Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss451-500

Text File | 1992-06-21 | 936KB | 22,915 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02614;
          6 Jun 92 21:49 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20637
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 19:34:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30130
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 19:34:00 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 19:34:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #451

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jun 92 19:34:05 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 451

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: The Phone System Did What? (was Lottery Poses Threat) (Robert Woodhead)
    Re: Multi-Ring Detection (Jack Adams)
    Re: Caller ID and DID (Jack Adams)
    Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines (David Esan)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Tad Cook)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Corinna Polk)
    Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers (John Higdon)
    Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers (Ronald Oakes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 06:53:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> HOLDREGE+_MP%A1%PacifiCare@
mcimail.com (Matthew Holdrege) writes:

>             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

Zowieee ...  no signal to noise measurement.  That probably is the
single most critical parameter for normal voice band dial up modems.
Basic voice grade circuits are usually spec'd at 24 dB signal to
C-notched noise.  Data grade circuits usually are 28 dB.

> 3 tone slope (Referenced at 1000hz)
> Frequency range           Allowable variance
> 400 to 2800hz             -1 to +3db (1db hot to 3db long)

This may be confusing.  It is correct.  The specification is for
*loss*, not *gain*, and therefore negative numbers mean "hot" and
positive numbers mean "cold".

> Impulse noise (15 minutes)       Less than 15 hits/15 min.

Just in case the significance is missed, this can be translated to one
hit caused by a noise burst every minute, and it meets specs ... that
is precisely the same specification on every circuit tariffed in the
country by every provider, local or long distance.


Floyd

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: The Phone System Did What? (was Lottery Poses Threat)
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 10:45:18 GMT


rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> Specifically, if the computer controlling
> your fuel injection system fails, has your car crashed?

Your car's computer has crashed.  The car may well crash soon
thereafter.  Happy motoring... ;^)


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

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: Multi-Ring Detection
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 11:59:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, 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. {stuff deleted}.. 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. Does anyone know where such a device can be purchased?

Your best bet for these devices (marketed under such cute names as
"Ring Leader, etc.) would be your local Radio Shack or similar outlet.
I purchased mine from the fully separate subsidiary of Bell Atlantic
which deals with all these neat toys.  It works as advertised and does
decode the varying ring cadences associated with the multiple
directory numbers on a single line.


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 12:26:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Steve Forrette
<[e-mail]> 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?

BCLID, or Bulk Calling Line IDentification, allows a Centrex,
Mulitline Hunt Group (MLHG), or Private Branch Exchange (PBX) customer
to receive call-related information, such as calling-party number,
called-party number, time of call, etc., on calls received from
outside the Centrex, MLHG or PBX.  The information is received from
the central office over a dedicated data link to Customer Premises
Equipment (CPE).  Activation and deactivation codes (Associated with
Residential CLASS services) are not required.  For more information
consult Bellcore TR-TSY-000032, "CLASS(SM) Feature: Bulk Calling Line
Identification".


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 8:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted


Dick Rickert posts:

> 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).

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Dilbert comic
strip, but this past week Dilbert bought a video-phone.  He brought it
home, showed it to his dog, and said, "Now all I have to do is wait
for someone else to buy one and call me!"

His dog commented, "The scary thing is that without people like you
there would be no technological progress."

These are not exact quotes as I neglected to cut the cartoon out and
bring it to work, so I apologize in advance to those detail-oriented
folks who object to my paraphrasing.


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire   durham, nh

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines
Date: 6 Jun 92 18:46:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY


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

> 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.

I don't know how these were chosen.  I can hazard a good guess, that
there is a field that must be entered in the V&H tape and these were
assigned.

Each LATA is assigned to an operating company/province pair.  Thus 858
is Bell Canada in Quebec, 854 is Bell Canada in Ontario.  The overlap
between the two LATAs seem to be typo problems with the source of my
tape. (The 858 LATA in the 416 NPA is Brampton, ONT.  The other 30
Bramptons are in the 854 LATA.)  There is some overlap of the two
latas in the 613 and 514 NPAs, around Ottawa, one of the very few
places that NPAs cross state or provincial lines.


David Esan    [e-mail]

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

From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Organization: very little
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 20:32:41 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter Hayward) writes:

>>> 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?

[e-mail] (Patton M. Turner) writes:

>> 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

[e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) writes:

> ... 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.

Why would the impedance be wrong?  If the antenna is a typical sleeve
design made for trunk mounting, we can assume that it was built to
exhibit approximately 50 ohms at cellular frequencies when mounted on
a car trunk.  Why would sloping the ground plane downward at 45
degrees make this impedance match better?

Brandon may be confusing this cellular antenna with a 1/4 wave ground
plane he has read about in his ham radio books, which this antenna is
not.

Just mount it on an old tub or a pie tin and forget about it.  If
there is really that much concern about having the best performance at
the rural site, buy one of those little cellular Yagis and aim it at
the nearest cell site.

>> 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.

A bad idea, especially for the non-professional or non-ham who asked
the original question.  At 50 feet of line length, the hardline will
only yield a one HALF decibel improvement over 9913 coax at cellular
frequencies.  Without test equipment or experience, the non-ham is
likely to introduce serious losses when trying to construct his own
matching sections.

9913 is high quality flexible coaxial cable, but at cellular
frequencies it is very important that the connectors be attached
exactly right.  This is no small task for the uninitiated.


Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544
Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
             |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Date: 6 Jun 1992 15:36:03 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert
L. McMillin) writes:

> 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.

Nope, it doesn't matter if you have call waiting or not. I've got call
waiting, and I routinely dial my own number by mistake when calling
Personal Secretary for my messages, resulting in the 'beep', and then
a ringback when I hang up.

The only way to keep your phone from ringing after doing this is to
flash your line a few times after you hear the beep, let it sit on
silence for a few seconds, and then hang up. I've found this out after
mistakenly dialing my own number at 1:00am and doing what I could to
keep my phone from waking my roommates.


[Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention this, because Illinois
Bell does not work the same way. Dialing your own number always
results in a busy signal, call-waiting not withstanding. To get a
'true' busy (and thus force the call to roll to a second line or voice
mail or whatever) prepending *70 before dialing your number will work.
You'll never get the call-waiting tone when dialing your own number
here, even with *70 on the front, since prevention of call-waiting is
the very reason *70 was added!    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 02:01 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers


[e-mail] (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> 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.

I'll bet not. In San Francisco the B carrier is GTE Mobilnet; the A
carrier is "Cellular One" (in this case a McCaw/PacTel partnership).
Actually, the company is frequently referred to as "PacTel Cellular".
As you point out, the LA B carrier is PacTel and the A carrier is LA
Cellular. This would present a similar condition that you describe in
Atlanta.

The reality is that the roaming agreements between SF and LA do not
cross carrier allocation lines. I have GTE Mobilnet and roam when in
LA on PacTel (I cannot even place calls on LA Cellular -- I am
rejected as having no roaming agreement). Likewise, SF Cellular One
(PacTel, et al) customers roam on LA cellular. The B (wireline) A
(RCC) distinction seems a bit bogus. GTE's largest concentration of
landline operations as an LEC is in the greater Los Angeles area,
while the San Francisco area is overwhelmingly served by Pacific Bell.
Yet in San Francisco GTE is the B carrier and in LA PacTel is the B
carrier.

Cellular companies seem to go out of their way to keep roaming
agreements within the same band, even if it means dealing with "the
competition".


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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 09:18:23 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Ronald Oakes)
Subject: Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angles Cellular Carriers


In article <[e-mail]>, bill%wabwrld.UUCP@
mathcs.emory.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> 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.

Actually it can be quite common for the A band (non-wireline) carrier
in an area to be owned by the RBOC for another reigon.  Cellular One
in Chicago is owned by S.W. Bell.

More interestingly, in northern California the B band carrier in the
San Fransico area is GTE Mobilenet, but in the Sacremento area it is
Pac*Tel.  However, from what I have read here, Pac*Tel has the A band
cellular system in San Fransico.

Since Sacramento and San Francisco are ajacent systems, the Pac*Tel
systmes are probably networked to their compeitors in the two markets.


Ronald B. Oakes

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #451
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03754;
          6 Jun 92 22:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27504
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 20:23:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31306
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 20:23:00 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 20:23:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #452

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jun 92 20:23:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 452

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN) (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN) (Barton Bruce)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Peter Sleggs)
    Re: *69 Results in a Beating (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: *69 Results in a Beating (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Monty Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN)
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1992 05:20:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> emory!tridom![e-mail]
(Mark Reardon) writes:

> How common is switched 56k and how expensive is it?

In Bell Canada land Switched 56k is available as Datapath, a centrex
service.  The central offices must be DMS-100 and you must be within
18,000 feet of the CO.  The cost varies with area but an example would
be Toronto (one of the most expensive areas) at about $70/month.  The
local usage is free as are local voice calls.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Switched 56k (was Modems on POTS w/ comp. vs. raw ISDN)
Date: 6 Jun 92 03:15:46 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, emory!tridom![e-mail]
(Mark Reardon) writes:

> How common is switched 56k and how expensive is it?

It is widely available but seldom used. I am sure it has gained some
more users in recent times for videoconferencing, but few enough sites
have it and it costs a lot per minute -- even locally.

If your connection is directly to an IXC other than AT&T (which
charges more than voice calls for it), and especially to Sprint that
makes a point of saying it costs the same as voice, it may make sense
for some applications such as limited duration branch office data
transfers.

It does make sense as backup for critical connections, but be sure you
have alternate paths to the CO and preferably two COs to be really
safe.

Telco here in MA tried to price ISDN on the SW56 per minute rate, and
had they succeeded, would have killed any chance ISDN has of being
popular just as surely as they have kept SW56 a very limited service.

There are two standard interfaces, and you MUST buy a CSU/DSU to match
what telco offers. The two wire NTI one is less common, and the four
wire one (ATT, etc) is more common.

Some of the sw56 CSU/DSUs are up near $1200, but something like an
ADTRAN CSU/DSU II AR is not only a leased line CSU/DSU that does
anything you want in that space, but also features sw56 dial backup
capability that can be used all alone if that is what you need. It
lists for ~$729 and probably can be had at typical comm gear
discounts. -- good unit -- unlike MANY others, and it receives down to
 -45db when most stop at -34.

RBOCs are now jumping on the frame relay wagon, and if they want any
such business via them rather than be bypassed directly to the IXCs,
just maybe they will have learned how to price attractively. If so,
for LAN bridging applications, this may be better than sw56, and many
sites can be served simultaneously via one connection.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 13:58:34 GMT


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

> 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?

The phrase "an organization ... which runs its own ISDN CO ..." is not
exactly precise enough to give a good answer ...

By definition, the only "organizations that run COs" are telephone
companies which are licensed common carriers subject to government
regulation.  Any other organization that "runs" a switch is running
either a PBX or a Shared Tenant Service switch.  (Unless, of course,
it's served by a very large Centrex group and has certain management
capabilities provided as a service by the telephone company, but I
don't view that as "running a switch".)

So an organization other than a telco which runs its own switch is,
from the viewpoint of the serving telco, a customer.  The services it
receives are provided by the telco under pertinent tariffs, and if the
serving telco honors the presentation restriction indicator, the CPN
will not be delivered to the customer's switch -- even if, as in MIT's
case, the customer's switch is 5ESS(R) switch operating as a PBX and
serving ISDN BRI lines.

In addition, as far as I'm aware, no local telcos have tariffed SS7
interfaces to customer premises, so the CPN is not delivered in the
same manner as it would be to a CO.


Disclaimer: This is verging a little bit out of my area of expertise
and into tariff and regulatory-type issues; I do not claim to be
speaking for AT&T or even, necessarily, claim that this is the most
accurate description of the situation.  Just trying to help.


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

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

Date: 06 Jun 1992 12:34:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?


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

> 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 always delivers
> if you say so or not!

Not quite.  Your local CO knows what number you're calling from, and
passes it on to the remote CO you're calling, along with your CLID
status.

> Since your local CO always 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 the data is flagged not to send, it is not sent.  The called CO
does make a record of the calling number, enabling CallTrace and
CallReturn to work.  Depending on how blocking was implemented, *67
might also circumvent Call*Trace, but I don't think so.

> 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 caller's number
> dispite the caller's wishes.  Anyone checked this out?  Let us know.

According to the specs I've seen, CLID info is only sent from the
called CO to the called party if both of these conditions are met:

    1) CLID blocking is not requested by the calling party or
       calling CO, and

    2) The called party has CLID enabled on his/her line.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 21:28:12 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?


> 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?

MIT doesn't own it's own CO, but instead a PBX which may be the same
switch as used in CO, such as a DMS/SL-100, 5ESS, or ESWD.  This is
fairly common as universities have large telecommunications demands.
For example, AU uses a SL-100 for its PBX.  Anyway this switch is
served by trunks from the local CO (ISDN or POTS).  It is the settings
in this switch that determine wheather or not the ID is passed over
the ISDN trunks to MIT.  MIT may do whatever thay want at that point,
including internal caller ID.  This does not require ISDN or
conventional CLID as the data can be passed digitally to feature sets
connected to the PBX.

The above will remain the case until SS7 trunks to subscribers are
available.

CLID in the other direction may show one of several numbers such as the
billing number, lead number in the huntgroup, etc., but not the actual
extension unless AIOD (automatic indentification of outward dialing)
is used.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 18:58:07 GMT


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

> 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.

The data link on which Caller*ID is delivered is not duplex.  It is
simplex.  The CO transmits a data message, but does not listen for any
ACK or anything else from the customer's equipment.  How, exactly,
does one 'talk' a CO that isn't listening into divulging information
it has been programmed not to?


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

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

Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 13:47:08 -0400
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] 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.

> [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]

Sorry Pat, I have to jump in here, forget that it a phone for a
moment ... (I know I know it is the _Telecom_ Digest :)

Consider the situation of ANY toggle, a light switch is a fair
example.  Convention is that when the lever is UP the light is ON
(code requirement in some places). Now when the light is not
immediately visible you know that when it UP it is supposed to be on.
What would happen if these were randomly changed throughout your house
and place of work.

Or if the circuit breaker in your electrical panel didnt have an
indicator to show if it was off of on.

Or if the hot and cold taps were randomly assigned in the shower.

Its just good human interface design to have a positive indication of
state, or a means of forcing it to a known state.


peter

Bellatrix Systems Corp. Mississauga, Ontario Canada
[e-mail] or beltrix!peters

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: *69 Results in a Beating
Reply-To: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 06:03:18 GMT


I agree with PAT here (uh-oh, should I start worrying? :^) ) ... all
*69 did is facilitate the call-back.  Much like an auto-dial button.
And it had nothing to do with the beating.  The very fact that the
person ended up getting beaten indicates that the *69-user already
knew where he lived, so how is the fact that he used *69 relevant?

Not at all, IMHO, but this is the part I really wanted to addres:

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

> 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).

Yes, it *IS* a shame.  If you seriously want to discuss this then you
should start reading talk.politics.drugs and alt.drugs.  If you
already read and/or post on those groups, you should confine
discussions about drugs to those groups.  Comments like the one above,
IMHO (again) are cheap shots, given that they are completely
unsubstantiated, and are dropped in a conversation in a group that has
nothing to do with drugs.  If you really have a concern, read the
drugs groups.  Otherwise, please exercise some self control.

Sorry for the digression, Pat.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine.
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS ([e-mail])/JvNCnet ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Well, his was an article which in my opinion could
be legitimatly cross-posted. Despite my disagreement with the stated
conclusion, the fact is modern phone technology has changed the ways
in which people commit crimes, thus it becomes fair for discussion
here up to a point.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: *69 Results in a Beating
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 16:35:44 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


> [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

Long week, this week, Pat?

GTEFL: +1 813 446 -- I believe it's a GTD-5.  *69 (Calling Number
Redial) reads you the number, then asks you if you wish to dial it.  I
gather it works this way in other places too.

Bellcore calls this Automatic Recall, and covers it in TR-NWT-000227.
Anybody got a copy?


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 gather it does NOT work the same way in many or
most places. It does not work that way here. But since you raise the
point, let's assume it does read the number back: What has that told
you about the person's name and/or address?  Nothing. In 312/708 there
exists a not-to-common public service provided by Illinois Bell called
"Customer Name and Address Bureau" (312-796-9600) which provides a
reverse listing of phone numbers ==> name and address of *published*
subscribers. Not many (any?) other telcos offer that service. In any
event, you won't find me listed there. So I repeat that whether or not
the number is read back, the person returning the call needs a bit
more information acquired elsewhere than just via *69.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat,  6 Jun 92 22:28:33 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


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

> 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.

> 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?

   It's unlikely that non-free 950 calls will rely on ANI delivery to
provide a billing number.  But who knows?  If 950 calls are really
"free", maybe I'll start using Sprint's 950 number to place all my
calls ...

   Right now, 950 calls don't have ANI delivery for all calls, if the
trunking is FG-B.  FG-D with 950 would have a high probability.  But
there are still some SXS switches that deliver nothing with 950 calls;
until that changes, 950 calls that are not free will require some
other form of ID.


Al Varney - just my opinion

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 02:46:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS


Are there any regulations covering access to, or charges for, calls to
950 numbers for making long distance calls from hotel rooms?

Thanks.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #452
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06455;
          6 Jun 92 23:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19145
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 21:24:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25757
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 21:23:47 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 21:23:47 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #453

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jun 92 21:23:49 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 453

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Steven Brack)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Susan Huntsman)
    Re: Business Office Hours (Michael Cohen)
    Re: Business Office Hours (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Business Office Hours (Charles Stephens)
    Re: Caller ID and DID (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Multi-Phone Line Protection (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: HDTV Information Required (Martin McCormick)
    Re: How to Get Netnews From Home? (Paul W. Schleck)
    Re: How to Get Netnews From Home? (David McIntyre)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (Jim Haynes)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (Garrett Wollman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 Jun 1992 15:01:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike
Godwin) writes:

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

>> 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.

Since it's easier to "tap" a digital transmission, by simply copying
the bitstream at any convenient point, such as the CO, going digital
should make intercepts much easier for the telco to implement.

>> 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.

The nice thing about going digital is that the inability to tap a line
on an ad hoc basis severely limits the government's ability to make
taps without warrants.  Since unwarranted wiretaps are fairly illegal,
I fail to see where that's a bad thing, except in the minds of people
who don't want to obey the law.  Those people are called "criminals,"
not "FBI agents."  Note, however, that the two groups aren't mutually
exclusive.  8)

>> 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.

In this case, privacy issues aside, it should be opposed merely
because it's unnecessary.  Digital taps are clean, cheap, and
completely undetectable from the sub's point of view.  The only
disadvantage is that for minimum difficulty, the governmnet needs to
go through the telco to emplace the tap.  If desired, that can be
worked around.  A PC-box storing packets from a specific subscriber is
technically feasable, and ahouldn't be outrageously expensive.

Are there other advantages, disadvantages, interesting side effects?


Steve Brack

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 13:34:03 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Susan B Huntsman)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-Up


> 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 ...

This is not so far fetched.  I seem to recall reading a book (Crystal
Castles) with a similar theme.  A man invented a cellular phone, and
to keep all the neighbors from listing in he developed his own
encryption method.  When he tried to patent the phone, take a wild
guess at who came a knocking on his door.  The FBI confiscated all his
work, told him not to build another phone, and even told him not to
reveal the details of his work.


S Huntsman

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jun  5 03:11:28 EDT 1992
Subject: Re: Business Office Hours


In response to the question raised recently:

> Has anyone noticed a trend with business office hours?

As a service representative for New Jersey Bell, I can tell you --
they're getting longer.  New Jersey Bell was open only from 9:00 to
5:00 Monday through Friday until this year.  We are now rolling out
extended hours and some offices (like mine in Parsippany) are open
Saturdays.  Don't be surprised to see us open 24 hours sometime soon.

Part of the reason for the extension of hours for our company is to
meet our new service provisioning goal of "when do you want it?"
service.  Residential customers in many parts of the state may add any
features or services, including new POTS lines, the same or next day.
This is a change from the former three to four day due dates we were
offering.

Hope this information is helpful.


Michael Cohen      [e-mail]
h [phone]   w [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 02:03:41 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Business Office Hours
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> 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?

But John, I thought you said that GTE would give you the business
anytime.  :-)


Jeff Sicherman

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

Subject: Re: Business Office Hours
From: [e-mail] (Charles Stephens)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 04:39:50 EDT
Organization: COW Pastures


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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?

        Southern Bell hours are M-F 8-5.  That's it.  It's a real
pain, when you want to make orders or have questions about your bill.

> [Moderator's Note: Illlinois Bell now operates 24 hours per day, with
> a single number for business and residential customers.  PAT]

        Southern Bell has two 24 hour services.  The first is
RightTouch(tm) that allows you to use a touch tone phone to place
simple orders (ie disconnect line, order Prestige(r), etc.).  They
also have a 611 repair service.

        I don't know why I am submitting this, but hopefully it will
give non-SB customers know what other telco's are doing.


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] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID
Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1992 05:04:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Marcus (M.D.) Leech
<[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

CompuCall is an interesting animal indeed.  Calling it a "call-detail
delivery system" doesn't do it justice.  Really it is a full fledged
SCAI (Switch Computer Application Interface).  As Marcus points out
though it is used exclusively for control of calls to ACD groups.

One of the neat things about CompuCall is that it can deliver ANI and
CLID for each call, in separate fields.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Multi-Phone line protection
Date: 6 Jun 92 08:25:38 GMT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, sichermn@beach.
csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> Having been underwhelmed by the response to my question on the
> availability of surge protectors for multiple phone lines and not

Siemon ones cost about twice per pair what the PortaSystem modules do,
but then the PortaSystem ones do need to plug into a special block
unlike the 66 block the Siemon ones go into.

PortaSystem makes a proprietary design that is quite compact and has
modules that range from the older style protectors to the latest three
electrode gas with heat coils and diodes and they even have the
'electronic' units.

They also make the 'standard' industry shape ones that fit blocks made
by ATT, NTI/Cook, Reliable, etc. The main advantage for a CO to use
the Porta Systems one is they are VERY compact and with 10s of
thousands of lines in a big CO, this helps.

The typical voltage is 230, which is above normal ringing superimposed
on 48 volt CO battery. There are lower voltage units such as 75 volt
that are for data lines with NO ringing, but that may have sealing
current or simplex powering.

And of course Greybar has the PortaSystems units as well as several of
the others.

I personally like the PortaSystems ones, and they have 6, 10, 25 pair
blocks for PBX and Key system use as well as monster blocks for COs.

Get their "DELTA" series protectors that are three electrode gas +
heat coils + diodes. Cost more than lesser units, but they work.

The six and ten pair are punch in and out. The 25 pair are punch or 25
pair connector in and out in various combinations. One popular one is
punch in to RJ21x out. Another good one is RJ21x in and out (easy to
stick after a telco RJ21x). The 50, 100 or larger pair assemblies have
other options including a 25' stub cable in.

The other vendors all make similar units. NTI/Cook even has a tiny
block that mounts on 1a2 rails and does maybe six or ten pair but is
wrap in and out I think.

So there is LOTS of stuff out there, but NOT as readily available to
end users as it should be.

Porta also makes a 'six-pack plus' that does six pair plus a normal
power cord. There is real advantage to sharing a ground for both power
and phone line protection. Neither ground will be that good in a
typical installation, but having them common limits the voltage
differences seen inside the equipment.

It is too bad some of the better power protection for small systems
like the IsoBar stuff does not offer serious phone line protection for
several pairs built in.

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

Subject: Re: HDTV Information Required
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 13:40:39 -0500
From: [e-mail]


     Although there are several countries and many electronics
companies working on HDTV, the battle narrows down to two major,
incompatible strategies.  The system that is already in limited use in
Japan is a variation on present-day broadcast television.  The picture
simply has more scan lines in it and the aspect ratio, (horizontal VS
vertical screen dimension), is more like that of 35MM movie film.  A
HDTV picture is not viewable on a standard NTSC, PAL, or SECAM
television and the channels occupy _lots_ of bandwidth.  The picture
quality is said to be stunningly good, but the big question is, "Where
can we put those channels?"

     The other idea for HDTV will be familiar to any readers who have
worked with teleconferencing using compressed video over T1 or ISDN
lines.  It is a digital compression scheme that capitalizes on the
large amount of redundancy in the picture to send a HDTV signal in the
same bandwidth as a standard NTSC television channel, 6Mhz.

     The FCC is expected to decide which system is adopted in the U.S.
in 1993, but the commission has already said that HDTV channels may
not occupy any greater bandwidth than 6Mhz.

     When a digital system is chosen, it should have four channels of
digital sound.  The FCC is expecting to allocate one UHF channel for
each VHF channel now in use.  Owners of HDTV's will watch the HDTV
version of their local VHF station on that UHF channel while
conventional NTSC sets may live out their useful lives tuned to the
original VHF channels.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: How to Get Netnews From Home?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 16:40:20 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

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

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

And a reasonably complete list of so-called "*Nix-Pub" sites are
available from rtfm.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) under subdirectory
/pub/usenet/alt.bbs.  Those without FTP can try [e-mail]
with the word "HELP" in the message.  It is an archive of the regular
post on the subject to alt.bbs.

Realize also that this newsgroup is a Fidonet echo, and may be
available from a Fidonet BBS.

Hope you can stay on with us.


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David McIntyre)
Subject: Re: How to Get Netnews From Home?
Organization: Rensselaer Instipoly Technitute
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 17:39:12 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I'm leaving this place in a week's time and would like to continue to
> get netnews. I have a PC and realise I need a modem and a phone point
> but what do I need to do then?

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

Not necessarily.  There are several ways to do it, as outlined in the
"How to become a USENET site" which is posted monthly in the
news.answers group.


Dave "mr question" McIntyre   [e-mail]   office : 518-276-8633


[Moderator's Note: Your suggestion is the ideal one, but bear in mind
not everyone is technically proficient to do this, nor do they always
have the time or financial resources required. Thus, the public site
alternative is a practical solution for many folks.   PAT]

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Date: 6 Jun 92 21:23:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Gee, I was just thinking about how Herb Caen, columnist for the {San
Francisco Chronicle}, used to wax lyrical about the charm of the fog
horns sounding there.  Can't you (or Mike Royko) come up with
something equally lyrical about how charming Chicago is with the
sounds of burglar alarms screaming in the night?


[e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually most nights here we listen to shots fired
and gangbangers yelling at one another. By comparison, burglar alarms
are an assault only on the ears, not on the mind and body as well, and
at least the gangs run and hide when they go off. Our neighborhood has
become worse than ever before this year.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 20:54:37 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility


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

> [Moderator's Note: Does it? ... perhaps you'll share your new wisdom
> with all of us!  <wink>  :)   PAT]

Well, clearly, on the days when you let through a lot of Higdon's
flames against GTE, you have gotten close to the end of
``G{\"o}tterd{\"a}mmerung''...

(I always preferred ``Die Valk{\"u}re'' myself, but lots of people
think I'm strange anyway ...)

 -GAWollman
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #453
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09966;
          7 Jun 92 1:07 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32413
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 23:16:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 6 Jun 1992 23:15:58 -0500
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 23:15:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #454

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jun 92 23:16:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 454

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (James Borynec)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Bud Couch)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Steve Gaarder)
    Re: Volunteering for Interop (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Michael J. Graven)
    Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: Ringing Sound When Calling a PBX's DID (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Passive Repeater? (Barry Ornitz)
    Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy! (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy! (Bill Everts)
    Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy! (Roger B.A. Klorese)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
Date: 5 Jun 92 15:35:18 GMT


> 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 ...

While the question seems silly, I suspect that there are a lot of
customers even dumber than the operators. Even though I'm sure that
the question is on a standard script for trouble calls (not one
specific to dead phones), I'd bet that more than once the answer has
been "yes".

The IQ requirement for being an operator may be pretty low, but the
required IQ for placing a call is just about vegetable level.


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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 08:56:57 -0600


[e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten) writes:

> 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 ...

The problem cuts both ways.  When I was working on a project with our
611 answer clerks I witnessed a number of occasions where the
subscriber was unable or unwilling to distinguish between a broken
phone and a broken line.  It was only after dispatching a craft to the
location that we would find out that (for example) the bedroom phone
didn't work while the kitchen phone did.  Being an answer clerk is a
VERY tough job because you have NO idea of how technically sophis-
ticated the person at the other end of line is.


j.borynec  [e-mail]

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 18:49:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> I wonder how the U.S. "sandwich" dimes and quarters, originally
> introduced in 1965, worked in comparison to the older coins of those
> denominations.

The "sandwich" coins were designed as a "sandwich" for the exact
purpose of assuring operation in vending machines.

I have been away from it for years (telephony related: I was
evaluating the voice performance of a particular payphone in 1966 when
I learned all this stuff), but a coin accepter measures three
qualities of a coin: its size, its weight, and its _magnetic_
characteristics.

It sorts the coins by size and weight fairly straightforwardly
(differing size holes and lifting them against specific spring
tensions), but I was really fascinated by the magnetic sort. The coins
were rolled down a trough (on edge) and passed through a magnetic
field. At the end of the trough, they sailed into space. If they were
of the "correct" composition, they would fall into a tube placed below
the trough. If they were not, the magnetic field would have either
slowed them up too much or not enough and they would miss, which
directed them to the "reject" slot.

The "sandwich" coins were developed to have the same size, weight, and
magnetic characteristics as the silver coins of the same
denominations. If one rejected a silver coin, it's probably because
something in the mechanism is out of exact adjustment, and the coin
accepter unit is no longer tested with silver.  I doubt if many people
complain; you didn't.


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

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1992 17:03:13 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia


[e-mail] (Leonard Erickson) writes:

> 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.

The rule as explained to me by my bank in Chicago was: paper currency
yes; coins no. The simple reasoning was that it was a royal pain to
lug coins around, store them somewhere and eventually ship them back
to the issuing countries, whereas paper currency could be handled
easily, and mailed back to Upper Slobbovia or wherever at a reasonable
cost.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 11:21:20 GMT


Down here in the southern U.S. (not "the South"... "the South" starts
at the Equator) there is rarely any problem with businesses and
machines accepting Canadian coins. I guess there just aren't enough to
make it worth their trouble.


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 00:20:13 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia


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

> 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 once read an article in the {Bell System Technical Journal} on the
subject.  It seems that the government actually consulted with AT&T to
come up with a coin composition that would work in pay phones.


Steve Gaarder    [e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Volunteering for Interop
Date: 5 Jun 92 23:38:45 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark
Allyn) writes:

> 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.

Get in touch with Nan Dorio <[e-mail]>, Volunteers Liaison at
Interop.

> 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've worked the last two shows (San Jose & DC).  I spent my own nickel
both times.  It's something to experience.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J Graven)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 05:08:02 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> The solution seems to be [to] 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.

Users like this.  When my building in Murray Hill was cut over to
ISDN, we came into work the next day to find 7506's on our desks.
Many of us spent the rest of the morning running through the
user-selectable ring cadences to see which one we thought would work
best for us.  The caco-phony of rings in the hall was tremendous.


Michael     [e-mail]

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

Date: 06 Jun 1992 14:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: Area Code 200?? in Pac*Bell Land


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

> 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.

Could someone give me some more information on:

    a) What 610 & 710 are used for.
       (Is 610 still TWX ?)

    b) Who came up with the NANP?  Under what authority?

    c) Has anything more been said about the day when we'll
       switch to 8 (or more) digit telephone numbers?

Steve Brack


[Moderator's Note: 610 is Canadian TWX service. 710 is US Government
Special Services (someone else can explain that in detail.)   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Ringing Sound When Calling a PBX's DID
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 12:33:49 -0500
From: [e-mail]


The ringing sound you hear is definitely the ringing tone from the
PBX.  It can sound like anything the PBX manufacturer desires.  In a
previous posting, when I described the strange behavior of the first
electronic PBX that Oklahoma State University got, there were
occasions when one would hear both the standard ringing tone as heard
on the #5 Xbar system mixed with the campus's PBX ring.  When someone
answered, both rings disappeared.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Re: Passive Repeater?
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Eastman Chemical Company Research Labs
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 17:32:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Scott R. Myers) writes:

> 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.

I am not familiar with this device, but we use something quite similar
with our plant trunking radio system.  We have a number of metal
buildings at this plant site that have poor radio coverage with our
trunking system. To alleviate the problems, we have installed "passive
repeaters" on many of them.  These are nothing more than two antennas
connected toegether; one antenna is on the inside of the building and
the other is on the outside.  The antenna on the inside picks up a
small amount of a user's handheld signal and re-radiates it using the
outside antenna.  During reception, the inside antenna re-radiates the
signal picked up by the outside antenna.  The two antennas do not have
to be mounted near each other; they can be connected together via any
conveneient length of transmission line (coaxial cable usually).  Thus
a basement antenna can connect to one on the roof.

As one can imagine, the performance of such a system will be poor.
There will be considerable loss in the system, especially if a
significant run of transmission line is used.  However the effective
path loss from handheld to the base station will usually be far less
than that without the passive repeater.  In the case of several of our
containment buildings, the passive repeater allows radio communication
that would have been impossible without it.

A pickup antenna within the car located near the handheld connected to
an outside antenna just might decrease path loss enough to permit
cellular communications in fringe locations.  Whether a "passive
repeater" will help or not depends highly on how many problems you
currently have with your system.

> BTW the wrapping on the one I saw displayed said something like "Works
> through proven Microwave technology."  Sounds like marketing hype

It sure does!


Barry L. Ornitz  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 02:16:52 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy!
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


PAT, the all-purpose social, technical, and literary critic comments:

> [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]

  So, PAT, when are you starting the deeply-thoughtful, up-to-the-90's
advice column for the TELECOM Digest?


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Do you think there should be a "Dear Scabby" news
group on the net, based on the cultural and social mores of the
nineties? Maybe someone will take the hint and start it as an alt
group, with a companion mailing list.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Everts)
Subject: Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy!
Date: 5 Jun 92 18:26:18 GMT


> 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?

I agree that ring-no-answer is worse than an answering machine.
However, what some businesses are doing to automate their phone
systems is criminal! Two different companies (one an airline and
another a resort campground reservation company) have automatic
attendants with the typical menu on the front end.  After wading
through the four or five layers of menus to get what I wanted, they
forwarded my call to a recording telling me that I was calling them
out of regular business hours. When I called during business hours I
waded through the menus again (a little faster now because I knew most
of the options I wanted) only to get forwarded to a busy number.

YECH!!!

I can see why some people get frustrated with technology when it is so
horribly implemented sometimes.


 -everts-   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy!
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 15:48:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Our Moderator notes:

> [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]

What does this have to do with Moderation?


ROGER B.A. KLORESE            +1 415 ALL-ARFF
[e-mail]      {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk


[Moderator's Note: Nothing.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #454
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14385;
          7 Jun 92 2:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18465
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 00:34:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06434
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 00:33:50 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 00:33:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #455

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 00:33:33 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 455

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX (John Rice)
    Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (Scott Colbath)
    Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error" (R. Kevin Oberman)
    Re: Wisconsin Bell Monitors 1 in 1000 Phone Calls? (Hoyt A. Stearns, Jr.)
    Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Business Office Hours (David Lesher)
    Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines (Malcolm Slaney)
    Re: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area (Rob Schultz)
    Re: On The Other Hand ... (Marc Wiz)
    Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake (Dave Platt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 19:47:17 GMT


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

> I had to wrest this information from Panasonic tech support in New
                                                 ------------
> to do some serious cajoling. I'm posting this here so Panasonic users

> 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

Now that's unique. Wonder if this is a trend in the industry -- an
unlisted customer support phone number. I'll have to tell my boss, we
won't want to be left behind.


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: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 03:22:15 GMT


[e-mail] (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:

> 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.

This is also a problem for anyone using such devices with an RJ-14
phone jack (two lines on one "normal" jack"). Shorting the A/A1 pair
shorts the second line. This tends to upset anyone on the other line!

I use a "splitter jack" from Radio Shack to handle this, it plugs into the
wall jack and provides three jacks:

    1 RJ14
    1 RJ-11 for line 1
    1 RJ-11 for line two

The RJ-11s only have *two* wires connected so they'll totally insulate
the wiring from the A/A1 lines on the device.


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] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs
Date: 5 Jun 92 13:38:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jesse
W. Asher) writes:

> 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.

Not related to ISDN, but when USWEST bounced up the price for a third
line to my house from $150 last year to $1030 this year I got mad
enough to call the ACC (Arizona's PUC) and complain about the price.
Apparently, so did many others. Enough that the ACC is now asking
USWEST to show cause for the price increase.

I guess what I saying here is that you should call the PUC and bug
them like me and many others did regarding the tariff for third line
costs. It may help.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error"
Date: 5 Jun 92 15:23:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Slonim Edwin) writes:

> 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.

USA Direct (and it's MCI counterpart) is a method getting a connection
to the US phone system from abroad. The call is "free" for the phone
you are calling from, and, if it's a toll free number (800), there is
no charge for the US end of the call. But you still will be billed for
the international part of the call at the curent rate. This is usually
MUCH cheaper than the PTT charge with the added plus of being able to
dial 800 numbers that would otherwise be unreachable.

I have no idea if AT&T will allow a call to an 800 number that is not
theirs, but the advertizing for USA Direct impies that you may call
any number just like you were on a pay phone in the us.

It might aslso be worth mentioning that last month while I was in
Germany the DBP (German Federal Post) lowered the rates on calls to
the US by a huge amount because they had lost so much business to USA
Direct. Now a short call from Germany to the US cost less vis the DBP
for a short call, but USA Direct is still cheaper for longer ones. I
don't rember where the crossover point was.


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

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

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

From: isus![e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Wisconsin Bell Monitors 1 in 1000 Phone Calls?
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 17:55:27 GMT


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

>> Actually, they do.  In Wisconsin MaBell records one out of every 1000 phone
>> calls placed.  They have employees listen to ALL these phone converstions,

> [Moderator's Note: See the previous message. All telcos do this, and
     ....

> 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.

> monitoring is a non-issue.  PAT]

You mean it's not portrayed correctly in the movie "The President's
Analyst", where "every line in the country is tapped"? :-)


Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|uunet.uu.net  4131 E. Cannon Dr. |!telesys.com
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |!isus!hoyt    voice_602_996_1717_|____________

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Atlanta vs. Los Angeles Cellular Carriers
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 01:47:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> [B cellular carriers are often relatively minor land-line players in
> their territories]

> Cellular companies seem to go out of their way to keep roaming
> agreements within the same band, even if it means dealing with "the
> competition".

It almost seems as if this was intentional.  The B carrier here in
Northern Vermont is Contel Cellular (A is Cell One), even though New
England Tel serves more customers *by far* than Contel wireline.
(Gee, does the acquisition of Contel by GTE mean that Contel's service
will get even worse than it already was?  I'm glad I don't live in
Contel territory now.)

(In other news, Adelphia Cable Communications is now delivering
Digital Cable Radio.  I wonder how long it will be before they
petition the PSB to compete in telephone service?)


Garrett A. Wollman   = [e-mail] = UVM is welcome to my opinions
                     = uvm-gen!wollman =

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Business Office Hours
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 23:44:00 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


> Southern Bell has two 24 hour services.  The first is
> RightTouch(tm) that allows you to use a touch tone phone to place
> simple orders (ie disconnect line, order Prestige(r), etc.).  They
> also have a 611 repair service.

Note that using the WrongTouch mentioned above has steep charges for
its use. I seem to recall you used to be able to have service
disconnected for n-months, such as when your winter house is closed
up, for next to nothing. Now you get big ads from BS plugging
WrongTouch, and a fee in the tens of dollars for using it.

As for Repair, when I left Miami and moved back to the United States,
a *LARGE* fraud case was building against BS of Florida. It seems as
if, if your line was out more than 24 hours, you were due a rebate and
BS had to report it to the PSC.

Well somebody spilled the beans after being fired. ALL troubles got
fixed after 23 hours. Must be magic! This was found to be state-wide,
and I think the fraud total was in the many millions over the years.
The Attorney General had a major case underway.

I went this route many times on my noisy pair. "It must be your
interior wiring {CRASH, CRACKLE, HISS} as there is nothing wrong with
OUR cable." "But I'm plugged into your protector with my butt set."

{silence followed..}


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Malcolm Slaney)
Subject: Re: Pacbell Data Access Lines
Date: 7 Jun 92 03:46:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

> Zowieee ...  no signal to noise measurement.  That probably is the
> single most critical parameter for normal voice band dial up modems.
> Basic voice grade circuits are usually spec'd at 24 dB signal to
> C-notched noise.  Data grade circuits usually are 28 dB.

Perhaps data lines are covered by the voice spec?  When we moved into
our new house the main line was awfully noisy.  We had an installer
out to install a modem line and he listened to the line and agreed it
was noisy.  He didn't seem to concerned about it so I casually asked
him if there was a specification for noise on the line.  He got a
bright look in the eyes, got his nifty noise meter, found it above
spec, entered a trouble report on the line, and spent the new hour or
two tracking down a short in one of the pairs coming down our pole.

Gotta love those craft people!  Never could have explained that to the
people answering the phone.


Malcolm

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 08:38:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rob Schultz)
Subject: Re: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area
Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN


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

>> [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.

Actually, my experience (lines not actually hooked up) was with GTE
North in Elkhart, Indiana.  Of course, much of my problem may be due
to the fact that Elkhart is not exactly the technological center of
the world, but ...


Rob Schultz   At work: [phone]
[e-mail]   [e-mail]
{uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms  {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Wiz)
Subject: Re: On The Other Hand ...
Date: 6 Jun 92 17:20:56 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX


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

> 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!

I have a different story to tell about GTE.  This incident took place
in Duarte, Ca.  (which is a suburb of L.A.) in 1987-1988.

Duarte is served by GTE.  Anyway I had a dead line on a Saturday or
Sunday.  I did not know what the problem was.  After my roommate and I
verified that it was indeed the "phone company" and not the key system
in the house I used my roommate's line to call repair and reported the
problem.  They told me that the problem would be fixed by Monday due
to the fact that it was the weekend.

Lo and behold within three hours I had dialtone!

What little telecom technical knowledge I have has been obtained from
my friends and the Digest.  Speaking as a customer of GTE I was
impressed.  Especially since I had had GTE service several times
previously and was not impressed by the service.  Back then I got the
distinct impression that GTE was working hard to change their image.

Just another data point.


Marc Wiz    Yes that really is my last name.
MaBell:        [phone]
Internet:    [e-mail]
The views expressed are my own.  Mine all mine!

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 10:13:47 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Platt)
Subject: Re: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA


>   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]

Well, I can't speak for Jeff ... but I'll fess up to an image which
popped into my mind when I read PAT's note ...

 ... PAT, waking up at the crack of dawn, starting a pot of strong
coffee, cueing up his favorite portion of The Ring Cycle, opening the
window, staring out as the sun rises and his terminal displays the log
of messages-to-be-moderated ...

 ... and saying happily "God, I love the smell of napalm in the
morning!"  And then, later in the day, after struggling with eight
different finger-pointing telecom vendors for nine hours just to try
to get dial-tone on his classic 2500 set, sighing to himself
"Deregulation.  Modified Final Judgment.  The horror...  the
horror..."


Dave Platt                  VOICE: [phone]
Domain: [e-mail]      UUCP: ...netcomsv!ntg!dplatt
USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303


[Moderator's Note: Lovely ... just lovely. Actually, people who know
me personally say the role of Brunhilda better suits me. :) And with the
Pilgrim's Chorus playing in the background I must say goodnight. This
Digest starts to get on my nerves after awhile.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #455
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28346;
          7 Jun 92 10:38 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07483
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 08:57:30 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06782
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 08:57:20 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 08:57:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #456

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 08:57:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 456

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Some History of GTE-Florida (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Switches in AT&Ts Network (John Butz)
    Help on TV Remote History Needed (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    Voice Messaging User Interface Forum Standard (Norm Aleks)
    The Economist 5/30/92 (Bob Anderson)
    Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories) Martin McCormick)
    More on Avoiding Telco-Generated Junk Mail (John Nagle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 16:32:58 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some History of GTE-Florida


More on GTE-Florida from the Fidonet FCC echomail conference:

* From : Don Kimberlin, 1:379/37 (30 May 92 08:56)
* To   : Tony Pelliccio
* Subj : Phoneco slime continu

TP> We get that here as standard GTE operating policy.  Their
> computers seem to cough and die periodically, taking out whole chunks
> of the city.

TP> Whew ... glad I don't have GTE as my local company! Phone service
> here is a little outrageous but not like what you've got. And system
> service is VERY good lately... last time a phone system went down
> was when 20,000 lines got knocked out in Providence due to a
> software bug about three years ago. Of course there's the occasional
> glitch where the system just dumps every call (mostly on the East
> Providence exchanges), but nothing like what you seem to be talking
> about.

GTE of Florida has its own unique personality, phoneco-wise.  The
history is unique, in that Tampa, FL was on the telephone fringe of
the U.S. back in the WW I - era times of the first anti-trust suit
against the original Bell System robber barons.  (Those who don't want
to believe this should read some of the history books about Theodore
Vail, the "hero-president" of the Bell System of that era, and how he
was a private student of the Vanderbilts, Morgans and such who gave him
direct instructions.)

Tampa was reported to have had as many as SIX competing local phone
companies, and all, including Southern Bell, wound up selling out to a
couple of local meat market owners, the Brorein Brothers, who
proceeded for the next half-century to run Peninsular Telephone
Company throughout the territory from Sarasota and Bradenton through
Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater up to New Port Richey.

By the late 1950's, Peninsular Telephone was still another one of
those humble, hard-working local totally independent phonecos, and the
pressures of explosive population growth were more than the aging
Brorein Brothers wanted to handle.  They offered their company to
Southern Bell, which took a couple of years to decide that it was
still too near to 1913 for a Bell company to try to buy another
phoneco (which AT&T had agreed to never again do as part of the 1913
anti-trust settlement).  GTE was just waking up to the notion of
expanding by acquiring independents around the country, and they
bought the Broreins out.

Now, with their GTE-variety Bell-shaped heads, they thought they had
purchased a metropolitan-area phoneco, not an oversized country store.
With the best sort of big-corporation "poor-think," GTE hired itself
the absolutely worst sort of "best kind of president."  They hired the
president of Ohio Bell (those who understand the inner workings of the
Bell System of that era know that Ohio Bell at that time was one of
the "punishment tours" of the 1950's Bell monolith; a place they sent
the poorer performers to shape up about how to be a Bell executive.).

Anyhow, he moved in and like any good circus boss, brought all his
Ohio Bell cronies with him.  They had no understanding of how to
evolve a country-store phoneco into a metropolitan area one, and made
every kind of plant, engineering and business mistake one could make
in the phoneco business.  The old Peninsular plant just crashed, but
that did not stop them from seeking an enormous rate increase, using
the old song, "Our investors will withdraw if we don't get an increase."

Well, in short form without a ton of war stories, GTE of Florida
caused the telephone industry a number of losses.  For the _first_
time ever in the history of American telephony, a PUC was forced by
public outrage to come out of camera and hold hearings in the
territory of the company so the public could vent its wrath.  Telling
what the public had to say about GTE Florida at that time would fill
books.

The outcome was that for the _first_time_ever_ in the history of
American telephony, a phoneco rate increase request was denied, but
going beyond that, the PUC was forced to dig deeply enough into GTE-
Florida's books to find that their intercity short-haul toll charges
were all wrong, and GTE-Florida was the _first_ phonecp forced to
implement rather large "Extended Area Service" flat-rate service
offerings.  Yes, the rates went up, but the calling areas expanded a
lot.

That was the early 1960's, but even to this day, the last of the old
Peninsular loyals is finally fading out of GTE-Florida, still doing
battle with the Ohio Bell implants.  Meantime, neither faction has
ever been terribly competent, and neither faction really ever
understood what running a "real Bell phone company" was like.

So, a parody of a phoneco continues to grow and entangle itself
throughout the Suncoast of Florida, absolutely certain in their own
way that they "must be running a big business phoneco."  Sad thing is,
it is a _huge_ business phoneco, still full of country-store notions
about how to go about the job.  Sadder yet is a public in that area
that's grown up with it and thinks it's normal to be that way ...

[Moderator's Note: Then in a subsequent message, Kimberlin replied to
comments by John Desmond:

JD> More likely the problem is that the Telco switches have run out of
> resources (trunks, etc) to handle the load.  The CPU's are sitting there
> running along fine, it is jus that they do not have any trunks available
> due to the heavy demand for resources to complete the calls.  The
> Telephone networks are designed to handle an average peak load of
> traffic.

GTE of Florida is a particularly stubborn example of a lot of bad
things, though.  You see, they bought into a burgeoning metro area
(still growing and beyond a million subscriber lines) and they like to
play "poor little country phone company," which that area hasn`t been
for 35 years.

They wound up with Home Shopping Network located in their territory,
and talk about a phoneco gold mine!  Their piece of the jillions of
INWATS (800) calls to Home Shopping was about eight cents a minute for
a blue zillion minutes a day.  But did they react and build plant to
handle it?  Nope.  Not for two years, while the HSN people griped and
hollered and fussed, GTE of Florida blithely let the general public
get no connections, either.

Well, it was AT&T that put the onus on GTE Florida.  They got so sick
of failed call attempts into that area code (and the GTE people EVEN
tried the old Farmer Jones Phoneco Trick from 1955, "tromboning" the
incoming calls -- that means if all your trunks are busy, you dial the
call BACK into the long distance company, and let them handle it once
again.  Maybe, just MAYBE, if that call comes back ten seconds later,
it will hit one of your trunks that released, and complete ... but it
ties up the long distance company's trunks all to heck ... not a nice
thing to do at all!!!)

So, an AT&T salesman showed HSN some printouts that showed clearly
that GTE was blocking half of HSN's INWATS with clogged plant, and two
things happened:

First, HSN and AT&T got together and made a deal with, of all places,
MCI.  MCI was placing fiber across Tampa Bay and agreed to put a fiber
terminal right in the HSN premises -- ten feet from HSN's ACD, while
AT&T set up a deal to steer the IMWATS to MCI for completion.  What
happened?  GTE - Florida cost itself all those eight cents' and MCI
got it!

Then, HSN sued GTE for huge sums -- had them dead cold, and only
through HSN's own executive arrogance (the chairman is one of those
"lawyers who didn't pass the bar exam"), fired an excellent law firm
and ruined their own prosecution of the case.  GTE hired a really
good, really expensive NYC lawyer, and got the case decided in their
favor. (Guess who wound up paying for that, as if we all don't know.)

The point is, GTE of Florida runs a particularly stubborn, cheap style
of operating a phone plant; some things that would curl a Bell mind's
hair.

That leads into the incredibly sloppy operation of their plant.
Downright protracted failures and outages are a way of life with them.
They routinely blow CPU's down with incompetent software loads.  There
have been cases in GTE-Florida territory clearly caught where they
loaded new software revs and when they blew it, couldn't get the
backup to work -- for 2, 4 even 14 hours!  Numerous other cases
involve installation activity with the famous "wrench that fell on the
battery bus" or "cut the wrong cable in the office" stuff.

Nope, the sort of things you might expect of a competent phoneco don't
even apply to GTE-Florida.  They give a whole definition to the
meaning of incompentent and unreliable as far as phonecos go.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Florida PUC ever gets around to
catching them at it.  But, all the hijinks of the Florida commission-
ers and the paybacks they take from the entities they are supposed to
"regulate" is an entire book.

I guess you can see what the result for the public there is ...


WM v2.01 [Eval]/91-2722
* Origin: BORDERLINE!BBS Kannapolis,N.C. [phone] (1:379/37)

                             --------

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 08:51 EDT
Subject: Switches in AT&Ts Network


[e-mail] writes:

> 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.
                                ^^^

400?!?  Have you been smoking something?!


John  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Help on TV Remote History Needed
Date: 6 Jun 92 13:16:28 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am in the process of writing a book chapter for James Walker's
upcoming book, The Remote Control Device in the New Age of Television.
My chapter is on the historical growth of television remote control
devices up to the present, and the factors that both stimulated and
retarded the growth of TV remotes.

Data on remote control growth (whether via television set sales, VCRs
or cable television) is difficult to uncover.  I need the help of
anyone who may have been involved in the television, VCR and/or cable
TV equipment industries.  If you read this and are not the right
person but can lead me to others at, for example, RCA, Zenith, etc.,
please pass along any names to me.  I am also interested in
interviewing any pioneers at (or retired from) any of these companies
who may have helpful insights into the history and growth of TV remote
control devices.

Thanks, in advance, for any leads, remote control growth statistics,
or any other help you might be able to offer.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein             |  [e-mail]
Department of Telecommunications  |  [e-mail]
322 West Hall                     |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University    |  [phone]; 372-2224
Bowling Green, OH  43403-0235     |  fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Norm Aleks)
Subject: Voice Messaging User Interface Forum Standard
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 13:57:13 GMT


I read fairly recently that this multi-vendor standards agreement,
which is meant to assure that a basic set of voice-mail functions can
be implemented consistently across all platforms (for telephone
company use, I assume), has been released.  Does anyone have a copy?
Could someone post or email to me a description of the basic keys?
Finally, could you post the address I could write to, to get a copy of
my own?

These are the ones I think I know so far, because New England Tel is
using them on its Call Answering service:

         Replay          Save         Delete
        1        2        3

        4        5        6

        Backspace         Pause      Fast-forward
        7        8        9

              Stop           Help          Enter
        *        0        #



Norm Aleks    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 09:27:23 MDT
From: Bob Anderson Div Gov Res 73305 <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Economist 5/30/92


The {Economist} of 5/30/92 pages 19-22 has an article on Mobile
telephones.  Subtitle "The fast-spreading mobile telephone is
challenging its wire-linked ancestor. It will change society in rich
countries and poor alike."

 From page 22 FIXED-LINK FIGHT-BACK:

"Will mobile telephones replace fixed-link ones? In places starting
almost from scratch, they are already doing so. In the poor countries
of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, existing networks are so
small and bad that those who can afford it buy mobile telephones just
to make calls at all. ..." "In poor countries, radio networks are
also easier to safeguard against theft ( no attractive copper wires)
and to repair (no need to send linemen out into the bush)."

An interesting article.


Bob Anderson   ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Crossed-Pairs (was GTE Stories)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 13:49:53 -0500
From: [e-mail]


     When I worked as a technician at the Oklahoma Radio Reading
Service for the Blind in the mid seventies, we had a 5KHZ equalized
loop from our studios in an older part of Oklahoma City to the FM
broadcast station whose subcarrier we leased.  Our loop was silent
during the night hours and we once had our pair confused with a data
pair going to one of the local hospitals.  While that problem got
cleared up within a few minutes, we did acquire a problem which just
about drove both us and Southwestern Bell personnel crazy.

     Every week or so, our audio level as heard over the air would
slowly drop to nothing or almost nothing.  There was plenty of stuff
to hear, however.  We could usually hear all kinds of crosstalk from
dial-up lines.  I don't remember hearing conversation, due to the
level of voice, but it wasn't hard to hear ringing and dialing.  We
would call Southwestern Bell, after first checking with the broadcast
station, and give them the pair number.  Their technicians would test
it and the problem would go away for another week.

     One afternoon, after the umpteenth outage, I didn't even check
with our broadcast cite to see if they were having trouble.  I just
called SWBT and reported the pair.  When they asked whether we had
checked with the engineer at the transmitter and I said that we
hadn't, this time, a very annoyed technician called back to yell at me
about the amount of time being tied up.  I did some yelling right back
and explained that for the last six weeks, we had been losing this
loop and each time it was in the same office.

     Fortunately for me, The problem was where I said it was, but the
SWBT folks must have studied it a little more closely because, what
they found, was that our pair was probably almost corroded through,
somewhere between our studio and the office in question.  Fifty or so
years had taken their toll on the available cables and we had one of
those oldies, but baddies for the loop.  Each time the SWBT
technicians connected their test set and toned the line, they broke
down the metal-oxide junction that was forming at the corrosion point.
It made it appear that they had found a bad terminal block or a bad
heat carbon, or anything but a bad line.  As the conductors failed,
the balanced condition of the line was lost and that's why we could
hear all the crosstalk.

     This was a fine example of how even though nobody was lazy or
incompetent, a problem could continue for a very long time.  An
ancient cable stretch had outsmarted all of us.  We got another pair
and never had any more of that particular problem, again.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: More on Avoiding Telco-Generated Junk Mail
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 23:58:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


After complaining to Pacific Bell about some junk mail sent from them,
I was told that "no junk mail" was an orderable feature.  So I ordered
it.  And sure enough, an acknowledgement of a service order showed up.

      It reads:

    Activity    ADD
    Quantity    1
    Description    Cust Req: No Sales Calls/Media
    Monthly Rate    0.00

No USOC code, though.


John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #456
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29375;
          7 Jun 92 11:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21748
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 09:27:39 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00355
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 09:27:31 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 09:27:31 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #457

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 09:27:23 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 457

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Billing Nightmare (John Higdon)
    NYTel's Incorrect Billing (Dave Niebuhr)
    Billing Algorithm Wanted (Rodney Todt)
    CDMA Overview Document Available by Anonymous FTP (Phil Karn)
    Sharing of IXC CPNI (David Gast)
    Local Telco Experiences (Phillip Dampier)
    1200 Baud Modems Wanted in Latvia (Harry Bush)
    Switches Used by Cellular Carriers in MSA's (Gregory Youngblood)
    PABX/PBX Documentation Request (Scott Marshall)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 00:14 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: AT&T Billing Nightmare


I have the makings for a real nightmare here. As I was paying bills, I
noticed three calls to the UK on three separate days a week apart. The
total cost of the calls came to $32.98. I reached for the phone and
called AT&T to have them removed, since I made no such calls.

I was firmly told by the rep that unless I called Pac*Bell and had "my
lines checked" and some reason for those calls found, they could not
be removed. I was given the usual third-degree about someone else in
the house making the calls (not possible), or having made them without
remembering (not possible). In any event, I was told that no credit
could be given.

I asked for a supervisor. While I was waiting, I three-wayed the
Pac*Bell rep in. It boils down to this: Pac*Bell cannot issue a credit
for AT&T. AT&T will not issue a credit, period, unless trouble can be
proven (translation: someone found who was bridged on the line) and
then Pac*Bell will be stuck for the cost of the calls anyway. In
essence, AT&T NEVER eats the cost of a call.

I accused both of passing the buck to each other AND strongly stated
that I felt greatly put upon for something that was not any of my
doing. Pac*Bell told me to deduct the cost of the calls, but told me
that this was being done as a courtesy and that Pac*Bell would still
have to pay AT&T for the calls. Naturally, this would be a one-time
event.

Since these calls were made a week apart and the problem could still
be happening, what happens next month? I will refuse to pay for calls
that I do not make and I will not have my veracity questioned by
company clerks. My KX-T1232 has an SMDR output that is continuously
captured by my UNIX computer. Logs of the times and dates in question
obviously do not indicate any such calls.

To launch a pre-emptive stike, I called 611 and filed a report for the
four possible lines that could be involved. The interesting thing is
that this group is never used for outgoing calls, local or long
distance. These UK calls stuck out on the bill like a sore thumb.

But what is more distressing is AT&T's attitude. It seems to be
willing to lose my business over $32.02. This is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, AT&T offers for my requirements the best service at the
best price. But I have never had a situation where I have spent so
much money with a company and had such little cooperation when there
appeared to be an accounting problem.

You can bet there will be more on this one!


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 09:23:14 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: NYTel's Incorrect Billing


In my nine-month battle with NYTel over incorrect billing, I have just
found out that the software (I think) is incorrect for all exchanges
in the Eastern Suffolk Region of the 516 area code.

It seems that when three new exchanges were given to the county so
that it could consolidate most phones into these new ones, one
exchange was supposed to be set up to charge as local calls those
coming from residents in the above area.  Instead, they are charged at
a higher rate.

Many complaints were made to both NYTel and the County and I kept
getting a complete runaround and complained to the NY Public Service
Commission.  Now I'm starting to get results such as a refund for
those that I make to the incorrect (billing purposes only) exchange as
are many others in my region.

After three months of hearing "hopefully next month the problem will
be fixed; it's at the corporate level", I complained again and forced
the NYTel rep to go higher in the chain of command (ten or so levels
which I doubt).

One thing mentioned was that it would be an expensive fix (guess who's
going to pay) and would take time which I somehow believe could be
done a lot faster for some reason.

My switch is a 5ESS so I would tend to suspect all of those switches
in my region have that same problem (I don't know about the DMSs).  My
question is: Am I correct in assuming the software is a fault or or is
it the hardware?

Just another example of NYTel and Suffolk County, New York's ineptness
when it comes to "doing something better for the rate/taxpayers."


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Rodney Todt - E41)
Subject: Billing Algorithm Wanted
Organization: NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 14:51:13 GMT


    I am interested in obtaining information from network admin.
types regarding billing or chargeback algorithms.  The Center I work
for has established Service Costs Centers which are required to re-
cover cost of operations and maintenance.  In this case, I am dealing
with a SCC that involves a TCP/IP Ethernet network.  The potential
number of nodes for this network could reach 3000+ and the associated
cost for O&M could become very large.  There is some network
management development efforts currently being attempted using mostly
SUN products.

    If anyone has a usable algorithm that they feel confident in
sharing its information; design, development, and operation, please
e-mail the same.  Any information, sources, would be greatly
appreciated.


Rodney Todt     [e-mail]
NSWCDD   [phone]   Dahlgren, Va.

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Karn)
Subject: CDMA Overview Document Available by Anonymous FTP
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 07:31:00 GMT


A new CDMA document is now available by anonymous FTP from
lorien.qualcomm.com. The title is "An Overview of the Application of
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) to Digital Cellular Systems and
Personal Cellular Networks". The file name is /pub/cdma/Overview.ps.Z
and is in compressed Postscript format.

The 64-page document provides a comprehensive technical overview of
the basic design principles behind Qualcomm's CDMA system. Some of the
material was originally in our internal version of the CAI, but being
tutorial in nature it was removed from the official version released
to the TIA standards process. Considerable new material has also been
added to reflect actual results from the field tests in San Diego.

When logging into lorien.qualcomm.com, use "anonymous" as your user
name, and give your actual name as the password. Be sure to specify
image (binary) mode when retrieving this file. You will need the UNIX
"uncompress" command (or equivalent) and a Postscript printer or
interpreter to print or display this document.

As before, we encourage other sites to pick up this document and make
it available to others by anonymous FTP to help limit the load on
Qualcomm's 56k connection to the Internet.

Enjoy!


Phil Karn    Qualcomm, Inc

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 00:53:19 -0700
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Sharing of IXC CPNI


Someone wrote:

> AT&T, SPRINT, MCI all share information about long distance
> calling patterns of customers.

Andy Sherman of AT&T replied:

> ... let me ask, where did you get such a bizarre idea as this one?

I don't know where he got the idea, but I posted something a couple
months ago from the Privacy Journal which even quoted the Federal
Register Number.  The FCC requires that the IXCs share this
transactional information under the reasoning that it promotes the
lowest prices.  (Clearly, sharing information results in higher, not
lower prices).  The FCC may exempt large corporations from the
requirement in the future because they have lobbying power and they
don't want their calling patterns, specifically the numbers they call,
to be released.  The FCC has no plans to protect the privacy of
individuals.

> I believe that customer calling patterns come under the heading of
> Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) which is not to be
> divulged to third parties by an interexchange carrier.

Why is it not to be divulged?  The ECPA specifically permits
transfering transactional information, as opposed to the contents of
calls, to any non-governmental organization.

> Sitting at AT&T, I would have to say that MCI and Sprint are third
> parties to us, as we must be to them.  Such sharing of information as
> you describe is against FCC regulations.

Better check those FCC regulations because unless something recently
changed, you are wrong.

> It would also be skating on real thin anti-trust ice, too, since
> some might take it as evidence of cartel-like behavior.

I see it that way, but the nitwits that Bushie-tail appointed don't.
They think that consumers will get lower prices if the suppliers share
information.

> It would also be real stupid for any of the big interexchange carriers to
> give away marketing information like that to the competition.

Except that it allows higher prices.


David Gast

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1992 21:00:59 -0500
Subject: Local Telco Experiences


Since John Higdon mentioned some bad experiences on his side of the
country, let me relate my own personal experiences this week with a
different sort of telco: Rochester Telephone here in Rochester, New
York.

In 1978, our home was built on top of what is best compared to a rock
quarry.  The builder scraped away the precious topsoil and sold it,
giving the utilities one helluva time digging in their lines.  The
local power company did the right thing with specially constructed
cables to endure the mass o' rocks, but Rochester Telephone and the
local cable monopoly relied on the standard methods of installation.

As soon as the rocks and bit 'o soil were thrown back in the whole,
the phone line was cut and the cable television coax was damaged.

In the time since then, Rochester Telephone has installed no less than
eight new telephone cables in here, which last for an average of two
years before a settling boulder or other problem makes the cable
unusable.

Rochester Telephone has been good to me however, and they finally
installed four 20+ pair cables for the six lines in this house, all at
no charge whatsoever to me.  The idea was "we don't want to have to
make you suffer while we arrange to get another cable buried, so this
should keep you going for awhile."

Another big plus with Rochester Tel is the availability of data
conditioned lines (up to 4800 bps on standard dial up circuits) for a
one time fee of $39.00, payable over six months interest free.

This past week, one of the pairs on one of the cables went bad, and
when I called Rochester Telephone repair, a truck was out here with a
three man crew in 30 minutes.  Not only did they quickly identify the
problem, they also found a few others waiting to happen and corrected
them as well.

We now have consistently excellent service from Rochester Telephone.
The special services repair people even make it a point to try and get
to know the customer and over the years, the people at the local
switch near here recognize my name and are already familiar with the
peculiarities of this site when it comes to problem solving.

Unlike Mr. Higdon's experiences with his local telco, Roch Tel repair
people generally are listeners, especially with people who seem to
grasp some understanding of telephony, and encourage you to give them
some ideas and assistance in quickly locating the trouble.

I've had Roch Tel repair people at all hours, and on many cases where
real trouble crops up (crosstalk with multiple lines), they'll fix it
24 hours a day.

I wouldn't trade this local telco for a Baby Bell in a billion years.

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

Date: Sat,  6 Jun 92 05:24:21 +0300 (EED)
From: [e-mail] (Harry Bush)
Subject: 1200 Baud Modems Wanted in Latvia
Organization: Bank of Latvia


         ------ Original Message -------

This request comes from an official of the Bank of Latvia.  As you may
know, Latvia, along with Estonia and Lithuania, recvoered its indepen-
dence in August, 1991 after the Soviet coup.  The country was
virtually cut off from the world while part of the Soviet Union.
Latvia is now trying to once again reestablish contact with the rest
of the world.


Richard Budd

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

THE CYBERSPACE FOR LATVIAN STUDENTS

After long years in closed society, Latvia is now rejoining free world
and free communications. An amateur community using computer
telecommunications has appeared there represented mostly by young
people below age of 24. They have already formed a Fido network 2:495,
part of a global Fido network, described in official Fido nodelist.

Unfortunately prices of modems are still very high there compared to
average income of a student, even on SysOp's price, and that is the
main obstacle to growth of amateur network.

You can help to extend the Cyberspace to Free Latvia. If you have a
Hayes modem -- possibly slow and not in use anymore -- send it to the
address mentioned below.  (Hayes-compatible modems are also accept-
able. - RB)

Modems should be Hayes compatible internal or external 1200 or 2400
baud devices, with or without MNP, for IBM PC XT or AT compatible
personal computers. Any second hand device will suit if still able to
work.  Any donation will be registered, and information about the user
will be passed back to the donator (possibly using the same modem, if
net address available).

Contributions may be sent to:

Mr. Harry Bush, Adviser to President of Bank of Latvia,
2-a K.Valdemara street, Riga, LATVIA.

(Please avoid mentioning SU, USSR, Russia or previous postal indexes
in any form because it can imply mail routing via Moscow and cause
significant delays in delivery).  DHL international express mail
service is also operating in Latvia. But the best way still is to ask
somebody visiting Latvia simply to take the device with him.

Mr. Bush (FidoNet 2:495/21.13) has taken a responsibility to
distribute the contributions among the people who would be happy to
use them.  Any further questions and suggestions are welcome.  E-mail
(via Internet): [e-mail] , phone no. (Riga)
323863. (Country Code is still 7.  I can not find the city code for
Riga in my AT&T International guide.  If anyone has an up-to-date
guide with the Baltic States in it, please post. RB)

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

Letters and packages posted for Latvia, can now be sent directly
there.  Before last month, mail for Latvia was delivered via Moscow.
If you have Riga's Soviet zip code, make sure you drop the first two
digits.  That will give you the zip code for independent Latvian
communities.  RB


[Moderator's Note: Although this seems a valid charitable endeavor,
readers are encouraged to verify the facts before sending anything of
value via the mail or a delivery service to an unknown person.  PAT]

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

Subject: Switches Used by Cellular Carriers in MSA's
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 18:42:04 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


I've got information that lists the switches used by MSA carriers as
of August 1991.  I'm working on getting a more up to date listing that
also includes RSA carriers.  If there is enough interest, I'll post it
here for everyone.

If your interested, please send me a message at:

   [e-mail]


Thanks,

Greg

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: PABX/PBX Documentation Request
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 08:39:18 GMT


Hi people,

        I am currently doing some research on PABX/PBX
systems.  I was wondering whether any persons had any sorts of
PABX/PBX documents avialable to mail me/make available for FTP for me.
It is important I get some sort of feedback. Maybe if you know a
contact address where as I could pay and get a copy of various systems
documentation.

Thanks in advance for any help supplied.


Scott

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #457
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01056;
          7 Jun 92 11:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03354
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 10:11:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08562
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 10:11:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 10:11:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #458

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 10:11:19 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 458

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE of S.California and Intralata Calls (Paul Robinson)
    MCI No Longer Bills Adult 900-Calls (Sean E. Williams)
    Leased Line versus Satellite (Matthew Holdrege)
    Software For Microwawe Link (Jean-Benoit Gauthier)
    Presidential 'Poll' via Telephone Information Service (Michael Nolan)
    Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events (Bill Nickless)
    4,000 Person CWA Conference Call (Dave Weitzel)
    Information Needed on Racal-Vadic (James G. Speth)
    Directory Assistance Costs For One Unnamed Federal Agency (Paul Robinson)
    703-527 : Alexandria/Arlington (Carl Moore)
    Where is 617-422? (Carl Moore)
    Caller-ID Block-Block (Paul Robinson)
    AT&T System 75 PBX (Tom Downs)
    Help Needed Selecting New PBX (Lynn Gale)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92  19:48:59 EDT
Subject: GTE of S.California and Intralata Calls


In a message <12-448#6> from Andy Gellens:

> I live in a GTE island surrounded by PacBell.

For those of you who live within GTE of California territory, if you
ever get to Southern California, a place to drive past is a
nondescript telephone switch building at the corner of 6th & Almond in
Long Beach.

This building contains the computer used for ALL 911 calls made from
any GTE exchange anywhere in Southern California.  They have direct
lines from all GTE switching areas to this building.  I'm not telling
anything secret; this was published in the paper.

I used to live in Long Beach.

> 60 miles away is Los Angles [sic] which is within my LATA
> ...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?

The LATA rules simply indicate that a dial tone supplier can only
connect intra-lata calls as toll; once it crosses a LATA you have to
use an interexchange carrier (unless the call is non-toll as I've been
informed).

GTE is only going to route your call as far as it has the facilities.
Since it has lines running all the way back to Long Beach, I can
assume it has its own routing lines for its calls; in any case,
whether it is at the next switch, or 40 miles away, sooner or later it
will hand the call off to Pacific Bell since only they provide the
local dial tone to callers in that part of Los Angeles.  Just as
PacBell hands off calls to Generally Terriblephone of Callforever when
someone calls into a GTE exchange.

For example, Long Beach is GTE territory, and San Pedro is a part of
the City of Los Angeles, both are next to each other, San Pedro is a
local call to and from Long Beach, yet numbers in San Pedro are issued
by Pacbell.

Which brings up another point I wanted to raise.  GTE is the wire
company for at least 1/4 of Southern California.  I note it is the
non-wire Cellular carrier in San Francisco; I also note that GTE does
have an old Radiotelephone facility in Long Beach, to service the
people still using them.  What I am wondering is why Pacific Bell ONLY
is the wireline carrier for Southern California.  I am surprised that
GTE didn't make a stink about it.  Same thing for Continental
Telephone (CENTEL) of California which operates in some rural areas
like Big Bear Mountain.  Anyone know why only Pacific Bell is
operating the wire company cellular facility in all of Southern
California?

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

Date: 05 Jun 1992 10:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI No Longer Bills Adult 900-Calls


I received a note about this in the mail this morning, and thought I'd
pass it along.  I don't believe it has been previously covered in the
Digest:

MCI Communications Corporation will no longer handle billing for
so-called "adult" 900-calls, even though it is required to carry such
programming on its telephone network.  Companies will have to find
other ways to bill 900-calls that use MCI's long-distance lines.  MCI
wants to ensure that its 900-transmission service is used responsibly
to provide useful information services to businesses and consumers.


sean e. williams, ([e-mail]), is a student of
imaging and photographic technology in the school of photographic arts
& sciences at the rochester institute of technology in beautiful
rochester, new york.  (he's also taking a few telecommunications
courses...)  You can call him at 716-475-3570.


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if an MCI employee has the job of sitting
there calling up those numbers and deciding which is billable and
which is not ... whatta task ... but someone has to do it!   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 17:00 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: Leased Line versus Satellite


I have a need to connect some users in Hawaii to our data center in
Southern California. They will be using TCP/IP for data inquiry. I've
never set up any satellite links. Can you buy satellite bandwidth in
the 56k range? Is it more expensive than a 56k leased line? Are the
startup hardware costs prohibitive. We have an extensive 56K and T1
network in the western US so adding another bridge would be easy.

What are some good Satellite vendors (hardware and bandwidth)?


Thanks,

Matt Holdrege  Pacificare Health Systems  [e-mail] 714-229-2518

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 14:06:46 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Jean-Benoit Gauthier)
Subject: Software For Microwawe Link


I'm looking for information on software relating to microwawe link.

I'm looking for a software package that would calculate the parameters
involves in frequency coordination of microwave links (analog and
digital).

Price is not a concern (for now ...).

If you have ANY (BOLD) information regarding any kind of software that
help in the process of planning a microwawe link, please i would like
to hear from you.

Hydro-Quebec is the electric utility for the province of Quebec in
Canada. It is a 25,000 people company. The telecommunications
department (~800 people) is responsable, among many other things, of
the planning, construction and exploitation of a microwawe network of
approx. 225 links spanning the entire province.

Thanks in advance.


Jean-Benoit Gauthier     Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                Direction telecommunications
                         2, Complexe Desjardins, 15e etage
Tel  :  [phone]     C.P. 10000
Fax  :  [phone]     Montreal (Quebec)  Canada H5B-1H7
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Presidential 'Poll' via Telephone Information Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 17:46:56 GMT


Lincoln Telephone has a recorded information service called
'Fingertips', which gives news, weather, etc.

Wednesday they conducted a Presidential poll, publicized on one of the
local radio stations.  The results:

Ross Perot            367   (73.1%)
George Bush           100   (19.9%)
Bill Clinton           35   ( 7.0%)

Well, I guess one wouldn't have expected Clinton to do well in a
Republican state like Nebraska.  The usual precautions on this being
an 'unscientific' survey obviously apply.


Mike Nolan

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 14:43:15 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bill Nickless)
Subject: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events


This summer, Chicago's McCormick Place will be hosting the 1992
SIGGRAPH conference.  This is a big yearly get-together for the
computer graphics industry.  The organizers are bringing in an NSFNET
T-3 connection so that remote supercomputers can drive displays in
Chicago.

If you've been to the Interop or Supercomputing conference, you know
they set up a "shownet" for all the vendors.  There are typically a
dozen or so (often volunteer) networking types with walkie-talkies and
T-shirts running around fixing connectors and kicking routers when
necessary.

An agreement was finally reached with the Chicago unions that the
networking types running around didn't have to be union members.  In
exchange, the organizers agreed that a union member would accompany
each technician at normal union rates.  The organizers received the
concession that the SIGGRAPH volunteers could rewire connectors and
string cables and that the union worker would observe without
interfering.

The SIGGRAPH organizers wish to run fiber around McCormick Place --
with all that compute power Ethernet just isn't going to do the trick.
Three Chicago unions are fighting for that work -- filing grievances,
the whole bit.  The telephone workers of course feel that it's their
bailiwick.  The electricians say it's wiring, goes through conduit,
etc.  But the plumbers claim that they should do it, because fiber
optic cable is a "light pipe."

Disclaimer:  I think Pat accidently posted some line noise.


[Moderator's Note: McCormick Place has been heavily unionized since
its beginning. No one does *anything* there without the blessings of
one or more unions. I mean *anything*. You do not plug a cord into an
electrical outlet. You do not move a telephone from one desk to
another. The heavy-handed union tactics there have been the reason
many former shows no longer return. You cannot set up or take down
your booth. You can do *nothing*. A union person must do it at union
scale wages.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 19:28:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.
z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) writes:

> 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.

Strike aside, I wan't to hear about the logistics of setting up a
4,000 person nationwide conference call!  Seriously, what is the call
set up time, moderation scheme, ...?


Dave Weitzel     "Standard disclaimer here"

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

From: James G. Speth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Racal-Vadic
Date: 5 Jun 92 21:07:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I just bought a telephone/magnetic strip reader made by Racal-Vadic.
It's called the Verus, and I'd like to get more info on it.  Does
anyone know how I could get in touch with Racal-Vadic?  Are they still
around?  (This thing looks pretty old.)

Also, I opened it up to take a look at the electronics, and saw
something that looked promising ... inside, there is a separate
circuit board that is connected to the mag. strip reading head.
Connecting this board to the phone's main board are five lines,
labeled GND, DATA, RDY, CLR, and +V.  Is it possible that this sends
out regular serial data?  How should I go about testing this?

Thanks.


Jim Speth    [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92  17:46:12 EDT
Subject: Directory Assistance Costs For One Unnamed Federal Agency


As a result of doing some research for a government agency, I thought
this might be worth reporting and I got permission to do so.

I was asked by a government agency my company contracts with to find
out the costs for Directory Assistance calls.  The rates vary
depending on where and with whom you get them from.

In the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, C&P Telephone Company
allocates three free calls to 411 for a phone line used by a business
(homes get twelve free calls a month per line).  After the third call
on a business line, the charge is 26c per local call.  (This agency
has over 1,000 Centrex lines; I don't know if that means they get
3,000 free calls before being charged!)  Note that this userid is
issued by NIH, that is NOT the agency that I am referring to; NIH is
just where they purchase computer time from.

For directory assistance placed via AT&T or Sprint, the charge is 65c
per call.

For Directory Assistance placed via MCI, the charge is 64c per call.

However, here's something interesting: Government telephones use the
FTS-2000 system, a special telephone service akin to an IXC
(Interexchange Carrier, i.e. a long distance company) which is
operated by AT&T and Sprint under a joint arrangement.  The agency in
question is on the AT&T "A" network as opposed to the Sprint "B"
network.

