Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1992.volume.12/vol12.iss901-928

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 594KB | 14,146 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00987;
          13 Dec 92 4:55 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20670
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:49:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05260
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:49:01 -0600
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:49:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #901

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Dec 92 02:49:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 901

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: The Most Advanced Caller-ID Box I've Seen Yet (Michael H. Warfield)
    Re: What is a 1A ESS Master Scanner? (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Any Free Calling Cards Left? (Kirk Blackburn via Boris Pevzner)
    Re: Wanted: Help With Multi-Tech/Courier Modem Problem (Bill Garfield)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:14:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail


The problem I have mentioned here in the past continues unabated. MCI
Mail is still continuing to dump large amounts of mail from the
Internet if they have any problem at all with a single address on the
envelope.

I send dozens of copies of each issue of TELECOM Digest to subscribers
at MCI Mail. If so much as one address is incorrect (because the
person quits the service or changes addresses there without telling
me) then MCI Mail *refuses* to deliver any of the copies to anyone,
and dumps it all out.

Every other site I send to -- thousands of them -- can deal with
multiple addresses in the envelope, and an error in any one of the
addresses. But MCI Mail persists in doing things their way rather than
following the standards set up for email.

Each time I become aware of MCI Mail dumping an entire issue of the
Digest undelivered to their subscribers I have to make a separate
mailing list up just for them and remail that issue. This is happening
now about once or twice a week -- it used to be not more than once
every month or two.  I've had technical people from MCI Mail say they
were going to look into it ... but that is as far as it has gotten. If
this cannot be corrected soon, then my response will be to delete
mcimail from the telecom mailing list and suggest that those
subscribers find some other site to receive the Digest.

If this is happening to me this often, I wonder how often other
Digests or mailing lists with readers at MCI Mail are getting bouces?


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Warfield)
Subject: Re: The Most Advanced Caller-ID Box I've Seen Yet
Organization: Thaumaturgy & Speculums Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:12:41 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vance
Shipley) writes:

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

>> I need a Caller-ID box that will not just display the incoming call
>> identification, but will also differentiate between calls which have
>> been purposely blocked and those from locations which do not have the
>> facility available. Also, it should automatically dial the code for
>> blocking my number on outgoing calls, everytime I unhook the phone.

    You want to differentiate incoming blocked calls and also want
to block all of yours automatically when you dial out.  What are you
going to do ... reject incoming blocked calls when all of yours are
blocked?  Maybe I'm reading to much into that request but it sounds
pretty lame.  That's one reason why I block ALL blocked calls and
NEVER block my outgoing calls.

> I have a TAI model 450 CLID display.  It is sold exclusively through
> the Canadian telcos.  This unit purports to store up to 99 numbers or
> up to 50 numbers and names (when name service becomes available).  I
> found that it tops out at 64 numbers (names come next spring).

    I've got a "Caller ID * 370" by Colonial Data Technologies.
Sears sells them.  Stores up to 94 numbers and can "block" blocked
numbers.  When a blocked call comes through, it plays back a message
saying this number doesn't accept blocked calls (optional, controlled
from front panel).  Will store/display names and/or numbers.  Has
English and Spanish displays.  Tracks whether the call was answered or
not.  Will dial a displayed number back.  Three line display gives
name (if available) number, date, time, status (new, repeat, answered,
etc...), and sequence number in memory.  Front panel buttons scroll up
and down through memory, switch privacy-block, remove numbers, and
dial numbers.  The dial button supports local vs long distance,
including an added 1 in front of selected calls within your area code.

    Only bitch I've got about it, is when the number doesn't come
in clean.  All it says is "Error".  Most of the time there is enough
information good that you can still tell who it is.  This thing won't
display it though.  Earlier displays and my ClassMate 10's give me
whatever they were able to receive.  Most of the time I can still
figure it out at a glance.  On this box, the "error" display was
STUPID, and was the WORST POSSIBLE MISTAKE they could possibly make.
But I still enjoy playing with it.

    Now what we need is a box that will allow you to program in
numbers to individually block.  Let's see, CLID service then has the
same capacity as "Call Trace", "Return Dial", and "Call Blocking.
Plus you still get to see what's been going on!  Lovely ... in most
places, CLID is the most expensive CLASS feature available.  Till you
look at what it does and what it replaces!

    Disclaimer ... I've no interest in this thing other than
having one and feeling it's a great techie toy!  :-) :-)

> Calls from the SPS switch in town display OUT-OF-AREA.  Calls from the
> US (and others) display L-OUT-OF-AREA (L for Long Distance).  Local
> calls display NXX-XXXX and long distance calls from SS7 connected CO's
> (Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Kitchener, etc.) display L-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX.
> Local calls which blocked CLID with *67 display PRIVATE and long
> distance calls from SS7 connected COs display L-PRIVATE.

    What gets displayed depends on what is sent by the telco.  My
ClassMate 10's are pretty DUMB devices (simple 1200 baud RX only
chips).  I see what the telco sends on the line, and that's generally
what the displays put up.  Blocked calls come in "PRIVATE call" and
calls from switches not supporting CLID come in "OUT OF AREA".


Michael H. Warfield     | [phone]    | [e-mail]
(The Mad Wizard)    | NIC whois: MHW9    | wittsend![e-mail]


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

Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 13:33:44 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: What is a 1A ESS Master Scanner?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


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

> When our ring plant decided not to ring the phones every so often, the
> switch guru for our ESS#1A said "We rebuilt the master scanner and we
> haven't found a lick of trouble since."

> Would someone who actually has working knowledge please describe a
> master scanner? Is it software or hardware? If it's hardware, how do
> you effectively "rebuild" it without disrupting service?

> I am most curious.

   If you are MOST curious (i.e., willing to spend money), you should
know that almost all the hardware (and some software, tools, testing
details, etc.) associated with 1/1A ESS(tm) switches is described at a
high level in two special issues of the Bell Labs Technical Journal
(BSTJ), one on the 1 ESS switch, and a later one that describes the 1A
Processor (used in both 1A ESS and 4ESS(tm) switches).

   "No. 1 Electronic Switching System", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5,
          September 1964, Parts 1 & 2.
   "The 1A Processor", BSTJ, Vol. 43 No. 5, February 1977.

   I'm told the AT&T Customer Information Center maintains copies of
the BSTJ "special" issues, so even if your library doesn't have it --
it's still available.  For even more money, you could order AT&T
Practice 231-030-010, "Scanners - Description and Theory, No. 1 and
No. 1A ESS", which describes a "middle" level of detail on scanners in
these systems (51 pages, including fold-outs!).

   For those who are somewhat less curious, ...

   The master scanner was one of the original frames of equipment
designed for No. 1 ESS, and is one of the few to have never been
upgraded in later years.  Essentially, these frames (each switch must
have one, but many have more) serve as input devices for arbitrary DC
signals in the system.  Lines and trunks have scanners dedicated to
those functions, so master scanners are used for detecting other
things.  For example, detection of blown fuses, power failures,
diagnostic results, open doors (if they are alarmed), low power in the
battery plant, low paper in a printer, someone pressing a key on a
control panel, etc.

   Each master scanner contains some duplicated control circuits and a
64-row by 16-point matrix of current detectors.  Each detector is
called a "ferrod" (a ferrite rod with some wire threaded through and
around it).  These operate essentially like old "core" memory units,
in that read-out is controlled by pulsing X and Y leads, with the
selected row responding because the coincident-current exceeds some
minimum.  But unlike core memory, the 0 or 1 response is determined by
the amount of current flow in the "control" winding of the ferrod.

   For master scanners, a ferrod has about 35 ohms resistance and will
respond with a 0 if more than 3.9 ma in flowing.  Less than 1.8 ma
will yield a 1.  In between those values, the readout is not
predictable.

   One of the units monitored by a master scanner is the ringing and
tone plant.  Among other things, the beginning of various ringing
current phases is detected.  If this is not reliable, ringing will be
unreliable.

   Failure of a ferrod and it's windings is rare, but it can happen.
Since it's just a transformer + some wire, it's pretty durable.
Because the ferrod matrix is not duplicated, a failure requires some
non-obvious steps to remove the ferrod with minimum interference.
Some folks might call this "rebuilding", since it's not the simple
matter of circuit board removal used with electronic parts.


Al Varney - just MY opinion

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

From: Boris Pevzner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Free Calling Cards Left?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:48:07 GMT


Re: AmeriVox card

I contacted {[e-mail] (Kirk Blackburn)} directly, and
below is the reply that I received.


Boris Pevzner     [e-mail]


 From: [e-mail] (Kirk Blackburn)

Hi, Boris:

I can answer most of the questions here. Please feel free to share
them with comp.dcom.telecom. BTW, I haven't read comp.dcom.telecom.
What is the focus of the forum?

> Someone posted your rec.travel.marketplace message to comp.dcom.telecom.
> Comp.dcom.telecom's moderator is wondering:

> [Moderator's Note: I wish Mr. Blackburn had told us *how* to use the
> cards for calling.  Does one dial 10 (something) plus zero plus and

Card use: Dial 1 800 xxx-xxxx a 9 digit PIN, area code and number.
Each card comes in a sealed envolope with its own pin. Dialing
instructions and 800 number are on back of card.

> send the call over World Telecom/Phone Club circuits?

Calls are routed over the same fiber optic long lines as other
carriers.

> are they leasing their circuits from one of the Big Three or do they
> actually have their own network?

I believe they are leasing from Sprint.

> they issue a little plastic card like the other carriers with a number
> and a pin?

Yes. The card is smaller and quit thin. Can be personalized with
custom logo for an organization. Multiple PINs can be assigned under a
master account so that *all* usage on all cards apply to total volume.
AmeriVox has a volume discount that lowers the cost/minute that will
eventually reach $.149 per minute, forever.

> Is the procedure that when you make a call on their network
> that your credit balance with the company is decremented by whatever
> the call cost?

Yes, sort of. World Telecom has proprietary hardware/sofware
technology that allows the dollar amount remaining on the card to be
debitted in *real-time.  It is similar to the debit cards in Europe
and Japan, however special phone equipment is not required. The card
works immediately at any touch tone phone in the US (except Alaska :().
More time can be re-ordered at any time.

A cool feature:

A voice interdicts telling user about re-ordering when $10.00 remains
on card. Only the card holder hears voice. Prompt also interdicts when
$1.00 remains. If card does expire, the PIN is good for 90 days and
time can be re-ordered during this time.

> I am curious also why payments are made payable to Mr. Blackburn
> instead of the company.

AmeriVox has a direct sales organization. As a representative of
AmeriVox, I buy cards directly from the company and sell them at their
face value ($10, $20, $50, $100, $250, $500). Currently, I receive 4%
commission on all direct sales. This percentage goes up to 6% and then
8% depending on my sales volume. Marketing in this fashion greatly
reduces administrative, marketing, and advertising costs. It is why no
surcharge (i.e. extra profit) is needed as with the other cards.
Payment up front also reduces bad account collection fees, etc. It
also allows World Telecom Group to remain a debt-free company.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion I seem to have created.  I
will be happy to address other question should they arise.


Regards,

kirk


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for passing along the reply. This
sounds like a very good way to acheive anonymous long distance calling
as has been discussed here on a few occassions.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Wanted: Help With Multi-Tech/Courier Modem Problem
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 16:45:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


description of modem dialback problem deleted ...

> Is it possible that the local telephone lines are affecting the
> signal, whereas the long-distance has *some* difference that would
> account for the weird behavior?

Yes -- but good luck in attempting to prove it to the phone company.

I just SUCCESSFULLY solved a long-standing similar problem with a
local customer here in Houston (but two telco central offices away)
who, often as not, could *NOT* get a facsimile transmission to go
through from their office to mine. The failure rate was an alarming
60% on the average. We fought it for almost a year, different fax
machines, different extensions, same deal, only this ONE customer
could not fax to us, and the problem was only one direction.
Practically drove us cuckoo.

The problem turned out to be inter-machine trunk (IMT) trouble between
two of Bell's larger Houston central offices. (We suspected this was
the problem some months ago, but were in a quandry as to how to
convincingly pose our dilemma to the teledroids answering the phones
at Repair Service) ;)

My solution involved having the fellow at the other end "route" or
"call forward always" an extension on his PBX to an extension on my
pbx via the public-switched telephone network.  I then dialed the
"remote" telephone number which caused the phone on the other side of
my desk to ring. When I answered the call, it naturally passed VOICE
flawlessly.  I called it several more times, flawless voice every
call.  Finally, for grins, on one of the calls, I held down the 9 and
# buttons on 1 phone (1477hz) and LISTENED to the tone coming through
the other phone.  One direction the tone came through fine.  Going the
other way, the tone had suddenly acquired a pulsating
"bling-bling-bling-bling-bling" about 10db down from the tone and at
approx 2 ips.  I tried holding down the 1 and 2 buttons (697hz), and
the pulsations were still there, but now you had to really listen to
hear them.

