92 10:33:08 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Edwin D. Windes)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS?


AT&T uses both in their network.  Generally, 4ESS(TM) switches are
used for high-capacity switching, and 5ESS(R) switches are used to
provide operator services and perform other specialized tasks.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #441
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26313;
          2 Jun 92 23:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04813
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 21:44:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04766
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 21:44:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 21:44:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #442

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jun 92 21:44:04 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 442

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Steve Forrette)
    Re: NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: HDTV Information Required (Jiro Nakamura)
    Re: Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna (John Rice)
    Re: The Number Plan Change Starts in 20 Minutes (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines (Tony Harminc)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: GTE Bashing (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area (Henry Mensch)
    Late Monday Evening AT&T/CWA Update (Phillip Dampier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 06:24:31 GMT


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

> Note that the caller's charge for calling a 950 number is up to the
> 950-provider -- just like 900 numbers.  If the provider wants to eat
> the cost as part of its service, that's fine.  But some other
> 950-provider might just hit you with $120/call, just like a 900/976
> number.

[stuff deleted]

>> [Moderator's Note: I am not aware of any charges on my bill as a
>> result of using 950-1288 to access AT&T Mail or the FYI News Service
>> they bought from WUTCO.   PAT]

> Remember that this might not be true for calls to other 950 numbers.

Are you sure about the possibility of the caller being charged for
certain 950 numbers?  I know that in California at least, COCOTs are
required to allow free calling to ANY 950 number, just like to calls
to 800 numbers.  Is this the next place to look for the next "mystic"
scam?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: NJ Bell Didn't Charge For AT&T Calls
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 07:01:36 GMT


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

[stuff about delayed billing of AT&T calls]

>> But the free calls are over, Johnson said.  Records of the calls are
>> stored in computer memory banks, and the customers soon will be
>> billed.

In the mid-80's, I got fed up with Sprint's constant delayed billing
for about half of my calls (charges would come in three or four months
late in many cases).  I called the California PUC to ask them what
recourse I had available to me.  It turns out that at least in the
case of Sprint's intra-state California tariff, there is a specific
provision which allows Sprint to bill up to two years after the call
is placed.  Although the time limit may vary, I would imagine that
most tariffs have a similar provision.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 08:21:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Leibold <Dave.Leibold@
> f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org> writes:

>> The approach to foreign coins in Canada is overall more tolerant than
>> in the U.S. This contrasts to an experience I had in the U.S. where
>> even so much as a single Canadian penny gets thoroughly rejected at a
>> coffee shop.

> Of course!  That's because Canadian coins are worth less money than
> their US counterparts.  Still, I find that US businesses are
> unreasonably reluctant to accept foreign money at all, even at a very
> reasonable exchange rate.

That's because their *bank* won't accept them, or uses a nasty
exchange rate *and* charges a hefty service fee!

I speak from experience. I was treasurer for a local branch of a group
with branches in both the US and Canada. At one event, some Canadians
paid the site fee with Canadian currency. We finally had to go to the
local branch of a Canadian bank and convert it to US currency at the
current exchange rate. None of *our* banks would touch it.


Leonard Erickson   [e-mail] CIS:
[70465,203]       [e-mail] FIDO:
1:105/56       [e-mail] (The CIS
address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

From: [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura)
Subject: Re: HDTV Information Required
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 14:47:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Darren Ingram) writes:

> With people ever-increasingly depending on on-line library files and
> Internetable services, whole generations of students etc. will
> possibly forget how to search a manual index, cross-reference and lug
> heavy books around!

> After all, it is so easy to sit at your terminal and type out a
> request. If it is raining or late at night, you may not want to trek
> over to the library and wake up a librariandroid!  Although I am in no
> way attempting to defend the anti-printed-books brigade!

Bull -

    The *only* people who will use this are students who have to
write papers. And will they read the books? Nope, they will do:

    grep -i "deconstructionism" /Books/* or the equivalent. Online
books are not the solution to get people to read more. The general
public is not interested in online material.

/* Begin diatribe */

    Face, the reason why people don't read is that they are lazy.
The reason they don't vote is they are lazy. The reason they don't
follow the political situation enough to have an intelligent vote is
that they are lazy.

    When television first came in, people thought it would bring a
renaissance of learning to Amercian culture. Well, flipping through my
cable channels, looking at the current presidential candidates, I sure
don't see any increase in learning.

    Computers will not make us better, more intelligent people.
Only better teaching at all levels of the educational system, solid
homes, and pure bodily fluids will do that.

/* end diatribe */


Jiro Nakamura            [e-mail] (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor    76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group        [phone] (Voice/Fax)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 15:10:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vance
Shipley) writes:

> I will be moving my cellular telephone to a van I am about to
> purchase.  I would like to mount an antenna in the roof the
> conventional way, by drilling a hole.  This is unheard of to the
> cellular folks!  They don't seem to know of any antennas that mount
> this way.  Can any one recommend something?

Look in the yellow pages for a major two-way radio shop. They should
have what you need. There are a number of antennas made to do what you
want. Most 'cellular' installation shops usually do 'stereos' and
don't really know much about radio. (Wonder whatever happened to the
old FCC requirements about needing a Commercial Ticket to sign off a
mobile installation ?) Guess I'm dating myself 8-} ...


John Rice         K9IJ    [e-mail]
(708)-940-9000 - (work)   (708)-438-7011 - (home)

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

Date: Mon,  1 Jun 92 14:03:00 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: The Number Plan Change Starts in 20 Minutes
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Morten
Reistad) writes:

> This is a part of the changeover from a seven to an eight digit
> numbering plan.

Callers from abroad need not worry until late January, 1993.

> We will keep you posted on developments. Might come in handy when the
> US does it's big change sometimes in 1995 or 1996.

   Did I miss something?  What "big" change did you have in mind?
Interchangable NPAs (no longer N1/0X)?  Expansion to 101XXXX carrier
access codes?  CCITT time "T" for 15-digit international numbers?

   I don't believe any of these change the method of access to the USA
from other countries.  Bellcore says the NPA change will allow us to
live with ten digits until mid-21st century.


Al Varney    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 00:43:53 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines


[e-mail] (David Esan) wrote:

> Attached are all the LATAs in the NANP that I am aware of, and the
> states and NPAs in which they are.
>
> The format is LATA: NPA (State)

>     840 :403 (AB)
>     842 :604 (BC)
>     844 :204 (MB)
>     846 :506 (NB)
>     848 :709 (NF)
>     850 :403 (AB), 819 (PQ)
>     852 :902 (NS)
>     854 :416 (ON), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 705 (ON), 807 (ON)
>     856 :902 (NS)
>     858 :416 (ON), 418 (PQ), 514 (PQ), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 819 (PQ)
>     860 :306 (SK)
>     862 :403 (AB)

What does it mean to say that the above Canadian NPAs are in LATAs?
My understanding is that LATA is a political concept unique to the
USA, relating to long distance competition there.  Who assigns them?
And what sense is there in a grouping like #858 above: 519 to 418
covers about a third of the width of the entire country, yet two of
the same NPAs appear in grouping #854.


Puzzled in Toronto,

(Tony H.)

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

Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 22:34:32 -0700
From: Robert S. Helfman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA


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

> About a block from my 'second office' (a place where I sometimes go to
> work on this Digest, and do other things) near Howard and Western
> Avenues in Chicago is a medical clinic specializing in treatment for
> kidney disorders. It is a fairly large place, with four or five
> physicians operating it as a partnership or professional corporation.

> The clinic has a alarm system to detect break-ins to the building, and
> for the past couple months the alarm system has been malfunctioning.

PAT, I loved your story. I see that I'm not the only person who has
discovered how much more delicious it is when you "Get Even, don't Get
Mad".

I used to let stuff like this piss me off and fret over it. When I
started DOING something about it, it was so much more satisfying.

I live in the Baldwin Hills (you may remember hearing about a major
fire here in L.A. about five years ago, in an affluent black
neighborhood. That's the place.) above the Crenshaw district of L.A.,
which is the far northwest edge of what the media call South-Central
LA. Some ghetto! Median household income for the five mile radius is
$40k; house prices in my neighborhood average $380k. My house is at
about the 16th story level above the city, up the hill from a new
mall. When the mall first opened, I was awakened at 2 am by a booming
voice saying something like "34-3, 10-4, 34-4, 10-4, ... etc." I went
to the window, determined that the sound was coming from the mall
(which is at least 1000 feet away). I called the mall security office
and asked if they were polling their officers and why weren't they
using their radios? Sure 'nuff they were playing with their PA system.

I told their dispatcher that she was violating the noise abatement
laws of LA -- no amplified sound system shall be audible more than 150
feet off the premises, whether public or private. She asked me, "who
are you and what business is it of yours?" I told her I was a citizen
and she basically told me to fuck off and hung up. I called the LAPD
noise abatement team at 6 am, the city council woman's office at 8:30,
and the mall manager at 9 am.

The noise abatement officers paid the dispatcher a house call that
evening, explaining to her and the entire staff that they could be
personally cited for a misdemeanor. The officers stopped by my house
and dropped a card in my mailbox telling me "it won't happen again;
they have the fear of God".

And in 2 1/2 years, it never has happened again.

Squeaky wheel getteth grease!


[Moderator's Note: Good story in return, thanks! Don't you really love
these people in security work who think they are hotshots and will do
as they please?  Ditto the countless petty politicians, bureaucrats
and their ilk who wonder in amazement how you as a mere citizen could
possibly know anything about *anything* ... PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Reply-To: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 01:17:47 GMT


In defense of doctors (both my parents are doctors so I kinda have to
do this :-) ), not all physicians are such self-centered schmucks.

I like your solution, PAT.  About the only other thing I would have
done is taken my friend's van (humungous under-the-seat-rumbling-
feel-it-in- your-bones bass speakers) and played Guns N' Roses at full
blast outside his window.  Or worse, some rap songs.  Or opera.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine.

S. Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 -  Dept. of Computer Science


[Moderator's Note: Listen you, lay off of opera. First and last
warning. I happen to enjoy Richard Wagner ... all umpteen hours of the
Ring Cycle ... it is great background music while preparing this
Digest each day.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 19:50:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rob
Schultz) writes:

> On a side note, when requesting my service, I asked what type of
> switch I would be on.  The rep went to find out, and came back with
> the answer: GTS-5.  I asked if this was a 5ESS or similar, and all she
> could tell me was that it is GTE's latest and greatest switch.  Can
> anyone help identify this?

> Well, sorry for rambling like this, but someone has to give PAT some
> work to do around here :-) (just kidding, PAT).

The GTD-5 is actually a very popular digital switch, with 16 million
installed lines across the U.S. It was first applied June 26, 1982 in
Banning, California for GTE-California, and sold quite well to GTE and
ITOCs. It is the last switch designed by Automatic Electric. While no
one seems to have ever heard of it, it actually outsold the 5-ESS and
DMS during the early 80's.

Ironically, at this point, GTE has sold Automatic Electric to AT&T,
Microtel Pacific Research to Northern Telecom, and the international
switching to Siemens. So, nearly every switch manufacture makes
GTD-5's now (although for growth only, there are very few new starts).


Kevin Wayne Williams
AG Communication Systems nee Automatic Electric

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 10:23:58 -0700
Subject: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: And isn't it true Lauren that the generic term
> 'GTE' does not mean a lot in and of itself. There are many, many GTE
> telephone operating companies just as there are lots of Bell
> companies, and the GTE company here in Illinois might be (probably is)
> managed entirely differently. Readers here have been speaking poorly
> of the California operation, but they might be quite content with the
> same parent company under subsidiaries in other areas of the USA.  PAT]

Actually, some time ago (some years), many had spoken ill of the
Indiana GTE operation as well ... I wonder if things have changed
much.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1992 00:42:36 -0500
Subject: Late Monday Evening AT&T/CWA Update


UNIONS, AT&T TEMPORARILY RECESS TALKS UNTIL 9 AM TUESDAY
Communications Workers of America
11:30 pm EDT  6-1-92


WASHINGTON -- Following virtually non-stop negotiations all day today,
bargainers for CWA, AT&T, and IBEW recessed at the company's request.
The talks are scheduled to resume Tuesday morning at 9 am EDT.

CWA President Morton Bahr noted that 28 items of dispute remain
between the two unions and AT&T, and said, "most of these are major
issues, including several very key issues in the area of employment
security."

Bahr said that he is "more pessimistic today about achieving a
settlement in the near term that I was on Saturday."

The current union contract expired on Saturday, but both parties
agreed to keep negotiating as long as some progress was being made.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #442
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28262;
          3 Jun 92 0:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19428
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 22:29:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27655
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 22:29:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 22:29:32 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #443

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jun 92 22:29:36 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 443

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Jon Baker)
    Re: GTE Employee Responds (Jay Ashworth)
    GTE's Local Presence (or Lack Thereof) (John Higdon)
    Cellular Alliance: GTE, NYNEX, BAMS, Ameritech (David E. Sheafer)
    On The Other Hand ... (John Higdon)
    Forbes on PacTel (Forbes Magazine via Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines (Matthew Holdrege)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Jay Ashworth)
    Does *67 Really Work? (Bill Squire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 18:26:05 GMT


Normally I wouldn't bother responding to the ignorant and inane
ramblings of Mr. Higdon, but for the benefit of our more objective
readers ...

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

> This is the switch that put GTE out of the switch manufacturing
> business.

The GTD5 did not put GTE out of the switch manufacturing business.  A
strategic decision was made by GTE Corporation to cease selling new
GTD5 Base Units, and instead encourage the local GTE telephone
companies to buy AT&T 5ESS switches.  Any comment on WHY that decision
was made would be pure speculation; I am confident, though, that is
has nothing to do with the relative quality of the GTD5.

> It has wretched three-way,

If you are referring to the voice quality of three-way, I have
explained this to you in painful detail before.  Our current three-way
conference bridge provides excellent voice quality.  I have no idea
what three-way hardware your local CO is using, but it may well be
old, obsolete, or defective.  I'm real sorry you find your local
three-way voice quality to be inadequate, but as I've said before,
take it up with your local telco.  There's very little that I or
anyone else on this newsgroup can do about it.

> very clumsy feature implementation

Are you referring to feature operation from a subscriber's
perspective, or feature implementation from a switch-engineering
perspective?  For the former, our features generally operate the same
as anyone else's (5ESS, DMS, etc.).  As for the latter, you could not
possibly have any idea what you're talking about, but IMHO the
features on a GTD5 are FAR easier to engineer than on the competitor's
equipment.