The interesting thing is that if a caller dials out over FTS to get
directory assistance, the call is charged as an ordinary long distance
call instead of as a directory assistance call.  The charge for calls
placed on FTS is currently 13c per minute.  In theory it might be
cheaper to call directory assistance as a long-distance call over FTS
than to dial 411, in such a case.


Paul Robinson
Opinion not necessarily that of the owner of this account.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 18:27:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 703-527 : Alexandria/Arlington


I made a call from a pay phone in Arlington (Rosslyn area exchanges)
on 703-527 via C&P, and I got 703-527 ALEX (short for Alexandria) on
my May 1992 phone bill for the From part of that call.  I realize that
the DC area call guides show Arlington/Alexandria for the Arlington
and Alexandria exchanges in Virginia, but little noises like this make
it more difficult to map an exchange to a more specific area (in this
case, Arlington/Rosslyn).

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 18:24:27 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where is 617-422?


I have previously noted 617-422 as Sterling, Mass., which should have
moved in 1988 to area 508.  But my May 1992 bill showed 617-422
Sterling.  I don't know what's going on.  I thought there was now
617-422 in Boston.  I figure Sterling maps to the post office of that
name (zip code 01564, and located in Worcester County).

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92  19:54:31 EDT
Subject: Caller-ID Block-Block


For those who want to use the Caller-ID block feature there is a new
wrinkle.  Caller-Id Block-Block!  Where you can dial *67 In Maryland
or DC to block transmission of your phone number to a caller here in
the DC area (Virginia callers CANNOT block their number), the user of
Caller-ID has another feature: dial *77 and the user is routed to an
intercept recording telling them that the caller does not want to talk
to those blocking their number, and to call back without blocking your
number if you want to be connected.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Downs)
Subject: AT&T System 75 PBX
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 00:28:03 GMT


My company is interested in buying a PBX system for a new building
that is being built. While in a meeting today, one of my co-workers
mentioned the AT&T System 75 PBX. Our company's needs are:

        1) Capable of 600 extensions
        2) Central switchboard
        3) Easily configurable
        4) Voice Mail
        5) CLID (especially for the outdial)
        6) Able to handle 5 ISDN lines
        7) Outdialing for travelling business persons

Would AT&T's PBX be able to handle this? Thanks in advance for your
help.

Tom Downs

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

Subject: Help Needed Selecting New PBX
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 09:59:19 -0700
From: Lynn Gale <[e-mail]>


We're in the market for a new phone system: hybrid or PBX and would
appreciate comments and suggestions.  Currently we're looking at
AT&T's Merlin Legend and NT's Norstar and Meridian Option 11.  Is
there an obvious alternative we shouldn't miss checking out?

Are there published unbiased reviews of such products anybody knows
about?  What about surveys of customer satisfaction and service
records, etc?  Looking at the glossies, it's pretty clear that feature
matrices are only going to muddle the scene.

Our size is 50 stations and 15 lines now.  Increasing potentially to a
maximum of 75 stations and ?? lines.  We'd like to keep this system
for ten or more years.

We're not the typical `business' environment that needs ACD and the
like, rather we're an academic research institution with an average of
only 20 incoming calls an hour (40 during the busiest hour), all of
which will go through a receptionist during weekday hours.  I don't
have the number of outgoing calls, but it's probably about the same as
incoming.

We're considering the possibility of voice mail since more and more
callers are requesting it, plus the receptionist gets bogged down
taking 60-70 messages per day, some pretty detailed and long-winded.

Thanks in advance for any observations.

Email to: [e-mail]    (Internet)
 -or-     lynn%casbs@stanford        (Bitnet)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #458
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25619;
          7 Jun 92 23:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07822
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 21:13:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01045
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 21:13:10 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 21:13:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #459

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 21:13:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 459

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    10XXX With MCI Friends & Family / Sprint The Most (William R. Mark)
    Cellular Coax (was Ground Plane Cell Antenna) (Patton M. Turner)
    Glitch in PBX? (Jim Carnahan)
    Email Service Experiences (Jeff Sicherman)
    Com Key 416 (Scott Dorsey)
    CLASS Comes to California (Maybe, Finally) (John Higdon)
    Digital Mixing (Martin McCormick)
    NET Uses NAP16 (Randy Gellens)
    Bell Canada, MT&T and Automated Voting (Paul Gauthier)
    Wireless Experience and Wants (Michael Scott Baldwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 01:36:39 CDT
From: William R. Mark <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10XXX With MCI Friends and Family / Sprint The Most


I saw the ads on TV for US Sprint's new plan, The MOST, which is
apparently Sprint's response to Friends and Family, and I decided to
do some research.

The plan gives 20% off calls to other US Sprint customers.  It also
gives 20% off of calls to your most frequently called number (based on
number of minutes -- NOT dollar amount.  I checked with Sprint customer
service).  The two discounts can be combined, giving a 36% discount
(multiply .8x.8).

Since it's annoying to have to convince all of your Friends/Family/whoever
to subscribe to the same dial 1 carrier, I called MCI and Sprint to
determine if calls made using 10XXX can take advantage of these plans.
The table below assumes that you have established an account with the
10XXX carrier -- you tell them that you want to use them as a secondary
carrier.  You also have to sign up for the appropriate plan on both
primary and secondary carriers.  It may take some complaining/talking-
with-supervisor to get a plan on a secondary carrier account.

Person A calls person B.

Person A                      || Person B                Discount

Dial 1  | Secondary | Dials   || Dial 1  | Secondary ||
Carrier | Carrier   | Using   || Carrier | Carrier   ||

Sprint  | X         | 1+      || Sprint  | X         || The Most
Sprint  | X         | 1+      || X       | Sprint    || The Most  !
X       | Sprint    | 10333   || Sprint  | X         || The Most  !
X       | Sprint    | 10333   || X       | Sprint    || ? - Didn't Check

MCI     | X         | 1+      || MCI     | X         || Fr & Fam
MCI     | X         | 1+      || X       | MCI       || None
X       | MCI       | 10222   || MCI     | X         || Fr & Fam  !
X       | MCI       | 10222   || X       | MCI       || ? - Didn't Check

The information above was obtained after several conversations with
both MCI and Sprint customer service reps (and their supervisors).
MCI and Sprint both tended to give conflicting answers to the
questions I asked, but I think that I finally got correct answers.
Other people are welcome to ask the same questions and post if I got
it wrong.

The important effect of all of this is that if you have accounts with
both Sprint and MCI (one is obviously a secondary carrier), then you
can get the best discount no matter which carrier the callee has
(unless they have AT&T -- but you could still be OK if they have a
Sprint secondary account and you have 1+ Sprint).

If you decided to take advantage of any of this, have fun talking to
the customer service reps.  They don't really seem to get it when you
make requests this complicated -- it doesn't matter whether it's MCI
or Sprint.

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 14:59:47 CDT
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Coax (was Ground Plane Cell Antenna)


I've seen a lot of different suggestions for cellular feedline runs in
cdt lately, so I thought I'd post the facts, followed by my opinion.
This is for quality cable at 850 Mhz:

                                        Power loss
Cable Dielectric    Loss/100 ft     10' run      30' run
RG58   solid           20 dB          37%          75%
RG8    solid          8.6 dB          18%          45%
RG8     foam          5.2 dB          11%          30%
9913    *             3.8 dB           8%          23%
 .5" hardline         2.5 dB           6%          16%

* see below

I can't find data for RG8X at 850 Mhz, or more that one data point to
interpolate (coax losses (in dB) vary in dB/decade), but it should be
an improvement over RG58.  Foam RG58 is an improvement over solid also.

Tad Cook writes:

> A bad idea, especially for the non-professional or non-ham who asked
> the original question.  At 50 feet of line length, the hardline will
> only yield a one HALF decibel improvement over 9913 coax at cellular
> frequencies.  Without test equipment or experience, the non-ham is
> likely to introduce serious losses when trying to construct his own
> matching sections.

> 9913 is high quality flexible coaxial cable, but at cellular
> frequencies it is very important that the connectors be attached
> exactly right.  This is no small task for the uninitiated.

Belden 9913 is very difficult to install UHF connectors on as they
rely on soldering to the braid.  N connectors and BNC/TNC connectors
are much easier as they rely on a ferrule and a compression nut to
bond to the shield.  Only the center pin need be soldered.  9913
BNC/TNC connectors may not be available due to the large size of the
center conductor (9.5 awg) which also makes the cable less flexable,
though other manufactures make a Belden equilivent with stranded
center conductor.  In the past I have trimed the center conductor on
RG8 foam cables to fit N connectors, with reasonable results.

The other problem with 9913 is that it uses air and a PE spiral as
dielectric, allowing the cable to use a large center conductor and
stay the same dia.  as RG8 while maintaining a 50 ohm nominal
impeadence.  The coax is much more subject to moisture problems due to
pressure differentials created by temperature changes.  I sure John
Higdon could comment on running air line w/o a tank of N2. Anyway, if
you use 9913, pay close attention to your splices.  As a minimum tape
them with a good electrical tape (ie. Scotch 33) and use Scotchkote on
top of this.  1/2 inch hardline is more expensive, but is easier to
install and is virtually maintainance free.

All of the flexable cables will run under $0.40/foot, hardline will
run a few dollars a foot.  Good connectors will run $5-10 for the flex
cable and a good deal more for the hardline.  If you don't know a
whole lot about coax stick to the better grades of Belden.


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ   Until July 1 => [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 14:31:19 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Jim Carnahan)
Subject: Glitch in PBX?


San Francisco State University has an NEC NEAX 2400 PBX.  I work for
SFSU part time, and have been noticing some unusual things happening
with the phone system.

For the past several months, we have been receiving quite a few calls
for other departments.  (I work in the Environmental Health office.)
One caller asked for the English department.  Another caller asked "is
this the Psychology office?"  I offered to look up the number and he
said "can you give me the Sociology department's number, too?"  The
last caller asked if this was the Personnel office.  This was the last
straw.  I programmed the Campus Operator's extension into my telephone
and now all I say is "PLEASE HOLD FOR THE CAMPUS ATTENDANT" and
transfer them.

I thought maybe they were getting the wrong number from the phone
book; however, our number is nowhere near any of those office's phone
numbers I mentioned above.

I knew something was really wrong when I called another office from my
home and after one ring was connected into someone else's conversation
about graduation requirements!  I listened to it for a minute and then
said "hello" to see if they could hear me.  They could and they were
quite shocked to say the least.

Does this sound like a problem that is worth reporting or should I
just try to ignore things like this?  May be I should answer the
telephone "University Operator" from now on ...


Jim Carnahan     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This definitly should be reported. There is some
problem in the switch; perhaps a card which has gone bad.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 16:41:57 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email Service Experiences


   Would appreciate hearing good/bad experiences, especially billing
and delivery about email services, particularly AT&T and MCI and the
associated alternate delivery methods (besides electronic) such as
Snail Mail and FAX.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Com Key 416
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 16:47:18 GMT


I seem to be the new owner of an AT&T Com key 416 set, which I bought
with the intention of attaching it to my home key system.
Unfortunately I am not sure how some of the features (such as the
speakerphone and the very odd intercom facility) work.  If someone out
there has a schematic on these beasts, I would greatly appreciate it.


scott

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 01:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: CLASS Comes to California (Maybe, Finally)


Discussions with insiders has led me to believe that CLASS may be here
soon. Approval is expected any moment from the CPUC that would launch
the usual array of CLASS services in areas so equipped in California.

Included will be Caller-ID with per-line and per-call blocking. I was
originally against per-line blocking, but if it will grease the wheels
and get SOMETHING going I'll take it. Besides, since I will not accept
calls from people who are blocking, the design purpose of screening
out garbage and automatically routing the people who normally call me
will be met.

This could all happen within sixty days.


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

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

Subject: Digital Mixing
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 92 07:51:41 -0500
From: [e-mail]


What method is used to digitally mix the audio from several sources
such as on a conference call carried on a digital PBX?  Simply adding
the signed values of the digital samples at any given time could
result in illegal values such as when both samples happened to be at
their maximum value.  When there is a conference call on our Ericsson
PBX, and multiple voices occur, they sound quite natural with no
particular distortion.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 06 JUN 92 14:58
Subject: NET Uses NAP16


I saw this in a recent internal company newsletter.  Posted with
permission:

            UNISYS NEWS NETWORK, JUNE 2, 1992

          NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE ACTIVATES UNISYS GEAR:
 EXPANDS AVAILABILITY OF VOICE MESSAGING BY 1.2 MILLION LINES

New England Telephone has expanded from 600,000 to 1.8 million the
number of residential and small business customers who can have access
to Voice Messaging services.  The company announced last December an
agreement with Unisys Corporation to use the Unisys Network
Application Platform 16 (NAP16) to provide Voice Messaging services to
telephone customers in Massachusetts' 508 and 617 area codes.

That system, installed in Cambridge, Mass., uses remote switching
components and centralized large-scale processors rather than
dedicated processors in every telephone central office.  This design
allows NET to provide messaging services with greater efficiency.
Although NET and Unisys agreed to keep terms of their contract
confidential, the companies are working together to further reduce the
costs of providing Voice Messaging Services using Unisys equipment.

NET began offering call answering services to residential and small
business customers in parts of eastern Massachusetts in July 1898.

"We're serving our customers more efficiently and controlling expenses
using the Unisys system," said Vern Nelson, product manager -- Voice
Messaging services for New England Telephone.

Michael Beaton, vice president, Unisys Communications Industry Systems
Division, said, "This is an exciting new venture for Unisys and New
England Telephone.  We expect significant benefits for both
companies."

The Unisys NAP16 was introduced in April 1989.  It is currently
installed at customer locations in the United States, Latin America,
Europe and Asia.

New England Telephone is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYNEX
Corporation and provides telecommunication services to more than 4.5
million residence and business customers in Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Unisys Corporation is a leading information systems company with more
than 60,000 customers in more than 100 countries.  The company is a
leading manufacturer of commercial information systems, defense
systems and related services.  It has a 20 year history of providing
computers to telephone companies and has over a $1.5 billion installed
base in the seven Regional Holding Companies, independent telephone
companies, and international PTTs.

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

Although I work for Unisys, I don't work on NAP products or in the
Communications Industry Systems Division.  (I work on systems software
development for the A-series line.)  However, I can forward questions
on telecommunications products to the appropriate people.


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] (Paul Gauthier)
Subject: Bell Canada, MT&T and Automated Voting
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 10:14:37 -0300


Some poor techie is getting his *ss warmed in the cool climate of
Canada today.

In Nova Scotia (east coast) there was an election to pick the leader
of the Liberal party yesterday. They set up a new-fangled way for
members of the party to vote. People could watch the convention from
home on TV and dial a 1-900 number, key in their PIN code and select a
candidate. When done they would receive a short "Thank you" message to
signal that their vote was accepted. Apparently people at the
convention were using the same method to vote from a bank of phone set
up for that purpose.

This is one of the most trivial things I've ever heard of. This in no
way stretched the limits of technology. Touch-tone reading coupled to
a vote counter mechanism. How easy could it be?!

Well, Bell Canada and MT&T completely blew it! The system was not
returning the "Thank you" message, which all voters were instructed
was the signal that their vote was accepted. So they had to re-do the
vote three or four times.  The vote, which was supposed to be done by
2:30pm was not even working at 5pm. At 6pm the convention organisers
announced that the whole vote was null and void, and would be
reattempted at a later date.

Then to make things even worse, someone (who I assume had
authorization) called the HQ where the votes were being counted by the
computer (it was counting them, just not returning the confirmation
message) on his cellular to ask what the results were. Someone with a
scanner picked up the conversation, recorded it, and then got it to
the news minutes before they went off-air for the night. They played
it for the viewing public, letting everyone know how each candidate
did in the vote.


What a mess,

Paul Gauthier / [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wireless Experience and Wants
Date: Sun,  7 Jun 1992  00:00:00 GMT


I'm curious about people's experience with data-over-cellular:

1. What kinds of data throughput do you really get?
2. Do hand-offs kill modem connections?
3. Is it ridiculously expensive per byte?
4. What do you use it for?  E-mail?  Interactive sessions?

Does anyone have experience with non-cellular wireless networks?  What
would people *like* to use wireless public networks for?  Just as a
simple paging or notification system, file transfer (as in e-mail or
FAX), or full-blown login sessions?

I would appreciate any email ([e-mail]) about
this from anyone who has used wireless data or would like to, or just
has some ideas floating around the brain.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #459
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27770;
          7 Jun 92 23:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16134
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 22:02:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 7 Jun 1992 22:01:49 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 22:01:49 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #460

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jun 92 22:01:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 460

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE/Me (Steven Lichter)
    213/310 Fiasco Finished (Steven Lichter)
    Speedy ol' GTD-5 (Ken J. Clark)
    Re: List of GTD-5 Observations (Joe Kelsey)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Jack Decker)
    Re: Cellular Alliance: GTE, NYNEX, BAMS, Ameritech (Gregory Youngblood)
    Comparison of GTE and RTC (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Some History of GTE-Florida (Steven Lichter)
    Pac*Bell/GTE Confusion (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 7 Jun 92 08:36:00 UT
Subject: GTE/Me


First off, the mailbox that I used was ment for internal
communications and GTE has been good enough to let us have access to
Internet and other areas. I now have a UUCP account access local and
have used it as Pat and John as well as a few others are aware. I
don't use it much since it is not a direct access to Internet as this
is. My UUCP account has to go through UCR, UCI, UCB and then to
Sprint. That can take as much as a full day depending on when I post.

 From what I have learned from people at AGCS the GTD-5 is still being
made. GTECA went with the 5ESS since at the time there was a chance
that the GTD-5 would no longer be made. we are still doing remotes and
line adds for it. And there are several offices that have the SS7 load
on line or being updated. One off hand is San Jacinto, Calif which is
being updated now. Others will follow. As was pointed out there is not
full ISDN and don't count on it from PacBell or GTE for the small
customer for a while as the cost will kill.

I myself have moved over to fiber installation and feel much better
about it since I was getting tired of working with just the switching
equipment.  I started with Step.

The GTD-5, 5ESS and the DMS 100 all have good and bad points.

As John pointed out there was a city that wanted GTE out. That was The
People's Republic of Santa Monica. That problem was cleared up many
years ago and I guess they were a little upset because GTECA moved to
Thousand Oaks.

Have you priced rents there? It costs more to park a car then my house
payment is. Also they needed the room that just was not there. Santa
Monica wanted to put a tax on GTE's payroll even if the person did not
work in Santa Monica. How would you like that if the city where your
company was taxed you even if you had never been there?


Steven H. Lichter     GTECA COEI
UUCP steven(a)alchemy.UUCP

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

From: alchemy![e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: 213/310 Fiasco Finished
Date: Sun Jun  7 15:58:40 1992


Well I got an answer from our customer service deparment on why there
was a problem dialing a 520 number located in the 213 area after the
area code cut date. It was PacBell's idea to just leave that exchange
in the 213 area. Before the cut it would work from 213/818. It is a
radio station contest exchange. GTE had set a flash cut (all at once)
but Pacbell did their cut one office at a time. This caused problems
with this number exchange as well as others. Also they had planned to
have this number dialable from 213 also. Something changed their minds
so I'm told and it can be dialed from either area code. There may be
some people that can't dial it if they have a private system that has
not been updated.

I have also convinced (I hope) Customer Service to check the Telecom
board and watch for problems that crop up that may not have been taken
care of the way they should have been.

I have also been told that John Higdon was contacted and dispite what
we have heard about him he does not bite, or not hard.

I hope this will make people understand that GTE is a big company and
things do happen, but we do care and will take great pains to get a
problem fixed. I have been working on this for over two weeks and most
of it has been on my own time. So if someone has a problem please let
me know here or via UUCP/Internet.


Mad Dog (Steven)            Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
UUCP: [e-mail]   [phone]  1200-2400 bps 8N1

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

Date: Sun,  7 Jun 92 15:17:18 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speedy ol' GTD-5


In <[e-mail]> (Volume 12, Issue 447, Message 1),

[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes in response to bakerj@gtephx.
UUCP (Jon Baker):

> 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.

Whether some of you like John, or not, he knows of what he speaks (or
writes).  I spent my first four years living in Northern Virginia
(D.C.  metro area) served by C&P Telephone (Bell Atlantic, an RBOC).
All of the switches which served me were of ESS(tm) flavor.

Last year, I bought a house in Prince William County.  PWC is in a
Contel "island" serving only this county surrounded on all sides by
C&P.  (Of course all of you know that GTE has now bought Contel
<nudge> <nudge> <wink> <wink>.  But that's another thread.  :-)

What's my switch?  A GTD-5.  Lucky me.  More than once I've
experienced the "Did that feature work?" blues.  I have yet to lose a
caller, but the difference in speed is really noticeable.  For a
while, my call completion to failure ratio was as high as two to one.

BTW, my work takes me back to C&P land daily.  I'm still startled by
the speed of switch response and call completion, because I've grown
accustomed to the GTD-5 and am not expecting it.


Ken J. Clark   [e-mail]
System Integration & Applications Group
Simpact Associates, Inc.  Reston, VA
{uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark
703-758-0190  ex. 2134

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 11:37 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: List of GTD-5 Observations


I completely agree with John Higdon about the deficiencies of the
GTD-5 when compared to other available switches.  I recently moved
from USWest service into GTENorthWest service and I don't like it at
all.  For one thing, when you order call waiting from USWest, you get
*both* call waiting and cancel call waiting.  In GTELand, cancel call
waiting does not come packaged with call waiting unless you either
order it specifically (for an extra $1.50 per month!) or buy the
entire SmartestPak service (which includes all sorts of useless
features like speed dialing (useless when most phones already have a
similar feature)).

Also, the three-way calling performance sucks the big one!  At USWest,
served by a 5ESS, all three parties could speak at once and understand
everything.  As John pointed out,

> Later versions attempt to mask this by using gating. This, too, is
> unacceptable. It makes three-way calls sound like a switched-gain
> speakerphone.

I find this quite annoying as you have to assume a radio-protocol to
make sure that when two people start to talk at once, one of them
doesn't get ``squelched'' out of the conversation.  Can anyone give
the the correct words to use so that I can describe this problem in
such a way that someone at GTENW understands it?  I have complained
about it in the past and got nothing but "there's no problem on this
end" kind of answers.


Joe

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 10:56:18 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Baker) writes to John Higdon:

> *flame on*

[stuff deleted]

> 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!

JB> *flame off*

Dear Mr. Baker:

I don't understand why Pat (the Moderator) allowed this to pass into
the newsgroup, but since he did, I'll offer one observation:

If GTE digital switches are as capable as you say they are, then GTE
needs to hire some quality people to run the things, which is probably
not too likely to happen given their past track record.  As someone
who's had the misfortune of living in GTE territory at one point, I
can tell you that for the most part, GTE plays "pass the buck" and has
some very incompetent people working for them (which is
understandable; the GTE attitude toward employees is such that
competent people tend to leave for greener pastures at the earliest
opportunity).

You don't give a real backhoe to a five year old playing in the
sandbox, and they probably ought not to let technicians barely trained
on Strowger switches play around with digital stuff.

All I know is that service in Bell areas, and even in many independent
areas FAR exceeds anything GTE offers.  When GTE had the stepper
switches, they went out frequently, but at least you could retry the
call and it would go through if you made enough attempts (and the
technicians usually could fix the problem, once you could convince
them that there WAS a problem).  Now, with the digital switches, when
they go they're GONE, and your phone is about as useful as a
paperweight until service is restored.  And many of the techs are
playing with technology they barely understand.

But worst of all is the GTE attitude.  They just don't seem to CARE if
your service is out.  And if they can blame you, or the weather, or
beavers chewing up cables, or Bell, or anyone else, they do ... and
then act as if it's sufficient reason that your service is out for two
or three days.

So I think you have no business telling Mr. Higdon to SHUT UP.  He is
relating what he has observed in actual experience with GTE service.
If he is a little confused about the capabilities of a GTE switch, it
may well be because he's never experienced one working up to specs.
Is that his fault?  I think not.  People tend to believe what they've
actually experienced over a manufacturer's claims for a product.  If
you sell me a car and insist it can do 100 mph but I can only get it
up to 80, what's the actual capability of that car?  You are talking
about how the switch is supposed to work when it's configured and
maintained properly, but if nobody seems to be able to configure and
maintain it properly, then the capabilites you speak of are just
theoretical.

In my humble opinion, GTE is just about the worst telephone company in
the United States (there may be some independents that are worse, but
I'll bet most of them charge far lower rates, too.  GTE has some of
the highest rates AND the worst service around).  I won't tell YOU to
shut up, but I think you have a lot of nerve criticizing Mr.  Higdon!


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

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

Subject: Cellular Alliance: GTE, NYNEX, BAMS, Ameritech - What's it Mean?
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 18:38:21 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] (David E. Sheafer) writes:

> 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?

I'm not a marketing expert, but it sounds very much like what the
non-wireline carriers did with the Cellular One name.  Marketing
reports have proven that Cellular One is recognized over every other
single cellualr carrier name, even though each outfit may be owned by
different companies.  It appears that the people that license the
Cellular One name are making attempts to standardize the logos, and to
associate the name with high quallity by enforcing quality minimums
and penalties for low or bad quality service.  That includes customer
service and service overall, not just the system's quality of service.
I don't know for sure if this is indeed happening, as I heard it as a
rumor a couple of years ago and I've been out of the marketing side of
things for a while.  If someone knows for sure I'd like to know.  I do
know that the logos are changing nationwide to a single logo, and that
logos are no longer associated with a holding company as it used to
be.


Greg

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

Date: 06 Jun 1992 20:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparison of GTE and RTC


In a message received on 5 Jun 1992, 13:29 [e-mail] wrote
to [e-mail]:

> From Telephone Engineer and Manager magazine 1/15/92, edited of course,
> LINES SERVED:   GTE      18.7  million  (Bigger than any RBOC)
>                 United    4.1  million
>                 Centel    1.59 million
>                 Cinc Bell 0.81 million
>                 RT        0.474 million

I received this and I thought this is an interesting tidbit for the
TELECOM Digest readers.

This was in response to my query that I thought RTC is supposed to be
the largest independent telepone company in the country.

(Oh, RTC = Rochester Telephone Corp.)


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]
Date: 7 Jun 92 17:17:00 UT
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida


Not to start another GTE bashing, but the problem with Home Shopping
Network and GTE Florida was HSN's problem. They came into an area
built a huge center for their company, but did not bother to let GTE
Florida know they were doing it and then called for service as if they
were just any residentual customer. Imagine a company that big coming
into a small town that is set up for local service.  After the dust
settled the courts had ruled that HSN was at fault 100%. They were
forced to pay all costs. They did get the service and from what little
I have heard there has been no other problems.  I had no direct
knowledge other then what was in the media, but I followed it very
close.

This type of thing happens all the time. I have heard where develpers
have come into areas and built houses without telling any of the
utilities and then start screaming because there is no electric,
water, gas, telephone or cable. In one case all this was brought in
later (they had to rip up the streets) with the exception of the cable
company. And to this day 15 years later these people don't have cable
service and no amount of screaming has forced the cable company to
bring service to the area. At least the telephone company did do
something about it and they did not make the developer pay for it
which they could have.


Mad Dog (Steven)            Sysop: Apple Elite II -- an Ogg-Net BBS
UUCP: [e-mail]   [phone]  1200-2400 bps 8N1

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 14:33 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell/GTE Confusion


In reading some posts and e-mail it is evident that some are confused
about whom I am flaming and about what. Setting the record straight:

Pac*Bell: This is the LEC serving my home. I am a larger than average
residential customer. The service (within the confines of its
corporate-defined limitations) is excellent. Repair service is
excellent. My dealings with the business office are cordial,
productive, and informative. If one starts speaking the language of
the industry to a knowledgeable rep, the conversation rises above the
level of consumer telephonic "babytalk".

GTE: This is the LEC serving a mountain-top transmitter site that I am
responsible for. It amounts to two lines. The service is mediocre
(fails in one way or another about twice a year). Repair service is
poor in that repairs are done very slowly and only with continual
follow-up to reinstate "cleared" tickets. My dealings with the
business office are almost a waste of time. Even if one speaks the
language of the industry, GTE reps apparently do not feel that
customers should know about such things and always steer the
conversation back to the level of telephonic "babytalk".

Note that all of my complaints about Pac*Bell are focused at the
corporate structure, not at the service entity. My complaints about
GTE are focused at the corporate structure AND at the service entity
that results.

It appears that there may be a new rising star in the inflexibility
department: AT&T. Later this month, we shall see if that company once
again will refuse to admit the possibility of any error on its part.
Needless to say, I am presently shopping for alternatives to AT&T's
service "just in case".


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #460
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16373;
          8 Jun 92 9:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01439
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Jun 1992 07:30:05 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18491
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Jun 1992 07:29:56 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 07:29:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #461

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Jun 92 07:29:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 461

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Steve Forrette)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Tracy Ching)
    Re: Business Office Hours (John Higdon)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Patrick Tufts)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (John Higdon)
    Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX (Marc Unangst)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (Jonathan Lieberman)
    Re: Multi-Ring Detection (Art Hunter)
    Re: *69 Results in a Beating (Norm Aleks)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (John Rice)
    Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events (Eric De Mund)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-up
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 05:07:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> In this case, privacy issues aside, it should be opposed merely
> because it's unnecessary.  Digital taps are clean, cheap, and
> completely undetectable from the sub's point of view.  The only
> disadvantage is that for minimum difficulty, the governmnet needs to
> go through the telco to emplace the tap.  If desired, that can be
> worked around.  A PC-box storing packets from a specific subscriber is
> technically feasable, and ahouldn't be outrageously expensive.

But the issue is that increasingly, as more connections to the
customer go digital, it gets MORE difficult for any CO-based tap to
identify individual callers.  The PBX where I work makes a good
example.  We have a couple of T1s to US West, our LEC, and one T1 to
our IXC.  When I place an outgoing call, one of the channels of one of
the T1s is selected, and the call gets set up.  The CO has absolutely
no way of knowing who is calling -- there are over 200 people here, and
the PBX sends no indication to the CO as to who is making the call.
So, if the FBI or other law enforcement agency were to have a warrant
for a wiretap for my office phone, there's no practical way to monitor
my (outgoing) calls from the CO without listening to ALL of the
outgoing calls from all 200 people here.  Not only would this take a
huge staff, but would also infringe on the privacy rights of my 199
co-workers.

Actually, the more I think about it, this really isn't much of an
analog-vs-digital issue, it's more of a shared-trunk issue.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tracy Ching)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Follow-Up
Date: 7 Jun 92 19:58:24 GMT
Organization: Calif. Dept. of Water Resources, Sac.


> I seem to recall reading a book (Crystal Castles) with a similar theme.
> A man invented a cellular phone, and....  The FBI confiscated all his
> work, told him not to build another phone, and even told him not to
> reveal the details of his work.

    Sorry, I'm not well read ... but, is Crystal Castles a fiction
or non-fiction book?  It would seem that any invention (including
nuclear devices) that is publicized usually doesn't warrant the
attention from the FBI.  If anyone could name a few well known
instances where the FBI -took- someone's invention and told them not
to release the information, I'd greatly appreciate it.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 92 23:13 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Business Office Hours


Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]> writes:

> But John, I thought you said that GTE would give you the business
> anytime.  :-)

So, as it turns out, does Pacific Bell. The 6:30 AM to 10:00 PM, etc.,
hours are the actual hours of the local business offices. At other
times your call will be answered by reps in Sacramento. I don't know
what good a Sacramento rep can do for someone in San Jose, but then
what the hell can a rep in Thousand Oaks do for someone in Los Gatos?
And with GTE, that is all you get during the scanty business hours.

In addition, Pac*Bell has its twenty-four hour automated feature
ordering service which allows you to use a touch-tone phone to order
simple feature changes. This is actually pretty neat and works within
minutes.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick Tufts)
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 06:57:18 GMT


Trouble shooting at New York Telephone?  I'd be surprised if New
Yorkers had trouble shooting at anything, much less a utility.


Pat "maybe they should try Glocks instead of those old-fangled
revolvers" ...

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 01:43 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs


[e-mail] (Scott Colbath) writes:

> I guess what I saying here is that you should call the PUC and bug
> them like me and many others did regarding the tariff for third line
> costs. It may help.

I have been following this out of the corner of my eye. What is this
"third line cost" business? Why does it cost more to put in line three
than line one or two? This almosts sounds as though "lines" are a
commodity that must be rationed. It also sounds as though the telco is
trying to penalize the customers for its own lack of forsight and
planning. What is the rational here? Each family is entitled to one or
two telephones and that is that? Third-world country stuff if I ever
heard it.

And just what does the telco say to digital entrance facilities, where
two will get you twenty-four? For a cool grand, I can get a T1
installed just about anywhere in town. So where does USWEST get off
charging that kind of money to install a single residence line?
Granted my twenty-fifth line (gawd forbid) would require another grand
for another T1, but that is a far cry from three lines. And there is
now no monthly charge for the T1 circuit(s)!

I'll say it again: USWEST and SWB are making Pac*Bell look better and
better. And if the PUCs are letting them get away with it, I may
rethink my position on the California Public Utilities Commission.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 04:46:36 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


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

> This applies to at *least* the 1232 series of switches, and might
> apply to everything else in the same general line as well ...

It applies to more than just Panasonic switches; I've seen it at work
on our AT&T "Partner II" phone system.  We blew two CPU cards before I
went around with a multimeter and checked out all our phones; it turns
out that the Everex modems were a particularly bad offender, and of
course we use almost exclusively Everex modems.

Needless to say, the AT&T repairman was *not* happy about having to
replace the CPU card twice ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (CAESAR)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 14:54:37 GMT


> 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.

    Actually many machines in Switzerland will accept Spanish five
peseta coins instead of one Swiss Franc coins.  Five pesetas are worth
approximately 10% of one Swiss Franc.


Jonathan Lieberman     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Multi-Ring Detection
From: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1992 04:07:44 -0400
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


> 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.

  Yes, this is a problem.  However, the problem has been approached by
permitting a single or groups of numbers to be "masked" to a single
database entry.  Given that for a low cost device, it is still
adequate to permit screening of calls and for directing some callers
to the correct handset (or device on any of the three ports).
Interestingly, there is also the ability to change your mind according
to the time of day and day of the week.  This permits up to 99 time
events during the week that you can direct or not direct (or hang up)
callers according to 16 groupings.  One of the groupings is for
blocked calls, another for long distance, etc etc.  It is very useful
to be able to change the way you wish to manage all incoming calls
depending on how you group them (or the Telco has grouped them - ie
blocked calls) and have this as a function of time during the week.

        Distinctive ringing is certainly advantage that I would never
degrade.  There are other means of accomplishing similar objectives at
lower cost and for use in regions where distinctive rings are not
available.

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

From: [e-mail] (Norm Aleks)
Subject: Re: *69 Results in a Beating
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 14:09:31 GMT


[e-mail] (Jay Ashworth) writes:

>> [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

[text deleted]

> GTEFL: +1 813 446 -- I believe it's a GTD-5.  *69 (Calling Number >
edial) reads you the number, then asks you if you wish to dial it.  I
> gather it works this way in other places too.

[text deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: I gather it does NOT work the same way in many or
> most places. It does not work that way here. But since you raise the
> point, let's assume it does read the number back: What has that told
> you about the person's name and/or address?  Nothing. In 312/708 there
> exists a not-to-common public service provided by Illinois Bell called
> "Customer Name and Address Bureau" (312-796-9600) which provides a
> reverse listing of phone numbers ==> name and address of *published*
> subscribers. Not many (any?) other telcos offer that service. In any
> event, you won't find me listed there. So I repeat that whether or not
> the number is read back, the person returning the call needs a bit
> more information acquired elsewhere than just via *69.   PAT]

Reverse directory is an uncommon *public* service, but a very common
for-pay service, especially in bulk volumes -- for people who want to
derive mailing lists from their 800 or 900 calling reports, for
instance.  For those of us who want to reverse-list just one or two
numbers, we can call a service like Telename, 900/884-1212.  Telename
happens to carry no unlisted numbers, but many other companies get
their listings from multiple sources.  They might even have you, Mr.
Moderator!

Anyway, my point is that a phone number, all by itself, is a powerful piece
of information.


Norm Aleks     [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 21:01:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad
Cook) writes:

> [e-mail] (Peter Hayward) writes:

>> 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?

> [e-mail] (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) writes:

>> ... 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.

> Why would the impedance be wrong?  If the antenna is a typical sleeve
> design made for trunk mounting, we can assume that it was built to
> exhibit approximately 50 ohms at cellular frequencies when mounted on
> a car trunk.  Why would sloping the ground plane downward at 45
> degrees make this impedance match better?

Theoretical feedpoint impedance for a 1/4wave ground plane (assuming a
'perfect' ground) is 36 ohms. Sloping the radials increases the
impedance until the radials are 180deg from the radiating element at
which point the impedance is 72 ohms (a dipole). Since the 'ground' is
seldom perfect, the actual impedance of a 1/4 wave ground plane
antenna us usually closer to 50 ohms in practice, close enough that 50
ohm co-ax is commonly used for ground plane antennas with no ill
effect.

If the cable length will be much greater than 20-30 feet, a lo-loss
cable like 9913 would be recommended.


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.

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

Subject: Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 16:05:56 PDT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric De Mund)


> The SIGGRAPH organizers wish to run fiber around McCormick Place --
> with all that compute power Ethernet just isn't going to do the trick.
> Three Chicago unions are fighting for that work -- filing grievances,
> the whole bit.  The telephone workers of course feel that it's their
> bailiwick.  The electricians say it's wiring, goes through conduit,
> etc.  But the plumbers claim that they should do it, because fiber
> optic cable is a "light pipe."

 ... and because they've had so much practice recently.

> [Moderator's Note: McCormick Place has been heavily unionized since
> its beginning. No one does *anything* there without the blessings of
> one or more unions. I mean *anything*. You do not plug a cord into an
> electrical outlet. You do not move a telephone from one desk to
> another. The heavy-handed union tactics there have been the reason
> many former shows no longer return. You cannot set up or take down
> your booth. You can do *nothing*. A union person must do it at union
> scale wages.  PAT]

Before RSNA '91 (Radiological Society of North America), which is held
yearly at McCormick Place, this used to be true. You could *not* move
a phone from one desk to another, *nor* unplug a cord from one outlet
and plug it into another. However, this changed at RSNA '91, where we
(the exhibitors) were permitted to attempt these feats of skill.

The RSNA is a large show, taking up both floors of McCormick East and
this year both floors of McCormick North. Some of the booths are quite
large, standing two stories tall, and of sound enough construction to
hang multi-thousand-pound CAT scanners from. Companies like General
Electric, Toshiba, Picker, etc., sink millions of dollars into these
booths and this show, and have been doing so for yearly for many
years. They're showing their wares off to the thousands of
radiologists and hospital administractors from around the world who
attend (and incidentally generate a great deal of business for the
city of Chicago). They finally (as I understand it) got tired of the
union nonsense at McCormick, and got the RSNA organizers to threaten
to move the show from Chicago unless the union restrictions were
relaxed. The RSNA organizers did so, and the unions backed down.

I and other exhibitors can now disconnect and reconnect telephones in
our booths at will. Timing can be critical if one jack is bad, the
concessions selling $7 hamburgers are closed because its 10pm, and I
need to order a pizza for my crew.


Eric De Mund    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #461
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18182;
          8 Jun 92 10:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 8 Jun 1992 08:02:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07320
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 8 Jun 1992 08:02:09 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 08:02:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #462

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Jun 92 08:02:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 462

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call (William J. Carpenter)
    Re: Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia (Joe Jesson)
    Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events (John R. Levine)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (John Higdon)
    Re: From the Usenet Rumor Department (Ken Abrams)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Where is 617-422? (Mike Ardai)
    SNET/NYNEX Call Delivery to Suffolk County (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    ATC - LDDS Merger (Bill Huttig)
    Wax On, Wax Off (Was An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake) (R McMillin)
    Things We Remember The Most (Timothy K. Hong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon,  8 Jun 92 00:00:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Strike aside, I wan't to hear about the logistics of setting
> up a 4,000 person nationwide conference call!

I have no actual information about the call in question.  When I saw
the press release, I thought that was a pretty big number for a
conference call, too.  Then I realized that a lot of those folks would
be in the same buildings, so there's a pretty good chance that lots of
endpoints were rooms with speakerphones and possibly up to a few dozen
folks listening in.  My guess is that there would still be several
dozen locations involved, so it's no small feat of cooperation if they
were all on the same call.


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 3C-207

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Jesson (TEZjej11S))
Subject: Re: Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia
Organization: Amoco
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 15:42:43 GMT


If you want a very *reliable* commercial e-mail source in Russia, I
would recommend SprintMail.  I checked a few months ago as to the
commercial E-mail local connections and Sprint seemed to "won" the
market in Russia.  Connections to other providers -- AT&TMail is one I
tested -- from Sprint worked great.  Of course, a fee is required
(about .22 cents / minute).

No, I do not work for Sprint ...


Joseph E. Jesson       Address1: mhs!amoco![e-mail]
21414 W. Honey Lane    Address2: [e-mail]
Lake Villa, IL, 60046  Address3: [e-mail]
Telephone: (day) 312-856-3645 (eve) 708-356-6817

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

Subject: Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 7 Jun 92 23:41:12 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Moderator's Note: McCormick Place has been heavily unionized since
> its beginning. No one does *anything* there without the blessings of
> one or more unions. I mean *anything*. You do not plug a cord into an
> electrical outlet.

When I was four years old, in 1961, I had a brief career as a scab.
My father was setting up a booth at a technical show at the New York
Colliseum which has, if anything, worse unions than McCormick and I
was hanging around with him.  He'd have me do things like plugging in
floor lamps for the booth.  The union guy would notice and say that
was supposed to be a union job, my father would point out that I was a
four-year-old child (I was big for my age) and they'd usually back
off.  Jeez.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: In 1968, McCormick Place burned to the ground. Some
said it was arson; a result of a dispute between mobsters who ran the
union and McCormick Place management at the time. It was rebuilt from
the ground up, with a bigger and better exhibition hall given the same
name opening there a couple years later.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 20:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future


On Jun 6 at 10:56, Jack Decker writes:

> someone who's had the misfortune of living in GTE territory at one
> point, I can tell you that for the most part, GTE plays "pass the
> buck" and has some very incompetent people working for them (which is
> understandable; the GTE attitude toward employees is such that
> competent people tend to leave for greener pastures at the earliest
> opportunity).

Thanks, I could not have said it better. Mr. Baker's tone has been
that GTE (the manufacturer) was not responsible for what GTE (the
telco) did with its switches. My belief has been that if GTE cannot
set up and use GTE switches properly, then who can? The GTD-5 switches
that I have tried have been owned and operated by none other than GTE,
not "Fred's Fone Company". If they don't work, which GTE do I blame?
Theoretical specs in the lab do not impress me much. As a telephone
customer I have to live with what something really does out in the
cold, cruel world.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: From the Usenet Rumor Department
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 17:24:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jack.winslade%drbbs@
ivgate.omahug.org writes:

> 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.?

Whoever started the thread only heard half of what was originally said
and probably didn't understand the half that he/she heard.  When this
was done, it was called Service Observing and was essentially as Pat
described.  Great pains were taken to ensure that a trustworthy person
held the job AND that that person did not have (easy) access to the
phone numbers of the lines that were being monitored. The sole purpose
was to sample connection quality.

I cannot speak for Wisconsin but in Illinois, Service Observing was
eliminated about seven years ago.  There was too much potential for
abuse and misunderstanding and with the advent of electronic and
digital switching, they just weren't finding enough to make it worth
the effort.

I STRONGLY suspect that this falls into the urban legend category.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 23:49:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


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

> 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 ...

This is reminiscent of the time the advice nurse at the HMO asked my
wife if she was having or had ever had prostate trouble.


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] (Mike Ardai)
Subject: Re: Where is 617-422?
Date: 8 Jun 92 01:46:29 GMT
Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:

> [Is 617-422 Boston or Sterling?]

When we upgraded our phone system here at Teradyne, they gave us all
extensions which are direct dial in the 617-422 exchange.  These are
all in downtown Boston (and possibly a few running over a leased line
to our Waltham sales office).  These are all in the 02118 or 02111 zip
code.


Michael L. Ardai  N1IST   Teradyne EDA    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7-JUN-1992 23:33:12.80
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET/NYNEX Call Delivery to Suffolk County


After spending a few days in Suffolk County, Long Island, NY, I
noticed something unusual about the SNET/NYNEX call delivery system.

(This is the system which delivers SNET calls into the NYNEX/NYC
system, where callers hear a message saying "Please hold on, your
party is being located" while your phone is validated PER CALL. It is
rather unusual, and many people simply hang up when they hear the
message, but it works.)

While in Suffolk, generally anywhere five miles EAST of NY-110, SNET
customers will NOT get calls.

An SNET customer's phone will be queried/interrogated, and send back
an overhead message to NYNEX, but the call is not put through (callers
don't get the "Please hold ..." message) -- the phone will simply not
ring in Suffolk County.  Moreover, if the SNET phone is busy in
Suffolk, callers will get an immediate busy signal (which may
sometimes be prefaced by a very short ring).  This is the same result
a caller will get if the phone is busy outside of Suffolk, yet outside
of Suffolk (as far as I can tell) calls are delivered just fine.

Now I know NYNEX/NY's coverage is pathetic -- you get "No SVC" in the
middle of some of the most populated sections of Long Island, even the
relatively flat areas. The "A" carrier, Cell One/NY, has, in most
areas, superior coverage. Thus the poor service on NYNEX's part has
nothing to do with topography. There are plenty of times that I have
missed calls while in NY on NYNEX simply because the signal was not
strong enough.

With this in mind, I called my SNET number from the NYNEX/NY roam port
at [phone]. It rang fine. This indicated to me that I was in an
acceptable coverage area. I then tried calling my SNET number
directly.  Yet each time, this failed to ring the phone. So it MUST be
a problem with SNET and NYNEX in terms of call delivery to Suffolk.

Has anyone else noticed this? Or possibly in other areas of NYNEX/NY's
(poorly covered) service area?

Interestingly, I noticed the SAME thing happening in Bell Atlantic's
Western NJ system, which went up relatively recently. If you call an
SNET number directly, and they are roaming in Western NJ, their phone
is queried, but it won't ring. If the SNET phone is busy in the
Western Jersey area, callers will get an immediate busy. There isn't
supposed to be a connection between SNET and BAMS/Western NJ, and I
get differing stories from NYNEX as to a connection for call-delivery
between NYNEX/NY and BAMS/Western NJ.  (BAMS says the West Jersey
system is NOT part of the NYNEX partnership service, which I believe
is correct, while NYNEX says it is.)

I called NYNEX about both Suffolk and Western New Jersey, and had to
go through the usual series of mindless questions before I could talk
to a more technically inclined person. ("Is your phone on?", "Is the
antenna connected?" etc ... utter idiocy ... :( ). When I was finally
put through, they had left for the day (at 4PM?). I'm calling SNET on
Monday to see what they can do from their end, but I'd still
appreciate any info from SNET (or other) customers who roam in Suffolk
and/or Western New Jersey as to what their call delivery experiences
have been.


Thanks,

Doug   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 00:40:50 -0400
From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: ATC - LDDS Merger


Just came across this on America On Line ... I preceive it as good
news.  ATC is merging with LDDS. They just complete their billing
upgrade.  SouthTel was the last to be added. ATC now is SouthTel,
Telus, MircoTel Teltec, North America Telephone, Claydesta, and lots
of others. Anyway the stock swap will be .083 share LDDS for each ATC
$500 mill ...

I have had several accounts with various ATC purchased companies and
the service has gone way way downhill since ATC stepped in. Maybe with
LDDS things will shape up!!!

If anyone wants to hear any of my ATC account merging stories just
email me.


Bill

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 04:18:39 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Wax On, Wax Off (Was: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake)


Jim Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gee, I was just thinking about how Herb Caen, columnist for the {San
> Francisco Chronicle}, used to wax lyrical about the charm of the fog
> horns sounding there.  Can't you (or Mike Royko) come up with
> something equally lyrical about how charming Chicago is with the
> sounds of burglar alarms screaming in the night?

to which our esteemed Moderater noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually most nights here we listen to shots fired
> and gangbangers yelling at one another. By comparison, burglar alarms
> are an assault only on the ears, not on the mind and body as well, and
> at least the gangs run and hide when they go off. Our neighborhood has
> become worse than ever before this year.   PAT]

 -- start of decidely un-lyrical waxing --

But don't believe that you can run away from the problem by fleeing to
the suburbs.  Having moved behind the Orange Curtain (into Orange
County, that is -- about fifty miles south-southeast of downtown El
Lay, and far, far away from any rioting), one would have thought that
the homeless (who used to carry the sobriquet "bums" before it became
fashionable to canonize the lot of them), the prostitutes, the
gangbangers, et al, would be left behind.  Not so -- the only
difference is that the ethnicities change a bit.  One reads of Asian
terror-robberies: thugs of Vietnamese/Cambodian/what-have-you
extractions hold entire families of similar ethnicities at gunpoint in
their homes for extended periods of time.

Many Southeast Asians (a) don't trust the banks (can you blame them?),
(b) don't trust the police, and therefore, keep large wads of cash and
jewelry in their homes.  Entire families can be ruined instantly.
White folk tell themselves that this is only visited on Southeast
Asians, but scarcely anyone believes it.  Three nights ago, the
doorbell started insistently ringing at 11:30 PM; a stocky young Asian
man of about 23 was there, looking for our next door neighbors.
(Manners mean different things to different cultures.)  I pointed him
in the right direction.  I peeked out the window of the bedroom that
faces our Vietnamese neighbor's house to make sure that was where he
headed afterward before I called the cops.  (I didn't.)  I was scared
silly, though.

Oh, sure, there are fewer homeless in O.C., just as there are fewer
whores working the street, less graffiti, etc.  But the disease has
spread south.  We can build more prisons, or we can invest in
education.  We can, and should, do both.


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


[Moderator's Note: I will either move to a totally rural, very small
town area or I may move out of the USA entirely.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 6 Jun 92 22:25:00 UT
Subject: Things We Remember The Most


I guess it is true when they say that you remember the "bad" things
that happen more often then the "good".  I have been reading a lot of
negative stories about phone company quality and service lately, but
nothing good.  I probably should count my blessings that I never had
to go through what many of you have.  The few problems that I did have
with my billings were cleared up very quickly, and the people were
very friendly and helpful.  If anything, I have more complaints about
my phone than my phone company.  I finally settled on a Sony cordless,
but even that gives me static sometimes.  Overall, I am very happy
with the quality of service that Hawaiian Tel has provided over the
years, and I wouldn't change.  But then again, maybe I'm a little
biased.

Another thing, with all this talk about Caller ID (something that we
don't have here yet, but then half the people are probably friends and
family anyway), is there an answering machine capable of reading the
incoming number and synthesizing that number onto the tape.  My
machine leaves the day and time of each call, so it should probably be
simple to get it to leave the number too.  But then, like I said, we
don't have anything like that here, so maybe I'm just asking a useless
question.

Aloha Everyone!


Timothy Hong     GTEMail: T.Hong
Internet: [e-mail]
X.400: /ADMD=TELEMAIL /PRMD=GTEMAIL /O=GTE /S=HONG /G=TIMOTHY /I=K

Disclaimer: I am not an official representative of Hawaiian Tel.
Everything written here is strictly my own opinion, and does not reflect
the policies or opinions of my employer.  If this was an actual
statement from the company, they would have found someone a lot smarter
and more important than me!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #462
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab01856;
          9 Jun 92 2:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14960
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 00:55:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15692
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 00:54:56 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 00:54:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #463

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jun 92 00:54:58 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 463

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Death of the Competition (David Lesher)
    MCI Founder Dies (Steven S. Brack)
    MCI's McGowan Dies (John R. Levine)
    Newly Dialable Points (John R. Levine)
    Hotel Phone Charges - A Limey's View (John Slater)
    Status of Caller ID in Indiana? (Michael Harpe)
    Telecom Observations on Long Island (Phillip J. Birmingham)
    RFC For Fax Specs? (Monte Freeman)
    More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Robinson
    Telecom in The Economist (Julian Macassey)
    Codes for Latvia (Carl Moore)
    Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA) (Jack Winslade)
    Phones Ringing Off The Hook (Bill Berbenich)
    703-527 : Alexandria/Arlington (Carl Moore)
    Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines (Carl Moore)
    Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error" (Jim Gottlieb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Death of the Competition
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 18:26:26 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


William McGowan, 64 died today of a heart attack.  He was the
founder/spearhead of MCI, who took on ATT's monopoly of the long
distance market. This was one half (Carterphone being the other), of
the breach in the walls of Bell's monopoly.
He had been in ill health for some time, and had a heart transplant
several years ago.

Like it or not (and CDT readers know where Mr. Moderator stands) MCI
helped usher in a new word to the industry -- competition.  And that
brought about change.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 08 Jun 1992 19:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: MCI Founder Dies


I read this in the news this evening ...

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- William G. McGowan, founder and chairman of MCI
Communications Corp., died Monday, MCI said.

An MCI statement said McGowan, 64, died of a heart attack at
Georgetown University Hospital. He had undergone a heart transplant in
April 1987.

McGowan, born in Ashley, Pa., in 1927, was a graduate of Kings College
in 1950 and earned his master of business administration degree from
Harvard University in 1952.

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

Subject: MCI's McGowan Dies
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 12:08:15 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


National Public Radio reports that MCI's William McGowan died at age
64 from a heart attack.  He took MCI from a struggling little private
line microwave carrier to its current status as the US's second
largest long distance carrier.

McGowan had a heart transplant several years ago, and was one of the
country's longer-lived transplant patients.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Newly Dialable Points
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 2:15:27 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


{Newsbytes} reports that AT&T says that as of June 15th, they will
offer direct dial service to these points:

Antarctica, Casey and Scott Bases
Lebanon
Outer Mongolia
Niue, Norfolk Island, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Wallis and Futuna Islands,
  in the South Pacific
Diego Garcia, Christmas and Cocos Islands
  in the Indian Ocean

To most of these places the only service previously offered was
person-to-person operated assisted.  (For the places that did allow
station calls, the extra charge for person-to-person was only about
two minutes worth, probably a bargain unless you were really sure your
callee would be next to the phone.)  I didn't know there were any
civilian phones on Diego Garcia.

Newsbytes also says that Israel will offer phone service to Iraq,
Libya, and Syria, who are not happy about it but have no technical way
to stop it.  Israeli calls will apparently be transit traffic mixed in
with calls from other countries and they can't turn off the Israeli
calls without turning off everything else.  There's been similar
service since March to other less hostile but still displeased Arab
countries, with quite a lot of traffic, thousands of calls per day.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 15:23:15 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)
Subject: Hotel Phone Charges - a Limey's View


I was in San Francisco recently, staying at the Burlingame Hyatt near
the airport. I was surprised, to say the least, at the phone charges
from the room. Here's the scoop:

Local calls: 75c access charge

Long distance: AT&T *operator* rates, *plus* 75c access charge, *plus*
20c/minute!

950-XXXX long distance access: 75c

800 numbers: Free, except that 800-numbers to connect to long distance
service providers attract a 75c charge.

My verdict:

1) 75c for a local call is not too unreasonable.

2) Their long distance charging is extortionate.

3) How do they detect that an 800 number connects to a long distance
service provider?  I know about 1-800-950-XXXX, but what is to stop
MCI, say, using a number not of this format to provide this service?
And is it legal for the hotel to charge even for this type of 800
number? I thought there was a blanket rule that 800 numbers must not
attract any charge.

I used my Visa-card-linked MCI card for my long-distance calls, and I
did it from the payphones in the lobby. (PacBell, fortunately!). I
also got excellent service from MCI (1-800-444-4444) with a how-to
question and a request to change the Visa card to which my account is
billed.

I used my BT chargecard via UK Direct (1-800-44-55-66-7) for my
international calls to the UK.  Operator rates, but my company pays  :-)


John Slater, Sun Microsystems UK

P.S. I can write again about phone charges in UK hotels if this is of
interest.


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please give us background on UK hotels.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Harpe)
Subject: Status of Caller ID in Indiana?
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 13:46:52 GMT


Does anyone know what the status of the Caller ID offering in Indiana
is?  Last I heard (and posted here) was that it was a go.  The local
Radio Shack in Jeffersonville has started selling Caller ID boxes
($69.95) but flagging them "only for use in Kentucky - Indiana coming
soon".

What's the scoop?  Also, what switch does your area need to be able to
run the CLASS services?  I live in 812-28X if that helps.


Thanks!

Mike Harpe     University of Louisville

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Observations on Long Island
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:04:13 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab


     My girlfriend and I drove to Brookhaven National Lab (she's
working there this summer) and I had a couple of experiences I thought
I might share:

     1) The weather was awful most of the weekend (at least to this
Arkansas boy) so we spent most of our time shopping. I needed to use a
payphone, so I used one in the Service Merchandise near Patchogue.
Looked like a standard Bell payphone, and the placard said all long
distance was handled by AT&T, but when I dialed my number, I got some
AOS. Fortunately, 10288 worked, but I wonder if this sort of thing is
common.

     2) On the flight back, I got to use the GTE Airphone. The sound
was really pretty scratchy, and it costs about as much as a 900 number
(two bucks per minute plus two bucks setup charge) but it was kinda
fun to call my mother and my girlfriend from 35000 feet. I can see
where this gadget could be a lifesaver to some people.


Phillip J. Birmingham   [e-mail]
I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Monte Freeman)
Subject: RFC For Fax Specs?
Date: 9 Jun 92 01:33:18 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Hello,

  I need the RFC (or some other type of "oficial document" ) that
gives the specs for fax transmissions. A description of the protocol,
etc ...

  Anyone have any idea where I can find something like this?
Preferably in on-line Internet accessible format ...

  Thanks in advance,


Monte Freeman  --  Operations Department / Information Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!mf15
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92  17:29:41 EDT
Subject: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking


I realize that my last article was a little skimpy so I'll try again
to give more details on the blocking of calls made by those who block
the delivery of their calling number to a telephone which is equipped
with Caller-ID capability.  Note that where *nn is used, rotary phones
would dial 11nn, i.e.  *67 on a Touch-tone (R) telephone, and 1167 from
a rotary telephone.

A reader of this newsletter wrote to me privately to ask more details
about Caller-ID block-Blocking.  This is a feature in which the holder
of a Caller-ID box can dial a code of *77 to indicate that if anyone
calls that number with caller-id blocking in effect, that call will be
routed to an intercept recording telling the user to call with
Caller-ID blocking disabled.

Note that using the Caller-ID *67 block does not prevent the called
party from denying a connection by, in addition to using the *67 code,
of using the alternate "blocking list" in which they can put a list of
several numbers that, whether or not they are known to the caller, are
permanently denied connection; this service also allows you to add the
last number that called you to the list of people to deny a
connection.  And one may still use call-trace even if the return
number is blocked.  And you can also dial *69 to call-back the last
called number.

The code *77 is a toggle; if you have Caller-ID, you dial *77 to
indicate you want to refuse calls from people who block their number;
then if you want to accept blocked calls, you dial *77 to disable this
feature.  This code is not available to users without Caller-ID (since
you can't get the caller's number anyway without it).

I have tried this myself when someone who runs a BBS gave me a number
he has Caller-ID block-Blocking enabled; I dialed the number and it
rang; I hung up.  I then dialed *67 and the number, it threw me to an
intercept recording; I dialed the number again without the *67 and it
does work.  We are on Centrex service here; the interesting thing is
that you have to dial *67 BEFORE dialing 9 for an outside line.

Note that the code may change from place to place; *67 is used to
block Caller-ID information from being passed; *77 is used to block
delivery of callers who have their line blocked.  These are the valid
codes in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia.  These star codes may
not be the same in other areas.


[Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
from people about *77 being a toggle, i.e. how do I know which way the
toggle is set in case I forget and I want to block the possibility
some telemarketer might call me blocking *his* ID, etc ...  :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Telecom in The Economist
Date: 7 Jun 92 18:17:17 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


For those interested in telephony, the {Economist} provides
excellent coverage. Better coverage in fact than is provided by that
content free, PR flack dumping ground {Telephony} magazine.

The June 6 - 12 issue has an good article on the Sprint Centel
merger (Pages 73 - 74). Also on page 74 is an article on country codes
and the politics involved.

The May 30 - June 5 issue has a special article (Pages 19-22)
on Mobile telephones.

The {Economist} is a news magazine that likes to get its facts
right and reports in depth. It takes a centrist and global perspective.
It likes to provide lots of charts and figures with its stories. In
fact, one of the first places I read a good description of CLASS (Evil
Caller ID etc.) services was in the {Economist.}

Most libraries carry the {Economist}.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 9:50:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Codes for Latvia


Somone who forwarded the article (about 1200-baud modems wanted in
Latvia) didn't have the telephone codes, so here they are, excerpted
from a list for what was the USSR:

If asterisk appears at end of line, then for 5 or 6 digit numbers, add
'22' or '2', respectively, before a 5 or 6 digit phone number.
Otherwise, add '00' or '0' respectively.

7   (the former) Soviet Union
   013  Latvia
   013 2  Riga*
   013 52 Jekabpils
   013 54 Daugavpils

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

Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 07:06:22 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 02-JUN-92, Vld/vmb writes:

> 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.

That older ringing tone was the topic of a recent conversation 'on
another network'.  That's the first time I've heard it called E flat
major.

I could not find any specifications for that old tone.  Does anyone
know what they are or where they might be located?

For those who may not know/remember (not to show my age ;-) this was
the common ringback tone used in Ma Bell's larger panel and #1
crossbar (and some #5 cross) up through the early 1980s.  (The last I
remember it around here was '84 or so.  212-569 had it until quite
recently.)


Good day!        JSW
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS (Lamb cush-cush in saffron-tamarind sauce ..)  (1:285/666.0)

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

Subject: Phones Ringing Off the Hook"
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 19:39:26 EDT
Organization: Doraville 30340


  I am curious about the origins of this oft-heard cliche.  Does it
mean that the phone rang, even though it was already off the hook or
does it mean that the phone rang so hard that it knocked itself off
the hook?

  Is there a possibility that I missed? {Communications Week} this
week has a cover story on the effect of the air-fare wars upon the
telephone network and it uses that catch-phrase on the headline.


Bill

SysOp of        ---+++ wabwrld Waffle BBS +++---
   A small, quality news/e-mail system on the outskirts of Atlanta
    domain - [e-mail]    bangpath - tridom!wabwrld!bill

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 18:27:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 703-527 : Alexandria/Arlington


I made a call from a pay phone in Arlington (Rosslyn area exchanges)
on 703-527 via C&P, and I got 703-527 ALEX (short for Alexandria) on
my May 1992 phone bill for the From part of that call.  I realize that
the DC area call guides show Arlington/Alexandria for the Ar- lington
and Alexandria exchanges in Virginia, but little noises like this make
it more difficult to map an exchange to a more specific area (in this
case, Arlington/Rosslyn).

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 9:25:15 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines


[e-mail] writes:

> There is some overlap of the two latas in the 613 and 514 NPAs,
> around Ottawa, one of the very few places that NPAs cross state or
> provincial lines.

819, not 514, is the Quebec area code next door to Ottawa, Ontario.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 11:58 JST
From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: 800 Number With "Routing Error"
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] writes:

> Note that there are now international 800 numbers available from AT&T,
> but they must be set up by the owner on a per country basis.  Last time
> I inquired the cost was about $100/hr + $100/month/country

The per-country cost isn't that high.  They charge about $20 a month
for as many countries as you want.  I have toll-free numbers in
Thailand and Malaysia so that my friends there can call me in Los
Angeles without spending a week's salary on a ten-minute call.

Since they don't charge for additional countries, one might be tempted
to request numbers from everywhere, but the wrong numbers could
quickly add up.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #463
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03081;
          9 Jun 92 3:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17423
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 01:29:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17627
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 01:28:53 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 01:28:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #464

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jun 92 01:28:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 464

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Kath Mullholand)
    Re: *69 Results in a Beating (Paul Knupke Jr.)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Does *67 Really Work? (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Business Office Hours (William T. Sykes)
    Re: Multi-Phone Line Protection (Hans-Gabriel Ridder)
    Re: Digital Mixing (Jack Adams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 14:59:29 pdt
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> I have the makings for a real nightmare here. As I was paying bills, I
> noticed three calls to the UK on three separate days a week apart. The
> total cost of the calls came to $32.98. I reached for the phone and
> called AT&T to have them removed, since I made no such calls.

> I was firmly told by the rep that unless I called Pac*Bell and had "my
> lines checked" and some reason for those calls found, they could not
> be removed. I was given the usual third-degree about someone else in
> the house making the calls (not possible), or having made them without
> remembering (not possible). In any event, I was told that no credit
> could be given.

I had the same thing happen to me about four years ago.  It was on a
second line in my parents house that I used sometimes when visiting.
I hadn't been by there for about two months, and there was only one
jack in the house for that line, and no phone was even plugged in
there went I wasn't there.  They were all domestic calls in my case,
and to all sorts of places: George, Texas, etc.  There appeared to be
two or three calls a day to various places, for about three weeks (up
to and including the closing day of the bill, so I thought that there
might be more next month, which there were).  Some of the numbers were
called many times.

At the time, my carrier was US Sprint, and I called to complain.  I
got the same thing that John did -- "maybe someone else in the
household used it without your knowing, maybe you forgot, maybe
maybe."  I can't blame them completely for this attitude.  John among
all people should be familiar with people who call numbers (especially
900 numbers) then later "deny all knowledge."  The carriers have to
deal with this every day.  Equally true is another thing John said:
that when a long-time customer with a history of large bills and
on-time payments calls to dispute a relatively small amount, that it's
just general good business practice to take them at their word.

I too had to call Pacific Bell to "have my lines checked" before they
would do anything more about it.  So I played along with the game.  A
couple of days later, I got a call back from the Pacific Bell lineman,
who had indeed discovered a spurious bridge somewhere that was sending
my line into an unused pair of another residence!  Family X had
apparently discovered dialtone on their "idle" pair and figured that
it would be as good of a place as any from which to make their toll
calls.  It didn't appear that they abused it that much, but just made
their regular calls.  I was astounded that they actually found the
problem.  I thought that this was the end to my problem, but it was
only the beginning.

Of course, Sprint would not take me at my word when I told them what
the lineman told me.  I had to get Pacific Bell to call them directly.
I didn't have the name of the lineman that had called me (stupid of
me!), so I ended up talking to a repair supervisor who could look this
up in the records.  Then they said that Pacific Bell could not
initiate a call to any IXC because of His Honor, and that Sprint would
have to call them.  Back to Sprint, who said that they would waste no
further time with this matter, and would not call Pacific Bell.  After
all, they said, it was Pacific Bell's fault that the bridge was left
in place, so they can take the time to resolve the billing matter.  (I
was receiving my bill directly from Sprint, so it's not like Pacific
Bell could give me a credit themselves).  I finally ended up having
Pacific Bell write me a letter and send it to me, which I then copied
and sent to Sprint.  It took five or six additional calls, and as many
months, before I finally got my credit on my bill.  Good luck, John!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've found I can usually get messages from AT&T to
Illinois Bell by simply asking the one to fax a message to the other.
I've done this when there was a problem getting Reach Out installed on
my line (with IBT doing the billing for AT&T, etc).  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 15:32 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare


On Jun 8 at 14:59, Steve Forrette writes:

> I finally ended up having Pacific Bell write me a letter and send it
> to me, which I then copied and sent to Sprint.  It took five or six
> additional calls, and as many months, before I finally got my credit
> on my bill.  Good luck, John!

I will not stand for this under any circumstances. If AT&T wants to
get snotty about it, I will go down to the office supply store, get a
new toner cartridge for my printer, buy a case of paper, and print the
entire output of my SMDR from 4/30 to the last call in question on any
future bill.

I will then send the entire package of thousands of pages to someone
at AT&T. I will demand that someone show me where those calls were
made.  If that record does not interest anyone, I will take that as a
presumtion by AT&T that I am intentionally attempting to defraud the
company. At that point, I will be prepared to take my business, my
company's business, my clients' business (after relating the entire
story in detail) and all future business that might come from
recommendations elsewhere.

AFTER doing all of this, I will write up the details of what happened
and what I did about it and send it to Robert Allen. "So let it be
written ..."


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


[Moderator's Note: You won't stand for it? So sit down then.  :)  The
problem is John, *where* would you take all that business? Sprint?
Aren't you also punishing them right now?  MCI? (snicker)  Or maybe Ma
and Pa Kettle's Long Distance Service?  PAT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 11:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare


John Higdon writes:

> It boils down to this: Pac*Bell cannot issue a credit for AT&T. AT&T
> will not issue a credit, period, unless trouble can be proven
> (translation: someone found who was bridged on the line) and then
> Pac*Bell will be stuck for the cost of the calls anyway. In essence,
> AT&T NEVER eats the cost of a call.

**stuff deleted**

> But what is more distressing is AT&T's attitude. It seems to be
> willing to lose my business over $32.02.

This is the primary reason that we have chosen to do business with
AT&T as little as possible.  Their attitude toward customers
requesting adjustments is extremely poor.

In one situation, I had copies of a bill from a student showing that
the caller had made a call from Italy, been disconnected, and redialed
the call, intending both portions to appear on her credit card.
Instead, portion two of the call was billed to UNH.  It took us three
weeks to get action on this, and one rep (who I hope was fired, but
was probably given a commendation) accused me bluntly of lying and
assisting the student in "cooking this up". Total cost of the call:
less than $14.00.

In another instance, a caller dialed a call to Connecticut, but must
have misdialed and got Egypt instead.  She neglected to dispute the
call with us until two month later.  I called AT&T and offered to fax
a copy of the bill (as I know they only keep two months on-line) and
was told, "We never credit calls older than two months."  Seeking
clarification I said, "You mean, you may take up to two years to bill
call, but you will only allow two months to dispute it?"  "Yes,
ma'am," drone replies.  I requested her supervisor.  Credit is
forthcoming.  Total cost of the call: less than $8.00.

So for $22.00 out of our several thousand dollars worth of business
with AT&T, AT&T is willing to offend us and lose our business.

I hope it's worth it to them.

Side note: I always fall over laughing when I see the "You're not
dealing with AT&T" commercial.  (My response, "No, I'm not -- thank
goodness!")


kath mullholand   university of new hampshire   durham, nh

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Knupke Jr.)
Subject: Re: *69 Results in a Beating
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 16:11:02 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/750 - FTC Mail System, Largo Fl


Pat,

GTE-Florida offers the same service (1+ 270-8711, for up to two
numbers and 1+ 270-8211 for three to 15 numbers.) from anywhere in the
area it services.  It is called "GTE Name and Address service."  As
with Illinios Bell, only numbers listed in the directory are available
with this service.

My job makes use of this service on a daily basis.


Paul Knupke Jr.    [e-mail] Communication, Etc.
Fidonet 1:3603/750 RIME ->PETEXCH Telecommunications Consulting
Largo, Florida USA
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!myrddin!tct!psycho!750!Paul.Knupke.Jr.

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

Date: Mon,  8 Jun 92 09:57:12 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter Sleggs) writes:

> [e-mail] 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.

>> [Moderator's Note: Then that is your problem. Either you are in
>> control of your phone or you are not.

> Sorry Pat, I have to jump in here, forget that it a phone for a
> moment ... (I know I know it is the _Telecom_ Digest :)

> Consider the situation of ANY toggle, ....

   Just so this thread won't be totally un-bounded, let me mention:

1) Bellcore's update to TR-TSY-000391, Iss. 2, "CLASS(sm) Feature:
Calling Number Delivery Blocking" (the one with the "toggle code"
reference) will be Issue 3 (around 12/92) with a new title: "CLASS(sm)
Feature: Calling Identity Delivery Blocking & Related Features".  The
TA review period ended 3/92.  If the TR isn't modified TOO much from
the TA, there will be several new codes assigned.  Since "Calling
Identity" handles both Calling Number and Name, there are many
combinations of per-line and per-call blocking, and several have
toggle or "force" codes assigned.

Included is a code that will, for the following call, indicate
"presentation restricted" for both the Name and Number, regardless of
the caller's per-line status.  So the issue is on it's way to being
"fixed".

2) *XX code exhaust has a concern in the early 1980's, when the 1A ESS
folks at AT&T were designing (and coding a CCIS6 version of) LASS,
renamed "CLASS(sm)" by Bellcore.  At a recent conference, a Bellcore
speaker indicated the all XX codes had been tentatively assigned, as
had many of the *2XX and *3XX proposed extended codes.  The solution,
according to Bellcore, is a new switch/CPE interface that will allow
an interactive, display-based, context-sensitive dialog between the
switch and the customer; capable of services well beyond the current
*XX(X) capabilities.  Of course, I'm not sure how you build portable,
feature-insensitive dialing strings into a lap-top/modem to support
such feature access.

   And an update for those waiting on Caller-ID-on-Call-Waiting:
Bellcore has released TA-NWT-000575, "Calling Identity Delivery on
Call Waiting" (RFC 92-30).  Comments are due 7/15/92.  This uses the
capabilities in TA-NWT-000030 to deliver number and/or name when "call
waiting" occurs.


Al Varney - just my opinion

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *67 Really Work?
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:50:40 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> The data link on which Caller*ID is delivered is not duplex.  It is
> simplex.  The CO transmits a data message, but does not listen for any
> ACK or anything else from the customer's equipment.

This won't necessarily be true in the future.  The newly-published
Bellcore spec for delivery of Caller-ID information with Call Waiting
does require the Caller-ID box to send back an "ack" (to the
call-waiting tone) before the Caller-ID information is sent.  The
Caller-ID box is supposed to first split the connection to cut the
phone off the line, to prevent the user from getting blasted with Bell
202 modulation.  But, still this won't let you get information the
switch isn't programmed to deliver.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (wts1)
Subject: Re: Business Office Hours
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Greensboro, NC
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 17:55:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Charles Stephens) writes:

>        Southern Bell hours are M-F 8-5.  That's it.  It's a real
> pain, when you want to make orders or have questions about your bill.

>        Southern Bell has two 24 hour services.  The first is
> RightTouch(tm) that allows you to use a touch tone phone to place
> simple orders (ie disconnect line, order Prestige(r), etc.).  They
> also have a 611 repair service.

Unless my eyes deceive me, per the March 1992-93 Burlington, NC and
January 1992-93 Greater Greensboro, NC Southern Bell phone book, the
Business Office Service Representative hours are "Monday through
Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.  and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Saturday..."

When one says Southern Bell is so-and-so, be sure of your info.  I was
talking to a SB Service Rep at 6:30 p.m. June 4, 1992, so at least in
this SB teritory, extended hours and Quick(SM) are already
implemented.


William T. Sykes  AT&T FSAT-Engineering  Greensboro, NC 27420
UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

From: Hans Ridder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Phone Line Protection
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 16:18:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

> There is real advantage to sharing a ground for both power
> and phone line protection. Neither ground will be that good in a
> typical installation, but having them common limits the voltage
> differences seen inside the equipment.

Not only is it an advantage, but bonding all grounds together is now
*required* by code (National Electrical Code) in the US.  It's a good
idea too! :-)


Hans-Gabriel Ridder      Digital DECwest Engineering
[e-mail]      Bellevue, Washington, USA
{pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: Digital Mixing
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 13:22:57 GMT


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

> What method is used to digitally mix the audio from several sources
> such as on a conference call carried on a digital PBX?  Simply adding
> the signed values of the digital samples at any given time could
> result in illegal values such as when both samples happened to be at
> their maximum value.

One of the added benefits of digital (aka PCM encoding) switching is
that the actual samples of members on the bridge are *NOT* added!
Conference bridging is accomplished through a simple distribution
algorithm.  The transmitting signal (an encoded sample) is distributed
to all other ports on the bridge as a receive signal.  Rather slick
eh!


Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}        [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #464
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05066;
          9 Jun 92 4:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21323
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 02:32:30 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17699
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 02:32:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 02:32:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #465

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jun 92 02:32:16 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 465

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Todd Langel)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Eric M. Carroll)
    The GTD5 vs the Bean Counters (Bud Couch)
    GTE's Local Presence (or Lack Thereof) (Paul Knupke Jr.)
    Re: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area (Paul Knupke Jr.)
    Re: Some History of GTE (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Call Own Phone Number Back Wanted (Derek Andrew)
    Re: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Wax On, Wax Off (Was Inconsiderate Neighbor) (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Wax On, Wax Off (Was Inconsiderate Neighbor) (Matthew Holdrege)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Todd Langel)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 22:08:34 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL


John,

   The reason the GTD5 is going out is because AT&T bought the
technology about a year and a half ago to eliminate a competitive
switch to its 5ESS. Nedless to say, I dont think GTE will be putting
any new GTD5's in anymore.  I Know for a fact that there have been at
least five new 5ESS's installed in the Bay Area in the last year, and
have three more schedueled to be installed this year. Some of those
are full blown 5ESS'S and some are small remote's.

   Rumor Has-it, within five Years All of GTE's CO's will be coverted
to 5ESS's.  Seems to be that GTE is so far behind in technology
compared to Southern Bell that there just now starting to follow in
their footsteps.

   If you ask around you will find out that the 5ESS is pretty much
the standard today because of the software support and future
expandability. It may cost more now, but in the long run they will
save (I mean make) money!


Todd Langel

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!myrddin!tct!psycho!230!Todd.Langel

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

From: Eric M. Carroll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 12:15:22 -0400


Mr. Baker,

Please do not presume to represent the majority of telecom-digest
readers.  I have enjoyed Mr. Hidgon's opinion and technical expertise
in the telecom digest for many years. I hope he continues to post. His
articles are relavent, entertaining, informative, and, where I have
the knowledge to assess, technically accurate. They are certainly
personal perspectives, but noone is paying him to be objective.

Your comments are inappropriate, and not representative of my opinion.
Please stick to whatever facts you can marshal if you wish to refute
Mr. Higdon's opinion.

I should note Mr. Higdon has no idea who I am -- we have never
exchanged email before.


Eric Carroll      Network Development
University of Toronto Computing Services

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch)
Subject: The GTD5 vs the Bean Counters
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 17:02:58 GMT


I've been sort of following the thread here about how bad (or good)
the GTD5 digital switch is (or isn't), and a number of suppositions
about its deserved (or undeserved) orphan status.

John Higdon made the statement that the GTD5 was the "switch that
drove GTE out of the business". Not really. What drove GTE out of the
switch business (and the long distance business and the transmission
equipment business, etc) was the MFJ. The bean counters looked at the
result, decided that they were next, and got rid of anything that
looked like it might attract an antitrust suit. They peddled Sprint to
United, AE to AT&T, and Lenkurt to Siemens.

As an engineer and ex-Lenkurt employee, I thought it was a poor
decision; the net effect was to reduce the number of independent
design and development centers in this country. As a GTE stockholder
(hey, 12 years of employee stock purchase plans were a *good* deal) I
would have to say that the bean counters were probably correct;
financially I think that the corporation is better off.  On balance,
though, I think that the telephone business itself is worse off,
because a large pool of experience and expertise was basically thrown
out "with the bath water".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Knupke Jr.)
Subject: GTE's Local Presence (or Lack Thereof)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 15:59:01 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/750 - FTC Mail System, Largo Fl


John Higdon wrote:

> 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.