Over on my mdf, I connected a Halcyon Transmission Test Set (tone
generator) to the outgoing line (set for -13dbm) and put my Sage 930A
D & I test set on the inbound T-1 span coming from Bell. With the
Halcyon generating standard 1004hz test tone, the pulsations were
barely noticeable.  These became very pronounced as the frequency was
raised above 1300hz. By the time I got up to 2000hz the
"bling-bling-bling" was _very_ distinct ... you couldn't miss it.

I called the PBX tech at the other end and had him listen in on his
incoming and outgoing trunks.  As expected, the tone passing through
his office was clear.  I next removed my tone generator and had the
pbx tech at the other end put his generator on the circuit toward me.
I was still getting the "bling-bling-bling" pulsations.  I had him
decrease his level by 20db, still "bling-bling-bling-bling".

I got Southwestern Bell's special services folks in on it and asked
them to trace the call through the various central offices, making
note of the fact that the "bling-bling-bling" wasn't there at the
originating end, and emphasizing that the whole purpose of the trace
was to try and determine at what point in the call's routing were the
pulsations being introduced.  I emphasized to them, "It is not an
errant call, please do not knock it down, just trace it cable and
pair, span and channel."

After some 4-1/2 hours and a visit to my office by a SWB Special
Services tech (after I escalated the problem up to a third level
supervisor), the problem suddenly cleared, just like magic.  "Came
clear while checking" was the response.  Horsefeathers!  Something
that has haunted us for the past 11 months doesn't magically go away.

Back on the phone to the third level supervisor, I was adamant that I
had to have a logical and plausible resolution report, and that "Came
clear while testing" wouldn't sit well upstairs with my people.

The following day I received a call from a first line supervisor
informing me that a Bell interoffice tech found and pulled down a
loopback off of an unused but "mated" T-1c (48 channel) system.  They
(Bell) had been taking "density errors" on an inter-office T-3 span
for a long time but had ignored the alarm condition as seemingly no
one had complained, and of course ordinary voice passed through just
fine.  (Mated systems cannot be placed in loopback because of clocking
problems, or so I'm told).

Well now, all of a sudden everyone's fax machine works just fine.
14.4k bps modems which had trouble staying linked at 2400 began
working at full speed and two local bbs' report remarkable
improvements in callers' ability to link with them.

FYI:  I coincidently happen to be a Multi-Tech field beta test site
      and the MT1432BA/A is, IMHO, one of the finest products they have
      ever built.  1.02A firmware is the current release & is stable.
      It uses an AT&T data pump.  I am unfamiliar with the Courier
      2400E.

Something else you might try.  On the Multi-Tech, disable v.42 error
checking in favor of plain vanilla MNP-4.  The Multi-Tech string to do
this is; AT&E1&E14#L1 and be sure to "store" it with AT&W0. This has
_frequently_ worked with some unfriendly USR's.


[e-mail] (Bill Garfield) | Standard disclaimer applies.
PBX/Datacom Specialist                      | Opinions are my own and not
Panhandle Eastern Corp                      | those of my employer. I speak
Voice: 713.627.5228                         | for no one.  I am not an
Data:  713.520.1569                         | employee nor representative
FAX:   [phone]                         | of Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.

Ye Olde Bailey BBS   Houston,Texas   Node 1: 1 713 520 1569  yob.sccsi.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #901
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16083;
          13 Dec 92 15:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22916
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:25:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26178
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:24:59 -0600
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:24:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #902

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Dec 92 13:25:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 902

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Residential ISDN? (Jack Decker)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Dan Ganek)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Joel M. Hoffman)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Christopher J. Ambler)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Bob Peterson)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Lee Green, MD)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Tim Tyler)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Sam Houston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:Sun, 13 Dec 92 09:48:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Marc Unangst) wrote:

> Unmeasured service is a mistake the telcos made years and years ago,
> when it was much more difficult to do usage accounting.  Since
> residential customers didn't use the phone as much as businesses (this
> is, after all, the basis of residential vs. business rates), it was
> therefore cheaper to just charge residential customers a flat rate.

Why do you call this a mistake?  Every time I read a message like
this, I have to wonder if the poster is a telco representative of some
sort, or whether they have been just been deceived by the propaganda
put out by the telcos.

> With the advent of computerized switches, it's much easier to keep
> track of how much service each line is using.  But the telcos can't
> get rid of unmeasured service because people are used to it (although
> some are trying; take a look at what Ameritech is doing in Illinois
> and Michigan).  So their only real option is to leave unmeasured
> service in for existing services, but leave it out of the tariffs when
> they add new services (such as ISDN).

What Ameritech has done in Michigan is to do an end-run around the
Michigan Public Service Commission and get legislation passed that is
very favorable to Ameritech, but awful for consumers.  And, in the
process, they managed to strip much of the regulatory authority from
the MPSC (in the original draft of the legislation, the MPSC would not
have had ANY remaining authority to regulate the telcos!).  This was
all done without giving telephone customers any notice, or opportunity
for comment.  In effect, Ameritech wrote the law they wanted and only
some last minute changes kept them from getting the whole pie.  I
think that it was a dirty, dirty trick that might have been worthy of
the cable TV industry or the tobacco industry, but certainly not what
I'd have expected from a telephone company, not even Ameritech.  After
all, it is the job of the Public Service Commission to stand up for
the interests of consumers, and when they lose much of their
authority, it essentially gives the telcos free rein to do whatever
they want.  Apparently Ameritech found the regulatory climate in
Michigan a bit too stifling.

And keep in mind that prior to the passage of the new legislation,
Ameritech customers in Michigan were ALREADY suffering under the
following:

1) There was no such thing as unmeasured service for business customers.
On business lines, EVERY call is charged.

2) Some of the smallest local calling areas in the country (not
including other Ameritech areas), unless you live in one of the major
cities of Michigan.  Not so strangely enough, Lansing (the state
capitol) has a HUGE local calling area virtually unmatched anywhere
else in the state (except perhaps Grand Rapids) -- of course, the state
legislators and regulators wanted THEIR calling area to be huge!

3) Ridiculously high rates for optional features such as Touch Tone
(about $2.50 per month!).

4) Very high intra-LATA toll rates.  An intra-LATA call in Michigan is
quite a bit more expensive than an interstate call of the same distance.

> And as much as I hate it for increasing my phone bill, usage-based
> billing is fairer to everyone.  Any sort of flat rate means that the
> low-usage customers wind up subsidizing the high-usage customers.

This is high-grade baloney.  The problem with this is that telco costs
have very little to do with telephone usage.  Please understand what I
am saying here: If the costs to operate a telephone exchange are
mostly fixed, or at least not related to usage, then it's impossible
for a low-usage customer to "subsidize" a high-usage customer, because
the high-usage customer isn't creating any additional costs for the
telephone company.

I would like to see an actual study conducted by an unbiased research
firm (that is, one not tied to or hired by a telephone company) that
would determine exactly how much additional cost a high-usage customer
costs the telephone company.  Keep in mind that for the study to be
meaningful, we must determine "high usage" the same way the telephone
company does, that is, by calling any customer who makes more than a
certain number of calls a high-usage customer, regardless of the
length of the calls or the time of day at which the calls are made.
My suspicion is that you would find that high-usage *RESIDENTIAL*
customers add exactly zero to the cost of operating an exchange, or if
a non-zero figure, I would bet it would be measured in pennies per
month and that you could count the number of pennies on one hand.

Why do I say this?  Because by far the largest cost of a telephone
exchange is in non-usage-sensitive components.  For example, the
outside plant (the wires, cables, junction boxes, etc. between the
central office and your home) does not "wear out" faster if more calls
are made.  Wind and ice will not knock down more cables if those
cables are heavily used.  Gophers aren't any more likely to chew high
usage underground cables than low usage ones.

And what about the central office switch?  In most areas, it's a large
computer and like the computer that you're probably reading this
message on, it draws almost exactly the same amount of electricity
whether it's busy working or just sitting idle.  Now, the phone
company tries to say that because of high usage callers, they must
increase switch capacity (that is, install new switches faster than
they would otherwise have to) but that simply doesn't hold up for a
couple of reasons.  First, residential customers tend to place the
bulk of their calls during off-peak periods, yet peak usage of a
telephone switch in most areas is during business hours, primarily in
the morning (I believe that the time slot between 10 A.M. and noon is
generally considered the busiest period).  And, who is making calls
then?  Primarily it's businesses, not residential customers.

And, keep in mind that the phone company determines high usage by the
NUMBER OF CALLS.  Let's say I want to talk to my friend, but he is not
home.  He has an answering machine on his line, but I don't want to
talk to the machine, so I keep trying at various intervals.  It takes
me ten tries before I reach him, and in each case I am on the line
less than a minute.  I am charged for ten calls, if I have measured
service.  In the next room I may have a teenager who places a call to
his girlfriend at 8 P.M. and is still going strong at 11 P.M.  He is
charged for only one call.  In theory, he tied up a path through the
phone switch for over three hours, while I tied it up for under ten
minutes, yet I am charged ten times what he is.  This is fairer?!  I
say this only to point out that what the telcos call a "high-usage"
customer may in fact be making LESS demands on the phone switch than
what is considered a "low-usage" one.

Oh, you say I tied up some sort of equipment sending dialtone and
collecting dialed digits ten times, while the teenager only did it
once?  Well if you want to say that, thank you for at least admitting
that once the call in connected the telco incurs negligible expense in
keeping the talk path open.  But now you have another problem.  Next
door I may have a neighbor who "attack dials" the local radio station
whenever they have an on-air contest.  Of course, he may only get
through once every six months or so since a thousand others are doing
the same thing.  He ties up that equipment that collects dialed digits
for several minutes at a time, several times a day, but only gets
charged for that occasional connect.  On the other hand, because I
used my memory dial telephone to place my ten calls, I tied up those
same registers for maybe thirty seconds total on my ten calls.  Yet I
am considered "high usage" while my neighbor is not.  Real fair, this
is?!?!  <NOT!>

> My only beef is that the charges have nothing to do with how prices
> are typically calculated in other lines of business -- take your cost
> for the product/service, add a markup to cover your overhead and
> profit, and charge that price.  If the telco did this, non-peak use
> would be free and peak use would be expensive.  All calls would be
> charged for based on distance between COs.  Things are done this way
> in the LD world, but not in the local-calling world; why else does a
> call from Ann Arbor (SE Michigan) to Houghton (Upper Penninsula) cost
> more than a call of the same length, at the same time of day, from Ann
> Arbor to California?

Exactly.  You seem to understand this much yet you still favor
measured service based solely on number of calls completed.  This I
cannot understand.  If customers were charged according to cost of
providing service, then a lot of factors would have to be taken into
account.  Slow dialers would be charged more than fast dialers; you'd
be charged for every call ATTEMPT (not just for completed calls); and
those living ten miles from the phone exchange would be charged about
ten times more than those living one mile away, just to name a few
things that would have to be taken into account.

As a final thought, keep in mind that telephone service is really
useful to people only so long as calls are made.  If the price of a
call becomes so expensive that folks don't want to place a call, then
there is no reason for anyone to have phone service.  So, when you say
that "unmeasured service is a mistake the telcos made years and years
ago, when it was much more difficult to do usage accounting", I would
submit that had the first telephone service been charged for on a
per-call basis, we might all still be communicating via Western Union.
Now that the people of the world are "hooked" on phone service, the
telcos figure that they don't have to stimulate usage anymore.  But
they had better be careful, because just as the telephone replaced the
telegraph, there may be a day when something will replace telephone
service.  It may be hard to imagine the Baby Bells in bankruptcy now,
but I suppose that around the turn of the century you'd have been
thought quite insane had you suggested that Western Union would one
day be bankrupt.  The telephone companies are alienating customers
with their new pricing policies, and somewhere down the road their
chickens are going to come home to roost, so to speak.  You heard it
here first!  :-)


Jack Decker, via the Great Lakes Internet <=> FidoNet Gateway
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: Dan Ganek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:45:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> A common myth perpetrated by the phone companies, always looking for
> more monopoly revenue.  But only a monopoly would even attempt to
> change its price structure to something customers don't want that is
> NOT cost-based!  Cost-based pricing works for everyone.  Monopoly
> fictions don't.  And usage-based local rates are a FICTION!

> I've seen the studies.  In most places, the PEAK cost to the telephone
> company is well under a penny a minute.  Yet measured rates are almost
> always much higher.  They're just a means to make money.

Uh, have you checked with NYNEX about measured service from Littleton,
MA?  From Groton MA it's $.001/minute with, I think, a $.10 set-up charge.


dan ganek

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:15:01 GMT


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

> Unmeasured service is a mistake the telcos made years and years ago,

> And as much as I hate it for increasing my phone bill, usage-based
> billing is fairer to everyone.  Any sort of flat rate means that the
> low-usage customers wind up subsidizing the high-usage customers.  My

Does it really cost the telco more for more usage?  I don't think so.
The telco owns the lines, and electronic lines >don't< require more
repair the more they are used.  So, in fact, fixed-rate seems the most
equitable way to go.