> and more than likely will not be equipped for ISDN or SS7 (and CLASS).

John, John, John ... how many times do we have to repeat this mantra?
The GTD5 already has SS7 and CLASS, and has had them for many years.
We are still pursuing options for ISDN features.

> Frankly, until the telcos get it together and work out some standards
> of implementation

There ARE standards of implementation, LOTS of them.  REAMS of them.
And, for the most part, we all (all manufacturers) follow them to the
best of our ability.  Could the standards be better?  Of course.  They
could provide a lot more detailed information.  Getting feature
operation standards through the various standards committees is a
long, arduous, expensive process, though.  They do well enough.  Could
the process be better?  Of course, anything could be better and more
efficient.

> I would prefer that digital switches NOT be installed in end offices.

Now, on that, I'll have no argument.

> From where I stand (average telephone user), both the GTD-5 and 5ESS
> stink big time.

As has been pointed out here, they both have their good and bad
points.  I'm served by a GTD5 at work, with which I've been very
pleased.  I'm served by a 5ESS at home, with which I've been less than
pleased.

> Unless one can have IDSN (at reasonable rates, thank you), digital
> switches offer nothing but disadvantages to the end user.

This one could put me on a soapbox for days, but I'll keep it terse.
We're being required to offer more services to more people at reduced
costs.  Digital switching has permitted the phone companies to keep
the cost of phone service at a reasonable level, while serving an
ever-increasing and always-demanding customer base.

As for ISDN, it's doubtful you'll get it at reasonable (to you) rates
any time soon.  Regardless of what your switching platform is, it
requires expensive new hardware and software, and associated support
systems.  That cost is NOT going to be spread among the entire
customer base (you'd have a field day with that one).  The cost is
going to be borne primarily by the ISDN subscribers, which initially
will be fairly few in number.  In time, the cost will come done.
Maybe ten years.  I know, you'd like it tomorrow and you want it
cheap.  Well, stop being such a crybaby.  We can't always get what we
want when we want it.

*flame on*

John, you've consistently demonstrated your complete ignorance of
digital switching systems in this forum.  I think the readers have
been generally polite in tolerating your annoying, misinformed tirades.
Now, for the benefit of us who do know two cents worth about digital
switching systems, and wish to carry on intelligent and relevant discussions
regarding those systems, will you please SHUT UP!

*flame off*

On that topic - Steven Lichter of GTECA asks:

> Something happened and I think it may have been govenment intervention
> and I hear that the GTD-5 will continue. Maybe someone from AGCS can
> answer that.

Steve, I haven't heard anything about government intervention.
However, I do occasionally see reports of GTD5-related sales.  Despite
a supposed moratorium from GTE Corp. on new GTD5 sites, we continue to
sell a couple GTD5 Base Units every year.  Maybe they're to independents
 -- I don't know who the actual customers are.  We are certainly not
selling GTD5 Base Units by the hundreds, though!  It was recently
announced (publicly) that AGCS will be shutting down the Northlake
manufacturing facility, outsourcing some functions and transferring
others to the nearby Genoa facility.  With that, I don't see how we
could be selling any significant quantities of GTD5 Base Units.  The
GTD5 will continue to be supported, with replacement hardware and
software upgrades, for quite some time though.  (I hope).

> In time AGCS will become fully owned by AT&T and that I don't agree
> with as it will drive the price of switching equipment up since there
> will be one less manufacturer of it.

Do you really think the 5ESS could get any MORE expensive?  As for the
loss of one competitor, remember you still have Ericsson, Siemens,
Alcatel, (all foreign-owned, mind you ...) Northern, and others.
While I certainly regret the loss of the GTD5 from the competitive
marketplace, I don't think there's a lack of competition in general.


J.Baker     asuvax!gtephx!bakerj

DISCLAIMER : I am not an official representative of AG Communition Systems.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: GTE Employee Responds
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 23:19:40 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> Steven Lichter     GTECA
> Mad Dog (Steven)             Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
> UUCP: [e-mail]    [phone]  1200-2400 bps 8N1


What's wrong with this picture?

Cheers,


Jay R. Ashworth                    [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy   f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology           petexch.relay.net}


[Moderator's Note: I don't know ... you tell us: what is wrong with
the picture?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 00:53 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: GTE's Local Presence (or Lack Thereof)


GTE serves my transmitter site in Los Gatos, CA. All business is
transacted with Thousand Oaks, about three hundred miles away. Some of
the reps and service people even ask, "is that in California?" Back
when it was the Western California Telephone Company (before GTE
bought it), there was a business office on Montebello Ave. and another
on Los Gatos Blvd. The phone company served the town.

Now one is treated like some kind of foreigner with whom the service
people would rather not bother. As I posted, it took from Friday
afternoon until Monday afternoon to restore service to a telephone
that had been disconnected because of GTE error. The "excuse" was
simply that there is no one at the central offices; they are
controlled out of Thousand Oaks. Hey, that's great. I don't live in
Thousand Oaks; my telephone service is in Los Gatos.

At my home (three miles away from Los Gatos), I am served by Pac*Bell.
I have had things such as bad pairs and other problems corrected
within hours on a Sunday. If my home phone had been disconnected in
error (never happened, but possible), I can guarantee you it would be
restored in minutes, not days.

I hope that gives you a small idea of why I find GTE to be the worst
of telephone companies. It just appears that GTE doesn't give a damn.


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

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Alliance: GTE,NYNEX,BAMS,Ameritech - What's it Mean?
Date: 1 Jun 92 19:30:11 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


In the quarterly report of GTE it states they have joined a cellular
alliance:

"GTE_s two cellular-telelphone companies -- GTE Mobilenet and Contel
Cellular -- and three othe leading mobile communications carriers -
have signed a letter of intent to develop a nationwide brand identity
for wireless services.  The others are Ameritech Mobile Communications,
Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, and NYNEX Mobile Communications."

Does anyone have any information on what this alliance will mean for
cellular subscribers?


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 02:55 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: On The Other Hand ...


Now that we have had a nice GTE bashathon (which is ALWAYS
appropriate), I thought I would share with you today's example of
Pac*Bell's approach to customer relations.

The 1ESS serving my home has seemed of late somewhat cranky. Three-way
calls that drop both parties when flashing to combine them; call-waits
that end up dropping both (and the phone never rings back);
call-forwarding that mysteriously reappears after clearing; etc. All
of these things happen so infrequently as to make it impossible to
duplicate for a repair person.

So I called the business office and complained of my general minor
dissatisfaction. The person immediately handed me to a supervisor, who
in turn took my complaints. During the afternoon another supervisor
called and we talked at length about the problems. She took careful
notes and told me that she was going to meet with plant people the
next day and see what direction to go.

Among her comments were, "You pay good money for a service and you
need to be happy with it", and, "We can see that you are a long time
customer and obviously know how to use the features. We want you to be
happy with the service."

Can you imagine anyone from GTE saying such things? We will see what
happens.


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

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

Subject: Forbes on PacTel
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 17:00:22 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


The June 8th edition of {Forbes} had an interesting bit about the
'Civil War' at Pac Tel. Some excerpts:

In April, Pacific Telesis said it was thinking of spinning off its
regulated phone operations to concentrate on cellular and other
unregulated businesses. What's up? "The only way of understanding
what's happening at PacTel, says Victor Schnee, "is that it is the
result of a civil war within the company."

[...] Schnee says PacTel and the other Bell operating companies are
facing a crisis: With competition coming at last to their local
regoins, phone company executives must aggressively invest in and
market all kinds of information technology and communications
services.  But according to Schnee, after decades of ignoring warning
signs, most [telco] executives still don't take the competitive threat
very seriously.

[...] Rather than make the huge investments in fibre-optic cable,
digital switches and other equipment and skills necessary to keep up
with emerging competitors, Schnee believes that most phone company
managers will be content to boost their earnings by cutting costs.

[...] Schnee says the Bells are divided on what to do. PacTel seems to
be saying it will resolve the dilemma by letting its old-line company
managers go one way, its more competitive cellular managers another.
BellSouth, on the other hand, may be more determined to compete as a
unified company. [... end]


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 16:02 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines


I had several requests for Pac Bell's data access requirements, so
here they are. BTW for those who didn't know, when I referred to 1mb
lines the mb stands for "measured business" not "mega-bits".

             DATA ACCESS LINES TESTS AND REQUIREMENTS

All of the tests listed below must be performed during the initial
channel installation. Central Office should be checked prior to the
turn-up date (PTD).

1) Does the circuit match the customer's needs?
2) Continuity to the DMARC - and - pair integrity
3) Circuit needs to be designed if loop has greater than 5DB loss
4) Check attenuation distortion
5) Check C-message noise
6) Check C-notched noise (if SLC-96 is in circuit)
7) Check impulse noise
8) Have installer pull dial tone, dial and check for ringing cycle
9) Insure RJ11 (voice) or RJ45 (data) is installed in the field
10) Document all readings on benchmark and scratchpad
11) Have customer perform acceptance test or exercise call-back program

LOSS:
Frequency        Requirement at DMARC                    Procedure
1000hz          No more thatn 5 DB loss   Design circuit if more than 5db loss


3 tone slope (Referenced at 1000hz)
Frequency range           Allowable variance
400 to 2800hz             -1 to +3db (1db hot to 3db long)


Noise tests:
       TEST                      REQUIREMENT
C-message noise                  20dBrbC0
C-notched noise (with SLC-96)    45dBrnC0
Impulse noise (15 minutes)       Less than 15 hits/15 min.


Envelope delay  (Not required for turn-up)
Frequency Range            Allowable variance
1000 to 2600 hz             200 microseconds


Matt Holdrege  Pacificare Health Plans   [e-mail]   714-229-2518

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 20:00:26 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


Caught you, Pat. :-) In this post you say we should be in control of
our lines, an attitude I agree with. In the earlier one to which I
responded, you say it's OK if we're not.

Which is it, now?

Curious ... my 1991 Bellcore catalog has the following to say:

TR-TSY-000391  CLASS<sm> Feature: Calling Number Delivery Blocking
               Issue 2, June 1988               Price $33.00

This technical reference defines Bellcore's view of proposed generic
requirements for Calling Number Blocking for residential and small
business customers.  This service feature allows the customer to
temporarily label his or her directory number as private and thus
restrict its availability to the called party.

Issue 2 reflects changes in activation and deactivation procedures
_to_ a single toggle code. [emphasis mine] Use of this toggle code
temporarily changes the permanent public/private status of the
customer's directory number.

Except for the emphasis, I've double checked it, that's exactly how
it's worded and punctuated, so draw your own conclusions.

Does anybody _have_ a copy of 000391, or the LSSGR, which is what it's
part of?


Cheers,

Jay R. Ashworth                    [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy   f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,petexch.relay.net}
   in Advanced Technology

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

Subject: Does *67 Really Work?
From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 18:36:50 WET
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


I have talked to a lot of friends in the States about CLID and the *67
option and have this nagging question I can't get a real answer for.
I know that when you use *67, the callback option still works and so
does call trace, which can mean only one thing: CLID allways delivers
if you say so or not!  Since your local CO allways gets the info if it
is available, does it indeed put it to the customer and tell his/her
device not to display the number?  If so homebrew CLID receivers
should have a nice market!  If the info is not delivered to the
customer, it should then still be a relative simple to "talk" your CO
into giving you the callers number dispite the callers wishes.  Anyone
checked this out?  Let us know.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #443
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29524;
          3 Jun 92 0:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27698
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:07:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17455
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:06:50 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:06:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #444

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jun 92 23:06:49 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 444

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Paul Wallich)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Bill Sohl)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Mike Godwin)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Carl Moore)
    Re: HDTV Information Required (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: HDTV Information Required (Jacob DeGlopper)
    Re: One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines (David Esan)
    Re: One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines (Carl Moore)
    Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA? (David Esan)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Brandon S. Allbery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 20:27:49 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Joseph Truitt <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> Mr. Smith confirmed the essential points of the proposal as outlined
> in the above article.  I asked for a bill number, and he took a wild
> guess that it would be a month before the proposal would be assigned a
> number.  He indicated that the proposal was a clarification,
> affirmation, and modernization of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets
> Act of 1968, which orders the telecom provider to "assist in
> intercept" and gives the FBI the right to tap particular conversations
> as long as they have "probable cause" of criminal activity and a
> court-ordered warrant.  They are supposed to adhere to the principle
> of "minimization," which means that they will only listen to the
> conversation directly pursuant to the criminal activity, and they will
> stop listening immediately if they stumble upon the wrong
> conversation.

> Mr. Smith indicated that the new proposal continues in the same vein,
> and is intended to allow a similar ease of tapping with the new
> digital and optical equipment.  The intent is to enforce the "proper"
> design of the communications equipment -- and as a last resort, issue
> [expensive] contempt citations and force retrofits anyway.  Oh (this
> is the most disturbing point, IMO) -- he also confirmed that the
> standard is _not_ just for telephone companies.  The proposal covers
> _all_ transmitted communications between any kind of equipment, data
> as well as voice, on any sort of wire or network--large or small,
> public or private.

Two interesting points on this:

1) There is reason to believe (i.e. FBI spokespersons do not deny)
that this amendment, if passed, could be invoked to forbid end-to-end
encryption of network traffic, whether voice or data (an attempt to
force encryption-device makers to put a law-enforcement trapdoor in
their hardware/algorithms was introduced in the senate last year and
killed).

2) One of the capabilities that this law is apparently intended to
give law-enforcement officials is that of tapping calls that originate
and end within the same PBX (or other private switch/network) without
entering the premises of the tappee (as this is considered a dangerous
and potentially inflammatory action). It seems to me that implementing
this would require a) some kind of dialable connection to the
supervisory software and b) some kind of serious audit lockout so that
the resulting traffic would not show up on call logs. Could be a
powerful tool in either the right or the wrong hands.

Speaking of this, does anyone know what the current status is of that
brilliant invention, the speakerphone whose mic is controlled by the
central switch?


paul

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

From: dancer![e-mail] (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Reply-To: dancer![e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 13:37:59 GMT


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

> Does this mean that if I use my modem to call another computer system
> and send encrypted data, perhaps using an encryption scheme that is
> more robust and more difficult to decipher than the current DES, and
> the FBI is "interested" in what data I am sending/receiving, they will
> slap me with a $10,000/day fine unless I give them the decryption keys
> and methods used in my scheme?