Here is another GTE horror story, this time GTE-Florida.

Last fall I was at a friends apartment in St. Pete on a Saturday
evening and suddenly his voice line went dead.  He called maintenance
on his data line and asked for them to check it out, and was told no
one would be able to check the problem until 8 AM on Monday morning as
no repair "people" were available.

Needless to say, he was out a voice line until Monday ... GTE did
credit his account for two days of nonservice though on that
particular line.


Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!myrddin!tct!psycho!750!Paul.Knupke.Jr.

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Knupke Jr.)
Subject: Re: Good Service From GTE in L.A. Area
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 92 15:53:00 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/750 - FTC Mail System, Largo Fl


> Actually, some time ago (some years), many had spoken ill of the
> Indiana GTE operation as well ... I wonder if things have changed
> much.

Not that I know of.  Many of my relatives live in Ft. Wayne,
(GTE-North of Indiana territory) and they don't speak well of their
operation up there.  The rates are quite high, signifigantly higher
than what I pay GTE-Florida here in St. Petersburg.  I remember my
aunt mentioning their average GTE phone bill was about $28/month
(compared to $16 or so here in the Tampa area.)  GTE North wasn't even
offering many of the special features yet either.

On a positive note, GTE North has slowly been expanding the local
dialing area for Ft. Wayne/Allen Co.


Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!myrddin!tct!psycho!750!Paul.Knupke.Jr.

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

Date: 08 Jun 92 10:10:20 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida


[e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #460:

> This type of thing happens all the time. I have heard where develpers
> have come into areas and built houses without telling any of the
> utilities and then start screaming because there is no electric,
> water, gas, telephone or cable. In one case all this was brought in
> later (they had to rip up the streets) with the exception of the cable
> company. And to this day 15 years later these people don't have cable
> service and no amount of screaming has forced the cable company to
> bring service to the area. At least the telephone company did do
> something about it and they did not make the developer pay for it
> which they could have.

I have a bone to pick with this. I have had this fight with my own
wire center forecasters before. There is no reason why they cannot, on
a monthly basis, get around to all of the county courthouses (or
whereever) to review building permits and plat filings. A good working
relationship with commercial real estate sales offices can also
usually pay dividends.

This type of development is not usually done overnight, not even over
a summer. If something this major is missed, it is not just the
customer's fault for not telling the "utilities". The utilities must
accept blame for not doing a "good" job of staying current with
activities in the area.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 20:35:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jesse
W. Asher) writes:

> 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.

You CAN talk back!

Each state's PUC is a bit different, of course; their attitude towards
ISDN is their own.  But there are both formal and informal
"intervention" processes in every state.  Generally, when a tariff is
filed, the PUC sets a public hearing date.  Anybody can talk.  They
might even listen!  Maybe more if you bring friends.  A formal
intervention is a bigger deal, of course, best done by specialists;
intervenors get access to the records and filing documentation and get
to rebut it.

The rate for residential ISDN in Massachusetts, thanks to
intervention, is quite reasonable.  Basically, choose your tariff
class and for ISDN, add $13; another $6.60 gets you D-channel packet
access.  I think another $6 activates the second B channel (alternate
voice/data).  Installation is around $75 above POTS.  BTW, this rate
is the result of intervention; they had proposed much higher.  Usage
charges are currently set at "measured rate only" (same as voice
measured) for intra-office data.  Interoffice data isn't tariffed yet
(no SS7) and voice goes at the usual rate.  Of course you can try
sending 56k over "speech" calls and it'll usually work, but not
guaranteed.

Now actually getting it installed is a different story... they haven't
yet trained the residence service center droids to take the orders
yet, and only a few COs are ready.  But that's not a tariff issue.

The worst part is when they tariff it as a Centrex feature only.
That's nasty and worth fighting.  Withholding one monopoly product
(ISDN) to benefit a competitive product (Centrex) is of questionable
legality, and at least the Mass. DPU got it right.


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


[Moderator's Note: Fred wrote a good book about ISDN recently, and I
will get around to reviewing it here soon.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 22:16:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
stratus.com (Scott Colbath) writes:

> I guess what I saying here is that you should call the PUC and bug
> them like me and many others did regarding the tariff for third line
> costs. It may help.

The PUC can be surprisingly helpful at times.  Recently, I was getting
a price quote from Pacific Bell for T1 access, and had a question
about tariff interpretation.  After checking into it a bit, my Pacific
Bell rep said that whoever they asked interally told me to consult my
attorney or the PUC.  So I called the California PUC, and told them
what Pacific Bell had told me.  They said that it was Pacific Bell's
responsibility, and not the customer's, to interpret the tariff for
the customer, and the woman at then transferred my call directly to
the Pacific Bell executive offices, who were able to put me in touch
with the person with my answer.

All in all, I was satisfied with the way the matter was handled.  As
others have mentioned in the Digest, it is truely amazing the red
carpet treatment you get from an RBOC when you talk to the executive
offices and they know that the call came through the PUC.  It was a
striking contrast to the regular business office run-around.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Andrew)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1992 12:53:44 +0100


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.

In article <[e-mail]> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert
L. McMillin) writes:

> Nope, it doesn't matter if you have call waiting or not. I've got call
> waiting, and I routinely dial my own number by mistake when calling
> Personal Secretary for my messages, resulting in the 'beep', and then
> a ringback when I hang up.

> [Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention this, because Illinois
> Bell does not work the same way. Dialing your own number always
> results in a busy signal, call-waiting not withstanding. To get a
> 'true' busy (and thus force the call to roll to a second line or voice
> mail or whatever) prepending *70 before dialing your number will work.
> You'll never get the call-waiting tone when dialing your own number
> here, even with *70 on the front, since prevention of call-waiting is
> the very reason *70 was added!    PAT]

Interesting ... in Saskatchewan Canada, the provincial phone company
is offering a service called "Intercom". You dial your own phone
number, hang up, it rings, then when it stops ringing you pick it up
and talk to someone else in the house.

The interesting part is that there is a monthly fee of $2 or $3 for
the intercom service.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think IBT offers 'intercom' also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 06:05:09 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> I have no actual information about the call in question.  When I saw
> the press release, I thought that was a pretty big number for a
> conference call, too.

I wonder if they used AT&T for the call?  ;^)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Wax On, Wax Off (Was: An Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 17:40:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: I will either move to a totally rural, very small
> town area or I may move out of the USA entirely.   PAT]

Try moving to rural western Kansas, and you can enjoy the fate of the
Clutter family (doesn't sound familiar? Read "In Cold Blood").


[Moderator's Note: I've read everything Truman Capote wrote, despite
the fact that I found him a bit strange. Actually, I'll be living in
southeastern Kansas a few miles from the Oklahoma border. But you see,
the Clutter family was the exception to the rule there, not the *norm*
as is the case in Chicago. People there were actually shocked when
that occurred; they remember it to this day. I can't recall the names
of the people the {Sun Times} said got murdered over the weekend. I'll
gladly tolerate three or four murders per year instead of three per
day, which is our average here to date in 1992. Somehow, I'll survive
without the drugs, gangs and violence I deal with every day here.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 04:17 GMT
From: Matthew Holdrege <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wax On, Wax Off (Was Inconsiderate Neighbor Keeps Me Awake)


> [Moderator's Note: I will either move to a totally rural, very small
> town area or I may move out of the USA entirely.   PAT]

Love it or leave it, Pat. The reason Rogers Park and Uptown are so
bad is because people gave up fighting and left. The "good"
neighborhoods are the ones where the homeowners refuse to give up on
their community.

A quote from Edmund Burke as printed in Tom Clancy's Patriot Games:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall
one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."


Matt Holdrege  Pacificare Health Systems  [e-mail]  714-229-2518


[Moderator's Note: Okay, so I'll leave it. I was a community activist
for over twenty years, and a lot of good it did. Admittedly the
Clutter family met a terrible fate, but I doubt their neighbors then
or now have any concern about walking a few blocks at night to the
Dairy Queen for ice cream with their two year old child; nor do they
have a drug house across the street and a combination whore house and
shooting gallery in the garage down the alley. Think of how much I
will miss and how dangerous it will be living in Independence, KS!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #465
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28873;
          10 Jun 92 1:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31005
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:33:44 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02418
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:33:35 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:33:35 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #466

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jun 92 23:33:25 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 466

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell Canada, MT&T and Automated Voting (Melvin Klassen)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Things We Remember The Most (Art Hunter)
    Re: Cellular Alliance: GTE, NYNEX, BAMS, Ameritech (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: The Economist 5/30/92 (Gregory Youngblood)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Gregory Youngblood)
    Re: Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA) (John Higdon)
    Re: Newly Dialable Points (John McHarry)
    Re: Payphone Xenophobia (David Hyams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada, MT&T and Automated Voting
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 92 22:02:08 GMT


Excerpts from the Canadian Press story:

   A technological nightmare hijacked the Nova Scotia Liberal
leadership conventions Saturday, forcing organizers to postpone voting
indefinitely.

   The phone company, Maritime Telegraph and Telephone, had boasted
about the infallibility of the system. An MT&T official said the
computer overloaded when everybody seemed to call at the same time.

   Instead of leaving the choice [leader of the Liberal Party in Nova
Scotia] to the convention-floor delegates, it made every Liberal in
Nova Scotia an eligible voter, by allowing each to vote from home by
touch-tone phone.

   By saying, "Thank you for voting", the computer was supposed to
tell each caller it had register his or her vote.  Sometimes the
computer worked; other times it said nothing.  Delegates were asked to
try again, only to be told that their eight-digit identification
number was no longer valid.

  "It's very frustrating", said Sandy DeWolf, who dialed more than 100
[!!!]  times, and still was not able to register her vote.

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Date: 7 Jun 92 16:41:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael J
Graven) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 454, Message 8 of 14

> [e-mail] writes:

>> The solution seems to be [to] 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.

> Users like this.  When my building in Murray Hill was cut over to
> ISDN, we came into work the next day to find 7506's on our desks.
> Many of us spent the rest of the morning running through the
> user-selectable ring cadences to see which one we thought would work
> best for us.  The caco-phony of rings in the hall was tremendous.

    Maybe I am tone deaf, or possibly just stupid, but I have
trouble determining if a warble ringer is mine. I also have trouble
determining the direction a warble ring comes from. Unless, it is on
my desk and I am sitting at it. I know I am not the only person with
this problem.

    So when I get presented with a phone with a warble ringer, I
drag in a good old gong ringer and attach that. Then I know when my
phone is ringing. Also putting a neon flasher in the ceiling of
corridors is also handy to show that the ringing phone is mine.

    Yes, one of the horrors of modern telephony is the warble
ringer. The main reason we are subjected to these devices is that they
are cheaper than gong ringers. Another is that some devices, ISDN
phones and proprietary key systems, do not use regular ringing
voltages, but a digital signal that is used to turn on the ringer on
the phone. In these cases, detection circuits can be built to turn on
a ring generator to drive a real gong ringer. Putting one of these on
a phone will really confuse the house phone technician.

    I still believe that anyone has yet to design and build a
better instrument than the standard 2500 set. Certainly no one has
built a more rugged phone -- explosion proof mine phones excepted.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Panasonic Key Systems: WARNING and FIX
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 22:08:40 GMT


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

> Now that's unique. Wonder if this is a trend in the industry -- an
> unlisted customer support phone number. I'll have to tell my boss, we
> won't want to be left behind.

Though not strictly telecom related, Bank One now has an unlisted
number for its MasterCard/Visa customer support.  I think the general
topic of why certain businesses have unlisted numbers is worthy of
discussion.

I complained loud and clear to Bank One, as I had been on vacation
when I needed to call them, and couldn't since I didn't know the
number.  The number isn't on the back of the card (seems like a good
thing to do), nor was it listed with 800 Directory.  Fortunately, it
wasn't an emergency and could wait until I got home.

But the thing I told them was: What if I had lost the card?  I am
required under federal bankcard regulations to report the loss to the
card issuer within 48 hours of my knowledge of the loss in order to
limit my liability for fraudulent charges.  I asked them, If I had
been on a two-week vacation and had the card lost/stolen, was I
expected to fly home to look at my statement in order to get the
number to call them?  They didn't seem to think this was a big deal.
I can't imagine why they would want it hard to find the number.  I
can't imagine why anyone who wasn't a cardholder would want to call,
and certainly cardholders need to be able to call, especially if the
card gets lost or stolen.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Things We Remember The Most
From: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Art Hunter)
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 19:46:10 -0400
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


> Another thing, with all this talk about Caller ID (something that we
> don't have here yet, but then half the people are probably friends and
> family anyway), is there an answering machine capable of reading the
> incoming number and synthesizing that number onto the tape.  My
> machine leaves the day and time of each call, so it should probably be
> simple to get it to leave the number too.  But then, like I said, we
> don't have anything like that here, so maybe I'm just asking a useless
> question.

I can't say about an answering machine but there certainly is a device
that can capture the phone number, bounce it off a database to attach
a name and to put up "notes" that can be edited while on line (or off
if you so desire).  It has many other facilities that permit masking
to other numbers, permitting "time slices" or management options that
depend on the day of the week and time of day to either direct the
caller to one of three ports (say answering machine, handset, modem
etc) and to keep a log of all inbound and outbound calls.  I have been
using one for over a year now and find that I can't live without it.
One of the features is to be able to hangup on those pesky
telemarketers when they call back the second time (the first time is
to get their phone number but it never happens again).

        Linking this to an answering machine is not beyond the
abilities of man but I find that it is not necessary as I know who
called when and can just hit the keyboard to call back.  It is a board
and software that works with DOS on any old PC that happens to be
around.  It works as a TSR as well so the machine can be used for any
other purpose you desire while monitoring the phone line.

        There are a growing number of them in use in this part of the
world.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Cellular Alliance: GTE, NYNEX, BAMS, Ameritech - What's it Mean?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 00:51:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gregory Youngblood) writes:

> It appears that the people that license the Cellular One name are
> making attempts to standardize the logos, and to associate the name
> with high quallity by enforcing quality minimums and penalties for low
> or bad quality service.  That includes customer service and service
> overall, not just the system's quality of service.

I guess this explains why the A carrier in LA, "LA Cellular," has not
licensed the Cellular One name! :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Union Involvement in McCormick Place Events
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 05:11:22 GMT


> This summer, Chicago's McCormick Place will be hosting the 1992
> SIGGRAPH conference.  This is a big yearly get-together for the
> computer graphics industry.  The organizers are bringing in an NSFNET
> T-3 connection so that remote supercomputers can drive displays in
> Chicago.

How did the conference deal with the issue of autodial modems, or for
that matter, non-union humans, vs. the 13 Telephone Dialer Unions (one
for each digit, #, *, and flashing), the Telephone Answerer's Union,
the Telephone Call Originator's Union, and the Telephone Call
Terminator's Union?


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: It's funny, but it's not funny, if you understand
what I am saying. In an issue of the Digest on Wednesday morning I'll
print an article from someone who went there and the union guys busted
up the computer by accident, screwing up the whole display.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: The Economist 5/30/92
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 19:17:49 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] (Bob Anderson Div Gov Res 73305) writes:

> The {Economist} of 5/30/92 pages 19-22 has an article on Mobile
> telephones.  Subtitle "The fast-spreading mobile telephone is
> challenging its wire-linked ancestor. It will change society in rich
> countries and poor alike."

>  From page 22 FIXED-LINK FIGHT-BACK:

> "Will mobile telephones replace fixed-link ones? In places starting
> almost from scratch, they are already doing so. In the poor countries
> of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, existing networks are so
> small and bad that those who can afford it buy mobile telephones just
> to make calls at all. ..." "In poor countries, radio networks are
> also easier to safeguard against theft ( no attractive copper wires)
> and to repair (no need to send linemen out into the bush)."

Even in the US, sometimes it is cheaper to use a cellular phone than
regular Bell.

For instance, three years ago, you could get a contract with a carrier
in TX (409 area code) that included most of 409 and all of 713 as
local calling area.  The airtime rate after 11 or 12 at night was 4.5
cents per minute.  The going telco rate was 9 to 13 cents per minute
MIN. at that time of night (if memory serves).  While it wasn't
practical for normal users, it was attractive to people that make
calls after hours ...

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

Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 18:41:31 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


[e-mail] writes:

>> 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 ...

> While the question seems silly, I suspect that there are a lot of
> customers even dumber than the operators. Even though I'm sure that
> the question is on a standard script for trouble calls (not one
> specific to dead phones), I'd bet that more than once the answer has
> been "yes".

> The IQ requirement for being an operator may be pretty low, but the
> required IQ for placing a call is just about vegetable level.

I've seen cases where the phone would not dial any numbers at all
except the customer service line (his phone was cut off for late
payment).  I thought that was rather cute.  Nothing could complete
except for trouble reporting.  Cute eh?

So is this.  I've run a switch for a cellular carrier. (I won't say
who did this.) One day the called my home number from the office
because their phone was getting no service.  I answered and they
proceeded to scream and yell because the system was down during the
middle of the day.  This was going on at the same time that I kept my
home number forwarded to my cellular, so they actually got me eating
lunch at a restaurant, ON THE CELLULAR, when the system was 'down'.  I
proceeded to 'correct' them, and told them where to go (check the
problem that is. :) ).  Turns out the sales rep did something to his
phone (beats me what).  hehe.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 01:03 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA)


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> For those who may not know/remember (not to show my age ;-) this was
> the common ringback tone used in Ma Bell's larger panel and #1
> crossbar (and some #5 cross) up through the early 1980s.

The machine that generated the ringback tone (and the ringing voltage)
was about the size of a machinist's lathe. There were two models: AC
and DC. The AC version used an induction motor that resembled a large
fan motor as was usually the primary unit because of the superior
speed regulation over the DC model. The motor was attached to a
gearing mechanism that had two output speeds: slow and much slower.
The slow output turned the actual ringing generator which was an
alternator that supplied 20 Hz that was rich in harmonics. A
high-passed version of the generator's output was fed back to the
caller.

The much slower output of the gear train turned a drum filled with
mercury. This, as you might expect, provided the ring cadence. After
years of operation, the inside of the drum would become filthy with
contaminants and crackling could be heard between rings. The severity
of the crackling could reveal the age (or at least the time since the
last cleaning) of the unit.

During power outages or during maintenance of the main unit, the DC
unit was pressed into service. It was always obvious when this
generator was on line since the ringback tone would have severe speed
fluctuations.

We always referred to the sound of the ringback tone as "metropolitan
ring".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry(J23))
Subject: Re: Newly Dialable Points
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 13:07:54 GMT


In <[e-mail]> John R. Levine <[e-mail].
ma.us> writes:

> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T says that as of June 15th, they will
> offer direct dial service to these points:

> ..., Vanuatu, ...

So much for their ads about not being able to call there by accident.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Hyams)
Subject: Re: Payphone Xenophobia
Organization: Ascom Autelca AG, Guemligen, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 14:23:21 GMT


Someone wrote:

> The Swiss are also very careful about rejecting incorrect coins in
> their automatic machines.

This shouldn't be too surprising when you consider that Switzerland is
a small country in the middle of Europe, surrounded by a large number
of different countries, all of which issue their own coins of assorted
shapes and sizes.  The chances that people will try and use incorrect
coins in payphones / ticket machines / etc. is very large. Hence the
Swiss have no choice but to be very careful to make coin checkers that
are intelligent enough to reject as many incorrect coins as possible.

For comparison, imagine that every state within the USA issued its own
currency, each of which has coins of different sizes and values. Now
try and make a coin checker intelligent enough to reject as many
incorrect coins as possible.  You should now have some idea of the
problems faced making automatic machines (payphones, ticket machines,
etc.) here in Europe.

Someone also wrote:

> 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.

You're not wrong.

Swiss public payphones are designed to accept Swiss, German and French
coins.  In areas close to the French and German borders (eg. Basel)
the payphones will normally accept all three currencies. In areas
further "inland" the payphones have been programmed to accept Swiss
coins only.


David Hyams.   Ascom Autelca    Berne, Switzerland

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #466
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18150;
          10 Jun 92 9:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31472
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:28:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28321
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:28:11 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:28:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #467

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jun 92 07:28:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 467

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Christopher Owens)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: MCI Founder Dies (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Solutions?) (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA) (Alan L. Varney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Owens)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 14:49:11 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
writes:

> [... Description of Caller-ID "block-blocking" deleted ....]

> The code *77 is a toggle; if you have Caller-ID, you dial *77 to
> indicate you want to refuse calls from people who block their number;
> then if you want to accept blocked calls, you dial *77 to disable this
> feature.

> [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
> from people about *77 being a toggle. ...]

After a while, some combination of the incessant wailing of his
neighbor's burglar alarm and the Wagnerian Sturm und Drang
reverberating around his office began to wear on Townson's sanity.
Something finally snapped, and he adopted the bizzarre opinion that
toggles without feedback were acceptable user interface design.  He
taped over all the indicator lights on his stereo, and he specially
modified his telephone to prevent him from hearing the DTMF tones as
he dialed.  For a while he tried composing electronic mail messages by
typing blindly on a keyboard with his computer's monitor switched off.

But he could find no respite from the incoming deluge of electronic
mail from his friends, colleagues and acquaintances, all begging him
to recant.

"All this feedback is driving me nuts," quipped Townson. "It's as bad
as those stupid elevator buttons that light up when you push them.  Or
the dashboard indicator lamp for the turn signal in a car.  What a
total waste."


[Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
 -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue,  9 Jun 92 11:03:47 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Organization: AT&T


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

> The code *77 is a toggle; if you have Caller-ID, you dial *77 to
> indicate you want to refuse calls from people who block their number;
> then if you want to accept blocked calls, you dial *77 to disable this
> feature.  This code is not available to users without Caller-ID (since
> you can't get the caller's number anyway without it).

   An Assistant Vice President of Bell Atlantic told me (and a crowd
of folks) last month that they PLAN to offer *77 to non-Caller-ID
subscribers for a monthly fee -- Caller-ID subscribers get it for
"free".  And that includes areas where Caller-ID blocking itself is
not available.  There seems to be a market for this capability, either
as a screening device (might reduce unwanted calls) or as a status
symbol (the caller THINKS you have Caller ID) ...


Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

From: [e-mail] (Laurence Chiu)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Organization: GCS Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:15:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert
L. McMillin) writes:

> 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.

I had a slightly different but similar experience. In my area 137 will
cause ring back. We don't have call waiting disable so I decided to
order call diversion so that my modem communications would not be
disrupted. I would divert the phone to my office answering machine.
Then I thought about diverting to myself thinking it might give a busy
signal. I did so and then dialled 137 and hung up to see what would
happen.  Sure enough my phone rang and so I thought all was well. No
it wasn't! What happened was that after diversion my phone was
perpetually busy, a constant source of annoyance to my friends and
relatives. I would often only notice I had forgotten to un-divert when
I tried to make a call and heard the distinctive dial tone.

Now I am very careful to check my line after a modem session!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 92 23:11:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


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

> Interesting ... in Saskatchewan Canada, the provincial phone company
> is offering a service called "Intercom". You dial your own phone
> number, hang up, it rings, then when it stops ringing you pick it up
> and talk to someone else in the house.

> The interesting part is that there is a monthly fee of $2 or $3 for
> the intercom service.

> [Moderator's Note: I think IBT offers 'intercom' also.   PAT]

Pacific Bell offers this too.  it's called "Intercom Plus."  There are
three ringback codes, *51, *52 and *53.  They produce, respectively,
short-short, long-short-short, and short-long-short.  Once the phone
is answered, the CO provides battery for as long as two extentions
wish to talk.

The other feature of Intercom Plus is call-hold.  If you flash and
dial *54, you can then hang up and the call will remain on hold until
you pick up again.  This, in my view, is worth the $5/month that they
get for it.


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


[Moderator's Note: When two extensions are off-hook in intercom mode,
what happens to incoming calls? Do the intercommers get call waiting
tones or does the outside caller get a busy signal?   PAT]

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

Date: 9 Jun 92 08:41:00 EST
From: Ken Jongsma  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Founder Dies


With no disrespect at all to Mr. McGowen, I think a slight correction
needs to be made: A gentleman named John Goekin from Joliet, Illinois
started a company called Microwave Communications, Inc. back in the
late 60s. It was the 'struggling private microwave carrier' referred
to in another post.  Goekin sold out to McGowen & Co., who later
changed the name to MCI.

Goekin and his daughter Sandy went on to form AirFone, later sold to
GTE and are presently running a company that is installing networked
seatback PCs and telephones in US Air commercial aircraft.


Ken
(who had abolutely no idea any of this was going on when he was hanging around
the Goekin house in the 60s!)


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 01:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare


On Jun 9 at  1:28, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You won't stand for it? So sit down then.  :)  The
> problem is John, *where* would you take all that business? Sprint?
> Aren't you also punishing them right now?  MCI? (snicker)  Or maybe Ma
> and Pa Kettle's Long Distance Service?  PAT]

To quote Jack Benny (in response to the question, 'your money or your
life'), "I'm thinking, I'm thinking." The damnable reality is that
given my current needs and volume, AT&T is IT. I don't have the time,
patience, or even the money to fool around with Sprint, MCI and all
the gang. I've been that road, thank you very much.

That is why between now and the end of the month (showdown time), I
need to do some heavy-duty research. Part of the problem is cost. AT&T
is the cheapest of the "real" carriers for the calling patterns that I
have. MCI is close, but I just cannot bring myself to pay slightly
more for the honor of enduring the bafoonery.

Sprint is the premium-priced carrier. It's cheapest rates and AT&T's
cheapest rates (at my volume) roll out to about a 15% differential in
AT&T's favor. That is a hefty premium to pay for the wonder of failed
Trailblazer connections. And a non-negotiable requirement for any
carrier that I use is the ability to support high-throughput PEP data.

Suggestions, anyone? (BTW, accurate billing would also be nice :-)


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 10:19:25 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare


So a caller tried to call Connecticut and got Egypt instead?
For those who don't know:  Connecticut is area code 203, and Egypt
country code is 20.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 92  18:45:04 EDT
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Solutions?)


John Higdon writes:

> It boils down to this: Pac*Bell cannot issue a credit for AT&T.
> AT&T will not issue a credit, period, unless trouble can be
> proven (translation: someone found who was bridged on the
> line) and then Pac*Bell will be stuck for the cost of the
> calls anyway. In essence, AT&T NEVER eats the cost of a call.

on Mon, 8 Jun 92 15:32 PDT he also wrote:

> On Jun 8 at 14:59, Steve Forrette writes:

>> I finally ended up having Pacific Bell write me a letter
>> and send it to me, which I then copied and sent to Sprint.
>> It took five or six additional calls, and as many months,
>> before I finally got my credit on my bill.  Good luck, John!

> I will not stand for this under any circumstances. If AT&T
> wants to get snotty about it, I will go down to the office
> supply store, get a new toner cartridge for my printer, buy
> a case of paper, and print the entire output of my SMDR from
> 4/30 to the last call in question on any future bill.

> I will then send the entire package of thousands of pages to
> someone at AT&T. I will demand that someone show me where
> those calls were made.  If that record does not interest
> anyone, I will take that as a presumtion by AT&T that I am
> intentionally attempting to defraud the company. At that
> point, I will be prepared to take my business, my company's
> business, my clients' business (after relating the entire
> story in detail) and all future business that might come from
> recommendations elsewhere.

I've got some much simpler choices to make:

Make a photocopy of the SMDR list(s) for the days in question, (should
only require two or three pages) since all you need are the period
running for say two minutes before and after the time in question,
ESPECIALLY if the SMDR and the phone bill match on other calls made.
And photocopy the bills in question.

Therefore you should only have to print up about six pages.  (My
ignorance of the amount of data an SMDR recorder shows is probably
quite evident at this point, if a section of five minutes of time for
a couple of phone lines is more than two or three pages).

Generally you cannot withhold payment on a phone charge unless you can
get the phone company to agree on the matter.

You have two choices at this point: (1) Pay the bill and deduct the
charge, and send the photocopies in with the bill.  If you send the
payment to Pathetic Bell, let them know that it is over a dispute with
AT&T and not with them.  Then use step (3) below.

Of course, if both sides refuse to give in, and you are being stuck
for the bill, you have another option especially since it involves a
billing errror for which you have evidence and the amount in detail is
minor:

(2) Send the entire amount of the bill including the erroneous $32 as
a payment made payable to the California Public Utilities Commission,
indicating that you have a BILLING ERROR from AT&T, and that they
refuse to recognize the error.  Indicate where their bill, by time and
date, matches the SMDR data, and from this it is obvious they are
billing you for calls not made, and request that AT&T cancel this
charge.  CPUC's address is on the back of the phone bill.  Indicate
also that AT&T is attempting to, in the event that it is shown that
they are wrong in billing you, to defraud Pacific Bell by making them
pay the cost of the calls.

CPUC will send your uncashed check back to you if it's a dispute over
service, but a billing error is something they will take a look at.

Other actions you may take in addition to either of the above are:

(3) Send the same packet to AT&T's legal department in New York.
Inform them that if a credit is not granted, you will see if there is
grounds for a class action suit since AT&T, knowing there is an error
in a bill, is intentionally attempting to defraud customers, and/or
the local wire company by attempting to make THEM eat the charge that
AT&T has screwed up on.  Indicate to them that you are taking a credit
(if you go that route) for the incorrect bill, and for all future
incorrect bills which YOUR WRITTEN RECORD shows were not made.

(4) Send the packet to the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal
Communications Commission asking them to investigate the possibility
of fraud and/or negligence on the part of AT&T.

(5) Find a hungry lawyer to actually try and file a class action suit
on spec (without your having to pay anything).  It's one thing to
raise a question about their charges on a line when it's a residential
customer they don't know much about, it's another when the customer
has a pen register on his phone line!  It's kind of, shall we say,
unprofessional to try and deny it when someone has written evidence
you made a mistake.

(6) Pay the bill, then send them a notice (return receipt requested)
with a demand for a refund of the erroneous amount with notice that if
it is not received within five business days you will sue them.  Then
file suit against AT&T in small claims court for the $32 plus court
costs.  This might be faster, and you might even be able to sue them
for aggravation or other issues; in any case, they will be a little
more careful about mistakes on your bill in the future.

and

(7) Send a copy of the packet to the Postal Inspectors.

Outside of #2, if they won't go along, your only avenues of recourse
are the CPUC or #6.


Paul Robinson
Opinion probably isn't that of the owner of this account,
and even if it was they'd probably deny it anyway...

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

Date: Tue,  9 Jun 92 11:40:16 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Ring Tones (wuz 917 DA)
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> jack.winslade%drbbs@
ivgate.omahug.org writes:

> In a message dated 02-JUN-92, Vld/vmb writes:

>> 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.

> That older ringing tone was the topic of a recent conversation 'on
> another network'.  That's the first time I've heard it called E flat
> major.

> I could not find any specifications for that old tone.  Does anyone
> know what they are or where they might be located?

   Much of the technical history of the old Bell System is written
down in Bellcore's "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986",
TR-NPL-000275 or in "BOC Notes on the LEC Networks - 1990",
SR-TSV-002275.  But you'd better hurry; each release seems to lose
some information.  The LATA maps of TR-275 are just tables of LATA
numbers and NPAs in SR-2275.

   Each version has about 25 pages devoted to "Call Progress Tones",
including their meanings, frequencies, temporal pattern, level, etc.
A two-page table describes the "current knowledge of nonprecise call
progress tone characteristics".  They list the following possible
Audible Ring tones:

440+480 Hz, 2 seconds on, 4 seconds off    at -19 dBm0/frequency
          [ This is the "precise tone" standard ]
420+40      2 seconds on, 4 seconds off    at 61-to-71 dBmC/frequency
500+40      2 seconds on, 4 seconds off    at 61-to-71 dBmC/frequency
          [ These are the most common "nonprecise tones",  the
            first is from the 803C & 805C tone plants, the latter
            from the 804C.  Audible Ring from the 805B, 806D, 806E
            and 806F are variable, and "unknown".  Some depend on
            the AC supply, and could be different when emergency
            AC backup is in use. ]

Nonprecise tones are +10%, -8% on frequency, the Precise Standard is
based on four "pure" tones, with +/- 0.5% variation.  All bets are off
on PBXs.

Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #467
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19894;
          10 Jun 92 10:06 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05149
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:58:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10250
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:58:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 07:58:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #468

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jun 92 07:58:02 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 468

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Fighting Cellular Fraud (John Slater)
    UK Hotel Phone Charges (John Slater)
    About 'Area Code' 710 (Paul Robinson)
    Forbes on National Directories (Ken Jongsma)
    Squabbling Over Country Codes (Bob Goudreau)
    McCormick, Trade Shows, Union Involvement (Lynne Gregg)
    TDD For Portable Computer (Michael Grant)
    Swiss Phones and Italian Coins (Alfredo Cotroneo)
    *67 *69 *70 etc. (Eric Tholome)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 09:35:51 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater)
Subject: Fighting Cellular Fraud


I saw this press release on a Sun internal mailing list, and thought
it might be if interest here.

Disclaimer : Yes, I work for Sun, and no, I'm not attempting to
advertise our products or anyone else's. Just FYI, y'know.


John Slater      Sun Microsystems UK

  ----- Begin Included Message -----

      The following announcement was made today, June 8, 1992.


SMCC AND CORAL SYSTEMS TEAM UP TO FIGHT CELLULAR FRAUD

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. --June 8, 1992-- Sun Microsystems Computer
Corporation (SMCC) and Coral Systems Inc. have signed an agreement to
jointly market Coral's "Intelligent Network" solution for cellular
service providers internationally. Under the agreement, two new
products, called HLR (Home Location Register) and FraudBuster, will be
introduced at the end of 1992. The products will run on the Sun
SPARCserver 600MP(TM) series and the Solaris(R) environment.

With the tremendous growth in the wireless industry over the past five
years and the decreasing costs a carrier can charge for service,
competition has forced carriers to differentiate themselves through
better customer service, enhanced service functionality and network
reliability.  Coral's wireless network software will give cellular
service providers the ability to offer their customers more services,
as well as protect themselves against revenue loss resulting from
fraud.

"Coral's products and Sun technologies are a winning combination,"
said Eric Johnson, Coral's president and CEO. "SMCC's strong
distributed application environment, price/performance and
client-server architecture are a good match with Coral's software
solutions."

The SPARC(R)/Solaris platform is being used by software providers,
like Coral Systems, and carriers doing in-house development to build
the components of an Intelligent Network. The Intelligent Network
architecture, embraced by the telephone industry, consists of a
switching system, a signaling system (SS7), a central database, and a
support system for the database.

"It is SMCC's goal to provide telecommunications companies with the
distributed computing platform that is needed to design new services
that migrate the intelligence of the system as close as possible to
the customer," said Bruce Golden, director of commercial market
development at SMCC. "Coral's solution is an example of the
implementation of a client-server architecture within the Intelligent
Network framework."

Coral's HLR (Home Location Register) software transparently routes
calls to any subscriber, regardless of location. Carriers will be able
to generate additional revenues by attracting more subscribers, who
will be able to use their equipment in a broader geographic area.
Fraudbuster detects and prevents fraud through pre-call (with HLR) and
post-call verification and authorization of cellular calls.  Cellular
fraud is a serious problem for carriers. It is estimated that over
$600 million is lost in revenues each year due to fraud.  Coral's beta
software on the Sun SPARCserver 600 MP(TM) Series has already detected
the most common types of wireless fraud, including subscriber fraud,
clone phones and tumbler phones.

"After evaluating the needs of the highly competitive cellular market,
we are confident that our partnership with SMCC will provide customers
with the strategic solution necessary to meet industry challenges,"
said James E. Blake, chairman of the board at Coral Systems.

Coral Systems, Inc. is a UNIX software house focused on the wireless
telecommunications industry.  The Coral modular services platform is
designed to bring Intelligent Network (IN) call handling capabilities
to existing cellular operations and emerging personal communications
services (PCS). Other Coral products in development include Data
Message Handler (DMH) and Visitor Location Register (VLR). The
company, founded in 1991 and headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, is
doing business worldwide with its strategic partners Sun Microsystems
Computer Corporation and CSC Intelicom, a company of Computer Sciences
Corporation.

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.  Used for many
demanding commercial and technical applications, SMCC's products
command the largest share of the computer industry's fastest-growing
market segment: workstations and servers.  The company, founded in
1982 and headquartered in Mountain View, Calif., is a multi-billion
dollar corporation doing business worldwide.

   ###

Sun, Sun Microsystems, Sun Microsystems Computer Corp., Solaris and the
Sun logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems,
Inc.  UNIX is a registered trademark of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
SPARCserver is a registered trademark of SPARC International, licensed
exclusively to Sun Microsystems Inc.  All other product or service
names mentioned herein are trademarks of their respective owners.


PR contacts:

Sun Microsystems Computer Corp.
Lauren Swingle [phone]

Coral Systems Inc.
Flemming Jensen [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 10:37:06 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater)
Subject: UK Hotel Phone Charges


> [Moderator's Note: Yes, please give us background on UK hotels. PAT]

OK, you asked for it.

Pretty simple really. BT phone charging is based on meter pulsing. One
meter pulse will buy anything from about five minutes of local call
time (evenings and weekends), to maybe less than ten seconds of a call
over 30 miles in the weekday morning peak. There is no unmeasured
service from BT.

Domestic users pay around 5p/unit. Payphone users pay 10p/unit, using
either (1) coins, or (2) a prepayment card, or (3) a BT charge card by
dialling 144 followed by card number, PIN and phone number.

Hotels typically charge 25-28p/minute, so guests pay five or six times
the charge from their own phone. They get the meter pulses directly
from the exchange and pass them on theo the guest, so there is no
dispute about charging for uncompleted calls or other anomalies.

Some hotels permit 144 to be dialled from the room, but increasingly
they are getting wise to this and are either blocking 144 or charging
a fixed fee for it (50p or so). There is increasing worry about fraud
arising from hotel records of the card number and PIN which can be
abused.  (Is this a problem in the US too?)

One advantage of the meter pulsing system is tht 0800 numbers (toll
free) never cause a charging pulse to be delivered, so such calls can
always be made for free, even from the room.

It's worth pointing out that BT's only current competition, Mercury,
does not use meter pulses. They charge by the second instead. They
promote this as a cost-saving feature, because under BT's system
almost all of a 5p unit could be "wasted" if the clock ticks just
before the call is ended.

My verdict, and common opinion in the UK: hotels rip people off on
phone charges. If BT can make money by providing a phone in a public
place, at a capital cost well into four figures and with regular
visits from BT staff for maintenance/coin collection/cleaning, how
does a hotel justify charging at such high rates for a similar
service?


John Slater, Sun Microsystems UK

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

From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92  19:59:52 EDT
Subject: About 'Area Code' 710


I posted a revised list of area codes to show all the current
assignments.  The Moderator bounced it because of some errors, which I
now realize are there.  One that bothered me was that he mentioned
that the area code 710 was used for "Government Special Services",
which I thought was incorrect.

I've been involved with a contract with a government agency for more
than two years.  I have never heard of an area code 710 number used
for any government agency.  I wondered if maybe I was wrong about
this, so I started doing some checking.

I called the State Department.  I called the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.  I called the Capital.  I called the White House.
I called the Pentagon.  I then called the FTS-2000 operator (the
agency I am contracted to is using AT&T's portion of the FTS
contract).  NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAD EVER HEARD OF AN AREA CODE
710!

I thought, now how could this sort of thing go by; the Moderator
cannot be that careless; there has to be something else.

That's when it hit me.

The reason I didn't remember it is that it is used so rarely as to be
almost unknown.  I've never had to use it, but in the far-off recesses
of my brain, a little light came on.

If one is sending a telex from a Western Union account to another
telex number in the U.S. that is seven digits and is not on Western
Union's system, one connects to the number by dialing 710 and the 7
digit number.  (Actually, you don't dial it, you type in the number at
the keyboard of a computer or TWX terminal, but the same idea
applies).

So the answer was correct but (as far as I am able to discover,) right
for the wrong reason: the area code 710 is used for Telex numbers, and
not for Government Services.

If anyone has heard of anyone, anywhere, using area code 710 for
anything other than telex numbers, please tell me about it!


Paul Robinson

These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the owner
of this account.


[Moderator's Note: There has long been a TWX 'area code' 710, and it
was/is a code applying to WUTCO. But according to Harry Newton, 710 is
also 'government special services', or 'special government services',
one of the two. I wish we could clear this up one way or the other. I
assumed it had something to do with FTS-2000.  More ideas?  I will
post that new area code chart here sometime soon.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Forbes on National Directories
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 11:25:30 EDT


The current issue of {Forbes} has an interesting article on the RBOCs
and national phone directories. Some datapoints from the article:

  - NYNEX sells a CD ROM of New England listings for $9500. It's
updated monthly and is very accurate.

  - NYNEX sells a CD ROM set of the entire country for $50,000.
Numbers from outside New England come from various secondary sources,
but not the other RBOCs.

  - PhoneDisk USA sells a national white pages listing for $1800.
Later this summer they expect to sell it via mail order for around
$200. The two CDs will contain 90 million listings, with addresses and
zipcodes.  Listings will be encrypted such that reverse searches or
neighbor searchs will not be allowed, however wildcard searches based
on partial numbers will be allowed. (PhoneDisk is based in Bethesda,
MD)

  - American Business Information (ABI), Omaha, NE, sells a yellow
pages CD for $298. Again, the listings are encrypted with the search
software somehow limiting the number of searches to 5000 names before
a new disk is required.


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 15:46:35 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Squabbling Over Country Codes


The current (June 6th) edition of the {Economist} contains an
interesting little article about upcoming changes to the world dialing
plan.  It notes:

Starting next year, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
 ... promises to give lots of countries unhappy with the numbers
assigned to them new, and presumably more prestigious, digits.
Bureaucrats and politicians care deeply about this.

The article goes on to discuss Europe in particular:

The most frantic to get new numbers are the countries of the ex-Soviet
Union.  Lumped in with Russia under the single-number code 7, they
want to become part of Europe -- and that means getting a 3 or 4 as
the first digit to their national code.  The former East Germany's
precious 37 becomes vacant next year when the two Germanies unify
telephonically on the West's 49.  At the ITU, the Baltic states are
busy lobbying against Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which now
share, none too happily, the number-2 prefix with African countries
and also want to lay claim to the former East Germany's 37.

I personally don't see why there should be any dispute.  The countries
under question are all tiny enough to merit three-digit country codes,
so splitting the former 37 into ten new codes (370...379) should
satisfy all five of them, not to mention Moldova and the ex-Yugoslav
countries of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, and Macedonia to
boot (should any of them also desire new codes).

Does anybody happen to know what other countries (if any) are "unhappy
with the numbers assigned to them" and are lobbying the ITU for new
codes?


Bob Goudreau        Data General Corporation
[e-mail]    62 Alexander Drive
[phone]        Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: 09 Jun 92 18:22:26 EDT
From: Lynne Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: McCormick, Trade Shows, Union Involvement


Bill Nickless's posting reminded me of my last exhibit at NCC in
Chicago (around '85).  Unfortunately for Chicago/McCormick, the
difficulty with the trade unions really hampers their ability to
attract and keep the shows and participation among vendors high.  I'll
never forget the poor folks that were exhibiting for a Japanese
computer comany: the union guys INSISTED on installing the computer
(yeah, right) and had the thing up on a forklift and dropped it.  It
was the day before the doors opened on the show and the firm had to
air express another system from Japan because the first one had been
damaged beyond repair.

I spoke with a number of representatives of exhibiting companies and
was told that they'd never do another show in Chicago.  I guess
stringing cable is one thing.  Installing and moving sensitive
equipment is another.  As it ended up, my company was lucky.  Only our
booth was damaged.


Good luck!

Lynne Gregg

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
Subject: TDD For Portable Computer
Date: 9 Jun 1992 19:11:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.


Does anyone know of a small portable, preferably battery operated TDD
that could be connected to a portable computer to turn it into a TDD?
It would be nice to find something that was acoustically coupled.

Please reply to me directly:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 12:08:27 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alfredo Cotroneo)
Subject: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins


David Hyams, Ascom Autelca Berne, Switzerland wrote:

> Swiss public payphones are designed to accept Swiss, German and French
> coins.  In areas close to the French and German borders (eg. Basel)
> the payphones will normally accept all three currencies. In areas
> further "inland" the payphones have been programmed to accept Swiss
> coins only.

I have never seen a Swiss phone in Ticino (the Italian speaking part
of Switzerland, next to the border with Italy) which accepted Italian
coins (nor would the Swiss Phone Offices in Ticino accept Italian
Lire!)

I simply wonder why ... ;-)!


Alfredo Cotroneo, Milano, Italy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: *67 *69 *70 etc.
Date: 10 Jun 92 11:51:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Organization: ESF Headquarters, Berlin, FRG


People in this newsgroup seem to talk about these different codes
(e.g. *67 *69 *70) as if all TELCOs were using the same ones. Is there
indeed some sort of standardisation? Is this a de facto standard or
some kind of regulation?

If the answer to the first question is yes, could anyone post an
exhaustive list of these codes, together with a little explanation of
each feature?

Sorry if this sounds obvious to American readers, but I believe it
isn't for European ones (at least not for me!).

BTW, IMHO this ought to be in the comp.dcom.telecom FAQ, but I've
never seen one. Does it exist?


Eric Tholome     ESF Headquarters      Internet: [e-mail]
                 Hohenzollerndamm 152  UUCP:     [e-mail]
                 D-1000 Berlin 33      Ph.:      [phone]
                             Germany   Fax:      [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The telecom FAQ is located in the Telecom Archives,
accessible using anonymous ftp:  lcs.mit.edu    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #468
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06705;
          11 Jun 92 3:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01437
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 01:02:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17522
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 01:02:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 01:02:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #469

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jun 92 01:02:48 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 469

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Baltimore Sun via Paul Robinson)
    New List - CPSR (Paul Hyland)
    Leading 1's and Toll Calls (Jerry Leichter)
    Supercomm '92 Chicago (John Gilbert)
    Remaining Area Codes (Michael M. O'Dorney)
    Voucher Received From IntegreTel (Carl Moore)
    What is "SLC-96"? (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Smart Fault Tolerant Mux (Charles Yamasaki)
    Novel Use of a Cellphone (Steven S. Brack)
    Wanted: Dialogic Card (Brian Crawford)
    Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? (Jim Langridge)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92  20:51:58 EDT
Subject: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number


[Photo: Untypical nuclear family, Husband, Wife, two kids (boy and
girl) and a dog sit on the floor in front of a beige desk Touch Tone
phone.  Map next to them shows that where they live (the Kendall Ridge
area, between Columbia and Ellicott City, Maryland) is 1/4 mile beyond
the "official" line drawn for the Columbia Exchange area.  This area
is area about 10 miles from Baltimore and 30 miles from Washington, DC.]

Caption: Randy and Karen Allen, with their children, Stephanie and
Michael, don't want C&P to rectify its mistake and give them a new
telephone number.

C&P Changes Exchanges - And Calls up Trouble

[{The Sun} - Baltimore, June 10, 1992, Page B1]

By Leslie Cauley
Staff Writer

   Can the phone company give -- and take away -- your phone number at
will?

   That's the question the Public Service Commission will explore in a
series of public hearings beginning tomorrow night in Columbia.  At
issue is whether Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. has the right to
cancel a customer's phone number and hand out a new one if it decides,
for whatever reason, that a change is needed.

   The hearings stem from a situation in the Ellicott City area of
Howard County that has left C&P officials with red faces -- and phone
customers in Kendall Ridge stomping mad: It seems that over the past
several years C&P mistakenly assigned some Kendall Ridge customers --
138 so far -- to the Columbia calling exchange.

   That exchange -- that is, the first three digits of the seven-digit
phone number -- allows customers to call the Washington suburbs of
Silver Spring as well as the metropolitan Baltimore area without an
extra charge.

   The remaining 122 accounts in Kendall Ridge are properly assigned
to the Ellicott City exchange.  As the company intended, those callers
have broad access into Columbia and metropolitan Baltimore.  But they
can't call Silver Spring without paying extra.

   "It was human error, plain and simple," explains Jim Tracy, staff
manager of regulatory relations for C&P.

   As best as C&P can figure, those wrong assignments began six or
seven years ago and continued unabated until February, when new
software uncovered the blunder.

   C&P told the misassigned customers shortly after that they had to
switch to a new telephone exchange -- or start paying extra.  In some
cases, customers would pay fees of as much as $72 a month to hold onto
their old numbers.

   That didn't sit well with some Kendall Ridge residents with the
Columbia exchange who by now are accustomed to calling into the
suburbs of Washington without paying a toll charge.

   That would include customers such as Randy Allen, a two-year
resident of Kendall Ridge who works in Silver Spring.

   "Why should I suffer because the company screwed up?" fumes Mr.
Allen, co-chair of the Kendall Ridge Telephone Task Force, a newly
formed neighborhood alliance that is fighting C&P's plans.

   Some customers, however, aren't upset.  C&P says a few misalligned
customers who were paying extra to be on the Ellicott City exchange --
that is, the correct City exchange -- have been reimbursed by the
company.  One customer received $2,000 from C&P as repayment.

   But for Mr. Allen and others, holding onto their existing phone
numbers will be expensive if C&P prevails at the commission.

   Under the C&P plan, residents who want to keep their existing
Columbia exchange would have to pay between $17.25 and $72 a month
extra.  That's in addition to the $16.15 a month for basic phone
service.

   C&P contends that it needs the right to switch customers into new
telephone exchanges as it deems fit to administer the two million
accounts it handles each month in an orderly fashion.

   Although there is no technical reason why some communities, such as
Kendall Ridge, must be in one telephone exchange or another, C&P
contends that it needs to treat similarly located customers in a
similar manner.

   "We admit there was a human error, but to perpetuate that error
would be to continue a discrimination." Mr. Tracy said.  "When we
find an error, we try to correct it.  Two errors never do make
a right."

   The company's argument has already struck out with the People's
Counsel, which is responsible for representing the interests of
ratepayers before the commission.

   That's an argument you're going to believe only if it's in your
interest to believe it," People's Counsel John M. Glynn said.  "The
fact is, people at some point somewhere are going to have different
exchanges."

   C&P is hoping the commission will take a different view, because it
is likely that other, undiscovered situations similar to that in
Kendall Ridge are lurking out there.

   Mr. Tracy said C&P has ordered a slew of updated state maps in
the wake of the Kendall Ridge blunder.  He said C&P would update
its exchange maps accordingly and make changes as needed.

   The result?  A new phone exchange may be coming your way soon.

   "That's entirely possible," Mr. Tracy said.  "It's foolish for us
to think we won't uncover a few more Kendall Ridges."

[Date and time of hearing omitted]


[Moderator's Note: This is like what happened when the suburbs were
split away from the Chicago 312 area code. At various places around
the northwest side of Chicago where the city boundary line is obscure
and or difficult to detirmine by an untrained person, there were lots
of businesses -- along Harlem Avenue for example -- who ordered
service and gave their address as xxxx Harlem, Chicago when it was
really Norridge instead.  Either way, the service comes from the CO
known as Newcastle, and instead of cosulting their atlas and street
reference guides, IBT service reps just assigned whatever number they
thought was correct. When 708/312 split, all of a sudden there are
isolated instances of 312 on the west side of Harlem Avenue and 708
on the east side. A shopping mall near there had a mix of 312/708
numbers in stores next to each other. Two payphones in the mall
hanging from the same mounted frame on a pole: one 312, one 708. So
some folks got their number changed and weren't happy about it.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 16:51:43 EDT
From: Paul Hyland <[e-mail]>
Subject: New List - CPSR


Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) has set up a
list server to (1) archive CPSR-related materials and make them
available on request, and (2) disseminate relatively official, short,
CPSR-related announcements (e.g., press releases, conference
announcements, and project updates).  It is accessible via Internet
and Bitnet e-mail.  Mail traffic will be light; the list is set up so
that only the CPSR Board and staff can post to it.  Because it is
self-subscribing, it easily makes material available to a wide
audience.

We encourage you to subscribe to the list server and publicize it
widely, to anyone interested in CPSR's areas of work.

To subscribe, send mail to:

        [e-mail] (Internet) OR
        listserv@gwuvm (Bitnet)

Your message needs to contain only one line:

        subscribe cpsr <your first name> <your last name>

You will get a message that confirms your subscription.  The message
also explains how to use the list server to request archived materials
(including an index of everything in CPSR's archive), and how to
request more information about the list server.

Please continue to send any CPSR queries to [e-mail].

If you have a problem with the list server, please contact the
administrator, Paul Hyland ([e-mail] or phyland@gwuvm).

We hope you enjoy this new service.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 16:49:52 EDT
From: JERRY LEICHTER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Leading 1's and Toll Calls


In the past, there's been debate in TELECOM Digest as to whether it
was ever "official policy" that a leading 1 indicated a "toll call".
Here's an interesting bit of evidence about SNET's thinking on the
subject: A couple of months back, SNET changed the "Stamford Toll Free
Calling Area" by adding three exchanges, 531, 532, and 552, in Byram,
a part of the adjacent town of Greenwich.  In a letter they sent to
all "Stamford Exchange Customers", they say that all such calls with
become "(toll-free) local calls".  (They used to be in-state toll
calls, at maybe eight cents a minute -- very expensive compared to the
non-measured local service I've got.)

There is no discussion of this in either the letter or anywhere I can
find in the phone book, but the following is a fact: Before the
changeover, 1+ was REQUIRED for calls to these exchanges.  After the
changeover, 1+ is FORBIDDEN.


Jerry

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Supercomm '92 Chicago
Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:14:22 GMT


Supercomm 92 will be held June 15-18 at McCormick Place in Chicago,
Illinois.  This telecommunications industry show is Co-sponsored by
the United States Telephone Association, The Telecommunications
Industry Association, and The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers.

 From The Supercomm program update:

Now is the time to get ready for the biggest telecommunications event
of the year. And it all begins by reading this comprehensive booklet
that describes the broad array of seminars, exhibits, forums, and
panel discussions that will take place.

Once again, SUPERCOMM will colocate with the International Conference
on Communications (ICC) this year in Chicago at McCormick Place.  This
world-class exhibition and two premier conferences promise to be even
more exciting, informative and global than ever before.

Over 450 exhibiting companies and 20,000 industry professionals from
more than 80 countries are expected to attend.  This is your chance to
meet and network with potential customers, worldwide teaming partners,
the innovators changing our industry, leading telcos, interexchange
carriers, telcom/MIS managers and more.

Imagine, three series of programming ranging from non-technical to
technical.  Plus the largest collection of telecommunications
equipment all under one roof.  Also, new product demonstrations that
will change the way you think about telecommunications.  There's so
much to see and do at SUPERCOMM/ICC '92!  You'll be able to choose
from the following:

Tuesday-Thursday are free exhibit days.  You'll need all those days to
see the more than 400,000 square feet of high-tech displays and new
product introductions as company after company show of the best they
have to offer.  Please remember that the exhibts will not be open
Monday.

Seminars and lectures on three different levels.  Three different
educational levels plus many tutorials and workshops you choose the
tracks which will benefit you most, and the speakers will bring you
insight into a multitude of telecommunicaions issues.

For General Information:

Telecommunications Industry Association
150 N. Michigan Avenue   Suite 600
Chicago, IL  USA 60601-7524
Phone [phone]  FAX [phone]
TELEX: 595236 USTSACGO


John Gilbert              Secure and Advanced Conventional
KA4JMC                    Systems Division
[e-mail]    Motorola Communications Sector
post: CPGR17              Schaumburg, Illinois


[Moderator's Note: Anyone coming to town for the show wishing to meet
me can send email.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael M. O'Dorney)
Subject: Remaining Area Codes
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 14:57:53 GMT


What are the remaining area codes, where are they going to be, and
when are they going to be turned on?  What is the game plan for the
"New" area codes (those not in the x0x/x1x format)?

Also, about three years ago, I heard a rumor that Nova Scotia would
lose the 902 area code and be absorbed into another area code (709 or
506).  Is this technically (enough available exchanges) or politically
(area code covering two provinces) possible?  The 902 was to be given
to western Washington outside Seattle.  I heard this from a printer in
southern California who monitored area code changes so that his
customers would not print too much stationery before A/C changes.


Michael M. O'Dorney         | Voice: 206-237-1274 (work)
Boeing Commercial Airplanes |
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 96-02    | Internet:   [e-mail]
Seattle  WA  98124-2207     | Boeing net: mmo2273@aw2

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 10:08:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voucher Received From IntegreTel


I have received a check which can only be applied to the IntegreTel
portion of my phone bill.  It is made out to Diamond State
[Telephone], dated 5/19/92, and for the amount of $4.43 .  The bank
name on the check is Plaza Bank of Commerce, 55 Almaden Road, San
Jose, CA 95113; the bank number is "90-3762/1211".

Elsewhere in the mailing, it says that it includes applicable federal
taxes.  But the amount I had withheld from my phone bill payment was
not $4.43, but $4.69 .  What about the extra 0.26?  That was the Penn-
sylvania tax (the call was within Pennsylvania).  I'll pay the 0.26
under protest.

The IntegreTel check is too long to fit in my regular phone bill
payment envelope.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is "SLC-96"?
Date: 8 Jun 92 13:32:52 PDT
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA


I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
"numbers" onto a single pair.


    --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Yamasaki)
Subject: Smart Fault Tolerant Mux
Organization: U.S. D.O.L - Occupational Safety & Health Admin.
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1992 20:13:32 GMT


I'm looking for something that may well not exist, but here goes.  We
currently have four 19.2k leased lines to a mainframe site and are in
the process of moving to a new site.  I would like to replace these
with the following:

2-56K leased lines connected to a single mux at each end that can
support multiple V.35 interfaces from 9.6 to 56K.  The device should
multiplex these channels, but spread the traffic across the two lines
unless one goes down in which case it should simply step down and do
the best it can with the remaining line.

I've seen articles about inverse mux'es, but I haven't seen anything
about a combination mux/inverse mux (which is what this sounds like to
me).

Does anybody know about such a product?

How stable is the technology?

Who makes it and how do I contact them?

I need this info ASAP because we will be putting this into producion
before too long.  Please respond via E-Mail because news expires here
before I can catch up.


Thanks!!!

Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not
[e-mail]  | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-)

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

Date: 09 Jun 1992 18:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Novel Use of a Cellphone


According to UPI, a legislator in the Canadian province of Manitoba
named Maurice Laurdeneau was kidnapped and locked in the trunk of his
car.

He summoned the police, as his kidnapper was making away with him, and
was rescued shortly thereafter.

I suppose this just goes to show that the new tools of telecom are
having a real impact on many areas of life, including crime.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 18:57:23 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Dialogic Card

Wanted to buy:

A four or 12-line dialogic card.  If anyone has a used one for sale,
please contact me at any of the address listed below.  Please include
price with your description of the card.


Thank you.

Brian Crawford   InterNet: [e-mail]  (Temporary)
PO Box 804       [e-mail]  (Permanent)
Tempe, Arizona  85280    [e-mail] (Alternate)
USA      UseNet:   {sunburn.west.sun.com}[e-mail]
Fax: [phone]  FidoNet:  1:114/15.12

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 12:06:48 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How?


I have been asked for a set of Erlang tables by someone in my office.

Can anyone tell me where to find them?  Are they updated as time
passes?  What ever anyone can tell me would help.  The main one they
need is Erlang C.

"I wonder what kind of thread this could start???"


Jim Langridge  [e-mail]  703 663-2137

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #469
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23379;
          11 Jun 92 10:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02361
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:46:15 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21360
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:46:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 07:46:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #470

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jun 92 07:46:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 470

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More AT&T Billing Problems (Timothy K. Hong)
    DOD Squelches Patents (John Gilbert)
    Government Taking Inventions (David A. Banisar)
    Apple's Newton Personal Digital Assistant (Corinna Polk)
    What Causes Lack of Dial Tones? ([e-mail])
    Re: 'Area Code' 710 (Paul Robinson)
    710 Area Code is Used by Federal Government (Tim Gorman)
    Automated Menu Systems (Monty Solomon)
    CF&P Radio (Gregg McVicar)
    Tapping Digital Connections (Steven S. Brack)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 11 Jun 92 03:37:00 UT
Subject: More AT&T Billing Problems


Maybe I spoke too soon when I said that I had very little trouble with
my phone bills.  I just got my latest bill this week, and there on the
second page was a $2.87 charge from AT&T for a call from Los Angelas
to Kansas City.

Three things caught my attention right away.  The first being that my
IXC is Long Distance/USA.  The second was that I live in Hawaii, and
this call was from California to Kansas.  This definitely meant that
this was a third number billing call.  So, I asked everyone living in
the house, whether they had approved such a call.  Of course, no one
did.  Which makes you wonder, what happened to the operator?  Third,
all my calls made away from home are done on my AT&T Universal card,
so I should only see calls made from Hawaii on my phone bill.  (Yes, I
use two long distance carriers, possibly three, if you don't include
the fact that Sprint took over Long Distance/USA.  Long Distance still
has its own access code.)

I called the local billing office (no 1-800 number here).  The
customer rep was very friendly.  She looked up the name of the calling
party in LA and asked if I new the person.  Nope.  This was a third
party call, she told me.  What probably happened was that they pushed
the wrong buttons.  Unfortunately, these things do happen, she said.
However, she would see to it that my account was credited in next
months bill.  She was so nice, that I couldn't even begin to ask why
the AT&T operator never called for verification.  Could it be that I
always let my AT&T answering machine pick up the phone, and it gave
the okay?

I can't wait to see next month's bill.  I thought this was going to be
a lot harder, considering all the horror stories I've read here.  I
didn't even have to bother calling Hawaiian Tel's customer service.
The Aloha Spirit is still alive and well here.


Timothy Hong  (GTE Hawaiian Tel - CUSTOMER & employee)
GTEMail: t.hong   Internet: [e-mail]

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed here are strictly my own.  They
belong to no one else, and in no way reflect the policies of my
employer.  If I have offended anyone, I apologize, it wasn't intended.

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: DOD Squelches Patents
Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 23:39:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Tracy Ching) writes:

> Sorry, I'm not well read ... but, is Crystal Castles a fiction
> or non-fiction book?  It would seem that any invention (including
> nuclear devices) that is publicized usually doesn't warrant the
> attention from the FBI.  If anyone could name a few well known
> instances where the FBI -took- someone's invention and told them not
> to release the information, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 From what I understand, all patents are reviewed by the Defense
Department prior to being issued by the Patent and Trademark Office.
I have heard of cases where patents that seem to have no national
security implications have been rejected.  If publication of the
patent information would be a national security risk in DOD's eys,
they WILL get in touch with you.  My company has a special award
catagory set up so that when this happens you still get the same bonus
dollars you would have received if the patent issued.


John Gilbert             Secure and Advanced Conventional
KA4JMC                   Systems Division
[e-mail]   Motorola Communications Sector
post: CPGR17             Schaumburg, Illinois

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

From: David A. Banisar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government Taking Inventions
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 12:12:00 GMT


Under the Invention Secrecy Act, it is possible for the government to
step in and classify an invention and order the inventor to not
discuss it with anyone. This has occured many times in the last 40
years, mostly for equipment that has cryptography. In the late
seventies (78, I believe) the government classified an invention
called ?the Phaserphone?  which would have provided voice encryption
for around $100. They also classified an invention by Prof. George
Davida of the University of Wisconsin. Both were allow to continue
after public outcry.  More recently, in 1986, the NSA tried to
classify research done by Adi Shamir at the Weitzman Institute in
Israel. They backed down after this became public. I?m sure there are
many other instances where this has occured. Anyone else have
examples?


David Banisar <> [e-mail]
Computer Professionals for Social Responsiblity
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #303  Washington, D.C. 20003
Voice  - [phone]  <> Fax  - (202) 547- 5481

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Apple's Newton Personal Digital Assistant
Date: 9 Jun 1992 14:04:36 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Taken from {MacWeek} 06/08/92, p8:

DEVELOPERS LINE UP TO DO PDA HOOKUPS
by April Streeter

   A platoon of developers promised robust communication capabilities
for Apple's {Personal Digital Assistant} Newton.

   Motorola Inc.'s Paging and Telepoint Systems Group, based in
Boynton Beach, FL, plans one-way wireless messaging capabilities for
Newton similar to those available for Hewlett Packard Co's 95LX
palmtop. But company sources said that development of a
Newton-compatible NewsStream driver has not begun because Apple has
not provided specifications.

   Traveling Software Inc. of Bothell, Wash., said its Universal
Communications Object, a new technology designed to provide
connectivity for any operating system and any media, will work with
Newton. The company will ship a PCMCIA {Personal Computer Memory Card
Industry Association} card that will let Newton exchange data with DOS
systems.

   SkytTel Corp. will put its wireless messaging servics on a Newton,
said Dave Garrison, president of the Washington, D.C.-based paging
company.  He said a PCMCIA card due next year will let the device
filter SkyTel data and alert the user that a message has arrived.

   Bellcore, Inc. said {Apple Computer's Personal Digital Assistant}
Newton will extend telephone services such as call waiting and caller
ID.

   Said Barry Schwartz, executive director of voice services for the
Livingston, NJ-based research arm of the regional Bell operating
companies: You'd just plug it into the telephone, and when a call
comes in Newton would look in its internal directory, display the
caller's name and maybe even bring up a record of your last
conversation."

   Schwartz said his company's Analog Display Services Interface
(ADSI) protocol will be ready for Apple and third-party developers by
the end of the year.

   But Newton may not be ready for ADSI, sources said. The first
Newtons reportedly will be short on telephone-communications savvy.
Aside from vague ideas about Newton's mobile Appletalk protocol stack
and operating system, these companies said they don't know exactly how
Newton will support promised connectivity.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 00:48:14 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Shag)
Subject: What Causes Lack of Dial Tones?


NJ Bell has promised me they'll fix this, but I figured I'd ask ...

I don't have a dialtone.  I can't do a thing on my line.  Before
everyone writes this off to customer wiring ... there are no phones on
my line.  My line goes from the street to an interface box, and ends
at the test jack.  There's no dial tone in the test jack, just a faint
hiss.  My bills are paid, the jack gets used maybe three times a year,
when I change what number it forwards to at the local net.dialin.
*evil grin*

Since it's only used for forwarding, this problem may have existed for
several months, without being noticed.

Just wondering what conditions (in the telco wiring) can cause this.


Shag

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92  20:55:41 EDT
Subject: Re: 'Area Code' 710


Someone wrote me a private note to ask if there was an area code 710,
i.e. "How about calling 710 555 1212 and asking the operator who this
area code serves.  Even if they don't tell us, we will learn something."

Well, they didn't tell us; in short, there's nobody there.

 From this government agency I am a contractor for, I went to a
telephone without restrictions, and I used the FTS-2000 network to try
the number.  I dialed '8' to get a dial tone, and dialed 710-555-1212.
I did this before during the flood in Chicago when someone wanted to
call the Transit Authority and find out which parts were damaged and
thus inaccessible, and I had called information in Chicago to get the
number to the CTA.  After trying this, I then called commercially by
dialing 9-1-710-555-1212.

In both cases, I got a recording indicating that the call could not be
completed.

In short, the 'Area Code' 710 is used for U.S. Telex numbers on
Western Union and for connection to some other carriers, and is not
being used as a 'Government Service' number.


[Moderator's Note: A Southwestern Bell person disagrees with you and
says it is in use for 'special government services'.  Read the next
message.  PAT]

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

Date: 10 Jun 92 16:04:07 EDT
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 710 Area Code is Used by Federal Government


Pat,

I am unsure just how much information is to be given out about 710.
Mr. Newton is right, however, in that it is for special government
services and they do have a designated use for it.


Tim Gorman


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Gorman, since you are employed by Southwestern
Bell, I do not want to cause you any jeopardy ... but are you
permitted to explain *anything at all* about 710?  Can you tell us who
will discuss it?  Is this in the realm of national security or defense?
Would the CIA/FBI/Pentagon know about it?   Thanks.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 06:23:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Menu Systems


[e-mail] (Bill Everts) wrote:

> I agree that ring-no-answer is worse than an answering machine.
> However, what some businesses are doing to automate their phone
> systems is criminal!

I recently tried to reach a friend at work.  They have an automated
system which tells the caller that he doesn't answer the phone or that
he is on the phone!

This particular system doesn't appear to have individual OGMs.

He was on the phone when I called and the system asked me if I wanted
to hold.  This system apparently doesn't have a camp-on feature and
periodically notified me that it was trying the extension.  After
repeating this about three times, it made me press a key to remain on
the line.  Of course, I had the call on the speakerphone and was busy
across the room and got disconnected when I wouldn't respond.  I tried
calling him several times and became quite annoyed at the stupid
system.

Whoever programmed this system should be shot.

Audix is another example of a voice mail system with a poor user interface.

The Rolm PhoneMail system is quite nice.

The industry should agree on some standard user interface for the
common and basic features of voice mail systems and answering
machines.


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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 01:57 GMT
From: Gregg McVicar <[e-mail]>
Subject: CF&P Radio


CFP-II Radio Public radio listeners across the nation will have
"virtual front row seats" at the Second Annual Conference on
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.  The sessions were recorded at the
March conference by Bruce Koball and digitally edited for broadcast
by Gregg McVicar (The Privacy Project). Ten one-hour programs
will be available to stations through the public radio satellite
system, beginning June 23rd.

1 Bruce Sterling "Speaking for the Unspeakable".
2 Ethics, Morality, and Criminality.
3 Logging on to the Networks of the Future.
4 Free Speech and the Public Telephone Network.
5 Who's in Your Genes? Genetic Data Banking & Privacy.
6 Private Collection of Personal Information.
7 Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in the Digital Library.
8 Computers in the Workplace: Elysium or Panopticon?
9 Who Holds the Keys? Cryptography, Privacy, and Security.
10 Public Policy for the 21st Century.

Each station decides independently whether or not to air a program
offering and where to place it in its broadcast schedule.  Therefore,
interested listeners are advised to immediately contact the program
director at their public radio station to request local broadcast of
the COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, & PRIVACY series. KALW in San Francisco,
Oregon Public Broadcasting, KPBS in San Diego, WYEP in Pittsburgh, and
WUMB in Boston plan to air the programs this summer and have
graciously provided seed funding for the project.

For more information, contact Gregg McVicar at Pacific Multimedia
[phone], or [e-mail].

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

Date: 09 Jun 1992 18:34:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Tapping Digital Connections


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
> edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

>> Digital taps are clean, cheap, and
>> completely undetectable from the sub's point of view.  The only
>> disadvantage is that for minimum difficulty, the governmnet needs to
>> go through the telco to emplace the tap.

'course, you've got to wonder whether the telco will charge the
FBI for Three-Way Calling.    8)

>> If desired, that can be
>> worked around.  A PC-box storing packets from a specific subscriber is
>> technically feasable, and [s]houldn't be outrageously expensive.

> We have a couple of T1s to US West, our LEC, and one T1 to
> our IXC.  When I place an outgoing call, one of the channels of one of
> the T1s is selected, and the call gets set up.  The CO has absolutely
> no way of knowing who is calling[.]
> So, if the FBI or other law enforcement agency were to have a warrant
> for a wiretap for my office phone, there's no practical way to monitor
> my (outgoing) calls from the CO without listening to ALL of the
> outgoing calls from all 200 people here.  Not only would this take a
> huge staff, but would also infringe on the privacy rights of my 199
> co-workers.

Of course, sampling and voice frequency matching aside, you,
personally, don't have phone service at work.  The PBX, the
connections, and probably even the phonesets are owned and paid for by
your employer.  Ergo, the FBI would have to get a warrant authorizing
a tap of *your employer's* lines, if they think you are doing
something illegal at work.

Or, the FBI could capture the entire data stream, then select your
call out, either by voice recognition, or by telco/PBX recordkeeping,
like SMDR.

> Actually, the more I think about it, this really isn't much of an
> analog-vs-digital issue, it's more of a shared-trunk issue.

OK.  Does anyone know how wiretaps were arranged in the days
of party lines?  It seems that we're dealing with the same problem,
but on a larger scale.


[Moderator's Note: I think what you will find is that in 'party line
days' things generally were a lot more laid back: people were much
less sophisticated about their rights, and although warrants were
obtained when needed, as often as not the FBI (for example) did pretty
much as it pleased.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #470
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23925;
          11 Jun 92 10:18 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27931
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 08:03:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22772
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 11 Jun 1992 08:02:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 08:02:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Updated USA/Canada Area Code List


[Moderator's Note: Here is an updated list of area codes submitted by
Paul Robinson. You may with to file this with other telecom reference
materials.  PAT]

  From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
  Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92  21:52:13 EDT
  Subject: List of U.S. Area Codes


Area Code List for the United States                   June 8, 1992

The following are the area codes for the United States and Canada.
Dial +1 from outside the U.S. or Canada to call a number.

All telephone numbers in the United States and Canada are 10 digits in
length, consisting of a 3 digit area code (as shown below), followed
by a 3 digit prefix and four digit suffix.  All area codes are based
on a numbering system called NPA, or Numbering Plan Area, in which the
code is as follows:

The first digit of an area code is 2 through 9.  The second digit is a
0 or a 1.  The third digit is 0 through 9.  There are a few
combinations that are not normally used because they are used for
other purposes.  Certain area codes are set up for special purposes,
as shown below.

Prefixes are the three digit number following an area code.  Prefixes
start with the number 2 through 9, followed by any two digits of 0
through 9.  People who deal with telephone systems will sometimes use
the term NXX to refer in general to a prefix number. Prefixes
generally indicate a geographic location of the called party within a
particular area code, or in rare cases are used for special services.
The prefix code 555 is used for directory assistance in most area
codes. The prefix code 950 is often used for connection to telephone
carriers' computer systems or for a special class of called-party-pays
telephone number similar to the 800 area code (see note 1, below).
The prefix code 976 is generally used as a special class of surcharged
telephone services, with calls being charged at rates from US 20c per
call or US 20c per minute, to as high as US $20.00 per call or US
$4.00 per minute. (This is similar to the area code 900 mentioned in
note 2, below).

When someone is calling a number in the same area code, they normally
do not have to dial the area code to call, they simply dial 7 digits.
When calling from offices that have internal telephone systems, called
PBXs, one usually dials "9" to get an outside line, followed by a 7
digit local number.  If the number is in the same area code but is a
toll charge call, usually one must dial "1" and the 7 digit number.

Calls made to another area code from within the U.S. are usually
dialed by calling "1" then the area code and the 7 digit number.
With the exception of the 700, 800, and 900 area codes, an area code
is used exclusively for a single state.

Where C appears immediately after the area code in the list below,
the area code  is for a Canadian Province.

Recent reports indicate that most of the available unused area codes
will be used up within a few years.  At least two area codes were made
available when Mexico was separated from the United States into an
international number.  Some time could be gained by such methods as
moving area code 809 to an international code, and moving Canadian
provinces to international code.  This might buy some time, but the
obvious "solution" is to extend area codes by making the middle digit
of an area code be any number from 0 through 9.  This would add
hundreds of new area codes but it might mean having to dial 10 digits
to call someone across the street, as is currently the situation in
the metropolitan area of Washington, DC.

While the international dialing codes are standard, generally, Area
codes in the United States are not uniform, and were more-or-less
assigned as needed.


Special notes regarding some area codes:

Note 1. Telephone numbers in the 800 area code are called-party-pays
        numbers, called "WATS" or "toll free" calls; a caller within
        the area served by the 800 number may call that number at no
        charge as the caller.  Callers at Pay Telephones often can
        dial an 800 number without deposit of coin, as the number is
        a "recipient pays"  number, called "collect," "toll free" or
        "reverse charges" in the U.S.  Note that 800 numbers dialed
        from outside the U.S. may require that the caller pay for the
        call depending on which carrier has issued the 800 number and
        from what country you are calling from.  In some cases it may
        not be possible to call some 800 numbers because there is no
        means to access the carrier from outside of the United States,
        or the number is for use only for calls from part of one state,
        or a specific geographical area of the U.S.

Note 2. Telephone numbers in the 900 area code are used for telephone
        service providers who are paid a fee for each call received,
        which can range from US 20c per minute to US $20 per call.
        Note that some telephone numbers in the 900 area code may or
        may not be dialable from outside the United States. The same
        rule applies to any local exchange number in an area code
        which begins with "976", as mentioned above, depending on
        whether the particular telephone company is tariffed to offer
        the service in other areas.

Note 3. The 700 area code is reserved for use of each individual
        telephone carrier who may assign numbers for their own use or
        for persons who are customers of that carrier.  Some numbers
        may be reserved by the carrier for connection to it for such
        things as finding out which carrier serves a line, some numbers
        may be reserved for conference call dial in numbers and/or
        setup numbers.  At least one carrier is going to issue 700 area
        code numbers to individuals to allow them to use the number
        assigned as a forwarded number to some other telephone number,
        with the option of either charging the caller a fee to call the
        number or the subscriber of the number deciding accept the
        charge similar to an 800 number.  Some carriers may install
        some services similar to area code 900 numbers on area code
        700 lines.  In some cases it may not be possible to reach some
        700 area code numbers because one cannot obtain access to the
        telephone carrier supplying the 700 area code, or that particular
        number is only available in some states, or one cannot connect
        to that carrier from outside of the U.S.

Note 4. The 700 area code is also being used by the Federal Government
        under its FTS-2000 system, in which telephone numbers which
        were 7 digits on the internal telephone system, are being
        translated back into the area code and commercial public
        (ordinary) telephone number they were originally issued to.  In
        some cases some telephones do not have actual commercial
        numbers and are assigned their 7-digit FTS number with area
        code 700 in front of them.  These numbers are not dialable
        except from U.S. Government telephones which are connected to
        the FTS-2000 network, or have authority to use the FTS carrier
        code 10FTS or the interconnect number 1-800-OFFNET-4.

Note 5. Some U.S. Government numbers which are on the Sprint "B"
        FTS-2000 network which do not have regular commercial public
        numbers as indicated in note 4, will be assigned the area code
        200 rather than 700.  Numbers on the AT&T "A" FTS-2000 network
        which do not have regular commercial numbers will generally be
        assigned to the 700 area code, as indicated in note 4.

Note 6. The 800 and 900 area codes are broken down piecemeal and
        individual three-digit prefixes are assigned to different long
        distance interexchange companies.  As such, you may or may not
        be able to reach a particular 800 or 900 area code if you are
        calling from outside of the U.S., depending on which carrier
        you are connected to once you reach the U.S., and because some
        numbers are restricted to access from certain parts of the
        country or are only available during certain times of the week.

Note 7. Area Code 905 is listed as not in use, some areas that do not
        have full international dialing use it as a ficticious area
        code for calls to Mexico.  This only works from some places
        within the U.S. and cannot be used for calls from outside the
        U.S.  There are reports that the area code 905 will be assigned
        to a part of Canada.

Note 8. Reports are that the area code 909 will be assigned to Canada.
        I am unable to confirm this at this time as the three major
        interexchange carriers do not show it assigned for anything.

Note 9. The code 710 is used for certain Telex II numbers on the telex
        network.

Note A. The code 610 is reported as in use for Canadian Telex numbers.