Joel

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: When Fashion Dictates, you're living in a Fashion State!
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:40:22 GMT


I guess we're right in the middle here. We have two ISDN BRIs. All
calls outside of the CO are measured, but all calls inside are flat.
Luckily, since the CO is a campus PBX, all our data calls are to CO
data numbers that connect us into routers. But local voice calls are
all via flat rate POTS.

As a side note, though, long distance calls are about 10% *CHEAPER*
over our ISDN, but just because we get billed through campus and they
have bulk-rate long distance :-)


[e-mail]   [phone]/ISDN

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

Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
From: [e-mail] (Bob Peterson)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 09:10:08 CST
Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX  214 596 3720


[e-mail] writes:

> [ Would anyone here know approx the number of minutes per month a
> business phone is busy for voice, fax, data, and long-distance and
> corresponding numbers for light, heavy home users and BBSs ? ]

  I operate a two line BBS in Plano, a northern suburb of Dallas
served by GTE.  The public line stays off-hook about 18 hours/day
serving callers.  In addition, that line handles calls for Usenet
feeds for another 1.7 hours per day, bringing the total busy time to
nearly 20 hours/day.  The subscriber line stays busy "only" about 12
hours/day.  A "day" is actually 23 hours, since the system goes down
from 3 to 4 a.m.  for maintenance.


Bob Peterson              Waffle BBS: [e-mail]
P.O. Box 865132           Internet: [e-mail]  TelCo: 214 995-6080
Plano, Tx USA 75086-5132  BBS: 214 596-3720 @ speeds to 14400 (HST & V.32bis)

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

From: [e-mail] (Lee Green MD MPH)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Date: 13 Dec 1992 19:29:57 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan


In article <[e-mail]>, Matt McConnell <MCCOMATT@
ba.isu.edu> wrote:

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall
> a proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still
> working on this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing
> this kind of thing?  Was it configured to operate over the
> Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Antartica, the North Pole?  If I
> remember they decided to reduce the  number of birds but, still keep
> coverage in the same way that a cellular network operates.

Yesterday's (12/9/92) {Wall Street Journal} says Iridium is still on.
It is a LEO (low earth orbit) satellite system.  Each satellite pass
only lasts about 10 minutes, and a satellite's polar orbit takes it
over the entire Earth in the course of a day.  The orbits are
"sun-synchronous" meaning that each satellite will tend to pass over
you at about the same time each day.  There are 77 satellites in the
constellation, and they hand the user off one to the next like
cellular phone cells.  The difference is that they're moving, not just
the user.  Because the sats are low-orbit, they're easy to reach with
minimal power.  (Ham radio operators regularly work the Microsats, the
ham LEO birds, with 10 watts.)


Lee Green MD MPH          [e-mail]
Family Practice           GEnie DR.GREEN
University of Michigan    CI$ 75366.1326
                          KF8MO @ KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NOAM

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:47:19 GMT


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

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall a
> proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still working on
> this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing this kind of
> thing?

   My understanding is that Motorola basically planned out the
details, and then required companies/investors interested in pooling
funds and talent to get with Motorola before a certain date.  This
date was reached without having the requisite amount of funds and
special talent reached.  I understand that Motorola has recently
propogated a new 'cut-off' date of sometime in February or March.  If
they don't get enough support, the project will be mothballed.


Tim Tyler            Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735
P.O. Box 443         C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: [e-mail]
Ypsilanti MI  48197  Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communicat
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:21:30 GMT


Motorola got permission from the FCC to launch five experimental birds
back in August.  Don't know when they will actually be trying it --
they've had Irridium on paper for over two years.  Constellation
Communications was approved for two satellites, and Ellipsat was
approved for four birds.  Also Motorola has contracted with someone to
develop ground stations for Iridium -- can't remember who.

I think they are all talking low orbit satellites, but I don't know
what coverage.


"sam" houston

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #902
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19317;
          13 Dec 92 17:53 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15688
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:57:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22041
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:57:13 -0600
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:57:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #903

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:57:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 903

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Tinkering? (Jeff Hibbard)
    Re: Cellular Tinkering? (Barry Lustig)
    Re: Cellular Tinkering? (Craig Evans)
    Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect (Gregory Youngblood)
    Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones (K. Castner)
    Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones (Steve Barber)
    Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones (Nick Sayer)
    Re: Residential ISDN? Really Flat Rate Calling Politics (Marc Unangst)
    Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But .. (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But .. (Christopher Davis)
    Re: Offhook Chirp (Steve Steinberg)
    Re: Offhook Chirp (Martin McCormick)
    Re: Pac*Bell and Equipment Vending (John Higdon)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 08:33:02 GMT


[e-mail] (Craig Evans) writes:

> I am interested in a headset for the phone especially for long trips

Here in Illinois, if a police officer sees you driving with a headset,
you'll get a fairly serious ticket.  Perhaps you should check the laws
in your state before proceeding.


Jeff Hibbard, Peoria IL

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:04:04 -0800
From: Barry Lustig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?


[e-mail] (Craig Evans) wrote:

> I own a Nokia 101 cellular hand-held phone.  As of now their is no car
> adapter for this model (that I know of).  I want to muck about with it
> a bit.

Henry Mensch replied:

[Moderator's Note: Henry sent what follows as a message to the Digest;
it is consolidated here since Barry included it in his reply.  PAT]

> I just got one of these myself.  I think those are for the desktop
> charger.

  I just called Nokia down in Clearwater, FL (813-536-5553).  They
said that there is no possibility of adding a car adapter kit to the
Model 101.  The six contacts on the bottom of the phone are for the
desktop charger and for the cigarette lighter charger.


Barry Lustig    ICTV

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:22:10 EST
From: Craig Evans <[e-mail]>
Organization: Harvard University - Offc for Info Tech
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?


Barry Lustig replied:

> I just called Nokia down in Clearwater, FL (813-536-5553).  They
> said that there is no possibility of adding a car adapter kit to the
> Model 101.  The six contacts on the bottom of the phone are for the
> desktop charger and for the cigarette lighter charger.

Of course!  Call the manufacturer!! %-) Well, I did too.  They
mentioned they have just released the Nokia 121 which will have a car
adapter at some point.  (This explains why I got such a deal on the
101.)  A customer service rep checked with some techs and told me that
the other four contacts (there are only two contacts in the desktop
charger) are for techs to use when doing diagnostics.  As she didn't
sound confident I am not yet convinced.

If I find out anything different I'll post it.

Thanks for your help,


Craig

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:52:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Will Martin <wmartin@STL-
06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> writes:

> And as a separate question: was AT&T monitoring the calls to Larry
> King numbers specifically, and cutting off the everlasting-ring calls
> ONLY to those numbers, or did they install software that detected
> everlasting-ring calls to any and all numbers, and cut off all such
> calls? What time limit did they pick to let the calls ring?

AT&T disconnects calls that remain unanswered for several minutes,
regardless of the number being called.  They do not single out Larry
King.  Their network disconnects these calls whether the called party
is busy, ringing, or (as we discovered as the result of a software
error) talking but still on-hook.  In the latter case, they also
provide only a one-way audio path (from the called to the calling
party) until the called party returns off-hook supervision.


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

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

Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect
From: tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 08:12:40 CST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> So has this now definitely changed, and has this change been
> implemented nationwide? Do ALL alternative LD carriers now have
> "answer supervision"?  Or are some of them, or in some areas, still
> billing based on call timing?

> [Moderator's Note: Don't Sprint and MCI both have call supervision now
> along with equal access?

MCI in Mpls/St Paul, MN at least still tries to bill for ringing and
no answers, evidenced by a lot of one minute calls (and two minute) on
a phone bill.  If you call them on it (the attorney's general office
in MN is wanting proof of this from customers :) ), you'll get credit.
These same people say wait ten rings, which puts you in the two minute
category, which they then argue as 'well you must have connected and
talked to someone or something since the call WAS two minutes', or 'we
don't bill for non-connected calls so your wrong'.


TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                 ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin C. Castner)
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: UPS Research & Development
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:34:24 GMT


Paul S. Sawyer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Eavesdropping on radio communications isn't easy to do, but it
> can happen.

> [Moderator's Note: The only thing wrong with that story is the last
> paragraph: Cellular eavesdropping is quite easy to do and is does
> happen a lot.     PAT]

My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies used by
the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs), as well as the
frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz, but don't quote me on
that).  The limiting factor is if any portion of the call goes over a
landline, then the entire call is considered to be secured and immune
from tapping, etc. without a warrant.

If this is the case, I don't understand how this evidence can be
introduced into court.

If I'm wrong, please let me know what the latest legal wranglings on
the issue are.


Kevin C. Castner     [e-mail]
Unix Administrator   United Parcel Service


[Moderator's Note: Well as pointed out before, they are not stupid
people and would not attempt to introduce illegally obtained evidence
in court. They would simply use the illegal evidence to give them a
starting point for collecting evidence on their own. If I hear you
say over the phone 'so and so would be a good witness' then I won't
ever admit I heard you say it ... I'll simply go see so and so before
you have a chance to get there. Merest coincidence that I happened to
think of it also ... :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:16:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


The {ABA Journal}, about a year and a half ago, had an article warning
lawyers about the risks of interception of wireless and cellular
telephone conversations.  It's not just adverse evidence that is the
problem (though that is a *BIG* problem).  There is also the issue of
attorney-client privilege.  This evaporates when an attorney knew or
reasonably should have known that third parties could overhear the
conversation.  Breach of attorney-client confidentiality can be an
ethical violation as well.  There is also the issue of potential legal
malpractice, since the attorney again reasonable should have known
that these conversations may be intercepted, though I know of no
incidents where an attorney has been held liable for this -- yet!

Regarding the introduction of illegally made cellular telephone
recordings as evidence in a criminal case, there is no blanket ban on
this.  Exclusion of such evidence is premised upon deterrence of
illegal police conduct.  Therefore, if the police did not themselves
make or indirectly encourage the recording, the deterrence rationale
does not apply, and there would be no exclusion of the evidence.
Illegally-made evidence is introduced all the time, for example,
cocaine in a drug bust.  If a law enforcement officer were to receive
an unsolicited tape of a cellular telephone conversation in the mail,
there would be no exclusion, assuming the tape met other evidentiary
standards (like relevance).

Heh.  Can you tell I've been studying for my criminal procedure final?


Steve Barber   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: 13 Dec 1992 13:43:37 UTC


[e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The only thing wrong with that story is the last
> paragraph: Cellular eavesdropping is quite easy to do and is does
> happen a lot.     PAT]

So instead of fostering encryptiton technology, which is the real
solution to cellular evesdropping, the federal government has allowed
itself to get lobbied into the orstrich technique with the ECPA. What
if the little boy who stuck his finger in the dike had been a
congressman? Why he'd have simply outlawed dike leaks, of course. Then
it would have been impossible for the dike to leak. After all, laws
never get broken, do they?

When even the lawyers don't believe in the ECPA, it can't be long
before it gets dumped on the (massive) scrap-heap of crappy laws.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN? Really Flat Rate Calling Politics
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:25:50 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


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

> If you're a new install, flat rate is not available, period.
> (I think this is the case in Michigan or was it Indiana, now. I invite
> correction on this point.)

You're pretty close.  Michigan Bell used to offer two classes of
residential service: Call Plan 50 and Flat Rate.  Call Plan 50 gave
you 50 calls per month for a fixed fee, and charged you $0.062/call
for additional calls.  Flat Rate was what its name implied -- a fixed
amount for as many calls as you could make in a month.  They made an
effort in January of 1992 to remove the latter class of service and
replace it with Call Plan 400, which is similar to Call Plan 50 but
allows 400 calls per month instead of 50.  They maintained that since
the average household makes less than 300 calls/month, almost no one
would be inconvenienced, and almost everyone would save money with the
new reduced charge.

Of course, the rates still don't jive with the telco's cost for the
call, because calls made during peak hours (9am-5pm, I would assume)
cost as much as calls made at 3:30am.  But people who make few phone
calls get to pay $1-$2 less for their phone, and people like me who
used to rack up 2000+ calls/month now pay much more.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But ..
Date: 13 Dec 1992 12:55:00 -0500
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Jack Winslade) writes:

> In a message dated 30-NOV-92, Ed Ravin writes:

>> Ed Ravin- [e-mail]    [e-mail]
>>                                           ^^^^^

> I've just become aware that addresses in the form of ...
> [e-mail] will no longer work when the message is
> sent via SMTP to the site uunet.uu.net.  Apparently the name uunet is
> still valid as a UUCP site, but the address relay1.uu.net should be
> substituted ([e-mail]) when using uu.net as the
> Internet domain address.

The problem is that your site doesn't process MX records then.
uunet.uu.net works fine via smtp mail, its just MX'd to relay1.uu.net
AND relay2.uu.net.  Instead of changing the addresses, you just need
to use a MX capable version of the SMTP software.

Using nslookup:

uunet.uu.net    preference = 10, mail exchanger = relay1.UU.NET
uunet.uu.net    preference = 10, mail exchanger = relay2.UU.NET

I wouldn't depend on uunet staying with the names relay1 and 2, they
suggest uunet.uu.net, and let the MX records take care of it from
there.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL13
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Possibly Off the Subject, But ..
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:21:03 GMT


JW> == Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>

ER> Ed Ravin- [e-mail]    [e-mail]

JW> I've just become aware that addresses in the form of ...
JW> [e-mail] will no longer work when the message
JW> is sent via SMTP to the site uunet.uu.net.