> Does this mean that I will only be "allowed" to use a certain level of
> encryption technology for my private communications, a level that can
> be deciphered by the FBI in a reasonable period of time?

ABC TV did a 1/2 hour Nightline edition on 5/22/92 (when everyone else
was watching the last Johnny Carson show).  I taped it and it has some
good discussion, although not much in terms of any real detail.  The
show focused on the possible provision to the FBI (and any other law
enforcement/CIA/etc.agency) of a software access capability to the
network.

In reference to personal telephones/modems/etc that use personal
encryption:

 From what a representative of the ACLU said on the 5/22/92 Nightline
show, that would appear to be what the FBI wants.  The ACLU person
pointed out that any such regulation would leave the US behind the
rest of the world AND that those that want it (criminal types, etc.)
would use the best available anyway.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.


Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 20:49:08 GMT


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

> Mr. Smith confirmed the essential points of the proposal as outlined
> in the above article.  I asked for a bill number, and he took a wild
> guess that it would be a month before the proposal would be assigned a
> number.  He indicated that the proposal was a clarification,
> affirmation, and modernization of the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets
> Act of 1968, which orders the telecom provider to "assist in
> intercept" and gives the FBI the right to tap particular conversations
> as long as they have "probable cause" of criminal activity and a
> court-ordered warrant.

This is a misrepresentation by the FBI. The Digital Telephony
initiative is, by no means, a "clarification" of anything.
("Clarifications" don't normally cost $300 million to implement.) No
author of the original Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968
intended that the law be interpreted or "clarified" to require the
phone companies to build tappability into the phone lines.

> Or is it too general and invasive to be acceptable?

This depends on whether you think the Bells should be operating merely
a phone system or phone system/surveillance system.

> Should I/we be particularly concerned?  Write letters of protest to
> Congress, and all that?  If so, what are the most effective points and
> methods of rebuttal?  If not, why?

At this point, several people of both liberal and conservative stripe
have written to oppose the initiative. I've editorialized about it
myself in EFF's online newsletter (available by ftp from eff.org), and
William Safire recently wrote about it on the {New York Times} op-ed
page.


Mike Godwin,    [e-mail]
[phone]  EFF, Cambridge

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 16:18:55 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up


Isn't that supposed to be [phone] instead of 325-3000?  I
noticed 324-3000 in a reference I had to zipcode 20535 (used for the
FBI), and until 202 was withdrawn from suburban points in 1990,
202-325 was in Alexandria, VA.

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

From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: HDTV Information Needed
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 14:25:11 GMT


>> Could somebody provide me the information about HDTV, like the
>> basic concept, how it works, research done till now and the future
>> scope, etc.

> Doesn't anyone do research anymore?  Don't people go to the library?
> Do they know how to use it?

If the original poster would have gone to the library, he would have
found out a lot about HDTV.  He would have seen several broadcast
systems using about a thousand scan lines, some of which used digital
encoding with up to 24 bits per pixel for RGB information.  He would
have seen compression schemes intended to compress this wide-bandwidth
data to fit into a 6 MHz-wide NTSC channel, as well as various
requests to allocate UHF bandwidth for wider channels which would be
required for uncompressed HTDV signals.

What he wouldn't have heard is that 1000 scan lines produces
resolution that is somewhat lower than Super-8 Kodachrome, and that 24
bits isn't anywhere near enough to provide an acceptable grey scale
with an RGB system.  He wouldn't have seen that the overall quality of
the HDTV systems in place is really quite poor compared with a good
film system.  It's informal information exchange like this that Usenet
is excellent for.


Scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Subject: Re: HDTV Information Required
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob DeGlopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 16:56:12 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Darren Ingram)
says:

> With people ever-increasingly depending on on-line library files and
> Internetable services, whole generations of students etc. will
> possibly forget how to search a manual index, cross-reference and lug
> heavy books around!

Actually, it's happening already.  Earlier this year, when my entire
English class was taken to the library by our enthusiastic teacher
(who I believe intends to become a junior-high school English teacher,
which explains a trip to the library in a college English class), the
entire class gathered around the library catalog terminals to start
research.  Although you have to go to the terminals eventually, since
the card catalog is only current up though 1988, I started with the
card catalog.  A good card catalog is faster than paging through the
same information in a linear fashion on a terminal, especially when
you're looking for one topic, not esoteric cross-references or
combinations of unlikely words.

In the same vein, one of the quietest places on campus is the third
floor of the humanities library; that floor holds half the periodicals
and all the old Dewey-cataloged books.  The books are a treat, too; I
encountered one book while doing research for Latin class that had not
been checked out in 30 years, complete with someone's fraternity ID
card from that year. Many people don't know where the library is on
campus; I think I'm one of very few students to have acquired a local
public library card.


Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
       -- [e-mail]           (school)
       -- JUE@NCCIBM1                (BITNET)
       -- [e-mail]  (work)

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines
Date: 2 Jun 92 15:25:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 431, Message 3 of 6

> This is why this L.A.T.A. area crosses a state boundary, because
> otherwise people here would have to pay a toll charge by time for a
> call across the street.

Balderdash. (I've always wanted to use that word.)

Having a local call that crosses a LATA line is not impossible.  My
local calling area is in LATA 974, and yet I can call (for free, and
as a local call) LATA 136.  I am quite sure that there are many other
instances like this, particularly in areas where there are independant
telcos, but I shall leave finding this information as an exercise for
the reader.

In many locations (NY, LA, Chicago) all local calls are charged.
People not only are charged for calls across the street, but have to
dial eleven digits to get there.

Intra-LATA calling is regulated differently than inter.  All carriers
are allowed to carry INTER-LATA calls.  The regulatins vary from state
to state on who can carry INTRA-LATA calls, with some states reserving
that right to the LATA's operating company (an independant or one of
the RBOCs), and some allowing competition.

In general intra-LATA calling is more expensive than inter-LATA
calling, which is generally more expensive that out-of-state calling.
I once heard the statistic that 80% of all long distance calls are
made intra-LATA.  I have no proof to back up that assertion, but logic
suggests that a large percentage of calls are within a LATA. I look at
it as just another way for the phone companies to separate us from our
dollars.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 13:18:10 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One Reason Why LATAs Cross State Lines


There are a few cases of local service between Delaware and Maryland,
and between Pennsylvania and New Jersey (for example, Morrisville [PA]
and Trenton [NJ]).  And there is local service across the 609-908
border within New Jersey; for example, between Princeton and Belle
Mead.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Two Area Codes, One LATA?
Date: 2 Jun 92 15:28:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 433, Message 1 of 11

> What does it take to get "official" LATA maps? Do they change?  If so,
> how often?

You can buy LATA maps from several vendors, CCMI jumps to mind.  Not
that it will do you much good.  When I get the quarterly V&H tape from
BellCore there are usually about 10 to 12 changes in NPA-LATA
combinations.  LATA lines change frequently, which means that there
are new NPA-LATA combinations, old NPA-LATA combinations disappear.
Sometimes a whole new LATA is created.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail].
edu (Patton M. Turner):

>> I wish to turn an unused trunk mount cell antenna into a permanently
>> mounted ground plane antenna to use on my house in rural Maine for the
>> (quite often) times that the phone lines go out. What is the proper
>> length for the radials?

> The correct length for 1/4 wave radials would be 3.5 inches.  An
> easier solution would be to mount the antenna in the middle of a foot
> square peice of sheet metal. This will make a better ground plane
> anyway.  The same size plate will work for a VHF Marti antenna, and

 ... but will have the wrong impedance (about 72 ohms; I'm fairly
certain cellular uses 50 ohm impedance), so you want a 45-degree angle
downward.

> If your cable run is an appreciable length run 1/2" hardline or Belden
> 9913 with appropriate connectors (not UHF connectors).  Although 1/2"
> hardline will cost more, it's lower loss and you don't have to worry
> about water intrusion like you would with 9913.

A very good idea.  I have doubts about even the short runs of RG58/U
used with many cellular antennas.

1/2" or 3/4" hardline is often available for free from cable companies
(the tail ends of their cable runs; it's not worth anything to them
unless it's fairly long, which I've heard quoted as being at least
3000 feet).  But this is 75 ohm hardline.  The usual way to solve this
is a quarter wavelength (3 1/2", as noted above) of 66-ohm cable
placed between the 75-ohm section and the 50-ohm section.  This would
also let you use the simpler flat ground plane solution at the
antenna, if the impedance-matching section is placed on the cellphone
end of the feedline.  Which leaves only the problem that hardline
connectors are quite expensive.


Brandon

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V12 #444
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01240;
          3 Jun 92 1:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27626
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:44:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25053
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:44:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:44:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #445

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jun 92 23:44:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 445

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Dana H. Myers)
    Re: Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna (John Gilbert)
    Re: Caller ID and DID (Marcus D. Leech)
    Re: Why Can't I Use All Six Lines on a Six-Pair? (Dean Youngquist)
    Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (R.M. Rickert)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Carl Moore)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Jack Adams)
    Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS? (Jack Adams)
    Re: Multi-Ring Detection (Paul Cook)
    Cellular Codes Used Locally (Gregory Youngblood)
    Airline Fare Cuts Cause Record Number of Telephone Calls (John R. Levine)
    The Phone System Did What? (was Lottery Poses Threat) (Robert L. McMillin)
    Integretel Update (Carl Moore)
    Airfone at Home (Gary W. Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dana H. Myers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1992 15:28:28 GMT


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

> If your cable run is an appreciable length run 1/2" hardline or Belden
> 9913 with appropriate connectors (not UHF connectors).  Although 1/2"
> hardline will cost more, it's lower loss and you don't have to worry
> about water intrusion like you would with 9913.

  If you use "appropriate connectors (not UHF connectors)" on the
9913, it should be essentially weatherproof. I assume by "appropriate"
you mean N connectors.

   If the telephone works reasonably even with a run of RG-58, then it
is working reasonably. I'd try the easy thing first (i.e. RG-58 with
TNC connectors), and then spring for some bigger hose if the cell
service was not satisfactory.


Dana H. Myers KK6JQ      | Views expressed here are
[phone]          | mine and do not necessarily
[e-mail]  DoD #466 | reflect those of my employer

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: Hole Mount Mobile Cellular Antenna
Organization: Motorola Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 23:33:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vance
Shipley) writes:

> I will be moving my cellular telephone to a van I am about to
> purchase.  I would like to mount an antenna in the roof the
> conventional way, by drilling a hole.  This is unheard of to the
> cellular folks!  They don't seem to know of any antennas that mount
> this way.  Can any one recommend something?

Go to a different cellular shop.  If they haven't heard of a 3/4" NMO
mount 3 dB gain antenna, they probably haven't heard of a Standing
Wave Ratio or a Wattmeter either. We once had an installer that tried
to tell one of our engineers that the 800 MHz on-glass antenna he just
finished installing would work just fine for our 150 MHz test system.
WRONG.  Ask to speak to the shop manager or find another shop.

Be careful of installers that haven't been trained with drill in hand
ready to drill a hole in the roof of your car.  If they do offer to
drill a hole in your roof, make sure they use the hole cutter designed
for the job. These are available from Motorola or other two-way radio
supply houses like TESSCO or Cartwright.


John Gilbert              Secure and Advanced Conventional
KA4JMC                    Systems Division
[e-mail]    Motorola Communications Sector
post: CPGR17              Schaumburg, Illinois

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

Date: 2 Jun 92 12:13:00 EDT
From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Vance Shipley) writes:

> Having reread what Steve asked I see I missed that he is looking for a
> LEC service.  Northern Telecom's DMS-100 switches now have support for
> BULK CALLING LINE ID.  An out of band circuit is used to deliver CLID
> to a PBX or other CPE for a group of trunks.  Not having the feature
> spec handy I can't give much detail of this now.

> I am sure other manufacturers have similiar capabilities, I am merely
> more aware of the NT stuff.

For ACD groups, NT also offers CompuCall -- a *very* comprehensive
call-detail delivery system designed for call-center applications.  If
your LEC has DMS equipment, you might start bugging them about
CompuCall. CompuCall is available on both DMS-100 and SL-100 switches.

NT announced CompuCall last year.  Many of the operating companies are
now starting to offer it.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11     Bell-Northern Research    opinions expressed
[e-mail]          P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C     are my own, and not
[e-mail]     Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7   necessarily BNRs

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

From: [e-mail] (Dean Youngquist)
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use All Six Lines on a Six-Pair?
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1992 17:23:19 GMT


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

> I just moved into an apartment complex where each unit is wired with a

> I could really use another line, but the landlords aren't going to
> allow me or PacBell to trench up the parking lot just to get me a few
> more lines.

I use a four pair system in my house and I don't have a ground.  One
problem I have (probably unrelated) is that I get some cross talk
between lines; I wonder if this has anything to do with not having
ground?

One possible solution for your extra line might be one of those phone
extention things I see in mail order catalogs.  These devices have two
power-pack shaped modules, one plugs into the AC line and your
incoming phone line.  The other module plugs into the AC line and
provides you with a phone jack, complete with ring voltage just as if
you had a direct connection.  I guess they must be connected by a
radio link, or perhaps an FM link through the AC line.

Hope this helps.


Dean

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

Date: Tue,  2 Jun 92 10:08:23 EDT
From: [e-mail] (R M Rickert)
Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted
Organization: AT&T


Soon to be at an AT&T PhoneCenter near you, the VideoPhone 2500.
Suitable for small group conferencing over ordinary phone lines.
Demonstrated most recently at the CES show in Chicago.  Stay tuned for
updated availability dates. (Yes, I do have a vested interest in this
product, it not only puts the butter on my bread, it first buys and
then slices the bread for me).


Dick Rickert  AT&T Consumer Products Laboratory

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 17:14:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia


I wonder how the U.S. "sandwich" dimes and quarters, originally
introduced in 1965, worked in comparison to the older coins of those
denominations.  I discovered a silver dime recently when a vending
machine would not take it.

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 14:43:53 GMT


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

> What is the purpose of the three tones (I believe ascending in
> pitch) that you hear before you hear the "We're sorry, you must first
> dial a 1" message or the similar messages?