Note B. Area codes ending in 11 will probably not be used except as a
        last resort, because of the use of three digit codes for
        special three digit local numbers:

Note C. Some private pay telephone providers are using special code 211
        as the number for repair service for their pay telephones.

Note D. Advertisements, books and motion pictures often use the area
        code 311 as a ficticious area code, and the prefix 555
        ("KLondike 5") in any area code as a ficticious telephone
        exchange number.

Note E. The special code 411 is often used for connection to directory
        assistance.

Note F. The special code 611 is used for connection to telephone
        company repair service in some places.

Note G. The special code 911 is being used for a universal number for
        connection to police, fire and emergency services.


Send comments about this list to:

Paul Robinson
Mail Stop P-812
Washington, DC, USA 20555-0812
Internet:  [e-mail]

NOT USED:  200 (see note 5),        210,  211 (see note C),
           300,   311 (see note D), 400,  411 (see note E),
           500,   511,              600,  610 (see note A),
           611 (see note F),              710 (see note 9),
           711,   811,                    905 (see note 7),
           909 (see note 8),              911 (see note B)

200 *  NOT USED  (See note 5)
201    New Jersey
202    District of Columbia
203    Connecticut
204 C  Manitoba
205    Alabama
206    Washington
207    Maine
208    Idaho
209    California
210 N  NOT USED
211 *  NOT USED (See Note C)
212    New York
213    California
214    Texas
215    Pennsylvania
216    Ohio
217    Illinois
218    Minnesota
219    Indiana
300 N  NOT USED
301    Maryland
302    Delaware
303    Colorado
304    West Virginia
305    Florida
306 C  Saskatchewan
307    Wyoming
308    Nebraska
309    Illinois
310    California
311 *  NOT USED (See Note D)
312    Illinois
313    Michigan
314    Missouri
315    New York
316    Kansas
317    Indiana
318    Louisiana
319    Iowa
400 N  NOT USED
401    Rhode Island
402    Nebraska
403 C  Alberta, Northwest Territories, Yukon
404    Georgia
405    Oklahoma
406    Montana
407    Florida
408    California
409    Texas
410    Maryland
411 *  NOT USED (See Note E)
412    Pennsylvania
413    Massachusetts
414    Wisconsin
415    California
416 C  Ontario
417    Missouri
418    Quebec
419    Ohio
500 N  NOT USED
501    Arkansas
502    Kentucky
503    Oregon
504    Louisiana
505    New Mexico
506 C  New Brunswick
507    Minnesota
508    Massachusetts
509    Washington
510    California
511 N  NOT USED
512    Texas
513    Ohio
514 C  Quebec
515    Iowa
516    New York
517    Michigan
518    New York
519 C  Ontario
600 N  NOT USED
601    Mississippi
602    Arizona
603    New Hampshire
604 C  British Columbia
605    South Dakota
606    Kentucky
607    New York
608    Wisconsin
609    New Jersey
610 *  NOT USED (See note A)
611 *  NOT USED (See note F)
612    Minnesota
613 C  Ontario
614    Ohio
615    Tennessee
616    Michigan
617    Massachusetts
618    Illinois
619    California
700 *  Carrier Service  (See notes 3,4)
701    North Dakota
702    Nevada
703    Virginia
704    North Carolina
705 C  Ontario
706    Georgia (Effective June 1, 1992)
707    California
708    Illinois
709    California
710 *  NOT USED (See note 9)
711 N  NOT USED
712    Iowa
713    Texas
714    California
715    Wisconsin
716    New York
717    Pennsylvania
718    New York
719    Colorado
800 *  Toll Free  (See notes 1,6)
801    Utah
802    Vermont
803    South Carolina
804    Virginia
805    California
806    Texas
807 C  Ontario
808    Hawaii
809    Puerto Rico and Carribean Islands
810 N  NOT USED
811 N  NOT USED
812    Indiana
813    Florida
814    Pennsylvania
815    Illinois
816    Missouri
817    Texas
818    California
819 C  Northwest Territories
900 *  Dialing Service (See notes 2,6)
901    Tennessee
902 C  Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
903    Texas
904    Florida
905 *  NOT USED (See note 7)
906    Michigan
907    Alaska
908    New Jersey
909 *  NOT USED (See note 8)
910 N  NOT USED
911 *  NOT USED (See note G)
912    Georgia
913    Kansas
914    New York
915    Texas
916    California
917    New York
918    Oklahoma
919    North Carolina












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11454;
          12 Jun 92 2:42 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22732
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 12 Jun 1992 00:49:31 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30769
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 12 Jun 1992 00:49:18 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 00:49:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #471

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Jun 92 00:49:17 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 471

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Harry P. Haas)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Phil Wherry)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Brent Whitlock)
    Re: From the Usenet Rumor Department (Steven P. Mazurek)
    Re: Phones "Ringing Off the Hook" (Glenn R. Stone)
    Re: Digital Mixing (Rolf Meier)
    Re: Hotel Phone Charges - a Limey's View (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Hotel Phone Charges - a Yank's View (Randall L. Smith)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Clive Feather)
    Re: Ring Tones (Tony Harminc)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Floyd Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Harry P. Haas)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:27:37 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Owens) writes:

> In <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
> writes:

>> [... Description of Caller-ID "block-blocking" deleted ....]

>> The code *77 is a toggle; if you have Caller-ID, you dial *77 to
>> indicate you want to refuse calls from people who block their number;
>> then if you want to accept blocked calls, you dial *77 to disable this
>> feature.

>> [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
>> from people about *77 being a toggle. ...]

> After a while, some combination of the incessant wailing of his

  [... Cute story deleted . . .]

>" All this feedback is driving me nuts," quipped Townson. "It's as bad
> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
> -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

The original poster did not explicitly say there was no feedback.
Before we get carried away here ... Is this true??

When I type *73 to forward my calls I get an interupted (three times)
dial tone.  Twice interupted when I turn it off.  It seems as though
it would be painfully easy to provide audible feedback ... in fact
SILLY if it were not already true.  Does anyone know if there IS or IS
NOT audible feedback?

[PAT will now say ... "Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
from people about the audible feedback not being a synthesized voice
saying EXPLICITLY which mode you are in."  And of course, someone
will :=) ]


Harry Haas  GTRI/RIDL/EB    |    Georgia Tech Research Institute
Research Engineer II        |    Georgia Institute of Technology
404-528-7679                |    Atlanta Georgia, 30332
[e-mail]        |    "What makes it DO that?!" - Bones

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Phil Wherry)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 13:58:39 GMT


I'm a caller ID subscriber in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC,
so I tried out the *77 caller ID block-blocking feature. It worked,
but it's not implemented as a toggle without feedback -- at least not
in my CO. The code *77 caused me to be routed to a recording which
said that anonymous call blocking was now on. A second invocation of
*77 yielded the same result.  I tried *87, which gave me a recording
saying that anonymous call blocking was now off.

I wasn't able to exercise the feature further, since caller ID
blocking via *67 is not available in Virginia. I intend to find out
if/when this feature will be available in Virginia, and will let the
group know what I find out.


Phillip Wherry      Member of the Technical Staff
The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 14:17:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
> -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

Excuse please, Mr. Moderator, but your humble servant would beg to
point out that *70 is NOT a toggle.  It turns off Call Waiting for one
call.  If you don't HAVE call waiting normally, it DOESN'T turn it on!

The *67 and *77 complaints are valid criticisms, although I'll agree
with you that they're getting loud.


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] (Brent Whitlock)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 17:49:41 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
> -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

Illinois Bell's (Ameritech's) Call Waiting feature in the Champaign-Urbana
area does not implement *70 as a toggle.  To quote from the phone book:

"To cancel Call Waiting (where available):
   * Before placing a call press "*" button and 70 (rotary dial 1170)
   * Listen for dial tone; dial the number.
   * Call Waiting is automatically restored after you hang up."

This is the way I like it.  I can include 1170 in the telephone number
on my computer's terminal software to prevent call waiting from
disconnecting me without any problems. (1170 works for tone dialing as
well as *70.)

What telephone companies implement it as a toggle?  I wouldn't like
that at all.


    * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER:  I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * *
Brent Whitlock        Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology
[e-mail]    Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
            University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven P. Mazurek)
Subject: Re: From the Usenet Rumor Department
Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 16:46:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> jack.winslade%drbbs@
> ivgate.omahug.org writes:

>> 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.

        ... deleted text ...

> Whoever started the thread only heard half of what was originally said
> and probably didn't understand the half that he/she heard.  When this
> was done, it was called Service Observing and was essentially as Pat
> described.  Great pains were taken to ensure that a trustworthy person
> held the job AND that that person did not have (easy) access to the
> phone numbers of the lines that were being monitored. The sole purpose
> was to sample connection quality.

> I cannot speak for Wisconsin but in Illinois, Service Observing was
> eliminated about seven years ago.  There was too much potential for
> abuse and misunderstanding and with the advent of electronic and
> digital switching, they just weren't finding enough to make it worth
> the effort.

Just two more points: service observers were only allowed to monitor
the call to ensure that the call "completed" to something: person,
recording, etc.

With the introduction of SI Tones, the need to monitor pretty much
disappeared.


Steven P. Mazurek             | Email : {...,uunet,bcr,ohumc}!ameris!smazu
Ameritech Services            |         [e-mail]
Hoffman Estates, IL USA 60196 | Phone : [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: Phones "Ringing Off the Hook"
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:17:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Group W Bench


In the referenced article Bill Berbenich writes:

> I am curious about the origins of this oft-heard cliche.  Does it
> mean that the phone rang, even though it was already off the hook or
> does it mean that the phone rang so hard that it knocked itself off
> the hook?

The latter, sort of.  This generally refers to the Western Electric
wall-mounted, real-bell phones (the model number escapes me ...
anyone?) common in so many kitchens until the MFJ took hold ... the
phone rang so much one feared that the handset would get bounced out
of the holder.

More common in my experience is "... ringing off the wall", i.e.
enough bell-ringing vibration to (eventually) shake the phone
from its mountings.  I have severe doubts that either of these
phrases is more than hyperbole, but ... :) :) :) :) :)


Glenn R. Stone ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Rolf Meier)
Subject: Re: Digital Mixing
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 12:06:40 -0400
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> vixen![e-mail]
(26546-adams) writes:

> One of the added benefits of digital (aka PCM encoding) switching is
> that the actual samples of members on the bridge are *NOT* added!
> Conference bridging is accomplished through a simple distribution
> algorithm.  The transmitting signal (an encoded sample) is distributed
> to all other ports on the bridge as a receive signal.  Rather slick

There's a bit more to it than that.  What you described is what is
known as the "loudest talker" algorithm.  The DSP examines all the
incoming samples and distributes the signal with the highest level to
all other conferees (the listeners).  This algorithm works best for a
small number of parties (three to five or so).

For a larger number of parties, better audio quality is achieved by
more complex means.  The DSP converts each sample to a linear code,
adds them, divides by the number of parties, converts back to
companded PCM, and distributes this signal to the listeners.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Hotel Phone Charges - a Limey's View
Date: 11 Jun 92 15:05:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) writes:

    Stuff about hotel rip-off telephone rates deleted.

> I used my Visa-card-linked MCI card for my long-distance calls, and I
> did it from the payphones in the lobby. (PacBell, fortunately!).

    When staying at hotels, I always call from a phone company pay
phone in the lobby. If they don't have telco payphones I bitch loudly
to the current manager at the reception desk. My usual tone to hotels
that gouge on the telco rates and charge $180.00 per night for the
room is: "AT&T doesn't charge for beds, why should you charge for
phones?"

    When staying at places where I pay the bills and make the
bookings, I choose Motel 6 if there is one nearby. Why? Cos I get the
same bed as the Hyatt plus free local calls and no LD charges. Yes, I
choose a hotel because they don't charge me third world rates for
phones.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Re: Hotel Phone Charges - a Yank's View
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:19:25 GMT


[e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE) writes:

> And is it legal for the hotel to charge even for this type of 800
> number? I thought there was a blanket rule that 800 numbers must not
> attract any charge.

It must be legal.  I was in Oakbrook (Chicago suburb) a week ago and I
stayed at the Embassy Suites.  They royally screwed me on long
distance charges.  It ran almost $5.00 per call, regardless of call
duration.  I recall four calls that went like this.

1-614-xxx-xxxx - busy - charge $4.26
later,
1-614-xxx-xxxx - answering machine, 30 sec message - charge $5.09
later,
1-800-xxx-xxxx - sorry, the number you have dialed..., charge $3.93
later,
1-800-xxx-xxxx - connected, 20-30 minute discussion, charge $4.60

I don't see any rhyme or reason for these charges.  Nor did I have
time to argue the phone abuse along with some movie for $7.50 I
didn't see, nor the discount they promised (and I didn't get) for
taking a smoking room.  Grrr.

I refuse to use my calling card, just because the hotel may save all
the digits I punch in for later use.  B-|

> P.S.  I can write again about phone charges in UK hotels if this
> is of interest.

Yes, please do.


Cheers!

 - randy

[e-mail]  <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy  rls![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 5:25:43 BST


In Telecom 12.452.7 Peter Sleggs writes:

> Consider the situation of ANY toggle, a light switch is a fair
> example.  Convention is that when the lever is UP the light is ON
> (code requirement in some places).

Speak for yourself. In the United Kingdom, UP means OFF.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
Fax:   [phone] | United Kingdom

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 01:06:10 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Tones


[e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

> The much slower output of the gear train turned a drum filled with
> mercury. This, as you might expect, provided the ring cadence. After
> years of operation, the inside of the drum would become filthy with
> contaminants and crackling could be heard between rings. The severity
> of the crackling could reveal the age (or at least the time since the
> last cleaning) of the unit.

Interesting.  I can remember from my earliest days of "playing with
the phone" that the "silent" space between SxS rings was filled with a
sound that would build from silence immediately after the ring to a
sometimes ferocious background crackle just before the next ring.

I always assumed that this was a side effect that the ringing *signal*
(not tone) had on the called line -- perhaps temporarily cleaning up
various unintended diodes and other noisemakers on the line.  Perhaps
the explanation lies in the ringing generator itself.  But why would
the noise level be so predictably variable ?


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 13:02:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

(in reference to correcting errors in billed calls...)

> Suggestions, anyone? (BTW, accurate billing would also be nice :-)

One suggestion.  Don't even bother calling them up and asking about
the errors.  Mark the items on your bill that are in error and include
a note with your payment that you are not paying for the items that
are incorrect.  Mail in your payment.  Most likely that is the end of
the story.

I admit that I do not have to deal with deadbeats as you describe them
 ... but I've NEVER called some poor lowly clerk and tried to get a
sensible discussion of anything technical, and billing errors are very
technical.

While my bias is obvious, in that I am employed by the regulated long
distance company here, it is also true that my house mate handles the
commercial communications billings for Eielson AFB, near Fairbanks,
and she sends back pages and pages of not just false billings, but
impossible billings, every month!  There has never been one kick or
moan from the other end ... and actually she has had some considerable
difficulty getting them to notice some obvious patterns that should
cause someone to get excited!  (The false billings often originate
with, ahhhh, the same nice people you are dealing with ... ).

I see no point in discussing billing details with a clerk, or perhaps
even the first level supervisor.  If you get any higher than that and
someone tells you that errors don't happen ... use whatever facilities
you have to embarass them into submission and demand an apology.


Floyd

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #471
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13151;
          12 Jun 92 3:27 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 12 Jun 1992 01:24:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26230
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 12 Jun 1992 01:23:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 01:23:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #472

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Jun 92 01:23:53 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 472

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Some History of GTE-Florida (John Higdon)
    Re: Some History of GTE-Florida (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Some History of GTE-Florida (Joe Talbot)
    Re: GTE of S. California and Intralata Calls (Chris Arndt)
    Re: GTE of S. California and Intralata Calls (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: List of GTD-5 Observations (Jon Baker)
    Re: GTE/HSN (Jon Baker)
    Re: GTE-Bashing (Randy Gellens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 92 03:10 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida


tim gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #460:

>> This type of thing happens all the time. I have heard where develpers
>> have come into areas and built houses without telling any of the
>> utilities and then start screaming because there is no electric,
>> water, gas, telephone or cable.

> I have a bone to pick with this.

So do I. Most of the time, GTE is just stupid when it (doesn't) plan
for an area. I present for your consideration my very service in the
Santa Cruz mountains. My building is at the end (top) of what amounts
to a very exclusive residential street. These are literally palaces
built on a hillside with seven-figure views of the SF Bay and
surrounding population. There is much undeveloped property, mostly at
the top near my site.

What, in its infinite wisdom, did GTE deem necessary to run up the
hill? A single 25 pair cable, about one pair per customer AT THE TIME
THE CABLE WAS INSTALLED. That's right -- no expansion was even
considered. Given the upscale nature of the community, the undeveloped
property, and the fact that a radio transmitter site was at the top,
this was the most stupid thing a utility could have done. It certainly
would have been cheaper to install a larger cable at the time than to
have to later install a whole new cable which is what eventually
happened.

In the meantime, GTE used its scourge of telephony, subscriber
carrier.  I have already denounced the use of this nonsense, something
that GTE has always made heavy use of when its woefully inadequate
cable planning has become evident.

Other telcos manage to plan. Other telcos manage to avoid subscriber
carrier. I live in a neighborhood that is over thirty years old. For
miles in every direction is property zoned R-1 (residential
single-family use). The nearest shopping center of any size is more
than four miles away. Have I had trouble getting additional lines? No.
Have my neighbors? No. Is anyone on subscriber carrier? No.

Next excuse, GTE? Is there someone ELSE we can blame for your lack of
planning?

> This type of development is not usually done overnight, not even over
> a summer. If something this major is missed, it is not just the
> customer's fault for not telling the "utilities". The utilities must
> accept blame for not doing a "good" job of staying current with
> activities in the area.

A telco can even forecast on its own. GTE appears to just be ahead of
its time. The corporate way in many companies, and apparently in GTE,
is to sacrifice the long term for the short term. It installs the
absolute minimum that it can immediately get away with. Later on, it
can blame a host of "causes" when it explains to a customer or a whole
neighborhood why it cannot supply additional service.

This is pathetic in view of its recent acquisition of Contel. Contel's
impeccable planning is a wonder to behold. An associate who lives
twenty miles outside of Victorville (but served out of a Victorville
CO) can have as many lines as he likes. No subscriber carrier, no
excuses. Around him is a community that literally sprung up overnight.
Did Contel get caught with its pants down? Not a chance. Everyone has
as much phone service as he likes.

Eventually, GTE will impose its wretched way of doing things on poor
old Contel. Gone will be the Victorville offices, repair center,
everything. It will all be turned over to 1000 Jokes, where the
Artificial Persons will tell the desert customers why their phones
cannot be installed/fixed/moved/changed/upgraded. This merger has made
me more angry than almost any other telecom news in the past couple of
years. Fortunately, the inevitable has been postponed by the CPUC,
which has demanded that, for the present, Contel be operated as a
separate company. Anyone now wonder why?

I appreciate the efforts of well-meaning people at GTE. But the
company is SO rotten that I cannot imagine that much could ever be
done without a soul transplant. Yes, everyone can come up with a good
experience with GTE (even I can, but with broadcast services, not the
telco per se). But overall, if GTE set the standard in this country
rather than the former Bell System, Mexico's telephone service would
start to look very good.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 12 Jun 92 03:37:01 GMT


tim gorman <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #460:

>> This type of thing happens all the time. I have heard where develpers
>> have come into areas and built houses without telling any of the
>> utilities and then start screaming because there is no electric,
>> water, gas, telephone or cable. In one case all this was brought in
>> later (they had to rip up the streets) with the exception of the cable
>> company ...

> I have a bone to pick with this. I have had this fight with my own
> wire center forecasters before. There is no reason why they cannot, on
> a monthly basis, get around to all of the county courthouses (or
> whereever) to review building permits and plat filings. A good working
> relationship with commercial real estate sales offices can also
> usually pay dividends.

As a former planning commissioner, I find this somewhat nonbelievable.
When we reviewed a subdivision map, we required dedication of utility
easements (and acceptance by the utilities) as a requirement for
filing the subdivision map.  Presumably, this ought to be sufficient
notice.  If not, no developer is going to be able to sell a house (or
get a final sign-off from the building inspector) without electricity,
gas and water, at least.  Usually, the utilities have to agree to
supply the subdivision before work can start.

However, I, too, moved into a new house several years ago, with
telephone service guaranteed to be installed on moving day, with two
weeks notice to the phone company.  On moving day, at 5pm, we got a
call at the old number that there were no pairs, and it would be two
weeks before service could be installed.  I noticed a dangling drop
across the street that had gone to the developer's construction office
trailer, and so informed the phone company.  They said that that was a
business line, and the pair was "owned" by the business side of the
office, and could not be assigned to a residential line.

As it happened, it was all a pack of lies anyway, and I had service
the next day.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida
Date: 11 Jun 92 20:42:19 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


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

> Not to start another GTE bashing, but the problem with Home Shopping
> Network and GTE Florida was HSN's problem. They came into an area
> built a huge center for their company, but did not bother to let GTE
> Florida know they were doing it and then called for service as if they
> were just any residentual customer.

Imagine a company who's entire income is from telephone calls,
locating it's business in an area without adequate phone service. I
steer my telephone clients and radio clients AWAY from GTE areas
because I know how bad it'll be and that it it'll cost them money. My
clients aren't nearly as big as HSN and we still have BIG problems.
One located in Signal Hill (Long Beach) in an industrial park. They've
been told they can't order 10 more POTS lines because there is a
building going up across the street and that all the pairs have been
reserved for it.  They've known about that building for a while, and
have decided not to install any new cable, unbeleivable.

GTE, the GREAT TELEPHONE EXPERIMENT.

> Imagine a company that big coming into a small town that is set up
> for local service.  After the dust settled the courts had ruled that
> HSN was at fault 100%. They were forced to pay all costs. They did get
> the service and from what little I have heard there has been no other
> problems.  I had no direct knowledge other then what was in the media,
> but I followed it very close. A company that big should go directly
> to a LD carrier and site selection should be based on adequate
> capacity and a decent local company too.

> At least the telephone company did do something about it and they
> did not make the developer pay for it which they could have.

I believe they are required to provide service to anybody who wants
it.  I don't think it's done because they're being "nice guys". Did
the company put in the prepackaged cable setup that allows only a
certain number of pairs for each household and no easy way to correct
this problem. Many GTE residential areas are blessed with this. They
were still doing this last I checked. This arrangement would be fine
assuming the sixties norms, a single line and a black rotary wall
phone in the kitchen (maybe a Princess,er, Starlight, sorry ...) in
the master bedroom.

But GTE, we're not in the sixties any more!


[e-mail]    "My Brain hurts!"
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Arndt)
Subject: Re: GTE Of S. California and Intralata Calls
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 15:56:16 PDT


Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]> said:

> Which brings up another point I wanted to raise.  GTE is the wire
> company for at least 1/4 of Southern California.  I note it is the
> non-wire Cellular carrier in San Francisco; I also note that GTE does
> have an old Radiotelephone facility in Long Beach, to service the
> people still using them.  What I am wondering is why Pacific Bell ONLY
> is the wireline carrier for Southern California.  I am surprised that
> GTE didn't make a stink about it.  Same thing for Continental
> Telephone (CENTEL) of California which operates in some rural areas
> like Big Bear Mountain.  Anyone know why only Pacific Bell is
> operating the wire company cellular facility in all of Southern
> California?

I'm not sure where your definition of Southern California begins and
ends, but GTE Mobilnet is the B cellular provider from the LA/Ventura
County line up thru Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, all the way to the
Bay area.

Also, a good chunk of that, Ventura and San luis Obispo, at least, are
PacBell wireline areas. I guess it all averages out.

As a side note, that entire stretch of coastline, about 300 (?) miles
or so, is all considered by Mobilnet to be the users HOME area. No
roaming.

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

Date: 11 Jun 1992 11:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: GTE of S. California and Intralata Calls


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

> For those of you who live within GTE of California territory, if you
> ever get to Southern California, a place to drive past is a
> nondescript telephone switch building at the corner of 6th & Almond in
> Long Beach.

> This building contains the computer used for ALL 911 calls made from
> any GTE exchange anywhere in Southern California.  They have direct
> lines from all GTE switching areas to this building.  I'm not telling
> anything secret; this was published in the paper.

Gee, isn't that a common point of failure then?  Doesn't seem too
intelligent.

"Gee!;  No, GTE."   8) 8)


[Moderator's Note: The great fire in May, 1988 in Hinsdale was in
just such a scenario: an office with something for everyone, and
little or no backup elsewhere.  IBT learned the hard way!   PAT]

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

From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: List of GTD-5 Observations
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 18:20:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joe Kelsey) writes:

> I completely agree with John Higdon about the deficiencies of the
> GTD-5 when compared to other available switches.  I recently moved
> from USWest service into GTENorthWest service and I don't like it at
> all.  For one thing, when you order call waiting from USWest, you get
> *both* call waiting and cancel call waiting.  In GTELand, cancel call
> waiting does not come packaged with call waiting unless you either
> order it specifically (for an extra $1.50 per month!) or buy the
> entire SmartestPak service (which includes all sorts of useless
> features like speed dialing (useless when most phones already have a
> similar feature)).

This has nothing to do with the GTD5's capabilities.  Call Waiting can
be configured for any particular DN, in any number of manners (office
engineerable only, customer enineerable, etc.).  How the local telco
packages the features for marketing purposes has nothing to do with
the GTD5.

I agree, though, this sounds a little screwy.  Seems logical that
Cancel CW oughta come along with CW.  Maybe if they packaged them
together they'd just charge everyone $1.50 more?


J.Baker      !asuvax!gtephx!bakerj

DISCLAIMER : I am not an official representative of anyone or anything,
  especially not AGCS or the general Telecom readership.

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

From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: GTE/HSN
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:54:02 GMT


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

> Not to start another GTE bashing, but the problem with Home Shopping
> Network and GTE Florida was HSN's problem. They came into an area
> built a huge center for their company, but did not bother to let GTE
> Florida know they were doing it and then called for service as if they
> were just any residentual customer. Imagine a company that big coming
> into a small town that is set up for local service.  After the dust
> settled the courts had ruled that HSN was at fault 100%.

Actually, GTEFL notified HSN several times over the course of months
(or years) that HSN was experiencing significant blocking of call
attempts, due to an insufficient number of trunks and operators; HSN
repeatedly did nothing about it.  Obviously, they felt they were
making enough money already so why spend the capital for more
trunks/stations?

     As I recall the CO serving HSN had some sort of outage, silencing
HSN's lines for a while.  HSN sued GTEFL, with an outrageous
projection of revenue they lost due to the outage.  Their projection
was apparently based on the number of people who they thought
attempted to call HSN during the outage.  GTEFL countered with
historical data on how many calls actually would have gone through,
based on HSN's capacity.

Altogether, it seemed like one big pissing contest to me -- I mean,
GTEFL had an outage which probably did cost HSN some revenue, but then
HSN had a totally unrealistic estimate of how much was lost.  I was
very surprised by the verdict -- not only did HSN end up paying legal
costs, but some top HSN executives had to pay punitive damages to GTE
in addition.  It was appealed, then settled out of court soon
thereafter.  What was reported in the media, is that GTE actually lost
a little bit of money on the whole deal.  HSN lost a lot of money.


J.Baker    !asuvax!gtephx!bakerj

DISCLAIMER : I am not an official representative of anything.

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

From: <MPA15AB![e-mail]>
Date: 12 JUN 92 20:30
Subject: Re: GTE-Bashing


In TELECOM Digest V12 #429, [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?

Wow!  When I casually asked the switch type, the GTE reps acted like I
was asking for nuclear launch codes!  (I also inquired about CO tours,
and that really got them tensed up!)  [A repair person did tell me GTE
has all GTD-5s in the area.]


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #472
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00314;
          13 Jun 92 11:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19810
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:10:43 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04851
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:10:33 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:10:33 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #473

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 09:10:35 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 473

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telex Prefixes (Was About 'Area Code' 710) (A. Alan Toscano)
    Area Codes 610, 710: The Word From Bellcore (David Leibold)
    For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710 (K. Abrams)
    Virginia 52x COs (Carl P. Zwanzig)
    Wanted: Schematics For Connecting Phone to Workstation (Jack Jansen)
    Receiving Caller-ID Bursts Through Modem ([e-mail])
    Question on ISDN Equipment (Tom O)
    Cordless Privacy (Benjamin Ellsworth)
    Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (John Higdon)
    Odd Panel on 2500 Set Shells (Mike Gordon)
    Area Code 909 Announced (Brad Horak)
    Bell Canada Applies to Limit Nuisance Telemarketing Calls (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Jun 13 08:04:58 GMT 1992
Subject: Telex Prefixes (Was: About 'Area Code' 710)


In TELECOM Digest V12 #468, Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes:

> If one is sending a telex from a Western Union account to another
> telex number in the U.S. that is seven digits and is not on Western
> Union's system, one connects to the number by dialing 710 and the 7
> digit number.

I suspect Mr. Robinson is confusing "710" with "71" and "310."

[Note: Western Union's TELEX business was acquired by AT&T in January,
1991.]

The correct prefix for addressing an IRC (International Record
Carrier, ie, non-AT&T) TELEX terminal, from the AT&T TELEX I network,
is "71" with no zero.  This prefix is also required when sending a
TELEX message from TELEX I to AT&T Mail. From TELEX II (TWX), you may
use "310" to reach an IRC TELEX.

 From AT&T Worldcom TELEX (formerly ITT Worldcom) terminals and from
AT&T Mail, you don't use a prefix for IRC TELEX numbers. Instead, you
insert a "0" (zero) prefix when addressing TELEX I, in order to
distinguish TELEX I numbers from IRC TELEX numbers.

Speaking of AT&T Mail, its users with TELEX numbers will be getting
new TELEX numbers in the very near future. These TELEX numbers
currently consist of the digits "15" followed by the corresponding
seven-digit mailbox account number.  Soon, the "15" will be replaced
by "40." It is my understanding that when sending to one of the new
"40" numbers (which are not yet in effect), no "71" prefix will be
required from any of the AT&T TELEX networks. The current "15" numbers
will continue to be supported for about three months after the new
"40" numbers become available. I suppose this can be thought of as a
permissive dialing period.


A Alan Toscano           Voice:  [phone]   AT&T Mail:  atoscano
<[e-mail]>   CIS:          73300,217   ELN:        62306750

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 23:23:52 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes 610, 710: The Word From Bellcore


I have a copy of the Bellcore discussion paper on the future of the
numbering plan (courtesy Carl Moore). In a covering letter to this
document, Vice President - Operations Technology George C. Via makes
this comment:

"To meet the need for NPA codes we have the following resources
available to us. After the recent assignment of NPA code 210 for
relief of the 512 NPA in Texas, two traditional N0/1X codes (810 and
910) remain available.  In addition, we are pursuing the return of
codes 610 and 710 which were assigned in prior years for special
purposes. 610 is used for TWX and ISDN in Canada, and 710 is used by
the United States Government for national security purposes. We have
made offers to both Canada and the United States Government to "trade"
610 and 710 for N00 codes, but neither party has responded yet to our
offer. Finally, we have the five remaining N00 codes; but, as
indicated above, the industry prefers that the N00 codes not be used
as geographic NPA codes other than as a last resort. Either way we
have a total of seven codes available to us."

The subsequent paragraphs explain how Bellcore expects that advancing
the interchangeable NPA date to 1 January 1995 (ahead from 1 July
1995) should enable things to squeak by, with only two codes expected
to be put into service by then (ie. the 810 and 910, one of which will
likely split the Detroit, Michigan area 313 NPA).

Hopefully the above will provide some official insight as to what 610
and 710 are used for, among other things.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 19:37:06 GMT


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

> In short, the 'Area Code' 710 is used for U.S. Telex numbers on
> Western Union and for connection to some other carriers, and is not
> being used as a 'Government Service' number.

> [Moderator's Note: A Southwestern Bell person disagrees with you and
> says it is in use for 'special government services'.

In short, all that glitters is NOT gold.  I assure you that 710 in the
North American Numbering Plan "belongs" to the Federal Government and
it's use IS related to national security and defense.  I work for
Illinois Bell and that's all I can tell you.  It's even hard for US to
get information on this subject when we have a need to know.

I STRONGLY suggest that you squash public discussion of this subject
least someone with loose lips might lose their job (or worse).

In article <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson <FZC@CU.
NIH.GOV> writes:

> If anyone has heard of anyone, anywhere, using area code 710 for
> anything other than telex numbers, please tell me about it!

I've posted this here before; guess it's been long enough that Pat has
forgotten.

710 is indeed assigned for "Government Special" use.  It's actual
function is highly classified.  Doesn't surprise me that you couldn't
get any information without a need to know.  I respectfully suggest
that you not pursue the matter any further, least someone from the
Government might start asking YOU a lot of questions!!


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


[Moderator's Note: Next question: And isn't it true that people with a
'need to know' and/or use it have a 'flag' on their line at the CO so
that dialing 710-etc from their telephone will go through, while those
without 'the need' (like most of us) get an intercept?  Many years ago
(like thirty years ago) in Chicago, dialing 920-any.last.four from a
few misprogrammed COs connected to something known as 'Kankakee (IL)
Emergency Defense'. 710 must be similar. Which of you Bell System men
would like to follow in the example Randy Borow set for us?  :) (Sir
William Walton's 'Crown Imperial March' playing in the background --
no Wagner today!) ... several new Digest subscribers from .gov and .mil
sites on line in recent days; welcome folks!   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 23:25:13 -0400
From: Carl P. Zwanzig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virginia 52x CO's


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> I made a call from a pay phone in Arlington (Rosslyn area exchanges)
> on 703-527 via C&P, and I got 703-527 ALEX (short for Alexandria) on
> my May 1992 phone bill for the From part of that call.  I realize that
> the DC area call guides show Arlington/Alexandria for the Arlington
> and Alexandria exchanges in Virginia, but little noises like this make
> it more difficult to map an exchange to a more specific area (in this
> case, Arlington/Rosslyn).

It used to be that all of the 52x exchanges in Virginia were served
from the Irving Street office, which contained two 5ESS's (tm, of
course).  This caused me hassles whenever I ordered more lines for my
employer, as we had hunt groups on both switches, and they usually
assigned the new lines to the wrong switch.

BTW, the cable plant in that area (at the time) was twisted splices,
not crimped.  Whenever a data line went out (we had about 400 copper
pairs for data, and 400+ ringdown private lines), the test board would
drop ring voltage on the pair for a few seconds, there by blowing the
crud off of the splices.  Eventually we got a small ring generator and
did it ourselves.


Carl Zwanzig     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Jansen)
Subject: Wanted: Schematics For Connecting Phone to Workstation
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:47:00 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


I want to connect the a workstation (either SGI Indigo or Sun
Sparcstation) to the phone system, but I'm having trouble finding
schematics of how to do so in a reasonably safe manner.

A circuit that has audio-in, audio-out, ringer-out and a phoneline
connection would be ideal.

Oh yeah, just to make things clear: I'm not looking for a modem, I
want to talk through the workstation!

Please reply by mail, as I don't read these newsgroups on a regular base.


Jack Jansen   [e-mail]   uunet!cwi.nl!jack

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 10:23:16 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Receiving Caller-ID Bursts Through Modem


I hope that I'm not bothering you but, I was wondering if you could
send me some information on how to recieve Caller-ID bursts on my
modem.  I read the information that you have posted to the Net on it
but, the information on how to rig the modem so that it would pick up
the burst of information and not pick up the phone was omitted.  Any
information that you can send me would be helpful.


Alex


Moderator's Note: Our discussion here concluded that it would not work
with a regular modem, as the tones are different.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (TOM O)
Subject: Question on ISDN Equipment
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 23:32:34 GMT


Our office is currently shopping around for ISDN handsets.  We have
been told the only companies which manufacture ISDN sets which will
work with a 5ESS are AT&T and Fujitsu.  Can anyone confirm/dispute
this?


TOM O, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHICO
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Benjamin Ellsworth)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 00:30:03 GMT
Subject: Cordless Privacy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA


It is my understanding that cordless phone conversations enjoy less
legal protections than to cellular phone conversations with regard to
privacy -- especially warrantless eavesdropping by government
agencies.

Could someone give me precise references for the status of
eavesdropping on cordless phone conversations and a contrast with
cellular phone conversations?

Since I imagine that this is common knowledge in this forum, an e-mail
response is preferred.


Benjamin Ellsworth   [e-mail]    All relevant disclaimers apply.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 00:24 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad


As one who was raised in a home where much emphasis was placed on the
importance of proper language usage and on the ability to communicate,
I take exception to Sprint's latest ad pushing business aggregation.

The one of which I speak is that where Candice Bergen asks an
economist or some such to explain the advantages of Sprint's "Clout".
He explains using fifty-cent words rather the usual TV kindergarten-
level language of advertising. As he concludes he says, "Any
questions, Candice?"

"Just one Glen. Why don't you get a life?", Ms. Bergen responds. This
is a major pressing of a hot button for me. People of this nation
wonder why the educational level of the population is steadily
declining. For one thing, it is still not "cool" to speak efficiently
and succinctly, using a vocabulary appropriate to the communication
task. All throughout schooling, those who use the language properly
and effectively are ridiculed. We are a nation of peer-enforced slang.

I had no idea how pervasive this problem was until many years ago
during the time I was an owner of a sizeable telecommunications
company. A fellow owner and some clients were in the conference room
and I was attempting to explain the operation of one of our systems.
In the course of the explanation I used the word, 'quiescent'. My
associate immediately became agitated and said, "What the hell does
that mean?" I answered using such terms as 'idle', 'at rest', etc. His
rebuke, in front of all and sundry, was, "Then just say that and don't
try to impress everyone with fancy words nobody knows the meaning of."

I was shocked, but from that time forward I have made it a point to
notice the communications skills of those around me. What I have seen
is depressing and alarming. And then I remembered back to my school
days where speaking the "King's English" would generally reap the
reward of ostracism. But school is out now. And what do we find? Yet
another commercial that ridicules the notion that anyone would strive
for excellence and at the same time speak standard English.

So someone who speaks properly and uses adult words needs to get a
life? Get a clue! And Sprint receives the Noisy Raspberry Award from
me for perpetuating this deplorable nonsense.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 03:53:11 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Odd Panel on 2500 Set Shells


    This one should rank up there with the cotton-in-handset question,
but here goes: Why is there a small removable panel under the cradle
of 2500 sets?  The piece I'm referring to is a 2 x 1 1/2 inch three
sided section that is attached on the inside of the case by a single
screw.

    Other than making it easier to mount a ringer switch, I can't
figure out why this piece is removable.


Mike Gordon  N9LOI  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Area Code 909 Announced
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 10:06:46 -0700
From: Brad Horak <[e-mail]>


 From this month's Pacific*Bell bill:

"AREA CODE SPLIT -  714-909

Effective November 14, 1992, Area Code 909 will be introduced to serve
all Pacific Bell customers in Western and Central Riverside and San
Bernardino counties, as well as a portion of Eastern Los Angeles
County.  There will be a nine-month period during which callers can
use either area code to complete calls."


Brad

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 19:09:14 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Applies to Limit Nuisance Telemarketing Calls


 From {The Globe and Mail} (there's a strike at {The Toronto Star}
:-(), comes news that Bell Canada has abandoned its plans to charge
telemarketers per-call local measured service for autodialers/autoann-
ouncers, due to pressure from telemarketing groups such as CDMA
(Canadian Direct Marketing Association). Now, Bell wants to have a "do
not call" mechanism in place whereby people who do not wish to be
called by such telemarketers can be put on a list, and no telemarketer
is to call them.

CDMA has an existing hot list of subscribers who are not to be called,
but this list is only effective with respect to CDMA members, and
those groups which decide to purchase CDMA's hot list. Even so, a CDMA
spokesperson said that those on the current hot list are receiving
"fewer calls from CDMA members" as opposed to a complete stoppage of
such calls. The Bell proposal would provide greater enforcement of
such an exclusion list.

The issue is now before the CRTC which will rule on this proposal;
Bell expects the widespread hot list system to be implemented in about
a year subject to regulatory approvals. The new proposal seems to be
an acceptable solution to both Bell and the telemarketers.

Meanwhile, Canadians wishing to get their names removed from
telemarketing lists can write CDMA, 1 Concorde Gate, Suite 607, Don
Mills, ON M3C 3N6 (i.e. the current exclusion list for CDMA members
and other companies that decide to use this listing to exclude
subscribers from telemarketing calls).


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #473
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09370;
          13 Jun 92 15:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29902
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:10:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11306
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:10:07 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:10:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #474

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 13:10:08 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 474

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SNET/NYNEX in Suffolk; New Massachusetts Service (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Calling Rates From Germany to the USA (Juergen Ziegler)
    International SS7 Links - Vendors Equipment (Jon Alperin)
    CRTC Approves Unitel Long Distance Bid (Andrew M. Dunn)
    The Strangest Payphone I've Ever Seen (Kim Fosbe)
    AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card (Michael Ho)
    Wanted: DID Fax Modem (Direct Inward Dial) (Andy Davenport)
    909 Area Code Announcement ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12-JUN-1992 01:40:22.56
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET/NYNEX in Suffolk; New Massachusetts Service


Recently, I posted on the inability of SNET/LINX in CT to deliver
calls to the NYNEX/NY Suffolk County, Long Island system.

I made some further inquiries with both SNET and NYNEX, and they claim
to be aware of the problem, now. SNET noted I was only the second
person to call and report the problem. Apparently, SNET was under the
impression that the first person who reported the problem was having
some difficulty with his phone (even though he could receive calls
elsewhere just fine), and thus did not bother to check out to problem
too thoroughly. Thus, after I reported it, and ignored the usual "It's
your phone that's broken" argument from NYNEX, someone actually looked
into it, and talked to SNET about the problem. SNET technical service
states that it may be a few weeks before the problem is corrected, so
expect call delivery to work in Suffolk by July or so.

I personally find this disturbing (and all too common) -- if you don't
spend a good deal of time in reporting a problem and know exactly who
to talk to, cellular problems go unresolved. I find it particularly
disturbing for cellular networking and roaming, which can tend to get
somewhat complicated, thus discouraging people from reporting problems
and having the cell co. take timely action to correct them. If I were
responsible for network management at a cell co., I'd be sure to
solicit customer feedback, even if only a small percentage of the
calls turned out to be legitimate network problems. (Of course no
cellular company has offered me a job yet! :) )

As to other networking related news about SNET and NYNEX, the
Pittsfield, MA system is now connected to SNET's system, so calls are
automatically delivered to NYNEX's (incredibly small and static prone
:( ) service area in Pittsfield. The call delivery is the same as it
is for the New York Metro area, that is, callers hear a message to
hold on while your phone is being "located".  On the cellular
customer's end, he or she will notice that the phone is immediately
queried (prior to the announcement to the calling party), and if the
phone is busy in Pittsfield callers will get an immediate (CT-based or
SNET-based) busy, and not have to wait for a busy from the remote/roam
system as one does with FMR for the B's or Nationlink for the A's.

Moreover, SNET told me that they were planning on adding most of the
other NYNEX (and potentially a few BAMS) sites as well in the near
future. I just noticed that NYNEX/Boston will query and return busy
(but not ring/page) if I am in their service area of Boston, Eastern
seacoast of New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (SID 00018). The same goes
for the "Star Cellular" system of Maine (SID 00482/4), both of with
are part of what is called the "New England Supersystem". I also
noticed the same behavior in NYNEX/Orange County-Newberg, and
BAMS/Western New Jersey.

Thus:

System:            Call "Delivery" Features:

NYNEX/NYC (00025)    Full call delivery, SNET returns busy in CT if
              phone in busy in 00025. EXCEPT Suffolk County,
            which should deliver properly in a few weeks.
            At present, the phone is only queried and returns
            busy. FMR is not available in 00025.

NYNEX/Pittsfield (?SID)    Full call delivery, SNET returns busy in CT if
            phone is busy it Pittsfield. FMR available, but it
            will *not* work for SNET customer for some
            unknown reason - has been that way long
            before automatic call-delivery.

NYNEX/Boston (00018)    Phone is queried/interrogated by Boston switch,
            but no call-delivery. SNET returns a busy in CT if
            phone is busy in Boston/New Hampshire/Rhode
            Island. This is new in 00018; prior to last week
            none of this occurred, but Call-forwarding worked,
            which it no longer does. FMR available.

Star Cell/Maine(00484)    Phone is queried/interrogated in Portland and
            Bangor (00482). SNET returns a busy in CT if phone
            is busy in either system.

BAMS/W. New Jersey    Phone is queried/interrogated in north-western NJ.
            If phone is busy in NJ, SNET returns a busy in CT.

That's basically where I've noticed this work. It is similar to the
"curious call syndrome" for Motorolas, yet does not suffer from the
infirmity of incorrectly returning a re-order when the remote roaming
party can not be connected to the caller. Of course since most of the
above (all?) use AT&T Autoplex switches, AT&T would never come up with
a Motorola-type name as the "curious call syndrome", rather, find some
acronym which requires three pages in a switch manual to explain. :)

So Suffolk County should be fixed in a few weeks, and expect to see
increased areas of call-delivery in the near future. If anyone notices
this happening elsewhere, please let me know ...


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 13:35
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling Rates From Germany to the USA


Calling the USA and Canada used to be quite expensive until recently.
On May 1st the Government operated telephone administration TELEKOM
lowered their calling rates from Germany to the USA and Canada by 37
percent. Not bad indeed.

Before that price reduction calling cards from AT&T and MCI used to be
an inexpensive way to call the USA and Canada. With the current
TELEKOM rates these cards are virtual obsolete. You have to call at
least approximately 20-30 minutes to get a better rate. This is not
interesting for most calls.

While TELEKOM lowered its rates it is hard to understand why AT&T and
MCI have not reduced their rates as well. The reason for this is very
simple. AT&T/MCI do not have a single wire within Germany. So whenever
I call the operator in the States AT&T and MCI have to pay for the
toll-free call from Germany to the US the standard rates. On the other
side AT&T and MCI receive charges from TELEKOM for carrying the call
within their US networks to the dialed number. Same is true for the
operators of the international links between Germany and the USA.

If I consider that AT&T and MCI made no losses with their rates from
Germany to the USA, this makes sense since both companies offered and
do still offer their calling cards to German customers, then a rate
reduction should have AN effect on their rate calculation. This effect
is not as high as the 37 percent rate reduction, but their must be an
effect, no doubt about this.

But both companies have not reacted until now.

As a result their cards are nice to have if you travel to the USA.
But for calls to the USA you will no longer get a better rate than by
direct dialed calls. The 37% rate reduction is fine for businesses
since there is no night/weekend rate. So even after this reduction
calls to the USA from Germany are still very expensive for private
persons. So it would make sense to give private callers an incentive
to call the USA at a reasonable rate. But so far there is no reaction.
This reduction looks to me like a subsidize of business calls from the
private caller, since private caller will get no discound at all.

Any suggestions?


Juergen

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Alperin)
Subject: International SS7 Links - Vendors Equipment
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jon Alperin)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 15:12:58 GMT


I am hoping someone out here can help ...

I am trying to find vendors of telecom equipment that can be used to
connect to International SS7 networks. I understand that the
connections between network support systems and the SS7 network in
Europe use associated signalling on channel 16 of a 2Mbit trung (CCITT
Q.702), and that some other countries use quasi-associated signalling
between transmit exchanges and stand-alone STP's (so all channels of a
2Mbit trunck can be used according to CCITT Q.511, Interface A).

What I need is a vendor who can sell me the necessary equipment to
connect a UNIX system to these SS7 networks. Here in the US, we can
use V.35, RS-449, etc. to connect to the STP's, but I have been told
that these will not work internationally.

Since I am obviously over my head in understanding this stuff, any
information, help, or pointers is greatly appreciated. Supercomm is
coming up next week, and I would like to get a feeling for what I
should be looking for.


Thanks in advance.

Jon Alperin      Bell Communications Research
Internet: [e-mail]  Voicenet: [phone]
UUNET: uunet!bcr!jona

* All opinions and stupid questions are my own *

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: CRTC Approves Unitel Long Distance Bid
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 22:27:22 GMT


The Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC),
which regulates communications in Canada, announced today that it had
approved a bid by Unitel (formerly CNCP Telecommuncations) and BCRL to
provide alternative long-distance service.

CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer announced the decision today.  He said the
move would provide additional options and economies to business users,
but that effects on residential consumers should be minimal.  He said
the CRTC would closely monitor the situation to prevent the kinds of
problems experienced during and after telephone deregulation in the
United States.

Unitel is a subsidiary of Rogers Communications, the telecom giant
which operates cable television and cellular telephone services in
major centres.  It was formed when Canadian Pacific's outstanding
share in what used to be CNCP Telecommuncations was purchased by
Rogers several years ago.  It had previously bid unsuccessfully to
have the monopoly broken up.

The monopoly on long distance services in Ontario, Quebec, British
Columbia and the Atlantic provinces was held up to this point in time
by Bell Canada, a subsidiary of BCE Inc.  It is unclear how the ruling
will affect Bell, particularly in view of their recently- announced
move to shorten the timeline for upgrading all service to digital
facilities.  However, Bell is unlikely to be pleased with the CRTC
ruling.

Implementation details and reaction from BCE, Unitel, and BCRL can be
expected on Monday.

I'll post any updates or further information as it becomes available.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 21:30:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Kim Fosbe)
Subject: The Strangest Payphone I've Ever Seen
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I'm not a telephone whiz like most of you, but I know a bit about what
goes on. Today I saw the most totally strange payphone ever. If
anybody's seen the movie "Brasil" it looked like it could be a prop
out of it. It was in the waiting room at an employment agency. Oh, no,
I'm not looking, we just do some work for them.

Now if you can imagine the old desk telephone with the receiver
sitting crosswise on top, not vertical at the side. Now imagine one
about a foot tall. The phone was ENORMOUS. But it looked kind of like
a regular old desk telephone. On the top right was a coin slot fit to
a quarter.

The instructions said to insert a quarter, then dial the number, and
then press a green button when whoever you're calling answers. It had
instructions for long distance and credit card, but there was a sign
taped to the receiver that said "Local only, five minute limit". The
front panel was professionally printed, the phone itself looked
professionally made but just plain ugly.

Oh, I didn't try it. I know it said local only but I've got a feeling
you could call Outer Slobovia for a quarter if they weren't looking.

Also, I don't remember seeing a coin return slot.

Anybody ever seen one of those? I'll take a better look at it next
week.  Are these legal? With the breakup and such, can anyone just buy
a payphone and sell telephone calls?


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1     DRBBS  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: Yes, those phones are legal, and yes, anyone can
sell phone service. A liquor store about a block from my house has one
like you describe. The touch-tone buttons are 'smart'; they are
limited to seven digits except for 1-800 calls; 011, 976, 900 and
other three digit codes selected by the owner can be blocked. You
press the button to open the mouthpiece (and thus forfeit your money).
They're very inexpensive, yet profitable COCOTS.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:13 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael Ho)
Subject: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card


I just called AT&T and ordered one of the ten-number restricted
calling cards; because I live on the West Coast and many people who
need to reach me are on the East Coast, I opted for the multi-number
card so that they'd be able to call at home or at work.

You have to choose the numbers up-front, but you can change them by
calling AT&T customer service.  (I don't know how long it takes to
actually execute the change ... I *expect* that they can just punch
the numbers into a big databank and change everything on the spot.)

The card also is valid internationally -- at least it would be if I
had not answered "No, thanks" to the AT&T rep's question.  That, too,
can be changed with a phone call.  (I will need that feature
eventually ... but I shudder to think of what the phone bill would be
for a calling-card call through USA*Direct from across the pond.)

This should be interesting.  I don't know how they do it, but I'll
have to play with it and see if it works properly.


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]
Subject: Wanted: DID Fax Modem (Direct Inward Dial)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: 12 Jun 92 22:53:50 PDT


I am looking for an external (ie not a PC card) fax modem that will
receive DID (Direct Inward Dial) signals from the TelCo or PBX.

DID is the means to directly dial an "extension" on a PBX system.  A
PBX may have 4000 extensions but only 100 circuits coming in from the
phone company. The phone company can reserve a block of numbers (e.g.
714-555-5000 through 714-555-5999) for you and route all calls placed
to those numbers to any one of your 100 circuits that happens to be
idle at the moment. But how do you (or your PBX) know which of the
1000 reserved numbers was actually dialed ????

The answer is DID and the TelCo does it [I think] by sending DTMF
dialing tones representing the last four digits of the number that was
originally dialed to your PBX on the selected circuit.

      OK but here is why I want a fax modem that does DID:

I will reserve a block of 100 numbers (e.g. 714-555-34nn) with the
phone company and tell them to route calls for those numbers to any
one of five circuits into my facility. I put five DID fax modems on
the five circuits. When an incoming fax is received, the modem not
only captures it, but knows which of 100 numbers it was directed to. I
can give a different fax number to each of 100 individuals or groups
and still only use 5 phone lines and modems to receive.  My fax
software can direct the fax to the correct recipient.

Any ideas? Thanks.


Andy Davenport     Harvey Mudd College

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

Subject: 909 Area Code Announcement
From: [e-mail] (Rat)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 22:25:31 PDT
Organization: Hale Telecommunications San Diego CA


   For quite a while I have heard the roumer that the 909 area code
would be assigned to Southern California. Well, here is the official
word ...

May 1992

A Message to Our Residential Customers from GTE California

New telephone numbers are growing scares in Southern California's 714
Area Code, so on November 14, 1992, GTE California, Pacific Bell and
Contel will be splitting the 714 Area Code and adding a new area code
 - 909. The new 909 area will include the western and central portions
of Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and eastern Los Angeles
County.

Although the new 909 Area Code will go into effect on November 14,
1992, there will be a nine-month interchangeable dialing period to
assist you in makeing the transition. This period begins on November
14, 1992 and ends on August 14, 1993. Durring this time, calls from
outside the new 909 Area Code will go through as currently dialed or
by useing the new way - 1+909 and the number. You can also call
numbers remaining in the 714 Area Code as you do now, or by useing the
new way - 1+714 and the number.

<Letter continues to say that calling cards will be switched as soon as
 possible. -Rat->


 -Rat-  [e-mail].
HALE TELECOMMUNICATIONS - Public Access Node, San Diego CA 619/660-6734 HST
[e-mail] (Rat)   12-Jun-92 at 10:35p

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #474
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11194;
          13 Jun 92 15:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05568
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:07:57 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22250
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:07:49 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:07:49 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #475

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 14:07:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 475

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Carl Moore)
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Chris Ambler)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Randy Gellens)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Ken Thompson)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Holly B. Papaleonardos)
    Re: Volunteering For Interop (Thomas Eric Brunner)
    Re: Volunteering For Interop (Mark Allyn)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Randy Gellens)
    Re: TDD For Portable Computer (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 92 11:11:34 BST
From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


   The telco made an error and they would naturally like to correct
it.  I certainly don't argue their option of changing a customer to a
new number as they wish, provided it is not done frivolously or
capriciously.

   Based upon what we read, if I were on the PSC/PUC I'd vote in
support of C&P.  C&P even went so far as to reimburse those customers
who weren't so lucky as to have had an error made in their behalf.

   These customers who are crying the loudest, I wonder if they would
feel the same if the situation was reversed.  Let's suppose that the
customer made some costly addition to his phone line when he initially
ordered service, not realizing his mistake.  Some years down the road,
the customer audits his bill and finally realizes his mistake.  The
customer then calls C&P to try and correct "his" error, but is
rebuffed and is told that he'll have to live with it until C&P dies or
moves away.  Things then clearly move away from something that is
initially a mistake to someone trying to be exploitative and
unreasonable.

   Based upon the circumstances of this, as we read it, I don't think
the customers will prevail at the PSC/PUC.


Bill

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 9:59:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number


Notice that some customers did want Ellicott City numbers, and they
are getting refunds of foreign-exchange charges if they should have
gotten Ellicott City numbers in the first place.  But others are
furious at the prospect of having to pay long distance to, say, Silver
Spring.  I guess there is some benefit of the doubt to the customer
when something like this happens?

"That exchange [Columbia] ... allows customers to call the Washington
suburbs [sic] of Silver Spring as well as the metropolitan Baltimore
area without an extra charge."  Not quite right; this local area in-
cludes Baltimore city and Silver Spring, but not all of the Baltimore
metropolitan area.  This does NOT refer to Columbia (Ellicott City
service, which includes all of metro Baltimore) or to Columbia (Laurel
service, which is local to Washington but not to Baltimore city).

Ellicott City is part of "Baltimore metro" and, as the article says,
is not local to Silver Spring.

This is in the 410 area, with local calls across area code border
(such as from Columbia to Silver Spring) being NPA+7D.  Until
November, this is also in the 301 area, with local calls, say, from
Columbia to Silver Spring still dialable as 7D.

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

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:21:53 GMT


On the front of all Pacific*Bell confirmation letters are the words:

  Pacific Bell does not guarantee the assignment or permenancy of any
  telephone number.

I wonder if C&P has this same message on theirs ...


[e-mail]   Fubar Systems BBS   (805) 54-FUBAR
3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1    FSBBS 2/FSUUCP 1.3


[Moderator's Notee: All telcos state in their tariffs and usually
somewhere in the phone book that the 'customer has no property rights
in his telephone number, which the Company is free to change as needed
in the conduct of its business ...'    PAT]

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

From: <MPA15AB![e-mail]>
Date: 13 JUN 92 01:09
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted


rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> 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.

I have two GTE lines, one with call-forwarding/three-way calling and
one without.  The call-own-number-ringback works from both lines.

We discussed this GTE feature a few months ago.  Turns out to be in
all GTE switches as an aid to party-line subscribers.  GTE is known
for having the highest rate of party-line subscribers, because of
their lack of sufficient outside plant.

It doesn't work from hunt groups, however.  A friend of mine had GTE
service with two lines in a hunt group.  Calling the last number from
itself resulted in a busy.


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

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Date: 12 Jun 92 14:11:19 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


[e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) writes:

> Pacific Bell offers this too.  it's called "Intercom Plus."  There are
> three ringback codes, *51, *52 and *53.  They produce, respecti

And is tone service required? (more $$ !)


Ken Thompson   N0ITL
ncr Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development
3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   [phone]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Normally, '11' (pronounced 'eleven' by the way --
not 'one-one') can be substituted for * on a rotary dial or ten-button
touch tone phone.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Holly B Papaleonardos)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 01:54:49 GMT


Here in Columbus the ringback number is related to the dialing number.
It is:

    955-xxxx     where xxxx are the last four numbers
of your telephone number, as well. So that yyy-1234 would be:

    955-1234     (by the way, this doesn't work to call *any*
other phone number. It returns a busy.)

         After dialing, one hears a dial tone. This is not a useful
dial tone, but can be used to test the accuracy of the phone's dialing
pad. One dials the digits one through nine, then zero. If one makes a
mistake, a hollow buzz is heard momentarily, but if correct, the buzz
is heard twice.

    Flashing will result in a loss of dial tone, and in its place,
the hollow buzz is heard continuously. If one flashes two or three
times, and then hangs up the receiver, the phone will ring. The hollow
buzz is heard once one answers. Sooner or later after hanging up a
normal dial-tone will return. The tricky part lies in knowing how long
and how many times to flash. I was once unable to stop for fifteen
minutes. Eventually my sister discovered the method and made it stop
ringing, which was convenient since we were at some ordering lobby in
a Sears store, and at least a dozen people were staring at the
phone-gone-mad.

    Incidentally, dialing the operator and asking her to "please
test the bell on this phone" works in the US as well as the UK.


[e-mail]    Alexi Papaleonardos
NetworKING BBS: [phone]          Delphi: WTHUNDER
Eastside Conn.: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Subject: Re: Volunteering for Interop
Reply-To: practic![e-mail] (Thomas Eric Brunner)
Organization: Practical Computing Inc., Sunnyvale
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1992 20:45:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Allyn) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 446, Message 9 of 9

> 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'll have to write the USENIX board and put a stop to this.

> 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 co-designed and co-lead the 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 InterOp shows
in the Santa Clara Hall, then in the San Jose Halls, along with a
group of people known to InterOp as the "core team", known amongst
ourselves as the "White Knight Group". Will you get anything out of
it? Yes. Will InterOp treat you decently? Not as often as you might
like in exchange for free labor and free scarce intellectual talent.
Some of us in the group dropped InterOp when they a) caused Peter
DeVries to leave in disgust, most of us dropped them when they b)
placed an absolute #$%^&*@! in charge of the network, who more or less
told us we were non-pro and owned our professional status to their
good offices, some of us (only two of the old core) worked on the 1992
WDC show, and a few (less than 5) I think are planning to work on the
1992 SF show ...

A common thread amongst ourselves was that we cared to much about
sucess or failure to work on something we had dimminishing control
over, and where information hiding at design-time appeared to be
increassing.

> 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.

Unless you are involved with the design, which is unlikely given that
your company isn't sinking serious bucks into a technology demo group,
you'll not get a lot out of it in terms of in-depth focus on a single
technology, though you may get a lot of co-slave contacts which are
useful. Basic fact, you'll be part of a cable-dragging team doing the
physical effort of hanging pre-assembled cable bundles (ribs and
spines), for the first days, then dogging about either router
configuration work or booth connection/luser hand-holding work for the
next few days, then either idle or operatationally (same as previous
lines of work), then back to the cable-dragging at tear-down.

I don't recommend this except to someone who wants the benies InterOp
offers, or to a company trying to score enough brownie points to get a
better booth location in the subsequent show (and these people are
usually paid by their employer anyway).

> If you are in the Seattle area, I can be reached on 2 meter ham
> radio on the 145.33 repeater (I am WA1SEY).

One or two of the old core, and several of our friends-and-relations
in past shows have been hams. If you do work for Michael Thorenos at
InterOp, do remember to say "OVER" a few times; some after
considerable delay, it is part of a joke.

> Thank you very much for your comments!

You are welcome!

> [Moderator's Note: Calling Ole Jacobson! Are you awake and reading
> this? Get in touch with Mr. Allyn please.  PAT]

I suppose Ole will write saying this is all scribble-scrabble, that
the #$%^&*@! has been replaced by Margo (which is a big improvement),
and that InterOp values and so forth its good-will and the volunteers.

Personally I think InterOp has lost much of its focus as a show, in
part due to the Ziff-Davis management and the desire to take the show
down-market and maximize profits. I also think they erred in
dismissing the WK offer to build future shownets in exchange for a
revenue position, as now none of us in the WK group really cares if
the show continues to exist, except in the same marketing sense we
care about NetWorld or other competing trade shows.  Since we can't
build the show, we're just vendors vending our little heart's away.

FYI, we asked for the roof revenue (drop fees of 1.5 to 1.2K$,
depending on the show), and offered to bear all costs, including
volunteer compensation.  InterOp has elected to act as if no offer was
made by a non-existant group, and they may very well have made the
best bottom-line choice; I've been wrong about lots of things before.
I'm relieved that they've also canceled our tutorial, now Ron and I
can re-do our materials without having a claim to copyright exist on
InterOp's part, finish (or start) our book, and offer our course(s) at
something a bit more attractive than 15% of the gate.

Hi Ole! Lunch one of these fine days?


#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Eric Brunner, Tule Network Services
uunet!practic!brunner or practic![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Re: Volunteering For Interop
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 05:37:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Thanks Pat for your note at the end of my article on Interop
volunteering.  I contacted Ole and he helped me get steered in the
right direction. I got ahold of the Interop folks and am going ahead
with it.

Thanks!!


Mark


[Moderator's Note: Write an article on your experience afterward.  PAT]

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

From: <MPA15AB![e-mail]>
Date: 13 JUN 92 00:54
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones


[e-mail] (Alan L Varney) writes:

> 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.

Years ago (long before telco voice mail), my outgoing message had a
SIT tone: "<SIT> You have reached <my number read back>, at the tone,
please record your message."

It was all in Jane Barbie's voice (courtesy of Aspen), the woman who
did most of the intercepts.  It was amusing and all, but I couldn't be
called from most COCOTS -- when they heard the SIT they disconnected and
refunded the money.


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

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

Date: 13 Jun 1992 11:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Curtis E. Reid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD For Portable Computer


In a message received on 10 Jun 1992, [e-mail] (Michael
Grant) wrote to TELECOM Digest V12 #468:

> Does anyone know of a small portable, preferably battery operated TDD
> that could be connected to a portable computer to turn it into a TDD?
> It would be nice to find something that was acoustically coupled.

I don't believe I've heard of such a beast.  There is a modem that
will convert TDD to ASCII to your computer and vice versa.  The only
limitation with this kind of modem is that it is capable of supporting
up to 300 baud since Baudot cannot handle more than 45.5 wpm.  Also,
this modem is most likely direct connect.


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] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data
Date: 13 Jun 92 07:41:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


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

> 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.

A related practice of Pac*Bell's really gets me angry.  Here's what
they do.

Every six months or year, each P*B business customer (I don't know
about residence) gets a little questionaire in the mail for each
account.  The choices are:

Pacific Bell can give out info on my account to:

1) Unregulated Pac*Bell businesses.
2) Any business that asks for it.
3) Information may not be given out to anybody.

Guess what the default is if you don't return the ballot.  Yup!  It's
number 1.  Even if you have previously sent this in asking that no
info be given out, if you don't return the next one they mail to you,
you're back to number 1.

Talk about an unfair advantage!

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 10:24:27 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes


"Country code" is actually a misnomer when dealing with "1", which
covers U.S., Canada, and many Caribbean points.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #475
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14146;
          13 Jun 92 17:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26007
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 15:17:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10571
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 15:17:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 15:17:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #476

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 15:17:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 476

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Jack Adams)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Michael F. Eastman)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Ken Abrams)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Jon L. Gauthier)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (John Rice)
    Re: What is "SLC-96"? (Fred Wedemeier)
    Re: Voice Messaging User Interface Forum Standard (Mark Phaedrus)
    Why a California Telephone Number For Israel? (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 15:07:26 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


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

> I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
> Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
> "numbers" onto a single pair.

   "SLC-96" is a product of my employer, that falls into the generic
"digital loop carrier" category.  You can make the "SLC" stand for

  - subscriber loop carrier or
  - subscriber line concentrator or
  - subscriber loop concentrator

depending on application.  "SLC" by itself has been in use for all of
the above over the past 20 years, but "SLC-96" is a product name all
by itself.  It's kind of like asking what ITT stands for -- it stands
for itself, even though it might have had another meaning at one time.

   That said, the SLC-96 can be both a carrier and a concentrator, but
it doesn't multiplex two lines (or numbers) onto a single pair, it
multiplexes 96 lines onto two or more T1 pairs.  If there are four
normal T1 pairs provisioned, then there is no concentration involved.
Automatic backup to a spare T1 pair can also be provided.  It handles
one/two party lines with ANI, multi-party with selective/semi-selective
ringing, regular coin and dial-tone-first, FX, DDS and a PBX
interface.  Remote access for testing (even the coin stuff) is
built-in.  Range is 50 miles or so, with T1 repeaters each 6000 feet
or so.  And there are newer offshoots for fiber support, including SLC
Series 5 and SLC-2000.

  {SLC-96, SLC-2000 and SLC Series 5 are all Trademarks of AT&T
   itself or subunits of AT&T.}

             ------- Historical note follows --------

There are two forms of Loop Carriers, Analog and Digital.

Analog loop carrier is the oldest, usually built according to the REA
specs for rural area service.

   Single Channel analog puts a voice channel "above" a normal
    voice channel on a single pair.  The Western Electric SLC-1
    (yes, '1') used 28 kHz for one direction and 78 kHz in the
    other for the "added" line.  About 18 kfeet, without help.

   Multi-Channel analog used tighter specs and a 144 kHz bandwidth
    to put 4 to 8 lines on a single pair.  Actually, 6 was the
    upper limit of maintainable hardware/facilities (for example,
        the S6A).  Economic prove-in only out 6 miles and beyond.
    No wonder eight-party was so popular!  Much less hardware ...

Digital loop carrier used to come in two flavors, a strictly one-
    for-one line-to-channel version ("carrier") and a version
    with concentration ("concentrator").  Western Electric
    (pre-SLC-96) had a version of each:

   SLC-40 used adaptive delta modulation to put 40 channels on
    a special T1-like four-wire circuit.  No concentration, and
    a channel 41 provided alarm/maintenance/signaling.  At up
    to ten miles, this could be powered from the CO!  Repeaters
    would get 50 miles, but then remote power was needed ...

   SLM (Subscriber Loop Multiplexer) used a tiny cross-bar switch
    to concentrate up to 80 lines onto 24 channels of a T1-like
    line that originated and terminated at the CO end.  This
    loop connected up to six SLM units of up to 40 lines (but total
    had to be 80 lines or less), using delta-modulation in the
    PCM samples {cheaper, easier to adjust A/D electronics}.
    Real, distributed switching, using T1 as a bus ...

Both could handle one- or two-party with ANI, various four-party
schemes and pre-pay coin lines.

   SLC-96 was based on the same technology as the Western Electric D4
channel bank, developed at the same time/place.  There is a great
issue of the {Bell System Technical Journal} devoted to D4, and if I
ever find out who stole my copy, I'll ... but it's pretty old
technology, compared to, say, the BCM32000(tm), which can take two DS1
streams and compress the active voice channels onto a single DS1
stream, with digital echo cancellation if needed.


Al Varney - just MY opinion.


[Moderator's Note: ITT stands for International Telephone and
Telegraph Company, the bakers of Holsom Bread Products among other
things. What do you stand for?  Higdon says he won't stand for it at
all.  PAT]

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 20:16:34 GMT


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

> I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
> Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
> "numbers" onto a single pair.

SLC-96 (I believe) is a trademark of AT&T.  Fundamentally you are
correct, but the capacity of the system is 96 subscriber loops. In
some literature, you will find systems such as SLC-96 referred to as
"pair gain" technology.  The more generic term used by telephone
companies (non-brand specific) is Universal Digital Loop Carrier, or
UDLC.  These systems, of which SLC-96 is a member, introduced in the
1970's, gives OTCs an economical alternative to deploying long feeder
routes.  The system consists primarily of a Central Office Terminal
(COT), one or more DS1 spans (T-1 carrier), and a Remote Terminal
(RT).  The COT interface presented to the switch is identical to the
metallic pair interface of a normal POTS loop.  The COT performs
encoding/decoding according to PCM principles and passes signaling and
loop supervision as part of the DS-1 bit stream.  At the other end the
RT performs the inverse function to support the characteristics of a
metallic subscriber loop.

The newer Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) is even more
economical when used with digital switches such as AT&T's 5ESS(tm) or
NTI's DMS-100.  IDLC takes advantage of the fact that the switch
fabric delivers signals in their digital format so that no codec
functionality is required.


Jack (John) Adams       Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {Voice}       [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 18:07:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: AT&T


A SLC 96 unit uses two or four T1 lines + one switchable spare, to
service 96 remote customer lines. At the remote end, the two or four
T1 lines terminate at a channel back which demultiplexes each T1 into
24 channels. Each channel card handles either one line (if you had
fully equipped the SLC with four T1 lines) or two lines (if the SLC
only had 2 T1 lines), i.e., 4 X 24 <OR> 2 X 48 = 96 lines. The
"switchable" T1 allowed the operating company to havbe a spare T1, in
case one of the active T1 lines was disabled.  The spare T1 could be
used for any of the active T1 lines. If you lost two or more T1 lines,
the first T1 lost was the one that "got" the spare T1.  This unit was
designed for higher quality transmission when the CO was out of range
for a two-wire customer line.

Since I haven't done much work with these in the last six years,
suffice it to say there have been upgrades in this technology; e.g.,
to expand the number of customer lines served, allowing ISDN on these
remote customer lines, etc.  Hope this helps.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 19:03:11 GMT


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

> I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
> Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
> "numbers" onto a single pair.

Close.  SLC stands for Subscriber Loop Carrier and the 96 stands for
96 "lines" per system.  If memory serves me correctly, it muxes the
96 lines on 4 pair.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:29:21 GMT


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

> I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
> Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
> "numbers" onto a single pair.

Well, partially correct.  The abbreviation is right -- SLC does indeed
stand for Subscriber Loop Carrier.  The function is wrong, though -- a
SLC-96 multiplexes 96 individual phone lines onto four DS1 carriers,
or eight pairs.  (A partially-equipped SLC-96, of course, can carry
less lines on fewer DS1s, with 24 lines per DS1.)

(To be correct, I should be writing "SLC-96 (TM) subscriber loop carrier
system; SLC is a trademark of AT&T"...  SLC-96 is AT&T's trade name for one
of our digital loop carrier systems (DLCs).)

DLCs are usually mounted in cabinets on poles or pads or in CEVs
(Controlled Environment Vaults -- underground equipment bunkers,
basically) -- they're not typically located on customer premises (at
least, not residential customers).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon L. Gauthier)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:10:25 GMT


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

> I would like confirmation from someone that an "SLC96" is "Subscriber
> Loop Carrier" -- the scheme that allows telco to multiplex two phone
> "numbers" onto a single pair.

Nope!  The SLC-96 multiplexes 96 subscribers (normally taking 96
twisted pairs) onto one, two or three (depending on the operating
mode) digital T1 lines operating at 1.544 Mbps.  Each T1 uses two
twisted pairs.  So you eliminate 22-90 pairs of wires.  Doesn't sound
like much, but when those subscribers are five or more miles out from
the central office, that much copper can amount to a lot of money.

Two-, Four- and multi-party lines are probably what you are thinking
of.  On two- party lines, the CO usually applies ringing voltage to
the 'tip' side of a pair when ringing one customer, and on the 'ring'
side when ringing the other.  Four- and multi-party lines usually use
harmonic or decimonic ringers (ringing voltage at different
frequencies for each subscriber.  Each telephone has a frequency
selective ringer that only rings when a specific ringing frequency is
applied).


Regards,

Jon L. Gauthier                 Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
EXU/IS/TP Systems Programmer                  P.O. Box 833875
[phone]                     Richardson, TX 75083-3875
Disclaimer:  "My opinions are my own - my employer would take the 5th on
             everything I say."  Surely it's been said before!...


[Moderator's Note: The phones which were not being rung selectively
would still have a very slight vibration from the bell when *someone
else* on the party line was being called. Snoopy old biddies wanting
to know their neighbor's business would sit their phone instrument on
or inside a galvanized washtub. The sound of the very slight 'ticks'
from the phone when a party line neighbor was being called were made
much louder when the washtub would vibrate also. Remember, these
were the original desk phones; metal casing, no ringer adjustment,
etc, circa 1915-25 but some in service in the 1960's. Hearing the
rattles, the biddies would pick up the receiver to silently listen to
the others talking.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 13:35:54 GMT


SLC-96 is a 96 channel Digital Concentrator. It is not a 'two channel'
multiplexing scheme for a single pair.


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)   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Wedemeier)
Subject: Re: What is "SLC-96"?
Organization: TI Telecom Systems, Dallas
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 16:15:30 GMT


To get all the details, order TR-TSY-000008 from Bellcore
(1-800-521-CORE).

To summarize:

Each "shelf" of a SLC-96 multiplexes 24 subscriber pairs onto a T1
span. Four of these things are grouped into a channel bank (hence the
96: 24 * 4 ).  The result is not just a D4 channel bank, since the T1
framing bit pattern is modified to form a data link between the
channel bank (usually remoted from the CO) and corresponding equipment
in the CO. This data link is used to send alarm info between the
remote terminal and CO. A fifth T-span, called the "Protection" span
can be provisioned to take over from one of the other four in case of
some kind of failure: The indication to switch is given in the data
link. Thus, fairly high availabiliy can be assured to each individual
subscriber.

The thing has another mode of operation in which 48 subscriber pairs
can be concentrated into a single T1, or 96 subscribers onto two T1s.
In this mode, the 25th subscriber to come off-hook gets blocked ...
When a subscriber comes off hook, messages go back and forth between
the remote unit and CO equipment.  The equipment negotiates which T1
channel to use for the call, and optionally can test the channel to
ensure that its working ok. When everything checks out ok, the audio
path is established and the subscriber gets dial tone. Sort of the
mirror image happens to terminate a call to a subscriber. This mode
has a protection span as well.

There's also a third mode that's used with pay phones, but I've not
had the need to look into the details of how this mode works.


Fred Wedemeier  pho: 214-997-3213  fax: [phone]
  timsg: fcw    inet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Phaedrus)
Subject: Re: Voice Messaging User Interface Forum Standard
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 22:49:09 GMT


     Obviously, there's not much of a standard at work here, since my
U.S.  West voice messaging service uses keys almost completely
different from the previous poster's:

While listening to a message:           After a message finishes:

   1       2       3                        1       2       3
Rewind* Pause/   Fast
        Resume  Forward*

   4       5       6                        4       5       6
 Slow            Speed                    Replay
 Down             Up

   7       8       9                        7       8       9
         Normal Increase                  Erase            Save
         Volume  Volume

   *       0       #                        *       0       #
                 Skip                      Quit    Help
                Message

*(For Rewind/Fast Forward, one press rewinds/advances the message by
ten seconds; two presses moves to the start/end of the message.)

     Now that I see them laid out on the telephone keypad, I see why
they don't do that in the instruction pamphlet; the key assignments
look even less sensible this way. :)


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 10:10:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why a California Telephone Number For Israel?


I noticed the following in TELECOM Digest:

> Edwin Slonim, Intel Software Products, Haifa, Israel
> 972-435-5910, fax [phone], voicemail 916 351-2005

I called the voicemail number and, sure enough, such California number
had a recording which mentioned Haifa.  Why the California number
alongside the Israel telephone numbers?


[Moderator's Note: Probably because so many good things have been said
about telco service in California in this forum, he felt it was very
important to have an FX line for his customer's convenience. :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #476
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17056;
          13 Jun 92 18:42 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:43:54 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11761
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:43:45 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:43:45 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #477

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 16:43:35 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 477

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Bob Frankston)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? (Jack Adams)
    Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? Thanks to All (Jim Langridge)
    Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? (Jon L. Gauthier)
    Re: Government Taking Inventions (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Government Taking Inventions (Mark Fulk)
    Re: Newly Dialable Points (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Newly Dialable Points (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1992 12:07:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator noted what
[e-mail] (Christopher Owens) had written:

> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
>  -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

In the strictest sense of the term, *70 cannot be considered a toggle.
After using *70 to cancel call waiting, hitting it again will not
reenable call waiting, and, further, disconnecting the current call
will return the status of the line to a known state.  Additionally,
having Call Waiting cancelled when you believe it to be activated, or
vice-versa, will not have as great an effect as will giving your
number (and hence name and address) to someone when you want, or need
to maintain privacy.

The question of feature interaction does arise.  With Call Waiting and
Three-Way Calling, can you use *70 as a true toggle?  That is, can a
person flash to get new dialtone, use *70 to cancel CW, then, later
on, flash again, *70 again, and reenable Call Waiting?

BTW, if someone would like to talk about the engineering aspects of
feature interaction, I think that would make an interesting topic,
especially with the number of features available, and the number of
new features being introduced.  I remember the good old days, when all
a phone could do was make and take calls.  *sigh* 8)

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 17:52:02 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Owens) writes and TELECOM Moderator notes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
>> from people about *77 being a toggle. ...]