If your mailer uses MX records, it will automatically send mail
destined for "uunet.uu.net" to either relay1 or relay2.uu.net.

If your mailer does not use MX records, it is broken.

(This should probably move to comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains or
comp.mail.misc or alt.flame.broken-mailers or something :)


Christopher K. Davis     <[e-mail]>   EFF #14
System Administrator, EFF  [phone]  [CKD1]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Offhook Chirp
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:44:31 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lance Neustaeter) writes:

> I've recently purchased a very cheap phone (the kind that sound
> like a cricket when they ring).  There's only one thing which annoys
> me about it: Whenever an extension goes off hook, this phone gives off
> a little chirp.  There are no switches or controls on the phone and
> there are three wires connected to the piezo (?) speaker.  How can I
> stop the annoying off hook chirp?

I got one of those _really_ cheap phones also.  I solved the problem
by throwing the phone off my 11 story balcony after the 1,000 time
someone said WHAT? to me over it.

Nuff said?


=== Steve Steinberg   ==  [e-mail]  == {cmcl2,apple}!panix!ss ===

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

Subject: Re: Offhook Chirp
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:46:26 -0600
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> Lance_Neustaeter@tvbbs.
wimsey.bc.ca (Lance Neustaeter) writes:

> I've recently purchased a very cheap phone (the kind that sound
> like a cricket when they ring).  There's only one thing which annoys
> me about it: Whenever an extension goes off hook, this phone gives off
> a little chirp.

> there are three wires connected to the piezo (?) speaker.  How can I
> stop the annoying off hook chirp?

A little review of how phones ring is in order.  A working analog telephone
line has a steady DC voltage around 48 volts.  The sounder in a telephone
doesn't receive any voltage because there is a capacitor in series with it.
Capacitors block DC and appear to conduct AC.  When you'are in the shower
and the local telemarketing machine calls you, an AC signal is superimposed
or mixed with the DC voltage.  The 20-HZ AC signal passes through the
blocking capacitor and rings the bell or shocks the cricket, as the case may
be.

The plot thickens.  Capacitors hold a charge like a small battery.
When connected in series with a sounder and a DC source, the sounder
will get a little blast of current as the capacitor charges.  When the
line is quiet, the capacitor is fully charged and no current flows.
If the phone rings, the 20-HZ signal alternately charges and
discharges the capacitor, causing current to flow through the sounder.
When the line is quiet and somebody picks up an extention, the 48-volt
DC signal abruptly drops to about 10 volts.  The capacitor has more
voltage than the line, so it discharges through the sounder, causing
another little flow of current until it equalizes again.

Well-designed telephone sounders have enough mechanical or electrical
inertia to ignore these little hits.  The chirp happens because the
sounder in question "thinks" it is seeing the start of a ring.  There
really isn't a heck of a lot that can be done about this except to
disconnect the sounder or put the little telephone somewhere where the
chirps are not a problem.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:52 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell and Equipment Vending


[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko) writes:

> Hmm, he was probably doing it because the next release of the NT
> Norstar Meridian (DR5) will support line cards with integral modems
> (to capture CNID). I also hear that they will also be supporting
> direct termination of a T1 (not bad for a key system!).

BFD! I have a home-made switch that does all of that. You mean the
biggest of big boys are finally getting around to it???

> I doubt it. It's taken NT a while to get this far. Why would they
> custom design a new CNID spec just for one BOC?

And just what makes anyone think that the Seven Sisters operate alone
and independently? I got the shock of my life earlier this year when I
ordered telephone service in Chicago for my company. I was on the
phone with the IBT rep who asked if I had any other service in
Illinois Bell territory. I do not, but I jokingly offered the fact
that my company has had service with Pacific Bell forever in good
standing. She immediately came back with, "Is that on [name of the
street where my office is located in Santa Clara]?" "Uh huh." "Oh,
there will be no problem setting up this account. No deposit will be
necessary."

So it would appear that my Pac*Bell account information is a few
keystrokes away from an IBT rep's view. So "special features" written
for one RBOC would be good for all. And it appears that more than one
RHC is in bed with NT:

> Nope. That's why we didn't buy from SNET. Actually, if PacTel Meridian
> Systems is like NYNEX Meridian Systems, then it's actually a
> partnership between the BOC and Northern Telecom.

So how many BOCs do you suppose have a partnership with NT? And how
many did what PacTel did: buy up all the dealers of every other system
made and then put them all out of business. The PacTel/Meridian
salesman specifically asked if I was satisfied with support on my
current system. When I told him 'yes', he was legitimately troubled.
I will bet he thought there might be a vendor out there that the
mighty Pacific Telesis failed to buy out and shut down. Horrors!

Isn't it great to have captive ratepayer money with which to play
power games?


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> If both these options are too much trouble, then I have to question
> whether they really want to communicate with us.

> [Moderator's Note: In the above example, '[e-mail]' works
> just fine from here at Northwestern.  PAT]

I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
[e-mail]. Perhaps you might want to check your local
system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
have this difficulty.

I regularly correspond with individuals at BITNET sites and am myself
on some mailing lists. We never have any trouble getting mail to each
other, and I certainly use no special addressing conventions when
writing back.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #903
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09052;
          14 Dec 92 3:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02607
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:38:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12629
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:38:05 -0600
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:38:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #904











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12227;
          15 Dec 92 1:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11332
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:12:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05981
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:12:21 -0600
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:12:21 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #904


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 Dec 92 01:38:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 904

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail (Jerry Sweet)
    Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Darren Ingram)
    Re: Cellular RJ-11 Jacks (Jim Rees)
    Re: Omaha May Get Second Dial-Tone Provider (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (Christopher JS Vance)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (David E.A. Wilson)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (Linc Madison)
    Re: Ringing My Own Phone (in Area 716) (Joe Bergstein)
    Re: Sprint Dis-Cards (John J. Butz)
    Re: CPC Detection and Purpose (Todd Inch)
    Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems? (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 10:17:30 PST
From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA


Are there so many MCI Mail addressees that sending each of them an
individual copy would be impractical?  If not, and your software can
be adjusted to do this, the initial headache of setting it up would
eliminate future headaches. Just dump the bounces.


Rich Greenberg      Work: [e-mail]   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: [e-mail]       310-649-0238


[Moderator's Note: Your proposal would cause a lot of extra work for
everyone in the middle ... it *would* work, but one of the reasons for
the standards as they are written now is to avoid such extra handling
of mail and the requisite bandwidth. I have several dozen subscribers
on the mailing list at mcimail.com.  I won't do it as you suggest.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:16:48 PST
From: Jerry Sweet <[e-mail]>


I had the same problem with MCI Mail a year or two ago when I was
maintaining a bunch of OSI-related lists.  Also had a similar problem
with ATTMail addresses.  Ever attempt to contact someone in charge of
ATTMail?  Forget it.  NRI, which runs the Internet-MCI Mail gateway,
at least responded when I asked them a question about the problem.

So I solved my particular problem by writing a script that uses two
separate mailing lists: "naughty" addresses and "nice" addresses.  The
"naughty" addresses get e-mail sent to each address individually.
It's a definite added burden on the mailhost, but them's the breaks.
The "nice" addresses get bundled mail, as usual.

I'd be happy to send the script to you if you wish.  It's written in
perl, and is designed to do deal with a list setup significantly
different from yours, but it can at least provide an example.


[Moderator's Note: See my reply above. I am not going to inconvenience
my hosts here further by requiring them to handle the mail in this
way. The simplest answer is to simply cut off the commercial sites
which can't conform.  Delivery of Internet Digests to commercial
services is a very grey area anyway where the rules are concerned. I
do it as a convenience for people who prefer to receive the Digest at
those services; I do not do it so MCI/ATT can make money handling my
(otherwise) non-profit trafic.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:17:23 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


I have to believe that the reason this isn't getting attention is that
it is related to delivering mail for which nobody has paid.

The only way to get MCI to do something about this is for those of you
getting TELECOM Digest via MCI Mail to write, threatening to pull your
accounts.


Edward W. Greenberg  | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
1600 Stokes St. #24  | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126  | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)


[Moderator's Note: I've already received copies of correspondence sent
to MCI Help from readers there. Thanks for sending them along.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:48:17 GMT


I had heard from some who are fairly well connected in the
telecommunications industry that Iridium was still on, but that they
had decided to go from many (relatively) simple satellites to fewer
more complex satellites.  The number I heard bandied about was in the
60's ... given that none of the elements in that range have any cool
names, however, Iridium would remain the name.

Of course, I'm sure things are probably changing pretty fast, and
anything heard more than a month or two ago is probably out of date.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 22:52:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Darren Ingram)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network


Matt McConnell wrote:

> Whatever happened to the Iridium satelite network?  I seem to recall a
> proposed operating date sometime in '93.  Is Motorola still working on
> this?  What is the progress, if any?  Anyone else doing this kind of
> thing?

Various modifications have been made to the Iridum project during thr
fourth quarter of 1992, with each satellite containing 48 beams onto
the surface of the earth, an increase of 11 beams over the original
design.  With the additional beamwidth, 66 satellites will be used
instead of 77.


DIMS (newsdesk mailbox)([e-mail])   - Views expressed do
184 Brookside Avenue, Whoberley, Coventry CV5 8AD UK - not automatically
Tel:[phone]/Fax:[phone]/Tlx 94026650 - represent those of
*News, features, PR, consultancy & network services* - DIMS or its clients

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Cellular RJ-11 Jacks
Date: 13 Dec 1992 16:48:17 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan CITI
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dwight
Johns) writes:

> Many of the newer cellular phones out there have (oh, what's a good
> politicaly correct term) less than fully functioning RJ-11 jack on
> them.

That's because the idea of putting a real RJ-11 on a cellphone is
patented, believe it or not.  Tellular holds the patent, and makes
some nice rj-11 adapters, and even some rack-mount stuff with ground
start lines for putting an entire pbx on cellular trunks.  That stuff
mostly sells to countries with less developed telephone infrastructure.
I think they also license the technology to Spectrum Cellular.

> Now my only complaint is that I can't go over 1200 baud on a
> cellular connection and that I drop carrier whenever I handoff.

You need to get mnp10 (or pep) modems on both ends.  I've had some
luck with non-mnp10 modems, but they usually drop at handoffs.
Microcom makes a nice pocket mnp10 modem, although battery life isn't
very good.  Of the non-mnp10 modems, the Telebit Qblazer works pretty
well on cellular.  The best you can hope for with any of these is the
v.32bis 9600 fallback speed, and often you'll be at 7200 or worse.

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Omaha May Get Second Dial-Tone Provider
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:48:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack.Winslade@ivgate.
omahug.org (Jack Winslade) writes:

> Some material taken from {Omaha World-Herald}, Sunday, Dec. 6, 1992.

> 'In recent weeks, Teleport Communications Group of New York has been
> setting up operations in Omaha.  It is building a fiber-optic network
> and plans to compete with US West, Nebraska's regional telephone
> company, for some local business phone services.'

> The article reports that the parent company of Cox Cable, Omaha's
> cable television franchise, is the majority shareholder of Teleport.

> Teleport stated that it currently plans only to compete for business
> customers, but they 'do not rule out competing for other local phone
> services.' ... 'Teleport initially will attempt to pick off some of US
> West's high-volume business customers -- telemarketers and businesses
> that transmit data -- by offering to connect them to long distance
> companies for less than US West's local access charges.'

> The article stated that US West has indicated that this may raise
> prices for residential customers.

This is a usual claim of monopoly telcos -- the high-end customers that
a CAP goes after cross-subsidize the "general public", and therefore
competition will result in higher prices for the LOLs.

It's interesting, though -- companies with a large number of rural
subscribers like US West claim that the rural subscribers are the ones
who will suffer, while companies with a large number of urban/suburban
subscribers like NYTel claim that the urban/suburban subscribers are
the ones who will suffer.

Which has led Bob Atkinson, VP of legal/regulatory affairs at
Teleport, to offer to NYTel that -- given NYTel's claim that the local
exchange business is so unprofitable as to require cross-subsidy from
the 2% of customers that Teleport pursues - Teleport will buy NYTel's
local exchange business at book value.  Funny, but NYTel doesn't take
it seriously.

> A sidebar stated that Teleport is currently constructing a fiber-
> optic 'ring' around the area.  Businesses could use this either to
> communicate directly or to access LD providers.  Service will begin in
> January to some customers.

> JSW's notes ({WH} would never say this stuff): Among the cable
> subscribers I know (we do not subscribe to cable -- not enough time to
> watch free TV very much), the opinion of Cox Cable ranges from
> reasonable satisfaction on the high end to unprintable on the low end...