These Special Information Tones (SIT) permit call detectors and
classifiers to accurately classify calls that reach recorded
announcements resulting from network conditions such as Reorder,
Vacant Code, No circuit, Intercept, etc.  These SIT's are officially
defined by the CCITT and consist of a sequence of three precise tone
segments with frequencies of 950 +/-50Hz, 1400 +/-50Hz, and 1800
+/-50Hz sent in that exact order.  A more rigorous treatment of the
subject is contained in Bellcore's "BOC Notes on the LEC Networks -
1990" Special Report (a/k/a SR-TSV-002275).  Copies are available by
contacting:

    Bellcore Customer Service
    60 New England Avenue - Room 1B252
    Piscataway, NJ  08854-4196
    Telephone [phone]-CORE


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Network Uses Number 5 ESS?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 14:54:38 GMT


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

> When AT&T announced its 700 service about a month ago, the coverage in
> the {New York Times} said that the service was made possible by new
> software in its number 5 ESS switches.  Was that an error? ...
> Is that true?

No, AT&T at last count had around 400 4Es running its domestic LD net.

> Has anyone seen any public descriptions of the technical aspects of
> the implementation?  It would seem that the service could be provided
> basically by having the switches interrogate a (replicated) data base
> for the translations, in a way similar to that done with 800 calls
> today.  It doesn't sound like that big a deal; am I missing something?

You're right on.  There were a number good items on the net recently
describing details of that service; maybe somebody can send you
copies?


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 15:14 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Ring Detection


In response to a question about devices that will route a call based
upon the ring cadence delivered when telco provided distinctive
ringing has more than one number assigned to a line,

[e-mail] (Art Hunter) writes:

> If you have CallerID there is a product called Call SecurID that uses
> a normal telephone line and switches to one of three output ports on
> this DOS based plug in board such that once the phone number is known,
> a pre-determined port is connected to the telephone line.  This
> permits a handset, a modem and a fax (or any three telephone devices)
> to be used for all of the devices.

This doesn't sound like a good use for Caller ID, unless you are only
going to accept calls from known callers, and they will always be
calling from the same lines.

In order for this system to accept fax calls, you would have to find
out what numbers those fax calls will be coming in from, and program
this device accordingly.  In our case here, we now have a separate
outgoing only fax machine that dials out via the PBX for least cost
routing.  If I were going to send a fax to someone using this device,
I would have to find out the phone numbers of ALL of the outgoing
trunks on our PBX, call up the owner of this device, and get him to
program in all of these trunk numbers ... otherwise this device would
not know where to route a call from a line that is not in its
database.

> This permits a handset, a modem and a fax (or any three telephone
> devices) to be used for all of the devices.

For all of WHAT devices?  I thought the idea with these distinctive
ringing boxes was to get several devices on one LINE.

The beauty of the distinctive ringing detector is that you can publish
the separate number as your fax number for anyone to use without
prearrangement.

Of course this is only desirable if you have such low usage on your
line that you can bear to have it shared by two or three uses.  Anyone
who can't live without Call Waiting should forget about the
distinctive ringing solution.  Or does someone need to come out with a
distinctive ringing box that can be programmed to answer certain
ringing cadences (like for the modem or fax) with a hookflash and the
Call Waiting Disable sequence before ringing forward?


Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5317   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Cellular Codes Used Locally
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 13:37:01 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] (Paul Robinson) writes:

> In Washington, DC, a radio station allows Bell Atlantic (Telephone
> Company) Cellular users to call its talk line by dialing *WRC.

> In Baltimore, the local radio station there allows B.A.  Cellular
> callers to call its talk line by dialing *WBAL.

> In both cases the call is free -- no toll or airtime charge.

> [Moderator's Note: The calls are not free; the radio stations have
> agreed to accept the charges in reverse. This makes good sense since
> the cellular-equipped motorist is a good source of traffic and other
> news for the radio stations.  We have a few of those here in Chicago.
> Some align themselves with Cell One; others with Ameritech.    PAT]

In other cases the carrier and radio station swap airtime.  The
airtime charges that accumulate from these calls is then used to pay
for advertisements on the radio station.  Since air-time for both of
these is relatively cheap (near free in some cases), it costs almost
nothing for what they receive.  I've also seen cases where the carrier
actually provided the station with phones and air time in exchange for
advertising.

It works out rather well, and helps the budgets of both.


Greg

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

Subject: Airline Fare Cuts Cause Record Number of Telephone Calls
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 22:06:40 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


AT&T says that June 1 was their busiest day ever, with 177.4 million
long distance calls.  The previous record was 159.6 million calls on
May 28, and before that 157.8 million on December 2, the Monday after
the Thanksgiving weekend.  A typical day is 135 to 140 million calls.

They attribute much of the extra volume to people calling airline 800
numbers due to the current fare war.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 02:52:12 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: The Phone System Did What? (was Lottery Poses Threat to LD)


Edmund Hack <[e-mail]> asks the $64,000 (or more)
question:

> Tomorrow at 6 AM, will the phone system in Texas crash?

Computers being the ubiquitous things that they are, particularly in
the telephone system, it's not too difficult to see the extension of
the old locution 'to crash', in this sense originally describing what
happened when the air gap collapsed on a hard disk drive, to a phone
system.  But taken a step further in other areas, this could have some
ridiculous consequences.  Specifically, if the computer controlling
your fuel injection system fails, has your car crashed?


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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 10:16:56 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integretel Update


This arrived recently, from the same San Jose, CA address cited
earlier:

(date May 15, 1992)

 Re:  Account #: xxx-xxx-xxxx (my telephone number)

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for the letter regarding the Integretel portion of your
phone bill.  Integretel provides billing and customer service for over
100 Alternate Operator Service (AOS) companies.  AOS companies enter
into agreements with hotels, hospitals, universities, correctional
facilities, and privately-owned pay phone operators.  A consumer
placing a call from these telephones would be automatically connected
to the AOS provider when they make collect, third party, or credit
card calls, unless the caller takes steps to use another company.

We are aware that you have been billed for the same calls more than
once.  Duplicate billing is usually the result of a technical error.
We have adjusted your account in the amount of $4.30 + tax.

We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you.

The credit will arrive in the mail as a voucher payable to your local
telephone company in three to four weeks.  If there are any further
questions, please contact Consumer Relations at 1-800-736-7500.


  Sincerely,

  Rachel Pearl
  Consumer Relations Representative

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

Date: Tue,  2 Jun 92 09:08:50 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Gary W Sanders)
Subject: Airphone at Home
Organization: AT&T


I picked up a couple of airphone handsets at the Dayton Hamfest.
Anyone ever try to convert one of these for use on tradional POT's
lines? They make a nice conversation piece but would be better if they
worked.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #445
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06790;
          3 Jun 92 3:42 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16286
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Jun 1992 01:34:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02258
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Jun 1992 01:34:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 01:34:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #446

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jun 92 01:34:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 446

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CWA Unhappy; Strike Becomes Likely (Phillip Dampier)
    How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Martin McCormick)
    A Good 9-1-1 Payphone Experience (Andrew C. Green)
    Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers (Bill Berbenich)
    Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN) (Mark Reardon)
    Endless Loops (Robert L. McMillin)
    Small Business PBX For Sale (Lewis M. Dreblow)
    E-Mail Service from U.S. to Soviet Union (Paul Robinson)
    Volunteering for Interop (Mark Allyn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1992 00:16:33 -0500
Subject: CWA Unhappy; Strike Becomes Likely


CWA UPDATE ON AT&T NEGOTIATIONS
Communications Workers of America
June 2, 1992     11:00 pm EDT


On a nationwide conference call with 4,000 union stewards,
Communications Workers of America President Morton Bahr expressed his
extreme dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in negotiations with
AT&T today.

"I am terribly dissapointed," Bahr said.  "We made a full presentation
to the company on all 28 of our outstanding issues, only to have their
negotiators request a recess until 9:00 AM tomorrow.  I have put AT&T
on notice that if we do not have an agreement by tomorrow night, the
union will send home the members of our local issues bargaining
committees.  Their job will be to take home the story of the company's
intransigence, AT&T's disrespect for our members and the families we
represent in communities around the country, and to assist the local
leadership in implementing an intensified mobilization program."

Talks between the CWA, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
and AT&T top negotiators recessed tonight at approximately 8:30 pm, to
resume on Wednesday, June 3rd at 9:00am.

The CWA Public Affairs office will issue periodic updates on the
status of the talks throughout the day Wednesday.


[Moderator's Note: I'll try to have the latest news on this in the
next issue of the Digest which will be late Wednesday evening. Phil,
as soon as you get some word, please email it to the Digest.   PAT]

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

Subject: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 12:23:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]


On CNN's "Science and Technology Week," for May 23, there was an
interesting segment about how Bell Labs selects different types of
telephone ringers.  They Had a lady whose background is in sociology
whose job it is to listen to all kinds of different ringers to see
which one is the most workable.  When they showed her at work, she was
evaluating ringers from British, Italian, French, and American
telephones.  It sounded like the phones were being fed ringing signals
exactly like the ones they would receive in their native countries so
as to exactly duplicate their normal sound.

     The Italian ringer was a mechanical bell fed with two bursts of
50HZ current.  It is a little like the British cadence, but the two
bursts are a little longer than what one hears from the British phone.

     The rest of the ringers were various electronic noise makers.
One of them sounded like the old "Packman" video games of yesteryear.
Another made a warble like an ambulance siren.  The evaluator said
"You want to use the phone to call the police, not sound like the
police.  Of the various international ringers she tested, she liked
the British call box, the best.  It had a piping, but very noticeable
sound.

     The evaluator also demonstrated some examples of ringer sounds
that didn't ring true.  Bell Labs had tested a ringer that produced a
single note like a piano.  Instead of ringing, the phone boings.
Another variation on this theme was a ringer that sounded a
violin-like note while ringing.  Research showed that neither of those
sounders was favorably received.

     Another problem being addressed is the classic office quandary of
trying to figure out whose phone is ringing?  The solution seems to be
ringers that can play several notes and allow the user to select which
notes are played.  This means that everybody's phone plays its own
little tune when it rings making it possible to pick an individual
phone out of the surrounding racket.  I never thought I'd ever see
"The Gong Show" on CNN.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1992 16:49:43 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Good 9-1-1 Payphone Experience


A while back I complained bitterly about my experiences trying to
reach the police in an emergency where I had to deal with a COCOT to
contact them. In a nutshell, dialing 9-1-1 went nowhere, and dialing
>0<perator resulted in an excruciating wait followed by an
excruciating question and answer session before I could bluster my way
past the operator to the emergency services.

Having said that, I should follow up with a GOOD experience for a
change.  One late evening last week I saw the traffic lights go
berserk at a major intersection. I had to drive well into the next
suburb before I could find a telephone, which turned out to be
operated by Centel. I hoped for the best and pressed "0".

After a few strange clicks and beeps, I heard barely half a ring
before the operator answered.

"I have an emergency; I need the Glenview Police Department." (I
expected a problem here as I was NOT calling from anywhere near
Glenview.)

"Just a moment, sir, I'll connect you!"

(Couple of clicks; sound of Glenview's emergency phone ringing. During the
second ring ...)

"This is the operator, sir; I'm still on the line. I'll remain
listening until they answer, sir."

I have heard mixed reviews about Centel service in general, but as for
handling of emergency calls from payphones, in my opinion THAT is how
things should be done.


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

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

Subject: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 00:49:54 EDT
Organization: Doraville 30340


I just happened across an interesting little bit of information that I
thought I'd share with the readers here.  I was just reading through
_The_Cellular_Telephone_Directory_ (ISBN 0-945592-03-5), published by
Communications Publishing Service of Mercer Island, Washington.  A
very worthwhile book for me.

Since I am a cellular subscriber and informed consumer in Atlanta, I
know that the A carrier here is PacTel Cellular and the B carrier is
BellSouth Mobility.  So far, so good.  As I was looking at the entry
for Los Angeles, I noticed in fine print that LA Cellular (the A
carrier there) is owned by American Cellular, which is a subsidiary of
BellSouth Enterprises.  Of course, the B or wireline carrier is PacTel
Cellular in Los Angeles.  I haven't asked about it yet, but I'll bet
that the roaming agreements are unique for Atlantans roaming in LA and
LA folks roaming in Atlanta.  In essence, it seems at first glance
that one would end up roaming on the competition.  It may be that to
roam, one would have to switch their phone from A to B or from B to A,
as appropriate.  That's my guess as to how it's done in this
situation.

For those who were wondering, American Cellular and BellSouth Mobility
have their headquarters in the same building in the Atlanta suburbs.
BSM is in suite 600 and American Cellular is in suite 400.  BellSouth
Enterprises is at 1155 Peachtree St., NE in Atlanta, according to
Communications Publishing Service.

So there it is, a little bit of telecom trivia.


SysOp of        ---+++ wabwrld Waffle BBS +++---
   A small, quality news/e-mail system on the outskirts of Atlanta
   domain - [e-mail]   bangpath - tridom!wabwrld!bill

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

From: emory!tridom![e-mail] (Mark Reardon)
Subject: Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN)
Reply-To: emory!tridom![e-mail] (Mark Reardon)
Organization: AT&T Tridom; Marietta, Georgia
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 20:19:08 GMT


There has been a good discussion here about how POTS is currently
carried in digital backbone networks and how ISDN will close the
digital loop to the end points.  What about switched 56k?  It was my
understanding that POTS links are usually analog at each end and use
56k or 64k channels in the digital network.  I also understand that
switched 56k can run over the pairs that POTS runs analog over.  Then
in the office it uses the same 64k or 56k link.

How common is switched 56k and how expensive is it?

Note that I am cross posting to comp.dcom.telecom.  I beleive that
is a more appropriate group for this question.


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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 03:28:30 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Endless Loops


About five years ago, I bought a PhoneMate 7200 answering machine.
Earlier this year, the endless loop tape used for the outgoing message
simply wore out, as these things do.  Back in December, the incoming
message tape died.  I ended up MAKING a tape out of a standard TDK 60
minute Type I cassette, since the one that Circus City sold me refused
to work.  Well, I'm running into similar problems now.  The only tapes
that CC sells are 20 second endless loop tapes -- not 30 second, as
was the original equipment.  The tape claimed that it was compatible
with the 7200, but I have my doubts.  So far, I can't even get the
thing to record but a second or two of message before the machine
clicks off and rolls around to the start again.  I have considered
taking the tape out inch by inch and applying a magnet to it on the
off chance that there's some signal recorded on the tape that's
confusing the machine, but that's kind of a wild guess.  Does anybody
out there in net.land have any suggestions?  (Other than Contact The
Manufacturer, of course.)