> After a while, some combination of the incessant wailing of his
> neighbor's burglar alarm and the Wagnerian Sturm und Drang
> reverberating around his office began to wear on Townson's sanity.
> Something finally snapped, and he adopted the bizzarre opinion that
> toggles without feedback were acceptable user interface design.

> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
>  -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

Absolutely.  (This topic has gone on far too long, but ...) at least
with discrete on and off codes I can be *assured* that if I dial *yz
then ID is (desired-state).


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Date: Fri 12 Jun 1992 09:29 -0400


I won't complain about the lack of a synthesized voice -- just the
opposite.  I want my computer (or modem) to be able to report back all
information it finds be they stutter dialtones, SIT codes or simply
bird calls, that have some meaning so I can handle it.  Of course, in
the world of ISDN there should be a full protocol, but until then,
I'll have to settle for the "ear" of the modem.

Hmm, since the voice messages are stylized ...

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 07:45:59 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


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

> I'm a caller ID subscriber in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC,
> so I tried out the *77 caller ID block-blocking feature. It worked,
> but it's not implemented as a toggle without feedback -- at least not
> in my CO. The code *77 caused me to be routed to a recording which
> said that anonymous call blocking was now on. A second invocation of
> *77 yielded the same result.  I tried *87, which gave me a recording
> saying that anonymous call blocking was now off.

> I wasn't able to exercise the feature further, since caller ID
> blocking via *67 is not available in Virginia. I intend to find out
> if/when this feature will be available in Virginia, and will let the
> group know what I find out.

   The Bell Atlantic AVP that "demonstrated" the "blocked call"
announcement in Chicago (by playing it back from a pocket recorder)
stated he was in the same situation.  He lives in Virginia, where the
PUC says "no blocking", so he had to use *77 on his home telephone,
then go to Maryland, where the PUC says "provide per-call blocking",
dialed *67+home number and recorded the announcement.  Note this is in
the same LATA, with SS7-equipped COs.

   I wouldn't plan on *67 in Virginia any time soon.  And for the
record, Bell Atlantic states that they intend to "return supervision"
on calls reaching the *77-induced announcement, which implies that you
will be charged for those times when you forget/didn't-know to
un-toggle a blocked line or dial *67 in error.


Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

From: vixen![e-mail] (26546-adams)
Subject: Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 20:37:44 GMT


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

> I have been asked for a set of Erlang tables by someone in my office.

> Can anyone tell me where to find them?  Are they updated as time
> passes?  What ever anyone can tell me would help.  The main one they
> need is Erlang C.

While the Bell System is no more, the book "Engineering and Operations
in the Bell System" in its second edition (Probably third printing by
now) exists and does a nice treatment of the Erlang Blocked Calls
Delayed model (or Erlang C formula) and Blocked Call Cleared model (or
Erlang B formula).  I'm not sure whether the chapter on Traffic in
which the Danish mathematician's landmark work is summarized contains
any of the tables (My copy of the book is at work and I'm not!). They
should be easy to locate in any engineering library and no, they are
not *updated* periodically.

Jack (John) Adams        Bellcore RRC 4B-259
[phone] {JAQS VOICE}    [phone] {JAQS FAQS}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:22:12 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


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

> I have been asked for a set of Erlang tables by someone in my office.

> Can anyone tell me where to find them?  Are they updated as time
> passes?  What ever anyone can tell me would help.  The main one they
> need is Erlang C.

   For telecom background material of this type, I start with:

     "Engineering and Operations in the Bell System", AT&T CIC Select
Code 500-478, ISBN 0-932764-04-5, Second Edition (1984).  (The 1977
edition had some amazing historical stuff that did not survive to the
second edition, however.)

   This book covered the history, theory and formulas associated with
Erlang B and C, but no tables.  So on to the old standby:

     "Reference Manual for Telecommunication Engineering", by Roger L.
Freeman, Wiley (1984), ISBN 0-471-86753-5.  In spite of the 1400+
pages being done by Wordstar(rg.tm) on a PC, you know this is a meaty
book when the Erlang B tables start on page 15!!!.  This is a
wonderful collection of material from many sources, including GTE,
AT&T and the ITU.  Just looking at the various topic headings will
make anyone realize just how much science and engineering went into
making the telephone and telephone networks function.

   Just be sure to use the right Erlang tables, and read every one of
Mr. Freeman's "Assumptions" to be sure they fit your usage.

> "I wonder what kind of thread this could start???"

   Almost all telecom questions of a "where do I find information on"
nature can be answered by walking to Dewey Decimal section 621.38 and
621.385 of a technical library (that's "TK-5102" if your library is a
"congressional" one).  Of course, PAT wouldn't have a lot to do
then ...


Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon L. Gauthier)
Subject: Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 14:14:08 GMT


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

> I have been asked for a set of Erlang tables by someone in my office.

> Can anyone tell me where to find them?  Are they updated as time
> passes?  What ever anyone can tell me would help.  The main one they
> need is Erlang C.

> "I wonder what kind of thread this could start???"

Any textbook on Telephony Traffic Engineering has them.  Try "Digital
Telephony" by John C. Bellamy, Wiley-Interscience ISBN 0-471-08089-6.


Jon L. Gauthier               Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
EXU/IS/TP Systems Programmer                P.O. Box 833875
[phone]                   Richardson, TX 75083-3875

Disclaimer:  "My opinions are my own - my employer would take the 5th on
             everything I say."  Surely it's been said before!...

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 09:32:29 edt
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Erlang Tables, What? Where? How? Thanks to All


I would like to thank everyone who replied to my cry for help
to find Erlang tables and formulas.

NEVER underestimate the power and resources of the Digest, Let alone
the NET.

Below I am including (with the author's permission) a script that
makes things easy.  I received it from Martin Weiss as part of his
response to my cry for help.  Thanks again everyone.


Jim Langridge  [e-mail]  [phone]

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

#include <stdio.h>

/* The Erlang-C function can be computed using the Erlang-B. */
/* This Erlang-B implementation is recursive, so it doesn't  */
/* require double precision numbers for large numbers of channels. */
/* Thus, this program quickly computes both functions. */
/* This program was written by Martin Weiss, University of Pittsburgh */
/* Pittsburgh PA  15260.  Electronic mail: [e-mail] */

float B(c,a)
int c;
float a;

{
  float blocking, b;

  if ( c > 0 ){
    b = B(c - 1, a); /* one function call is better than two */
    blocking = (a * b) / (((float) c) + (a * b)); /* compute */
    return(blocking);
  }
  else {
    return(1.0);  /* Stopping value: the blocking probability */
                  /* must be 1 when no channels exist. */
  }
}

main()
{
  int c;
  float a, b, C, rho;

  printf("\n%s", "Number of Channels: ");
  scanf("%d", &c);
  printf("%s", "Traffic (in erlangs): ");
  scanf("%f", &a);

  rho = a / ((float) c);    /* This is the average channel utilization */
  b = B(c,a);            /* This is the blocking probability */
  C = b / (1 - rho * ( 1 - b ) );

  if ( C > 1.0) {                  /* The Erlang-C is not assymptotic */
    C = 1.0;                       /* to 1, so truncate values > 1    */
    }

  printf("\n\n%s %f \n", "The Erlang-B value is: ", b);
  printf("%s %f \n\n", "The Erlang-C value is: ", C);

}

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Government Taking Inventions
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 21:02:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David A. Banisar) writes:

> Under the Invention Secrecy Act, it is possible for the government to
> step in and classify an invention and order the inventor to not
> discuss it with anyone. This has occured many times in the last 40
> years, mostly for equipment that has cryptography.

I personally know someone who this happened to.  When in college (>10
years ago) there was some contest to create better encryption
algorithms.  He thought of one that was extremely hard to crack, so
much so that some government types showed up (NSA or others) to talk
to him and his professor.  They were told not to publish the
algorithm, nor to distribute it or talk about it, etc.  (I think that
what he found is pretty obsolete by today's standards.)


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


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if anyone who has experienced this demand
that they remain silent about their work has ever forced the issue by
demanding to be sued and have a judgment entered. That's what I would
do: tell the Government to take a hike until/unless it were willing to
sue me and have the whole thing -- secret invention/formula and all
discussed in open court; after all, we still don't have secret trials
in the USA -- everyone is invited to attend including the newspapers.
Sometimes the Government won't sue because things would be discussed
it would rather not talk about. And once I got the hint they were
going to sue, I'd be chattering my head off to all the media until the
moment they arrived to hand me legal service with a pre-trial
restraining order attached ... and I'd probably appeal that before
agreeing to obey it.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Government Taking Inventions
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:45:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> David A. Banisar <Banisar@
washofc.cpsr.org> writes:

> seventies (78, I believe) the government classified an invention
> called ?the Phaserphone? which would have provided voice encryption

This is right, although Phaserphone encryption was trivially
breakable.

> More recently, in 1986, the NSA tried to classify research done by
> Adi Shamir at the Weitzman Institute in Israel. They backed down
                    ^^^^^^^^ Weizmann
> after this became public.

I was at STOC '87 in New York when this was a big issue.  Dana May
Latch, the local arrangements chair, had to deal with a lot of the
spooks.  At one point in the conference, AFTER Shamir's talk, an
exhausted Dana sat down with me to discuss the affair.  According to
her, it was not the NSA at all that was trying to classify Shamir's
invention (a secure credit card) but rather the Army was.  The NSA
folks were on the side of the angels, trying to talk the Army out of
it.

Shamir's paper (with Ulrich Feige and Amos Fiat) appears on page 210
of the proceedings (ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, New York
City, 1987; published by the ACM).

> I'm sure there are many other instances where this has occured. Anyone
> else have examples?

I know of one non-cryptographic example, which I cannot discuss.  For
the record, I believe that the classification of THIS example is a
good idea, although a dear relative should be being compensated for
its use.


Bye now -- Mark


[Moderator's Note: Not to hassle you about it, but did a FEDERAL JUDGE
ever enter an order saying you can't discuss it?  That's all that
counts; what the FBI/CIA/DOD wants in and of itself means nothing.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:02:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Newly Dialable Points
Reply-To: [e-mail]


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> {Newsbytes} reports that AT&T says that as of June 15th, they will
> offer direct dial service to these points:

> Antarctica, Casey and Scott Bases

I wonder what the country codes for these will be (for those who don't
know, Antarctica is divvied up <like so many pieces of pie> among
several nations ...)


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

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

Subject: Re: Newly Dialable Points
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 19:44:24 EDT
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


Henry Mensch wrote:

>> Antarctica, Casey and Scott Bases

> I wonder what the country codes for these will be (for those who don't
> know, Antarctica is divvied up <like so many pieces of pie> among
> several nations ...)

No need to wonder, I called AT&T's International Information Service,
who told me that they'll both be using 672, the code for Australian
External Territories, already used for Cocos, Norfolk, and Christmas
Islands.

In case you have friends way down south, here are the dial rates.  The
rates are unchanged from the operator assisted rates, but you don't
have to pay for a person-to-person call if you don't want to.

Period      1st min   extra min
5P-11P      5.04        3.36
10A-5P      4.60        3.00
11P-10A      4.16        2.77

Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #477
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19412;
          13 Jun 92 19:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05237
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 17:40:48 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00564
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 17:40:39 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 17:40:39 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #478

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 17:40:45 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 478

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Remaining Area Codes (Linc Madison)
    Re: Remaining Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes (Linc Madison)
    Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes (Joshua Hosseinoff)
    Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines (George Mitchell)
    Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines (David Leibold)
    Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes (Bill Squire)
    Re: Leading 1's and Toll Calls (Carl Moore)
    "International" Phone Numbers? (D. V. Henkel-Wallace)
    New Notes for Georgia (Carl Moore)
    Re: Forbes on National Directories (Wolf Paul)
    Re: *69 Results in a Beating (James Hartman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 02:13:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Remaining Area Codes
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Michael M. O'Dorney
([e-mail]) writes:

> Also, about three years ago, I heard a rumor that Nova Scotia would
> lose the 902 area code and be absorbed into another area code (709 or
> 506).  Is this technically (enough available exchanges) or politically
> (area code covering two provinces) possible?  The 902 was to be given
> to western Washington outside Seattle.

Area Code 902 currently covers two provinces -- Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island.  It and 809 are the only examples in the NANP of area
codes crossing state-level boundaries (states, provinces, or nations).
(Well, I guess I should include 403 (Alberta) and 819 (Quebec) which
include portions of the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.)
According to the original NANP list posted here a few months ago, 902
also originally included New Brunswick.  So politically it is
possible.

As for the technical feasibility, I don't know for certain, but I'd
doubt it.  There are very likely duplicated prefixes; even if they
could all be moved to new prefixes, it would be a shortsighted move to
unsplit an area code that was split so long ago.  In short, I highly
doubt it.

On the subject of area codes, I saw a batch of new SoCal directories
 from GTE-land the other day, all clearly marked 714/909.  The area
code map inside showed the 714/909, 512/210, 404/706, and 212/718
splits, but did not mention the 416/905 split.  The number that the
radio station announced that I mentioned in an earlier article, by the
way, was for the Rainforest Action Network, 1-200-989-RAIN.  They have
now corrected the number to 1-800-989-RAIN, but I'm still curious why
I get different behavior dialing 1-200-xxx-xxxx than, say,
1-500-xxx-xxxx.  I don't know of any use of 200 for test purposes here
in Pac*Bell land.  Of course, I only think to try it at 2:15 a.m. and
other weird times when no one would answer even if it were a real
business number.


Linc Madison (MASTER of Science, May 1992)  ==  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are gospel truth.  Period.  ;-)


[Moderator's Note: A good candidate for this splitting would be 401 in
Rhode Island ... a very underused area code. Ditto 702 in Nevada, with
many prefixes idle and unlikely to be used anytime soon.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 9:40:38 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remaining Area Codes


I had never before heard of Nova Scotia possibly being absorbed into
another area code.  902 already covers Prince Edward Island, not just
Nova Scotia.

206 area, where you ([e-mail] (Michael M.
O'Dorney)) are located, has already had to prepare for N0X/N1X
prefixes, so you have to dial 1+206+7D to call long distance within
206.  There has been no word of a split of 206; information on splits
gets disseminated rapidly here once it gets out.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 12:49:46 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson ([e-mail]):

> Note 8. Reports are that the area code 909 will be assigned to Canada.
> I am unable to confirm this at this time as the three major
> interexchange carriers do not show it assigned for anything.

This is incorrect.  Area Code 909 has been assigned to southern
California, roughly Riverside and San Bernadino Counties, effective in
November 1992.  Area Code 714 will be reduced to approximately
coincide with Orange County, give or take a few edge effects.  This
information is all official and final, and folks in that area have now
received their May 1992 phone books indicating Area Code 714/909.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:56:13 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


Paul Robinson wrote:

> Recent reports indicate that most of the available unused area codes
> will be used up within a few years.  At least two area codes were made
> available when Mexico was separated from the United States into an
> international number.  Some time could be gained by such methods as
> moving area code 809 to an international code, and moving Canadian
> provinces to international code.

   Paul, You are pretty free with the forced removal of Canada, etc.
from World Zone 1.  But the problem is that the USA does NOT "own" the
NPAs assigned to Canada and the 809 area.  And we won't exhaust before
"interchangable" NPAs are available, according to Bellcore.

> This might buy some time, but the obvious "solution" is to extend
> area codes by making the middle digit of an area code be any number
> from 0 through 9.  This would add hundreds of new area codes but it
> might mean having to dial 10 digits to call someone across the street,
> as is currently the situation in the metropolitan area of Washington,
> DC.

   The expanded NPAs are supposed to be supported throughout World
Zone 1 by mid-1995.  Before that, New York City is supposed to get NPA
917 as an "overlay" NPA code -- that is, it will geographically
coincide with 212, and you will have to use 1 + 917-NXX-XXXX to reach
such a number.  Along with this method of preventing the further
"splitting" of NPAs, Bellcore also recommends that:

   1 + 10-digit be accepted everywhere, even for non-toll "local" calls,
   and the new "overlay" NPAs allow only 10-digit dialing (1+ would be
   permitted, but seven-digit dialing would not be allowed).  Later,
   all areas would switch to ten-digit dialing (1+ would disappear,
   even as a "toll alerting" indication).


Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:20 EST
From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Updated List of USA/Canadian Area Codes


You listed 917 as a New York area code, but my new NYNEX phone books
have splattered on every page that the new area code for the Bronx
will be 718 and not 917 as was mentioned before.  I called
917-555-1212 and got NYTEL directory assistance so the area code is
active.  It looks like 212 will now be Manhattan and all NYC cellular
phones and pagers.  718 will be the other boroughs of NYC.


[Moderator's Note: 917 is for pagers and cellular phones in NYC.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (George Mitchell)
Subject: Re: LATAs Crossing State Lines
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:15:53 GMT


Has anyone mentioned how appropriate it is that the LATA encom-
passing area codes 508 and 617 is numbered 128?


George Mitchell


[Moderator's Note: No George, no one has mentioned that.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 21:34:35 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Latas Crossing State Lines


From: [e-mail] (David Esan):

> 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

Officially, LATA isn't really meaningful in Canada in a regulatory or
telco sense as competition is not yet approved (though noises are
being made about the Unitel/BCRL decision being a "few weeks away").
Perhaps the numbers are just for Bellcore to put something in their
LATA number field for now ...

> 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)

This sounds like the "LATA" numbers are ordered according to
provincial/territory alphabetical order: Alberta (840), British
Columbia (842), Manitoba (844), New Brunswick (846), etc...

850 looks like the Northwest Territories which uses 403 (west end) and
819 (east end) ... not Alberta and Quebec as such.

>     852 :902 (NS)
>     854 :416 (ON), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 705 (ON), 807 (ON)
>     856 :902 (NS)

852, 856 are both in 902; if alphabetic order is assumed, the 856
would likely be Prince Edward Island (PE), while 852 is Nova Scotia
(NS)

>     858 :416 (ON), 418 (PQ), 514 (PQ), 519 (ON), 613 (ON), 819 (PQ)

858 sounds a bit weird with some Ontario and Quebec exchanges, but it
seems to represent Quebec "LATA". But how they go listing 416 and 519
which are far from the Quebec border is a mystery. 613 is explained by
the presence of Ottawa-Hull exchange and a bit of Ontario-Quebec
border activity. Some explanation of the bizarre listing in 858 is
still in order, however, as 854 already covers all of Ontario.

>     860 :306 (SK)
>     862 :403 (AB)

Note that 840 and 862 are both 403; it's a good guess that 862
represents Yukon territory rather than Alberta as such (since Yukon
bums NXXs off 403).


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

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

Subject: Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes
From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 19:19:41 WET/D
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> Does anybody happen to know what other countries (if any) are "unhappy
> with the numbers assigned to them" and are lobbying the ITU for new
> codes.

Finland of course!  They got 358 and think they are big enough for a
two digit code.  They were offering "big bucks" for the former DDR's
37, but since there are plenty of new countries they just are not
likely to get it.  Perhaps making 7 as a European code (including the
part of the former USSR technically in Europe) will open upto nine two
digit codes, or fewer two digit and alot more three digit codes.  The
Asian part of the former USSR could get codes with an 8.  If these
changes were made, Greenland and the Faroe Islands (CC 299 and 298
resp.) could get a real European code and not feel the stigma of a "2"
code.  Next: Subdividing the numbering zone "1", looks like a must
soon, with area codes like 310, 510, etc. and now talk about N11
codes, its going to happen.  Hawaii is already on a technical basis
considered 18, Canada 11, everybody else ... anyone know?


Bill

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 10:06:54 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leading 1's and Toll Calls


As you probably know, N0X/N1X prefixes (and the later change to NXX
area codes) is forcing a change, in some areas, in the meaning of that
leading 1.  That leading 1, in such case, will have to mean "what
follows is an area code"; if it is still to mean "toll call", then
you'd have to dial 1+NPA+7D for long distance within your own area
code, as is done in 301 (and 410) area in Maryland.  215 in Pa. had
1+7D for long distance within it, but most of that area has already
gotten rid of it (exceptions at Denver and Adamstown, and they are
noted in the history.of.area.splits file in the archives).

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

From: [e-mail] (D. V. Henkel-Wallace)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:50:30 EDT
Subject: "International" Phone Numbers?


A co-worker always writes phone numbers in the form +1 ABC DEF GHIJ.
He says this is some sort of ISO standard for phone numbers ("+"
followed by what it would take to call the number from outside the
country, with the groups separated by spaces).

Is this the case?  Is there some standard, and if so is that a correct
description?

Thanks.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 11:19:53 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Notes For Georgia


Changes to history.of.area.splits file affecting Georgia:

I have changed the remark about long-distance within 912 from
"optional in" to "also applies to", based on what I have seen in the
December 1991 Greater Atlanta call guide.

That same call guide, in discussing the 404/706 split, said that "It's
been 38 years since Georgia added an Area Code."

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: Forbes on National Directories
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:09:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

>  - PhoneDisk USA sells a national white pages listing for $1800.
> Later this summer they expect to sell it via mail order for around
> $200. The two CDs will contain 90 million listings, with addresses and
> zipcodes.  Listings will be encrypted such that reverse searches or
> neighbor searchs will not be allowed, however wildcard searches based
> on partial numbers will be allowed. (PhoneDisk is based in Bethesda, MD)

So who's to stop anyone from running a script with lots of wildcard
searches until on has obtained all of the data in plain text, which
can then be used for ANY type of search?

Sure it would take lots of disk space and CPU time but these are not
that difficult to come by ...


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center    [e-mail]
Alcatel-Elin Research Center     [phone] (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                 [phone] (fax)

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

Subject: Re: *69 Results in a Beating
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 23:05:51 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


TELECOM Moderator noted, in response to [e-mail] (david
niebuhr) who had written:

> [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. [...]

There is a quick way to get a telephone number (at least in our area)
if you have call return and call blocking.  Just wait for someone to
dial you, then add them to call blocking using the "last call"
feature.  Then ask call blocking to read you back your blocked list.
It worked for me when I had continuous "hang ups" on my answering
machine.  I came home one day to a machine full of hangups.  I blocked
the "last call" and then tried to find out who was calling me.  I
finally found out that the number was a business; apparently, my
number is close to something else important, or perhaps someone just
likes my silly answering machine messages.  Either way, I haven't had
the hangup problem to the same degree since.


[e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop) Unka Phaed's UUCP
Thingy, [phone] 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


[Moderator's Note: Good try. Close, but no cigar. In some (most?)
places -- and definitly here in IBT-land -- the addition of 'last call
received without knowing the number' to the Call Screening list
results in a 'private entry' on the list when the list is read back.
Here we punch in a code to add that call to the list, and thereafter
the system refers to it as 'private entry' to protect the privacy of
the unwanted caller I guess, since that is a Socially Responsible
thing to do.  And *69 does not read back numbers to us either.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #478
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21363;
          13 Jun 92 20:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 18:39:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05652
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 18:39:34 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 18:39:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #479

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 18:39:33 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 479

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Ken Abrams)
    Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (David Lesher)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Ken Abrams)
    Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed (Bill Squire)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Forbes on National Directories (Wolf Paul)
    Re: What Causes Lack of Dial Tones? (Nick Sayer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:03:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.
com> writes:

> up in the records.  Then they said that Pacific Bell could not
> initiate a call to any IXC because of His Honor, and that Sprint would
> have to call them.  Back to Sprint, who said that they would waste no

One of the unfortunate side effects of divestiture is that (in many
cases) it forces the customer to become an arbitrator between the LEC
and LD carrier but there is a point at which the customer's respon-
sibility ends.  The above statement from the PAC Bell "supervisor" is
simply, totally and blatantly untrue.  As Pat pointed out, the LECs
can and do communicate with the carriers every hour of every day.
This kind of situation is one where the LEC employee needs to be
re-trained or demoted.  A call (or threat of) to the executive offices
or the PUC should have stratghtened this out rather quickly.  If it
hasn't been too long ago and you still have the person's name, an
executive complaint might still be in order.  It might help others in
the future.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 09:57:04 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Nightmare


Our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I've found I can usually get messages from AT&T to
> Illinois Bell by simply asking the one to fax a message to the other.
> I've done this when there was a problem getting Reach Out installed on
> my line (with IBT doing the billing for AT&T, etc).  PAT]

On the rare occasions when I find myself stuck in the middle of a
finger-pointing dispute between two billing entities, I just use my
Conference Calling feature. Call the first party, get them briefly
up-to-speed on the dispute that we've been talking about, then ask
them to hold for a moment. Call the second party, do the same for
them, then punch the FLASH button and we're all together. After a
moment or two of stunned silence, they can usually resolve their
differences fairly quickly.


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


[Moderator's Note: To paraphrase a writer from earlier today: So this
requires three-way calling? That means extra $$ for telco!  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:53:50 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Michael Ho) writes:

> I just called AT&T and ordered one of the ten-number restricted
> calling cards; because I live on the West Coast and many people who
> need to reach me are on the East Coast, I opted for the multi-number
> card so that they'd be able to call at home or at work.

> This should be interesting.  I don't know how they do it, but I'll
> have to play with it and see if it works properly.

It does NOT work properly, at least here in Seattle.  There is a
security "hole" when dialing intra-LATA sequence calls.  All of the
AT&T handled calls restrict properly, but there's a problem with
intra-LATA calls that US West handles (possibly other LECs have the
same problem, but my impression is that some do it correctly).

The problem is that the US West calling card system validates the card
number only on the first call.  So, you can call a number that's on
the "okay" list for the resticted card, and as soon as you hear "thank
you," hit #.  Then, you can dial any other intra-LATA call, and it
will go through.  The US West calling card system is programmed such
that since it just got a "valid" indication from AT&T a moment ago for
this calling card number, that it most probably still is valid, so why
bother checking?  It is not aware that the "validness" may be affected
by changes to the called number, even when the card number stays the
same.

Note that this may not be a problem for you -- if Pacific Bell handles
this correctly (try it!), then you're okay.  If all of the "okay"
numbers are in Pacific Bell territory, then you're covered, as it
would not be possible for someone in US West territory to get ANY call
validated to that number, as the initial call to a number on the list
would be inter-LATA, and therefore handled by AT&T, which does the
right thing for sequence calls.

I've reported this to AT&T, but they seem very dis-interested in the
whole situation.  Their attitude is "who would ever do that?"  and
"Well, you're giving the card to your friends or family members, and
they wouldn't try to defraud you, right?"  I of course then explain
that if they could be trusted, I'd just have given them my unrestrited
card in the first place.  The whole point of the restricted card is
that you give it to people who you *don't* trust.

I finally got in touch with someone who was familiar with the problem,
and said that they're working on it, but basically US West has to fix
it in their calling card system, and it could take several months.
Last time I checked, it was still broken (or should I say "working?" :-))

And, the bad charges do appear on your bill -- the AT&T computer
doesn't disregard them as invalid calls.  Perhaps they will get tired
of me calling every month to get my test calls deleted from my bill
and get it fixed one of these days.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 17:31:26 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


I just talked to a guy whose son is a electrician on one of Ma's
cable/fiber laying ships out of Baltimore. He's getting rich.

They are working full tilt, and a new ship is under construction, too.

They are headed out to install a {lightpipe, line, cable, fiber --
what DO we call it anymore ;-?} between NZ land and Hawaii, if I heard
him correctly.

Hope they leave room in that pipe for lots of NetNews ...


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Abrams)
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1992 16:37:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad
Cook) writes:

> [e-mail] (Peter Hayward) writes:

>> 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?

> there is really that much concern about having the best performance at
> the rural site, buy one of those little cellular Yagis and aim it at
> the nearest cell site.

"Those little cellular Yagis" were not really designed for use with
cellular phone service.  Using one of them close to a major metro area
(an area with more than one cell site), might cause real problems for
the cellular switch since you might present a useable signal to more
than one cell site.  Use of any device that produces an effective
radiated power that exceeds seven watts is technically illegal (ie
prohibited by FCC regulations).  Multiple cell site areas are even
adversely affected by "rural" five db gain antennas when used in town.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Squire)
Subject: Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed
Date: 13 Jun 92 04:24:36 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


[e-mail] writes:

>> I have only received a few replies to my request for help
>> in tracking down information on the history of remote
>> control technology.

> I've known that the first Remote Control Unit RCU for Television was
> intended using sound at high frequency, over 20 KHz, so you can not
> hear it.

> The first functions were very simple. Turn on, Turn off, Volume Up,
> and Volume Down.

> The RCU transmitter was only an oscillator that runs on different
> frequencies depending on the function requiered.  The receiver was a
> single tone detector, after high frecuency audio amplified an
> aconditioned. I hope it'll be helpfull. Sorry if you have ran across
> it.

        An old RCA TV my grandparents purchased in the sixties used a
mechanical clicker that actually struck one of three tuning forks:
volume up, volume down ... off and change channel one of 12 (VHF only)
and standby.  As kids we discovered several ways to fake it out: a toy
xlyophone, opening a certain curtain, sometimes even a toilet flush or
running water at the right rate.  Being only four or five, I could
actually hear the notes if I clicked it in my ear.  The controls were
all motor driven (true, some people like this sixties hightech today)
and the "off" was some mechanical thing that pulled in on the volume
control.  The set was 100% tube if I remember right.  Don't know the
model number, but I saw one recently on CNN on one of their :55 past
the hour stories.  It was a "great mystery" in some Midwest trailer
park how this toy piano acted as a strange remote for the TV and shure
enough it was a similar model to my grandparents ... this whole thing
really brings back some nice memories!

As a brief historical technical perspective I'll present this.

        The first remotes were just a phototube and a relay, where the
user would shine a flashlight on the phototube to cut out the ads.
More sophisticated versions must have had several phototubes in a row
to do other functions. The problems of this early optical system are
obvious and the tube circuits were bulky.

        In the fifties came the ultrasound devices mentioned first
that suffered, as stated, from harmonics of just about anything.  The
control was passive and unlike the flashlight didn't need batteries.

        The sixties, with the advent of transistors, brought a very
short period where RF was used.  I'm not sure what frequencies were
used, but I can only guess that the 11 meter junkband was among them!
Needless to say there was alot of interference, but the extremely low
power of the transmitters did have long battery life.

        In the seventies infrared LEDS (IRED) of very high power
output came out in mass production and became the obvious choice since
there is allways a clear line of sight between the viewer and the TV!
Early systems simply modulated a 40kHz carrier on and off on the IRED.
Modern systems are likely to use familar digital modulation techniques
that greatly expand the control features available.

        In the nineties, here in Holland the kids have found a fun new
game called zapping.  A brief example: Find someone on holiday that
forgot to unplug their set, (or tape over the sensor) turn it on to
MTV crank the volume all the way up and leave!  This is very funny
when it happens to someone's high powered stereo, a prized find.
(Using a computer, a high power diode laser driver and a database of
all remotes could be alot of fun when aimed at large apartment
complexes.)

Hope this helps ... let me know.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Very early telephone answering machines in the
1960's could not be connected to the phone line, so they worked using
accoustic coupling. A little mechanical finger lifted the receiver off
hook when it heard a loud noise -- theoretically, the ringing bell of
the phone a few inches away. In actual practice, vacuum cleaners, a
loud noise from the television, etc. would set it off.  But I don't
think going around destroying people's electronics (and the peaceful
co-existence they have with their neighbors is very nice.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 16:54:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:

> I have been following this out of the corner of my eye. What is this
> "third line cost" business? Why does it cost more to put in line three
> than line one or two?

Because the two-pair cable that carries lines one and two is installed
at the time the house is built.

Line three (and four, for that matter) requires another drop.  So you
have to dig.

I've now got a 25-pair cable from the street to the house!  After six
lines, the telco got fed up with the digging.

> What is the rational here? Each family is entitled to one or
> two telephones and that is that? Third-world country stuff if I ever
> heard it.

Everybody is entitled to whatever they want.  They are NOT entitled to
expect the other subscribers to pay for it, if their usage exceeds the
norm.

If you PAY for a third line (ie. pay what it costs to get one put in)
you can HAVE one.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 16:06:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Avoiding Distribution of Your Calling Data
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (John Nagle) wrote:

> 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.

My experience is that you had to ask for California Gold (thus,
implicitly permitting this information exchange).  Did you not do
this?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: Forbes on National Directories
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Vienna
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:09:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

> PhoneDisk USA sells a national white pages listing for $1800.
> Later this summer they expect to sell it via mail order for around
> $200. The two CDs will contain 90 million listings, with addresses and
> zipcodes.  Listings will be encrypted such that reverse searches or
> neighbor searchs will not be allowed, however wildcard searches based
> on partial numbers will be allowed. (PhoneDisk is based in Bethesda,
> MD)

So who's to stop anyone from running a script with lots of wildcard
searches until on has obtained all of the data in plain text, which
can then be used for ANY type of search?

Sure it would take lots of disk space and CPU time but these are not
that difficult to come by ...


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center   [e-mail]
Alcatel-Elin Research Center    [phone] (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                [phone] (fax)

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: What Causes Lack of Dial Tones?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 05:03:12 GMT


[e-mail] (Shag) writes:

> NJ Bell has promised me they'll fix this, but I figured I'd ask ...

> I don't have a dialtone.

One important clue for the phone company is whether there is battery
on the line or not. There may not be dialtone, but if there is voltage
on the line, that helps place the trouble.

Pick up the phone and blow into the microphone while listening to the
earpiece. If you hear the blowing (I don't know how to describe it),
then you probably have battery on the line, and it's probably either a
phone off the hook (or equivalent trouble condition) or switch
problems at the CO. If there's no battery, it's more likely to be pair
problems.

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm just making
this up as I go along.


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



[Moderator's Note: The 'blowing noise' you refer to is called
sidetone. It does indicate the presence of battery. There might still
be wire problems if a pair is shorted somewhere between you and the CO
(most likely within your premises.)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #479
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24842;
          13 Jun 92 22:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06668
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:28:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18830
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:28:15 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:28:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #480

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 20:28:09 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 480

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Six Points - Response (John Higdon)
    Re: On The Other Hand ... (Robert L. Ullmann)
    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (F. Roeber)
    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted (Steve Forrette)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Ring Tones (John Higdon)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 11:57 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Six Points - Response


On Jun 12 at 16:01, Jon Baker writes:

> Centrex has been available since 1987, not really a relatively short
> time.  However, when you uncover our closet full of horrors, please
> let us know ...

I have had a "home Centrex" service from Pac*Bell since 1982, provided
on a WE 1ESS. This switch is nearly a quarter-century old. 1987 is
recent history by comparison, I would say.

> Guilty as charged.  The GTD5 has but one timeslot for RingBack Tone,
> and when you are supposed to get RBT you are immediately routed to that
> timeslot.  It may be a second or two before you actually hear RBT.
> But, dare I ask, so what?  What practical difference does it make?

It makes things seem awfully sluggish, especially if one is used to
ringback the moment he enters the last digit. It is not so much of a
problem considering the lack of SS7 (only in the GTD-5 here), but when
it finally gets connected into the local Pac*Bell SS7, people may
think the call did not go through. Given the high percentages of that,
it could be a problem.

BTW, I find that in calling my mountain top site (GTE) from home
(Pac*Bell), the call fails to go through about one out of twenty
times.  My home's office (1ESS) outpulses and then I hear "ka-plunk"
and can sit as long as I like listening to GTE silence -- don't even
get a reorder.

IMHO, Pac*Bell should sell GTE in Los Gatos the 1ESS in my office and
connect my prefixes to the co-located 5ESS. The town of Los Gatos
would cheer at the improvement.


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually John, Centrex goes back further than that.
When I started with Amoco Credit Card / Diner's in 1967 our office had
Centrex (312-856 -- still there today); then the CO was xbar.  Another
early Centrex user here was the {Chicago Tribune} (312-222) dating
from the middle sixties, also on xbar. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes
had it in the early seventies as did U. of Chicago. Our first ESS here
was in 1974.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert L Ullmann)
Subject: Re: On The Other Hand ...
Organization: The World in Boston
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 02:23:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon wrote:

> [...] And even when Pac*Bell found my internal marginal pairs (how
> embarassing!), no one called me an idiot. [...]

Hi,

Just thought I ought to thank you: this started a train of thought
that solved a problem for me. NYNEX was looking for an INFOPATH (the
NYNEX/NET X.25 PSDN) line problem, and (among other things) ran a
Halcyon test that showed an extra -4 DB on the line; they went off to
tell cable to look for an extra 2000' of bridge tap on it.

The next morning (having recalled the above) I decided to change
internal circuits; I switched the connection in the wire closet (at
the NYNEX/CPE demarc) and went back to the computer room: I still had
ready (CD + DSR) on the DVM. It was reading carrier by crosstalk from
another line. The loopback tests, even the five minute data pattern
test, worked fine on ONE line. As soon as I ran traffic on both, I got
momentary CD+DSR dropouts (causing X.25 frame aborts) on each (more on
one than the other). Moral: run pattern tests on all corouted circuits
at the same time, if you are at all suspicious.

Moving the other line to another internal cable solved the problem,
and I closed the repair and NCC tix. Now I need to speak to someone
here about how to spec wiring ... :-) I don't get crosstalk with the
other internal Meridian PBX lines, presumably because the DVM is using
a different frequency domain.

I had a good talk with the craft guy; one of us should have thought
about it hard enough to move back to the demarc. But we didn't. Did
have a good lament about them only teaching the new stuff to a very
small tech support staff, not to all the crafts people.

I owe you a medium size favor. Or at least a pint of Real Ale. Save
this coupon!

Ignore the jerks; the TELECOM readers out here that know our business
know that you know it too. Everything you write is read carefully and
appreciated.


Robert Ullmann     [e-mail]    [phone] x226

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:46:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710
Organization: CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [...] [several new Digest subscribers from .gov and .mil sites on
line in recent days; welcome folks!  PAT]

Oh, and all of the new .su folks *aren't* welcome?  ;-)


[Moderator's Note: But of course! It is hard for me to keep up with
the whims of our government; are the .su folks our friends these days
or still our enemies? I guess we are all friends now.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 20:53:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

> 710 is indeed assigned for "Government Special" use.  It's actual
> function is highly classified.  Doesn't surprise me that you couldn't
> get any information without a need to know.  I respectfully suggest
> that you not pursue the matter any further, least someone from the
> Government might start asking YOU a lot of questions!!

The last I heard, despite the best efforts of the past two
administrations, this country hasn't turned into one of those other
countries the folks at 710-xxx-yyyy are trying to defend us from.

My curiousity is piqued; that's 10^7 numbers; I wonder how many
random numbers dialed from payphones it would take to get any useful
information?

BTW, to new readers, Pat's comment about Randy Borow is a somewhat
opaque warning not to say anything that might cost you your job.


Peter Desnoyers


[Moderator's Note: No, it was actually a fantasy where everyone who
knows anything at all quits/loses their job; we all go on welfare and
sit at home all day watching television, refusing to use our brains
for the employers and governments of the world at all.  When every-
thing finally collapses in a heap of rubble, we start from scratch.

Bob Newhart once said if an infinite number of monkeys typed on an
infinite number of typewriters for an infinite length of time, they
would eventually write all the works of Sheakespeare (and probably
all the articles ever on Usenet as well). But unlike the monkeys, if
an infinite number of hacklings at an infinite number of telephones
wardialed an infinite number of area 710 calls they still would not
get anywhere (IMHO) unless a bit was toggled in the CO somewhere which
said 'this telephone is permitted to call these numbers'. I believe 710
numbers are all around us ... but hidden from the average user. Here
in Chicago, for me at least, 1-710 is intercepted. Nothing is accepted
after that.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 21:08:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(The Squire, Phish) writes:

> On the front of all Pacific*Bell confirmation letters are the words:

>  Pacific Bell does not guarantee the assignment or permenancy of any
>  telephone number.

> [Moderator's Notee: All telcos state in their tariffs and usually
> somewhere in the phone book that the 'customer has no property rights
> in his telephone number, which the Company is free to change as needed
> in the conduct of its business ...'    PAT]

Last summer, I was moving into a new apartment with a new roommate.  I
of course insisted on separate telephone service, and was pleased to
find that the apartment was wired with four pair individually twisted
wire, so I could have the three lines I needed, and my roommate could
have his.  We initially just ordered our own individual voice lines.

He called Pacific Bell, placed his order, and got his new number
assignment.  They may not do this anymore, but Pacific Bell used to
make quite a point of telling you that they did not guarantee the
phone number they issued you, and that it would be unwise to print it
on letterhead, etc., until the service is installed and working.
Although they have the right to change it at any time if they have a
need, they seemed to think that the highest danger of this was in the
period between the placement of the order and installation.  Perhaps
they got sued by a business that had a truckload of letterhead
printed, only to have the number changed.

Anyway, I called a couple of days later and ordered my service.  After
checking with my roommate, we had both been assigned the same number!
He had already ordered new checks with "his" number on it, so I agreed
to accept a different number.

Note that even though the service was at the same address, the two
orders were under completely different names, and were in fact
discrete orders in their computer.  I'm surprised that the Pacific
Bell software would allow two pending install orders to be assigned
the same number.  Perhaps the routine that checks for duplicate number
assignments didn't care since the address was the same -- who knows?

Also, I've noticed that the cellular service agreements always have a
clause stating that the cellular company has the right to change your
number at any time for any reason, and that the customer is granted no
ownership rights in the number.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 21:14:22 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Normally, '11' (pronounced 'eleven' by the way --
> not 'one-one') can be substituted for * on a rotary dial or ten-button
> touch tone phone.  PAT]

Except, of course, if '11' is part of '911'.  This string is most
definately pronounced as "nine-one-one," and NOT "nine-eleven," as
some people wishing to be clever tend to say.  Ask anyone involved in
emergency services.  In fact, it is part of the training.  There are
many reasons for this, but one of the best examples is to help people
to whom English is a second language.  Many people who don't know
another language very well will know the single digits a lot better
than they know how to say longer digit strings.  It is important from
a public safety point of view that as many people as possible know and
understand that one dials "nine-one-one" in case of emergency.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is entirely in the context of the number. You
are correct with 'nine one one'. As part of a number, it is always
'one one'. When replacing the asterisk, it is 'eleven'. In some places
you can also just dial the code (70, 72, etc) and wait for it to time
out in a few seconds, then you proceed with dialing.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 21:25:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> <MPA15AB![e-mail].
unisys.com> writes:

> SIT tone: "<SIT> You have reached <my number read back>, at the tone,
> please record your message."

> It was all in Jane Barbie's voice (courtesy of Aspen), the woman who
> did most of the intercepts.

Several years ago, before Aspen/Octel was popular, I had heard "the
woman behind the telco voice" referred to as Ramona.  Note that the
voice that Octel uses (at least until recently, apparently "Jane"
retired) is the same as was used for many years by The Phone Company.
Perhaps Octel thought a simple pseudonym would be better for marketing
and training purposes (in their user training, they often refer to the
voicemail system as Jane, as in "When Jane asks you for your password,
punch it in followed by #").

Does anyone know if this voice was originally called Ramona by TPC,
and if Jane (or both) is a pseudonym?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 01:54 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ring Tones


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

> I always assumed that this was a side effect that the ringing *signal*
> (not tone) had on the called line -- perhaps temporarily cleaning up
> various unintended diodes and other noisemakers on the line.  Perhaps
> the explanation lies in the ringing generator itself.  But why would
> the noise level be so predictably variable ?

The cadence drum had contacts that went around with it and the mercury
would always be at the bottom. When the desired contacts hit bottom,
the mercury would close the circuit and the telephone would ring. At
other times, the mercury would flow along the contaminants and make
the crackling noise between the rings. Since the pattern of the
contaminants was more or less stable, the noise would take on a
somewhat repeatably predictable cadence of its own in the same manner
as the intended ring cycle.

I could identify various offices by the pattern of the noise between
rings. This used to amaze my friends who would dial a number behind my
back, then hand me the phone and I could with incredible accuracy
announce the part of town the call was going to; or even that it was
going to another city altogether.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 14:52:58 MST
From: asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 21:52:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James
Borynec; AGT Researcher) writes:

> [e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten) writes:

>> 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 ...

> The problem cuts both ways.  When I was working on a project with our
> 611 answer clerks I witnessed a number of occasions where the
> subscriber was unable or unwilling to distinguish between a broken
> phone and a broken line.  It was only after dispatching a craft to the
> location that we would find out that (for example) the bedroom phone
> didn't work while the kitchen phone did.  Being an answer clerk is a
> VERY tough job because you have NO idea of how technically sophis-
> ticated the person at the other end of line is.

They all use a script, as well. My personal two favorites:

Happened to me:

Phoenix is one of those lovely cities where calls within the city
sometimes need to be prefixed with 1-602. I spent three days getting
busy on a line until it suddenly dawned on me that it was a long
distance call. I dialed 1-602- ..., and got through. Tested it out
later: sure nuff, every time you should get the "Must first dial
1-602" announcement, you got 60 IPM busy.

So I call repair.

Clerk:    "What's the nature of your trouble?"

Me:    "I just wanted to let you know the must-first-dial-one
    recorded announcement it out of service in the 582 exchange.
    Any call that should reach it is getting 60 IPM busy."

Clerk:    "Did you try another phone on the line, sir?"

    Happened to a co-worker:

    Phone went dead. Went out to the network interface. Phone
    dead. Opened box. Put voltmeter across the line. No -48V
    present into the box.

    Called the service clerk:

Clerk:    "What's the nature of your trouble?"

Friend:    "Phone line is dead. Measured it at the box, and I'm not
    even receiving battery on the line."

Clerk:    "Did you try another phone on the line, sir?"


Kevin Wayne Williams
AG Communication Systems nee Automatic Electric

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron)
Subject: Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins
Date: 12 Jun 92 18:19:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Do Italian phones accept lire?  Last time I was in Italy (admittedly
many years ago), they only accepted tokens.


Ron

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #480
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27811;
          13 Jun 92 23:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00561
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:07:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01680
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:06:51 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:06:51 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #481

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jun 92 22:06:52 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 481

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Leading 1's and Toll Calls ([e-mail])
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Colin Plumb)
    Re: RFC For Fax Specs? (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Some History of GTE-Florida (J. Carpenter)
    Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future (Kevin W. Williams)
    Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation (Susan Huntsman)
    Concentrators (was SLC-96) (David Lesher)
    Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs) (Richard H. Miller)
    Telecommunications Database Search (Jon Agree)
    Usability of Phones (Anja Kerner)
    Cellular One Boston / Southwestern Bell Information Wanted (David Sheafer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 01:26:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Abrams) writes:

> "Those little cellular Yagis" were not really designed for use with
> cellular phone service.  Using one of them close to a major metro area
> (an area with more than one cell site), might cause real problems for
> the cellular switch since you might present a useable signal to more
> than one cell site.  Use of any device that produces an effective
> radiated power that exceeds seven watts is technically illegal (ie
> prohibited by FCC regulations).  Multiple cell site areas are even
> adversely affected by "rural" five db gain antennas when used in town.

Not to disagree with Mr. Abrams, who I'm sure is right about the
rules, it's interesting to note that those little yagis are in use all
over the SF Bay Area as part of the highway emergency phone systems.
Each system consists of a cellular phone in a box with just a handset
available to the user, a solar panel (which implies a battery) and a
cellular antenna.  Most of them are small verticals, but in rural
areas, they use those little yagis pointed at wherever they need to
be.

If two cells can hear you, then -- darn it -- they should vote on who
will take you.


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


[Moderator's Note: You'd think if two cells can hear you well, then
one or the other can still hear you *better* and would be selected. I
am not sure why the original author feels its a problem.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron)
Subject: Re: Leading 1's and Toll Calls
Date: 12 Jun 92 18:26:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


At least around here they've switched away from 1+ being a
toll/no-toll identifier to a the following number starts with an area
code.  It used to be nice that exchanges never had N0X/N1X and area
codes always did, but now we're running out of numbers.

The thing that always bothered me was that people seemed to treat the
1+ as part of their telephone number.  Of course, the US's country
code is also 1.  Somebody else has already pointed out that the US is
the only pace in the world you are required to dial the country code
on domestic long distance calls ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:22:39 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Julian Macassey) writes:

>    I still believe that anyone has yet to design and build a
> better instrument than the standard 2500 set. Certainly no one has
> built a more rugged phone -- explosion proof mine phones excepted.

Do you really think 2500 sets are more rugged than the original black
500 sets I'm using?  Although, if the truth be known, pay phones are
pretty damn rugged, too.

What I've always wondered about is the hack referred to in _Hackers_
to speed up the pulse rate of a 500 set.  Presumably it involves
didling that centrifugal governor in there somehow, but I'm not sure
of the details.  Can anyone out there enlighten me?


Colin


[Moderator's Note: Love those 500's! I found a 500-style five line
phone once dating from 1939. Imagine: Rotary dial, still with the old
style numbering (HARrison, rather than HA-7 or 427); straight
(uncurled) brown *cloth* cord from phone to handset; five line buttons
with a hold button -- three phone lines and an intercom line; and
still connected and working when I found it in 1973 or so. It was in
the bell and clock tower of Holy Family Church on the near west side
of Chicago where a friend did some repairs to the mechanicals.
Apparently installed for the benefit of long-ago tower clock
technicans and the 1930-40's Sexton whose job it was to wind up the
clock and bell springs each day (the clock and bell works were not
electrified until about 1945), its obscure location high in the sky
probably was the reason it had never been replaced with a more modern
instrument as were other phones in the building below on the same
system.  Of course I generously offered to replace it for free with a
1970's six button set I had; just as I happily replaced the old WUTCO
clocks for anyone who wanted something 'new and modern'.  <wink> PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RFC For Fax Specs?
Date: 13 Jun 92 17:56:33 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Monte Freeman) writes:

> I need the RFC (or some other type of "oficial document" ) that
> gives the specs for fax transmissions. A description of the protocol,

> Anyone have any idea where I can find something like this?
> Preferably in on-line Internet accessible format ...

Group 3 fax is defined in CCITT Recommendations T.4 and T.30. For most
purposes, the 1988 versions of these standards, published in the Blue
Book, should be sufficient; these are available in many university
technical libraries. If you need the absolutely latest versions
(including the new higher-speed transmissions and image densities),
you'll need to get the appropriate "white documents" from CCITT Study
Group VIII.  These are a bit tougher to find.  You could probably buy
them through Omnicom (800-OMNICOM) or Communications Standards Review
(415-856-8836).


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 20:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some History of GTE-Florida


Marc T. [e-mail] wrote:

> As a former planning commissioner, I find this somewhat nonbelievable.
> When we reviewed a subdivision map, we required dedication of utility
> easements (and acceptance by the utilities) as a requirement for
> filing the subdivision map.  Presumably, this ought to be sufficient
> notice.  If not, no developer is going to be able to sell a house (or
> get a final sign-off from the building inspector) without electricity,
> gas and water, at least.  Usually, the utilities have to agree to
> supply the subdivision before work can start.

Your municipality may have been on top of this, but there are alot of
places where they are not.  This is especially the case in small towns
where they cannot afford to pay someone with expertise to serve the
role of a building inspector, and the elected boards may have no
experience in this area.


jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
Subject: Re: GTD5 Bashing and Future
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 22:21:00 GMT


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

> On Jun 6 at 10:56, Jack Decker writes:

>> someone who's had the misfortune of living in GTE territory at one
>> point, I can tell you that for the most part, GTE plays "pass the
>> buck" and has some very incompetent people working for them (which is
>> understandable; the GTE attitude toward employees is such that
>> competent people tend to leave for greener pastures at the earliest
>> opportunity).

> Thanks, I could not have said it better. Mr. Baker's tone has been
> that GTE (the manufacturer) was not responsible for what GTE (the
> telco) did with its switches. My belief has been that if GTE cannot
> set up and use GTE switches properly, then who can? The GTD-5 switches
> that I have tried have been owned and operated by none other than GTE,
> not "Fred's Fone Company". If they don't work, which GTE do I blame?
> Theoretical specs in the lab do not impress me much. As a telephone
> customer I have to live with what something really does out in the
> cold, cruel world.

I hope this point got made in my summary, but I will make it again.
AG Communication Systems, even when it was a full GTE subsidiary named
GTE Automatic Electric, has the same relationship to General Telephone
of California that Bell Labs had with Pacific Bell in the pre-MFJ
days: owned by the same people, supplied the equipment, and absolutely
no control over how it was used and maintained.  He hasn't been the
most polite of people in making the point, but he hasn't been getting
really polite responses, either. His argument has been that you are
blurring GTD-5 capabilities with local telco service policies, and
blurring General Telephone of California with GTE as a whole.

A great example: an earlier post [not one of Mr. Higdon's] blamed the
GTD-5 for GTNWs marketing decision to bundle a group of services into
SmartCall service, and not sell them individually. The GTD-5 certainly
allows them to be engineered separately, GTNW does not.  A measure of
GTD-5 quality? Not a chance.


Kevin Wayne Williams
AG Communication Systems nee Automatic Electric
     UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk


[Moderator's Note: I have in the queue two very long articles about
GTE which will have to be sent separately because they are so large.
One, by Don Kimberlin presents his side of the story in the Florida
case with HSN. Another article is a summary of various articles to
date and some responses to each. With that, the thread will close.
These will follow shortly, Saturday overnight/Sunday morning. PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 16:35:46 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Susan B Huntsman)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Standard: Mag Article; Phone Conversation Followup


I have had a few inquires on the book Crystal Castles.  I am a little
fuzzy on the details. It has been a long time since I read the book,
but if memory serves me right here are a few of the details that I
remember.

The book was non-fiction, The problem was not with the phone itself
but the encryptions system used.  He had hard coded the encryption
method into a chip and built the phone around the chip.  The
encryption method was random and could not be cracked.  This was the
basis of their claim if they could not crack the code then it was a
threat to National Security.  He was instructed not to reveal the
details of the method of encryption.  I do not remember much more on
the legality of what they did, but if anyone is interested I will try
to find the book and post more later.


S Huntsman


[Moderator's Note: Yes please, more details will be appreciated.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Concentrators  (was SLC-96)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 17:23:25 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


>   - subscriber loop carrier or
>   - subscriber line concentrator or
>   - subscriber loop concentrator

Al discussed concentrators.

About 20 years ago, I visited a friend who lived in a trailer park in
Tulsa. He had service from Bell, but with sometthing I have never seen
before or since.

When you went off hook, you got stutter dial tone. But, if I recall
correctly, it was really stutter LOOP CURRENT. I seem to recall the
LED's on his Slimeline flashed three times before you got steady
dialtone.

A telco friend from Lorain Products speculated this was a concentrator
to handle the trailer park. Was he correct?


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard H. Miller)
Subject: Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs)
Date: 14 Jun 1992 00:54:48 GMT


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

> Everybody is entitled to whatever they want.  They are NOT entitled to
> expect the other subscribers to pay for it, if their usage exceeds the
> norm.

> If you PAY for a third line (ie. pay what it costs to get one put in)
> you can HAVE one.

But isn't this the point of the tariffed installation charge? The
stock answer given to people when the complain about paying $$$ to
turn on their phone service is that the tariff covers the average cost
for all people. Thus the total cost in the rate base to initiate
service divided by the number of service requests [including rate of
return] is the tariffed cost for an 'installation'.

By your logic, if a new phone installation for say the first line to a
subscriber requires a new cable, then that subscriber should pay for
the installation of the new cable rather than the tariffed
installation charge.  Also, if I already have a working pair then all
I should pay for installation is the cost of 'turning it on' in the
central office and not the average cost for all installations.

In the case of people being asked to pay for running cable or other
construction costs, I would ask to see where in the tariff the phone
company is allowed to pass these installation costs onto the
individual customer rather than the tariff base.


Richard H. Miller                 Email: [e-mail]
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: [phone]
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 21:27:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (ARCHER S)
Subject: Telecommunications Database Search
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences


I am searching for pre-existing on-line databases that pertain to
telecommunication technology and policy from a non-technical
perspective.  More specifically, I am looking for ones which reference
international developments, including the interests of 3rd world
countries.

Does anyone know of any that are accessible through the Internet?
Other networks?

If you have any information that can help me please send to me at:

[e-mail]

Thank you for your help,


Jon Agree

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

From: [e-mail] (Kerner)
Subject: Usability of Phones
Organization: Philips GmbH Forschungslaboratorien
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 13:05:23 GMT


Does anybody know of any references which handle:
    "usability of (feature) phones"?

In addition, we are interested in obtaining:
    - papers about user modeling and conceptual models
    - actual user models and descriptions of conceptual models
in the area of feature phones.

Any help would be great.


Philips Research Labs Aachen, Germany
Anja Kerner   e-mail: [e-mail]
fax: + 49 241 6003 518   tel. + 49 241 6003 586

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer)
Subject: Cellular One - Boston / Southwestern Bell Information Wanted
Date: 13 Jun 92 13:08:14 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


I am looking for general information on Southwestern Bell, and
Cellular One / Boston (owned by Southwestern Bell).

e.g. marketshare, revenues, expansion plans, etc. Any general
information anyone might have would interest me.


Thanks,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #481
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00291;
          14 Jun 92 0:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10939
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:48:05 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18558
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:47:44 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 22:47:44 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Last Word on GTE Phone Service - Part I


The thread about GTE service -- good or bad depending on your point of
view and geographic location -- has gone on for many days. In this two
part special mailing, the most prolific of our writers on the topic
will present final articles. Further correspondence should be then
directed to the writers involved -- not the Digest itself.

First Don Kimberlin will offer rebuttal to a message about GTE-Florida
and the Home Shopping Network.  The second message (to follow later
this evening) will be a summary of other positions expressed here.


PAT

 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 03:35 GMT
 From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Setting The Record Straight (was GTE in Various Forms)


The propaganda that grows inside major corporations, and phone
companies in particular has been very well proved with the recent
replies to "Some History of GTE-Florida" as reposted in TELECOM Digest
from Fido (via Jack Decker).

It exemplifies the urban legends told to a naive public; things that
the public has a feeling aren't true, but cannot get a handle on.
Thus, the legends become a false reality model for both the teller and
the listener.

Let's go through several of the remarks made to show how an urban
legend has spread through the GTE organization; items that have become
exactly reversed in the telling and retelling through that company:


First, in a post of 7 Jun 92, comes the following from a GTE operating
company employee in California ([e-mail]):

> ...the problem with Home Shopping Network and GTE Florida was
> HSN's problem. They came into an area built a huge center for
> their company, but did not bother to let GTE Florida know they
> were doing it and then called for service as if they were just
> any residentual customer.

 ... BZZZT!  Wrong!  Home Shopping Network was a home-town company,
started by home-town boys, in a strip shopping center building in
Clearwater, Florida, just eight miles up the road in GTE-FL territory
from the location they had all the trouble in.

The success and growth of HSN was a frequently-reported story in the
business pages of the {St. Petersburg Times} over a period of years.
As HSN grew, GTE-FL kept getting orders for more and more lines and
equipemt.  When HSN outgrew their original Clear- water space, they
spilled out to first one, then a second addition- al building, with
the phone lines all networked together by GTE-FL.

Through the whole period, HSN bought not only dial tone and INWATS
from and through GTE-FL, but also ALL the telephone equipment used by
HSN.  GTE-FL was selling its usual pablum about "being your total
telecommunications supplier" that phonecos everywhere like to claim to
be. (That included a handout of the national INWATS to AT&T by GTE-FL.
The "other guys" never even got a chance.

So, GTE-FL knew all about Home Shopping, and very intimately, from the
very inception of HSN, right in GTE-FL's own local market.  (So WHERE
does the internal GTE story say HSN came from?  Did it just
materialize one day?  Hardly.  It grew, just like any other business;
in this case, a very successful, fast-growing one that GTE-FL had
people watching every day of the week, for years!)

Second, we hear this fable:

> Imagine a company that big coming into a small town that is set
> up for local service.

 ... BZZZT!  Wrong!  The place HSN moved, in order to consolidate its
several operational locations spread across GTE-FL's Clearwater and
St. Petersburg exchange areas, was in the Roosevelt Boulevard
industrial park area of northern St. Petersburg, an area fully planned
for MAJOR industrial buildings.  (In fact, it is very close to one of
GTE's own major real estate fiascos, a half million square foot empty
building that was supposed to be where GTE was going to manufacture
telephone sets when some Stamford execs were playing power grabs about
that part of GTE's manufacturing. The building sits there unoccupied,
with full infrastructure, which probably includes a heap of local
cable facilities run up to it, since it came within days of being
occupied.  Public record, again in the {St. Petersburg Times}, tells a
great deal of that action, with all except the internecine warfare
that goes on within GTE.  That portion I learned from GTE lower
executives who had been moved to town to build it and set it up.

Third, we hear this one:

> After the dust settled the courts had ruled that HSN was at fault
> 100%.  They were forced to pay all costs.

 .... BZZZZT! Wrong!  The suit was NOT GTE suing HSN, but rather HSN
suing GTE, and (due to HSN's own executive stupidity), HSN failed to
prove their case.  When you sue someone and you can't prove it, you
obviously have to pay the costs.  GTE was simply clever enough to let
the HSN execs shoot themselves in the foot.

Fourth, even the wrap-up gets reversed:

> They did get the service and from what little I have heard there has
> been no other problems.

 ...BZZZZT! Wrong, again.  Would you like to know what "service" HSN
really got?  (Better sit down if you think GTE made out, because they
didn't.)  Even before the lawsuit came to trial, HSN had become
smartened up by finally giving up on GTE-FL, and made a deal with MCI
to deliver all their INWATS via MCI fiber from (get this!) the AT&T
POP over in Brandon, on the far side of Tampa -- bypassing GTE_FL
TOTALLY for blue jillions of INWATS minutes every day!  The deal
included MCI building a fiber POP inside the HSN building, just ten
feet from the Rockwell Galaxy ACD's HSN bought when they threw out the
GTE-supplied ACD's.  That's right, HSN had entrusted GTE-FL with not
only line services, but the planning, provision and maintenance of
all the terminal equipment.  GTE-FL had total control of the HSN
account, and blew all their business away, even the inward toll
access, at a bundle of bucks every day!

Like to believe it or not, AT&T and MCI got together to provide
something that worked!  (Betcha that little fact isn't in the
"official" GTE inside story!  Oh, run and complain to the Florida PUC
about bypassing GTE's God-given "right" to local delivery?  No, GTE
was smarter than to risk what they`d get told about trying that in the
aftermath of the HSN case.  Why?  Because HSN had AT&T printouts that
showed more than 50% of calls into GTE went to local network
congestion signals, NOT to a subscriber line busy!  The issue of what
incoming toll connection rate the entire public was getting is NOT one
that GTE-FL wants to face, either.)

Fifth, we get:

> I had no direct knowledge other then what was in the media, but
> I followed it very close.

 ... BZZZT!  You should have read the {St. Petersburg Times} and
several of the nationwide telcommunications trade journals, instead of
the GTE employee newsletters and verbal grapevine.  Had you done so,
you would have found that {Times} reporter James Grieff was placing
large stories in the paper almost daily, including photos of internal
GTE-FL memoranda written to the President of GTE-FL by his own traffic
engineers, pleading for capital to expand the plant to match the
traffic; memos that went ignored despite the fact that the President
of GTE-FL should have been hearing parallel complaints from his
terminal equipment sales people.  That went so far as the Chairman of
HSN sending his limousine over to 600 Morgan St. in Tampa to have the
President of GTE chauffered over across Tampa Bay to the HSN premises
to see for himself -- which he did, several times.  He told HSN the
same story he told his people to tell them, "You don't have enough
people."

That's strange, as the very purpose of the limousine rides was to show
the President of GTE-FL that 50% of HSN's agents were sitting idle in
front of phones that didn`t ring, while he was shown AT&T's toll
completion reports that said 50% of calls were not completing.  Guess
THAT wasn't in the "media" you had access to!

Sixth, we get:

> This type of thing happens all the time.

WHY is it this is the sort of response that GTE people have to make,
"all the time?"  It seems to be because GTE's "reality model" means
that being behind the development 8-ball is "normal life in the phone
business."  Despite talk one may hear about this in many phonecos,
only GTE manages to run so far behind.  It's sad to be so far inside
something that one doesn't know where the "normal" world really is at.

Such tales always seem to wrap up with a nice diversionary one like
this:

> ... 15 years later these people don't have cable service and no
> amount of screaming has forced the cable company to bring service
> to the area. At least the telephone company did do something about
> it and they did not make the developer pay for it which they could
> have.

 ... Easy.  The cable companies (just another sort of monopolist
telecomm vermin) even have it so cushy they don't even have a state
utility agency to at least play golf with their President and hint at
what they will be forced to do in public record if his company doesn't
get the issue solved.  As to "charging them for it," there's a LOT of
question about when a monopoly-granted public utility can charge
construction costs.  In the case of a residential subdivision, it gets
REAL questionable.

In a parallel post on 6 Jun 92, ([e-mail]> gets to a
root of the matter, saying:

> All I know is that service in Bell areas, and even in many independent
> areas FAR exceeds anything GTE offers.  When GTE had the stepper
> switches, they went out frequently, but at least you could retry the
> call and it would go through if you made enough attempts (and the
> technicians usually could fix the problem, once you could convince
> them that there WAS a problem).  Now, with the digital switches, when
> they go they're GONE, and your phone is about as useful as a
> paperweight until service is restored.  And many of the techs are
> playing with technology they barely understand.

> But worst of all is the GTE attitude.  They just don't seem to CARE if
> your service is out.  And if they can blame you, or the weather, or
> beavers chewing up cables, or Bell, or anyone else, they do ... and
> then act as if it's sufficient reason that your service is out for two
> or three days.

> ... GTE is just about the worst telephone company in
> the United States (there may be some independents that are worse, but
> I'll bet most of them charge far lower rates, too.  GTE has some of
> the highest rates AND the worst service around). ...

 ... Now, THAT's what more common with GTE operating companies than
not.  Just like any large, far-flung organization, GTE's Telops
(that's the "inside" name, folks, for GTE's main cash cow, its
operating phone companies that produce more than 80% of the bottom
line of the GTE Corporation at Stamford EVERY year) has its high and
its low points.  Sorry to say for the few folks who enjoy the high
points, you haven't ever really seen the low ones -- and you shouldn't
be subjected to them.

AND, in a post of 11 Jun 92, from the manufacturing side of GTE, we
see yet another branch of the propaganda and urban legend tree that
gets built about a case like HSN, from (asuvax!gtephx!bakerj@ncar.
UCAR.EDU:

> Actually, GTEFL notified HSN several times over the course of months
> (or years) that HSN was experiencing significant blocking of call
> attempts, due to an insufficient number of trunks and operators; HSN
> repeatedly did nothing about it.  Obviously, they felt they were
> making enough money already so why spend the capital for more
> trunks/stations?

 ... NICE sounding story, but TOTALLY reversed from the truth, in
which HSN was griping at GTE for NOT months, but almost two years.

Whatever comprises the arrogance of local telephone people, they seem
to think that all kinds of business are as incompetent as they may be.
Such people have no understanding that firms like HSN, in order to be
as successful as they are, use statistical method to a very elegant
degree in measuring sales and estimating response, in order to
maximize profit.  It's called "marketing," in this case, Real World
marketing, not the phony substitute monopoly phonecos have carried on
for years.  (BTW, today, AT&T is finding out what that means, and
getting pretty clever pretty fast.  What's interesting to observe is
how the others, like MCI and Sprint, filled with Bell droputs, can't
figure out what "marketing" is yet ...)

Anyhow, the TRUTH is that HSN's statistical method showed them how
many people to staff for every hour of the day, and they did.  HSN
found that half the people were idle; also that the sales calls coming
in to agents were half the volume forecast.  During the time that HSN
couldn't make its profit due to the constraints caused by GTE-FL's
failure to deliver traffic, HSN cut staffing -- always able to quite
accurately have sufficient by cutting their statistical marketing
forecast in half.

In fact, HSN did NOT have enough money being made, and GTE-FL's
failure to deliver half the offered traffic, as proved by AT&T toll
completion reports that HSN finally saw to confirm WHY they had to
divide the sales forecast in half and cut the staff in half, REALLY
means that GTE-FL cut a lot of workers out of paychecks.

THAT's the sort of thing GTE-FL stands responsible for.  Darned good
thing for GTE-FL that HSN did shoot itself in the foot in the
courtroom, because if GTE had lost, a smart lawyer would have had
those workers joining a class action against GTE, too!

BUT, the "internal legend" continues:

> As I recall the CO serving HSN had some sort of outage, silencing
> HSN's lines for a while.

 .... Issues of the complete outages of GTE-FL local switching offices
are simply another of GTE-FL`s black marks.  In the case of HSN, it
was TWO YEARS of a 50% inbound toll completion rate, not only for HSN,
but for the general public in the area.  Another reason for the public
to sue GTE-FL, if anybody ever got the case together.  (I wonder how
many medical emergency calls were included in the lost half of all the
inbound toll for an exchange area of about a million population ... or
isn't that part of the monopoly company's responsibility?)

BESIDES, GTE has the right to sit in judgment of how much money a
business should make, it seems, with remarks like these:

> HSN sued GTEFL, with an outrageous projection of revenue they lost
> due to the outage.  Their projection was apparently based on the
> number of people who they thought attempted to call HSN during the
> outage.

 ... Only as outrageous as twice the actual revenue, based on a very
accurate statistical method used throughout marketing businesses, and
CONFIRMED by AT&T's toll completion reports on GTE-FL.  It must be
really outrageous to expect a monopoly phoneco to complete something
better than half the offered traffic, eh?

> GTEFL countered with historical data on how many calls actually
> would have gone through, based on HSN's capacity.

 ... But what was wrongly portrayed to the ears who don't want the
truth is that HSN's "capacity" was totally supplied by GTE-FL's own
terminal equipment supply company -- in the form of multiple ACD's
that never worked to planned capacity.  GTE-FL came in and placed
several of those, running at 50% capacity, because they couldn't get
them up to speed, either.  Then, when HSN began to refuse to pay bills
for GTE-FL's bumbling as a "total supplier" of BOTH line services and
terminal equipment, GTE-FL claimed they had some sort of "right" to
not provide any more.  That's when things got real nasty; just before
HSN got the enlightenment of the AT&T toll completion records.

FINALLY, the "dust-off" that it didn't hurt GTE much:

> What was reported in the media, is that GTE actually lost
> a little bit of money on the whole deal.  HSN lost a lot of money.

 ... BZZZT!  Wrong media, again!  What GTE-FL lost, since they got
totally bypassed on the INWATS with the MCI fiber POP deal, was a blue
bajillion minutes of toll completion revenue - FOREVER.

Last I heard, a couple of years back, HSN was peaking at 50,000 INWATS
calls an hour.  That's a LOT of money that GTE-FL will NEVER get.
Meantime, HSN is making the money it is supposed to make, at a profit.

And now, as Paul Harvey likes to put it, you know "the rest of the
story."  Still don't want to believe it?  Then check the REAL media:
Library copies of the {St. Petersburg Times} for that period in time;
contact reporter James Grieff, who now works at the {Charlotte
Observer}, or ask the attorneys at famed Chicago law firm Jenner &
Block, who the HSN Chairman stupidly took off his case, after they did
all the preparatory work for a suit that would have been a landmark
similar to the case Jenner & Block won for MCI against AT&T.  (Yep,
that's who did it!)

EPILOGUE: Not surprisingly, shortly after GTE-FL managed to squeak
their way out of that suit, their President was given a lateral
transfer to elsewhere in the GTE corporate fold.  I guess they can
recognize a hazard like that after while ...

(Note for the Moderator: PAT, you once remarked in this forum that I
have some sort of hate for Bell and AT&T.  I hope you now see I have
only scorn for any telecommunications monopoly when they push off such
incompetence and arrogance in return for the public trust given to
them.  GTE is no exception.

But let me find a Bell or Independent that pulls off stuff like this,
and there's at least one American who's not afraid to hold their feet
to the fire about it!)


                             ----------


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for your comments telling the
other side of the GTE/HSN story. In the next special mailing, we'll
have a summary of other articles which appeared in the Digest in
recent days.  PAT]











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01282;
          14 Jun 92 1:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11414
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 23:12:35 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14206
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 13 Jun 1992 23:12:08 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 23:12:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Last Word on GTE Phone Service - Part II


In part one of these two parts, Don Kimberlin offered a rebuttal to an
earlier message discussing the problems which exist at GTE-Florida.
In this second part, Kevin Williams and Jon Baker summarize and
respond to the various remarks of John Higdon pertaining to the GTE
GDT-5 switch.

The GTE service thread is now closed. Replies to this summary or the
previous article should be directed to the individual writers -- not
to the Digest itself.

My thanks to all who participated, making the GTE service thread one
of the more vigorous debates here in recent months.

PAT

 From: [e-mail] (Kevin W. Williams)
 Subject: GTD-5 Argument Summary
 Organization: gte
 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:30:01 GMT


Ok, folks. Pat assigned me the job of combining the Baker/Higdon/
Williams argument into one post that is easier to digest.

First, the disclaimers. Jon Baker is a design engineer for AGCS, while
Kevin Wayne Williams is a planning engineer for AGCS. Neither of us
are official company spokesmen.

I will start with one point that I have been trying to make without
being insulting to any particular operating company. GTE is huge. GTE
is varied. It is the result of hundreds of aquisitions over many
decades. Each of the major regions is somewhat independent of the main
corporation, each state is somewhat independent of the region, and
each individual office has an individual supervisor that can greatly
influence the way that particular switch is run. Some people get great
service from GTE. Some people get horrible service.

[Higdon writes about Banning]

> 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.

[Baker responds ]

No, not Banning.  It's still in service and running very reliably,
despite fairly frequent tremors.  In fact, we had no reports of any
GTD5 service disruptions in your latest bout of quakes, earlier this
year.

[Williams responds]

For what its worth, this is a fairly severe distortion. Agreed, the
first release of the GTD-5 was pretty unstable, and got pulled off the
air several times. The first 5-ESS was also pulled of the air for
nearly a year while it underwent major design overhaul. The actual PUC
interaction was that GTECA wanted to keep the SxS in the rate base, on
the grounds that the GTD-5 was too experimental to be trusted at that
time. The PUC stated that GTECA could not keep both in the rate base.
The SxS was the one pulled out.  I can see both sides of this one: Lab
testing can only do so much, and you need to go to real life testing
at some point. Including the test switch in the rate base is a little
questionable.

At maturity, it is a quite reliable switch. Statistics I have seen
show it in a dead heat for uptime with the DMS-100 and 5-ESS (if you
ignore some of the troubled releases that caused the DMS-100 downtime
to spike upwards for a while).

>> It is the last switch designed by Automatic Electric.

> There is justice in this world after all.

[Baker says]

Not really, if you consider that it was AE who brought you the
cherished SXS, which we're so fond of (at least that's one thing on
which we agree :-) ).

>> 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.

[Baker waxes overly enthusiatic, deserving a job in marketing]

Perhaps in the days of old, when high equipment cost could be
translated into high subscriber rates and high profit margins,
expen$ive was good.  But in today's competitive market, 'very cheap'
ain't such a bad thing!  Yes, the GTD5 is inexpensive, high quality,
and feature rich!

[Williams says]

Yes, it is designed to be cost effective at the low line sizes. Its
hard to see that as a defect. Ever tried to price one of our
competitors switches at the 6000 line size?

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

> 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.

[Williams says]

Hard to consider a design problem. Yes, our DTMF receivers expect real
DTMF tones. Our receivers work within all accepted tolerances for DTMF
tones. In the old days, it would have be the telco's responsibility to
replace a defective instrument. Today, its yours.

Another possible influence here is the line quality between you and
the switch. If the PacTel lines are in good shape while the GTE line
is not, your "flaky" tones may be O.K. when the reach the 1ESS or
5ESS, but not O.K when they reach the GTD-5.

> 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.

[Williams says, incorporating Baker's comments]

Probably is related to the above. Our call completion ratio for
correctly dialed calls is 99.98% or better by both tested results and
specification.  This can be influenced by inadequate engineering of
trunks, receivers, etc.

> 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.

[Williams says]

O.K. I'll nearly let you win this one. If everybody's talking and
nobody's listening, sound quality suffers. The "gating" effect is
actually the older circuit. If you are getting an odd warbling effect
or howl, the telco has misengineered the pads for the newer circuit,
and this can be corrected. At best, the result will still be not be
crystal-clear.

> 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).

Flash timing is an office-engineerable parameter. It can be set from
100 milliseconds to 3.2 seconds in 100 millisecond increments. Default
timing is 1.4 seconds. I know of no case (except overloads) where we
do not recognise flash within 100 ms of the engineered time. If you
think that GTECA should set flash timing to a shorter value, talk to
GTECA.  If you think an office is consistently overloaded, talk to
GTECA.  Note that at the default value, it does require a definite
depression of the hookswitch and release. Just bouncing it will not do
it.

As I mentioned earlier, there are two different problems being
discussed here: difficulty in recognising flash and routing speed
after the flash.  Flash recognition problems can be caused by setting
it to a long value or overloading the TCU.

After the flash has been recognized, a delay in call routing is a
definite sign of an overloaded TPC.

> 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.

Call Waiting is disabled for all parties of a three-way call.  The
caller will receive busy, and the callee will not receive tone.  It is
operative for the other two parties.  Relatively short? I've been on a
GTD-5 centrex line for five years.

> 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.

[Williams says]

Ringback tone is totally divorced from ringing cycles. There are many
more than three phases of ringing. This is an artifact of supporting a
wider range of ringing patterns (superimposed, multi-frequency, coded,
and coded multifrequency). If the target line is in an active ringing
cycle at call termination, while the ringback tone is in an inactive
cycle, there can be a delay of nearly 4 seconds between ring and
audible ringback.

> 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.

[Williams' answer]

Of all your complaints, only the three-way call one strikes me as
being a valid complaint against the switch design. Flash timing can be
taken up with your telco, and ringing/ringback timing is not fixed in
a lot of equipment (most line carrier installations will exhibit
similar behavior, because the switch provides ringback while the line
carrier provides ringing).  Buying a phone with a keypad that works
would probably help a lot.

One point about the engineering of a GTD-5 that is different from its
main competitors: it is much more flexible, and provides the telco the
rope with which to hang themselves. Flash timing is variable.
Interdigit time is variable. Hangup time is variable. Every timing
characteristic you can name is variable. This was intended to allow
temporary "fixes" to site with facility trouble or interconnected with
old, non-standard equipment. It can also result in problems like the
flash complaints if misused.

One of the main reasons that the emotional level got so intense here
is your attack on the quality of the switch rather than a reasoned
disagreement with its feature content. The 3-way/call waiting
interaction is a case.  If the switch gave you call waiting tone that
you couldn't answer, or gave the caller ringback when you had not been
notified of the call, an attack on the quality of the system is in
order. Instead, our designers made a concious decision as to how the
features should interact, and correctly implemented the feature
interaction that was chosen.

Any assertions that the GTD-5 is such a horrible machine that the
dissappearance of Automatic Electric was a justifiable fate are going
to meet with significant argument. Always will. Want to question an
individual feature? Fine. Write it up, we'll talk.