While Cox Communications is the majority shareholder in TCG, the TCG
management team is separate from the various Cox companies.  This was,
as far as I know, a condition of the buyout from Merrill Lynch - that
TCG remain intact.  The TCG corporate culture is a lot closer to AT&T
than to Cox, since probably half of the management have Bell System
backgrounds.  Of course, TCG is a lot more aggressive and responsive
that AT&T typically is ...

Disclaimer: I used to work for TCG.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher JS Vance)
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Comp Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:01:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

> You mentioned that this conversion table covered "geographic services
> only," so am I correct in inferring that free-phone (008) numbers will
> not map into the new three zone?  Presumably.  some new 0X code will
> supersede 008; any idea what it will be?

Free call    008 XXX XXX will go to 180 XXX XXXX
Expensive call    0055 XX XXX will go to 190 0XX XXXX

Should look familiar to anybody out there in the NANP ...

Most services currently beginning with 0 will go to something beginning
with 1.

Sometime I might get around to putting the non-geographic stuff in a
file and posting it, too.


Christopher

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:55:50 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> You mentioned that this conversion table covered "geographic services
> only," so am I correct in inferring that free-phone (008) numbers will
> not map into the new three zone?  Presumably.  some new 0X code will
> supersede 008; any idea what it will be?

It won't be a 0x code but a 180 xxx xxxx number. Here are a few other
interesting non-geographic numbers:

Range    Type of service    Number structure O/S access    Now    Reason
041    Mobile Digital    041 xxx xxxx     yes        none    new
04x    reserved for future mobile services
05    reserved for future expansion of national numbering to 11 digits
113    Calling number display
1131    calling number display off (block)
            1131+number    no        none    CND override
1132    calling number display off (allow)
            1132+number    no        none    CND override

Note that we do not yet have CND and that these codes may be replaced
by *31 and *32.

127    customer testing services
1271    "        1271x*        no        118[34]
14    service provider access & preselection codes
140    reserved for expansion
14[1-9]            14[1-9]x+number    no        none    new


David Wilson                [phone] voice, [phone] fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:44:52 GMT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Oracle Europe


I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme
I've ever heard of.  The idea is to split Australia into four area
codes: Queensland (07), New South Wales/ACT (02), Victoria/Tasmania
(03), and W.A./S.A./N.T. (08), and then give everyone an eight-digit
number.

Are they going to institute local calling within each area code?  Not
likely!  Also, you'll have to dial eight digits to make a local call
in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Further, the alternatives are so OBVIOUS it's painful.  If Sydney or
Melbourne needs to split, you can divide them into 020/021 or 030/031.
Then, some years down the road, you can open up 02N and 03N codes if
they're needed.  Adelaide you can put into 081, allowing local numbers
to begin with a wider range of digits.  For Perth and Brisbane, it's a
little dicier, because you'd have to pick one of the initial digits of
current numbers and change to that as the last digit of the area code:
for example, 092 and 072.  You'd have to do something in two stages,
as the current plan proposes, to avoid confusion between the old (09)
23a-bcde and the new (092) 3ab-cdef, for example.  You could, for
example, pick the (09X) code with the fewest exchanges, and make all
the 09X into 09YX.  (Say, for illustration, that 096 has the fewest
numbers.  Move all 096 numbers into prefixes beginning with 2, 3, 4,
and 5.  Then change the area codes 091 -> 0961, 096 -> 0966, etc.)
Tasmania is easy -- it just comes in as a second phase of the
Melbourne split.  This plan doesn't account for overcrowding in 04X
05X 06X areas, but it's just a first hack.

It just seems to me that there could hardly be a more user-unfriendly
plan than the one currently proposed.  Having an extra digit into the
area codes seems vastly preferable to having universal eight-digit
local numbers.  Who designed the new plan -- AUSTEL or GTE??


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]
(Note: this account will probably expire December 11, 1992.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Bergstein)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:43:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Ringing My Own Phone (in Area 716)


In a message on 06 Dec. '92, Malcolm Slaney commented about users
requesting ring back numbers and wrote:

> ... and operators are always glad to ring you back.

Not everywhere!  In many locations they aren't supposed to do this, or
will do this only with a charge on your bill of one dollar or more.
That's probably why so many readers want to know what the "freebie"
ring back numbers and codes are.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 14:26:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (John J Butz [phone])
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards


Pat writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Fraud with calling cards is very bad, believe me.
> It runs millions of dollars a year, but that is no excuse for AT&T to
    long diatribe on AT&T omitted

> And as for Sprint, they were sued by the parents of a sixteen year old
    shorter diatribe on Sprint omitted

Whoa Nellie!

Now, before AT&T takes a bad rap here, the corporation has taken steps
to set up phone centers in urban areas.  These phone centers are
fairly new and I don't know what they are called, but they provide
translation services, long distance dialing, and a whole host of other
services for urban residents **in the neighborhoods in which they
live**.  The first one to go on line was in Flushing, Queens in New
York City, home of the NY Mets and many ethnically diverse citizens.
Also, AT&T has many long distance and international discount
promotions on foreign ethnic holidays.  I don't see *any* of the other
"cream-skimming" IXCs providing any similar services to inner-city
dwellers.  As far as false advertising is concerned, if I see another
product labeled "All Natural" or watch another info-mercial hawking
firmer buttocks, miracle weight loss or a full head of hair, I think
I'm going to puke!  Point made.

Please help me understand what is illegal here.  As far as I know, the
only thing AT&T has to legally provide as far as payphone service is
concerned is long distance coin, because nobody else wants this
business.  Anything else (again as far as payphones) is a business
venture that is subject to the rules of the market place.

Fraud for calling cards is of immense proportion.  It might even be
safe to say it runs in the *hundreds* of millions per year.  I have
heard quotes that call it the fastest growing segment of the telephony
industry!!!!  Accounting 101 tells us that corporations exist to make
a profit, not to see how high the uncollectables can grow.  If fraud
patterns exist, who is to say a corporation cannot defend against
them?  Who is to say that Pathmark or K-mart or Sears or a mom and pop
video rental store MUST do business in the same neighborhoods you
describe above if they feel the risk is unacceptable?  What makes AT&T
so special here?  A caller can still drop coins into the phone and
complete the same call on the network and it will cost him less!


J "Pre-Holiday Stress" Butz    AT&T - BL
[e-mail]        ER700 Sys Eng
Opinions are mine.


[Moderator's Note: I don't know of any such 'calling center' in
Chicago. I'd be interested in more details about these: where they are
located (which cities/neighborhoods); what are the charges for the
service, etc. Regards illegal activities, telephone calling cards are
considered extensions of credit, and as such, the federal government
regulates credit lending practices. Credit regulations forbid
discrimination based on ethnic origin. People from Israel (for
example) would be quite likely to call Israel on the telephone. Ditto
people from (for example) India or Pakistan calling their homelands.
AT&T will not accept their credit card as payment on calls to Israel,
India or Pakistan -- regardless of their printed literature which says
they will do so -- to those countries for no other reason than the
rate of fraud being quite high when calling those places from the USA.

The possibility of fraud is not a sufficient reason to deny credit to
someone.  I can call a friend in the UK from a pay telephone downtown
and use my AT&T Calling Card as payment. My next door neighbor, who
comes from Iran cannot use his calling card to call from the payphone
at the corner 7/11 to call his home country. That is discrimination
and it is illegal under federal law. As a matter of fact, since we
have a large number of 'coinless payphones' here in the War on Drugs,
this makes a Catch-22 situation: Those calls cannot be paid for with
coins during overnight hours when the phone is restricted, nor can a
calling card be used. I have a great deal of sympathy with the telcos
due to the high amount of fraud they suffer, but the problem is in
their system, and they'll have to fix it in a lawful manner. Why not
consider using 'voice prints'? I think Sprint has such a thing they
were testing, and 'voice prints' are almost foolproof, no?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: CPC Detection and Purpose
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 20:45:15 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: You are correct, and furthermore, you could not
> just put dialtone on hold ... there had to be an actual connection
> established.

On my 1A2 connected to a GTD-5 CO, you can put dialtone on hold, but
when it changes from dialtone to the recording there is a loss of
current which then disables the hold.

Regarding the ringing being out of sync with the real line ringing, on
the line cards there are jumpers with optional external resistors to
program the time delay -- too short and it stops ringing/flashing
between "real rings", too long and it continues to ring/flash after
"real ringing" has stopped.  Do more modern key systems/PBXes have
better ring detection than this?  I thought most also had this
problem.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:29:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Graham
Toal) writes ...

> However, we were wondering ... has anyone ever built actual
> *telephones* for use in a building with local ethernet that used
> tcp/ip?  If not, there's a tremendous market there: You can program
> your phone with your extension, and take it with you when you move
> office without reprogramming the exchange (a trivial point but one
> that would be useful in *our* office where we're always bloody moving
> :-( ) but more importantly you only need to run one ether trunk round
> the whole building to cover all possible present and future phone
> *and* network needs.

It's not practical.  Ethernet has too much latency plus variable
bandwidth.  Ethernet telephone's a classical hack of computer
scientists with no telephony background who think the whole world's IP
and wonder why anybody does anything else.

Besides, if you want the _convenience_ of "automatic" moves, then you
can use a PBX with that feature.  The Northern Telecom SL-1 has an
automatic move and change feature: You dial a code, move your phone to
a different jack, dial another code with the same key number, and your
extension has moved!

But it's rarely implemented.  There's too much room for abuse for most
telecom administrators to want it -- normal moves only require a few
keystrokes anyway (no wiring).  Besides, if you used Ethernet for
phones, imagine how easy it would to be to tap the lines!  Anybody can
stick Ethernet into promiscuous mode ... not MY phone!


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #904
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15536;
          15 Dec 92 2:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08731
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:59:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32109
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:58:51 -0600
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:58:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #905

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Dec 92 00:58:49 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 905

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Data Services for Digital Cellular (Allen Levesque)
    GTE PCS Trial Begins (Ken Jongsma)
    GTE Mastercard (Ken Jongsma)
    "The Net <tm>"? (Brad S. Hicks)
    Administrivia: Issue 904 Went Astray (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allen Levesque)
Subject: Data Services for Digital Cellular
Organization: GTE Government Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:03:07 GMT


"Interoperable Data Services For Evolving North American Cellular
Networks,"
by David Weissman, Allen H. Levesque, and Richard A. Dean.

Following is the introductory section of an article scheduled to
appear in the {IEEE Communications Magazine}, Vol. 31, No. 2, February
1993.  This article describes the progress of work being done by the
Data Services Task Group of the Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA) Subcommittee TR45.3 on Digital Cellular Standards.
The Task Group is currently defining circuit-switched digital data
bearer services to be provided by the North American TDMA Digital
Cellular system.  The services will include Group 3 Facsimile,
Asynchronous Data and Synchronous Data.  Both Transparent and
Non-Transparent services will be supported.  Each bearer service will
support interoperation between mobile data devices in the cellular
network and standard Facsimile machines and data modems in the Public
Switched Telephone Network.

The authors wish to thank members of the TR45.3 Data Services Task
Group, including Richard Ejzak, Jay Jayapalan, John Michaelides, Simon
Mizikovsky, Hans Petter Naper, and Al Sacuta for their support and
inputs to the standards activities.

INTRODUCTION

We are all being exposed to a revolution in communications.  A
revolution that is taking us from a world where telephone subscribers
were constrained to communicate over fixed telephone lines, to one
where a tetherless and mobile environment has become a reality.
Mobile communications, which include cellular telephones, mobile
satellite, land mobile radio, mobile data networks and personal
communication systems (PCS), have experienced enormous growth over the
last decade.

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), for
instance, has stated that there are currently over 8.8 million
cellular subscribers in the United States, which compares with
approximately 4.4 million in June 1990 and 90,000 subscribers in 1984
[1].  This trend is apparent across the industry and with the demand
for mobile communications continuing to grow at a rapid pace, problems
with high levels of communication traffic are expected to become
severe in many regions.

As a result, maximizing the utilization of limited radio frequency
resources is now a primary concern to commercial service providers and
communication regulatory committees.  In conjunction with this
revolution, we are witnessing a transition in our communication
network's infrastructure.  After more than a century of reliance on
analog-based technology for telecommunications, we now live in a mixed
analog and digital world and are rapidly moving toward all-digital
networks.  The mobile communications industry is one of many that will
continue to benefit from the introduction of digital technology.

As the demand for communication services continues to increase,
cellular carriers are looking towards digital implementations for
larger capacity and a wider offering of services to mobile users.
Digital systems have also been advocated for better performance in a
wireless environment.  Channel coding, interleaving, and other digital
techniques can be used to provide additional robustness for radio
channels affected by shadowing, fading, and other forms of
perturbation.  Quite independent of the use of digital technology in
mobile networks is the increasing reliance on data communications in
the commercial and government sectors, as well as for personal and
cultural usage.  Today's modem-based, circuit-switched data
communications connect an ever growing number of users for PC
(personal computer), facsimile and special data applications, such as
the U.S. Government's secure voice terminal (STU-III).