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

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

From: Lewis M. Dreblow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Business PBX For Sale
Date: 1 Jun 92 14:31:32 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College


Meridian/Norstar Small Business System for Sale:

Muskingum College is offering a two year old telephone switch and
matching desk instruments for sale to an appropriate bidder.  Offers
and requests for additional information should be made to the
attention of:

        Mr. Fritz B. Thomas
        Vice President for Business and Finance
        Muskingum College
        New Concord, Ohio 43762
        [phone]

or can be sent via Email to his secretary, Ms. Shelba Watson at:

        [e-mail]

The system will be deinstalled the first week of July, 1992 and will
be available the following week.  Muskingum expects the bidder to
assume all shipping costs.  The system is comprised of the following:

  Meridian Norstar Modular Key System Model 824, Basic System with
  capacity for 8 lines and 24 stations.  Room for six expansion
  modules for a capacity up to 80 lines and 120 phones.  Includes
  a wide array of modern features a few of which are: Intercom,
  Handsfree, Do not disturb, Paging, Transfer, Conference, Call
  forward, Background music, Speed dial, Last number redail, Hold.

  Quantity 2, M7310 Speakerphone, 8 line capacity, fully digital
  sets, with busy lamp field installed, described in the glossy
  this way:

  The M7310 offers greater sophistication and rapid access to
  individual services.  Access to features is simplified by a
  two-row by 16 character display with three soft keys (display
  keys) to aid you in the step-by-step feature use.  It will
  handle up to eight outside lines and also provides 12 dual
  function programmable memory buttons.  The M7310 supports the
  add-on Busy Lamp Field Module which monitors the busy/idle
  status of selection station sets.

  Quantity 10, M7208 Speakerphone, 6 line capacity, fully digital
  sets, described in the glossy this way:

  The M7208 set is perfect for users with minimally complex,
  low to medium usage needs.  This set is enhanced by the
  prompts and call status information provided by a one row,
  16 character display and the ability to handle up to six
  outside lines.  The eight programmable key/lamp pairs can
  be used for line appearances, one-button access of features,
  autodial or direct station selection.

  We will gladly include station wiring and interconnects where
  they are removeable without damage.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92  21:45:36 EDT
Subject: E-Mail Service from U.S. to Soviet Union


There is an E-mail service in the U.S. called MCI Mail, which would
allow you to send messages to any internet address including those in
the former Soviet Union's SU domain as your address is.

To take an account with them, there would be a charge of US $35 to
sign up for a one-year subscription, plus a charge of aproximately US
$0.40 for a message of 500 characters or less, and US $1.00 for
messages from 501 to 7000 characters.

This rate is for messages to any other MCI Mail subscriber or gateway,
of which Internet is a gateway on MCI Mail.

A less expensive method would be to take MCI Mail on a monthly basis
in which the rate is US $10 a month which includes 40 message units
(one message unit is equivalent is equivalent to 500 characters).

Another option would be to open an account with Compuserve and use
their service.  The cost for that would be approximately US $12.00 per
connect hour at 2400 baud, but you can often obtain a temporary
account at computer stores which would allow you to use it on a
temporary basis while pending receipt of an account.

In any case you will need a computer with a modem, either one you have
or one that is provided to you.  Also, whatever system you use you
would have to use the roman alphabet as used on american keyboards as
there is no means to send cyrillic characters.

Another possibility is to find someone who currently has an internet
address and get them to send a message for you, if letting someone
else see your messages is not a problem.  Or you can try to find a BBS
system in the U.S. that has links to internet.  One of these is
CHANNEL ONE in Massachusetts.  You might be able to get an account
from them for a very small charge.

Another possibility is to find a BBS system which is on Fidonet which
has Internet send and receive capability.  Some fidonet BBSs can
receive Internet mail, some can receive and send internet mail, and
some cannot do either.

You may write me back for more information about whatever you want to
do.  My address on MCI is [e-mail].


[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, I was cc'ed today with a
letter from someone at MCI Mail writing to the fellow in Russia
getting an MCI Mail account set up for him.  Thanks to all who
responded to him.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 19:38:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Volunteering for Interop


Dear Pat:

I hope that either you or some of the folks who use the telcom
newsgroup can help me with something.

I am interested in getting involved with the volunteer work parties
for next fall's Interop. Interop is the big computer networking show
that takes place in the bay area near San Francisco each fall. I
recently learned through an article in the USENIX journal that they
have volunteer work parties to put together the network for the show.

I would like to know if you know of anyone who has personally
participated in any of these work parties because I would like to talk
with someone personally about their experiences and how much they got
out of it.

I am in a paculiar situation. My company will not send me to Interop
on their nickle because of cost reductions. If I go, I would have to
take vacation time and make my own travel arrangements. I live in the
Seattle, Washington area and I understand all of the work parties are
in the San Francisco bay area. Therefore, any decision to get involved
would mean significent monitary and vacation time expense for me and
naturally I want to be reasonably sure that I will get something out
of it.

Plese either post in comp.dcom.telecom, or email me at
[e-mail] or [e-mail] or call me at (206)
865-4699 (days) or [phone] nites til 9pm. If you are in the
Seattle area, I can be reached on 2 meter ham radio on the 145.33
repeater (I am WA1SEY).

Thank you very much for your comments!


Mark Allyn


[Moderator's Note: Calling Ole Jacobson! Are you awake and reading
this? Get in touch with Mr. Allyn please.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #446
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13768;
          4 Jun 92 2:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20305
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 4 Jun 1992 00:38:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08038
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 4 Jun 1992 00:38:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 00:38:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #447

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jun 92 00:30:52 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 447

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (John Higdon)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Jim Rees)
    Re: GTE Bashing (Dave Strieter)
    Re: GTE Bashing (John Higdon)
    Re: On The Other Hand ... (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: On The Other Hand ... (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE Employee Responds (Warren R. Carithers)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (Bob Frankston)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (Jeff Sicherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 00:06 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future


[e-mail] (Jon Baker) writes:

> Normally I wouldn't bother responding to the ignorant and inane
> ramblings of Mr. Higdon, but for the benefit of our more objective
> readers ...

But this struck a nerve, eh?

> The GTD5 did not put GTE out of the switch manufacturing business.
> Any comment on WHY that decision
> was made would be pure speculation;

Yes, indeed. I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you want to
insist that is was mysterious strategic considerations, fine. The fact
that it is discontinued is good enough for me.

> Our current three-way conference bridge provides excellent voice
> quality.  I have no idea what three-way hardware your local CO is
> using, but it may well be old, obsolete, or defective.

What are you telling us? That the telco buys a GTD-5 and then goes to
the local "three-way hardware" store and buys some add-on equipment to
provide the features? If there is anything at the local telco that is
old, obsolete, or defective, it is the GTD-5. Doesn't the switch
provide its own three-way?

> Are you referring to feature operation from a subscriber's
> perspective, or feature implementation from a switch-engineering
> perspective?  For the former, our features generally operate the same
> as anyone else's (5ESS, DMS, etc.).  As for the latter, you could not
> possibly have any idea what you're talking about,

I am speaking from the customer's perspective. And if you claim that
the features operate the same as everyone else's, then it is you, sir,
that has not a clue about that which he speaks. Example (something you
gave not one of in your entire tirade against me): every feature
operates s-l-o-w-l-y to the point where the user is tempted to retry
the procedure. Sometimes he does and then things really get messed up.
When I drop the second call on a three-way, I expect it to happen a
little faster than three seconds later. Call waiting goes to limbo land
and one typically loses one or the other party. Oh, yeah, I know, my
telco is using some off-shore pirate brand of GTD-5.

> but IMHO the features on a GTD5 are FAR easier to engineer than on the
> competitor's equipment.

Well that sure means a lot to me as a customer. Since I write software
for custom digital switches (oh, you didn't know that, eh?) I think I
could judge that for myself if I could ever get my hands on the
material.

> John, John, John ... how many times do we have to repeat this mantra?
> The GTD5 already has SS7 and CLASS, and has had them for many years.
> We are still pursuing options for ISDN features.

Name one in California. To my knowledge, the FIRST GTD-5 in California
to run SS7 will do so later this month AS AN EXPERIMENT! Talks are
scheduled in August with Pac*Bell to discuss the possibility of SS7
interconnection.

> There ARE standards of implementation, LOTS of them.  And, for the
> most part, we all (all manufacturers) follow them to the best of our
> ability.

Got some bad news for you. The GTD-5 is the worst of the lot, exceeding
even the crumminess of a 5ESS.

> I'm served by a 5ESS at home, with which I've been less than pleased.

No argument there. One cannot help but wonder if perhaps you might have
some axe to grind about the GTD-5 and its supposed wonderfulness. Naw!

> John, you've consistently demonstrated your complete ignorance of
> digital switching systems in this forum.  I think the readers have
> been generally polite in tolerating your annoying, misinformed tirades.
> Now, for the benefit of us who do know two cents worth about digital
> switching systems, and wish to carry on intelligent and relevant dis-
> cussions regarding those systems, will you please SHUT UP!

I'm afraid I will not shut up. When people such as yourself come on
this forum and sound like a press release in defense of an
indefensible product such as the GTD-5, someone who is not employed by
the manufacturer and does not have a financial stake one way or the
other needs to balance comment with some objectivity. I do not claim
to sport complete objectivity, but my quailifications as an unbiased
observer certainly exceed yours by a country mile.

Your innuendos about my lack of technical knowledge are going to draw
smiles from many of those polite readers to which you refer since many
are well aware of my general knowledge and experience. And I certainly
have far more than enough of that to know the difference between good
and bad telephone service, which IS what we are talking about, is it
not? And for your information, my experiences with GTD-5 come from
many places around California, not just my local telco. Your attempts
to pass it off as "one of a kind" will just not fly.

Don't try to come off as "Mr. Digital Switching" to me! I am
intimately familiar with the concept at the most basic level and
implementation at the design level. Your attitude is so typical GTE:
we the company know far more than you the customer. You have never
addressed any of my points in any way other than to just dismiss me as
ignorant and then claim that the opposite of what I say is true. Are
you sure you never worked on the front line of GTE repair? Your
training was excellent.

Sometime I'll have to show you the many letters of support from those
readers who are "tired" of my tirades. Oh, by the way, why did you
wait until now to object to my blaterings? Or do you only care about
digs to your employer's product? Answering your "press releases" is a
great bit of fun; they are so transparent. But seriously, attempting
to bolster and justify a product by personally attacking a detractor
is not something to which people generally take kindly.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 18:02:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Baker) writes:

[ in reply to John Higdon ]

> Unless one can have IDSN (at reasonable rates, thank you), digital
> switches offer nothing but disadvantages to the end user.

 ...
> As for ISDN, it's doubtful you'll get it at reasonable (to you) rates
> any time soon.  Regardless of what your switching platform is, it
> requires expensive new hardware and software, and associated support
> systems.  That cost is NOT going to be spread among the entire
> customer base (you'd have a field day with that one).  The cost is
> going to be borne primarily by the ISDN subscribers, which initially
> will be fairly few in number.  In time, the cost will come done.

You seem to be saying that the high cost of ISDN is related purely to
low volume. That's simply not true.  If it were, why would my local
operating company only offer ISDN to Centrex customers?  The phone
companies put up many barriers to ISDN.  The reason is that they want
to protect their current overpriced digital offerings (leased line,
switched 56, etc).  Technical advances have brought the cost of
digital services way down, and the phone companies will fight every
inch of the way to keep those cost savings to themselves rather than
pass them on to the customer.  That would be fine in a free market,
but is intolerable for a state sanctioned (but unregulated, here in
Michigan) monopoly.

> John, you've consistently demonstrated your complete ignorance of
> digital switching systems in this forum ... will you please SHUT UP!

John, please keep it up.  The phone companies have huge advertising
budgets and have no trouble getting across their side of the story.  I
want to hear the other side.  I'm quite capable of judging for myself
when Higdon is telling the truth and when he's gone off the deep end.

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 19:38:26 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Rob Schultz) writes:

>> On a  side note, when requesting my service, I asked what type of
>> switch I would be on.  The rep went to find out, and came back with
>> the answer: GTS-5.  I asked if this was a 5ESS or similar, and all she

I presume she meant GTD-5.

>> could tell me was that it is GTE's latest and greatest switch.  Can
>> anyone help identify this?

> This is the switch that put GTE out of the switch manufacturing
> business. It has wretched three-way, very clumsy feature
> implementation, and more than likely will not be equipped for ISDN or
> SS7 (and CLASS). It is worse than the very badly implemented 5ESS that
> serves my house and that is bad enough.

 From the manufacturer's perspective, SS7 has been available for
several years, CLASS is available now, ISDN PRA (not full ISDN) is
scheduled for a future software release being designed now.
Deployment of any of these features on your switch is up to the telco
and regulators.


Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179 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: Tue, 2 Jun 92 22:59 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing


Kevin Wayne Williams writes:

> The GTD-5 is actually a very popular digital switch, with 16 million
> installed lines across the U.S.

Very popular with GTE; not so popular with customers. In fact, I don't
even remember the last time I was asked what switch I would like to
serve my telephones, even by Pac*Bell :-)

> It was first applied June 26, 1982 in Banning, California for GTE-
> California, and sold quite well to GTE and ITOCs.

Wasn't that the town that petitioned to the PUC to get a new telco
because that switch was so unreliable? Oh, maybe that was Santa
Monica.  In any event, as I recall the town fathers were so worried
that emergency calls would not get through, etc. and made such a big
stink that the PUC instructed GTE to take the GTD-5 out and reinstall
the SXS. Great little switch.

> It is the last switch designed by Automatic Electric.

There is justice in this world after all.

> While no one seems to have ever heard of it, it actually outsold
> the 5-ESS and DMS during the early 80's.

Just goes to show why GTE as a telco is so rotten. If I am not
mistaken, the switch is very cheap which might account for its
popularity with the MA and PA telcos of the land.

> So, nearly every switch manufacture makes GTD-5's now (although for
> growth only, there are very few new starts).

I couldn't imagine why.


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 00:14:07 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On The Other Hand ...


In Digest #443 John Higdon writes:

> need to be happy with it", and, "We can see that you are a long time
> customer and obviously know how to use the features. We want you to be
> happy with the service."

English translation of the above newspeak:

"You are on our list of squeaky wheels."

(And why not?)


Nigel Roberts, European Engineer   "G4IJF"
[phone] / [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 02:29 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: On The Other Hand ...