Kevin Wayne Williams    AG Communication Systems nee Automatic Electric

[Baker's answer]

 From recent postings, it seems that there are a few readers out there
who work for GTECA, who've been mostly silent for the last several
years as Mr. Higdon misguidedly directed his complaints regarding
phone service at the GTD5.  Now, we've done our best to defend the
GTD5 and guide John's complaints in the proper direction, but it seems
like *NONE* of his problems have yet been fixed!  He's repeatedly
complained to his service reps, repeatedly carried on in this forum
about (IMHO) wholly inadequate service, I've given him addresses of
GTECA, GTE Corp, and GTEGO executive officers so I assume he's written
LETTERS complaining about his service, and STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN
DONE!

Can ONE of you please look into some of these things?  Make a phone
call?  Drop a telemail to someone in the SOC serving San Jose?
SOMETHING?  PLEASE?!?

[Williams basically seconds this]

John, I'll even give you a question to try to muscle your way into
someone that knows what he's talking about. Ask about the value of the
FLAS parm on the SET TIMI VALU command (this will be flash in terms of
hundreds of mils).  By the time you find someone that can answer that
question, you'll have found a knowledgable contact.

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


[Moderator's Note: My thanks to both of you for your detailed and
thoughtful response to John Higdon's equally well-prepared articles.
This concludes the GTE service thread in the Digest. Further replies
should be directed to the individual writers.     PAT]











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20367;
          14 Jun 92 11:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30291
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:19:55 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30162
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:19:46 -0500
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:19:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #482

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jun 92 09:19:46 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 482

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell CPR Responses (David Leibold)
    Canadian Long Distance Open to Competition (Jeffrey J. Carpenter)
    Canadian Long Distance Competition Approved (David Leibold)
    Piazza Virtuale on Documenta IX (Juergen Ziegler)
    How to Tell What Kind of Switch I'm On? (Seng-Poh Lee)
    Line Surge Problem - Assistance Wanted (Dave Niebuhr)
    Help Wanted With Wierd EATON Blue Box (Michael Bender)
    Monkeys Typing Shakespeare (was National Security) (Paul W. Schleck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 23:54:50 -0400
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell CPR Responses


Bell Canada has just sent its responses to interrogatories regarding
its Construction Program Review for this year. Each telephone company
under CRTC jurisdiction must participate in such reviews annually, or
as the CRTC specifies. This is a time when costs and plans are
reviewed in public, with competitors such as Unitel and Rogers
critiquing telco plans. As one of the official interested parties in
this proceeding, I submitted a few questions and got a few answers
back from Bell. A transcript of the responses follows (subject to
typos).

For Question #1, the interchangeable NPA aspect will be old hat to
some Digest readers, but I wanted to get this included in the
proceeding as some companies will be interested in the effects of the
INPA. Question #2 was more a curiosity item regarding Bell's figures
on numbers of lines in one of the switching offices.

                      ==================

BELL CANADA                                Response to Interrogatory
22 May 1992                                Bell(Leibold)24Apr92-1 CPR

                 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY
                        D. LEIBOLD
                      APRIL 24, 1992

                        ITEM NO. 1

Q. Due to the limited number of area codes available in the current
   format, expansion to NXX format area codes (i.e. any digit can
   be used as the central digit) from the present area code format
   (where the central digit is limited to 0 or 1) is expected by
   July 1995. This expansion of area code capacity is mentioned in
   Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) proposals and other
   reports.

   With respect to this change, please indicate if possible:

   1) Any changes to dialing to be introduced, with expected dates
      that such changes will occur.
   2) Changes to switching centres required.
   3) Which programs will be affected.
   4) A general description of activities to be undertaken within
      each affected program.
   5) Estimated and expected costs within each program for the above
      changes.

A. The existing N 0/1 X formatted NPA codes will exhaust in 1995. New
   NPA resources, using an NXX format, will be made available throughout
   the territory served by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP)
   in January 1995. A permissive dialing period will be available.
   The new NPA codes are called Interchangeable NPA (INPA) codes as
   they are the same format as central office codes. Bell Canada,
   through Stentor Canadian Network Management, has participated in
   the INPA code relief plan from the outset and is fully supportive
   of it.

   Currently, Bell Canada is in the strategic planning phase of INPA
   introduction. Transition to the more detailed implementation planning
   will take place in the second half of 1992. During this transition,
   Bell Canada will communicate the details of the INPA impacts to all
   customers, interconnecting carriers and independent companies
   adjacent to the Company's operating territory.

   As an example of the impact, whe INPA is introduced, the network
   will lose the ability to distinguish between 7 and 10 digit calls
   by examining the first three digits dialed. This will likely
   require a dialing change from 1 + 7 digits to 1 + 10 digits for
   long distance calls within an NPA.

   All switches will have to be modified. Thus, expenditures are
   expected in the Exchange Facilities and Intertoll Facilities
   sub-categories of Demand. Information with respect to the specific
   activities and associated costs will be developed during the
   transition phase.

[Response to Interrogatory Bell(Leibold)24Apr92-2 CPR...]

Q. Hespeler, Ontario is listed in the List of Switching Centre
   Entities as having 8758 installed lines. However, at least five
   central office codes are assigned to Hespeler (NPA 519) i.e. 240,
   241, 651, 654, 658 giving a potential 5 x 10000 = 50000 possible
   numbers. Please explain the purpose of this number of central
   office codes in Hespeler given that the number of installed lines
   would suggest that fewer central office codes suffice.

A. Hespeler has an extensive EAS [Extended Area Service, or local
   calling] area which attracts more special services than many
   communities its size. These services include Cellular Mobile,
   Inward Dialing, Customer Paging Systems, and Telephone Answering
   Bureaus which do not use lines, but rather trunks with line features,
   and require a significant amount of numbers. Cellular service alone
   is provided in all 5 NXX codes with codes 240 and 241 dedicated
   specifically to Cellular Mobile. Of the 30,000 numbers available
   in codes 651, 654, and 658, 14,951 are for these special services
   over and above the numbers required for the 8,397 working lines in
   the central office.

[end of transcript of Bell's responses]


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 20:47:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Long Distance Open to Competition


According to a story on B4 of the June 12 {Wall Street Journal}, the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission are
expected to issue a rule today that will open up the Canadian long
distance market to competition.


    jeff

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 23:01:38 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Long Distance Competition Approved


The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has
given an official go-ahead for long distance competition in Canada.
This will allow Unitel and BCRL/Lightel/Call-Net to set up competing
long distance networks in Canada, or at least those provinces under
CRTC aegis.

Both Unitel and BCRL/Call-Net seemed delighted with the decision
according to media reports tonight. Not surprisingly, Bell Canada's
Jean Monty blasted the decision as setting up unfair competition. CRTC
stated that the decision was not outright U.S.-style deregulation (ie.
local and long distance can still be obtained from the same company),
and that there will not be COCOT and AOS debacles; in general, the
CRTC stressed that this was a made-in-Canada solution and that
consumers should be aware of scare tactics.

Competing networks are expected to have their services rolling in six
to twelve months from now. There is a possibility of appeal, though
given competition trends worldwide, such appeals may fail to overturn
this decision. Furthermore, with Bell Canada accelerating its
conversion of switches to DMS (Northern Telecom) technology, and
conversions on other Canadian telcos to digital, the installation of
950 and 10xxx service shouldn't be that difficult.

A few provinces are not currently under CRTC regulation, and will miss
out on competition for the time being. These provinces are Manitoba
and Saskatchewan, which are regulated provincially until a national
communications act comes into effect giving CRTC total jurisdiction.
Alberta (AGT) was not under CRTC regulation at the time of the long
distance competition application, and will likely have delays in
getting Unitel and BCRL/Call-Net service as well.

Some company backgrounds ...

Unitel: formerly CNCP Telecommunications. Unitel was formed from
extant railway communication networks, and runs the Telex service in
Canada as well as some data services and specialised communication
services.  Current ownership is 40% Rogers Communications (best known
for its cable TV operations) and Canadian Pacific holding much of the
rest.  Unitel hopes to have a general long distance service for
business and residential customers alike.

BCRL/Lightel/Call-Net: Will likely wind up being called just Call-Net;
this is a joint venture of BC Rail (which has its own network) and the
owners of existing reseller Call-Net.

Interestingly enough, the Canadian Railway Act covers much of the
telecom business in Canada, largely due to the involvement of Canadian
railways in early telecommunications. The relevant telecom sections of
this act are expected to be replaced by a Communications Act which has
been tabled by the House of Commons.

I hope to be getting the detailed decision in the next week or so as
the CRTC mails them out. There will be lots of fun ahead in the Great
White North.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 01:57
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Piazza Virtuale on Documenta IX


On this year's DOCUMENTA IX art fair, which is held in Kassel, Germany
there is a project called PIAZZA VIRTUALE (virtual plaza).

This project gives viewers of the German culture channel 3SAT the
chance to participate actively in this interactive television project.

Viewers can communicate with the system by touchtone phones, fax
machines, modems or voice. Depending on the current program several
viewers may play a tune or write a message on the screen. I tried this
with a short fax message. And it was great to see my fax transmitted
in seconds via satellite to thousands (millions??) of other viewers.

So again if one of you can watch 3SAT (satellites: DFS 1 Kopernikus,
TV SAT 2 or ASTRA 1A) you can participate in this project.

Here are the different telephone access numbers (in Germany)

      (++49 = German country code)

      ++49-561-7100  20   voice access
                     30   modem access
                     40   touch tone phone
                     50   ISDN (German) picture phone
                     60   fax

                     80   help hotline

Maybe we will meet in the virtual plaza. My name will be JZ.

I just read that P V is also transmitted via satellite to the USA and
JAPAN. So just call the help hotline, to get further information.

I called the P V hotline (++49-561-710080) and asked them about P V
reception in the USA. They mentioned the satellite OLYMPUS, so if
someone over the big pond can receive programming from that satellite,
then look for P V.

Reception reports are highly appreciated.


Juergen

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to Tell What Kind of Switch I'm On?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 8:25:44 EDT


Are there any characteristics (intentional or not) that will enable me
to tell what kind of CO switch I'm on?

By this, I mean things like whether I can hang up on a calling party
and have the line disconnect, as opposed to him still tying it up, or
any clicks or whatever that might indicate an older switch, etc.


Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 10:48:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Line Surge Problem - Assistance Wanted


I'm having a problem with my modem and/or phone line and would like
the assistance of the members of the TELECOM Digest.

The problem is that while I'm on the modem (usually between 0630 and
0830) I get what seems to be a line surge, although not on a daily
basis.  This surge? kicks me off and I have to start any session over
without further problems.

I had a phone hooked into the modem and during the process of
elimination I removed it and still got kicked off the air.  That
discarded that train of thought.

I called the telco (our one and all favorite NYTel) resulted in a
check for static on the line which was clear and the second had a
repairman check from the demark back for two pole boxes and the
results were negative.

At the end of the visit, the repairman said that he would have the CO
do another check at the plant to see if the problem was buried somewhere
at that place.

Another factor that I considered was the installation of new lines in
the vicinity of the CO which started about a week ago but the problem
is older than that.

Any assistance in resolving this will be appreciated.  Please direct
replies to either address below and I'll post the results at a later
date.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 15:09:18 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help Wanted With Wierd EATON Blue Box


I'm sending this to c.d.t because with our diverse readership I'm sure
that someone, somewhere along the line has seen one of these things
and can help me get some information on it.

I recently acquired a large power supply (and perhaps controller as
well).  This is a blue box about 24" H X 13" W X 22" L on wheels, and
is manufactured by either Optimetrix or EATON/Optimetrix.  On the
front of the unit are two large meters that indicate:

        Lamp Volts (0..100)
        Lamp Amperes (0..15)

also some switches, lamps and a circuit breaker:

    (one switch and lamp):
        label: Lamp Overpower Alarm
        toggle switch: RESET/ON/OFF

    (another switch, lamp and pushbutton):
        toggle switch: START/ON/OFF
        lamp: LAMP
        push button: IGNITE

    (another switch and lamp):
        label: MACHINE
        toggle switch: START/ON/OFF

    (circuit breaker):
        label: MAIN POWER 208V

and there's also a "LAMP HOURS" counter, as well as a fan screen and
the usual large red warning stickers about high voltage.

On the back, there are four connectors, a SONALERT, a fan screen, an
exhaust port, and two circuit breakers.

    (large multi-pin MIL-style screw-on connector):
        label: (none)
        description: is about 2" diameter, with perhaps 20 small
            contacts, two medium-sized contacts and one large contact

    (not-quite-as-larger MIL-style screw-on connector):
        label: IGNITER
        description: this is 1-1/2" diameter, with three small-sized
            contacts and two large-sized contacts

    (HUBBEL-type twist-lock 208V connector):
        label: (none)
        description: mail power input connector, 1-phase

    (small maybe 6 or 8 pin mini-DIN style connector):
        label: LAMP PREAMP

    (circuit breakers - two of them):
        label: SYSTEM POWER CIRCUIT PROTECTOR
        label: LAMP POWER CIRCUIT PROTECTOR

There is also a small blue metal label stuck to the back of the box
that looks like either an EATON-Optimetrix inventory tag or a tag
identifying the product (that's why I'm not sure that EATON actually
made this thing).  The tag says:

        EATON-Optimetrix, Inc.
        Made in USA
        Part Number: 0H6-6118 A
        Serial Number: 621702-04
        Quality Acceptance: (mark)

So, what is this thing?  My first thought that it is a power supply
for a Xenon or carbon arc lamp of the type used in movie projectors or
perhaps some photographic equipment.

Any other ideas?  Anyone know where I can locate EATON-Optimetrix?

If an EATON-Optimetrix person is on the net and reads this, could you
perhaps ask around and see if you can give me any leads as to what
this thing does and how I can get a service manual and schematics for
it?


Thanks for any help.

Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Monkeys Typing Shakespeare (was Re: For National Security Reasons...)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 02:32:32 GMT


Among other musings, our Esteemed Moderator notes:

> Bob Newhart once said if an infinite number of monkeys typed on an
> infinite number of typewriters for an infinite length of time, they
> would eventually write all the works of Sheakespeare (and probably
> all the articles ever on Usenet as well). But unlike the monkeys, if

Ah, Pat, you missed the original source, which was Thomas Huxley, who
said that "six monkeys, set to strum unintelligently on typewriters
for millions of years, would be bound in time to write all the books
in the British Museum."  Incidentally, Kittel and Kromer's {Thermal
Physics} debunks this statement by pointing out that the probability
of a Monkey-Hamlet, for example, being typed by such a team of
primates in the lifetime of the known universe is 1 over 10 to the
164,316th power.  For absolutists, this is also known as "never."

(Astute Digest readers will note that this is also the probability of Pat
ever admitting that he was wrong :-).


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]


vModerator's Note:  I admit I am wrong ... on the rare occassions when
I am. For instance last week, in message 1 over 10 to the 164,316th
power I admitted I might not be correct about something. Why in that
particular message?  Well, traffic here was a little slow last week!
In other words, "never"!    PAT

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

END of TELECOM Digest V12 #482
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21019;
          14 Jun 92 11:26 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06708
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:43:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17413
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:43:14 -0500
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:43:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #483

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jun 92 09:43:06 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 483

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phones And The FCC (Don Kimberlin, FIDO, via Jack Decker)
    Online Symposium: Visions for a Sustainable World (Jeffrey Porten)
    The Telco Owns the Numbers (Lauren Weinstein)
    Jane Barbie (was The Purpose of the Three Tones) (Ed Greenberg)
    Digital Cellular in Sweden (Robert Lindh)
    "Visit" System Announcement from NT (Steve Pozgaj)
    Telecommuting References and Case Histories Wanted (David Punia)
    International ANI (Leonard Wan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 19:23:51 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones And The FCC


This message was seen in the Fidonet FCC conference:

* From : Don Kimberlin, 1:379/37 (10 Jun 92 20:05)
* To   : Gary Brown
* Subj : Phones And The Fcc

GB> With the action that the FCC has implemented all phone companies will
GB> have to take a closer look at how they are maintaining all their systems
GB> not only the backup generators and batteries.  Any office with over
GB> 50,000 lines coming in must report all outages to the FCC if they last
GB> over 30 minutes.  Now days that would apply to almost any central
GB> office.

 From what I've seen, the FCC hasn't really invoked any such
requirement.  In fact, it seems Congress had to get into the act,
since the FCC had moved only so far as to convene a few "informal
industry meetings."  In fact, in those, the meetings were closed to
the public and the reports of AT&T were made "proprietary
information."

But the House Subcomittee on Telecommunications and Finance (one of
the puzzling combinations of Congress I never have figured out) held
hearings and sent questionnaires out to all the various local and
interstate companies; something they DID have to answer, and the
Subcommittee published the results, saying at the end it was
considering law to require the FCC to require reports.  To my
knowledge, the matter is still not firmly settled about requiring
reports.  (Or was it that the FCC did require _some_ reports, but the
Subcommittee called them insufficient?)

Anyhow, YOU can get a copy of the 200 pages or so of Subcommittee
report, by paying about $15 to the House Document Room in Washington,
or probably free from your local Congressional Representative's
office.  That document is _very_ illuminating, because it shows how
disparate the "standards" are for _every_ "phone company" in the
country.  The "norms" for what each one calls "good service" are
amazingly different.  What you get for what you pay to a phone company
across this nation is so variable that most people would not believe
it.

And, back to "failures:" People (and even the Congressional report in
a few places) mush together local and interstate company outages, and
they mush together things like fiber cuts (that may not take out a
discrete central office) and switch failures (which obviously does and
may affect surrounding C.O.s); then they mush together power plant
failures with software failures of the switch.

Not that the public should be all that interested in the discrete
cause of a particular outage, but they get off into all sorts of
divergent topics when the mouthpieces of the business start to
flim-flam them with terminology.

One very interesting fact you can find in the Congressional report is
that the GTE companies have the poorest "reliability" figure of all
reported.  That's significant when you realize that the totality of
GTE companies now makes GTE larger than the seven- state NYNEX, which
despite its own troubles, has a far better uptime record than does
GTE.

GB> Most of this was caused by the AT&T outage in N.Y. City that
GB> closed down the 3 airports there and when Bell Atlantic and Pac Bell
GB> lost thier Signal 7 Switch.  The AT&T outage was caused by improperly
GB> maintained genertors.  They did not come on line as they were suppose
GB> to.  The batteries held for the required number of hours and then of
GB> course they failed.

But what IS "the required number of hours?"  Is that number any of our
business anyway?  I have personally seen battery backup "requirements"
that ranged from two hours (common for local switching offices) to
twelve hours (used in AT&T -- but not local company) unattended
microwave repeaters.  WHO decided the "requirement?"  Engineers of
EACH company.

The question for the public MIGHT be: WHY did the generators NOT come
on line?  They have separate cranking batteries, so you can't blame
the power plant batteries -- plus the fact that it did come out that
alarms are often defeated. (I'd hate to confess to how often I
observed or participated alarm defeats in my own time "inside the
system!  Bear in mind there are even valid procedures making defeating
the alarms necessary during plant modification and expansion work;
what I'm speaking of are times alarms are defeated because they bother
people ...)

GB> AT&T caught a lot of flack from this one as they
GB> had thumbed their nose at the Public Service Commision just a few months
GB> before by saying they would not comply with an alarm systems that would
GB> connect all the phone companies in the NY area together.  Bellcore is
GB> trying to get back in the act and establish guidelines, but no one has
GB> to abide by them.

Just typical of the sense that still pervades the business; "It's none
of your business" is a more common statement than most people would
know.  The truth is, the American public simply abdicated all
meaningful decision-making about "how to run a phone company" to the
phone companies for so many decades that the phone companies now feel
"it's none of your business how we run our business."  That's
anachronistic for something that's supposed to be a "national
resource," which is something they sometimes like to call themselves.
And, at the same time, they think they should be a protected monopoly.
Clearly, something has to give in all this.

GB> I think the phone companies if they were smart would
GB> rather do that then have our inefficient goverment get into the act.

Insofar as the most visible part of the business is concerned - the
local phonecos -- we fail to understand that they grew up being SO
accustomed to having "someone else" tell them what to do, they cannot
get into deciding for themselves and then defending it.  They had the
"excuse" that "AT&T HQ," or "the utility regulators" made things the
way they were for so long, that they really are not smart enough to
keep the government out of their drawers now.  They WANT the
government to tell them what to do; then the'll come back with a cry
that they need to increase rates to accomplish what "somebody else
made them do."

It's an attitude very much like the Pentagon "defense establishment"
that's already gone down the tubes.  The phonecos are convinced they
have an open-ended cost-plus contract with the public.  During my days
on the inside, I often heard it described exactly that way.  There's
only one way to crack the attitude and the cycle -- competition!


WM v2.01 [Eval]/91-2722
Origin: BORDERLINE!BBS Kannapolis,N.C.[phone] (1:379/37)

                       -----------

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey  Porten)
Subject: Online Symposium: Visions for a Sustainable World Pugwash Conference
Date: 14 Jun 92 04:55:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


              CALL FOR PARTICIPATION VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

          STUDENT PUGWASH USA SEVENTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE ON
            SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

                   VISIONS FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD
                 Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
                          June 14-20, 1992

The Student Pugwash USA Biennial Conference assembles ninety students
from around the world for a week-long conference to address the impact
of science and technology on society.  The students will join
accomplished men and women from science, government, industry, and
academe for an intensive week of discussion and interaction focusing
on the following issues:

 - Environmental Challenges for Developing Countries
 - Energy Options: Their Social and Environmental Impact
 - Health Care in Developing Countries
 - Changing Dynamics of Peace and Global Security
 - Educating for the Socially Responsible Use of Technology
 - Ethics and the Use of Genetic Information

We are inviting all members of the e-mail community to take part in an
online symposium discussing the topics at the conference.  Each day, a
summary of the plenary and working group discussions will be mailed
out as soon as possible following their completion.  Participants in
the online symposium are invited to send back their replies,
commenting on what you receive.  Copies will be redistributed back
through electronic mail, and printed and used at the conference.  Of
course, you're welcome to sign up for the mailings even if you won't
have the time to participate.

If you are interested in participating, send e-mail to
[e-mail].  You will be sent more information about
Student Pugwash USA, and will receive all conference summaries.  Feel
free to subscribe anytime during the conference, or even after it's
over, as all messages will be archived and can be sent out at any
time.  Please include in your message your full name; we would also
appreciate if you include your current occupation (or student
affiliation), and your city, state, and country, but this is optional.

You can also call the Student Pugwash electronic bulletin board at
215/898-2019, for more information about Student Pugwash, and to
participate in ongoing discussion about the impact of science and
technology on society.  Feel free to write me, as well, if you have
any specific questions.

Student Pugwash USA is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with
chapters at 35 colleges and high schools across the country.  Sister
Student/Young Pugwash organizations exist in 20 countries on four
continents.  For more information, reply to this message at
[e-mail].

More information about the conference follows.

For each of the listed topics, student and senior participants form
small working groups in which they will meet every morning throughout
the conference week to discuss areas of mutual interest and expertise.
These intensive discussions offer an invaluable opportunity for
students to explore the ethical and value questions posed by advances
in science and technology with forward-thinking professionals.

Senior Participants will be present from the U.S. Congress, National
Institutes of Health, National Academy of Sciences, Carter Center,
Centers for Disease Control, Brookings Institution, Emory University,
and many other prominent institutions.  Several special events will
also be held, including a day at the Carter Presidential Center in
Atlanta and an interactive, multi-media World Game Workshop.

The separate working group meetings are complemented by afternoon and
evening plenary sessions for the full conference.  Plenaries will
address issues which cut across disciplinary boundaries such as
ethical conduct in scientific research, race and gender in science,
technology and global responsibility, and religion and science.

Student Pugwash USA is committed to representing a broad spectrum of
political,international, and disciplinary perspectives.  Previous
conferences have attracted participants from over thirty nations.  We
are striving for even greater international, intergenerational, and
interdisciplinary representation at the 1992 conference.


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: Sat, 13 Jun 92 20:53:42 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: The Telco Owns the Numbers


Greetings.  Unfortunately, rearrangement of numbers and areas by
telcos is not particularly rare.  The telcos essentially *own* the
numbers.  You rent them.

A large number of Pac*Bell subscribers in the Woodland Hills area (an
818 area code, Valley suburb in the city of L.A.) recently were not
only moved into a different local/toll calling area, but were all
forced to change their seven digit numbers as well.  This was not the
result of any errors, "simply" the result of central offices and toll
areas being realigned.  As you can imagine, the subscribers affected
were none too pleased.

It's complicated enough when you have a local calling area that
extends into three different area codes, all in the SAME CITY (as is
the case in many portions of the L.A. area), but the extra hassle of
having their seven digit numbers changed is really more than many
people can easily absorb.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Jane Barbie (was The Purpose of the Three Tones)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 04:51:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Jane is a real person who recorded for the Bell System for many years.
In fact, our Octel rep tells us (and we have no reason to doubt her)
that they in fact contracted with Jane Barbie to do the Aspen (now
Octel Voice Information Processing, in the new release) messages.
Listening to Aspen's voice, it sure sounds like Jane.


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] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Digital Cellular in Sweden
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 13:33:47 GMT


The Swedish government recently changed an earlier decision and
permitted Motorola a license to start a third digital cellular network
in Sweden.  The new network is supposed to use technique used for
cordless telephones (probably the standard called 'DECT', designed as
a European standard for digital cordless telephones).

The two earlier licensed digital cellular networks both use the
standard called 'GSM'. One of the two networks is operated by Swedish
Telecom (Televerket) and the other is operated by Comvik.  The network
operated by Swedish Telecom is supposed to be operational january 1,
1993. The Comvik network is supposed to be operational september 1,
1992.  When Swedish Telecom recently advertised for GSM 'test-pilots'
(subscribers that test the network before it becomes fully
operational), they received more than 10,000 replies.

The size and shape of Sweden is approximately the same as the state of
California (in the US).

Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Pozgaj)
Subject: "Visit" System Announcement from NT
Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 08:51:23 -0400


There was a splashy full-page announcement in the Toronto Globe&Mail
today about Northern Telecom's new Visit system.  It touted "full
motion video" (and all the other appropriate multimedia buzzwords:-)
 -- and all ver "standard telephone lines".  Anybody out there have any
harder specs?


Steve Pozgaj (signature in postmark; cute remarks in comics section)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecommuting References and Case Histories Wanted
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 22:47:08 EDT


I'm looking for some references, case studies, archived threads, etc,
that would help me develop a case for a pilot telecommuting program
here at UVM.  Can you be of assistance, or suggest some places to
look?


David T. Punia             Voice: 802-656-1915
Univ. of Vermont CSEE dept Internet: [e-mail]
Burlington, VT 05405-0156  C$erve: 72617,1211  Prodigy: DJND87A Fido: 1:325/2

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 14:31 GMT
From: Leonard Wan <[e-mail]>
Subject: International ANI


Hi,

I would be interested to know if ANI will work in the case of USA
Direct or Call USA service offered from an oversea location? However,
according to my calling experience from Hong Kong, it doesn't say the
originating number on the bill, but just simply Hong Kong.

So, does the carrier, like AT&T or MCI, knows the originating number
there? Or do they just know the call is coming from Hong Kong?


Thanks,

Leonard

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #483
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18845;
          14 Jun 92 23:02 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08498
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 20:45:25 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16836
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 20:45:16 -0500
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 20:45:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #484

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jun 92 20:45:15 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 484

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Nova Scotia Political Vote Fiasco (RISKS Digest via David Leibold)
    Feature Interaction Conference (was Caller-ID Block-Blocking) (M. Weiss)
    ICC/Supercomm Followup (David Lemson)
    FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 21:24:36 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nova Scotia Political Vote Fiasco (from RISKS Digest)


Here are excerpts from the RISKS Digest regarding the recent disaster
in Nova Scotia when a political party tried to use a 900 number to
count leadership convention votes. What's more, there's recent news
from CBC that the party is actually going to attempt this again (with
promises from Maritime Tel & Tel etc, that things should actually work
this time).

On a side note, there were mentions of a computer in Wichita, KS
handling the vote count from Nova Scotia. Any ideas as to which
carrier handled the 900 number vote collection when the calls reached
the U.S. border?

(excerpts begin as edited from RISKS 13.56...)

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Tuesday 9 June 1992  Volume 13 : Issue 56

 Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 13:38:09 ADT
 From: [e-mail] (Daniel MacKay)
 Subject: Vote-by-telephone disaster in Nova Scotia


Well, I'm pretty close to the source, so I thought I'd write about it.

Some time ago, the Liberal party of the province decided they'd use a
high-tech voting system, fairly simple in structure.  They would
contract with the local telco, Martime Tel and Tel, to use a
phone/computerized phone system so that people could vote from the
main leadership convention here in Halifax or from regional rallies
(where they had banks of phones installed) or from home using their
touchtone phones.

The method:

1) Each candidate got a 1-900- number.

2) Each card-carrying Liberal would get a PIN and instructions.

3) Come convention day, each Liberal could dial the number for the
candidate of his or her choice, the candidate's recorded voice would
state for whom that vote was about to be cast, and request the Liberal
to enter the PIN.

4) After entering it, the candidate would thank the Liberal for his or
her vote, and hang up.

Voting was supposed to begin at 12:30, and take 90 minutes for the
first round.  If necessary, several voting rounds could be cast during
the day.

Everything went wrong.

A chronology:

12:30   Voting begins.  However, voters do not get the thank you after
        entering their PIN.

12:35   Confusion takes the throne, and reigns for the rest of the day.
        Some telco reps said that your vote was registered even if you
        didn't get a thank-you.  Others said that the votes were being
        counted, don't worry.

1:00    Voting is suspended while everyone works things out.

1:40    The electoral officer announces that all votes will be cancelled,
        and that voting will begin again at 2:30.

2:00    A kid with a scanner calls the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
        to tell them that he has a recording of the Party's conversation
        with the telco via cellphone, giving the results so far. The CBC
        passes the report up their hierarchy, trying to decide if it's a
        faked report.  The kid calls back thirty seconds later with the
        contents of *their* conversation with an Executive Producer, also
        by cellphone.  The CBC decides to run the story.

2:30    Voting begins again.  Callers are instructed that unless they
        get the thank-you message, their vote has not been counted.  Some
        people get a thank-you on the first try, others try for 20 or 30
        times.  In a desperate move, the telco cuts down on the number of
        circuits into the system, to no avail.  Voters now have busy
        signals as well as no acknowledgements to deal with; they report
        that the far end phone either sends the thank-you within a few
        seconds, or does nothing for about ten minutes before hanging up.

3:00    Voting is extended until 4:00.  Many voters complain that their
        PIN is being rejected.  Officials say to never mind, just try to
        vote again in this case.

4:00    Less than half the conventioneers have voted.  Voting is extended
        until 5:00.

5:00    Voting is extended until 6:30.

5:30    Reports begin arriving that members have been able to vote twice.

6:30    The convention is called off.

What went wrong?  System-design-wise?  Considering the PIN as a
password -- each member knew only his -- there was no UID (member
number) to PIN matching.  So anyone who knew your PIN could vote on
your behalf.  So the problems of a) PINs being rejected, and b) voting
twice could easily be explained as people making finger errors.  If
you made a mistake with your PIN, either you got someone else's number
and voted for them, or you got rejected -- no way to tell.  If you
later went back and used your correct PIN after having used someone
else's, why, that would look a lot like being able to vote twice.
Users couldn't, of course, change their PINs.

Anyone with a programmable dialler could have voted for many, many
Liberals if he knew the format of the PINs.  Given the profoundly bad
management we saw, I wouldn't be surprised to see them as six-digit
numbers ranging from 100001 to 107290; there were 7289 registered
voters.  This prospect hasn't even been discussed yet in the local
media.

There was no backup voting system for this, the inaugural use of the
system.  The telco convinced the Party there was no need for it -- the
telco (the newspaper report says) reminded the Party that it handles
hundreds of thousands a call a day, and there was no possibility of
the system failing.

Operationally, there was either a bug in the voting software, or it
was incapable of handling the volume of traffic, causing it to fail to
thank-you most of the time.  And, of course, the kid with the scanner
telling all just added icing to the cake.

It was not a great day for the telco, or for the Liberal Party.  There
hasn't been any discussion of responsibility, but there sure will be
next week!  The convention cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
it was *entirely* a wasted effort.


Daniel MacKay, NOC Manager, NSTN Operations Centre, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada     [e-mail]      902-494-NSTN

The METHODS paragraph above was lightly edited by PGN for clarity.]
[This case was also reported by Richard Taylor of AECB, Aidan Evans
  <[e-mail]>, and [e-mail] (Dave Parnas).]
[Another example of a case for public key encryption?  PGN]


 Date: Mon Jun  8 13:46:17 -0800 1992
 From: atomcon/I=R/S=TAYLOR/O=[e-mail]
 Subject: Phone-in Voting in Nova Scotia


Again on CBC Radio this morning: there is now talk about having to run
the entire campaign over again since the candidates who were listed as
faring badly in the cellular telephone message are protesting that
this disadvantages them in a new polling. A second campaign would
severely drain the resources of the party and would put them at a
disadvatage in subsequent elections.  RPT


Richard P. Taylor, Ottawa, Canada.

(end of RISKS excerpt)

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 15:18:08 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Feature Interaction Conference (was Caller-ID Block-Blocking)


The following announcement was fetched from the listserv list NAC
notebook archives at bitnet node ndsuvm1 (vm1.nokak.edu).  It was
originally posted to Usenet group news.announce.conferences.  /Pete

 Date:     Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:55:07 GMT
 Reply-To: Nancy Griffeth <tekbspa!bellcore![e-mail]>
 From:     Nancy Griffeth <tekbspa!banshee..bellcore.com![e-mail]>
 Subject:  CFP Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems

                     Call For Participation

         INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON FEATURE INTERACTIONS
             IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE SYSTEMS

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


                          DESCRIPTION

This workshop is planned to encourage researchers from a variety of
computer science specialties (software engineering, protocol
engineering, distributed artificial intelligence, formal techniques,
and distributed systems, among others) to apply their techniques to
the feature interaction problem that arises in building
telecommunications software systems.

The feature interaction problem has been a major obstacle to the rapid
deployment of new telephone services. Telecommunications software is
huge, real-time, and distributed; adding new features to a
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.

We welcome papers on preventing, detecting, and/or resolving feature
interactions using either analytical or structural approaches.
Submissions are encouraged in (but are not limited to) the following
topic areas:

      - Classification of feature interactions.
      - Modelling, reasoning, and testing techniques for detecting
        feature interactions.
      - Software platforms and architectures for preventing or
        resolving feature interactions.
      - Tools and methodologies for promoting software compatibility
        and extensibility.
      - Environments and automated tools for related problems in other
        software systems.

                                FORMAT

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

                              ATTENDANCE

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

                             SUBMISSIONS

Please send five copies of your full original paper or interest
description to:
        Nancy Griffeth
        Bellcore, MRE 2L-237
        445 South Street
        Morristown, NJ 07962-1910, USA
        E-mail: [e-mail]
        Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]

                           IMPORTANT DATES

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

                       WORKSHOP CO-CHAIRPERSONS

        Nancy Griffeth (Bellcore, USA)
        Yow-Jian Lin (Bellcore, USA)

                          PROGRAM COMMITTEE

 chair: Hugo Velthuijsen (PTT, The Netherlands)

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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: ICC/Supercomm Followup
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 21:36:52 GMT


As a followup to the informational posting on ICC/SuperComm starting
Monday, June 15 at McCormick Place in Chicago, I registered today
since my dad is chairing a session and I wanted to be able to go to
the exhibits with him.  There is a student registration which entitles
you to all of the exhibits and sessions for $5!  Quite a bargain.  You
don't even have to be a member of IEEE, which is quite the case in
these student registration discounts.  You can register on Monday,
Tues, or Wed. from 7 am to 5 pm in the McCormick Place North Lower
Level Exhibition hall.  BTW, they never asked to see my student ID.  I
guess my shorts and NeXT T-shirt made me look like a student.  If
anyone will be there, I'll probably be at the exhibits on Wednesday
afternoon.

There are three tracks, the lower of which is 100 series, and looks to
be very interesting and fairly basic.  Topics like SONET intro, "The
Basics of CCS/SS7", "Where will PCS and Cellular meet in the
marketplace", "800 Number Portability", "New for '92: User
applications of ISDN", etc.  There are about 43 sessions in that
track.  Plus, more in the upper technical tracks.  It's just too bad
that I have to work this week instead of going to those sessions.


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: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Subject: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 20:20:00 CST


Six agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided a Millbury,
MA home a few days ago charging that the BBS operating therein was
full of illegally obtained copyrighted software.

Richard Kenadek, sysop of the "Davy Jones Locker" was named as a
defendant in a civil suit filed at the same time by the Software
Publishers Association, the organization which brought the case to the
attention of the FBI.

Executing a criminal search warrant, the agents seized several
computers, six modems and a program called PC Board, which was used to
run the BBS. Agents also seized documents listing the subscribers to
the service.

According to Ilene Rosenthal, director of litigation for the Software
Publishers Association, Kenadek 'had incriminated himself' through
various messages left on the computer for everyone to read. "There is
plenty of evidence that he knew full well what was going on, " she
said. "He was fully aware of the files on his system, and encouraged
both the retreival of 'pirated software' and the uploading of other
similar copyrighted materials.

Rosenthal said a four month investigation of "Davy Jones Locker"
revealed more than 200 copyrighted programs were stored on the system.
She estimated the BBS had distributed $675,000 worth of pirated
programs this year alone.

Subscribers paid a fee of $49 for three months, or $99 for one year.
The membership roster for the system showed about 400 paying users in
36 states and 11 foreign countries. Neither the FBI or Mr. Kenadek
would respond to requests for comments.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #484
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23933;
          15 Jun 92 1:16 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22152
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 21:56:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07411
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 14 Jun 1992 21:56:04 -0500
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 21:56:04 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #485

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jun 92 21:56:07 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 485

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (David Lesher)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (John Higdon)
    Re: Newly Dialable Points (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed (David W. Barts)
    Re: Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
    Re: Calling Rates From Germany to the USA (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
    Re: RFC For Fax Specs? (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Bobby Krupczak)
    Re: Six Points - Response (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Why a California Telephone Number For Israel? (David Lemson)
    Re: Virginia 52x CO's (Carl Moore)
    Re: For Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710 (Darren Ingram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 8:47:35 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace


>> "Those little cellular Yagis" were not really designed for use ...

> If two cells can hear you, then -- darn it -- they should vote on who
> will take you.

> [Moderator's Note: You'd think if two cells can hear you well, then
> one or the other can still hear you *better* and would be selected.

The problem is, the same frequencies are re-used in cells that are
geographically separated. (Adjacent cells do use different
frequencies.) The essence of the system is that each mobile will only
use enough power to reach one cell of frequency A at a time. The
switch remotely controls your transmit power to the minimum needed.

If you have a good enough antenna, you could in fact hit the cell at
4th Street and 32nd Ave, and the next one using those same freqs,
clear over at 188th Street and 18th Ave. In some cases, the switch may
set your output power as low as possible, and you still hit both.
That's the problem ...


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 16:58:01 PDT
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> "You'd think if two cells can hear you well, then one or the
> other can still hear you *better* and would be selected. I am
> not sure why the original author feels its a problem."

If multiple cells can hear you, then no other phone can use that
frequency in those cells.  It's the same problem as we discussed
earlier regarding use of cell phones at altitude.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 92 22:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs


[e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn) writes: (in response to this from
me:)

>> I have been following this out of the corner of my eye. What is this
>> "third line cost" business? Why does it cost more to put in line three
>> than line one or two?

> Because the two-pair cable that carries lines one and two is installed
> at the time the house is built.

And in whose infinite wisdom was a TWO line cable deemed adequate for
your residence? Did you make that decision? Did telco? Did the
developer? If it was someone other than yourself, why do YOU have to
pay for someone else's lack of planning?

> Line three (and four, for that matter) requires another drop.  So you
> have to dig.

Yes, YOU have to dig. Telco does not dig, so where does it get off
charging you an astromical sum for an additional line (after two)?

> Everybody is entitled to whatever they want.  They are NOT entitled to
> expect the other subscribers to pay for it, if their usage exceeds the
> norm.

> If you PAY for a third line (ie. pay what it costs to get one put in)
> you can HAVE one.

If I lived in USWest territory and I wanted a third line, it would be
I who paid for the installation and for the monthly charge, NOT other
subscribers. I have sixteen residence lines in my home. I paid for
each and every one of them, installation wise. And I pay the tariffed
rate for each and every one of them, monthly service wise. Little
green men do not pay for them, I do.

Side note: Please, PLEASE do not feed me the PC "socially responsible"
bull about how residence is subsidized. First, I do not believe it.
Second, even if true, that is an issue between the telco and the PUC
and unless something is written into the tariff at the time of its
filing that because of this "subsidy" residence customers are
"rationed", do NOT try to tell me that other customers are feeding my
telephone habit. Au contrare, Pac*Bell considers me a "very good"
customer, "spending a lot each month on service that should be right".
(Spoken by a Pac*Bell rep.) Nobody mentioned anything about me getting
something for nothing.

More side note: A service that IS subsidized is Lifeline. And please
note that it is indeed rationed. If you qualify for it, it can be the
only service in the home, etc.

I am really suprised that there are readers of this forum who actually
believe the cock and bull that the telcos give out about residence
service being subsidized (as if they are doing you a favor in
providing it). And give me a break: does USWest charge BUSINESSES a
cool grand to install a third line? I will bet that if they did, the
word "bypass" would start to figure heavily in many Southwestern
businesses' vocabulary.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Newly Dialable Points
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 06:05:25 GMT


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

[ about calls to the South Pole ]

> In case you have friends way down south, here are the dial rates.  The
> rates are unchanged from the operator assisted rates, but you don't
> have to pay for a person-to-person call if you don't want to.

> Period      1st min   extra min
> 5P-11P      5.04        3.36
> 10A-5P      4.60        3.00
> 11P-10A      4.16        2.77

Just wanted to note that if you are calling from the South Pole, you
can basically pick your timezone by walking a few feet; I wonder if
you always get the night rate?


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


[Moderator's Note: You know, I was going to raise a similar question
when the message first appeared. Typically, premium rates are charged
during the window of time when both ends of the call are in their res-
pective business day. The least-cost economy rates are always at a
time on weekdays when one end or the other -- or both -- should be in
bed asleep, making it inconvenient for one or both parties to call.
The middle rates are always late in the evening for one end or the
other; typically middle of the night one place, evening in the other.
I wonder how the South Pole rates and times were calculated. The fact
that the numbers are assigned to the Australian code(s) does not
really surprise me; through all the years of manual service to call
there via the old AT&T international office in Oakland, CA, calls went
to Telecom Australia who in turn dictated who could use the radio at
which hours and days of the week, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 00:01:05 -0700
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed


[e-mail] (Bill Squire) writes:

> In the fifties came the ultrasound devices mentioned first ...
> The sixties, with the advent of transistors, brought a very

> short period where RF was used ...

> In the seventies infrared LEDS (IRED) of very high power
> output came out in mass production and became the obvious choice since
> there is allways a clear line of sight between the viewer and the TV!

My aunt has an early 1970s Zenith console TV that has an ultrasonic
remote.  It works very well, in fact it works far _better_ than any
modern infrared remote control I've used.

That old ultrasonic remote never has any problems with loud noises
causing a false signal, works flawlessly from anywhere in my aunt's
living room, and its finger-sized buttons have a nice solid feel and
positive tactile feedback.

This is to be contrasted with the modern remote controls I've seen,
which tend to be very particular about how they are held and aimed (if
it's not aimed squarely at the detector on the set, forget it); and
have pathetic, mushy rubberized buttons that a) provide no tactile
feedback, b) often fail to send a signal when pressed, c) often
"bounce" and send a signal twice when pressed, and d) are too small
and too close together, causing frequent instances of "fat-fingering".


David Barts  N5JRN             UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[e-mail]  Seattle, WA  98195

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Subject: Re: Advice Needed: E-Mail From US to Russia
Organization: Point of Presence Hamburg
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 06:28:43 GMT


SprintMail, yes, I agree. But that certainly is only for larger
companies, beeing able to afford some $$$. For private individuals I
have found that most connect enthusiastically to a Fido node.  They
get their feeds via Finland.


Wolfgang

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 09:45 MESZ
From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang R. Schulz)
Subject: Re: Calling Rates From Germany to the USA


No discounts? That's not quite correct. MCI registeres german card
holders under the Family and Friends plan so they can enjoy the 20%
discount as well for calls to 20 registered MCI LD phones in the U.S.
PLUS to their OWN number in Germany, when dialed by the MCI Card FROM
the U.S.

BTW, both (AT&T and MCI) now allow foreign card holders to call ANY
800 number in the U.S., but charge the regular rate.

As to the decrease of fees for dialed calls from Germany to the U.S.
I agree to Juergen, that AT&T and MCI must do something about their
charges. Mostly because of the basic addendum to the first minute
cost, dialling through German Telekom is the more reasonable choice,
plus the ability for calling just a couple of seconds to say a few
words like "read your e-mail which I just uploaded" for one message
unit (15 cents) is something, no card service offers!


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Theodor-Koerner-Weg 5, 2000 Hamburg 61, Germany
Phone: [phone]***Fax: [phone]***MCI Mail: 241-2526
Internet:[e-mail]**Bang:..unido!mcshh!wrs**[e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 09:21:25 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RFC For Fax Specs?


In article <[e-mail]>, Toby Nixon <tnixon@
hayes.com> says:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Monte Freeman) writes:

>> I need the RFC (or some other type of "oficial document" ) that
>> gives the specs for fax transmissions. A description of the protocol,

>> Anyone have any idea where I can find something like this?
>> Preferably in on-line Internet accessible format ...

The following RFC's have /facsimile/ (not FAX) in their description:

804   CCITT draft recommendation T.4 [Standardization of Group 3 facsimile
803   Dacom 450/500 facsimile data transcoding
798   Decoding facsimile data from the Rapicom 450
769   Rapicom 450 facsimile file format
809   UCL facsimile system

You might want to check with an ARCHIE server for anonymous FTP
archives on the subject.  Please see the FTP archive at nisca.ircc.
ohio-state.edu dir pub/fax (and sub directories).


Peter M. Weiss ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Bobby Krupczak)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bobby Krupczak)
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 17:44:32 GMT


Hi!

John Higdon ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I was shocked, but from that time forward I have made it a point to
> notice the communications skills of those around me. What I have seen
> is depressing and alarming. And then I remembered back to my school
> days where speaking the "King's English" would generally reap the
> reward of ostracism. But school is out now. And what do we find? Yet
> another commercial that ridicules the notion that anyone would strive
> for excellence and at the same time speak standard English.

While not totally related to the telephony concept of this newsgroup,
I must agree.  I myself may not use correct grammar at all times, but
I have noticed this disturbing trend.  It seems to run rampant in the
technical fields -- networking and telecommunications especially.

I worked for two years in industry for a major computer company.  Now
I am back in graduate school pursuing advanced degrees in Computer
Science and telecommunications.  I have never seen more atrocious
grammer, syntax, spelling, etc in my life.  Half the journal articles
I read contain poorly worded run-on sentences.


Bobby


[Moderator's Note: You should see the raw material I work with here in
editing this Digest ... much of it is in decent shape to begin with,
but a large number of articles require almost complete re-writing. I
do what I can with the time and resources available to me.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 13:35:07 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Six Points - Response
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


TELECOM Moderator notes, in response to John Higdon:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually John, Centrex goes back further than
> that. ...  Another early Centrex user here was the {Chicago
> Tribune} (312-222) dating from the middle sixties, also on xbar.

   I think this was the LAST xbar Centrex in IBT.  I know we sat with
lots of worried folks the night (in 1977 or '78) we cut it to a 1A
ESS (TM) switch.  Seems there were lots of "sleeve-lead" and other
un-documented wires connected to the {Tribune}, and IBT was prepared
for lots of complaints from the "Tower" after the cut-over.  As I
recall, there were NO complaints; the Network Maintenance folks
figured that the staff at the {Tribune} had changed enough that they
had forgotten how to use those "special hand-wired" features!


Al Varney - just MY opinion.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: Why a California Telephone Number For Israel?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 21:30:03 GMT


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Edwin Slonim, Intel Software Products, Haifa, Israel
>> 972-435-5910, fax [phone], voicemail 916 351-2005

> I called the voicemail number and, sure enough, such California number
> had a recording which mentioned Haifa.  Why the California number
> alongside the Israel telephone numbers?

I know that Intel has a big plant in Folsom, CA, near Sacramento.
Maybe 351 is the exchange for that plant?  (It's been too long since I
lived near Folsom in El Dorado Hills, CA, that I can't remember what
the Intel prefix was, but I think it was 351).

It's the same as: I work for NeXT, Inc. as a student rep.  I have a
voice mailbox on their Audix system, so if you call 415-366-0900 and
dial my audix voicemailbox number (5568 for the intrepid who want to
leave me a message), it will get to me.  (They have an 800 dialup to
get into the Audix system for retrieving messages).

I live nowhere near 415.

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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 21:38:39 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Virginia 52x CO's


I don't have my notes in front of me as I write this, but there is a
703-521 prefix in the Crystal City area, the next set of exchanges
(also Arlington) down the Potomac River from Arlington/Rosslyn (which
includes 243, 527, 528, etc.).

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 19:04 GMT
From: Darren Ingram <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About Area Code 710


For what it is worth, +1 710 numbers are intercepted from the UK using
both Mercury and British Telecommunications.

There seems to be some form of delay with Telecom mailings over here.
I normally get about six in a row ...

Darren Ingram/Satnews        : Standard disclaimer rules apply, even if I am
[e-mail]  : very nasty towards you.
Coventry, West Midlands, U.K.


[Moderator's Note: You should have received ten or more Digests over
the weekend. From a very full queue, I picked the best 130 or so
messages and disgarded twice that many. To others: sorry I could not
use yours this time around, try again later! In re 710: some hackles
have been raised. Two callers today with military connections told me
they asked friends in high places about it. Both received surprised
responses and queries, 'how did you know about it?'. But tight lips
still prevail.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #485
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29419;
          16 Jun 92 2:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10423
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 00:39:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19927
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 00:39:23 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 00:39:23 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #486

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jun 92 00:39:22 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 486

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Shag's Dialtone's Back! ([e-mail])
    Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers (Jeff Sicherman)
    Strange Payphone =? Geophone ([e-mail])
    Teleconferencing History References Wanted (Sal Kabalani)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (John R. Levine)
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (John R. Levine)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Steve Forrette)
    Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy! (Michael Rosen)
    Courteous Response From a COCOT Provider (Michael Rosen)
    4,000 Person CWA Conference Call (Phillip Dampier)
    Centrex and FAX (Ronald Elliott)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Colin Plumb)
    Our New .su Friends (Was For National Security Reasons) (Robert McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 21:12:40 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Shag)
Subject: Shag's Dialtone's Back!


    I never did find out exactly what was wrong that I didn't have
a dialtone (I had to work, and therefore couldn't assume my usual
stance of enthrallment to watch the repair person fix the line).

    However, I suspect it had something to do with the wire in
from the pole, for the following reason:

    There used to be _two_ wires in from the pole, both
single-line.  My aunt and uncle's line ran straight inside the house,
as they have a box inside somewhere, and mine dead-ended at my
interface box on the outside of the house.

    There is now _one_ brand-spankin'-new dual-line wire in, which
runs into my interface box, and the formerly vacant second test jack
in the box has been assigned to their line.  (Their line, of course,
continues out of the box into the house, my line still dead-ends in
the box.)

    Everything works quite nicely now.


Shag

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 18:16:34 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> Greetings.  Unfortunately, rearrangement of numbers and areas by
> telcos is not particularly rare.  The telcos essentially *own* the
> numbers.  You rent them.

> A large number of Pac*Bell subscribers in the Woodland Hills area (an
> 818 area code, Valley suburb in the city of L.A.) recently were not
> only moved into a different local/toll calling area, but were all
> forced to change their seven digit numbers as well.  This was not the
> result of any errors, "simply" the result of central offices and toll
> areas being realigned.  As you can imagine, the subscribers affected
> were none too pleased.

> It's complicated enough when you have a local calling area that
> extends into three different area codes, all in the SAME CITY (as is
> the case in many portions of the L.A. area), but the extra hassle of
> having their seven digit numbers changed is really more than many
> people can easily absorb.

  OK, let's just drop all this nonsense and do thing the right way.

  Since you now have to get a social security number before you're
weaned, let's just take the next logical step and go down to your
local FCC office (maybe they could open an office within Social
Security) and get your 'for-life' phone number issued. No more of this
silly 700-number stuff from AT&T.

  Then the government will implant a little cellular phone into your
body (shouldn't take to long for things to get to this point,
especially with micro-cells) and we will be able to reach everyone,
everywhere. Not to mention knowing where you are, BROTHER.

  Wait a second, didn't I just see this scenario in a Borg episode of
Star Trek ... I KNEW those guys looked familiar.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: 16 Jun 1992 13:21:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Strange Payphone =? Geophone


Hi Kim et al,

There is a Man in Durango that markets something like the strange pay-
phone you mentioned.  His Name is Gene Labato, and I think the Co. is
American Geophone.  He probably has 800 number access.


Mitch :)

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 21:08 CST
From: Sal Kabalani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teleconferencing History References Wanted


I am writing a research paper on Teleconferencing. I am particularly
interested in the history of teleconferencing (the beginings,
relevants congressional/FCC/NECA rulings, evolution, etc).

Does anyone know where can I get this information? Is there relevant
information in archives?

Anything you can contribute is most appreciated. If there is interest,
I will summarize the responses. Please feel free to send to my E-mail
address below.

Many thanks.

Sal A Kabalani------------------------+-Internet : SK89221 @ Acad.Drake.Edu
Supervisor of Operations/Data Systems | Bitnet   : SK89221 @ DRAKE
Iowa Network Services (IXC 225)       | WWIV-link: 12 @ 25555
4201 Corporate Drive                  | Fax-Net  : [phone]/0124
Des Moines, Iowa 50265                | Phone-Net: [phone]/0110
Disclaimer: My opinions are not mine. I dont even know this Sal person.

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

Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 14 Jun 92 23:24:02 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Moderator's Note: Love those 500's! I found a 500-style five line
> phone once dating from 1939. Imagine: Rotary dial, still with the old
> style numbering (HARrison, rather than HA-7 or 427); straight
> (uncurled) brown *cloth* cord from phone to handset; ...

I believe that if you turn this fine old piece of equipment over
you'll find that it's a 300 series phone.  The 500 series, which was
made of cyclolac (is that how you spell it? I can never remember) and
which is the design that everyone still more or less copies for single
line desk phones, arrived in the 1950s.


Regards,

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

Trivia question: What else do they use cycolac for?

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

Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 14 Jun 92 23:29:05 EDT (Sun)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


It looks to me like a lot of the discussion on this topic is missing
the point.  People don't like having their phone numbers changed, but
that happens every day and tough noogies.  (Consider all those people
in 301 who recently were renumbered to 410, for example.)

The real issue is that they're reclassifying people's service so that
in many cases they will have to pay a lot more than they used to, an
entirely different issue than what your phone number happens to be.

Seems to me the most equitable course of action is for telco to
grandfather the existing subscribers and to be more careful in the
future.  There are lots of precedents for this: try getting a new flat
rate private residential line in Vermont.  Most places you can't, the
service is grandfathered for the large fraction of people who have it,
but new installations are all message rate with a usage cap.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 03:58:08 GMT


[laments about poor grammar deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: You should see the raw material I work with here in
> editing this Digest ... much of it is in decent shape to begin with,
> but a large number of articles require almost complete re-writing. I
> do what I can with the time and resources available to me.   PAT]

I think you've found something that I've been noticing for several
years: email tends to reveal just how poor are the writing skills of
many Americans.  In the office enivornment, email makes people
interact with the written word who would otherwise never do so.  Just
about everyone can speak properly (more or less), but when forced to
put communication into words, it is amazing how many people can't use
complete sentences, correct spelling, etc.  Most of the time, you can
figure out what was intended, but I've gotten more than one message
whose meaning was completely incomprehensible.

It seems that more and more organizations (like Sprint) are forced to
cater to the lowest common denominator.  Here are two of my favorite
examples:

The wording on deposit beverage containers in California was changed
from "CA Redemption Value" to "CA Cash Refund" because too many people
did not understand what "redemption value" meant.

The wording on the denomination-less postage stamps that are used
right after a rate increase was changed from "Domestic Mail Only" to
"U.S. Addresses Only" ("duh, what's domestic mean?")


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do you recall the message I posted on a Usenet
group a few years ago which used the word 'niggardly', and all the
hateful followups from people saying I 'must be a racist for using
that word to describe black people ...'?   I doubt a single one of
them bothered to look it up in the dictionary, that is, if they own
one or know how to use it. And yes, I make spelling and grammatical
errors from time to time. No one is perfect, but still ...  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Re: News Flash! The Phone is Not a Toy!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 04:33:29 GMT


I love it when I call a business and they answer with, "hello?"  No
"hello, this is so-and-so, may I help you?" no identifying comment
whatsoever.  I have to go, "is this <insert business here>?"


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Courteous Response From a COCOT Provider
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 04:39:53 GMT


A little while ago, I called the repair number on a COCOT in my area
asking why their phones did not allow equal access to long distance
carriers.  It seemed I was mistaken and only noticed after making the
call that the phones did indeed have AT&T as their LD carrier.  I
received a very courteous response which I enclose below:

Eagle International Telecom
P.O. Box 1771
Ellicott City, MD 21043
[phone]
                May 15, 1992

Dear Mr. Rosen,

        I am writing you in response to your recent inquiry
regarding equal access from our Payphones.  [Bold] We do provide equal
access to all long distance carriers, from al of our phones [end
Bold].  In cases where the primary carrier for that phone is ITI, you
may reach an AT&T Operator by simply asking the ITI Operator To please
connect you with AT&T.  In some cases AT&T is the primary carrier.
Also other long distance companies such as MCI, Spring, Ect. [sic]
provide a 1-800 or 950- access number to reach there [sic] network.
These numbers all are Toll Free for the user and are available at any
of our phones.

    If you have difficulty reaching a carrier of you choice using
one of these methods, please let us know about that phone by dialing
our Toll Free 211 or 611 number, from that payphone, so that we may
have it checked and or repaired.  If you have any further questions,
just give me a call, I would be happy to try to answer them.

                Thank You,


                Clark J. Schoeffield
                Representative

All awkward paragraph tabs typed as they appear in the letter ... :)

One other problem I had, which I detailed in a letter to Mr.
Schoeffield, was the problem of touch tones being disconnected after a
calling card call was completed.  I was not able to dial a pound (#)
key to dial a new call with my AT&T calling card.  I have not received
a response on this letter yet.


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 10:13:03 -0500
Subject: 4,000 Person CWA Conference Call


In a message From: [e-mail]

> Strike aside, I wan't to hear about the logistics of setting up a
> 4,000 person nationwide conference call!  Seriously, what is the call
> set up time, moderation scheme, ...?

My guess is that the "nationwide conference call" was probably just a
silly way to refer to a satellite linkup.  CWA uses satellite
teleconferencing to broadcast messages to its locals and I suspect
certain stewards probably did some call-ins during the teleconference.

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

From: caron![e-mail] (Ronald Elliott)
Subject: Centrex and FAX
Date: 15 Jun 92 16:58:36 GMT
Organization: Science and Technology Center, Apple Valley Ca.


I can't see a solution other than succumb to the teleco but thought
I'd ask.

An aquaintance has two line Centrex service in his office and would
like to connect a FAX machine to the back line. The two line turned
out to be software switchable so the fax or a normal telephone device
won't recognize either line. The telco (Contel [GTE]) wants up to
$18.00 a month (plus installation) for a device that would break out
one of the lines to the FAX. Another line would be more to install but
less monthly.

Question is, are there other alternatives?


Ronald Elliott                   Science and Technology Center
caron![e-mail]              P.O. Box 2968
                                     Apple Valley, Ca 92307
                        Serving Education throughout the High Desert Area

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 04:57:30 -0400


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

> I had no idea how pervasive this problem was until many years ago
> during the time I was an owner of a sizeable telecommunications
> company. A fellow owner and some clients were in the conference room
> and I was attempting to explain the operation of one of our systems.
> In the course of the explanation I used the word, 'quiescent'. My
> associate immediately became agitated and said, "What the hell does
> that mean?" I answered using such terms as 'idle', 'at rest', etc. His
> rebuke, in front of all and sundry, was, "Then just say that and don't
> try to impress everyone with fancy words nobody knows the meaning of."

I agree it's awful.  I once suggested to the Moderator of sci.military
that he run everything through a sed script to change "missle" to
"missile" before he even saw it.  A girl I know in grade four does
spelling by making a list of words, trading with a partner, and
testing on both lists.  She picked some interesting but fairly simple
words from the dictionary.  Hydrometallurgy comes to mind.  (She even
knew what it means, whereas I had to make a guess it had to do with
rusting.)  So her partner gets intimidated by the sounds of six
syllables and complains to her mother who complained to the teacher
who asked her to pick shorter words.  She's a bit annoyed at this.  So
I'm building a list of common words like Judge, February, Medieval, (I
think I'll skip Diarrhoea for now), People (it always used to trip me
up, for some reason), Autumn, Column, and the like for her, just
because she likes to be stubborn.

Besides, there'a difference between quiescent and idle, at rest, etc.
For many purposes it's irrelevant, but if you want to be fussy, with
my understanding of the term, quiescent has a greater connotation of
preparation than idle.  An idle system may be operating in a low-power
mode; if it detects a quiescent state for long enough it may drop
power to idle.

Further, quiescent means "quiet," which is distinct from "silent."  A
quiescent system may still be doing minor housekeeping, sending
keepalive pulses, or whatever.  Activity is negligible, but not
necessarily absent.

And finally, "qiescent" is hardly a fancy word.  If you want to use
fancy words, try your hand at sesquipedalianism.  *Sigh*.  Sorry to
the Moderator for wandering off-topic.


Colin

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 02:56:27 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Our New .su Friends (was For National Security Reasons)


[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> > [...] [several new Digest subscribers from .gov and .mil sites on
> line in recent days; welcome folks!  PAT]

> Oh, and all of the new .su folks *aren't* welcome?  ;-)

> [Moderator's Note: But of course! It is hard for me to keep up with
> the whims of our government; are the .su folks our friends these days
> or still our enemies? I guess we are all friends now.  PAT]

Along those lines, AT&T seems to be thinking they can pick up some
brains on the cheap.  Seems I read an article in the {Los Angeles
Times} a couple of days ago where AT&T hired an entire research
facility in the CIS (Russia?).  The researchers working there were
going to be paid something like $60 a month!  Made me wonder why the
researchers didn't just leave the country to go to Germany or the U.S.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #486
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13353;
          16 Jun 92 9:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23145
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:06:40 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28914
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:06:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:06:32 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #487

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:06:30 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 487

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS (Scott Colbath)
    Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS (Ron Dippold)
    Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS (Nick Sayer)
    Re: Area Code 710 (Jeff Stieglitz)
    Bronx Moving to Area Code 718 in July, 1992 (David Niebuhr)
    The Meaning of ITT (John Martin)
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Michael Harpe)
    Re: Nova Scotia Political Vote Fiasco (from RISKS Digest) (Paul Gauthier)
    Re: *67 and Related Topics (Peter Sleggs)
    International Rate Periods (John R. Levine)
    Competitive LD in Canada (Dan Mongrain)
    Re: Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs) (Scott Colbath)
    Needed: Decision Feedback Equalizer Code (Evangelos Paravalos)
    UK Directory Enquiries (Stephen Graham)
    Strange Pulse Dialing Behavior (Jon Sreekanth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS
Date: 15 Jun 92 14:33:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator (telecom@
eecs.nwu.edu) writes:

> Six agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided a Millbury,
> MA home a few days ago charging that the BBS operating therein was
> full of illegally obtained copyrighted software.

Someone want to tell a very green TELECOM Digest reader what a BBS is?


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


[Moderator's Note: Surely. A 'BBS' is a 'Bulletin Board System', a
software program for a computer in public use (although usually
privately owned) which allows the general public to access certain
parts of the system such as files for downloading, etc. There will
usually be one or more message bases for discussions among users. I
have also seen them referred to as 'bull boards', and as often as not
the chatter between users is just a lot of bull. There are tens of
thousands of these systems in the USA and many are networked.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 17:42:49 GMT


TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail]) writes:

Well, I thought we might have something new here, but ...

> Subscribers paid a fee of $49 for three months, or $99 for one year.
> The membership roster for the system showed about 400 paying users in
> 36 states and 11 foreign countries. Neither the FBI or Mr. Kenadek
> would respond to requests for comments.

Sheesh, any pirate BBS which is stupid enough to _charge_ for access
should save themselves the trouble and just call the FBI themselves.
I'd also be willing to bet that they had some large utilities from
some of the companies which go after this sort of thing aggressively:
Borland, Novell, AutoCAD.  200 files online sounds very low unless
they were large programs of this sort.

Now all they needed was to engage in some credit card fraud to
complete the trinity of idiocy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 03:47:47 GMT


In the civil litigation sure to follow, it will be interesting to see
how many companies who AREN'T part of the SPA ...

1) are notified that they have action against this fellow;
2) decide to take action;
3) get back as much as their SPA counterparts;

 ... Or does the SPA totally dominate the retail software industry?

Next thing you know the SPA will be asking congress for laws to
regulate what we do with our disk/tape drives in the same way that the
recording industry had DAT decks crippled.

I don't pirate. I just use FREE software (which is usually better
anyway).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Stieglitz)
Subject: Re: Area Code 710
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 15 Jun 92 10:55:07 GMT


Here's my guess as to the usage of the 710 area code.

During times of national emergency, area code 710 would be enabled for
top government officials to reach the federal emergency management
agency (FEMA) and the defense department.

There is a concept in defense circles known as the National Command
Authority, or NCA.  The NCA can order a special weapons release if
properly authenticated and concurred with by a valid source.  The NCA
is normally the president, but if he is incapacitated there is a line
of succession of people who become the NCA by default.

If the NCA orders a nuclear strike, it must be authenticated.  In an
emergency, all of the people in the line of succession must inform
FEMA of their whereabouts at regular intervals in case they become the
NCA responsible for the armed forces or are needed to concur with a
special weapons release.

This has been suggested in a number of academic publications, one of
which is Managing Nuclear Operations, another is The Day After World
War III.  It was fictionalized in Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears.

Having an area code with priority would come in handy, since
government leaders are typically dispersed geographically, and the
public switched network would be jammed in an emergency.

Any Comments?


Jeff Stieglitz     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 07:24:10 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Bronx Moving to Area Code 718 in July, 1992


The latest monthly "Hello" telephone bill insert describes the steps
that will be taken to cut the Bronx from area code 212 and put it in
718.  This starts July 1st with full cutover on Sept. 24, 1993.  The
long timeframe doesn't surprise me considering that it's New York
City.

The changeover periods are:

July 1, 1992 through May 15, 1993: Customers calling to the Bronx can
use either area code 212 or 718.

 * Calls from the Bronx to Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island will still
   require dialing 1 + 718 + the seven digit number to complete.

 * Calls from the Bronx to Manhattan can be completed by dialing 1 + 212
   + the seven digit number or by dialing the seven digits without the
   area code.

May 16, 1993 through Sept. 24, 1993:

  * All calls to the Bronx will require 1 + 718 + the seven digit number.

  * Bronx customers can call Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island without
    dialing the 718 area code.

  * Bronx customers will be required to dial 1+ area code + number to
    complete calls to area codes ourside of 718, includng Manhattan.

On Sept. 25, 1993, the Bronx area code change will be permanent.
Bronx customers will be able to dial areas within the 718 area code
using only seven digits.  This change will not affect telephone rates
when calling within the New York Metropolitan Regional Calling Area.

I'll hold my tongue here since there are two New York Calling Areas:
Regional and Metropolitan Regional.  I'm willing to assume for the
moment that the insert was discussing the whole Regional Calling area
(area codes 203 (part of), 212, 516, part of 914 and 917 (cellular/pager
in New York City)).


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 08:49:41 EDT
From: [e-mail] (John Martin)
Subject: The Meaning of ITT


> [Moderator's Note: ITT stands for International Telephone and
> Telegraph Company, the bakers of Holsom Bread Products among other
> things.]

I worked for ITT between 1983 and 1985. I remember that during that
time, the name 'ITT' was officially changed from standing for
International Telephone and Telegraph to standing for nothing. There
was an announcement to that effect somewhere (I think it was in the
annual report.) This was because of ITT's broad diversification into
insurance, hotels, defense, and as you pointed out, baking.


John Martin     NYNEX Science and Technology    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Harpe)
Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 13:39:12 GMT


Every time I have ordered telephone service from South Central Bell,
they have always told me my number when I ordered the service.  No
disclaimer about it not being guaranteed at all was given.  I would
think that if the telco's databases were worth a darn, they would be
able to guarantee that.  After all, you're gonna use SOME number, why
not that one?

Every time I read this group, I thank God I don't live in California ...


Mike Harpe       University of Louisville

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Gauthier)
Subject: Re: Nova Scotia Political Vote Fiasco (from RISKS Digest)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 10:44:14 -0300


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Leibold) writes:

> 2:00   A kid with a scanner calls the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
>        to tell them that he has a recording of the Party's conversation
>        with the telco via cellphone, giving the results so far.

The MT&T rep who did the news conference after the fiasco explained
that the information that was sent out over the air to the cell was
CALL ATTEMPTS and not registered votes. Since many people were making
many attempts (20-30) this information is not a 1-1 mapping with
recorded votes. Although, it seems to me that it's still a very good
indication of who's going to come out on top.

Incidentally, the person making the cell call to the computer to
retrieve this information was an MT&T tech, and was authorized to
access that part of the service.

The explanation for why the 'Thank you' message wasn't coming through
was as follows: Each line had a safeguard rigged on it to prevent a
caller from staying on the line and preventing further votes. It would
wait X seconds and then hang up the line. MT&T presumed that X seconds
was (more than) long enough to record the vote and play back the
'Thank you' message. Well, under the load the system experienced, it
was taking much longer than X seconds, so people were being punted
from the line automatically, even though the 'Thank you' hadn't yet
come back.

Can't wait to see what happens when they try it again!


Paul Gauthier / [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics
From: [e-mail] (Peter Sleggs)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 09:15:01 -0400
Organization: Bellatrix Systems Corp., Mississauga, ONT Canada


[e-mail] (Clive Feather) writes:

> In Telecom 12.452.7 Peter Sleggs writes:

>> Consider the situation of ANY toggle, a light switch is a fair
>> example.  Convention is that when the lever is UP the light is ON
>> (code requirement in some places).

> Speak for yourself. In the United Kingdom, UP means OFF.

YES but you guys drive on the left too! :) That's how I learned
before moving to North America.

So its backwards, BUT there is a convention, its not random.


Bellatrix Systems Corp. Mississauga, Ontario Canada
[e-mail] or beltrix!peters

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

Subject: International Rate Periods
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 15 Jun 92 09:48:50 EDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> I wonder how the South Pole rates and times were calculated. ...

AT&T told me that the making the place dialable didn't change the
rates, and the existing rates were in line with other exotic
undialable places.

The rate periods to lots of countries don't make a whole lot of sense.
For example, the highest rate to many islands in the Caribbean that
are in the same time zone as New York (in the summer at least) is
4PM-10PM, which means that for callers on the west coast it'd be
7PM-1AM in the islands.  To the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the French
Antilles, though, the rate periods are the same as they are
domestically.  To Belize, which is in the same time zone as Mexico
City and Chicago, the expensive time is 5PM - 11PM.

It's not just tiny countries with strange rate periods.  To Greece and
Turkey, the high time is a sensible 7AM - 1PM.  To neighboring
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia (or whatever it's called these days,) it's 1PM
 - 2AM.  Other than the times, the rates to the countries are nearly
the same.

So the rate periods for Antarctica (not the South Pole, I don't think
either of those bases are the one at the South Pole) are the same as
for the other 672 points, periods which didn't make all that much
sense in the first place.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Mongrain)
Subject: Competitive LD in Canada
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 14:17:08 GMT


Now that the CRTC has approved competition in long distance
communication in Canada, what do I and every other residential
customers have to look forward to?  Since you guys and gals in the US
recently went through this, can someone enlighten me (as they say,
hindsight is 20/20).


Thanks,

Dan Mongrain    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: Re: Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs)
Date: 15 Jun 92 14:25:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard H. Miller) writes:

> In the case of people being asked to pay for running cable or other
> construction costs, I would ask to see where in the tariff the phone
> company is allowed to pass these installation costs onto the
> individual customer rather than the tariff base.

I believe the USWEST engineer I have been working with on my third
line problem called it a nuisance charge, and it is written in the
tariff. He also told me that 90% of all installations where they dig
up the street, run a new cable, etc end up being cancelled by the
customers after 90 days, thus making the whole thing a waste of time
and money. Most of the lines are for the teenage kids (this happens to
be the reason I am getting one) who start with the long distance
calls, 1-900 numbers and the like. The parents get upset when they see
the big phone bill and say "No more phone of your own!" to junior.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Needed: Decision Feedback Equalizer Code
Organization: Burchill Communications Research Group
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 15:34:51 GMT


Hi all,

    I am in the process of simulating a Phase Shift Keying (PSK)
system operating on a dispersive channel. For this, I need a program
that simulates a Decision Feedback Equalizer (DFE).

    If anyone has written such a program and is willing to share it I
would appreciate a reply by e-mail.

Thank you.


Evangelos Paravalos      Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Technical University of Nova Scotia   Halifax N.S., Canada
e-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Graham)
Subject: UK Directory Enquiries
Organization: Ascom Autelca AG, Guemligen, Switzerland
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 13:35:22 GMT


For at least a year BT has charged domestic/business users for using
the Directory Enquiry service (obtained by dialling 192).The charge is
about 50 pence and you can ask for up to two numbers. However,after
reading some BT literature on the conditions and charges of renting
payphones, I get the impression that if you dial 192 on a public
payphone that this is still a free service and no coins are cashed.
Can anyone confirm this as I think it's a bit of an oversight on the
part of BT not to charge payphone users for this service. It would
mean people can use public payphones for this service at no cost and
then make the calls on their own phone.


Steve Graham

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Strange Pulse Dialing Behavior
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 15:49:19 GMT


While playing around with pulse dialing, I observed some strange
behavior which I'm hoping some readers can shed light on.

I have two lines here. Using one line, I pulse dial the other line's
number, pick up the call, and the two are in communication. Now, if I
dial further pulse digits from the _calling_ phone, the exchange cuts
me off fairly often. I find I can dial one or two or three as many
times as I want, but when I dial a high digit like six or so, the call
is broken, and the calling phone immediately gets a dial tone starting
out with two (three ?) interruptions.

The strangest part is: if I pulse dial digits from the _called_
phone, no such behavior is noticed.

Is this intended behavior, and if so what purpose does this serve?  Or
is it a bug (widespread?). My numbers are 617-876 and 617-547, and I'm
paying for DTMF service on both.


Thanks,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #487
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17636;
          16 Jun 92 10:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24950
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:04:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23368
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:03:55 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:03:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #489

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jun 92 08:04:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 489

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Proposed FBI Legislation (Paul Maserang, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Teleconferencing System Needed (Toby Nixon)
    CTIA Board Asks TIA For CDMA Standard (Ron Dippold)
    EasyReach 700 - First Day Observations (A. Alan Toscano)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 16:53:08 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed FBI Legislation


I know this has been beat to death already, but I saw this in the
Fidonet FCC echomail conference and thought that you might like to see
something from a respected publication on the subject (please note
that I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the transcription, having
received it third- or fourth-hand):

* From : Paul Maserang, 1:392/6 (11 Jun 92 12:32)
* To   : All
* Subj : Proposed legislation

 BBS: Channel Island
 Date:   -  -   (19:14)             Number: 152
 From: GRAY EAGLE #1 @2066          Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: YES
 Subj: WARNING! FBI Legislative       Conf: (23) Modem Mania

"FBI SEEKS RIGHT TO TAP ALL NET SERVICES"

"Proposal would require public; private networks to have call
interception."

 From {ComputerWorld}, The Newspaper of Information Systems Management
June 8, 1992 - Vol. XXVI, No. 23

By Mitch Betts, ComputerWorld Staff

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Federal Bureau of Investigation proposal to
modernize federal wiretapping law would require all public and private
networks to have a built-in capability for intercepting a criminal
suspect's communications.

     The draft legislation proposal covers not only the telephone
companies, but also other "providers of electronic communications
services, including private branch exchange operators."  Local-area
networks, corporate wide-area networks, electronic bulletin boards and
electronic mail services would all be covered by the broadly written
proposal, experts said.

     William A. Bayse, head of the FBI's technical services division,
said last week that the FBI needs the built-in wiretapping capability
so it can conduct court-ordered intercepts regardless of the
communications technology involved.  He said the FBI wants real-time
remote access to all data, fax, voice and video traffic in the U.S.

     Bayse defended the proposal as an effort to maintain the status
quo in the face of new technologies that make court-ordered wiretaps
more difficult.

     FBI officials complained the many businesses today are incapable
of providing such intercepts, so legislation is required to force
changes in electronic networks to meet the needs of law enforcement
agencies across the country.  For example, in the case of
packet-switched networks, the FBI proposal said the network operator
must be able to isolate the communications of the criminal suspect
from the stream of other network traffic.

     In essence, the FBI wants to hook up a leased line from its
remote monitoring post to a spare port on the telephone company's
switch or the LAN's router or smart hub, said Frank Dzubeck, president
of Communications Network Architects, Inc. in Washington, D.C.  Then a
software filter is needed to isolate the traffic of a single user --
the suspect -- and route it to the FBI site.

     The FBI wants remote access because it fears that monitoring
on-site would be too obvious and dangerous for its agents, but getting
remote and undetectable access to LAN traffic may prove difficult.

     Byron Comp, a LAN specialist at retailer Marshalls, Inc., in
Andover, MASS., said a protocol analyzer such as Network General
Corp.'s Sniffer could monitor the traffic between one network address
and the server, but he said he was not sure how to provide remote
access.

     Similarly, Lori Young, LAN consultant at Baxter Healthcare Corp.
in Deerfield, Ill., said it is conceivable that a LAN administrator
could monitor the traffic of a particular workstation address and its
E-mail.

     The FBI proposal has left many technical questions unanswered,
especially in the data communications field, said John Podesta, a
Washington, D.C.-based attorney who specializes in electronic
communications.  For example, would a LAN administrator have to add
another port to accommodate the FBI intercept?  "They haven't thought
that through," he said, because the FBI is focusing most of its
attention on maintaining the ability to intercept voice traffic.

     Podesta, retained as a lobbyist for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) on this issue, said he hopes the FBI will drop the
data portion of it's proposal, the agency has shown no signs of
"throwing in the towel" on that section yet, he said.

     The main thrust of the FBI proposal is to ensure that old and new
technologies deployed in the public switched network do not impede the
government's ability to undertake court-ordered wiretaps [CW, March
16].

     FBI officials said wiretaps have been thwarted by technologies
such as call forwarding and speed dialing.

HEAVY OPPOSITION

     At a privacy conference last week, civil liberties groups
including the EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union and Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) opposed the FBI
proposal on the grounds that it might encourage overly broad
government surveillance.