While mobile networks transition to digital, an environment
susceptible to a number of interoperability problems will exist for a
wide range of modem-based data services, since simplicity and
transparency of end-to-end analog communications between mobile
networks and the analog Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) are
lost. These issues are currently being addressed so that connectivity
between mobile environments and the PSTN can be maintained without
severely impacting the present community of PSTN data users.  With the
near coincidence of schedules for development of many second
generation digital cellular, PCS, and mobile satellite systems, an
opportunity exists to resolve interoperability problems with
commonality in mind by defining interfaces, control procedures, and
mobile data protocols that are compatible with an expandable array of
common data services.

Another growing part of today's land mobile data transfer is of the
dispatch type, which involves communication between dispatch centers
and field personnel with mobile units.  One method of using the
networks effectively for this category of applications is to subdivide
information into small packets and transmit them at allocated
intervals on shared packetized radio channels.  Several advantages of
packet-switched data include the utilization of the channels only when
sending or receiving bursts of information, and the elimination of
frequent call setup (tear-down) procedures that are often associated
with establishing (terminating) dedicated circuit-switched
connections.

The packet approach also promotes a structure supporting intelligent
data protocols, such as flow control and retransmission, which can
provide highly reliable transfer in degraded channel conditions.
Benefits to the users are often reflected by reduced transmission
costs and virtual error-free transmission.  Examples of currently-used
packet data systems for mobile applications include, ARDIS, formulated
by IBM and Motorola, and RAM Mobile Data Network, which uses Ericsson
Mobitex mobile data technology.

Mobile Satellite Systems will also offer packet-switched data, as
illustrated with Telesat Mobile Inc.'s Mobile Data System (MDS) [2].
Other implementations, such as Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD),
are being defined to transport data as a supplement to the services
offered by today's North American analog cellular network [3].
Unfortunately, with much publicity being given to the aforementioned
dedicated packet data systems, less has been directed at the
standardization of data transmission over next generation cellular
networks.

For several years, two standards organizations, the SMG (Special
Mobile Group) of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI), and the TR45.3 Digital Cellular Standards Subcommittee of the
North American Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), have
been committed to the successful definition of both circuit-switched
and packet-switched mobile data technology for next generation
cellular telephones.  The Pan-European Digital Cellular System,
referred to as GSM (Global Systems for Mobile), already has a common
array of digital data transmission channels defined [4, 5].

Within the next year, the data services standard for the North
American TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) Digital Cellular System
is expected to be in place.  Once implemented, both will support a
multiplicity of circuit- and packet-switched data applications,
including the latest facsimile transfer technology.  Other features,
which at one time may have been too futuristic to discuss, such as
compressed video image transfer (e.g., maps) and facsimile mailboxes,
are expected to proliferate and a larger market will be reached with
the superposition of digital data capabilities on an existing network
infrastructure that was designed primarily for voice communications.
Digital cellular data will further promote accommodations for
integrated voice, data and paging solutions with the need for only one
mobile radio unit, and it will reach a subscriber base that is
expected to dominate the mobile telephone market over the next
decades.

Defining standards for data transmission over digital cellular
requires a new look at the technologies and disciplines emerging for
not only radio, but also for data and networking.  It does not
represent a direct translation of techniques used for today's data
communications over the landline networks.  Instead, successful data
services will depend on the merger of technologies developed for
digital radios, data protocols, and networking for efficient
adaptation of data communications to the wireless channel environment.

In the following sections, we focus on data services over cellular.
We briefly discuss the limitations of data transmission over analog
cellular networks and then address the main challenges to be met in
defining a standard for effective data transmission over digital
cellular channels, devoting particular attention to North American
developments.  Table 1 briefly compares some of the technical
characteristics of the analog and TDMA digital cellular systems in
North America.  Given the expectation that next generation cellular
networks will soon become widely deployed, digital cellular data
service should develop into a large market since it will make mobile
data as accessible as voice service in the ubiquitous cellular
systems, and will offer significant advantages over other systems.


END OF EXCERPT- 12/14/92


ALLEN LEVESQUE, GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORP., WALTHAM, MASS. USA,
TEL: [phone], FAX: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I encourage interested parties to get the February
issue of the magazine to continue this interesting report which is
excerpted here due to space considerations.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:05:11 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE PCS Trial Begins


 From the latest GTE Quarterly Shareholder Report:

"...GTE in August announced the nation's largest market trial of
wireless communications services.

Called Tele-Go Phone Service, the comprehensive consumer-market trial
offers two versions of personal communications services (PCS) to GTE
residental and small business telephone customers in Florida's Tampa
Bay area. The trial, which began in September and will conclude by
year end 1993, is a joint product of GTE Mobile Communications, GTE
Telephone Operations, GTE Laboratories, AT&T Network Systems, OKI
Telecom and Northern Telecom Inc.

[...]

The experimental GTE Tele-Go includes two versions of PCS.

The first, a fully mobile version, offers an improved-quality cordless
telephone service at home with the advantages of cellular-like
mobility away from home. Customers will have a set number of minutes
of usage for a fixed rate [Ha! Sounds like measured rate to me. -Ken]
when within their neighborhood "home area". Outside the "home area,"
these same customers can continue to use the service -- even when
traveling in a moving vehicle -- for a nominal "premimum area" charge.

The second version employs the same "home area" and "premimum area"
calling and billing options. However, the PCS handset cannot receive
inbound calls when it is outside the "home area." Those calls are
routed directly to a voicemail system and can be retrieved from either
home or preimum areas.

[...]

Customers must also be standing still or walking, as opposed to
traveling in a car, when placing calls, as the signal does not "hand
off" from one PCS antenna site to another.

These restrictions will help determine how "mobile" the residential
customers really want to be.

During the trial, customers will have the option of subscribing to
Tele-Go as a replacement of their residential service or as an
addition to it. [...]

<end of article>


Kenneth R Jongsma        [e-mail]
Smiths Industries     3115,[e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan         [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:52:17 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE Mastercard


 From the latest GTE Shareholder Quarterly Report:

"GTE has introduced the GTE Mastercard to consumers within its
telephone operating areas.

Offering the best features of a GTE Calling Card and a Mastercard, the
new GTE Mastercard is being issued by Associates National Bank
(Delaware) [Isn't that the bank Ford owns/is using for it's card?
-Ken] GTE Card Services, a unit of GTE Corp., is responsible for card
marketing. GTE Telephone Operations is responsible for all
telephone-charge functions of the card.

[...]

The initial offering of the GTE Mastercard began in late September
with mailings to consumers in 29 states where GTE provides telephone
service. A card offering in 11 additional states where GTE provides
phone service, including California, will be made in 1993. Consumers
in non GTE telephone operating areas and international areas are not
being solicited.

GTE Mastercard features include no annual fee, an introductory
variable APR equal to the prime rate and a credit limit of up to
$7500. The introductory interest rate is in effect until April 30,
1993. After this date, the rate will be prime plus 10.4%.

Also, as a part of its agreement with GTE, Associates National Bank
will provide cardholders with 10% cash-back, up to $50 per year, on
phone charges generated using the calling card feature.

[...]

<End of Article>


Kenneth R Jongsma         [e-mail]
Smiths Industries     [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan          [phone]

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:39:27 GMT
Subject: "The Net <tm>"?


There's an article in the October 15th {Electronic Mail and Micro
Systems}, which just made its way to me, about a reorganization of
Mediatel and Telecom Canada to market both of their products (and a
few other bits of this and that) under a new company name: "The Net."

No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
"The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

This burns me up.  Anybody who's been in this industry as long as I
have, let along as long as they have, knows what The Net is; it's the
informal collective name for the Internet and all of the subnetworks
and national networks that are bridged into it.  As the saying goes,
if you can "telnet nic.mil.gov", then you're on The Net.  And now
they're taking over that name to be a proprietary trademark.  It looks
to me like a flagrant attempt to highjack the goodwill the Internet,
et al, have built up over the years and to fool the telecom-illiterati
into thinking that if they buy "The Net Mail" that they're connecting
to what we all think of as The Net.

I haven't been this steamed since the last time a megacorp highjacked
a common term, when IBM (in my mind, illegally) trademarked the
acronym for "personal computer."

Is there anything anybody can do about this?


mc![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think in the United States at least, there is an
organization called the Internet Trust which holds in trust certain
things to prevent their mis-use. I am not sure what all this entails,
but I think it may 'own' the copyrights for some of the network stuff.
Can anyone familiar with the Internet Trust elaborate on this?  Would
it possibly be a good idea for the Trust to copyright some of the
terms we use on a regular basis, or do they already?  The Internet
Society is another possible organization for use as a holder of those
copyrights needed to protect 'the net' from mis-use of the kind Brad
discusses.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:27:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Administrivia: Issue 904 Went Astray


Thanks to the 235 of you who wrote me to say that Issue 904 arrived
without any contents. It left here with contents, but in the process
of going through sendmail there came back a message saying "/var: out
of space, no room to write file".  That particular invocation of
sendmail droned on through the night here, stumbling around and
causing that out of space message to show up over and over.

So, I resent the whole thing about an hour ago. Hopefully everyone has
it now. It was no trouble on the comp.dcom.telecom side of things, so
I did not re-issue it there.

For next: to the several of you who have suggested I should break up
MCI Mail's delivery into either single mailings or (as one person
suggested) several little mailings with a few names each, the answer
is NO!  I will not do that.  I am not going to impose further on
eecs.nwu.edu and the staff here. I am already one of the largest (if
not the largest) user(s) of mail and network resources at this site.
Either MCI Mail makes the changes needed or I drop that part of the
mailing list.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #905
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18968;
          15 Dec 92 4:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28682
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:16:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16789
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:15:51 -0600
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:15:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #906

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:15:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 906

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T InfoQuest Centre (Dave Leibold)
    LD Blocking From Pay Phones (Greg T. Stovall)
    Inter-NPA Local Dialing (Steve Forrette)
    Having Problems With Dracon Butt Set (Jim Miller)
    Questions About Scanner Laws ([e-mail])
    Lightning Protection For PBX (Wayne Jones)
    Wanted: Executone Equity II Manual ([e-mail])
    Line Trouble: What's a "Slick" Line? (Chris Turkstra)
    Cordless Phones (Gary Crum)
    900 Scam Update - Credit Collection Center of Miami (John Nagle)
    Pocket Auto-Dialer vs Pocket Schedule Keeper (Troy Frericks)
    Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (Colum Mylod)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 ([e-mail])
    Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998 (Richard Cox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:02:48 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: AT&T InfoQuest Center


The current episode of {Media Television}, produced by City TV in
Toronto, had a segment on the AT&T InfoQUEST Center (in New York???).
This is a facility with a number of hi-tech exhibits which visitors
can operate, such as the ability to make up a personalised access
card. It's a communications-oriented science musem, like a higher tech
version of Toronto's Ontario Science Centre, or (on a smaller scale)
Fort Lauderdale's Discovery Center.

There are light guide tunnels, video displays, demonstrations of fibre
optic systems, make your own music video, microchip displays, voice
synthesiser (that wasn't pronouncing the phrase "beauty shops" very
well), etc are all part of this undertaking.

Unfortunately, there isn't much time to make a visit; the news item
finished off by stating "the InfoQUEST Center has no future - December
30, 1992 - CLOSED".


[e-mail]    [e-mail]
plus...  the Fidonet thingy...
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:59:00 +0000
From: Greg (G.T.) Stovall <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Blocking From Pay Phones


Recently, my wife had to make a couple of urgent phone calls while out
taking her mother to the hospital.  The phone booth she ended up at
was owned by ZERO-PLUS DIALING services, with LD service provided by
Cherokee Communications.

My wife tried everything she knew to get to one of the big-three
carriers (ATT, MCI, SPRINT), including using access codes and dialing
1-800 numbers.  She tried calling the operator to ask for connection
to another LD service, but they kept putting her on hold whenever she
would ask.  Finally, in desperation, she used the booth as the owners
wished.

The result?  Two phone calls, each for $4.52.  I checked, and this is
NINE times the rate for the big-three.  After calling and complaining
to the company (and invoking the name of PUC and FCC), the operator
gave me a credit of $8.06, which was certainly a step in the right
direction.  However, she said that it is NOT illegal to block access
to alternate carriers from private pay phones.  I thought it was.

The question is, "Who is correct?"  Should I tell ATT, SPRINT, and the
FCC about this incident?


Gregory T. Stovall        [e-mail]
Bell-Northern Research    ESN   444-7009
Richardson, Texas, USA   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I think they can block the autodialed 10xxx
version, but their operator has to extend your call to AT&T on
request. But of course their operators can be busy and you might have
to wait on hold awhile ... :) as long as your wife was not denied the
connection (constructively denied by virtue of never getting the
operator's attention does not count!) then there probably is nothing
illegal. They have to put your through one way or the other. The
trouble with 10xxx is the same a lot of the PBX operators complain
about: fraud, incorrect, and non- billing is abundant if the switch
(or I suppose, the private payphone's innards) cannot cope with it.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:36:58 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inter-NPA Local Dialing


I'm in the process of writing a modem dialer, and I have the following
question: is there any place in the US where an inter-areacode local
call must be dialed as a 10-digit call, and where 1 + ten digits won't
work?