This is the continuing saga of my complaints of "feature flakiness" to
Pac*Bell. The first report was made Monday afternoon to the business
office in an informal fashion. On Tuesday the place (my home) was
literally crawling with Pac*Bell types. They called and we discussed
how I used the features. (I use them correctly.) They asked about my
equipment. (It was deemed acceptable.) I was told that they were going
to detail the 1ESS switch and also send a man out to see if he could
find anything.

A man came out and after checking everything from the service entrance
to well past the demark, he came up with some defective (but still
apparently usable) pairs in my internal wiring. They had some weird
leakage. This was not deemed to be causing the trouble, but he advised
me to use other pairs in the cable.

I will probably get a progress report on Wednesday. Now, can anyone
imagine this sort of attention to a residence customer in the land of
GTE? And even when Pac*Bell found my internal marginal pairs (how
embarassing!), no one called me an idiot. Hell, the GTE front line
person would have taken care of that job!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren R Carithers)
Subject: Re: GTE Employee Responds
Date: 3 Jun 92 14:03:19 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY


In Telecom Digest 12-443, our esteemed Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I don't know ... you tell us: what is wrong with
> the picture?   PAT]

Jay Ashworth was pointing out that the original "GTE Employee
Responds" message (from Digest 12-440) had a:

"From: [e-mail]"
header line, but the following signature block:

> Steven Lichter     GTECA
> Mad Dog (Steven)             Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
> UUCP: [e-mail]    [phone]  1200-2400 bps 8N1

Perhaps an editing problem at Digest construction time?


Warren R. Carithers, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY 14623-0887
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail]    [phone]
UUCP:       {allegra,rutgers}!rochester!rit!wrc      FAX [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The problem is that *everything* coming here from
Mr. Lichter and a couple other people at that site *always* come on
the account of 'Gloria V. Valle' ... apparently individual employees
there cannot have their own email account.  Sometimes the people who
actually write/submit articles from there put their name and/or a
signature line at the bottom of the text. When I see this I go back to
the top (of the Digest version) and manually edit Gloria out and the
actual submitter in. If no actual name/signture/other clue is given
then Gloria's name stays there (and sometimes I miss it anyway.) It
would help if people used their own accounts to write here AND
included their name in the text at the bottom of their articles. Of
course in order for the person to get replies, I have to leave
Gloria's name in the individual message going to the newsgroup. Thus
the contradictions from time to time.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?
Date: Wed 3 Jun 1992 12:24 -0400


Hmm.  Does this [always delivering the ID to your local CO] mean that
an organization like MIT, which runs its own ISDN CO can, at its whim,
defeat Caller-ID?

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 23:41:38 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

> I like your solution, PAT.  About the only other thing I would have
> done is taken my friend's van (humungous under-the-seat-rumbling-
> feel-it-in- your-bones bass speakers) and played Guns N' Roses at full
> blast outside his window.  Or worse, some rap songs.  Or opera.

> [Moderator's Note: Listen you, lay off of opera. First and last
> warning. I happen to enjoy Richard Wagner ... all umpteen hours of the
> Ring Cycle ... it is great background music while preparing this
> Digest each day.  PAT]


   Hmm, THAT explains a lot ...


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Does it? ... perhaps you'll share your new wisdom
with all of us!  <wink>  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #447
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18460;
          5 Jun 92 2:48 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02679
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 00:22:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12260
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 00:22:44 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 00:22:44 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #448

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 Jun 92 00:22:43 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 448

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    From the Usenet Rumor Department (Jack Winslade)
    Wisconsin Bell Monitors 1 in 1000 Phone Calls? (Dave Manley)
    AT&T Technical Journal (Andy Sherman)
    800 Numbers From Overseas (Follow up) (Slonim Edwin)
    917 Directory Assistance Works (Carl Moore)
    Intra-Lata Traffic in CA (Randy Gellens)
    Influencing PUCs (Jesse W. Asher)
    *69 Results in a Beating (David Niebuhr)
    Passive Repeater? (Scott R. Myers)
    Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data (John Nagle)
    Billing System for Small Telephone Company (Darin S. Lory)
    Business Office Hours (John Higdon)
    Meet-Me Conference Bridge for Sale (Corinna Polk)
    Canadian Long Distance Competition Decision Next Week (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92 06:40:54 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: From the Usenet Rumor Department
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


A thread has started in comp.org.eff.talk concerning a Wisconsin telco
monitoring subscriber calls.  I think whoever started this has it
confused with Ma's monitoring of their own business calls, and not
subscriber to subscriber calls.  Here's a quote ...

> Actually, they do.  In Wisconsin MaBell records one out of every
> 1000 phone calls placed.  They have employees listen to ALL these
> phone converstions, listen apparently for whatever they deem illegal
> or whatever.  I know this because a colleague from a past position I
> held, his wife did this for four years for Wisconsin Bell.  So, watch
> what you say.

Whoever started the thread implied that the telco was randomly
listening to subscriber calls (not just those from a sub to the telco)
and taking whatever action they deemed necessary.  Now you and I know
this is caca, but to jump in to something like this without doing some
homework is major flame bait.

Can anyone state what type of monitoring Wisconsin Bell does, and how
it is stated, and where it is stated.?


Thanks,

Good day.    JSW        Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: An old saying is 'consider the source ... '. Yes
there is monitoring of calls between subscribers, but of no person(s)
in particular, and without any immediate identification as to caller
or called-party for the purpose of testing line and connection
quality, etc. It is known as quality control, and it occurs in almost
every telephone company. Methods exist to identify the lines, circuits
and central office equipment used in the event poor quality connect-
ions are encountered. The length of time a call is monitored (from
several seconds to a minute or two) and the ratio of monitored calls
to calls attempted or completed (in the above article, the claim was 1
to 1000) varies from one telco to the next. Subscriber privacy is very
important, but so is quality control and to manage the latter, the
former has to be tampered with; but to maintain privacy, the employees
doing the monitoring can't access the record of the phone numbers
connected, etc.  They can make their reports and someone else can look
up the specifics. Think of it like the label attached to your clothing
which says 'inspected by # 209' or similar. It is all rather impersonal
and the way in which the network is kept up to high standards.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Manley)
Subject: Wisconsin Bell Monitors 1 in 1000 Phone Calls?
Date: 2 Jun 92 21:58:03 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products


I'm reposting this from misc.legal and alt.folklore.urban.

                       -----------

In article <19921.338.16006@execnet> "tom betz" <[e-mail]>
writes:

I just found this classic FOAF:

  Newsgroup: misc.legal
  Subject: Regulation of Computer BBoards Systems

> [e-mail] (Mike Godwin) writes:

>> in the USA at least. (Telephone service is regulated under a "natural
>> monopoly" theory, not a scarcity theory, and the government does not
>> actively engage in content regulation of your phone calls.)

> Actually, they do.  In Wisconsin MaBell records one out of every 1000 phone
> calls placed.  They have employees listen to ALL these phone converstions,
> listen apparently for whatever they deem illegal or whatever.  I know this
> because a colleague from a past position I held, his wife did this for 4
> years for Wisconsin Bell.  So, watch what you say.

Can anyone at Wisconsin Bell confirm or deny this?


[Moderator's Note: See the previous message. All telcos do this, and
it has nothing to do with 'what they deem illegal' .. nor should you
bother to 'watch what you say' anymore than you would otherwise on the
telephone.  And common sense (not something to be found in great
amounts on certain unnamed Usenet news groups) would dictate that if a
few hundred million phone calls are made in the USA each day, it would
be impossible to have employees listen to 'ALL these phone conversations'
or even some infintesimal fraction of them for other than a few
seconds each. Phreaks and hackers are more likely to invade the
privacy of telephone users by their attempts to listen to satellites;
get into the wire pairs of other users; and rip off their calling card
numbers, etc; but I suppose it is more fun to accuse telco of
something diabolical instead. Essentially, telco quality control
monitoring is a non-issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: AT&T Technical Journal
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 09:52:43 EDT


Since I've had two requests already for this information, I thought
I'd post it.  This is taken from the inside front cover:

AT&T TECHNICAL JOURNAL (ISSN 8576-2324) is published six times a year
by AT&T.  Individual subscriptions: U.S. -- 1 year $50; 2 years $90;
3 years $120 Foreign -- 1 year $64; 2 years $118; 3 years $162.

Subscription payments must be made by check in U.S. funds, drawn on a
U.S. bank, and made payable to AT&T Technical Journal.  Send
subscriptions, address changes, and related correspondence to
Circulation Group, Room 1B-413, AT&T Bell Laboratories, P.O. Box 1101,
101 J F Kennedy Pkwy, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0996.

Current or recent issues may be obtained by writing to the Circulation
Group or calling [phone].  You may obtain back ussues from the
AT&T Customer Information Center, PO Box 19901, Indianapolis, IN
46219, or by calling [phone].  From outside the U.S. call (317)
352-8557.  Photocopy or microform reprints from the AT&T Technical
Journal are available by writing to University Microfilms
International, 300 Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106, or calling (800)
521-0600.  From outside the U.S. call [phone].

That should about cover it.  You might also check a good engineering
library.


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] (Slonim Edwin)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error"
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1992 07:38:31 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation


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

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Warren
> Burstein) writes:

>> I'm in Israel.  I needed to call a company, Solution Systems, for
>> help.  So I dialed USA Direct, the number in their manual, (800)
>> 821-2492 and my card/PIN.  A recording told me I had reached the sales
>> line, if I wanted technical help I should dial 1-800-999-9663.  So I
>> redialed USA Direct, the number (w/o the 1) and card/PIN and got
>> several rings, followed by an intercept and a "number cannot be
>> completed as dialed" message.

> I suspect that the first 800 number is an AT&T 800 number, while the
> second is provided by some other carrier (maybe MCI?).  Seems I recall
> reading that AT&T operators will only connect you to AT&T 800 numbers?
> You might try to find out if MCI has an equivalent to USA Direct, and
> see if the call can be placed that way.

The MCI number from Israel is 177-150-2727

By the way, is AT&T charging you for access to these 800 numbers?  Do
other carriers have the same policy for international calls?
Sometimes I would have been willing to pay to access 800 numbers, but
thought it impossible from overseas.

Note that there are now international 800 numbers available from AT&T,
but they must e set up by the owner on a per country basis.  Last time
I inquired the cost was about $100/hr + $100/month/country


Edwin Slonim, Intel Software Products, Haifa, Israel, [e-mail]
Disc: my own firmly held opinion
phone (011)[phone], fax (011)[phone] voicemail [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 14:11:09 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 917 Directory Assistance Works


Calling 917-555-1212 via C&P pay phone using AT&T has gotten through.
The ringing signal was that old E-flat-major chord.

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

From: <MPA15AB![e-mail]>
Date: 03 JUN 92 01:30
Subject: Intra-Lata Traffic in CA


I live in a GTE island surrounded by PacBell.  About 60 miles away is
Los Angles, which is within my LATA and has islands of GTE surrounded
by PacBell.

If I call someone in LA who has GTE, does my call stay on GTE
facilities all the way?  Does my CO hand off the call to a GTE toll
switch which routes it to a GTE switch in LA?  Or does it travel part
of the way on PacBell lines?  Or are there shared lines?

In other words, are there redundant GTE and PacBell toll switches and
transmission facilities?

How about if I call a PacBell number in LA?  GTE charges me the same
exorbitant rate.  Does GTE carry the call to PacBell's door in LA?  Do
they hand off the call right away and pocket all that money?


Randy Gellens            [e-mail]
>If mail bounces, forward to [e-mail]<
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself

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

From: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Subject: Influencing PUCs
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 13:29:46 GMT


Our local carrier is in the process of tariffing ISDN and I would like
to know how much influence the public has over this process.  I'd like
to see ISDN come in reach of home users (BRI) and I was curious if
there was someway to influence the process so that this would happen.
I've heard other RBOCs pricing BRI ISDN out of the home consumer's
reach and I don't want that to happen here.  So I'm starting by asking
where to start!  :-)  Thanks for any advice on this.


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 12:41:26 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: *69 Results in a Beating


While listening to my scanner last night, I heard a conversation between
several cops concerning the beating of a drug buyer.  It seems that
person one (buyer) called person two (seller) and complained about the
quality of the junk (isn't that a shame).

Person two promptly dialed *69 and told person one that he was going
to get several *friends* and go to his house and beat the **** out of
him (it seems that they knew each other in other ways).  They promptly
did just that.

Think of all the possibilities here.

Note: This is in the 516 area code and the police district covers the
western half of Suffolk County and the cops were assigned to my
tri-community locale which makes it local.


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


[Moderator's Note: Great. Something new to blame on telco. The only
thing wrong with your story is that *69 merely reconnects the parties;
unlike Caller-ID it does not say WHO is being connected. If the party
of the second part in your story also had Caller-ID, then the number
of the caller may or may not have been available, but it doesn't even
give an address, something I assume is required if you wish to make a
personal visit to the person who called you. And if the party of the
first part was already known to the party of the second part, then *69
did nothing more than provide a fast way to dial the number.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott R. Myers)
Subject: Passive Repeater?
Date: 3 Jun 92 17:00:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


I have read briefly in a recent {Mobile Magazine} and also saw in the
store window a camera store that sells Cellular a device called a
passive repeater.  It looks like a standard through the glass mount
antenna with some type of 3x3x3in box with coax connectors on two
sides.  The person at the store couldn't explain it to me and the
article didn't go into much detail.  The article claims that this
setup can improve the signal from a handheld phone inside the car
without the antenna being physically connected to the phone. I have
a few questions:

1) Is this possible?

2) How much of an improvement can I expect?

3) Can someone give me a technical explaination of how this can work?

BTW the wrapping on the one I saw displayed said something like "Works
through proven Microwave technology."  Sounds like marketing hype but
someone on the net would probably have a better idea of what this
really means.

Thanks in advance.


Scott R. Myers
Snail:    8544 Temple Road    Phone:[phone]
Philadelphia, PA 19150    Arpa:    [e-mail]    Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 17:46:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


PacTel for their "California Gold" program included the amounts of my
last few PacTel bills.  I was a bit suprised to see that PacTel was
giving out this information, and called the business office.  The
business office admitted that they are giving out that information.
They informed me, though, that I could stop all distribution of
billing info to marketeers by requesting the "Customer Proprietary
Network Information" option.  No charge for this option was mentioned.

This seems to be a useful feature to order.