     The FBI wants carriers and equipment vendors to embed this
intercept capability in their products and services, but the industry
is balking at paying the cost of the FBI-requested modifications.

     "We're scratching our heads as to why new legislation is needed,"
said Jeff Ward, legislative counsel for Nynex Corp.  "Digital
telephony can be intercepted at the switch now."  He said the FBI
proposal could force telephone companies to withdraw those services
such as call forwarding that frustrate FBI wiretappers.

     Dzubeck and Marc Rotenberg, Washington, D.C. director of CPSR,
said they were concerned about the legality of giving the FBI built-in
intercept capability across the board before any crime is committed or
a court order is obtained.  "That's putting the cart before the
horse," Dzubeck said.  He predicted that the issue will wind up before
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sidebar to the above article, entitled "Digital Snooping":

     The following are the major provisions of the FBI's draft
proposal on "digital telephony":

     - "Providers of electronic communications services and private
branch exchange operators shall provide within the U.S. [the]
capability and capacity for the government to intercept wire and
electronic communications when authorized by law."

     - Intercepts must be made in real time, undetectable by the
suspect and routed to a remote government monitoring site.

     - Carriers within the public switched network (including
cellular) most comply within 18 months.  Other providers of electronic
communications services (including PBX operators) must comply within
three years.

     - Some exceptions can be granted.

      - Enforced by the U.S. attorney general.  Penalty is a fine
of $10,000 per day.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teleconferencing System Needed
Date: 15 Jun 92 16:22:26 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I recall having seen a posting sometime within the past couple of
weeks, in comp.dcom.telecom I believe, from someone who had one a
teleconferencing system at a trade show and was trying to find a
buyer.  At the time I ignored it, since I had no need for such a
thing, but now I've become aware of a charitable foundation that has a
need for such a system.  I think if I could put the original seller
and this foundation together, he might be able to donate it to them
and get a tax writeoff (or, at least, not have to pay taxes on his
"prize"); the foundation would also be willing to pay a reasonable
price for the system if it meets their needs (they're talking about
spending $8,000-$12,000 on a good quality system that supports 12
lines!).

That message has already expired on our system, or at least I can't
find it.  If anyone kept a copy or recalls the details, please let me
know.  Also, if you happen to have any suggestions on good quality
teleconferencing systems (active bridges, or whatever they're called)
at good prices, please let me know; I'm on the board of directors of
this foundation, and would hate to see them spend a lot of money
unnecessarily.  There is an existing system which is used most often
for biweekly two-hour-long training sessions and information exchanges
between officers of local chapters of the organization, but it is
falling apart and needs to be replaced.

Thanks in advance for your help!


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: CTIA Board Asks TIA For CDMA Standard
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 20:32:58 GMT


 From a CTIA press release, June 10.  Any typos are due to my
fumble-fingers.

CTIA BOARD ASKS TIA FOR CDMA STANDARD

Washington, D.C. -- The CTIA Board of Directors today asked the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) to immediately begin
development of a technical standard for a Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) digital technique.

The Board stipulated that this request not slow the TIA's continuing
work on enhancements to Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), another
digital technique that already has been standardized by the cellular
industry.

The Board further resolved to launch a separate association effort,
unrelated to either TDMA or CDMA, to determine what standards will be
needed to support the enhanced wireless services that cellular will
provide in the future.

[ other agenda actions ]

The Board's vote on the request to TIA follows a six-month study
conducted by the CTIA Technology Committee's wideband/spread spectrum
subcommittee.  During this study, three companies presented
information on their CDMA techniques.

"CTIA's job is to foster new technologies, but not to endorse any
single company's approach to a technological concept," said Thomas E.
Wheeler, the president and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association.  "The specifications for a CDMA standard will
now be developed by TIA and CTIA stands ready to assist."

The TIA, which represents equipment manufactureres, has organized a
subcommiuttee to write a new standard in response to a CTIA Board
request of last January.  That subcommittee, known as the TIA 45.5
panel, already has begun setting the stage for development of a CDMA
standard.

[ description of digital cellular at a very basic level ]

There are different techniques for digital transmission, however.  In
January 1989, the cellular industry selected TDMA as the first digital
technique to go through the TIA standards-writing process.  Now, the
board has agreed that CDMA should be the second digital technique to
be standardized.

For additional information:  Contact Norman Black or Lynne Mallonee at
202-785-0081.

                    ---------  End of Release --------

While this may not sound like much on the surface, it's incredibly
important once you read between the lines.  We've never doubted the
CDMA technology, or our ability to pull it off, but the politics has
always been a big red "?".  It's 1989, and the industry has
standardized on TDMA, and tens of millions of dollars have been spent
on it.  Suddenly a small company comes out of nowhere with another
method, which they claim is far superior -- you can see the precarious
position.

Things finally came to a head this past November, when we did our
system capacity testing with most of the industry invited, and showed
everyone that CDMA did as well as we claimed under actual field
conditions, and better, and let them see for themselves.  We then had
the most extensively tested system, at least as far as publically
available figures, and I don't believe that has changed.  Nor have we
been resting, and we've converted quite a number of our erstwhile
opponents...

And now this, which is something akin to the bastard child (we've been
called far worse, I assure you) being legitimized.  The other child
isn't too pleased, as his share of the inheritance isn't guaranteed
anymore.  The politics continue, but we've gained one.

Actually, it's either interesting or frustrating, depending how you
look at, that so much has depended purely on the political savvy of
our president and CEO and other high-level people.  "Build a better
mosetrap and the world will beat a path to your door," hah!

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jun 15 22:00:14 CDT 1992
Subject: EasyReach 700 - First Day Observations


Here are some early observations about AT&T's EasyReach 700 Service,
which is now available:

Calls are generally dialled as 0 700 NXX-XXXX, regardless of payment
method. From lines which default to other carriers, the 10ATT access
code prefix may be used.

 From "blocked" phones, EasyReach may be reached (from most areas) via
1 800 CALL-ATT + "21." When accessing AT&T by this method, you dial
"700" instead of "0 700."

Upon connection to the EasyReach system, you're presented a choice of
entering a PIN followed by '#' or just pressing '#'.

If you enter your five-digit Master PIN you may set up, change, or
cancel your forwarding. Or you may place a call to home at EasyReach
rates. (This might be cost effective for short calls, as there's no
calling card surcharge.) If you're currently forwarding your calls to
a number other than your home number, you are also offered a choice to
call that number at EasyReach rates.

If you respond to the initial prompt by entering a valid four-digit
PIN, the call progresses and the EasyReach subscriber pays. There may
be up to 19 of these PINs, per 700 number.

If you don't enter a PIN, and simply press '#' (or time-out) you are
offered a chance to charge the call to a calling card by pressing '0.'
Otherwise, if you press '#' again (or time-out again,) the call is
billed to the calling number.

NOTE: It appears that the option to charge to the calling number IS
NOT OFFERED from pay phones, COCOTs, or lines with sent-paid
restrictions.  However, I encourage PBX and COCOT owners/managers to
test this observation for themselves. I make no guarantees about this,
so please don't sue me if I'm wrong.

Call forwarding may be activated for all callers, or only for callers
providing a PIN. It may be set for an indefinite period, or for a
specified number of hours. After this period expires, or after you
cancel call forwarding manually, calls are again completed to your
pre-designated home telephone number.

An interesting feature of the call forwarding programming, is that
when you select the option to change the number to which your calls
are forwarded, you are usually given a shortcut option of pressing '#'
to indicate that calls are to be forwarded to the number from which
you are calling. Should you choose this option, the system reads back
the calling number for confirmation! Alas, this option IS NOT OFFERED
when calling from pay phones, or even from COCOTs!


A Alan Toscano          Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
<[e-mail]>  TELEX/ELN: 62-306-750   CompuServe: 73300,217

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #489
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21909;
          16 Jun 92 12:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16353
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:50:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13568
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:49:52 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:49:52 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #488

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:49:55 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 488

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card (Phydeaux)
    Modem Trouble With International Calls (David Garza)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Robert S. Helfman)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (William J. Carpenter)
    Re: Cordless Privacy (Benjamin Ellsworth)
    Call For Sessions for ORSA/TIMS - Chicago, May 93 (Jane Fraser)
    Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted ([e-mail])
    Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number (Don Lynn)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Joel Upchurch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1992 19:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710


> BTW, to new readers, Pat's comment about Randy Borow is a somewhat
> opaque warning not to say anything that might cost you your job.

> Peter Desnoyers

> [Moderator's Note: No, it was actually a fantasy where everyone who
> knows anything at all quits/loses their job; we all go on welfare and
> sit at home all day watching television, refusing to use our brains
> for the employers and governments of the world at all.  When every-
> thing finally collapses in a heap of rubble, we start from scratch.

Hmmm, Wagner and Ayn Rand, from the same person?  8)

I was thinking that 710 might be some sort of undialable, but yet
reserved, "namespace," if you will, for something relatively
innocuous, like AUTOVON.  Any regular users of AUTOVON care to
comment?

The Ayn Rand reference is to "Atlas Shrugged," in which the most
brilliant minds in the world did just as PAT suggests, with the same
results as he forsees.

After a busy evening of calling all the IXC operators I could, every
IXC *insists* that 710 is not used for anything.  Maybe someone could
bluster his way to some sufficiently high official at ATT or Bellcore,
to find out what area code split 710 will be used for.


[Moderator's Note: I really doubt that you spoke with anyone at any
IXC who knows anything at all. Just a waste of your time making all
those calls asking people who could not help you.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 09:10:47 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card


I have one of the 'call home' one number restricted cards. It seems to
work anywhere; a friend called me on a GTE AirPhone using it.  I can't
wait to get the bill for that one. It's really my fault; he told me
he'd be able to figure out *some* way to abuse it or my good nature.


reb


[Moderator's Note: A 'one-number' card does not mean it can only be
called from one-number ... it means *anywhere* can call to only one
preselected number. Anyone can use it, but all they can do is call
you provided they use the correct PIN. Is that what happened?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (david garza)
Subject: Modem Trouble With International Calls
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 16:58:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department


I'm trying to use a Screen Sharing program (Timbuktu remote 3.0) on
two Macintosh Classics via modem. However I've been having problems
before the program can run mainly because my modem never gets the
carrier signal from the remote modem, so the problem is with the
communication between the modems and not with the program.

Here is the story:

I own a Zoom Telephonics 2400 V.42bis modem and I'm trying to connect
(International Long Distance to MEXICO) to a another Zoom 2400 V.42bis
modem.

However the carrier is never detected (USA-MEX)!!! and therefore the
connection is never established.

When they try to connect from there to here (MEX-USA) the carrier
signal is detected and the connection is done without any problems.

Both modems have the same configuration (Actually the factory
configuration AT &F and , autoanswer mode) with the register S7=150 so
it tries to wait 150 seconds for the carrier signals before it hangs
up.

I've domn some tests here (local calls) with some other persons who
own a Zoom modem and with the same configuration as the remote modem
(and therefore the same configuration as mine) and it works fine.

So I thought that the problem was with the international call, but then
I tried to connect to a modem from a university down there (in MEX)
using my modem and the connection was successful.

I don't know the modems neither the configuration that they have
there.

Does anyone have experienced similar problems?  Any ideas?  Why does
it work from there to here and it doesn't work from here to there even
though we have the same modems/configuration?

I really appreciate your help and please answer to my e-mail address.


David    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 17:16:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Colin Plumb) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Julian Macassey) writes:

>>    I still believe that anyone has yet to design and build a
>> better instrument than the standard 2500 set. Certainly no one has
>> built a more rugged phone -- explosion proof mine phones excepted.

I have a story which I'm sure will amuse someone out there, a perfect
testimony to the endurance of older Bell System hardware and our
reliance on it.

In 1968 I spent two months in Germany, where I had expected to stay a
year working but between the German bureaucracy, the German weather,
and (only occasionally) the Germans, my culture-shock talked me into
going home prematurely.

I had gone to the Bundespost office in Freiburg to place a call to
Rotterdam to arrange for shipping my VW back to the states. The
classic German postal clerk took my money after writing in small
chicken-scratches in his big log book. I waited about 40 minutes,
fretting at the apparent sloth of the German telephone system and its
attendants.  Finally, he waved me to one of the 'kabine' - small,
phone-booth-sized closets along the wall, each with a glass door and a
small wall-mounted phone, with no seat. I went in to the booth, picked
up the phone, and discovered that the schlemiel has dialed the wrong
number.

What do you do in America when the payphone steals your money and
you're irritated? Knowing full well that the phone is indestructible,
you slam down the receiver and stalk off fuming! Well, that's what I
did to the little German phone on the wall. It DISINTEGRATED in a
shower of tiny plastic and metal parts, all over the floor of the
booth.

Standing there in shock, with the handset in my hand and nothing on
the wall into which to put it, I gathered my wits about me, laid the
handset down on the floor of the booth, then calmly (I don't know how
I did it -- I'm not known for being calm) stepped out of the booth,
walked out of the post office, got in my VW and headed straight for
the Dutch border. Racing through my mind were visions of being
prosecuted for destruction of state property (something on which I'm
sure the Germans -- at least in 1968 -- would not have looked kindly.)
Thoughts of Auschwitz and other garden spots made their appearances.

When I went to Deutschland in 1985 on a business trip, I half expected
to show my passport in Frankfurt and be hustled away in irons.
Actually, the German customs/border folks were so casual that they
never even asked for a passport -- my American passport never came out
of my pocket except at exchange banks and hotels.

[PAT, I know this is long, but it still makes me laugh to think about
it.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:11:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> I have never seen more atrocious grammer, syntax, spelling, etc
> in my life.  Half the journal articles I read contain poorly
> worded run-on sentences.

Irony alert!  "grammer" :-)


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 3C-207


[Moderator's Note: This simply illustrates how pervasive the problem
of good grammar and spelling is on this net. Thanks for catching it.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 11:34:20 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Privacy


Thank you all.  I now have the information that I was looking for.  I
have not included a summary, since there have been no requests for
one.

Thanks again.


Benjamin Ellsworth    [e-mail]   All relevant disclaimers apply.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 14:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call For Sessions For ORSA/TIMS - Chicago, May 93


I am cluster chair for the ORSA Telecommunications Section for the May
15-18, 1993, ORSA/TIMS meeting in Chicago.  Please contact me if you
would like to organize a 90-minute session at which four papers would
be presented. Also contact me if you have a paper you would like to
present.

Translations: ORSA is the Operations Research Society of America and
TIMS is The Institute for Management Science.  Operations research and
management science involve the use of mathematical models to improve
the operations of systems.

Telecom sessions at previous ORSA/TIMS meetings have included the
following topics (sample paper title in parens): queueing models in
telecommunciations (Distributional form of Little's law for priority
queues), telecommunications network planning (A new routing model for
packet-switched networks with non-Poisson offered traffic), optimal
design of distributed computing systems (Bandwidth allocation and
traffic control in ATM networks), adaptive control methods in
telecommunications (Estimating the performance of state dependent
adaptive routing in circuit-switched networks), applied economics in
telecommunications (The demand for enhanced calling services for
residential telephones), network sensitivity studies by simulation
methods (Sensitivity analysis in networks with real-time traffic),
distributed data management (Distributed image database management),
T1 network design (Network topology design using capacitated T1
links), and performance and design issues on local area networks
(Exact solutions for two-class two-server queueing with preemptive
priority).

The meeting will be May 15-18, 1993 at the Conrad Hilton in Chicago.
All presenters are required to register for the conference. Last
year's fees ranged from $140 for a TIMS or ORSA member registering
before April 3 to $190 for a nonmember registering after that date.


Jane M. Fraser, Associate Professor, Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Systems,
1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, 614-292-4129,
[e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Own Phone Back Number Wanted
Date: 15 Jun 92 13:00:20 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


In article <[e-mail]>, Ken Thompson <kthompso@
donald.wichitaks.NCR.COM> writes:

> [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg) writes:

>> Pacific Bell offers this too.  it's called "Intercom Plus."  There are
>> three ringback codes, *51, *52 and *53.  They produce, respecti

> And is tone service required? (more $$ !)

Pacific Telephone no longer charges for DTMF service.  It is universal
in this area.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 13:14:06 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P To Revoke Telephone Number


Since the article forwarded by Paul Robinson (Issue 469) demanded to
know "Can the phone company give -- and take away -- your phone number
at will?" I can't resist answering that.  At least in California, it
is a disturbingly loud "Yes!"  I have had my phone number replaced by
the phone company three times over the last 22 years, once by General,
and twice by Pacific.  In all cases, it was because the telephone
company decided to switch an area to a new prefix.  They always use
very general terms about "allows expansion and better service",
without giving any specific reasons, and without exploring such
alternatives as changing over with new customers only, or issuing the
same number save the prefix.

In the first case, I by chance already had a phone number that spelled
the car I drove (and am still driving 22 years later, but that's
another story).  No one that I gave that number to ever forgot it.  I
protested when I received the notice of change a few months before the
switch, but the only concession I got was that they could continue me
on my old number as foreign exchange service (I believe "foreign" in
that case meant to another switch in the same room) for about 30
dollars monthly.  To a poor graduate student, back then that was an
unthinkable amount of money.

The next time I received notice on a Saturday (and back then no one at
the phone company was available till Monday, except repair service)
that I was to place a new sticker over the phone number on my dial the
following Wednesday, with no further explanation.  Turns out Pac Bell
had botched the two notifications of the change (one of which
consisted of empty envelopes), and hundreds of people were complaining
loudly.  Didn't stop 'em from the changeover.

The only concessions I got (and this protest went to the president of
Pac Bell and the state PUC [who referred me back to Pac Bell without
any action]) were two piles of phone number notification cards that I
could address and mail at my expense, and a nice letter from a vice
president assuring me that everything would be fine, and if by chance
not, to call him (but he failed to give me his phone number).

The last time they pulled this was on my work number.  Nobody but my
wife calls me at work regularly, so I didn't protest this one.
Besides my company has a big communications department to handle such.
At least I got five out of seven digits the same on this change (but I
believe that my company gets credit for that, not Pac Bell).

In conclusion, the phone company can take away your number whenever
they get permission from the PUC (easy), and then they don't even have
to follow the PUC's rules on notification.


Don Lynn


[Moderator's Note: Nor do I think they have to bother asking the PUC
in the first place ... maybe just explain it to them if the number of
subscriber complaints are larger than usual.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
From: upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 15:11:26 EDT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> I had no idea how pervasive this problem was until many years ago
> during the time I was an owner of a sizeable telecommunications
> company. A fellow owner and some clients were in the conference room
> and I was attempting to explain the operation of one of our systems.
> In the course of the explanation I used the word, 'quiescent'. My
> associate immediately became agitated and said, "What the hell does
> that mean?" I answered using such terms as 'idle', 'at rest', etc. His
> rebuke, in front of all and sundry, was, "Then just say that and don't
> try to impress everyone with fancy words nobody knows the meaning of."

While quiescent is a perfectly good word, I hardly ever see it used
outside a data processing context. I suspect that you'll find that
even the average college graduate without a DP background will draw a
blank on this word. Also when used in a DP context it means things
that will not be obvious to a layman familar with the dictionary
definition. For that reason when dealing with non-DP types you should
either avoid the word or explain it when you do use it. This also
applies when using the verb 'to quiesce', which as near as I can tell
it is a DP neologism, since I've never found it in a dictionary.

Asking for clarification of the word doesn't bother me, although
ridiculing you for using it is out of line. Every skilled trade of
profession involves the use of terminology that is specific to that
field and it easy for anyone to forget that a word that they use every
day isn't part of the general vocabulary.


(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
[e-mail] {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #488
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02869;
          17 Jun 92 2:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08006
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Jun 1992 00:07:38 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10341
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Jun 1992 00:07:25 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 00:07:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #490

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jun 92 00:07:20 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 490

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Old Days (Don Kimberlin, FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Telecom*USA Local Access Services Discontinued (Andrew P. Bock)
    Demise of Telecom*USA (Formerly SouthernNet) (Eli Mantel)
    PC-Based Caller-ID Hardware and Software (Carl Neihart)
    Qualcomm CDMA Proposal (Ken McGuirk)
    Bell Canada Caller-ID Specifications Available (Nigel Allen)
    Caller-ID Questions (Jeffrey Jonas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 16:52:44 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Days


The following message was seen in the Fidonet FCC echomail conference.
I realize that the quoted part may seem a bit irrelevant since readers
of the Digest haven't seen the first part of this thread, but since
many readers seem to enjoy historical musings, I thought I'd just pass
it along and let Pat decide if it's worth publishing.

* From : Don Kimberlin, 1:379/37 (10 Jun 92 22:23)
* To   : Bill Sepmeier
* Subj : Old Days

BS> DK> ... Does the book mention Reginald Fessenden, who appears to be the
BS> DK> first to transmit speech, on Christmas Eve, 1906, by connecting a
BS> DK> carbon mike in series with the antenna circuit of his Alexanderson
BS> DK> alternator?  I  do think he was the first to do that - so
BS> DK> broadcasting really was the first use of other than Morse, as
BS> DK> I see it.

BS> Yes.  It's a very detailed work, for a "popular press" edition.  The
BS> alternators must have been something to see, huh?  God, the things men
BS> have accomplished ...

That's for sure, Bill.  I have as prized parts of my bookshelf a
number of books from what I call the "Megalithic Era of Telecommuni-
cations," about both the hundreds of thousands of miles of submarine
telegraph cables now laying dormant on the ocean floors of the world,
in addition to the behemoths of early radio transmitters.

Few people know the telegraphers had spanned all the oceans and ringed
all the inhabited continents many times by World War I.  Their
technology was all electromechanical -- quite literally things like
time division multiplexers that actually were built with whirling
wheels that kept sync with tuning forks and such.  I found one old
telegrapher who told me of making a "line balancing capacitor" for a
transatlantic telegraph cable at a cable station up in Newfoundland
that really was a ONE FARAD capacitor!  A picture of it showed a room
full of plates, arranged in sections, with what looked like a small
mining railway car that had contact shoes fitted to its axle, so the
car would run back and forth down the row of contacts, to dynamically
adjust the up-to-one Farad of capacitance needed to "balance" the
bridge arrangement they had to make the cable (one 3,000 mile-long-
wire with ground return!) able to send and receive simultaneously!

Bell Labs doesn't want you to know that the era of submarine telegraph
cables lasted into the 1960's, or that Western Union had in fact
developed means to place submerged vacuum tube "repeaters" in cans out
on the Continental Shelf BEFORE AT&T laid its first transatlantic
telephone cable in 1957.  There's no telling what the totality of
submarine telegraph cables were, as each company had its own private
lists and maps.  I did get one report from the British Cable &
Wireless that as late as the mid-1950's, they were still operating
about 155,000 NAUTICAL miles of submarine telegraph cables.  I
personally was involved in the death of one between Key West and
Havana in the late 1960's, when its mechanical TDM finally just plain
wore out.  Western Union International had inherited it from Western
Union Telegraph, and there was no replacement.

You'll love the fix: WUI got a TTY FDM specialist house, Coherent
Communications Systems on Long Island, to build a four-channel TTY FDM
that worked on the very lowest VF frequencies they could get 50 Baud
to key on -- things like 80 Hz +/- 30 Hz for the lowest channel, then
used a Dynaco 100 Watt audio amp for a "line amp," supplied the Cubans
(via England) with a terminal, and lit the old one-wire cable off with
Four channels of TTY to get back into business!  For all I know, that
darned thing is still working!

The old radio beasts are similarly fascinating to me.  I have one
illustration in a book of a one million Watt spark gap made by
Federal, who specialized in them, being the makers of many sorts of
spark gap transmitters (and there was quite an art of the many
varieties of them).  Judging by the man in the phote as a guide to its
size, it was a huge chamber about ten feet high and 13 or 15 feet
wide.

Now, all these things worked on incredibly low frequencies, so their
antennas were quite literally miles long.  The most advanced behemoth
in the world was in England, with the callsign GFEX.  It ran a million
Watts input, 540 kW output, on a frequency of - get this - SIXTEEN
KILOHertz!  Its final amplifier consisted of FIFTY-FOUR ten kilowatt
triodes arranged in three sets of eighteen each!  The GFEX antenna was
made of twelve 820 foot towers spaced 1320 feet apart ... what's that
 ... let's see ... 9240 lineal feet of bridge cable for an antenna
strung atop these things ... a 1-3/4 mile "long wire" antenna.  Its
radiation resistance was measured at about 0.7 ohm, so its antenna
current was about 880 Amps, being keyed on and off with Morse code!
Of course, it covered the whole British Empire, as was GFEX' purpose.

I could ramble on and on, having another book that shows the beasts of
300 and 500 kW spark transmitters that Marconi had built, plus the
various Alexanderson and Goldschmidt alternators, as well as some
beastly curiosities like the Joly-Arco "frequency-converter" spark
that put out a couple hundred kW, but multiplied its frequency from 9
kHz or so up to 55 kHz, and such.

Oh, here's a laugher: One book describes the transmitters of WBAP and
WRC in the late 1920's.  Each were "Western Electric" made 250 Watt
modulated oscillators, designed by someone from Bell Labs named Mr.
Colpitts!  There's a story about another station located at Coney
Island in Brookly, and the "special techniques" they had to take with
their modulated oscillator broadcast transmitter, as the tides could
make it change frequency by several kHz either way!

Sorry for the ramble; hope it was entertaining.  Guess you see why I
call it the Megalithic Era now ... we could have as much fun playing
with those things ... if we could ... as railroad buffs have restoring
old steam locomotives!


WM v2.01/92-0315
Origin: BORDERLINE!BBS Kannapolis,N.C.[phone] (1:379/37)

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew P Bock)
Subject: Telecom*USA Local Access Services Discontinued
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 23:37:50 GMT


For those of you who don't understand why I have continued with
this service, I offer the following:

  *  LD calls could be made from work, or from a friends house at
     the direct dial rate without any per-call service fee.

  *  The local numbers were easy to reach (no 1+ lockout problems
     from work, or from free-local-call telephones located all
     over the University Campus where I work).

  *  I could also use the same method for LD access when visiting
     other cities in Iowa (Des Moines, Iowa City, Marshalltown...)

The service has been called Plan-17 by customer service reps on
occasion, but I don't actually know what the official name would be.
I have heard others refer to the service as three-step calling.

Since MCI and Telecom*USA merger, I knew services would be
discontinued.  I hope to keep some of the other services provided by
Telecom*USA as long possible. (Telecom*USA Calling Card, 'Classic'
800, and 10-835-700-intra-LTA Number)

               ------------- cut here ------------

Telecom*USA
50 International Drive
Greenville, SC  29615


May 28, 1992

Dear Customer:

     Here is important information about your long distance service.

     Effective August 1, 1992, there will be a change in your dialing
procedure.  If you are currently dialing an access number plus a six
or seven digit authorization code prior to making long distance calls
 -- your present access number and authorization code will no longer be
available.  However, there are other options available to you, such as
simplified Dial "1" access from your home and easy 800 number access
when you are traveling.

     A representative will be calling you during the next few weeks to
explain your options and give you the opportunity to set up your new
enhanced long distance service.

     But this easier dialing is just the beginning.  You'll also be
able to take advantage of MCI's many money-saving programs,
particularly the innovative Friends & Family (sm) which you've been
hearing and reading about.

     [ more stuff about F & F ]

     In addition, you can receive an MCI Card (r) or a Friends &
Family Card, depending on the long distance program you choose.  With
your Card, you'll be able to call from any phone in the United States
to anywhere in the country and to over 200 international locations.
Your easy-to-use Card will also come with a wealth of exciting
features -- including Speed Dialing, Conference Calling* and much
more.

     And keep in mind that if your join Friends & Family, you'll have
a terrific added benefit.  You'll save an extra 20% on every Card call
you make to your own home ... or to any other MCI customer in your
Calling Circle(r).

     But why not start enjoying the convenience of MCI service and the
entire range of MCI benefits even sooner.  Just call Customer Service
toll free at 1-800-866-3311, to establish your new service
immediately.

     Remember, at MCI and Telecom*USA, we're committed to giving you
the service and attention your deserve.  So please, keep our number
handy ... and call us toll free whenever you need us.


Sincerely,

Charles Alexander
Senior Manager, Customer Service

* A nominal charge will apply for these services.

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

Andy Bock
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Demise of Telecom*USA (Formerly SouthernNet)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 03:41:30 GMT


I today received a letter from Telecom*USA, a long distance carrier
that primarily serves the southeastern U.S.

Telecom*USA, formerly known as SouthernNet, was purchased by MCI a
year or two ago.  It has been operating under its own rate structure
and using its own billing system.

The letter states that effective 8/1/92, the current access numbers
and authorization codes will no longer be available.  (Their carrier
access code was 10852, their 950 code was 950-1087.)

Current Telecom*USA customers will be offered (surprise!) MCI service.

The main advantage that Telecom*USA offered to me was the ability to
make calling card calls from many areas of the southeast with no
surcharge.  If anybody knows of other carriers with this feature,
please let me know.


Eli Mantel

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

From: mozart.NoSubdomain.NoDomain![e-mail] (Carl Neihart)
Subject: PC-Based Caller-ID Hardware and Software
Organization: Gerber Alley Technologies
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 19:02:58 GMT

Does anyone know of PC-based hardware and software I can install on my
PC, which will do thing like the following:

   1.  keep a database of all people who have called me and when.
   2.  Let me annotate each caller's phone number with name & etc.
   3.  Print on the screen immediately as soon as the phone starts
       ringing, whether the number has called before or not, and
       if the number has been commented on by me, the comment.
   4.  Go into a mode where all incoming calls that have not been
       authorized by me for auto-pass-thru to go automatically to
       voice mail?

This device would be nifty, if the software doesn't exist, is there at
least a hardware device that I can plug into the phone line and the
serial port on my PC to give me the caller-ID data?

Also, does anyone know of a device that selective routes calls
depending on the customize ring?  E.g., one phone line in, three
phone lines out, and if the ring is . . . it goes to port one,
if the ring is .. .. .. it goes to port two, and if the ring is
 .-.  .-.  it goes to port three?  This would prevent me from having
to order a special line for my fax.

Thanks!


carl neihart 6/12/92

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken McGuirk)
Subject: Qualcomm CDMA Proposal
Organization: Burchill Communications Research Group
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 01:50:20 GMT


I have been just reading the overview of Qualcomm's CDMA proposal and
ran across a couple of interesting comments:

It reads as follows:

"The infrastucture equipment manufacturers involved in CDMA
development activities include AT&T, Motorola, and most recently
Northern Telecom."

"The carriers that are taken part in CDMA validation include ... and
Bell Cellular of Canada."

Does this mean that NT, AT&T, and Bell Cellular have sided with
Qualcomm?

Where does this leave the IS-54 Dual Mode Standard?

   Cantel in Canada and McCaw (Spelling?) Cellular in the states have
   committed to IS-54.

What about the Bellcore PCS system?  It is based on TDMA!

I wonder what the future holds in the cellular and personal
communications field.


Ken McGuirk     [e-mail]
Burchill Communications Research Group
Technical University of Nova Scotia
Halifax, Nova Scotia

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Bell Canada Caller-ID Specifications Available
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Specifications for name-and-address caller-ID are available free of
charge from Bell Canada.  Just request publication ID-0012, May 1992,
"Enhanced Call Management Service (ECMS)" from:

 Bell Canada,
 Attention: Director - Corporate Standards Research
 (Terminal and Interface),
 160 Elgin Street, Room 480,
 Ottawa, Ontario,  Canada  K1G 3J4
 telephone [phone]; fax [phone]

As well, the technical specification for Bell Canada's Frame Relay
service interface is available from the same office. Request NIS
S215-1, Issue 1.1, July 1991, "S/DMS SuperNode, DataSPAN Frame Relay,
User- Network Interface Specification".

Disclaimer: I don't work for Bell Canada. This information comes from
Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee (TAPAC) Bulletin 92-09.


Nigel Allen      [e-mail]

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:10:25 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Caller-ID Questions


The Caller-ID format specifies ten digits for the phone number.  What
is passed for calls from other countries?

Am I correct that Canada and Mexico don't require country codes, and
will show up as the usual area code and seven digit number?

It's been mentioned that Caller-ID is passed as part of the SS7.
Since PBXs use trunks and some signalling that's not SS7, they can not
decide what will be transmitted as the Caller-ID, thus the trunk
line's number is usually sent, right?

In the future, will my office's PBX transmit some ID about the call
such as my name and/or extension?  Will there be some bandwidth
limitation so I don't start using Caller-ID to broadcast messages
without paying for a phone call?  (Or, heaven forbid -- a small
surcharge for "information services" every time I place a call with
the subscriber supplied Caller-ID information).

Allowing subscribers to transmit Caller-ID information would be the
equivalent of handing a business card at the start of a conversation.
I'm surprised the Japanese telephone system doesn't have this already
since Japanese manners dictate the exchange of business cards prior to
conversation.  A call from "John at field service" is more meaningful
than a Caller-ID showing a call from DEC.

What if the subscriber message said "call for J.Jonas from Seymour".
(I wonder what the length limit will be for messages?).  Would this be
disallowed because it's attempting a person-to-person call without the
surcharges?


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #490
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02222;
          18 Jun 92 1:55 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00603
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Jun 1992 23:42:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19206
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Jun 1992 23:42:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 23:42:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #491

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jun 92 23:42:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 491

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecommunications Database Search ([e-mail])
    Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed (Kenneth Crudup)
    Re: RFC For Fax Specs? (Steven S. Brack)
    Re: Payphones Accepting Foreign Currency (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Why Not DID For Home Use? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    You Can Ring My Bell (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Odd Panel on 2500 Set Shells (Jim Rees)
    Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone (Steve Baumgarten)
    Do Italian Payphones Accept Lire? (Alfredo Cotroneo)
    Telecom Humor (Sean E. Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Database Search
Date: 15 Jun 92 14:08:29 PST
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(ARCHER S) writes:

> I am searching for pre-existing on-line databases that pertain to
> telecommunication technology and policy from a non-technical
> perspective.  More specifically, I am looking for ones which reference
> international developments, including the interests of 3rd world
> countries.

> Does anyone know of any that are accessible through the Internet?
> Other networks?

The folks (Moderator included) who monitor/participate in this forum
could be considered an "on-line data base" :=>


[Moderator's Note: Except that my problem is I am overwhelmed with
telecom inquiries every day, any number of which come from readers who
say 'do not publish this, just send me an answer' or words to that
effect. I can't take on the job of responding to individual inquiries
about telecom stuff; all I can do is select what is interesting to me
(or I think will be interesting to others) and use it here. If the
person wishes to make a specific inquiry, I'll print it and rely on
readers to answer him, either here or in email.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 21:46:40 GMT


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

> This is to be contrasted with the modern remote controls I've seen,
> which tend to be very particular about how they are held and aimed (if
> it's not aimed squarely at the detector on the set, forget it); and
> have pathetic, mushy rubberized buttons that a) provide no tactile
> feedback, b) often fail to send a signal when pressed, c) often
> "bounce" and send a signal twice when pressed, and d) are too small
> and too close together, causing frequent instances of "fat-fingering".

Buy a different model! I've got Sony, Magnavox, Symphonic, Zenith,
Onkyo Pioneer and Sharp remotes at home and have never seen any of
these problems.

Direction sensitive? I aim mine on perpendicular walls sometimes just
for the hell of it. Contact bounce? Never. Tactile feedback? I can run
them without looking. Depressed is depressed.

I can't help you with the "fat-fingers" problem, but 1/2 your problems
sound like weak batteries.


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.

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

Date: 15 Jun 1992 20:03:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: RFC For Fax Specs?


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter M.
Weiss) writes:

> You might want to check with an ARCHIE server for anonymous FTP
> archives on the subject.  Please see the FTP archive at nisca.ircc.
> ohio-state.edu dir pub/fax (and sub directories).

Please note that all addresses of type *.ircc.ohio_state.edu are now
under the domain of *.acs.ohio-state.edu.

 From what I've seen Ohio State's "UNITS" telephone services division
is about the best University telco I've seen.  Modern equipment,
reasonable servioce rates, feature-rich phones, etc.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:10:12 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Payphones Accepting Foreign Currency


Very well, let's say that pay phones can accept foreign currencies.
Is the billing system going to do on the spot currency conversions
based on the latest daily exchance rate?  Should a U.S. pay phone ask
for 25 cents for the first minute, then upon depositing a Canadian
coin reply "oh, Canadian currency is 30.2 cents for the first minute".
Then I deposit a mix of Canadian, U.S., Mexican and Israeli money just
to empty my pockets after a long trip.  How's the billing software to
cope with that?  The Verrazano Bridge tokens are about $3 each.  Can I
use them too?  They're so big, a larger slot will be needed.  Will
phones on the Garden State Parkway accept parkway tokens too?  And
subway phones accept the local tokens?  What about accepting
Kugerrands for overseas calls?

The New York Thruway has a simple approach:

    "All Canadian currency discounted 20%".

It may not be fair, but it's consistent.


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:10:13 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: Why Not DID For Home Use?


In a previous posting, Andy Davenport gave an explanation of DID.  I
was wondering: why not give a similar ability to me at home.  I have
Caller-ID and can easily get four phone numbers to a single line with
Multi-Ring/ring-mate (or whatever the multi ring service is called).
Why not add some digital signalling indicating what number was dialed
instead of different ringing patterns?  Adding that to the Caller-ID
message should be easy, reliable and open the possibilities of faster,
smarter premesis equipment.

Before I get a reality attack, let my cynical side answer
that it's not available because:

a: the RBOC wants to sell CENTREX services.
b: ISDN is supposed to do this.
c: the phone developers are too busy with higher priority items
   such as call block blocking.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:10:24 -0400
From: krfiny![e-mail]
Subject: You Can Ring My Bell


> 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.  ... (3)

I realize that your posting was shortened to be a summary/synopsis,
but there are several other human engineering points that were not
mentioned.

1) Pitch: Low pitches are preferred becuase the human ear loses
directional finding ability with high pitches. (It's easy to tell who
coughed/sneezed in an audience, but very hard to find the damned
person with with beeper or watch peeping).  That's why I detest the
piezo ringers.

2) Ability to hear above background sounds.  The lab should have tapes
of the noises of various places phones are used (factory noises,
office noises, home noises such as dishwasher, vacuum cleaner,
dishwasher, shower) and see how one can hear the phone ring over those
sounds.  A ringer appropriate for a factory is not the same as one for
a library.

Home phones usually have a switch for ringer off/low/high.  How about
a switch for bedroom/kitchen/living-room/outdoor, etc that gives
appropriate tones and volumes for those situations?  When vacuuming,
the only reason I can hear the phone ring is the cacophony (2) of
sounds generated by the combination of bell and electronic ringers.  A
steady tone would penetrate the vac's noise better than any warbling
sound. (1) I still can't hear it in the shower, but I wouldn't
interrupt my shower anyway.

How about incorporating a clock so it's time sensitive and
automatically goes off or low at night?

How about a one shot timer similar to the alarm clock's "snooze" that
disables the ringer for an hour or two (useful for meals, dates,
important TV programs, etc).

TELECOM readers have long known that the original brass two gong ringer
is hard to beat for volume, durability, ability to locate, recognize
and hear above many background sounds.  How much time and money must
be spent to verify the obvious?  Why has the free market not produced
better phones?

(1) This gives me yet another silly project idea: how about a MIDI
interface so upon ring detect, a song of your choice is played,
turning your electronic music equipment into a phone ringer.  I have a
Caller-ID converter on my PC. I could use the PC's internal speaker
(or Sound Blaster if I had one) to play when the phone rings.  I could
even key the songs to:

    - the Caller-ID
    - the phone line used (for multiple lines)
    - distinctive ringing (for ident-a-ring, ring master, etc)
    - time of day
    - day of week

Voice syntheses so the phone talks to me -- naaa, too unnerving.
(well, perhaps for a Star Trek motif "engineering to Captain Kirk!")
This is starting to sound like a David Letterman sketch (the Addams
family phone screams, Agathe Christie's phone sounds like a gunshot
and body falling, Walter Cronkite's says "and now here's the phone".

And just to beat the punsters to the punch, I don't want to hear about
broken phones and dead ringers (ref: rec.jokes) or the cleaned copper
clapper caper (ref: the Johnny Carson and Jack Webb Dragnet sketch).

Aren't you glad the phone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell and
not Alexander Siren?


(2) This is a pun I can't resist. Daffynitions for cacaphony:

        Calling a diaper service,
    Calling a plumber about the sewer or toilet,
    Many of the 900 services,
    Calling [phone]

(3) Had this been a book or periodical, I could go to the library and
check the referenced material before posting (proper USENET etiquette,
'ya know).  But a TV show that I didn't record is hard to reference,
so I don't want to be flamed for not checking the source material
first.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Odd Panel on 2500 Set Shells
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 01:47:07 GMT


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

> This one should rank up there with the cotton-in-handset question,
> but here goes: Why is there a small removable panel under the cradle
> of 2500 sets?

I always assumed it had something to do with the injection molding
process and the way the parts of the mold fit together.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:58:01 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Baumgarten)
Subject: Re: Trouble Shooting at New York Telephone


[e-mail] (James Borynec) writes:

> The problem cuts both ways.  When I was working on a project with our
> 611 answer clerks I witnessed a number of occasions where the
> subscriber was unable or unwilling to distinguish between a broken
> phone and a broken line.  It was only after dispatching a craft to the
> location that we would find out that (for example) the bedroom phone
> didn't work while the kitchen phone did.  Being an answer clerk is a
> VERY tough job because you have NO idea of how technically sophis-
> ticated the person at the other end of line is.

They'd know if they bothered to keep track of who was calling them,
what problems he'd had with his phone service in the past, and how
they had (or had not) been resolved.

I've been living at the same address for over five years now, and I've
had reason to call New York Telephone's repair number four or five
times a year with great regularity to complain about the horrifying
state of at least one of my two my lines.  At no point did I ever get
the feeling that these problem reports were collected and made
available to the operators or repair people; had they been, it seems
likely that I would now be treated as something other than a complete
dunderhead by the front-line people at NYT.

After all, when I call American Express with a question, they know who
I am, how long I've been a customer, whether I've had problems with
fraud or late payments in the past, etc.  In effect, they know whether
I've been a good customer, and they can treat me accordingly.

New York Telephone, of course, doesn't care at all about its
customers, so there's little point in keeping detailed records of past
customer problems and resolutions; nor is there much point in
recognizing that someone who has used the phrase "yes, I checked the
line at the demarc with my butt set and the static is unbelievable"
three or four times a year for five years likely has at least some
idea of what he's talking about when he calls to complain -- yet again
 -- about the abysmal quality of one of his phone lines.

Just out of curiousity, did you and your 611 answer clerks have access
to this sort of information?  Was it even available anywhere within
the organization?  Or were problems treated as single, non-recurring
events to be "cleared", and customers as uninformed yahoos who had to
be lectured on the dire consequences of calling for repair service
when the problem was likely in their own internal wiring?

As a postscript to this story, here's an excerpt from Phillip Dampier
<[e-mail]> about his telco in
Rochester:

> We now have consistently excellent service from Rochester Telephone.
> The special services repair people even make it a point to try and get
> to know the customer and over the years, the people at the local
> switch near here recognize my name and are already familiar with the
> peculiarities of this site when it comes to problem solving.

> I wouldn't trade this local telco for a Baby Bell in a billion years.

And I suspect Mr. Dampier will keep his business with Rochester
Telephone even after other companies begin to offer dialtone in his
area.

I've found that organizations that treat their customers with contempt
and consider them little more than nuisances to be suffered quickly
succumb to other organizations that do not.  A pity that we have laws
barring such other organizations from competing for all the
dunderheads and yahoos currently "served" by New York Telephone.


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 11:41:04 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alfredo Cotroneo)
Subject: Re: Do Italian Pay Phones Accept Lire?


Ron (Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.) writes:

> Do Italian phones accept lire?  Last time I was in Italy (admittedly
> many years ago), they only accepted tokens.

YES!!!

It was about four or five years ago when they finally put into service
new public phones which do accept 100, 200 and 500 lira coins, as well
as the old fashionable (now a collector item) phone coins.

Most phones can also accept scalable 10,000 or 5,000 lira phone cards
(which you may buy at newspaper stands), as well as Phone Credit
cards.  The latter are issued in Italy by the state owned phone
company, but may be used the same way almost all across Europe (and
maybe in the USA as well) to the same effect.  The disadvantage is
that even calling from abroad, the user would be billed at the Italian
rate, which is one (or 'the') most expensive in the world.  (That's
why I am not using it).


Alfredo Cotroneo, Milano, Italy     [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jun 1992 23:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sean E. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Humor


Deviously snagged from rec.humor:

At recent trade talks the American representative offered to sell
sophisticated American telephone technology to the Soviets.

American : "And in the United States, anyone can pick up any phone
        and dial 9-1-1. This will record the call and connect them
        with the police."

Soviet : "In the Soviet Union we don't require that you dial anything."


sean e. williams, ([e-mail]), is a student of imaging and
photographic technology in the school of photographic arts & sciences at the
rochester institute of technology in beautiful rochester, new york.  (he's also
taking a few telecommunications courses...)   You can call him at 716-475-3570.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #491
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04079;
          18 Jun 92 2:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28628
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 00:23:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15851
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 00:23:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 00:23:12 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #492


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jun 92 00:23:13 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 492

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (John Slater)
    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (Steve Forrette)
    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (Andy Rabagliati)
    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (Philip Endecott)
    Re: UK Directory Enquiries (Mick Farmer)
    French Directory Enquiries (was UK Directory Enquiries) (Eric Tholome)
    Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins (Paolo Bellutta)
    Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins (Charles Lane)
    Mac Modems in England (Alan Girelli)
    Germany Update: "E1" Cellular License Bidding Opened (Juergen Zeigler)
    Country Code History (was Leading 1's and Toll Calls) (Boldt Edelman)
    Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes (Bob Goudreau)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Slater)
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries
Date: 16 Jun 1992 15:48:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Stephen Graham)
writes:

> For at least a year BT has charged domestic/business users for using
> the Directory Enquiry service (obtained by dialling 192).The charge is
> about 50 pence and you can ask for up to two numbers. However,after
> reading some BT literature on the conditions and charges of renting
> payphones, I get the impression that if you dial 192 on a public
> payphone that this is still a free service and no coins are cashed.

Yes, all this is true. A long time ago every public telephone kiosk
you know, the red things that are so commonly used as shower cubicles
in the US these days) was provided with a telephone directory. Due to
cost, vandalism or whatever, this no longer happens, so the directory
enquiries service is provided free instead.

And yes, you could exploit this as you describe if you could be
bothered to walk to the nearest payphone every time you needed a
number. Speaking for myself I think life's too short to do this.


John

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:08:30 PDT
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries


Steve Graham writes:

> payphones, I get the impression that if you dial 192 on a public
> payphone that ...
> Can anyone confirm this as I think it's a bit of an oversight ...

Yes this is correct. It is intentional. I remember reading in the BT
Business Catalogue that if you rent a BT Payphone (a real one, not a
COCOT) you are able to have your line classified so that 192 calls are
free.

I think BTs reasoning is that allowing free DI calls from payphones is
cheaper than providing directories in payphones which get mutiliated,
urinated upon, etc. etc. like they used to do.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 18:46:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Stephen Graham) writes:

[story about free directory enquiries from BT when using payphones]

This is the way it is in California as well, both from Bell and
COCOTS.  The line of reasoning is that many pay stations don't have
directories, so it is in the public interest to allow people to get
the numbers for free.  Presumably, when calling from home, you have
your paper directory handy, and get to pay for the convenience if it
is too much trouble for you to use it.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ditto here in Chicago, where IBT payphone calls to
Directory Assistance are at no charge.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 23:36:09 -0400
From: wizzy![e-mail] (Andy Rabagliati)
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries
Reply-To: wizzy![e-mail]


Stephen Graham writes:

> For at least a year BT has charged domestic/business users for using
> the Directory Enquiry service (obtained by dialling 192).

This was certainly the case six years ago, and do not expect it has
changed.  It is also, incidentally, true for emergency (999) calls. It
is an artifact (I think) of the rather prehistoric billing practices
in the UK -- a country that still presents many of its rural customers
with the bottom line only of the bill, and are totally unable to
itemize it.

Other ways you can win on the payphone in the UK:

  Minimum charge (one unit - was about 15p but I am sure it has gone up)
for domestic phones is often higher than payphones (10p for BT, 20p
for Mercury payphones). But Mercury calling cards have a minimum of 5p
 -- what a deal. In contrast to the US, you are charged by the unit, so
a 5p unit is worth (say) one minute local, 12 secs to Bristol, and two
seconds to the US. So, if you can say what you want in two seconds ...

I saw recently that the UK is one of the highest charged countries for
local calls.


Cheers,

Andy Rabagliati | W.Z.I. RR1 Box 33, Wyalusing PA 18853 | [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 10:09:01 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Philip Endecott)
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries


> It would mean people can use public payphones for this service at no cost
> and then make the calls on their own phone.

True.  This is exactly what I did when I was a poor student.  When I
wanted to phone someone whose number I didn't have, I walked down the
road to the phone box and called directory enquiries.  I then walked
home and used my own phone to call them.  The two minute walk seemed
worth the 45p it saved, provided it wasn't raining!

By the way, things work differently if you have a payphone fitted in
your own home or business.  You can opt either for free directory
enquiries and higher call charges, or to pay for directory enquiries
and have lower call charges.


Phil Endecott

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

From: [e-mail] (Mick Farmer)
Subject: Re: UK Directory Enquiries
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 11:44:50 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


Hi,

Steve Graham asks about UK Directory Enquiries.  The situation is as
he states -- private customers are charged for an enquiry but users in
public phone booths and registered blind people can use the system for
free.

As far as public phones are concerned, directories used to be
available but have now been withdrawn (they were getting stolen
anyway).  I assume the rationale is that once you've asked for a
number, you're likely to call that number.


Regards,

Mick

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: French Directory Enquiries (was: UK Directory Enquiries)
Date: 17 Jun 92 12:43:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Organization: ESF Headquarters, Berlin, FRG


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Stephen Graham) writes:

> For at least a year BT has charged domestic/business users for using
> the Directory Enquiry service (obtained by dialing 192).The charge is
> about 50 pence and you can ask for up to two numbers. However,after
> reading some BT literature on the conditions and charges of renting
> payphones, I get the impression that if you dial 192 on a public
> payphone that this is still a free service and no coins are cashed.

This is exactly how it works in France.

> Can anyone confirm this as I think it's a bit of an oversight on the
> part of BT not to charge payphone users for this service. It would
> mean people can use public payphones for this service at no cost and
> then make the calls on their own phone.

Well, yes and no ... who would bother running down the stairs,
outside, in the rain to find out a telephone number? And after waiting
in the rain (because somebody was already using the pay-phone), when
you get into the booth, you realize it is 5:05 pm, i.e. too late to
call ... or maybe you finally get the operator, usually after holding
for a couple minutes, and realize you don't have a pen ...  :-)

Anyway, I believe it makes sense (at least in France): I take for
granted that the Phone Company is more or less supposed to give you
access to a directory. In the case of your own phone at home, you do
get the (local) directory for free (or the French Minitel, which gives
you free access to the national directory).  But in the phone booth,
nothing of that sort is provided, hence the free calling.

I guess there was a time when phone books were available in French
phone booths (as it is the case in Germany), but they would usually
"disappear" very quickly.  Actually, though the booths still have the
"equipment" to hold phonebooks, I doubt that France Telecom still
provides them. Anybody knows more about this?

In other words: there are plenty of ways to get the information free
from home, therefore it makes sense to make people pay when they
actually request it through an operator. I don't know though if this
is the opinion of France Telecom, I just made it up myself.

Side note: the operator (for directory enquiries) is only available
week days between something like 8:00 to 5:00 ...


Eric Tholome     ESF Headquarters            internet: [e-mail]
                 Hohenzollerndamm 152        UUCP:     [e-mail]
                 D-1000 Berlin 33            Ph.:      [phone]
                             Germany         Fax:      [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta)
Subject: Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 18:11:18 GMT


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

> Do Italian phones accept lire?  Last time I was in Italy (admittedly
> many years ago), they only accepted tokens.

New Italian payphones accept 100, 200, 500 lire coins and tokens. In
major cities and in almost any train / airport stations they also
accept phone cards, available in 5000 and 10,000 lire size. Some major
cities also accept the SIP (the Italian phone company) credit card,
and as any aother credit card in italy, you have to pay a tax of 500
lire for each item costing more 50,000 lire.

Tokens are also commonly used as change with the same value of 200
lire. I think this should illegal since in fact SIP has been allowed
to print money.  The same could also be applied to the phone cards
also, but they are not accepted as change.

Conversion factor (approximate): 1200 lire = US$ 1


Paolo Bellutta - BICC - OHSU - 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd.
Portland, OR 97201-3098 - internet: [e-mail]
tel: [phone] - fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]   (Charles Lane)
Subject: Re: Swiss Phones and Italian Coins
Date: 16 Jun 92 09:43:47 -0400
Organization: Drexel University Physics


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

> Do Italian phones accept lire?  Last time I was in Italy (admittedly
> many years ago), they only accepted tokens.

The modern ones do accept lira coins, as well as `gettone'.  Unless
things have changed in the last 6 months, a gettone is worth 200 lira.


Drexel University      Chuck Lane   [e-mail]
     [phone]    [e-mail]
FAX: [phone]    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mac Modems in England
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 15:49:51 GMT


I'm trying to prepare myself to go to England with an Apple Macintosh
PowerBook and modem (internal or external not yet decided).  Can I buy
any modem suitable for use in the U.S. and expect it to work in
England?  Or must I buy a modem with certain specifications?  I'm
hoping, of course, to buy one modem that will work in both nations.
If that's not possible, I'll just hope to buy a modem here in the U.S.
that can be used there in Great Britain.

Can anyone share advice on this subject area?


ALAN GIRELLI
Bitnet:  Girelli@Brandeis    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 12:24
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Germany Update: "E1" Cellular License Bidding Opened


The German secretrary of Postes and Telecommunications has opened to
bidding procedure for the third digital cellular telephone network
license. This network has the official name "E1". The bidding will be
closed sometime in September. The license will then be issued by the
end of this year.

The "E1" network will be a serious threat to the two existing other
digital cellular networks D1 (Goverment operator TELEKOM) and D2
(private operator Mannesmann, Pacific Telesis has a 26% share of this
company). "E1" will use the DCS1800 (aka PCN = Personal Communications
Network) standard. After the completion of the network, it will have a
total capacity of around 30 million subscribers. Thanks to the small
size of its cells, it will possibly be able to compete with the cable-
bound telephone network. So some specialist consider "E1" also as a
seriuos competitor to the existing telephone network.

Four years ago, all of the major American LECs (former BOC's and GTE)
apllied for this license. A total of 12 different companies tried to
get the "license to print money", as it was called then. This time it
it not expected that as many as 12 companies will apply for this
license. The reason for this is, that the "E1" network requires by far
more investment than the "D2" network. It is expected that the total
cost of "E1" will be as much as $5 billion, or even more. Another
problem for "E1" could be the consciousness for "electronic smog".  In
some cities local citizens filed (i can remeber the word) against the
construction of base stations. Some courts accepted those filings, and
therfore the two operators TELEKOM and Mannesmann have serious
problems with the construction of their networks. While "D2" uses
frequencies around 900MHz, the "E1" network will use frequencies in
the 1800MHz spectrum. These frequencies are considered even more harm-
ful to the human body. So it is likely that this could be a problem
for the "E1" network.

But the "E1" network offers also the first real chance to give most
subscribers a way to use competing services against the existing
TELEKOM telephone monopoly.

So far I heard of the following US companies that want to join a
German partner to apply for this license:

  GTE
  US-WEST
  Ameritech
  .....?

Anything to say about these three companies?


Juergen Ziegler

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 04:52:42 UTC
From: Harris Boldt Edelman <red-eft![e-mail]>
Subject: Country Code History (was Leading 1's and Toll Calls)


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron) notes:

> Of course, the US's country code is also 1.  Somebody else has
> already pointed out that the US is the only pace in the world you are
> required to dial the country code on domestic long distance calls ...

When I remarked upon this in a TELECOM posting in 1985 or '86 (in a
former guise as [e-mail]), I recall that in followup
discussion it was explained that AT&T had played a leading role in the
initial assignment of country codes.  Anyone care to recount the
history in greater detail?  I can no longer easily get to my old
nine-track tapes. :-)


Harris  <red-eft![e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 12:06:21 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Squabbling Over Country Codes


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

> Next: Subdividing the numbering zone "1", looks like a must
> soon, with area codes like 310, 510, etc. and now talk about N11
> codes, its going to happen.

I don't think you've been paying enough attention to the Digest.
Every few months, some article or another reiterates the fact that the
NANP will introduce "NXX" area codes by 1995.  This will increase the
numbering space by a factor of five, which Bellcore predicts will give
us enough room for the next half-century.

In any case, splitting the US out into its own country code (away from
Canada and the +1 809 Caribbean countries) would not be much of a win
anyway, because the US has something like 85% of the NANP's population
(and probably a higher percentage of its phone lines).

> Hawaii is already on a technical basis considered 18, Canada 11,
> everybody else ... anyone know?

Could you please expand on what you mean by the phrase "on a technical
basis" regarding these pseudo-country-codes?


Bob Goudreau        Data General Corporation
[e-mail]    62 Alexander Drive
[phone]        Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #492
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06172;
          18 Jun 92 3:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23091
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 01:29:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05352
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 01:29:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 01:29:26 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #493

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jun 92 01:29:21 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 493

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (John Higdon)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Mark D. Wuest)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad ([e-mail])
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Mickey Ferguson)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Lazlo Nibble)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Julian Macassey)
    Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers (Robert Warren)
    Long Distance For $0.25/Min or Less Anytime (Joe Kruckenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 01:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad


[e-mail] (Colin Plumb) writes:

> Besides, there'a difference between quiescent and idle, at rest, etc.

Precisely. That is why I used it rather than those other words. When
one of my digital switches is not actually processing calls, it is in
a quiescent state. It is hardly "idle" or "at rest" since it is still
scanning lines, cleaning up memory areas, and doing other
housekeeping.  However it is not processing calls, which is its
outward purpose, if all the lines are "idle".

> And finally, "qiescent" is hardly a fancy word.  If you want to use
> fancy words, try your hand at sesquipedalianism.

My intent was never to use "fancy words", just words that conveyed a
particular meaning. I believe that is the purpose of language.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (mark.d.wuest)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 12:54:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Colin Plumb) writes:

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

>> I had no idea how pervasive this problem was until many years ago
>> during the time I was an owner of a sizeable telecommunications
>> company. A fellow owner and some clients were in the conference room
>> and I was attempting to explain the operation of one of our systems.
>> In the course of the explanation I used the word, 'quiescent'. My
>> associate immediately became agitated and said, "What the hell does
>> that mean?" I answered using such terms as 'idle', 'at rest', etc. His
>> rebuke, in front of all and sundry, was, "Then just say that and don't
>> try to impress everyone with fancy words nobody knows the meaning of."

> I agree it's awful.  I once suggested to the Moderator of sci.military
> that he run everything through a sed script to change "missle" to
> "missile" before he even saw it.  A girl I know in grade four does
> spelling by making a list of words, trading with a partner, and
> testing on both lists.  She picked some interesting but fairly simple
> words from the dictionary.  Hydrometallurgy comes to mind.  (She even
> knew what it means, whereas I had to make a guess it had to do with
> rusting.)  So her partner gets intimidated by the sounds of six
> syllables and complains to her mother who complained to the teacher
> who asked her to pick shorter words.  She's a bit annoyed at this.  So
> I'm building a list of common words like Judge, February, Medieval, (I
> think I'll skip Diarrhoea for now), People (it always used to trip me
> up, for some reason), Autumn, Column, and the like for her, just
> because she likes to be stubborn.

A good reason to skip diarrhoea is that *that* is the *second*
spelling and you would have to explain how *some* words don't even
have one correct spelling.

I am surprised that no one has commented on the arrogance of requiring
others to speak your language.  When you speak or write, it is your
responsibility to make yourself understood.  This attitude of looking
down on others because their language skills are different is somewhat
like the American-in-Paris scenario where the guy from the U.S. gets
mad because the Parisiens don't understand him.

While I agree that it would be in their own best interest for people
to have a wide vocabulary, if you fail to communicate because you used
language they did not understand, it is your fault.  Remember, there
are probably things *they* consider common knowledge that are beyond
you.  An example is an old friend of mine who was raised in poverty in
a state known for its lack of education.  There were a lot of words he
did not understand, but somewhere along the line he had been taught
tons about geography and knew where most every country and state was
and their capitals.  He was surprised to learn that not everyone knew
where every state was (my family is from New Mexico -- you'd be
surprised how few people know it's even a state!), but managed to
accept it without looking down on us.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon W.)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 14:26:48 GMT


Popsicles used to describe themselves as "quiescently frozen
confections" or something of the sort, on the label ...


JW

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 10:05:17 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: Rolm


In a previous message, John Higdon writes:

> As one who was raised in a home where much emphasis was placed on the
> importance of proper language usage and on the ability to communicate,
> I take exception to Sprint's latest ad pushing business aggregation.

> The one of which I speak is that where Candice Bergen asks an
> economist or some such to explain the advantages of Sprint's "Clout".
> He explains using fifty-cent words rather the usual TV kindergarten-
> level language of advertising. As he concludes he says, "Any
> questions, Candice?"

> "Just one Glen. Why don't you get a life?", Ms. Bergen responds. This
> is a major pressing of a hot button for me. People of this nation
> wonder why the educational level of the population is steadily
> declining. For one thing, it is still not "cool" to speak efficiently
> and succinctly, using a vocabulary appropriate to the communication
> task. All throughout schooling, those who use the language properly
> and effectively are ridiculed. We are a nation of peer-enforced slang.

John makes a very valid point.  It's (not "its") one of my pet peeves
also, that so many people use poor grammar (not "grammer") and can't
spell their (not "there" or "they're") way out of a paper bag.  As an
engineer who has to review many technical documents, I wish I would
get a nickel (not "nickle") for every misspelling (not "mispelling") I
run into.  I'd probably make a lot more money than I do now.  :-)

OK, now that the point has been made, I would like to add that, if I
recall the ad referenced above, it uses terminology that is FAR above
most people, and even above the average well-educated person.  If that
is true, then the humor of the commercial is appropriate.  One thing
that really bugs me is when advertisers try to snow the viewer with
all kinds of whiz-bang techno-talk that really is a bunch of fluff.
Too many people are influenced by technology instead of actual
usefulness.

Sorry for the digression.  I couldn't help myself.  (Pat, I'm hoping
that you won't have any editing to do on this note.  I, for one,
actually proof- read my postings, and hopefully, made no misteaks, er,
mistakes.  That is, unless the mail daemons [or should it be demons :-]
get to this message ...)


Mickey Ferguson -- Rolm -- FergusoM at scrvm2 -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 02:24:39 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete


upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch) writes:

>> In the course of the explanation I used the word, 'quiescent'. My
>> associate immediately became agitated and said, "What the hell does
>> that mean?"

> While quiescent is a perfectly good word, I hardly ever see it used
> outside a data processing context. I suspect that you'll find that even
> the average college graduate without a DP background will draw a blank
> on this word.

Not if they ever had a serious Popsicle monkey on their back.  Did the
"A Quiescently Frozen Confection" slogan on the box go away when they
went to the one-stick-per-'Sicle format?  I quit eating them when that
happened -- it was sacrilege!  Sacrilege!


Lazlo ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 20:40:43 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

>> I have never seen more atrocious grammer, syntax, spelling, etc
>> in my life.  Half the journal articles I read contain poorly
>> worded run-on sentences.

> Irony alert!  "grammer" :-)

> [Moderator's Note: This simply illustrates how pervasive the problem
> of good grammar and spelling is on this net. Thanks for catching it.  PAT]

One of *my* major reasons for complaining about spelling on BBSs and
Usenet is that I've seen things *mis*-spelled so many times that I now
have to stop and think to recall the correct spelling. (And yes, I am
quite aware of my tendency to run-on sentences.:-)

Some of the major annoyances:

homonym confusion
    there/their
    you're/your
    it's/its
    etc...

"know" instead of "now"
"payed"
"hobbiest"

And people using idiomatic expression that they've never seen in
writing and not given any thought to the possible meaning of:

"next store"
"tow 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)


[Moderator's Note: In your example of "it's / its" it should be noted
this is the one exception to the rule of an apostrophe separating the
 /s/ from the rest of the word in the case of the word being
possessive, (or is it in the case of the second word /is/ being a
contraction?)  We do not use the apostrophe in the one instance
because of confusion with the other. And in cases of possessive words
ending in /s/, we simply drop the logical second /s/ which would
follow, and place the apostrophe outside the word entirely. I'd like
to think that TELECOM Digest is better edited than *some Digests* I
won't mention by name, but I see errors here after the fact some days
and am embarassed I missed them in the mass production techniques I
use. I guess the volume of stuff produced here entitles me to some
errors daily.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:18:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 486, Message 5 of 13

>> [Moderator's Note: Love those 500's! I found a 500-style five line
>> phone once dating from 1939. Imagine: Rotary dial, still with the old
>> style numbering (HARrison, rather than HA-7 or 427); straight
>> (uncurled) brown *cloth* cord from phone to handset; ...

> I believe that if you turn this fine old piece of equipment over
> you'll find that it's a 300 series phone.  The 500 series, which was
> made of cyclolac (is that how you spell it? I can never remember) and
> which is the design that everyone still more or less copies for single
> line desk phones, arrived in the 1950s.

    Cycolac is Monsanto's trade name for ABS. The stuff used for
phones is called "T Grade". ABS is made by several plastics
manufacturers, including Shell.

> Trivia question: What else do they use cycolac for?

    Let me see. The Citroen Mahari Jeep like vehicle had ABS body
panels. They have made dinghys of it. It is used for waste (sewer)
pipes, the black pipes under your house. It is sometimes used for tool
handles. A good solvent for gluing ABS is MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone).

    The 300 series phones and old British F phones used Bakelite
or ebonite. This was a thermosetting platic that was quite brittle.
ABS is not brittle. You can use a type G ABS handset to pound nails.
You can also use a punch press to cut holes in ABS without it tearing
or shattering. And then of course when your ABS phone is looking
tired, you can wash the ABS shell in the dish washer and polish it
with metal polish (Brasso). It will then look like new. To buff it
professionaly, use a calico buff wheel and Tripoli paste.

    Has this been trivial enough?


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA


[Moderator's Note: Quite, thank you.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Warren)
Subject: Re: How Bell Labs Selects Ringers
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, QC CANADA
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 18:28:11 GMT


[e-mail] (Colin Plumb) writes:

> Do you really think 2500 sets are more rugged than the original black
> 500 sets I'm using?  Although, if the truth be known, pay phones are
> pretty damn rugged, too.

In the old days, pheakers used to call them fortresses because of all
the armour plating around the coin box.


RW    internet [e-mail]
fidonet  1:167/175    patchnet 191:514/0


[Moderator's Note: But in the *real old days* coin phones had three
slots on the top, no trap door on the coin return, and no armored
cable to the handset (the straight -- not curled -- wire was covered
with brown *cloth*). The trap door put an end to shoving an unbent
coat hanger up the slot to trip the collection table in your favor
before the operator could hit the 'collect' key on the switchboard and
the armored cable (and permanently sealed mouth/earpiece) put an end
to the 'safety pin shorts tip to ground' technique which brought up
dial tone on the ground start lines payphones used.  Coins going in
the slots on top tripped a little lever which gave the required
momentary connection to ground. Of course the coins were kept unless
you were fast and agile with that coat hanger.  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joseph Kruckenberg)
Subject: Long Distance For $0.25/min Or Less Anytime
Date: 17 Jun 92 19:10:44 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


If you would like to save money on long distance phone bills, I've
found a way to help you.  This service gives you the same quality as
other companies, but at a fraction of the cost (it has been tested at
14.4Kbd on modem and had excellent performace).

This is how it works: by using a pre-paid phone card, you can dial
anywhere within the contiguous 48 states from any touchtone phone for
24.9 cents per minute.  The initial amount you pay is not outrageous
($20.00 will get you started on your first ** 80 minutes ** of long
distance calling).  The rate even decreases as you use the service
more (down to 14.9 cents per minute).

If you would like more information on how you can cut your long
distance phone bill, please send email to me ([e-mail]).


Thanks,

Pete Kruckenberg    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That's supposed to be a bargain?  Barry Shein
pointed out in a message to you in another newsgroup that this appears
to only be a bargain for people who never learned how to multiply.
Your rate of $15 per hour is not exactly inexpensive. And Carl Kadie
also gave you a piece of his mind for sending this out. Since your
article was cross posted to numerous groups, their replies were also.
Sigh.  I've omitted their complete replies here for lack of space, but
I'm told you got enough email on the subject already anyway.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #493
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09171;
          18 Jun 92 5:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30804
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 02:39:59 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23882
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 18 Jun 1992 02:39:51 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 02:39:51 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #494

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jun 92 02:39:50 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 494

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Paul Robichaux)
    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Tom Perrine)
    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Scott McClure)
    Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710 (Bruce Ferrell)
    Funny Intercept on 1-710-555-1212 (Bruce Perens)
    Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers (Gary Skaggs)
    Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers (Michael Salmon)
    Re: The Meaning of ITT (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Longest Phonecall (Dialup) (John Slater)
    Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card (Phydeaux)
    Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (Carl Moore)
    Stupidest Question? ([e-mail])
    Dumb Recorded Announcent (David Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Robichaux)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: New Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 15:56:17 GMT


This posting is based entirely on my own conjecture, and not on any
classified information. My clearances have never included the subject
under discussion (and I don't have a clearance any longer.)

As far as I know, AUTOVON and AUTODIN are on separate circuits from
the PSTN; since you can reach an AUTOVON number from the PSTN by using
a different exchange (for example, Marine Aircraft Group 49 has
AUTOVON numbers of the form 365-XXXX, but they're also reachable with
404-421-XXXX), it seems unlikely that 710 would be necessary, or
desirable, to access these circuits. Furthermore, both AUTOVON and
AUTODIN can support encryption and multiple-path capabilities which
are probably not easily implemented in the current PSTN.

On the other hand, there are a large number of Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Defense Nuclear Agency, Energy Department, and
Civil Defense (really a subgroup of FEMA) sites which need redundant,
_easily reachable from outside_ communications. Since FEMA is widely
distributed throughout both rural and metropolitan areas, and since
AUTOVON circuits are not generally available outside of military
installations, this theory may hold water.

Pat's suggestion of a "need-to-know" bit also seems likely. Imagine
the changes likely if Bellcore solves the one telephone
number-per-person problem!


Not speaking for my employer or the Marine Corps Reserve.
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG          | NTI doesn't pay for my opinions, and NASA
[e-mail]   | doesn't know I have any.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:48:47 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


All of this talk about 710 has reminded me of my very first "strange
phone" encounter:

My uncle used to work for various agencies of the U.S. Government.
Nobody knew then what he really did, except that the Army had given
him a duck (amphib vehicle) which was parked behind his house!

After he retired, he mentioned in passing that he was one of the
instructors for a course "Survival Strategies for Armor Commanders on
the Nuclear Battlefield", back in the mid-60's.

He was once a City Police Officer, Volunteer Fire Dept Chief, Army
CID, on-call for Nuclear cleanup, and "something else", all at the
same time.  (It made it easy to sort out jurisdictional disputes
quickly in the U.S. southern states, where counties almost go to war
over such things. :-)

His bedroom had FOUR phones (of different colors) on and around the
nightstand, something very unusual for small Kentucky towns in 1965.

All of the kids were told to never touch the "Fire phones" :-)

I was about eight when one day I found a FIFTH, funny-looking, phone
UNDER the bed, and it didn't have any dial.  Since I knew that it
wasn't a "real phone" (no dial), I figured it was OK to play with this
toy.

I picked the receiver up, and was *immediately* greeted with "Yes,
sir?"  Of course I realized that this shouldn't happen, and hung up
and ran from the room.  Unfortunately for my posterior comfort, the
"real" phone in the kitchen *immediately* started to ring!  Whoever it
was at the other end of the "toy phone" called back and told on me!
(A spanking, spent the rest of the day in the corner, no duck rides
for a month, and my SCUBA lesson was cancelled!)

I always wondered (but was NOT going to investigate) who the OTHER
phones went to!

I never did find out who he really worked for, but when my security
clearances came through a few years back, HE knew before I did.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott McClure)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 06:03:45 GMT


[e-mail] (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> I was thinking that 710 might be some sort of undialable, but yet
> reserved, "namespace," if you will, for something relatively
> innocuous, like AUTOVON.  Any regular users of AUTOVON care to
> comment?

Yes, I regularly use AUTOVON.  It is in a word, a junk.  You have to
dial a code (such as 80) to access it (it is often busy), and then
once you get connected to your party, you often get disconnected (for
no good reason).  And the lines are often poor quality.  But then
again, what do you expect out of a lowest-bidder phone system?

I don't know anything about 710, but it probably isn't a good idea to
give it tons of net.coverage if it is used for anything to do with
national security.


Scott

INTERNET:  [e-mail]
ARPANET:   ryptyde![e-mail]
UUCP:      {crash nosc}!ryptyde!scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Ferrell)
Subject: Re: For National Security Reasons, Stop Talking About 710
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 04:17:45 GMT


I can't say what other IXCs use 710 numbers for, but I know
710-555-4141 CAN be used to find which carrier is your PIC ... at least
at MCI.


[Moderator's Note: I think you are confusing 700 with 710. You can use
700-555-4141 for the purpose you mentioned.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Funny Intercept on 1-710-555-1212
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 01:13:26 GMT


I tried to dial 1-710-555-1212, and other numbers in that area code.
Pacific Bell always gave me an intercept: "The number you have dialed
is in the 415 area code. Please use 415 to dial this number". This is
the standard intercept for seven-digit numbers on the wrong side of
the 415-510 split. When dialing 10288-710-555-1212, I get that Pacific
Bell income-producer "It is not necessary to dial a long-distance
company to reach this number". I verified that ten digits were
necessary, 710-5551 was not enough to complete the call.

Now, why would Pacific Bell vector these calls to _that_ intercept? Of
course, there are a lot of government support systems vendors in the
415 area code.

And let's stop all of this sillyness about "National Security
Reasons".  Even the U.S. Government knows better than to leave its
defense communication systems on the public telephone network where
any kid with a pay phone could get at them. I guess that to make the
defense phone system user-friendly, they vector numbers that don't
start with 710- to the public telephone network. I don't expect that
they'd provide a gateway in the opposite direction that works without
passwords and such.


Bruce Perens


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell intercepts after 1-710; no further
digits are accepted. You receieve the tones and "Your call cannot be
completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again, or ask
your operator to help you." So I guess 'any kid at a payphone' can
stand there and dial all he wants. I think a bit has to be set
somewhere which says the phone being used is able to call those
numbers. Otherwise you are 7448 outta luck.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 12:42:07 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Skaggs)
Subject: Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers


Pat,

Jeff Sicherman's comment (tongue-in-cheek :-)) regarding SSNs and
implanted cellphones brought to the surface one of my pet peeves: nine
digit zip codes.

Let's ingnore for the moment that I've been told that some of these
numbers are internal use only and just deal with the raw numbers.

Rounded population of US: 250,000,000
Number of nine digit zips  : 1,000,000,000

That's four zip codes for every man, woman, and child in the US.  You
could have one for your home, one for your office, one for your
vacation home in the Ozarks, and one for your mistress' house :-).

Why then is my zip code only down to the route carrier level?

My 73160-2135 just gets it into the carrier's bag.

I should be able to get mail addressed to 73160-2135 with nothing else
on it ... no name, no address, no city (listed as OKC not Moore for
zip purposes, grumble) but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.  That just goes to the
carrier's bag.  What a waste!  Let's raise the rates some more!

Rant mode off.

OBtelecom stuff: I have ATT LD.  I'm happy with that.  I just wish
that SWBell (OK) would come out of the dark ages and offer something
more than 56k and T1 data.  (No, FT1 is not tariffed, but we'll be
happy to engineer your FT1 circuit, Mr. Skaggs.  Just open a work
order and add money.)


Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK    [e-mail]    DOC/NOAA/ERL/NSSL


[Moderator's Note: My unique <Z>one <I>mprovement <P>lan code is
60690-1570.  Put just that on an envelope; it comes to my box.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Subject: Re: The Telco Owns the Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael Salmon)
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 07:35:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Jeff Sicherman <sichermn@
beach.csulb.edu> writes:

>   Then the government will implant a little cellular phone into your
> body (shouldn't take to long for things to get to this point,
> especially with micro-cells) and we will be able to reach everyone,
> everywhere. Not to mention knowing where you are, BROTHER.

>   Wait a second, didn't I just see this scenario in a Borg episode of
> Star Trek ... I KNEW those guys looked familiar.

I'm not sure about star trek but this was the plot of "The
Presidents's Analyst", except that it was the 'phone company rather
than the government.


Michael Salmon
#include    <standard.disclaimer>
Ericsson Telecom AB    Stockholm

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

From: [e-mail] (Wolf Paul)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of ITT
Organization: Alcatel - Elin Research Center
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 13:04:39 GMT


[e-mail] (John Martin) writes:

> I remember that ... the name 'ITT' was officially changed from standing
> for International Telephone and Telegraph to standing for nothing. ...
> This was because of ITT's broad diversification into insurance, hotels,
> defense, and as you pointed out, baking.

And to some extent, AWAY from telecom: approximately five years ago,
ITT sold most of its European telecom activities to a French-
dominated corporation which is now called ALCATEL. Only last year ITT
sold its remaining minority interest in Alcatel.


Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center    [e-mail]
Alcatel-Elin Research Center     [phone] (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                 [phone] (fax)

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 16:26:33 BST
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)
Subject: Re: Longest Phonecall (Dialup)


Seen on alt.folklore.urban. For neophytes, UL = urban legend,
FOAF = friend of a friend.

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (YuNoHoo) writes:

In article <pardo.708662524@eml-pool>, [e-mail] (Francesca
Pardo) writes:

> Speaking of phone calls, I remember hearing a story once about a girl
> who went to Paris for the summer, while her boyfriend went to Hawaii.
> They were going to miss each other so much they had to talk often, but
> they couldn't afford a hefty phone bill.  So what they did was to leave
> the phone off the hook at both ends for the entire month of July.  They
> would talk, make arrangements for what time they'd come back, and talk
> some more.  When the phone bill eventually arrived, it was for a couple
> thousand dollars, and the girl took it to the phone company and complained
> that this COULDN'T be right, and they decided it was a computer glitch
> and deleted it.

> It was told to me as a FOAF, has anybody heard anything similar?

Well, I've got another story that's really happened. <groans from the
net> The point of the story is very different: Due to a design error
in a comms system very long (say lots of weeks) transatlantic calls
would not be properly billed. Thus, some companies was able to cut
their bills by keeping the lines open as long as possible. (Nice
logic, UL-wise.)