Thanks,

Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Miller)
Subject: Having Problems With Dracon Butt Set
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:05:19 EST


Hi,

   My Dracon TS-21 butt set won't dial anymore. I am writing to the
net to see if anyone else has had the same problem.  The set works OK
in all functions except the tone pad quit working.

   When the switch is set to pulse, the buttons do absolutely nothing
 -- no clicks, no audible noises on the line, nothing at all.

   On the tone setting, pressing a button seems to place a large load
on the line. If you are listening to dial tone, the volume of the dial
tone gets knocked down to the point that it is hard to hear. Once the
button is released, dial tone comes back to normal level. No DTMF
tones are generated at all.

   I have a theory regarding what might have happened. I was
troubleshooting an installation that had two POTS lines which had
become shorted together somewhere. I was clipping onto one line at the
demarc and dialing the other with the butt set. Since the lines were
shorted together, I could hear LOUD ringing voltage from the other
line getting into the line I was clipped onto. I am guessing that some
ring voltage got into the keypad while I was dialing, and fried the
keypad, although I would think that the butt set would be protected
internally from this with some type of clamping circuit.

   Maybe it just went bad, though. Anyhow, I need to find a repair
source for this unit.  If you know of a repair source for Harris-
Dracon products, would you let me know who/where/etc?

Thanks -- your help is very much appreciated.


Jim Miller   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions About Scanner Laws
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:00:51 PST


Is it legal to own a scanner that can receive cellular phone
frequencies?  Is it legal to use one?  Is it legal to modify a scanner
to receive these frequencies?

And ditto, with regard to cordless phones and baby monitors.  Same
questions about scanning these things.


[Moderator's Note: If the scanner was made prior to the change in the
law, then it is not illegal to own it or use it. It is illegal to
listen to those frequencies, or in the event they are tuned accidentally
to acknowledge any transmission overheard. It is now illegal to make a
scanner which receives those frequencies. It is illegal to modify a
scanner to recieve those frequencies. In other words, if you had a
Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner and you pulled diodes D-3 and D-4 from the
circuit, you would be breaking the law. I am reminded of the 'Radio
Hobbyists Guild' which some fool here in Chicago operated a decade ago
when Oak/Channel 44 was running scrambled pay television. He send out
detailed schematics and copious notes to anyone who sent money to his
post office box. These schematics and notes informed the reader exactly
what NOT to do to avoid breaking any laws when building things which
'resembled' decoder boxes.  (What's that, Pfieffer? Who, me? Blush!).
During the 1920's, the Annheuser-Busch Brewing Company sent out kits
for making your own near-beer ("be sure not to connect A to B or add
any of ingredient C; that would be violating Prohibition ...")   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:08:39 MST
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Jones)
Subject: Lightning Protection For PBX


I am looking for easily installed lightning protection for a PBX.
Preferably something that incorporates a gas discharge device, series
impedance and avalanche device that will plug onto 66 block terminals
for a single pair.  The package should be small enough to be
end-stackable to allow as many lines on the block to be protected as
required.  Anyone know if such a beast exists and where I might look?
I've seen the ones that have gas discharge devices only but feel that
the firing time is just too long to give adequate protection.


Wayne Jones   505-434-7043   email: [e-mail]
National Solar Observatory  P.O. Box 62  Sunspot, NM  88349

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wanted: Executone Equity II Manual
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:44:05 GMT


My father has asked me to post this for him. He is looking for a copy
of the installation manual for the Executone Equity II sytem.  The
manufacturer will sell him a users manual, but he needs the
installation manual before he can sell the system.  If anyone has a
copy, or knows where he can get one, please reply via email, as I
don't read this group too often.


Thanks,

Dave


[Moderator's Note: Have you tried writing Executone?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Screwtape)
Subject: Line Trouble: What's a "Slick" Line?
Organization: Hope College Dept of CS
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:31:00 GMT


After many tribulations and modem settings, me and USR have decided
(with the help of ATI6) that the phone lines (2) running to my BBS are
crummy.  Called the MI bell guy, and he came and offered no help.  He
did, however say that my lines run on a "slick" system of some sort.
Couldn't get him to stick around and explain it, but I got the
impression that it was some kind of MUX jobber or something ... can
anyone shed any light on this?  Any why it won't let callers connect
at HST, but fine with V.32bis?


Chris Turkstra   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Your impression is somewhat correct, and the term
is SLC, which comes out pronounced 'slick'. I'm sure a few readers
will reply to you direct with all the details.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Crum)
Subject: Cordless Phones
Organization: University of Utah
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:17:42


I'm interested in cordless phones.  Any product recommendations?  I'm
not talking about cellular portable phones -- rather the kind that
comes with a base unit that plugs into a phone jack.

It seems like cordless phones will soon be digital, just as phone
answering machines are making the transition to digital recording
storage.  While on an America West airline flight, I saw a catalog of
gadgets, and in it was a cordless phone for $200 that was described to
use digital communications technology to reduce interference noise.
Unfortunately I don't even remember the manufacturer's name.  Does
anyone know of cordless phones that use digital sound signals over
their radio links?

Does anyone know of places that sell Bell South cordless phones,
besides Sears?  Sears has the Bell South 698 cordless phone, with
intercom, and it looks like a good feature set.  Sears also has the
Bell South 698BK, which does not have an intercom feature but which
comes in a nice looking black styling.  Sears does not sell a model
that has the features of the 698 but in black.  Does Bell South make
such a phone?  If so, that's probably the one I'll get as a Christmas
gift.


Thanks,

Gary

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: 900 Scam Update -- Credit Collection Center of Miami
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:31:12 GMT


Previously I reported on what seemed to be a phony billing scam
operated by Credit Collection Center of Miami, Florida.  They're
sending out collection notices for 900 number calls that were
supposedly referred back to the service provider by the local telco,
coupled with a threat that they will damage the receiver's credit
rating if not paid.

        The US Postal Inspection Service Office for the Southern
Region is actively investigating this scam.  They've been receiving
many complaints.  Even people with 900 blocking are being hit, I was
told.  The person answering the phone at the Inspection Service office
(901-722-7700) knew all about this outfit as soon as I mentioned the
name.  Media people might want to follow up on this.

        If you've received a "collection notice" from this outfit, it
should be reported to:

    US Postal Service
    Regional Chief Inspector
    1407 Union Avenue
    10th Floor
    Memphis, TN 38161-0008
    attn: Fraud


John Nagle

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

From: mcrware!![e-mail] (Troy Frericks)
Subject: Pocket Auto-Dialer vs Pocket Schedule Keeper
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:57:34 GMT


I have been WAITING for a pocket auto-dialer that has the capabilities
of something like the Sharp Wizard or the Casio Boss.  Rolodex has
also released some products, but nobody has combined the features of
auto-dial and organizer.

The Boss and Wizard both will keep a personal 'phone book', but they
will not generate DTMF tones.  Go to the trouble of entering the names
and numbers, and you still have to dial them yourself.

My question is: WHY? Does anybody know?  I've been watching for one
for about two years. I'm about ready to give in and buy an organizer,
but auto-dial would be nice for making a cell call (while driving).


Troy Frericks                      Internet: [e-mail]
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: [phone]
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: How would you use it with a cellular phone? Unlike
a conventional phone which provides an audio path (to something
somewhere willing to listen to the tones you send from whatever
source) immediatly when you go off hook, a cell phone does not open
the audio path -- does not listen to anything beeped or spoken to it
 -- until after the number has been dialed and the SEND key pushed.
Then it does its thing with the tower, the finally it opens the audio
circuit in the phone.  Cellular phone speed dialing makes better sense
in this case I would think.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: Xenon Systems News n Mail, Hollywood
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:04:41 GMT


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

> Does anyone know where I can get a small memory dialer?  Something
> about the size of Radio Shack's mini tonepad would be good, and I only
> need a maximum of a dozen memories.

    You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
number 43-141?

    To quote from the Rat Shack Catalog: "This pocket dialer has a
33-number memory to let you access low-rate long distance and special
services. Requires three "AAA" batereries."

    Looks like it should do what you need. Also it is an ideal
Chrissie present for your mate -- programm your phone number in and
you won't have to listen to "I wooda called, but I fergot yer numba."


Julian Macassey at xenon. [e-mail] Voice: [phone]
Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142

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

From: [e-mail] (Colum Mylod)
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:38:04 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Linc Madison) writes:

> I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme
> I've ever heard of.

> in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
> handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
> Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Not only Paris but all of France: every city, town, village, hamlet,
farm, barn.  Ditto for all of Denamrk. And you know what? They like it
that way! The minor inconvenience of dialing Claud next door on eight
digits is ameliorated by the convenience of having Michele 200 miles
away also eight digits. More importantly modem/laptop dialers have it
soooo easy with a standard format for all calls.  A standard format
goes down well with the public, much simpler than having to remember
where-am-I before making that call. No, Aussies should go to
no-area-codes nine (or so) digit numbers. Much preferable to Holland's
and Austria's area-code-for-every-village scheme with its "do I dial 0
first?". I await the day we all use fixed schemes worldwide.


Colum Mylod    [e-mail] IMHO of course.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Hofmann)
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Organization: Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, Switzerland
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:41:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Linc Madison) writes:

> Are they going to institute local calling within each area code?  Not
> likely!  Also, you'll have to dial eight digits to make a local call
> in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
> handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
> Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Every phone number in France (even in the smallest village) has eight
digits.


Tom

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes 1994-1998
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:15:00 GMT
Organization: Australian National University


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

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

>> New area code:  Supercedes [sic] old area codes: And localnumbers become:
>> 03          00X                   6XXX XXXX

> You mentioned that this conversion table covered "geographic services
> only," so am I correct in inferring that free-phone (008) numbers will
> not map into the new three zone?  Presumably.  some new 0X code will
> supersede 008; any idea what it will be?

It was earlier posted here that 008 numbers would become 180 and 0055
would become 190, similar to the USA's 1-800 and 1-900 system. This
was to free up the 00 series for international access uses.


Mark    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:42 GMT
From: Richard Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Australian Number Changes, 1994-1998
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) wrote:

> I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme I've
> ever heard of.

It seems to be a successful approach as used in Paris, Copenhagen and
Tokyo (and possibly a few others I might not know about !)  I know
NANP users are used to 3-3-4 format, with seven digit local dialling,
and NPA splits where some area codes can't cope.  Eight digits are no
worse: the less frequently the user needs to dial codes for his *local
routine* calls, the less chance there will be of misdialing into the
wrong zone!

> Also, you'll have to dial eight digits to make a local call in the
> tiniest, most remote town in the nation.

Quite so.  And if you are visiting that town, you will know *precisely*
what to dial (unlike visitors to the majority of US towns and cities !)

>  There are only a handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit
>  numbers: Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

But reports tell us that their users like them ...

>  Further, the alternatives are so OBVIOUS it's painful.  If Sydney or
>  Melbourne needs to split, you can divide them into 020/021 or 030/031.

If you do that you have to "blacklist" a significant proportion of the
number stock, particularly near the border between the two codes.
Individual heavily called numbers that are nowhere near the borders
have to be blacklisted too !  It wastes numbers and annoys customers.
(London "split" in 1990: we're still regretting it !)

Think of the future -- the trend nowadays is for tariffs to be less
dependant on distance. Users who move location would prefer to keep
their numbers: but that can only happen when the move is within a
single numbering area. So the bigger the area, the happier the
customers!  When you get local competition for dialtone, there will be
a need for all numbers to be "portable" between competing telcos
within the same area.  As different telcos will have their exchanges
sited in different areas, the only adequate solution will be total
portability within an NPA or LATA.


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: [phone]      Fax: [phone]      VoiceMail: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #906
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00235;
          17 Dec 92 3:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16906
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:46:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16401
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:46:06 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:46:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #907

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Dec 92 01:46:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 907

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rumor: Any Substance to It? (Richard Pressl)
    Local Dialins / Direct 800 Numbers (Paul Robinson)
    How Does an American Call Canada From Italy? (William R. Franklin)
    I Want a Complete Audio System (Russell Nelson)
    Fly-by-Phone (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
    CallerID on FX Lines? (Brian Perry)
    510-613 vs 613-NNX (John M. Sullivan)
    Eight Digit French Phone Numbers (was Australian Changes) (Stewart Clamen)
    Good But Cheap Used Telephones (Nigel Allen)
    Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble  (William Petrisko)
    Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Rumor: Any Substance to It?
From: [e-mail] (Richard Pressl)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:55:42 EST
Organization: CMDA, Euclid, OH


Late today I heard of a rather disquieting occurance which I have
every reason to beleive is true, and which has ominious implications
for BBS Sysops who handle the new evaluation copy of Telix, contained
in the archives: TLX320-1 thru 4.ZIP.

A local Sysop was called by a person identifying himself as Jeff
Woods, the new owner of deltaComm, the company which bought the rights
to Telix. Woods informed the Sysop that the Telix files on his system
violated the distribution agreement because the stored archives did
not contain all the files, and the AV stamp distributed in the
original.  Woods further warned the Sysop that he, Woods, would bring
legal action against the BBS if the copies were not removed.