John Nagle

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 14:19:10 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Darin S. Lory)
Reply-To: Darin S. Lory <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blling System for Small Telephone Company


I am looking for a billing system that is suited for a small and
growing telephone company.  They currently have a IBM System/36 and
all there programs are written in RPG II.  I would like a system that
can run on a Sun SPARCstation or server and be accessable from
networked Macs and PCs.

If anybody knows of a company or software product that does so, could
you please email me.


Darin

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 12:09 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Business Office Hours


Anyone notice Pac*Bell's business office hours these days? Monday
through Friday, 6:30AM to 10:00PM; Saturday, 7:00AM to 7:00PM ...

Is this a trend?


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


[Moderator's Note: Illlinois Bell now operates 24 hours per day, with
a single number for business and residential customers.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Meet-Me Conference Bridge for Sale
Date: 3 Jun 1992 13:28:53 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I've got a brand new, in the box, Meet-Me Conference Bridge from TEC
International here. The MMCB is a "fully automatic nine-port
conference bridge" that will work with PABX's, in the central office,
or with key systems. It can be connected to another such unit to form
a single 18 line unit. Somehow, I managed to win this thing at TEXPO,
and after some discussion in our office, realized we already had
capabilities for such conference calls. Retail value is listed at
$2,968.00, but I'm sure I would part with it for any semi-reasonable
offer, maybe even a ridiculous offer.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 23:16:03 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Long Distance Competition Decision Next Week


News is out (via {The Toronto Star}) that the CRTC will issue its
decision on the Unitel and BCRL/Lightel bids to compete with their
long distance networks, breaking the current monopoly of the Stentor
(formerly Telecom Canada, formerly^2 TCTS) telcos. Many expect the
CRTC to approve competition; the terms under which this competition
may happen could be the catch. Unitel wanted to have a 15% discount
Stentor (Bell Canada, BC Tel et al) prices while they get established
in the market; this is challenged by the telcos, to say the least.

The announcement will happen Friday 12th June. Wait and see ...


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #448
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19591;
          5 Jun 92 3:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19574
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:37:45 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17355
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:37:36 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:37:36 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #450

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jun 92 01:37:27 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 450

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Michael F Eastman)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future ([e-mail])
    List of GTD-5 Observations (John Higdon)
    GTD-5 Service in Southern California, SS7, etc. (Lauren Weinstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu,  4 Jun 92 13:12:53 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Organization: AT&T


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

> Sometime I'll have to show you the many letters of support from those
> readers who are "tired" of my tirades. Oh, by the way, why did you
> wait until now to object to my blaterings? Or do you only care about
> digs to your employer's product? Answering your "press releases" is a
> great bit of fun; they are so transparent. But seriously, attempting
> to bolster and justify a product by personally attacking a detractor
> is not something to which people generally take kindly.

You can add this to your letters of support. I started reading and
(somewhat participating) in this forum a long time ago. What I learned
early on is that this forum is one of the best ways to find out what
the customer wants. And believe me, the customer can be difficult to
identify. Sometimes it takes John (or others) to touch that raw nerve
to make us (the producers of the product) go back and take a harder
look at what we're doing. So I learned to be patient and listen, not
to jump in defensively, and take it all in with an open mind.

I work on and off on 5ESS and 4ESS, and this forum helps me to do a
better job (within the bounds set by my management, of course :=) ). I
don't want to imply that an employee shouldn't take pride in the
product on which they work. However, in order to make that product (or
its replacement) better, learn to take criticism gracefully and FOR
GOD'S SAKE don't kill the messenger/customers! In defense of the GTD-5
developer, it's still good to see that there are some AMERICAN workers
who really do give a damn.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpm!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 16:30:38 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Jon Baker) writes:

>> Normally I wouldn't bother responding to the ignorant and inane
>> ramblings of Mr. Higdon, but for the benefit of our more objective
>> readers ...

> But this struck a nerve, eh?

>> The GTD5 did not put GTE out of the switch manufacturing business.
>> Any comment on WHY that decision
>> was made would be pure speculation;

> Yes, indeed. I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you want to
> insist that is was mysterious strategic considerations, fine. The fact
> that it is discontinued is good enough for me.

Actually, Mr. Baker and Mr. Higdon are both right. There was no
particular flaw in the GTD-5 that drove GTE out of the switching
business. It was, and still is, a good switch, and quite cost
effectively provides most analog based features. The cost of modifying
it to provide ISDN terrified GTE. The money AT&T spent on providing
the 5-ESS with ISDN would have also terrified GTE.  Ditto NTI and the
DMS-100.

>> Our current three-way conference bridge provides excellent voice
>> quality.  I have no idea what three-way hardware your local CO is
>> using, but it may well be old, obsolete, or defective.

> What are you telling us? That the telco buys a GTD-5 and then goes to
> the local "three-way hardware" store and buys some add-on equipment to
> provide the features? If there is anything at the local telco that is
> old, obsolete, or defective, it is the GTD-5. Doesn't the switch
> provide its own three-way?

Sure it does. Our original three-way bridge circuit had some real
problems.  We released new versions in 1984. Eight years from then,
your operating company apparently has the old one. What's your NPA and
exchange? I'll let you know.

>> Are you referring to feature operation from a subscriber's
>> perspective, or feature implementation from a switch-engineering
>> perspective?  For the former, our features generally operate the same
>> as anyone else's (5ESS, DMS, etc.).  As for the latter, you could not
>> possibly have any idea what you're talking about,

> I am speaking from the customer's perspective. And if you claim that
> the features operate the same as everyone else's, then it is you, sir,
> that has not a clue about that which he speaks. Example (something you
> gave not one of in your entire tirade against me): every feature
> operates s-l-o-w-l-y to the point where the user is tempted to retry
> the procedure. Sometimes he does and then things really get messed up.
> When I drop the second call on a three-way, I expect it to happen a
> little faster than three seconds later. Call waiting goes to limbo land
> and one typically loses one or the other party. Oh, yeah, I know, my
> telco is using some off-shore pirate brand of GTD-5.

I have a GTD-5 phone here on my desk. I get three-way set up so fast I
don't perceive a delay. I cannot comment on your particular office
engineering for professional reasons, but I can state that when the
GTD-5 is properly engineered, dial-tone should be returned roughly 350
milliseconds after flash for three-way. Overloading a TCU will result
in unreliable flash detection. Overloading a TPC will result in delays
for feature operation.

>> but IMHO the features on a GTD5 are FAR easier to engineer than on the
>> competitor's equipment.

> Well that sure means a lot to me as a customer. Since I write software
> for custom digital switches (oh, you didn't know that, eh?) I think I
> could judge that for myself if I could ever get my hands on the
> material.

I'll second Jon's vote on this one. It is a pretty controversial issue
even with people who use both switches, however. The GTD-5 engineering
is more flexible than the 5-ESS, and requires fewer commands. It
doesn't provide any menus, so it is easier for a service clerk to srew
up royally.

>> John, John, John ... how many times do we have to repeat this mantra?
>> The GTD5 already has SS7 and CLASS, and has had them for many years.
>> We are still pursuing options for ISDN features.

> Name one in California. To my knowledge, the FIRST GTD-5 in California
> to run SS7 will do so later this month AS AN EXPERIMENT! Talks are
> scheduled in August with Pac*Bell to discuss the possibility of SS7
> interconnection.

This you can take up with GTECA. SS7 has been alive and well in the
GTD-5 for years. GTE even provides some services to the RBOCs for
credit card validation because SS7 is so much more widely implemented
in GTE than in the RBOCs (and Judge Green doesn't make them buy so
many STPs, so they are able to do it more cost effectively).

Some of the things you blame on the GTD-5 you can blame on GTECA. As
Pat has pointed out, there are lots of GTEs. All have their strengths
and weaknesses. From my perspective, NORTH (previously MTO) has the
best customer service, but trouble with transmission. Florida is
pretty good with both, as is most of SE. GTECA is technically ahead of
the others, with the most widespread fiber, but lags in SS7 and leads
in sheer customer irritation.

>> There ARE standards of implementation, LOTS of them.  And, for the
>> most part, we all (all manufacturers) follow them to the best of our
>> ability.

> Got some bad news for you. The GTD-5 is the worst of the lot, exceeding
> even the crumminess of a 5ESS.

>> I'm served by a 5ESS at home, with which I've been less than pleased.

> No argument there. One cannot help but wonder if perhaps you might have
> some axe to grind about the GTD-5 and its supposed wonderfulness. Naw!

Admittedly, Jon is biased. However, a statement like "exceeding even
the crumminess of the 5ESS" looks like it has a bias as well. You can
put your dreams of analog switches aside, John. No operating company
is going to ever deploy an analog switch again. I will agree with you,
I like them better. The "Strowgerworld" April Fools joke really
appealed to me.

>> John, you've consistently demonstrated your complete ignorance of
>> digital switching systems in this forum.  I think the readers have
>> been generally polite in tolerating your annoying, misinformed tirades.
>> Now, for the benefit of us who do know two cents worth about digital
>> switching systems, and wish to carry on intelligent and relevant dis-
>> cussions regarding those systems, will you please SHUT UP!

> I'm afraid I will not shut up. When people such as yourself come on
> this forum and sound like a press release in defense of an
> indefensible product such as the GTD-5, someone who is not employed by
> the manufacturer and does not have a financial stake one way or the
> other needs to balance comment with some objectivity. I do not claim
> to sport complete objectivity, but my quailifications as an unbiased
> observer certainly exceed yours by a country mile.

I have a hard time considering either of you unbiased. Jon derives his
livelihood from the GTD-5. John has stated that he doesn't think
digital switches should be used as end offices.

For the record, I also derive my livelihood from the GTD-5. Is it the
best switch on the market? No. Is it the worst switch on the market?
No. Its uptime is roughly identical to the DMS-100 and 5ESS (all three
will take first place within GTE's network (where I have access to
statistics) roughly 1/3 or the time). It exceeds those from any other
switch manufacturer. Its range of features (excluding ISDN) is
comparable to the DMS-100 and 5-ESS. Its capacity is lower than the
DMS-100 or 5-ESS, but that is by design: there is not much need for
170,000 line switches in GTE. Is it easier for a telco to screw up the
engineering on a GTD-5 than the DMS-100 or 5-ESS? Emphatically yes.


Kevin Wayne Williams    UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk

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

Date: Thu,  4 Jun 92 22:09:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [e-mail] (Jon Baker) writes:

> Normally I wouldn't bother responding to the ignorant and inane
> ramblings of Mr. Higdon, but for the benefit of our more objective
> readers ...

John> Sometime I'll have to show you the many letters of support from those
John> readers who are "tired" of my tirades.

Sheesh, some flame ...

When I haven't been able to keep up with comp.dcom.telecom, I just
scan for interesting subject or messages from the few posters I
recognize as informed and interesting.  [e-mail] is in that
category, and it looks like I can speed up my news reading by putting
[e-mail] (Jon Baker) in my kill file ...

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 03:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: List of GTD-5 Observations


With all the name calling and personal attacks, I thought it time to
list in detail those things that I consider deficient about the GTD-5.
Perhaps someone who is familiar with the switch could explain the
rational behind the switch's behavior (but please do not just call me
an idiot for noticing that the emperor is naked).

1. Substandard TT recognition. I have a telephone with a somewhat
flaky digital pad that provides an interesting test for the ability of
a TT receiver to detect DTMF under adverse conditions. Both the 1ESS
and the 5ESS seem to have little difficulty; the GTD-5 will require
(at times) many attempts to place a call.

2. Low successful call completion percentage. This could be related to
the above, but even with telephones that are in perfect working order,
the number of times a call will end in silence or reorder is noticably
inferior to other switches.

3. Bad three-way. Regardless of the protestations, the latest and
greatest version available for review sounds dreadful. They sound
dreadful in Whittier, Redlands, or Los Gatos. The older ones are
horribly distorted when all three people try to talk at once. Later
versions attempt to mask this by using gating. This, too, is
unacceptable. It makes three-way calls sound like a switched-gain
speakerphone. Callers in noisy locations compound the problem. I will
not accept as an answer to this one, "the latest ones sound fine".
Nothing short of a demonstration will convince me at this point. DMS
and 5ESS three-way is vastly superior.

4. Slow features. I hear this time and time again when talking to
someone who is served on a GTD-5: "I have another call. Just a moment.
[Click-click] Hello------." In other words, the switch was so slow in
responding to the hookflash that I heard the "hello" meant for the
second call. And on three-way, even I, an experienced feature-user, am
tempted to hit the hook "again" to add in the second call. Of course
to do so would drop the call. It makes for a most awkward interface.
The DMS and 5ESS have no such difficulty (as far as speed is
concerned).

5. Call Waiting inoperative during three-way. We went rounds on this
about the 5ESS, but it turns out that on Centrex-type services the 5E
sports the ability to have Call Waiting operate if the call recipient
is the center of a three-way call. The GTD-5 does not have this
ability. Since Centrex has only been available on the GTD-5 for a
relatively short time (!), I have not had the opportunity to critique
the possible horrors awaiting there.

6. Ringback tone does not land in mid-ring. On virtually every
electronic switch in service today, analog or digital, the firmware
causes the caller to receive ringback tone at the moment of
connection.  There are three ringing phases and one is always active
with tone. The switch should (and all but the GTD-5 do) drop the
caller into the active phase. The GTD-5 always immediately supplies
ringing voltage to the called telephone, but the caller may have to
wait up to several seconds for any confirmation that his call has gone
through.

So there are the complaints about the GTD-5 that are demonstrable and
repeatable, and are not shared by other contemporary digital products.
I invite anyone familiar with the product at an engineering level to
comment. But please, let us dispense with pretenders who only seem to
know how to call people names.


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 10:36:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: GTD-5 Service in Southern California, SS7, etc.


A few points about the GTD-5 (at least as deployed in Southern
California -- and I'm not affiliated with GTE except as a customer ...)

1) I've never noted any odd behavior of features (slowness, drop-offs,
etc.)  that John H. talks about, with a single exception (see below).

2) The exception.  There is and always has been a problem with audio
quality on three-way if a certain combination of talkers talks
simultaneously.  This appears to be some sort of "vox" effect.  I have
never found it particularly disturbing, even though we make very
frequent use of three-way.  Let's face it, if more than one person is
talking at the same time on a call you're going to have problems
understanding someone in any case.