The design error was easy to fix, however. Guess it hurt some people
when the improved bills hit the accounting departments.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:05:00 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Ten-Number Restricted Calling Card


> [Moderator's Note: A 'one-number' card does not mean it can only be
> called from one-number ... it means *anywhere* can call to only one
> preselected number. Anyone can use it, but all they can do is call
> you provided they use the correct PIN. Is that what happened?   PAT]

Yes, exactly.  I hadn't planned on the $4 setup + $2/minute AirPhone
charges.  I was quite amused by the call, however.  Next thing you
know he'll call from Singapore or South Africa or something ...


reb

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 12:24:55 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record


" ... Ma's cable/fiber laying ships out of Baltimore"?

I rode through Baltimore on I-95 yesterday (June 15).  Southbound, I
saw an AT&T dock on the left, between the Fort McHenry Tunnel and
I-395.  There was a ship with "LONG LINES" on its hull there.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:06:15 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Stupidest Question?


I just received a call from an AT&T representative (which is a
miracle). He has had my account for over one year.  We are having a
billing problem so I thought he would be telling me the check was in
the mail :-). He called to ask if all of the 13 State of Wisconsin
Universities were operating off of the same centrex.  I told him I
would let him know when I got my billing problem solved!


[Moderator's Note: Why is that a stupid question? (Other than he might
possibly have taken the trouble to pull all the records and examine
them rather than call you.) I can cite several instances of large
institutions here in Chicago spread over several locations all
serviced from the same centrex. The Chicago Board of Education is one
example: The Board offices and several schools some distance apart
(but admittedly in the same CO) are on the same centrex. The Chicago
Public Library centrex serves the main library and a few branches. The
City of Chicago itself has *two* centrex systems (312-744 and
312-747); every police station in the city runs from the 744 centrex.
The University of Illinois at Chicago has a centrex on 312-996, but
dialing certain codes allow connection to outside lines at the campus
in Urbana.

The rep may have meant if there is more than one are they all under
the same administration; can they be 'dialed through' on tie-lines
from each other, etc. Both U of I and the City of Chicago have phone
bills from Illinois Bell in excess of *one million dollars per month*.
The accounts are very complex. I'm sure your university system is the
same way.  I'd really like to know why you think the question was in
and of itself 'stupid', especially since it was an AT&T rep rather
than a local telco rep who might have better access to and under-
standing of the account?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 15:46:45 -0400
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Dumb Recorded Announcent


I called my mortgage holder this morning to question whether or not a
transaction had taken place and heard what I consider a dumb recorded
announcement.

I was given two options: Press 1 to select something or other; If I
didn't have a touch tone phone or "couldn't understand English" to
hold the line.

While talking to a representative I mentioned the message and she said
that they had a lot of complaints and were working on the problem.  I
wonder if they ever heard of the statement: If there isn't enough time
to do the job right, then why is there always time to do it over
again.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #494
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09849;
          19 Jun 92 2:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11537
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:57:25 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03621
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:57:16 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:57:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #495

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jun 92 00:57:18 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 495

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CLASS Approved in California (John Higdon)
    California CID Ruling (Arun Baheti)
    Caller-ID in California (John Higdon)
    Caller-ID in CA (David Gast)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Caller-ID Questions (David G. Lewis)
    Cellular Telephone Mailing List Proposal (Gregory Youngblood)
    Is This Phone Legal? (J. R. Pendleton)
    Cycolac (was How Bell Labs Selects Ringers) (David W. Barts)
    NABET Board OK's Merger With CWA (Phillip Dampier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 12:47 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: CLASS Approved in California


The CPUC has approved and tariffed CLASS features in California. After
a "notification" period, all the usual CLASS features including
Caller-ID will be available in those areas so equipped. This includes
the Bay Area, most of the Los Angeles area, and some Contel areas.
GTE????

Caller-ID will have three blocking options: per call, per line, and
per line with per call "unblock". The PUC is requiring that telephone
customers be notified so that their service can be modified
accordingly. All but Caller-ID will become available mid-July. After
the notification period expires, Caller-ID will also be available.

Anyone have pricing?


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 11:25:08 PDT
From: Arun Baheti <red-eft![e-mail]>
Subject: California CID Ruling


 From the {LA Times}, 18 June, 1992


SAN FRANCISCO: The California Public Utilities Commission voted
unanimously to approve a controversial telephone service that allows
subscribers to identify callers before they pick up the phone.

But restrictions imposed by the commission drew strong criticism from
telephone companies, and prompted one, GTE, to immediately drop plans
to offer the service.

The {LA Times} also included a chart listing the various options and
restrictions:

Per-call blocking (via *67 or 1167);
Per-line blocking;
Per-line blocking with per-call enabling (via *67 or 1167).

Unlisted numbers and various public services (shelters, etc) will be
given automatic per-line blocking with per-call enabling.

Customers will be able to chose any of the options ONCE at no charge,
with changes costing an unspecified amount.  Someone who does not make
a choice will be given per-call blocking.


ab

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 12:36 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Caller-ID in California


While Pac*Bell considers whether to continue its plans to offer CNID,
GTE has already announced that it will NOT be offering it and is
considering dropping plans for the related services. Price from
Pac*Bell: $6.50/month for residences; $7.50/month for businesses. Once
again, GTE takes itself off the hook for providing anything
approaching state-of-the-art telephone service.

The offering is technically a "two year trial", after which a review
may result in adjustments to the service. Current plans call for
assigning per-line blocking to all customers with unlisted numbers.

Even with the unreasonable blocking requirements, I still intend to
subscribe to CNID. For me, the issue is eliminating the junk calls, the
hangup calls, and the idiot calls. Those to whom I wish to speak will
not be blocking their ID, so the system should function well.

The "public notification and education" period will extend into the
first quarter of next year, but services such as "repeat dialing",
"selective call forwarding", and "distinctive ringing" should be
available immediately after the reps have been trained on taking
orders. Telephones in area codes 408, 415, 510, 213, and 818 are
currently equipped for the CLASS services.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 16:48:03 -0700
From: [e-mail] (David Gast)
Subject: Caller-ID in CA


The CA PUC over-ruled Adminstrative Law Judge John Lemke and gave
approval to Caller ID with some limitations.  First, Caller ID will
only be available in a few areas for a two year trial.  Second, three
forms of blocking must be provided at no cost.  The three forms are
call-block (by using *67), per line, and per line with per-call
over-ride, but the some sequence other than *67 must be used.
Customers will be able to select what form of call blocking they
prefer and will be able to make one change without charge.  Third,
before implementing Caller-ID, the telcos must provide an education
campaign.

The PUC also approved other CLASS options.  An {LA Times} article did
not say what prices may be charged, specifically, whether call-trace
would be charged on a monthly or a per use basis.

Surprisingly, the article did discuss some economic concerns as well
as the privacy issues.  Specifically, the article said that many
consumers are opposed to the service for privacy reasons, but that the
telcos see Caller-ID as a potentially large money maker.  The article
also quoted a gentleman from what sounded like an industry rag as
saying that Caller-ID is a rip off.

GTE said they will not offer Caller-ID.  Finally, a reason to have GTE
phone service.


David

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 17:11:39 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
> -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

*70 is not a toggle unless you claim that it is possible for *70 to
turn *ON* Call Waiting for those lines that have it off by default.
Do you know of any phone system that does this?

One-shot codes, such as Cancel Call Waiting, 10XXX carrier selection
codes, operator-assisted vs. direct dial (0/1), etc., are not bad user
interface design, or at least not nearly as bad as toggles, because
after you use one, you always know what option is in effect.  10288
does not, for example, give you AT&T unless AT&T is your default
carrier, in which case you get MCI.


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Caller-ID Block-Blocking
Date: 17 Jun 92 15:43:46 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, the Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Clever retort! Touche, and all that. Still, we live
> with *70 as a toggle for one call only. Would you have it that *70
> turned off Call Waiting and something else turned Call Waiting back on
>  -- provided you did not forget?  PAT]

Well, here in Atlanta (Southern Bell), if you DON'T have Call Waiting
enabled and you dial *70, it errors out with a fast busy. It certainly
doesn't turn ON call waiting for just that one call, if you hadn't
subscribed to it!  It's completely different from the *67 problem.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Questions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 14:07:47 GMT


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

> It's been mentioned that Caller-ID is passed as part of the SS7.
> Since PBXs use trunks and some signalling that's not SS7, they can not
> decide what will be transmitted as the Caller-ID, thus the trunk
> line's number is usually sent, right?

If the PBX is using traditional inband (DTMF) signaling, and the
switch has a default number assigned to the trunk or trunk group, that
default number is sent.  Note that this is not the same as the "trunk
line's number".  If the trunk is DID/DOD, the default number will
likely be one of the DID numbers, but it need not be.

If the PBX is using ISDN PRI signaling, it can send a calling party
number to the network.  This may be, for example, the calling line's
dialable DID number.

> In the future, will my office's PBX transmit some ID about the call
> such as my name and/or extension?

See above for sending calling party number.

> Will there be some bandwidth
> limitation so I don't start using Caller-ID to broadcast messages
> without paying for a phone call?  (Or, heaven forbid -- a small
> surcharge for "information services" every time I place a call with
> the subscriber supplied Caller-ID information).

> Allowing subscribers to transmit Caller-ID information would be the
> equivalent of handing a business card at the start of a conversation.
> I'm surprised the Japanese telephone system doesn't have this already
> since Japanese manners dictate the exchange of business cards prior to
> conversation.  A call from "John at field service" is more meaningful
> than a Caller-ID showing a call from DEC.

> What if the subscriber message said "call for J.Jonas from Seymour".
> (I wonder what the length limit will be for messages?).  Would this be
> disallowed because it's attempting a person-to-person call without the
> surcharges?

An additional ISDN supplementary service defined in CCITT and ANSI
Committee T1 exists called "User to User Signaling".  This allows the
caller to include up to 128 octets of information in an ISDN SETUP
message.  With the appropriate CPE capabilities, this would, for
example, permit the very messaging you specify.  One could, for
example, identify the calling person, or the called person, or include
a "subject" line like in email ... the possibilities are endless.

Needless to say, it is very likely that the use of UUS will incur a
charge.

In addition, deployment is currently very limited.  AT&T offers UUS to
our direct connect PRI customers, which basically restricts it to
Software Defined Network and ACCUNET (TM) Switched Digital Services
customers (as both access and egress must be direct connect PRI, and
these are the only two services that support both access and egress on
direct connect PRI).  So far as I know, no LECs offer UUS services.
Bellcore published a TR on UUS several years ago, and I believe is
planning to update it based on the (soon-to-be) published North
American standard, but development and deployment are in the future.


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

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

Subject: Cellular Telephone Mailing List Proposal
From: [e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 15:53:45 EST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA


I am thinking of starting a mailing list of sorts particularly dealing
with Cellular telephony, their switches, RF, microwave, and various
other information primarily dealing with Cellular.

What I'd like to know is if there is already a group like that, and if
so would someone please mail me some info about it. (Thx)

Also, does anyone reading this group have/work in the cellular
industry in any capacity?

And lastly, is there any interest in such a group?

If you are interested, please send me a mail message to this account,
and please say if you are in the cellular industry (and what
position), or if you are just interested.


Greg

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

From: [e-mail] (J. R. Pendleton)
Subject: Is This Phone Legal?
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:53:50 GMT
Organization: Employer not involved in this.


While waiting for the car to be washed this weekend, I noticed a rather
interesting phone.

This thing was lime green and it looked like a standard desk set with
a thyroid problem.  It had a big master padlock and a hand lettered
sign that said "Public Phone - 25 cents for 3 Minutes"

On closer examination I saw a coin slot on the top.

I talked to the car wash operator and she said it was great.  She
hooked it up to her standard phone line and that the phone was well on
its way to paying for itself.  She also mentioned that it cost $250.00
(ouch!!!).

Question: It seems to me that when the California PUC allowed private
pay phones, they set a minimum standard of service.  Can some one
correct me if I've got this wrong:

  1.)  Maximum charge 25 cents for local calls with a minimum time
       limit of 12 minutes (I've seen phones like this.)

  2.)  Free access to 911, 411 and credit card calls (the green monster
       had a simple timer.)

Note that I am only curious: I'm not going to hang this poor car wash
operator out to dry.  But what are the penaltys for illegal payphones
and does the PUC have teeth enough to enforce the tariff?


Thanks,

Jerry Pendleton


[Moderator's Note: The phone itself is legal. We had a message similar
to this not long ago. There may be a question about the minimum call
length required in California (I do not know about that part.) In
Chicago this particular unit is appearing in various places; usually
small businesses which need a payphone, can't get one from telco and
can't afford the more traditional style of unit. $250 is actually very
inexpensive for a COCOT.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 10:10:38 -0700
From: David W. Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cycolac (Was How Bell Labs Selects Ringers)


John Levine writes:

> Trivia question: What else do they use cycolac for?

I always thought the name for the plastic they made 500 sets from was
ABS.  On the theory that cycolac and ABS are one and the same, I'll
answer "plastic drain pipes" to your question.


David Barts  N5JRN        UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
[e-mail]      Seattle, WA  98195

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

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 13:26:39 -0500
Subject: NABET Board OK's Merger With CWA


NABET BOARD OKAYS MERGER WITH CWA

Communications Workers of America
June 16, 1992


WASHINGTON -- The National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians (NABET) will seek approval among it's 9,300 members for a
merger with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which
represents 600,000 workers in telecommunications, printing and
broadcast industries, health care, and the public sector.

NABET President James Nolan reported that his union's executive
council voted unanimously to affiliate with CWA, and he said that
NABET officials will be holding meetings around the country with local
leaders and members to explain details of the merger proposal before
submitting it to a membership referendum.  The merger requires
approval by two-thirds of the voting members.

CWA and NABET declared their mutual goal of "creating a more powerful
labor organization" in order to "enhance job security and economic
prosperity for the hundreds of thousands of men and women of the
communications, graphic arts, media, broadcasting, and cable
television industries."

Nolan commented that "the values of our two unions are very similar,"
and stated: "We're excited about combining our experience and strength
to develop new strategies for organizing workers and dealing with the
multinationals that now dominate the broadcast and communications
fields."

CWA President Morton Bahr called it "a very natural and mutually
beneficial alliance, given the convergence we are seeing between
telecommunications, broadcast, cable, and video industries."  The two
unions, he said, "together can travel faster and further toward
unionizing and representing workers in all these fields than we could
independently."

NABET represents engineers, technicians, and other broadcast employees
at NBC and ABC television networks as well as at some 50 independent
TV stations and production companies around the country.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #495
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11788;
          19 Jun 92 3:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06131
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 01:39:16 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01813
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 01:39:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 01:39:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #496

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jun 92 01:39:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 496

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toggles Are Bad Design (Gordon Burditt)
    Pac$Bell Asks For My Opinion (Nick Sayer)
    Telegram Rate Application (Nigel Allen)
    Summary: Looking For Used 2500 Sets (Joe Konstan)
    Contemporary Remote Controls (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Switched 56 (700) From Europe? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    What Are "NorTel" And "Centrex"? (Raymond Leung)
    Jane Barbie (Shaun Case)
    Any News of CWA and AT&T? (Bruce W. Mohler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Toggles Are Bad Design
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1992 17:37:01 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, we will be hearing complaints
> from people about *77 being a toggle, i.e. how do I know which way the
> toggle is set in case I forget and I want to block the possibility
> some telemarketer might call me blocking *his* ID, etc ...  :)    PAT]

Yes, I'll complain about toggles as Bad User Interface Design,
especially if the user can't tell what state he just put the line
into, or what state the line is in.  For any feature whatever.

Possible ways of dealing with this include:

 - Use different activation/deactivation codes.

 - Give feedback of the new state.  This could be as simple as stutter
dialtone vs. regular dialtone after the *XX code (provided it's well-
documented), or a voice response like "Blocking blocking is now
{on|off}".  (which brings up the issue of language problems).  The
flash to switch between calls with call-waiting is one that does give
fast (even Higdon's switch operates faster than waiting for a
telemarketer to complain by mail that they can't get through by phone)
that and reasonably easy to check results, and the state doesn't last
beyond the call.

 - Make the current state testable.  One code that dumps the whole
state of all the features on the line (with voice) would be useful,
and could include CO-settable-options as well, so someone could check
if their authorization to use a feature like call-waiting sort of
disappeared in the last software upgrade.  As I understand it, the
business office doesn't check the switch itself, so they can disagree
with the switch over what features you ordered.  And one typo on
someone else's service order can fiddle with your features.

A few features may be testable as-is, but the tester minimally has one
line and no 24-hour-a-day friend with a Caller-ID box.  Call
forwarding/busy might be testable by calling your own number from your
own number.  Blocking ID-withheld calls or specific numbers is hard to
test.  Even Caller-ID number delivery (switchable in some areas since
charges are per number delivered) is difficult to test unless you can
generate an incoming call to your number.

Is the *XX number space really that full?  What are all those codes
used for?  Does anyone have a "standard list" of them?


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Pac$Bell Asks For My Opinion
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 01:57:56 GMT


A couple of weeks ago, my voice line went out. No battery, dialing
results in busy. This was on a Friday night. At 10AM Saturday, the
lineman came out and made a repair ... but crossed my pair with
someone elses at the same time. I left, but they reported fixing it by
the time I got back home at about 4.

Anyway, I just got off the phone with a Pac$Bell pollster wanting to
know what I thought of the whole thing. If anyone cares, here's what I
told them. I welcome any comments/conversation on the topic.

1. Getting to a person at 611 was quick, but I gave relatively poor
marks for not having someone there capable of participating in a
technical discussion.

2. It was quick service for a weekend, which I liked, but the actual
time they took to fix it was far less than what they promised -- ergo,
they might have promised to fix it quicker.

3. Most of all, there was no intermediate reporting. They can do line
tests very quickly indeed. They might have reported the results of
that testing at the message number I gave them. The 611 receptionist
should be able to have the results of a line test as they talk to you,
IMHO.  If they see a ground short of the distance to the DEMARC, they
ought to say that the lineman will have to fix it. If they find that
the switch is screwed up, they ought to say that it appears to be an
internal office fault, etc, etc. Sure, lots of poeple wouldn't
understand such information, but there are those that would, and I
would say they exist in higher numbers here in Silicon Valley.

So what does everyone else think?


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

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: Unitel Asks For Telegram Rate Increase
Organization: Toronto Committee Against CTC General Order T-40


Unitel Communications Inc. has applied to the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for an increase in
telegraph rates, claiming that the company is losing money on its
telegram service.

A 15-word message of 15 words or less within Canada would increase
from $6.90 to $7.99. A telegram from Canada to the United States
mainland would increase from $10.65 to $11.99 for 15 words or less.
Charges for Telepost [messages delivered by Canada Post, similar to
Mailgram in the United States] would also increase.

Unitel claims that the increases are required to declining message
volumes. Here are some excerpts from the application:

"Unitel's proposed rate revisions are required in order to partially
offset the continuing decline in demand for PMS [Public Message
Service, i.e. regular telegrams] and Telepost services. This decline
is due to the availability of newer technologies such as facsimile and
electronic voice mail. As a result, the focus of these services is
being shifted away from the business base and towards the consumer.
Consumers now represent 80% of Unitel's telegram clients.

"Unitel is continuing its efforts to upgrade service. Unitel has
recently expanded its hand delivery courier network to more than 2000
cities in Canada. In addition, customers choosing the hand delivery
option can select a variety of specially designed telegram cards
suitable for a variety of occasions or a standard telegram envelope.
This enhances the presentation of the delivered service.

"In order to reduce the expenses incurred in offering PMS and Telepost
services, Unitel has taken various cost-cutting measures in the past
several years. The latest measures include the closing of the
Vancouver and Toronto PMS offices and the consolidation of operations
in Montreal." (end of quote)

If you would like to comment on the proposed increases, write to:

   Secretary General,
   Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,
   Ottawa, Ontario,   Canada K1A 0N2

The application should be referred to as Unitel Tariff Notice 715 of
June 1, 1992.

To receive a copy of the application itself, contact:

  Mr. Allan G. Duncan,
  Executive Director, Regulatory Matters - Base Business,
  Unitel Communications Inc.,
  200 Wellington Street West,
  Toronto, Ontario,  Canada M5V 3C7
  Telephone [phone]   Fax [phone]

If you write to the CRTC about this application, send a copy of your
letter to Mr. Duncan so that he can respond to it.


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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 12:18:52 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Summary: Looking For Used 2500 Sets


It's been a while, but I now have a couple of nice used 2500 phones,
and a bit of experience and advice in buying them.  This message
includes a summary of the comments I received from TELECOM readers and
a synopsis of my own experiences.

Steve Forrette suggested that AT&T phone stores would sell them (with
a reduced warranty) out of the leasing area in the back of the stores.
He didn't have a specific price quote so I tried my local AT&T phone
center and couldn't convince them to sell them at all (I imagine this
varies clerk to clerk).  Afterwards, I thought that an alternative
solution would be to lease the phone and "lose" it immediately, paying
the appropriate penalty, but I haven't checked out that idea in
detail.

Jim Rees also mentioned AT&T phone stores (suggesting that the prices
were likely excessive) and mentioned that he bought all of his at
garage sales and thrift markets (rarely needing to do more than clean
them, replace a cord, etc.).

Dave Platt mentioned Curtis Surplus (Surplus Solutions) and other
companies that deal in office surplus, with a typical price of $10-15
a phone.

Nigel Allen suggested second-hend shops in less well-of parts of town.

Jack Decker had several suggestions:

Look for colleges and universities that are upgrading a phone system.
He managed to get dozens of phones (wall and desk) for a total of $15.

Check {Telecom Gear Magazine} (800-964-4327).  I called and obtained a
free trial issue (now you know what took so long) and found a half
dozen suppliers charging around $15 a phone.

He also suggested BECO in Germantown, NY as a company that's been in
the business since back when only phone companies could own phones.

Will Martin Suggested Herbach and Rademan (800-848-8001) which sells
the phones for $7.50 (surcharges on small orders, plus shipping).  I
called for a catalogue but haven't received one as yet.

Finally "Doctor Math" suggested Telephone Sales and Service which
sells refurbished 2500 sets for about $40 a piece.

Armed with all of this information, I did what I should have done
anyway--I went to a local weekly flea market (Ashby Bart, for locals)
and walked around.  There were at least 15 stands with some phone
equipment and six or seven with interesting old phones.  With a bit of
bargaining, I picked up some dirty 2500 sets (one for $3, the other
for $4) and brought them home.  They worked instantly (one Western
Electric, one actually said AT&T).  A bit of cleaning later (and I may
add new cords) and they're in great shape.  I also saw planty of 500
sets, and even a bunch of two-line and other more advanced phones.
Avoid anything that looks new and be ready to bargain hard (some were
asking $15 for the same phones I ended up with).

A related note.  Telecom enthusiasts would enjoy the Home Automation
Labs catalog (800-HOMELAB) which contains everything from panasonic
home PBX's (308, 616, 1232), call screeners/diverters/forwarders, and
telemarketing call placers to self-contained and PC-based systems for
home control using X-10 and IR signals.  I just received my first
catalog which has 52 pages filled with these and more.  Of course, I
have no relationship with the company (I haven't even ordered anything
yet) but am happy to recommend the catalog for fun reading and perhaps
useful supplies.


Joe Konstan     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Contemporary Remote Controls
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 19:47:14 GMT


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

> In the nineties, here in Holland the kids have found a fun new game
> called zapping.  A brief example: Find someone on holiday that forgot
> to unplug their set, (or tape over the sensor) turn it on to MTV crank
> the volume all the way up and leave!  This is very funny when it
> happens to someone's high powered stereo, a prized find.  (Using a
> computer, a high power diode laser driver and a database of all
> remotes could be alot of fun when aimed at large apartment complexes.)

Actually, that wasn't what I had in mind, but I _am_ interested in
remote control protocols; is there a standard, or a set of standards?
Can somebody point me in the right direction?

Incidental question: Do any of the setups make allowances for more
than one device in range (e.g. a stack of TVs) such that they can be
controlled individually?

(As people occasionally remark, the Telecom massmind knows *everything*.
Sometimes it's classified, somethimes it's worth your job, but ...)

Thanks!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Switched 56 (700) From Europe?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 22:49:16 GMT


With ISDN becoming fairly common in Europe and Accunet Switched 56
service from AT&T available in the United States, I wonder if anyone
has solved an interworking problem.  Our Switched 56 numbers are
assigned using SAC 700 (i.e., 700 456 9999).  They can dial European
(and Asian, to be fair) ISDN numbers.  But SAC 700 is defined as
"carrier specific" and thus AT&T, MCI, and others can theoretically
assign the same 700 numbers to different customers.

So how can European ISDN users return calls to AT&T Switched 56 or
ISDN customers?  Since AT&T doesn't (yet) have "real" E.164 numbers
(Bellcore has been reserving them for local exchange use), I don't see
how non-US telcos can route to SAC 700.

My AT&T rep didn't realize that 700 was carrier-specific, and he
thinks it'll just work like any other number.  I'm skeptical.  Any
ideas?


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.


[Moderator's Note: Can't they ask the originating carrier to route via
AT&T into the USA?  What about using USA Direct?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Raymond Leung)
Subject: What are "NorTel" and "Centrex"?
Organization: University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 03:29:52 GMT


Can anyone enlighten me on what "NorTel DMS intelligent network
switches" and "Centrex services" are?  I came across that in a
description of a software package.  Pointers to any reference are
welcome.


Thanks,

Raymond Leung
VLSI and System Technology Laboratory,
School of Computer Science and Engineering,
The University of New South Wales,
Sydney, AUSTRALIA.


[Moderator's Note: 'NorTel' is most likely Northern Telecom, a
prominent manufacturer of telco stuff in the USA. 'Centrex' literally
means 'central office exchange' (as opposed to a <P>rivate <B>ranch
e<X>change) as a way of handling intra-subscriber traffic in a
company. Basically, everything the on-premises physical PBX does is
done instead in the CO in a special configuration of the switch.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shaun Case)
Subject: Jane Barbie
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 17:39:37 PDT


In article 24917 of comp.dcom.telecom Steve Forrette, [e-mail],
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> <MPA15AB![e-mail].
> unisys.com> writes:

>> It was all in Jane Barbie's voice (courtesy of Aspen), the woman who
>> did most of the intercepts.

> Several years ago, before Aspen/Octel was popular, I had heard "the
> woman behind the telco voice" referred to as Ramona.  Note that the
> voice that Octel uses (at least until recently, apparently "Jane"
> retired) is the same as was used for many years by The Phone Company.
> Perhaps Octel thought a simple pseudonym would be better for marketing
> and training purposes (in their user training, they often refer to the
> voicemail system as Jane, as in "When Jane asks you for your password,
> punch it in followed by #").

> Does anyone know if this voice was originally called Ramona by TPC,
> and if Jane (or both) is a pseudonym?

I passed this message on to an employee who has been here several
years, and received the following information:

   Jane Barbie is the real name of the woman who did the American
English Aspen prompts.  There's a signed B&W photo of her up in our
voice lab, which I just viewed scant moments ago.  Jane also did voice
work for Pac Bell, specifically directory assistance (411) and
time-of-day (767xxxx).  Yah, she's the Time Lady.  If we had a scanner
handy, I'd post a GIF, but ... alas.

  Other voice specialists do other languages and accents.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce W. Mohler)
Subject: Any News of CWA and AT&T?
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 19:31:04 PDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Pacific*Bell, San Diego, CA


Patrick,

I've been following the various articles on the negotiations between
the CWA and AT&T (since I work for one of the RHC's and the outcome of
AT&T's negotiations affects us).  However, the thread has kind of
dried up (after a surge about the "conference call" ...)  Any news
upcoming from your perspective?


Bruce W. Mohler                      | voice: 619-586-2218
System Administrator / COSMOS/March  | email: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I haven't heard a thing recently. I guess they are
still negotiating (?). Comments from any insiders?     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #496
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12217;
          19 Jun 92 3:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16958
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:10:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24002
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:10:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 02:10:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #497

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jun 92 02:10:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 497

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Tapped Phone (Rop Gonggrijp)
    Surprisingly Good Service (Bill McCormick)
    Managing Telecom With SNMP (Riaan de Jager)
    Trouble Shooting Line Noise (Stuart Lynne)
    United Telephone/Sprint (Mike Wells)
    Looking For CSU Switchable Between 38.4 and 56kb. (Jesse W. Asher)
    FDDI Information Search (Richard B. August)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Tapped Phone
From: [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 15:49:18 WET/D
Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine


I had a STRANGE experience with one of the Hack-Tic phones this week.

It all started on Friday, June 12th when the modem hooked up to the
Waffle station that is posting this message (and all the other traffic
from and to the hacktic.nl domain) did not work anymore. I started up
LanAssist to control the Waffle station and initiated a poll to our
Internet host 'sun4nl'. The Waffle station is in our 'server closet'.
It's an unattended and diskless 286 with no keyboard or monitor hooked
up.

The modem picked up the line and a high-pitched tone came from the
modem speaker.

So the modem is broken I thought. I started up Telix and 'talked' to
the modem directly. Same high-pitched tone. I reset the modem. Same
tone.  This modem is fairly new, and although it had functioned
properly most of the time, we were not really happy with it because
the V42bis mode wasn't totally 'hang-proof'. So we concluded: the
modem is broken.

The next day Felipe and Paul came over and tried to fix the problem.
Felipe and Paul are the Hack-Tic network trouble-shooting team. They
brought two other high-speed modems to confirm that the modem was
broken. They hooked up number one and tested it. Same high-pitched
tone.

After a few very puzzled looks we had to make a wild assumption: It
wasn't our flaky equipment that was at fault; it could be the
well-oiled machinery of The Phone Company that was messed up.

Bill, our chief telephone engineer, well known to all of you for his
'sometimes-a-little-too-knowledgeble' posts quickly hooked up a
telephone (that had not been attached to that line before) and picked
it up. Same high-pitched tone. The dial-tone was audible in the
background, but overpowered by the tone. The dialtone had been there
all the time but the quality of the average modem speaker leaves
something to be desired.

When he hooked up our New York Telephone test-set he noticed that the
high-pitched tone was even there when the phone was on the hook. Bill
used the Demon-Dialer (our homebrew high-precision tone-generator) and
found out that the tone was EXACTLY 3000 Hz, so it had to be crystal
generated. This ruled out any spurious oscillations.

As a last check we went to the point where all the wires come into our
flat. We unscrewed the wires leading in and clipped the test-set onto
the wires leading out. Same high-pitched tone. That Saturday night the
error was reported to the PTT and that was it. So we thought.

On Sunday the problem was still there (the PTT only fixes things in
the weekend if you are a major customer that is planning on buying one
of their PBXs). Bill checked to see that the tone was still there by
picking up the test set that was still plugged in. Then I picked up
our voice-line to make an outgoing call to Felipe.

Bill's face went through several emotions within a few seconds.
Finally he said 'Hmmm ... ehrr .... pfah ...'. When I looked at him
rather puzzled he added: 'hgggggnaaaah ...'.

I told Felipe to hold on. Bill started explaining that he heard my
voice on the other line, but that it sounded scrambled. I asked Nils
(who was also here, it's usually rather busy here) to talk to Felipe
for a while and took the test-set from Bill.

Yep, it was there all right. Scrambled voices.

   -------------------------------------------------------------
   Short Intermezzo About Voice Scrambling

   One of the easiest ways to scramble someone's voice is to
   invert the speech. It works as follows: you take a tone and
   subtract the audio from it. In more technical terms: You
   single-sideband modulate the audio onto the tone.

   Dutch police uses this technique extensively for their medium
   security traffic. Every real scanner-freak has a retrofit in
   his scanner to undo this. It does keep the absolute lamers
   from listening in I guess.

   Speech inversion may be a quite simple process that does not
   involve many parts, but it is by no means something that
   happens at random. (Or at least not in a voice-frequency
   environment)
   -------------------------------------------------------------

Now there is a lot of thing that can go wrong in a phone system that
cause a tone. Causing a frequency inversion of the audio on one line
to another line is quite something else. Especially if you know that
both lines are hooked up to different COs. The data line is hooked up
to a fully digital Ericcson AXE switch, the voice line goes to a PRX
(Processor Reed Exchange), which compares to a 1A/ESS in US terms.

We spent the rest of that sunday looking for alternatives for what
seemed to be the only possible conclusion: someone had hooked up
something to our line that did not belong there. Even more so: they
had messed up badly.

I decided that the time had come for some social engineering. I had
barely used my engineering skills since I had more or less given up on
my active hack/phreak career and started publishing a hacker-magazine.

This Monday (June 15th) I called the main access number of the PTT
Amsterdam office and asked for the number of the Diemen
'hoofdverdeler', where my lines come in. The 'hoofdverdeler' is where
all the lines for an entire area come in. They are split up to the
offices serving that area from there.

The phone at extension 2018 ([phone] to be precise) was
answered by Fred. I explained that I was a service mechanic (I only
used my first name, like they all do) at a customer's house and that
there seemed to be a strange tone on the line. I was not the first to
tell him of the problem. In fact, he had allready received a call from
another service mechanic trying to fix the problem. He said that the
line was rewired using colorcode-2, a code, he explained, that they
don't normally use in that office. The in- and outgoing point for my
data-line did connect according to his beep-device, but they were
different wires.

I asked him to follow the wires, and he did. He came back to the phone
to tell me that my line had been hooked up to a small rack that he had
never seen before. He looked further and concluded that it was the
rack for internal lines to that building. When I asked him to clip my
line loose from that rack he said that he could not do that. Because
if it was not his color code, his instructions were not to mess with
it. He said that this was the first time he saw so many of 'us from
outside works' working on something. Knowing I could not convince him,
and having all the information I wanted, I said goodbye and hung up.

I thought about this for a while and decided to call Fred back and
play it open with him. I told him that I was the subscriber, and not a
technician. I told him what I thought the device was. He did not
dispute my theory, but did not confirm it either. We chatted for quite
a while.  He wanted to know where my telephone knowledge came from,
and I explained about Hack-Tic, phreaking, international signalling
systems and so forth. When I asked him if he had seen lines with
code-2 before he hasitated for about five seconds and said: 'Well,
your line is being fixed. I'd say just wait and see'. I knew I was
asking a question that he was not allowed to answer. We hung up.

By this time our mailbox had been emptied, and it revealed a card from
a service mechanic that had apparently tried to visit us early that
moring (all morning is early to hackers). So I called the office and
made an appointment for the morning of the next day, knowing that the
problem would probably be gone by then.

For the next few hours I heard people testing on the modem line
(little ticks). But as evening came, the beep was still there.

So early this morning, a man from the PTT arrived. He looked at the
problem and was quite puzzled by it. He then said that they could not
locate the problem, but that he believed that it was located between
the office and me. In a sense this was true, because the 'hoofdverdeler'
is indeed between the office and me. He decided to work around the
problem.  He whipped out a cell-phone and called his buddies at the
other end.  Together they put my line on a completely different wire
leading from the CO to here. No more high-pitched tone.

As I write this on Thursday afternoon, it all still needs a little
time to sink in. It seems that the only conclusion is that somebody
wanted to tap my lines, and hooked up the two lines that they wanted
tapped to the in- and output of the tapping device instead of using
two inputs. So the audio that was supposed to be fed to them
(scrambled so that anybody just testing the wire could not hear what
was going on) came back on my second line. The 3000 Hz tone was used
to indicate that the line was not currently in use. As soon as I
picked up, the tone would be replaced by a scrambled signal using the
3000 Hz as it's offset.

So if this was a real attempt to tap us, they would have the two lines
used to transport our audio hooked up to the in- and output of the
second circuit. They would have tapped themselves.

If you publish a hacker magazine, the notion that at least some of
your phones are tapped some of time is not that far-fetched. Why do it
so obvious? This could be an illegal tap. It could be one done by and
for the PTT itself (they are the main subject of our publication after
all).  It could be ...

Why guess. I'm not paranoid, and I don't want to be. If they tap my
lines that is fine. Everything we say over the phone is considered
public anyway. If they pay me, I'll transcribe all the important calls
myself. Our network, used to spread information to and from the
computer underground was down for two days. Now THAT PISSES ME OFF!


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) from Amsterdam

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Surprisingly Good Service
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 07:07:02 GMT


I've been reading this newsgroup for a while and keep hearing the
horror stories about TPC.  This, combined with my previous experience
with Southern Bell in both Georgia and Florida, makes my expectations
somewhat low.

I expected the worst when I called customer service to have a new line
put in my house -- the third.  I was thinking, here we go.  They'll
tell me there's an outrageous charge to pull a new cable or there
aren't any more pairs, or some other exciting story-of-the-day.

Imagine my surprise when they say, "No problem.  In fact, it's great
you called today.  We're having a *special* on additional lines.  It's
$12 off installation charges for a total of $26."

Two surprises here.  One, that TPC is having a sale on tariffed
services.  Two, that it's cheap.

Well, I said to myself, I guess I'll have to wait a couple weeks to
get my new line.  Nope.  Two days.  My phone number was available on
the spot.

Oops, I had forgotten.  This line is for the Seanews BBS.  I've heard
horror stories of the Oregon lawsuit concerning business rates for
Usenet machines.  So I brought it up.  Not only the the sale rep
understand what I was talking about, he quoted Washington's US West
official policy that for-free hobby BBS's are absolutely residential
customers.

Just call me pleasantly surprised with US West.


Bill    SEANEWS    [] Seattle News + Mail []     [phone]
caladan!seanews![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Riaan de Jager)
Subject: Managing Telecom With SNMP
Date: 17 Jun 92 07:52:51 GMT
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)


I'm posting this article for someone else.

Does anyone know if SNMP is being used for management of telephone
networks?  I noticed someone posting an article about SNMP for PBX's.
What is the status of work being done in this field?

Any replies can be mailed to me or to [e-mail].

Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Trouble Shooting Line Noise
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 08:05:14 GMT


Looking for suggestions here.

Vanbc hooks into the Internet with a v32bis/v42bis PPP link. Our
provider's Netblazer dials us up if the line is down and there are
packets for us (which means that the mean time between the line drop
and dial is about 30 seconds).

Periodically we experience what looks like a noisy line. Specifically
within the first few seconds of the connection the ARQ light on our
USR Robotics starts to flash slowly. The maximum throughput drops from
the normal 1500-2000 cps max to about 200-400cps max.

This happens perhaps one in five times that we connect. The noise is
apparent immediately and does not stop until the line is dropped. Once
the line is connected and we do not see the problem we never see it
(well at least I have never seen it start on the line once it has been
connected successfully for a while, only immediately after
connecting).

Given that four out of five times that we connect we get no errors is
it safe to say that the local loops at each end are probably clean and
that we are hitting something between CO's (we're not on the same CO)
or in one of the CO's?

Assuming that it is a CO problem how do I get the phone company
(BCTel) to work on it? Their first response was to try testing both
ends.

The modems at each end are USR v32bis/v42bis.


Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]> ......... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ..... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .... ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .....ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 00:29:29 -0400
From: Mike Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: United Telephone/Sprint


My parents' local carrier is United Telephone, Florida (813).  They
recently selected MCI as their long-distance carrier.  They now
receive lots of letters from United Telephone Long Distance telling
them why they should switch from MCI to United Telephone Long
Distance.  Since UT is owned by Sprint, I'm assuming that UTLD is just
another name from Sprint LD service.

UTLD claims one of its advantages over MCI is that UTLD charges can be
placed on the same bill as UT local charges. (AT&T charges can also be
placed on the UT bill).  Isn't this unfair?  Doesn't this action give
UTLD an unfair advantage over MCI because UT does not directly bill
MCI calls?

Sprint's purchases of small telephone companies (Centel, United
Telephone) is an interesting contrast to the forced breakup of AT&T.

Anyone care to comment on this issue?


Mike Wells    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Subject: Looking For CSU Switchable Between 38.4 and 56kb.
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jesse W. Asher)
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 14:22:01 GMT


I'm looking for a CSU that is switchable between 38.4 and 56kb.  I
want to run each end as async and my hardware will not currently
support 56kb -- it will only support a max of 38.4.  But I expect to
be able to do 56 in the future.  Can anyone recommend a CSU that will
run at 38.4 and can be switched to 56 at a later date?  Thanks for the
assistance.


     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: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 23:24:16 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard B. August)
Subject: FDDI Information Search


Helo Netlandians,

We are looking at FDDI to add to an existing application.  Does anyone
know where we can get information pertaining to:

1) Can we still use our ETHERNET protocols (is FDDI "just" a faster COMM
medium).

2) Where are there specs on FDDI on-line on the net?


Thanks in advance.

Richard B. August    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #497
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11100;
          20 Jun 92 18:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07505
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Jun 1992 16:39:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07611
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Jun 1992 16:39:01 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 16:39:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #498

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jun 92 16:39:00 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 498

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Competitive LD in Canada (J. Brad Hicks)
    Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed (Michael G. Katzmann)
    Re: Influencing PUCs (Corinna Polk)
    Re: Question on ISDN Equipment (Michael Klein)
    Re: Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs) (John Higdon)
    Re: What Causes Lack of Dial Tones? (Martin McCormick)
    Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Cellular One - Boston / Southwestern Bell Info Wanted (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Wanted: DID Fax Modem (Direct Inward Dial) (Phil Koenig)
    Re: Proposed FBI Legislation (Scott Colbath)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: Sat Jun 20 12:10:56 -0400 1992
Subj: Re: Competitive LD in Canada


[e-mail] (Dan Mongrain) asked what do [Canadian]
residential customers have to look forward to, now that the CRTC has
legalized IEC competition.

Well, Dan, hopefully they'll have learned from their experience in
setting up competitive long distance service.  BUT ... consider a few
real-world constraints.  Setting up an accurate, efficient, high
up-time, low-cost, accurately billing long distance service with good
customer representatives is a time consuming affair.  But the
companies that are going to be trying to do this ALSO know that
whoever gets the customers first will have a good shot at their
loyalty, if through nothing else than inertia.  So you have two
variables pulling on them: to maximize reliability (and long-term
profit) they want to take as much time as it takes to do it right; to
maximize opportunity (and short-term profit) they want to get
something out the door right this second.

Each company will pick a point somewhere on that continuum and aim for
it (with varying degrees of accuracy; these ARE hierarchies, and
Celine's Law and the Peter Principle still apply).  And it's not a
given the last and most expensive service out the door will be the
best, since money can end up getting spent on things other than
providing better network service.  But given the pressures to be among
the first on the market, expect to go through major trials and
tribulations at first.

[A word of explanation: The Peter Principle, by Lawrence J. Peter, is
that in a hierarchy people are promoted to their level of
incompetence.  In other words, as long as you're competent, you are
eligible for promotion ... once you're no longer competent, they're
stuck with you there or they have to admit they made a mistake
promoting you.  Celine's Law, by Robert A. Wilson, holds that honest
communication is only possible between equals.  At each level of a
hierarchy, and proportional to the extent that threat and reward are
used as management tools, subordinates withhold information such as
details of failure from their superiors, and superiors withhold
information that would decrease loyalty or motivation from their
subordinates.  To combine the two: the larger and older a hierarchy,
the less likely it is to be able to accurately and efficiently achieve
its goals ... and the LD companies are definitely large, and now old,
hierarchies.]


J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc![e-mail]
X.400:    c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does
not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.

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

From: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Subject: Re: Help in TV Remote Control History Needed
Date: 20 Jun 92 16:52:36 GMT
Reply-To: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


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

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

>> In the fifties came the ultrasound devices mentioned first ...

>> In the seventies infrared LEDS (IRED) of very high power
>> output came out in mass production and became the obvious choice since
>> there is allways a clear line of sight between the viewer and the TV!

A friend of mine was, in the seventies, chief engineer at at the HMV
television plant in Sydney (owned by the english co. EMI).  He told me
a story of his encounter with the Japanese on this subject:

The TV receivers designed and built in Australia used infrared remote
controls but all the Japanese sets used ultrasonic.  HMV were at the
time getting a japanese company to produce portable sets to be re-sold
in Australia. While in Japan arranging this deal he was told, by the
Japanese engineers, that infrared could not be made to work as well as
ultrasonic. He argued that they had had good experinces with infrared
and sketched out a circuit.  While returning from dinner he observed
the lights in the laboratory still blazing, well into the night.  The
next morning he was greeted by an excited engineer, displaying with
glee, a set on the far side of the room being operated by the infrared
remote.  Sets from that manufacturer from that time on used infrared
and soon after all the Japanese sets used infrared.


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Corinna Polk)
Subject: Re: Influencing PUCs
Date: 20 Jun 1992 12:34:18 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


> In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
> com> writes:

>> I have been following this out of the corner of my eye. What is this
>> "third line cost" business? Why does it cost more to put in line three
>> than line one or two?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
writes:

> Because the two-pair cable that carries lines one and two is installed
> at the time the house is built.
> Everybody is entitled to whatever they want.  They are NOT entitled to
> expect the other subscribers to pay for it, if their usage exceeds the
> norm.
> If you PAY for a third line (ie. pay what it costs to get one put in)
> you can HAVE one.

So then, what does the normal $35-$50 line installation fee cover? My
impression was that paying that standard installation fee gave me a
phone line, regardless of the situation. If I had the lines already
running into the house, then it was a simple install that required a
data entry (aka "Customer Service") person to type on a terminal. If
it required a new drop then someone was to do that. But either way,
the price was the same, the former installs covering the cost of the
latters. Isn't this the way PacBell works?  GTE seems to have this
"flexible" pricing scheme where if there happens to be a line coming
to the premise, then it's only $50 or so to install. But if they have
to run another one, then it's an additional $85 or so. Of course,
you're told that they won't know if there's a line until they get
there (seems suspicious to me) and from what I've heard, people are
charged for the new drops most of the time.

Personal experience with GTE: We had three lines installed in our
apartment, and dropped one when a roommate moved out. The new roommate
wanted a new phone, and was told that there wasn't a third line
available, but that they could "check for sure when the installer got
there". Of course, she was charged for a new drop (the $85 charge)
which was removed after days of calls to "supervisors".  I'd
personally like to see some numbers regarding how often GTE customers
are charged for this "install" procedure, percentages of second and
third line installs that are forced to pay this charge.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 15:03:34 EDT
From: blsouth![e-mail] (Michael Klein)
Subject: Re: Question on ISDN Equipment


In Volume 12 : Issue 473, [e-mail] (TOM O) writes:

> Our office is currently shopping around for ISDN handsets.  We have
> been told the only companies which manufacture ISDN sets which will
> work with a 5ESS are AT&T and Fujitsu.  Can anyone confirm/dispute
> this?

We have DMS- and 5ESS- capable ISDN sets here, manufactured by Telrad,
an Israeli company.

    Telrad Telecommunications, Inc.
    135 Crossways Park Drive
    Woodbury, New York 11797
    516-921-8300
    800-645-1350


Michael Klein, BellSouth Telecommunications, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 12:32 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Paying For Installation (was Influencing PUCs)


[e-mail] (Scott Colbath) writes:

> I believe the USWEST engineer I have been working with on my third
> line problem called it a nuisance charge, and it is written in the
> tariff.

To quote Alice, "This gets curiouser and curiouser." So installing
additional lines for residences is now a "nuisance"? Talk about a
telco with an attitude!

> He also told me that 90% of all installations where they dig
> up the street, run a new cable, etc end up being cancelled by the
> customers after 90 days, thus making the whole thing a waste of time
> and money.

So my question to the powers that be at USWest would concern lack of
planning. Having to tear up the street to install more capacity would
seem to be something that we might expect of GTE (oops, sorry) but
hardly of a "Bell" company. It is up to the telco, not the customers,
to anticipate and plan for future demand.

> Most of the lines are for the teenage kids (this happens to
> be the reason I am getting one) who start with the long distance
> calls, 1-900 numbers and the like. The parents get upset when they see
> the big phone bill and say "No more phone of your own!" to junior.

I remember on this forum when we were going 'round and 'round about
the "strain" modem users put on the network. Most of it was total BS,
but one of the points was that the additional lines required by modem
users depleted the reserve plant capacity of telco. At least modem
users a) make legitimate calls to other modem users (not 900 number
calls that they try to wiggle out of) and; b) leave the line in for
some reasonable amount of time.

But this begs another question. If residential service is so
subsidized, why is there an implication that leaving the line in for a
reasonable period amortizes it? If the phone is yanked out weeks after
it is installed, would telco not just be cutting its "losses"?

One way or the other, PLEASE!


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

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

Subject: Re: What Causes Lack of Dial Tones?
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 16:20:27 -0500
From: [e-mail]


> One important clue for the phone company is whether there is battery
> on the line or not. There may not be dialtone, but if there is voltage
> on the line, that helps place the trouble.

It is also good to use a volt meter on the line.  If there is battery
but no dialtone, there may be a load of some kind on the line such as
a phone off hook or water in the cable.  With all phones on hook,
there should be no DC load on your line.  The voltage is usually 48 to
50 volts DC.  If a telephone is off the hook, the voltage is around
eight to ten volts.

We have an electronic phone which has a nasty habit of answering calls
from Heaven.  During severe thunderstorms, lightening spikes on the
line derange the circuitry of the phone and make it go off-hook.
Unless you are nearby and hear the trouble beeper which sounds to let
you know that there is a phone off hook, it will stay like that.  I,
once, got a call on ham radio from somebody who said that they had
been trying to call us for three days. Lifting any of our telephones
brought silence, but there was DC.  I suspected the electronic phone
and had my wife lift it while I listened on another telephone.  Sure
enough, I heard her footsteps as she walked up to the phone and picked
it up.  When she hung it back up, the CPU reset itself and everything
was OK.

     By the way, I used to have a 1200 baud modem until last November
when one of those Heavenly calls came in during the night.  The
electronic phone answered the call but the modem decided to let the
smoke out of its telephone interface and make way for a V.32 modem.
Needless to say, I don't leave the V.32 modem in a position to take
any Heavenly hints, or is that hits?


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the Three Tones
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 22:58:02 GMT


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

> Does anyone know if this voice was originally called Ramona by TPC,
> and if Jane (or both) is a pseudonym?

Somewhere around '72 or so, {Esquire Magazine} ran an article about
Jane.  She is, or at least was, a very real person, employed by the
Audichron company, which made the announcement machines for TPC.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Ground Plane Cell Antenna
Date: 17 Jun 92 02:29:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


> [Moderator's Note: You'd think if two cells can hear you well, then
> one or the other can still hear you *better* and would be selected. I
> am not sure why the original author feels its a problem.   PAT]

The problem, PAT, is what makes cellular different from IMTS is that
by using minimum power, many calls can take place accross a
metropolitan area on the SAME frequency.  By using excessive gain, or
by getting some altitude (i.e. calling from an airplane) you tie up
one of the frequencies in lots of cells, decreasing the capacity of
the system.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Natalie)
Subject: Re: Cellular One - Boston / Southwestern Bell Information Wanted
Date: 20 Jun 92 02:40:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


All I know is that licensing Cellular One's name was the best thing
they ever did.  I'm not sure I would have ever ordered service from a
company called "Yankee CellTel."

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Koenig)
Subject: Re: Wanted: DID Fax Modem (Direct Inward Dial)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 05:53:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


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

> I am looking for an external (ie not a PC card) fax modem that will
> receive DID (Direct Inward Dial) signals from the TelCo or PBX.

>      OK but here is why I want a fax modem that does DID:

> I will reserve a block of 100 numbers (e.g. 714-555-34nn) with the
> phone company and tell them to route calls for those numbers to any
> one of five circuits into my facility. I put five DID fax modems on
> the five circuits. When an incoming fax is received, the modem not
> only captures it, but knows which of 100 numbers it was directed to. I
> can give a different fax number to each of 100 individuals or groups
> and still only use 5 phone lines and modems to receive.  My fax
> software can direct the fax to the correct recipient.

Andy, there are definitely solutions that do this.  My company
actually sold one at one time, but the software turned out to be
slightly problematic.  They are network-based solutions.  I believe
they used a fax card from "Brooktrout", which is apparently a fairly
commonly used piece of hardware for some of the higher-end packages.
It supports DID, which is real nice for system administrators to be
able to route faxes to the appropriate person, as you envisioned
above.


Phil Koenig       [e-mail]


MY APOLOGIES ... in re-reading your post, you mentioned that you
needed an EXTERNAL unit.  These cards I was referring to were
obviously internal.

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Colbath)
Subject: Re: Proposed FBI Legislation
Date: 20 Jun 92 12:33:18 GMT


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

Stuff deleted ....

>      "We're scratching our heads as to why new legislation is needed,"
> said Jeff Ward, legislative counsel for Nynex Corp.  "Digital
> telephony can be intercepted at the switch now."  He said the FBI
> proposal could force telephone companies to withdraw those services
> such as call forwarding that frustrate FBI wiretappers.

Can someone explain how wiretaps are done and how call fowarding
affects this?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #498
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25581;
          21 Jun 92 20:10 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06183
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Jun 1992 11:29:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03885
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Jun 1992 11:29:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 11:29:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #499

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jun 92 11:29:02 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 499

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Bill Campbell)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Edward Floden)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (John Higdon)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad_s_ (David Tamkin)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Jeff Woolsey)
    Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad (Clive Feather)
    Sprint Foncard and 10333 (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Proposed FBI Legislation (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Proposed FBI Legislation (Joseph Truitt)
    Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS (Jim Moody)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 16:10:20 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(mark.d.wuest) writes:

> I am surprised that no one has commented on the arrogance of requiring
> others to speak your language.  When you speak or write, it is your
> responsibility to make yourself understood.  This attitude of looking
> down on others because their language skills are different is somewhat
> like the American-in-Paris scenario where the guy from the U.S. gets
> mad because the Parisiens don't understand him.

I find this highly amusing in a newsgroup rife with jargon :-).  The
following is an excerpt from another post in comp.dcom.telcom today.
Is this English?

 From comp.dcom.telecom Sat Jun 20 09:03:26 1992

> It's been mentioned that Caller-ID is passed as part of the SS7.
> Since PBXs use trunks and some signalling that's not SS7, they can not
   .....^^^............................................^^^

> If the PBX is using traditional inband (DTMF) signaling, and the
   .....^^^..............................^^^^
> line's number".  If the trunk is DID/DOD, the default number will
    ...............................^^^^^^^
> likely be one of the DID numbers, but it need not be.

> If the PBX is using ISDN PRI signaling, it can send a calling party
    .....^^^..........^^^^ ^^^
> number to the network.  This may be, for example, the calling line's
> dialable DID number.

> An additional ISDN supplementary service defined in CCITT and ANSI
     ...........^^^^..................................^^^^^
> Committee T1 exists called "User to User Signaling".  This allows the
> caller to include up to 128 octets of information in an ISDN SETUP
> message.  With the appropriate CPE capabilities, this would, for
          .......................^^^

> In addition, deployment is currently very limited.  AT&T offers UUS to
                    ..............................................^^^

> direct connect PRI).  So far as I know, no LECs offer UUS services.
  ...........................................^^^^
> Bellcore published a TR on UUS several years ago, and I believe is
  .....................^^


INTERNET:  [e-mail]   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 09:41:08 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Edward Floden)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Organization: The Museum of Unnatural History -- Sociopathology Department


upchrch![e-mail] (Joel Upchurch) writes:

> While quiescent is a perfectly good word, I hardly ever see it used
> outside a data processing context.

I can recall at least one use: on the wrapper of a PopSicle(R), which
reads "a quiescently frozen treat".


[e-mail]   [+] TechRen User Group

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 92 02:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad


[e-mail] (mark.d.wuest) writes:

> I am surprised that no one has commented on the arrogance of requiring
> others to speak your language.  When you speak or write, it is your
> responsibility to make yourself understood.  This attitude of looking
> down on others because their language skills are different is somewhat
> like the American-in-Paris scenario where the guy from the U.S. gets
> mad because the Parisiens don't understand him.

So tell me something. Just how far is one expected to "dumb down" his
language when he is barely a high-school graduate explaining the inner
workings of a switch to some corporate executives and MIS-types with
BA and MA degrees? How dare you become indignant because certain
people in this land have decided for themselves that basic language
skills are important? You, sir, are part of the problem.

This is not Paris. If I use words that you do not understand, it is
your reponsibility to politely ask for clarification or to look the
words up. It is not my responsibility to guess your level of
understanding and speak down to it, particularly if we are in the same
level of operation in the same business and are both citizens of the
country in which we happen to be standing.

If I, a person who graduated from high school with a GPA barely
meeting state requirements for graduation can have a working knowledge
of the American language, anyone with college degrees should certainly
be able to keep up. Apologists for people who refuse to master the
language are, IMHO, part of the cause for the communication crisis we
face in the United States.

When I was much younger, (and here is the link to Telecom, Pat!), it
was frequently remarked that one reason the US was so successful was
the fact that someone in one corner of the land could pick up the
telephone and understand and be understood by the person in another
corner. Since we all spoke a common language, we could handle the
business of business without wasting energy on getting thoughts passed
from one to another. How this is decaying today! Dialects are coming
into vogue. And worse, now that written forms of communication are
commonplace with faxed letters, e-mail, and the like, the lack of
communication skills is hamstringing us even more.

And no, when I travel abroad, I do not expect my hosts to speak
English. But the fact of the matter is that many in foreign lands have
a much better command of OUR language than a distressing number of
Americans (Canadians excluded). Should we not encourage better
language skills rather than condemn those who try to perfect them?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad_s_
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 15:50:24 CDT


In addition to t_e objectionably-terminated commercial for Clout,
Sprint has also just put out two television commercials for "The
Most."  In one, the last customer asked can't tell with whom she'll
rack up the most minutes of Sprint usage in the coming month, and
Bergen signs off, "The thing's perfect for her."  That's not so bad.

In the other, all the supposed interviewees answer that they'll call
their mothers the most.  Bergen signs off, "Doesn't anybody call their
[sic] father?"  Does Candice Bergen call her father?  Not with Sprint
she doesn't.

Sprint touts their spokesperson as Mortimer Snerd's dumber sister.

I first saw that commercial watching television with my mother.  She
and I can't reach our fathers via Sprint, and neither can the Esteemed
Moderator to whom I submit this article; they have plans tonight to
see Edgar Bergen perform.

(Let's overlook that none of the people insisted that they wouldn't
call their fathers at all nor that calls to their mothers would
exclude conversation with their fathers if their parents are both
alive and living together.)

Bob Hope tells us to give preference to that which was made in America
and Candice Bergen wonders why we don't phone our fathers.


David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
[e-mail]    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 10:23:56 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Woolsey)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad


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

> [Moderator's Note: In your example of "it's / its" it should be noted
> this is the one exception to the rule of an apostrophe separating the
> /s/ from the rest of the word in the case of the word being
> possessive, (or is it in the case of the second word /is/ being a
> contraction?)  We do not use the apostrophe in the one instance
> because of confusion with the other. And in cases of possessive words
> ending in /s/, we simply drop the logical second /s/ which would

Please do not think of "its" as an exception -- it's not.  No possessive
pronoun carries an apostrophe:

I    my books    The books are mine.
he    his books    The books are his.
she    her books    The books are hers.
it    its books    The books are its. (rare)
we    our books    The books are ours.
you    your books    The books are yours.
they    their books    The books are theirs.

Class dismissed.


Jeff Woolsey            800 950 5554    [e-mail]
Microtec Research, Inc.         [phone]    [e-mail]
Nothing like a three-address mailer....        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Current Stupid Ad
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 16:37:05 BST


In 12.493.6 Pat says:

(See earlier message this issue for comment.)

Sorry, Pat, but you are totally wrong here. There is no such "rule of
an apostrophe separating the /s/ from the rest of the word in the case
of the word being possessive".

All the English pronouns are single words, and always have been.
These include:

    [nominative]  I    thou  he  she  it  we   you   they   who
    [accusative]  me   thee  him her  it  us   you   them   whom
    [possessive]  my   thy   his her  its ours yours their  whose
                  mine thine his hers its ours yours theirs whose

These words *never* have an apostrophe in them.

When two words are combined into one, or one is shortened, apostrophes
indicate the omission of letters. Hence:

    it is      -> it's
    who is     -> who's
    cannot     -> can't
    forecastle -> fo'c's'le

In Middle English, the possessive of a *noun* (not a pronoun) was
formed by following the noun with the appropriate possessive pronoun:

    "Jack his bull broke through the fence"
    "The lambs their wool is stored in the farmer his barn"

As Middle English evolved into Modern English, the pronoun tended to
contract into the noun:

    "Jack's bull broke through the fence"
    "The lambs' wool is stored in the farmer's barn"

Note that the plural (lambs) has the apostrophe *after* the 's', as it
is the letters "their" that have been omitted.

The only exceptions to this are words whose plural does not end in the
letter 's' - these have an apostrophe-s added:

    children's

even though a strict application of the evolution would yield:

    children'

(actually, the strict evolution of the word is "childer'", as "children"
is a double plural:

    "your childer, and your childer's children"
)
This exception probably occured to keep the 's' present in all cases.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
Fax:   [phone] | United Kingdom

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Sprint Foncard and 10333
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 20:03:00 EDT


I received an interesting flyer from Sprint today. It would appear
that Sprint is now accepting Foncard calls via 10333 0 + (or
presubscribed 0+) in addition to their traditional 800 number. This
was my only complaint about their Foncard.

In addition, they are allowing free use of Foncard Easy Features for
the month of June:

Sprint Message Delivery - a recorded repeat dial message service
                          with several options. Invoke by
                          # (two seconds) #22  - Domestic
                          # (two seconds) #23  - International
                            (No Free International)

Sprint Quick Conference - Self established conference call. Invoke by
                          * (two seconds) 12 to dial third party
                          * (two seconds) 13 to connect third party
                          * (two seconds) 14 to disconnect third party

Sprint Info Line        - Recorded information. Invoke by
                          # (two seconds) #33 - Business related
                          # (two seconds) #36 - Entertainment


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Proposed FBI Legislation
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 21:26:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> - Intercepts must be made in real time, undetectable by the
> suspect and routed to a remote government monitoring site.

Riiiighhht.

And if I happen to be the person *running* the LAN, there's no way to
do this. Period. Because not only could I be logged on from a
different address (on a PC, just change the card!), but how are they
going to *find out* which address to monitor?

Ethernet *can't* identify packets by who they go to, just by hardware
address. So it's *inherently* impossible to do without monitoring
everyone.

Oh yeah, if I had any suspicions of something like this, I'd just log
in as Supervisor and create some extra accounts, and use one of
*them*.

Also, in many cases, it's childishly simple to get an account for
someone who doesn't exist. At one company I worked for, someone
requested an account "for a new co-worker". We granted the request and
didn't think anything of it until "John Tuttle" posted some
inflammatory comments in email. Then we discovered that there wasn't
any such person. Luckily, we had logs that had been *intended* to
usage tracking and troubleshooting that enabled us to track the user
down.


Leonard Erickson     [e-mail]
CIS: [70465,203]     [e-mail]
FIDO: 1:105/56     [e-mail] (The CIS
address is checked daily. The others infrequently)

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

Subject: Re: Proposed FBI Legislation
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 15:26:17 -0700
From: Joseph Truitt <[e-mail]>


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

> I know this has been beat to death already

> WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Federal Bureau of Investigation proposal to
> modernize federal wiretapping law would require all public and private
> networks to have a built-in capability for intercepting a criminal
> suspect's communications.

Since it doesn't appear to be dead enough yet, I'm gearing up to write
my own protest letter about this proposal.  Many thanks to all of you
who responded to my article about it last month.  Does anyone know if
it has progressed to the point of having a bill number attached?  Does
anyone know the exact names and addresses of the members of the
committee(s) currently reviewing it?  Perhaps one of you EFF
super-sleuths know (_very_ interesting and wonderful organization,
BTW, from what I've read so far -- I just found out about EFF about a
month ago).

Does anyone care to review/critique/sample my letter draft before I
send it?  I would like to make it effective and concise -- and when
I'm working from second [or further] hand information, I get concerned
about accidently propagating or referencing unconfirmed rumors -- so,
I would welcome your input.


Thanks,

Joseph ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Moody)
Subject: Re: FBI Raids Massachusetts BBS
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 21:59:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Well, I'm glad that they're doing something at last. When I was
working previously for an unnamed but very large software company, I
was put onto a pirate BBS that was being run a little more
clandestinely ... they demanded (a) that you give them a home number
to call back, one that was in the phone book, (b) an office number
that was in the phone book, and (c) that you yourself contribute by
uploading a commercial program of some sort to the BBS, presumably so
that they could plead entrapment if you turned out to be FBI.

This system, which I gained access to using the name and password of
my "source", a name and password that he volunteered so that I could
see how bad things were, had several hundred commercial programs in
five and seven file sets of zips.  The files ranged from the latest
WordPerfect to AutoCadd.  I was upset to see this.

First I called one or two of the companies whose software was there
(my own firm didn't want trouble and stated that the problem was not
large) ... no interest.  A sort of don't make waves attitude.

But then I called the FBI in San Jose. No interest ... zero. I was
told that it was too hard to prove any of that stuff and that the
vendors didn't prosecute.  I offered to show them my screen captures.
No interest.  So I tried the Association of Shareware Professionals,
twice, no interest.

In the end I gave up. I don't know why the FBI suddenly got some guts,
but maybe it was so obvious they couldn't avoid it.


Jim Moody    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #499
******************************
^A^A^A^A
^A^A^A^A
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23827;
          21 Jun 92 19:17 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09086
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Jun 1992 12:04:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09005
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Jun 1992 12:03:58 -0500
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 12:03:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #500

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jun 92 12:03:54 CDT    Volume 12 : Issue 500

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Antitrust Reform Act of 1992 (HR 5096) (B. J. Herbison)
    Panasonic KX-T9000 900 Mhz Cordless Phone Review (Dave Rand)
    Deaf Relay Service Telephone Number List (Paul Robinson)
    DTMF Pen Register Wanted (Bill Garfield)
    Initial BSE and CNS Availability Documents (John Palmer)
    Pac*Bell Posturing (John Higdon)
    Pacific Bell Car Theft Protection (Arun Baheti)
    Please Explain ADSL and HDSL (Christopher Ho)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 92 10:12:02 PDT
From: B.J. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antitrust Reform Act of 1992 (HR 5096)


Remember the 1-800-54-PRIVACY people?  In March I received two
identical letters from them in response to my phone call, and
yesterday I received another letter, partially reproduced below.

The letter was from the Consumer Federation of America.  The return
address on the envelope is 1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 604,
Washington, D.C.  20036 (probably just a mail-drop).  Their phone
number is 1-202-387-6121.  The postage on the envelope was provided
with a postage meter from Chicago, Ill.

Does anyone have any other information or opinions on the bill
discussed in the letter, the Antitrust Reform Act of 1992 (HR 5096)?


B.J.

  June 10, 1992
  >my address<
  Dear B.J. Herbison:

  A while ago, you received a letter from Cathie Block in response to your
  calling our 1-800-PRIVACY phone line.  We send that letter to you (and
  6,000 other callers) because you expressed an interest in contacting
  your U.S. Representative and Senators about important legislation that
  would keep the telecommunications industry competitive and prevent the
  telephone company from invading your privacy.

[Wasn't the phone number 1-800-54-PRIVA, not 1-800-PRIVACY?  Did they
say they were the Consumer Federation of America in the first letter?
I don't remember the name and the letter isn't handy.  B.J.]

  We need you to write Congress again.

  Within a week or two, the House Judiciary Committee will be voting on a
  new bill, the Antitrust Reform act of 1992 (HR 5096), otherwise known as
  the Brooks bill.  This bill, introduced by House Judiciary Committee
  Chairman Jack Brooks of Texas, would encourage new services, help
  protect your privacy and, most important of all, help stop your local
  Bell monopoly from exploiting you and other telephone ratepayers with
  inflated phone bills.

  In other words, passing this bill would help stop the phone company from
  ripping you off.

  Our organization, the Consumer Federation of America, estimates that the
  seven regional Bell telephone monopolies have overcharged customers some
  $30 billion over the past eight years.  What's more, the Bells are now
  asking ratepayers to finance an extravagant and unnecessary $400 billion
  of telephone network investment.

[Does anyone have any information on this $400 billion?  B.J.]

  We're not alone in supporting this important legislation.  Other
  supporters include  the National Association of State Utility Consumer
  Advocates, the American Association of Retired Persons, and more than
  1,400 other groups representing consumers, small businesses, and large
  businesses.

  The Brooks bill would establish a national telecommunications policy
  based upon the historically accepted practice of separating monopolies
  from competitive markets.  In the telephone industry, the Bell
  monopolies have been prohibited from entering several businesses in
  which they could exploit their monopoly position--publishing electronic
  information, manufacturing telephone equipment, and providing long
  distance service.  But the Bells have spent seven years and many
  millions of dollars on an intensive lobbying campaign to get these
  prohibitions lifted.

  In the past year alone, a U.S. District Judge reluctantly reversed the
  long-standing ban on the Bells entering the information services
  business.  In addition, the U.S. Senate has approved legislation
  allowing the Bells into the manufacturing of equipment.  Plus, the Bells
  are desperately trying to find ways to get into the long distance
  business.

  The only way to stop them is through Congressional action.

  The Brooks bill would provide for phased-in entry of the Bells into the
  electronic information, manufacturing, and long distance businesses in
  order to promote competition in those industries.  The bill would also
  protect phone users by establishing safeguards to prevent the use of
  telephone ratepayer proceeds from subsidizing competitive business
  ventures.  Finally, the bill would prevent the Bells from using their
  control of telephone lines to discriminate against competitors.

  Simply put, the Brooks bill is fair to everyone--consumers, other
  businesses, and the Bells.

[The rest of the letter requests the sending of a letter and mentions
points that can be included in the letter.  You can call
1-800-765-4247 to determine the name of your U.S.  Representative.
The also want you to call that number to tell them you sent a letter.]

    Sincerely,
    Gene Kimmelman
    Legislative Director

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 12:27:24 PDT
Subject: Panasonic KX-T9000 900 Mhz Cordless Phone Review


As promised, here is a brief review on the Panasonic KX-T9000 900 Mhz
cordless telephone.

The Panasonic KX-T9000 is another 900 Mhz unit, offering good range,
decreased interference from computers and other noise sources, and a
very compact package. The handset is somewhat reminiscent of the
original Star Trek communicator. A button on the side of the handset
causes the microphone assembly to pop up and out ... a bit tacky, in
my opinion. The KX-T9000 uses 30 channels in the 900-905 Mhz range
(sorry, exact frequencies are not available). Base to handset is about
1.5 Mhz lower in freqency than handset to base. Transmission method is
FM, standard modulated carrier -- it is not digital, despite
salescritter's claims.  A stock PRO-2006 scanner picks it up just
fine. Power level is not mentioned, but appears to be lower than the
Tropez unit (my freqency counter had a rough time locking in on the
KX-T9000). Dual batteries allow one to be charged in the base unit
while the other is in use.  The base unit is NOT supplied power from
the spare battery when power is not available. Price is high -- $448
vs $299 for the Tropez 900DX.

Range is not claimed in the manual, nor on the box. I found the range
to be significantly less than the 900 DX. Only a few hundred feet from
my house, the signal was beginning to flutter, and dropped to static
seconds (and feet) later. The range is much better than a 46/49 Mhz
unit, but not by much (perhaps a factor of 2). As you move out of
range, and audible alarm sounds if you have the unit active, or if you
try to use the unit out of range.  Various typical FM artifacts were
noticed, much like a hand-held cellular phone: momentary dropouts,
multipath, etc.  Again, this is only on the fringe - within a 'normal'
household area, all is quiet and the sound is excellent. In my
computer room, the phone was very usable, and no noise was present. At
all times, the sound quality was good, and ample volume was present on
receive as well as transmit.

The base unit comes with a pager, and intercom. No hands-free
operation is possible.

Overall, it is a good phone, but does not offer the extraordinary
range of the Tropez 900DX, nor the 'security' of fully digital
communications.  The price is also quite high, but should come down
over the next year or so.


Dave Rand
{pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92  18:43:27 EDT
Subject: Deaf Relay Service Telephone Number List


Because of the Americans With Disabilities Act, States are being
required to create Deaf Relay services.  Because some of the employees
at this agency are deaf, I decided to test it.

This is when I discovered that the individual had given me the number
of a Relay service that is only callable from that state. (No, it is
not on the list below, either).  So I called up the one for Maryland,
which happens to be operated by Sprint, and got them to send me their
information packet of all the states they handle.

Their packet for each state tends to be essentially the same,
generally a full color glossy 8x11 four page brochure except a paper
brochure for Texas and the single page from Maryland and S. Carolina.
In most states you are paying a surcharge on your phone bill for this
service.

Here is a summary.

The relay services allow a deaf person at a TTY to use an agent to
talk on the phone to a hearing person; they can also be used by a
hearing person who does not have access to a TDD to call someone who
does, or allows someone who has hearing or speech problems to use an
agent to assist them.

If you use the service to call someone in your local calling area,
there is no charge.  Otherwise there is a reduced charge due to the
extra time involved for call setup.

Calls may be made as Direct Dial, Collect, third party or calling
card.

Normally, the agent will announce it is a relay call and explain it to
the party receiving the call.  Special Options for placing the call
are:

  - Agent repeats call verbatim;
  - Agent does not announce it is a relay call;
  - Agent will use voice carry over (VCO) or hearing carry over (HCO)
    (I assume this is for someone who is mute but not deaf (VCO) or
    is deaf but not mute (HCO).

The Relay Services are available 24 hours every day, with no
restrictions on length or number of calls placed.  "This valuable
communications tool gives all individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing or speech disabled the opportunity to make personal and
business calls within the United States just like any other telephone
user."

It also mentions that for Directory Assistance you can use (or they
will transfer the call to) the national Operator Services for the Deaf
number, 1-800-855-1155.

The service may also be accessed by computer up to 2400 baud,
8-N-1-Full Duplex.  Use 8-N-1-Half Duplex for speeds of 300 baud and
below.

If there is no Relay service in your own state, you can use a relay
service in any other state that accepts out of state call transfers.
Note that "California Relay Service lets you make calls to and from
{anywhere} in the United States.  Callers making calls from outside
California will be billed an operator surcharge."  If you don't have a
relay number in your state, you might want to try one of the others
such as Maryland or Colorado before trying California since the ads
for those states {do not} state that there is a surcharge.  Maryland
and North Carolina indicate "Rates are available upon request."

Missouri and South Carolina say "lets you place calls to {anywhere} in
the United States."  Texas, New Hampshire, California, Colorado, North
Carolina, Nevada and Oregon say "place calls to and receive calls from
{anywhere} in the United States."  Maryland "lets you place and
recieve calls from {anywhere} in the U.S., as well as to Mexico,
Canada, Puerto Rico and The Caribbean.  In April, [not stated, but
probably means April 1992] MRS will provide international calling
capabilities to those countries traditionally accessible to the
telephone network."

Telephone Numbers for Sprint's Relays are:

State               TDD           Voice           Computer
California     1-800-735-2929  1-800-735-2922    1-800-735-2929
Colorado       1-800-659-2656  1-800-659-3656    1-800-659-2656
Missouri       1-800-735-2966  1-800-735-2466    1-800-735-2966 *
Maryland       1-800-735-2258  1-800-735-2258    1-800-735-2258
New Hampshire  1-800-735-2964  1-800-735-2964    1-800-735-2964
North Carolina 1-800-735-2962  1-800-735-8262    1-800-735-2962
Nevada         1-800-326-NVNV  1-800-326-NVVV    1-800-326-NVNV
Oregon         1-800-735-2900  1-800-735-2900    1-800-735-2900
South Carolina 1-800-735-2905  1-800-735-2905    1-800-735-2905 *
Texas          1-800-735-2989  1-800-735-2988    1-800-735-2989

National Directory Assistance:  TDD 1-800-855-1155

* From that state only

Customer Service for all states, Voice/TDD is 1-800-676-3777

If anyone has any other relay numbers or relay services, could they
pass them on to me for inclusion in this note?  I specifically want to
know if they are only for that state's callers or may they be used by
callers from other states (especially where a state does not yet have
a relay service).


Paul Robinson
Opinion not necessarily anyone else's and they'd probably not
admit it if it was ...

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

Subject: DTMF Pen Register Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 15:24:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


Sometime ago (two years or more) Radio Shack offered a small single
line DTMF pen register device for about $100 or so.  It reminded me of
a small printing calculator with a separate power cube and an RJ-11
connection to the line.  It could be connected to POTS lines and would
print out the dialed digits.  I'm not sure, but it may have also
time-stamped the call.

Alas, now I have need for one and RS no longer carries them.  Does
anyone know of a supplier?  E-mail would be fine and if there's interest
I could summarize to the group.  Thanks.


Bill Garfield <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Initial BSE and CNS Availability Documents
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Clinton Township, MI
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 92 17:08:56 GMT


Two years ago, I posted a request on the net for a list of CO switch
types in service in Michigan and was sent a document called "Initial
BSE and CNS Availability Within the AOC's Deployment Areas" by a
gentleman whose e-mail address I cannot find.

I'm currently in need of such a document covering 1> The Chicago area,
2> The uppper peninsula of Michigan 3> The Los Angeles area and 3>
Riverside County/Moreno Valley, California.

I have the US mail address of the person from whom I received the
Detroit area document (I still owe him two bucks for mailing me the last
one -- I'll send that now -- sorry it took two years, Bill), but if anyone
can mail me the relevant documents, I'll be happy to pay for the
copying and postage (right away -- it wont take me two years!!).


John Palmer
Box 24-939
Detroit, MI   48224

CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[phone] (USR HST)      | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.
[phone] (TELEBIT PEP)  | 800-736-5984  FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 13:10 PDT
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell Posturing


After the PUC approval of CLASS features in California, a check on the
media reveals that Pac*Bell is running the old LEC line, "If we have
to allow per-line blocking, then we are rethinking the economics of
providing the service at all." What rot!

The expense has already occurred. The system is ready. All that has to
be done is to "turn it on". Yes, CNID with per-line blocking will
appeal to less people than it would without. But any money that
Pac*Bell takes in on the service is "free". There are no incremental
costs of providing CNID, once the switches are made capable -- and
they already are!

I had expected a little more of Pac*Bell than to trot out this tired
old line.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 23:10:14 PDT
From: Arun Baheti <red-eft![e-mail]>
Subject: Pacific Bell Car Theft Protection


I was just in my car and heard an add for Pacific Bell's new auto
theft systems.  Apparently, when a car is stolen, they will auto-
matically track its location and notify the police.  There was also an
amorphous mention of a guarantee.  Does anyone have any details on
this service -- and how (if) it works?


[Moderator's Note: The same ad is playing on the radio here in Chicago
a lot these days. Apparently some sort of radio detection to keep
track of where you are going in your car. Sounds like a great deal for
privacy enthusiasts!   :)    PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Ho)
Subject: Please Explain ADSL and HDSL
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, S'pore
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 06:56:25 GMT


Hi,

I am trying to find out what is ADSL and HDSL. I understand it is a
NYNEX project pertaining to video-on-demand; allowing 1.5 Mbit
transmission from the server to the caller and 64kbit in the opposite
direction. It certainly has some implication for ISDN.

Appreciate if anyone can shed some light here. I am doing a study into
video over WAN.


Thanks!

chris ho
INTERNET: [e-mail]
BITNET  : [e-mail]
FAX     : [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #500
******************************