3) Sometimes GTE has features that PacBell doesn't have.  For example,
small-Centrex subscribers (Centranet) on GTE have always been able to
transfer calls to off-Centrex numbers -- a very handy feature.
PacBell's similar offering simply would not allow it -- any such
attempts would fail.  They'd let you do it for their large Centrex
systems (I think about 50 line minimum) but they refused to enable the
feature for years for the smaller subscribers, even after repeated
pleas from many customers.  I believe that finally, after years of
complaints, they may finally be allowing such transfers.

4) Numerous GTD-5 offices in S. Calif. are SS7 connected.  Lancaster
and Quartz Hills went SS7 two or three years ago.  Currently all of
the half dozen GTD-5 units in the San Fernando Valley are SS7
interconnected.  More S. Calif. GTD-5 units are going SS7 on a steady
schedule.

5) At least for the last six or seven years, I have found customer
service from GTE California to be exemplory.


 --Lauren--

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #450
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21683;
          5 Jun 92 4:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13636
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:10:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14975
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:09:59 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 01:09:59 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #449

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jun 92 01:10:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 449

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CWA Unleashes Intense Campaign Against AT&T (Phillip Dampier)
    Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
    Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Steve Baumgarten)
    TeleTeach '93 (Oddbjoern Steffensen)
    Bell Canada to Accelerate Switching Equipment Modernization (Dave Leibold)
    Australian Telecom? So Much Better? Than What? ([e-mail])
    News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy! (Kath Mullholand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1992 18:21:15 -0500
Subject: CWA Unleashes Intense Campaign Against AT&T


CWA UNLEASHES INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AT&T; EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
CONCERNS HANGING UP TALKS

Communications Workers of America
June 4, 1992    4:45 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the Communications Workers of America today
spelled out the issues that have stalled contract talks with AT&T and
announced a range of tactics to put pressure on the company, including
an "electronic picketline, " a corporate campaign and global boycott
activities.

CWA Vice President James Irvine, who serves as chief union negotiator
in the talks, said the issue holding up settlement is "jobs, jobs,
jobs.  AT&T has already cut the phone system to the bone, and now
they're talking about additional layoffs.  The laying off of skilled
workers, of CWA members, will continue to jeapardize the quality and
reliability of the phone system."

CWA wants AT&T to stop using subcontractors and temporary help to fill
union jobs.  The union is also asking AT&T to halt the planned layoffs
of 6,000 live operators who the company wants to replace with robots.
In addition, CWA is asking AT&T to stop exporting American manufact-
uring jobs to low wage foreign countries.

CWA President Morton Bahr says the union will pressure AT&T by
collecting "carrier switch" pledges from businesses and customers.

"The electronic picketline allows us to put even greater economic
pressure on AT&T than if we had decided to go on strike last Saturday,
when our contract expired," Bahr explained.

"The beauty of the electronic picketline is that it allows us to
involve both our employees and customers who believe that good
American jobs are worth fighting for," Bahr continued.

Over sixty thousand of CWA's AT&T members have already sent in carrier
switch cards that give the CWA the authority to switch their long
distance service. According to Bahr, the campaign is spreading to
other unions, small businesses, community organizations, and concerned
citizens across America and around the world.

The AFL-CIO, its member unions, and other vendors and allies of the
labor movement stand ready to support the electronic picketline," Bahr
said.  The loss of that business alone with cost AT&T between $3 and
$5 million dollars a week.

"Support for the electronic picketline will spread beyond union
offices to the AFL-CIO's 15 million union families," Bahr continued.
"Ron Carey, President of the Teamsters, has called to ask when we
wanted a million carrier change cards from the Teamsters.
Telecommunications workers around the world, members of the Postal,
Telegraph, and Telephone International, with affiliates in 119
countries have offered their full support." The CWA President
announced that he will send the union's Executive Vice President M.E.
Nichols to Geneva, Switzerland, Friday, to coordinate worldwide
boycott activity.

"What we're asking for is a chance to grow with AT&T," Irvine
explained.  "What we're looking for are new opportunities inside the
company when old jobs are rendered obsolete and, so far, the only
thing that AT&T has been talking about is how to ease workers out the
door and onto the unemployment rolls."

AT&T has cut 125,000 union jobs since 1984, 25,000 is the last three
years, despite record profits which today are running at a rate of
$3.5 billion a year.  Even in the current recession, the company's
earnings jumped over 16 percent the first quarter of 1992 over last
year.

"And now AT&T is telling us at the bargaining table that they expect
to cut at least another 14,000 jobs," Irvine stated. "And it's not
just CWA members who are suffering because of these 'greed layoffs.'
Even the Federal Communications Commission says AT&T is laying off too
many skilled workers, and that the major phone outage last September
that shut down phone service and airports in New York City and across
the Northeast was a direct result of staffing cuts."

Bargaining is expected to resume on Thursday afternoon. However, Bahr
said he would send the national bargainers home this Friday if a
settlement is not reached.  The union's local issues bargaining
committees have already returned home.  The bargainers will be on call
for future negotiations.

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

My commentary begins here.

Analysis:

In following this story since the opening of talks with AT&T many
months ago to create a new contract, the CWA has consistently rated
job security to be of the highest priority. Like many companies in
need of turning in good reports for their stockholders, jobs are the
first to go in an economic downturn and AT&T has been a master slasher
at the task over the last few years.

You will note that CWA press releases consistenly tout the "good
American jobs" slogan to attempt to bolster their case, but AT&T is
certainly not alone in the hiring of non-union labor and part timers.
One only needs to deal with MCI and Sprint customer service to
discover that some of their operators would just barely qualify for
burger flipping jobs.

AT&T's arguments have been fairly consistent: we need to stay
competitive with our lean, mean, and generally non union competition,
and we're doing it with modern technology and downsizing of expenses.
AT&T also has stated that the company has been on the bloated side
originating from its pre-deregulation days, and there are several
areas where fat trimming is appropriate.

Today's CWA's announcement, in my opinion, is on the weak side. A
strong position from the CWA would have meant a strike, but I think
that the CWA has finally recognized that their strength as a labor
union has been tempered by more than a decade of union hostility from
the last few administrations.  I think they recognize that in an
economic recession where there has been high unemployment, there will
be plenty of people who will be willing to fill positions.

The electronic picketline is a creative attempt to impact AT&T in what
the CWA feels is its most crucial point, its bottom line.  The
thinking is, if AT&T is so hard pressed to turn in good reports to
please the shareholders, let's cut profits for the company, continue
to earn some sort of wage by staying on the job for the moment, and
get shareholders to put some pressure on management.

Many analysts following the story state that this tactic will only
backfire in the union's face, by proving AT&T's contention that it
does not need the number of employees to serve in a more computerized,
competitive, marketplace.

As of this moment, the CWA is still waving the switch ballots in
AT&T's face, with the kinds of showboating you see in the release
above (the Teamsters quote), hoping the threat will be sufficient to
get AT&T to open up.  But I have no doubt the CWA will use the ballots
if AT&T digs in, and if that is not immediately successful, the CWA
could call for a strike that will likely hurt both sides.

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Subject: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX
Date: 3 Jun 1992 19:56:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I had to wrest this information from Panasonic tech support in New
Jersey. Their old phone number changed, the new one's unlisted, and
they won't talk to you anyway unless you're in their database.  I had
to do some serious cajoling. I'm posting this here so Panasonic users
don't have to figure this out on their own.

This applies to at *least* the 1232 series of switches, and might
apply to everything else in the same general line as well ...

If you use a regular phone, modem, or credit card reader behind a 1232
hybrid switch, you run the risk of damaging the station card.

Some phones, and *most* modems and credit card readers have active
A/A1 leads which short when they go off hook, to indicate to 1A2 key
systems that they're using the line. Unfortunately, this hoses the
station cards, and after a while, they'll stop outputting dialing
signals on the trunks in response to dialing the phone. In other
words, you can get dial tone, but you won't be able to dial out on the
trunks.

FIX: if your station cards are already displaying this problem, note
that the bad ports should still work fine for electronic phones.  The
new station cards are supposedly redesigned to avoid this problem, but
I wouldn't bet on it. Disconnect the A/A1 leads (that's pair 2, or
black/yellow, or white-orange/orange-white, depending on how youw ired
it) for single line phones, modems, and credit card dialers.


Daniel M. Rosenberg       [e-mail]    Taos Mountain Software

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 19:42:07 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten)
Subject: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone


In a brief item from the June 3 edition of {The New York Times}, a
reader recounts to the Metropolitan Diary the following adventure with
New York Telephone [comments in brackets are mine]:

In my newly acquired Brooklyn apartment I have had telephone problems.
When I try to call an "800" number, I can't get through without
getting the recording that says to redial or something.

One particularly aggravating day, I call the operator by dialing "0".
She tells me to dial "666" [more likely, "611" for repair, though
given New York Telephone's reputation for sterling customer service,
"666" seems more appropriate].  I do as I'm told.  Then that operator
comes on and asks, "May I help you?"  Once more I explain the problem:
I can't make any "800" phone calls.  She tells me that she is unable
to handle that particular problem and suggests I call another
operator.

    "Hold on and I'll give you the number," she says.

    "O.K.: [phone]."

This is unsurprising to those of us served by NYT; I've been asked on
more than one occasion when reporting a dead phone line whether I was
in fact calling from that very line to report the problem ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Oddbjoern Steffensen)
Subject: TeleTeach '93
Organization: TeleTeach '93
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 15:11:14 GMT


Teleteaching 93: Learning and working independent of time and place.

Have you considered submitting a paper to TeleTeaching 93, the
international conference about distance education and work in
Trondheim, Norway, August 20-25 1993? Or maybe you know someone who
would be interested?

Teleteaching 93 will be a forum for educators, politicians,
administrators, managers of human resources and technical experts who
will meet in Trondheim to discuss what technology can do now -- and
what it promises for the future. Areas of application include
education at primary, secondary and university levels, as well as
training in various situations, particularly the workplace.

Experts are welcome to consider the development of all techniques used
in teleteaching. Educators will discuss how they have implemented new
techniques - successfully and unsuccessfully -- to meet the learning
needs of society.

Teleteaching 93 will also focus on the social and economic
consequences of implementing telecommunication techniques in distance
education and work.

It will be possible to demonstrate projects, equipment and software
during the conference. Completed or ongoing distance education and
working projects are particularly welcome.

The conference exhibition is open for the presentation of equipment,
systems, software and other products of importance to teleteaching.
Organizations and institutions are invited to present their education
programmes as well as other activities initiated to promote
teleteaching and distance learning.

The Norwegian Computer Society is the organizer of the conference, The
International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) is the main
sponsor, UNESCO and The International Council for Distance Education
(ICDE) are co-sponsors, and Norwegian Telecom is the main financial
supporter of Teleteaching 93.

Two associated miniconferences will be organized prior to the main
conference; 1one on "Teaching and learning in a global perspective"
hosted by The Norwegian Educational Computer Association in
cooperation with Computer Pals Across the World, and one on "High
speed datacommunication networks" organized by the local branch of The
Norwegian Computer Society.

Contributions to the conference should be received by the secretariat
no later than October 10, 1992. The conference language is English.

For further information, or a complete "Call for papers", contact the
conference secretariat:

Teleteaching 93
Kersti Larsen
Norwegian Computer Society
P.O. Box 6714 Rodel kka
N-0503 Oslo   Norway
Tel: [phone]      Fax: [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]

If you want an electronic version of Call for Papers, contact:
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 92 18:42:20 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada to Accelerate Switching Equipment Modernization


{The Toronto Star} reported that Bell Canada will speed up its
conversion of switching equipment to the Northern Telecom DMS digital
technology for a completion by 1994 instead of the previously planned
1996+. This was related to a multi-million dollar order Bell placed
with Northern Telecom.  The article mentioned that Bell determined
significant cost savings by speeding up the conversion to digital
(from crossbars, step-by-steps and electronics). This also throws a
monkey-wrench into the current Construction Program Review process
currently underway with the CRTC, as that review assumed the later
1996 completion.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Australian Telecom? So Much Better? Than What?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 08:11:26 GMT


Australian Telecom So much Better? Better than what??? As to the
saying America's dream is Australia's reality. Try Australia's dream
is America's reality ... Free Local Calls ... as to the three
companies to be connected from one part of the country to another,
it's just a shame it's all automatic with ESS5a and what not. While I
was in USA, I just dialed my number, got connected, AND with better
quality. I think Australian Telecom has alot to answer for before it
tries to revoke Australia the right of a choice? In this so called
"FREE" society (Free refering to Freedom of course) ... So much better
than WHAT???


TIE

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 8:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand)
Subject: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy!


Tuesday or Wednesday, depending on which paper you read, Ann Landers,
home base Chicago 8-), ran the following letter:

                        *** BEGIN QUOTE ***

Dear Ann Landers:
1
When I read the letter from "Earnest but Numberless," who complained
about people who leave messages on answering machines but fail to
leave their phone number, I had to write.  I work in a store and spend
hours every week calling customers about their special orders.  I know
very well that a big part of the problem is the kind of greeting that
is put on the answering machine.  it is frustrating to hear, "I'm not
home -- leave a message," because you have no idea whether or not
you've reached the correct number.

Another annoyance is when you run into a four-year-old kid who
instructs you to leave your name.  I'm sure the parents of these
children think it's cute, but I can assure you that most people don't
appreciate being instructed by a four-year-old.  I ran across one nut
recently who had trained his parrot to say, "Wait for the beep."  That
darned bird gave me the creeps.  Maybe I'm crazy but I think a person
has the right to expect a human voice on the other end of the line
when he makes a call.  It's too bad some people don't realize the
telephone is not a toy.  It is truly one of the most fantastic
inventions of the age and should be accorded the dignity it deserves.

 --A Michigan Reader

Dear Michigan: Your message came through loud and clear, and I thank
you.

                         *** END QUOTE ***

I think Ann and her correspondent have the right to know that the
phone IS a toy, and has only enjoyed the vast popularity it has
because the general public regards it as an essential toy.  This
Michigan Reader should be thankful that those she is calling spent
their hard-earned dollars to even put an answering machine on the line
 -- or perhaps she's rather listen to ring-no-answers all day?


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire     durham nh


[Moderator's Note: Mrs. Lederer has never been one of the reasons I
buy the {Chicago Tribune}.  Ann Slanders and her twin-sister Scabby
Van Buren need to be put out to pasture. Both offer a sort of
pop-philosophy lesson each day which was better suited for the 1950's
when they each got started. Sometimes they are mildly amusing to read
when our office has tea-break each afternoon.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #449
******************************