Since I was the person who uploaded the archives, minutes after
getting it from the deltaComm BBS, without changing anything, I am a
bit concerned. Apparently the BBS I uploaded the archives to scans the
incoming files, and appends their own AV stamp, overwriting the
deltaComm AV stamp.

After running a PC BBS for over six years, I have never come across
this kind of behavior by a Shareware author/firm, and wish to obtain
either a refutation of this from Jeff Woods, or acknowledgement of the
accuracy of it, so I may respond accordingly.

Thus I am writing this note to receive a response from anyone directly
related to this matter.


Thanks,

PS: Private email would be preferred

[e-mail]     Fido 1:157/562
Richard Pressl: Commercial Micro Data Analysts: UCC-OC, Cleveland
SysOp: Bizhost BBS: [phone]   Searchlight/Waffle/HST-DS


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps if this message reaches Mr. Woods' attention
he will favor us all with a response. It might be interesting.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 03:59 GMT
From: Tansin A. Darcos & Company <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Dialins / Direct 800 Numbers


Could someone tell me how someone obtains a recipient connection to
local dial up ports around the U.S. with specified service, such as
some companies operate, i.e. for allowing lower cost connections than
someone dialing direct via AT&T or MCI or Sprint at $0.12-0.20 a
minute?

I think Compuserve runs something like this at a rate around 30c/hour
(for Compuserve clients), and they do provide connections for other
companies, because TRT runs its Telex service for PCs via Compuserve's
dialup network.

A rate such as this (or even somewhat higher) is fine (I don't know
how much they charge for someone to connect to the service and rates,
and I wonder if there are other options available from other
companies).  Telenet can be scratched right off as their ridiculous
rates of 25c/minute are more than it would cost to put a national
1-800 line in.

In the alternative, I have heard some companies - usually telephone
companies -- can set up an 800 number to call into them, i.e. usually
for use in setting up an outdial line for long distance service.  As I
understand this, the rate they are paying is around $0.05-0.08 per
minute.  (Local dial port where the caller specifies the service he
wants to connect to is probably less expensive than this.)

Can someone who knows anything about this explain how one does this?
Is it because they (1) have a connection into _every single_ LATA in
the U.S. and thus run the connection over their own wires; or (2) they
lease lines from and pay for a connection from someone else who does
(1).

What I am thinking about is a lower-cost way of setting up a dial-in
service for people using modems (or conceivably, fax machines).  As
such it will be doing almost _continuous_ data transfer.  This
probably makes PCPursuit not acceptable since it has problems with
this type of activity, and PCP doesn't handle fax (but then again,
local dialup companies probably don't handle fax, either).

The primary use is for people to _call in_ for doing data transfers.
Essentially this is something akin to what Mci Mail is doing. (If they
didn't charge such a high rate per K to send messages, I could
probably do the whole thing through them.) I.e. someone calls a number
and sends or receives whatever messages / data they are after.

Any information about how this works and what has to be done would be
of interest, i.e. how many lines one has to subscribe to, or is it
done on a block-booking basis, i.e. minimum of 500 hours a month or
some number. I want to get an idea of the costs involved in doing
this.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:15 +0100 (MET)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Does an American Call Canada From Italy?


The standard ways for Americans to call the US from Italy, ATT's and
MCI's USA Direct and variants, do not go to Canada.  (I can use MCI to
call Germany from Italy at $2/minute, but not Canada from Italy.)  I
have to buy $7 phone cards, guessing in advance how many I need, and
then use a pay phone.  Then I may get an obnoxious voice-mail system
that needs to be commanded using touch-tones, but that's another
story.

Please email replies, and I'll post their info content.  Since I read
news over an unreliable link passing thru 20 computers between Italy
and RPI, I might not be able to catch all posted replies before they
expire.

BTW, some Italian phones in advanced PBXs do use touch-tones, but
they're rare.  Surprisingly, those tones are American-compatible.
Also, American-intended answering machines work on Italian phones.

Political comment: Italy is so primitive that they haven't invented
540-xxxx and other innocent-looking numbers yet to drain your
pocketbook.  Since I am unable to get a list of the American
booby-trap exchanges in the US from NYNEX, it's great that I don't
have to try to get a list here.

Thanks.


Wm. Randolph Franklin,  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,  USA
Send email (only) to: [e-mail]
 Visiting:  Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze
          dell'Informazione, Universita` di Genova

Regardless of where I email from, please email to:
[e-mail] . Because of the way that this Vax formats
mail headers, you CANNOT use the 'reply' command to reply to
mail that I send from Genoa.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:46:49 EST
From: Russell Nelson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Crynwr Software
Subject: I Want a Complete Audio System


I want a complete audio system.  I don't think it exists yet.  I want
to be able to pick from the following components, possibly with
multiple instances of each device.

Audio generators:
  o Telco line card (with caller id)
  o Radio receiver
  o Cassette player
  o CD player
  o Disk file
  o Microphone (on headset)
  o DTMF generator
  o V.32vis modem
  o FAX modem

Audio receivers:
  o Telco line card
  o Stereo headset (comfortable enough to wear all day).
  o Cassette recorder
  o Speakers
  o Disk file
  o DTMF recognizer
  o V.32vis modem
  o FAX modem

Everything should be under computer control, including which inputs
are connected to which outputs (using a crosspoint switch).  This will
let me do the following things (NOT a comprehensive list):

  o Music on hold.
  o Record my phone conversation to a file.
  o Play back an audio clip to someone I'm talking to on the phone.
  o Answer the phone and cut off the radio.
  o Dial the phone from a database.

My ZyXEL modem does a lot of this, but there are some things it
doesn't do right.  For example, if I try to record a phone convo to
disk, the modem has to come on the line, and that introduces a loss in
the signal.

The telco headset is mono, telco (4Khz) quality and isn't infinitely
comfortable.

Everything should be digitized once, and carried in digital form in
the system.


russ <[e-mail]> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.

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

Subject: Fly-by-Phone
From: [e-mail] (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 10:38 MST
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department


The following crazy idea came up the other day, and I figured this
forum would best know the answers as to whether or not it would be
technically feasible: Would it be possible to control a large model
airplane via cellular telephone, i.e., put a cellular telephone on a
plane along with a gray scale camera and some sort of processing to do
data crunching, and then fly it from a terminal attached to anywhere
Ma Bell (or her offspring) might reach?  My first reaction was that
the bandwidth would be too low, given that videophones even running
over ISDN are no prize, but then again you could crank down the
contrast, perform data compression, use linear predictive coding,
etc., to try to mash down the necessary bits.  Obviously it could be
done if you were willing to fly sloooooow enough ;-) but what sorts of
communications performance could you reasonably hope to achieve?  And
how good is scene compression?


Ross   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Perry)
Subject: CallerID on FX Lines?
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:44 GMT


I am interested in finding out if Caller-ID works over Foreign
Exchange lines.  I am in an area at home which has an old 1AESS switch
which New England Tel has no plans to upgrade anytime soon.  Im
thinking of ordering an FX line out of an adjacent CO so that I can
get features such as CallerID, Distinctive Ringing, etc.  Does anyone
have any experiences with this?


Brian K. Perry, Systems Manager       Tel:   [phone] (office)
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated          617-576-3111 (main #)


[Moderator's Note: I have experience with FX lines, and I can tell you
it will cost you a bundle just to get the FX, let alone the various
features you want.  For the FX, there will be a monthly mileage
charge. In addition, FX is not tariffed for residence service ... only
for business. So if you have any advantages in your town with residence
service not available to business (i.e. flat rate unmeasured local
service versus message units on business lines) be prepared to pay
whatever business customers in that ('foreign') exchange normally pay
plus the mileage fee. If you are still interested, ask telco about the
new features and if they will work on the FX. (I don't think so -- not
that they can't; but that it is unlikely they are tariffed for it.)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John M. Sullivan)
Subject: 510-613 vs 613-NNX
Organization: Geometry Center, Univ. of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:05:43 GMT


A friend in area code 510 (East Bay, CA) reports an interesting new
problem.  He used to call Ottawa by dialing 1-613-XXX-XXXX, but
evidently there is a new exchange 510-613.  Now dialing gets
interrupted after 1-613-XXX-X with the usual inane message "we're
sorry, it is not necessary to dial a `1' when calling that number.
please ..."  An MCI operator was able to connect him to Canada.

I don't know what the history in CA of optional/required 1+ for
intra-NPA toll calls is.  I'm not sure if the 510-613 exchange is as
recent as the message (last few days), or if they merely changed some
software.  I suggested dialing 10xxx-1-613- ... as I assume that will
bypass the problem.


John Sullivan, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think dialing 10-anything will cure the
problem simply because the local telco looks at all digits dialed
first, translates what it sees, *then* hands it off to either the
default one-plus carrier or the 10-of choice carrier. Now if he uses
the carrier's 800 gateway, and accesses their switch direct rather
than via the local telco CO, it probably would work provided the LD
carrier had the correct information. The reason telco looks first,
even with 10-anything is because if it is intra-LATA, the local telco
is not required to hand the call to anyone -- they can process it
in-house. The MCI operator could do it -- as could an AT&T operator --
simply because they do their own thing; they do not go through the
local telco. (Even though oddly enough, on an international call I
made today through AT&T when I dialed the operator she answered like
this: [listen!] '.... Illinois Bell, may I ... I mean, AT&T, may I
help you please? ...' ... yes, I thought it was strange also.)

With your 510-613 versus 1-613, the local telco has an error in the
tables; they'll have to fix it; it is unlikely they will do so anytime
soon until someone from AT&T or Bellcore argues with them about it,
and in any event they will never do it just because you or your friend
report it. You might start by reporting this to the Chairman's office;
tell one of his reps about it; management complaints seem to attract
attention second only to commission complaints; in some telcos
customer complaints run a distant third to the first two categories.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Eight Digit French Phone Numbers (was Australian Changes)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:34:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colum
Mylod) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Linc Madison) writes:

>> I'm sorry, folks, but this is the most incredibly BRAIN-DEAD scheme
>> I've ever heard of.

> in the tiniest, most remote town in the nation.  There are only a
> handful of cities in the world that have eight-digit numbers: Paris,
> Rome, Tokyo, Mataranka ...

Not only Paris but all of France: every city, town, village, hamlet,
farm, barn.

Actually, France has two eight-digit phone areas.  "Paris et
environs", and "Les Provinces".


Stewart M. Clamen        Internet:    [e-mail]
School of Computer Science    UUCP:          uunet!"[e-mail]"
Carnegie Mellon University    Phone:          [phone]
5000 Forbes Avenue        Fax:         [phone]
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Good But Cheap Used Telephones
Organization: Echo Beach


If you want to buy an additional telephone that will survive being
dropped a few times but which shouldn't cost too much, visit the less
reputable consumer electronics stores in your community, and you may
find some used phones that telephone companies have sold to a
liquidator.

I just bought a used Automatic Electric touch-tone desk telephone on
Yonge Street in Toronto for $8.99 (Canadian) plus tax. Automatic
Electric was the equipment manufacturing unit of GTE Corporation,
which still operates regular and cellular telephone companies, but no
longer manufactures telephones.

It looks rather odd -- a bit like the deliberately ugly troll dolls
that are selling well in toy stores this year -- because Automatic
Electric chose not to copy the exterior design of Western Electric's
model 2500 desk set.  For a long time, Northern Telecom (formerly
Northern Electric) manufactured model 500 and model 2500 phones
apparently identical to those from Western Electric, and so did ITT.
But for whatever reason, GTE chose a different design, with the
handset rest a bit closer to the front of the phone, and a slight
ridge on top of the handset.

A used Northern Telecom touchtone phone with several speed dialling
buttons was being sold for $16.99. Again, I suspect that a telephone
company was liquidating its inventory of these.


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

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

Subject: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble
From: [e-mail] (William Petrisko)
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:30:25 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson


I recently ordered three custom ringing (distinctive ring) numbers for
one of my lines into my home.  On this line I have a busy/no-answer
call forward and standard call-forwarding (*72, any number I want.)

The problem boils down to this: USWEST tells me that my call
forwarding options are an all-or-nothing thing with the custom
ringing.  (Either ALL custom-ring numbers follow call-forwarding or
NONE do.)

My plan was to have the following:
    Main number:     Follow CF
    1st Custom Ring: Follow CF 800 number ring-in. (Thx Pat for the idea.)
    2nd Custom Ring: Always ring-thru (modem)
    3rd Custom Ring: Always ring-thru (personal/fax)

The main number (and the first custom-ring) are for a business I run out
of my home and must be forwarded to my VM/ans-svc on busy/no-answer ...

I am on a 1A ESS switch ... is what USWEST tells me true?  Or is there
a way to program one custom-ring number to follow call-forwarding and
the other two not to?

Ideas?


bill petrisko                    [e-mail]
   aka n7lwo   ...!uunet!4gen!warlok!gargle!omnisec!thumper!bill


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell told me it could not be done when I
ordered the same service. Either all follow the main line or none do.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 23:06:40 EST
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine


A Reuters report notes that a new fax line to Santa Claus was swamped
with thousands of calls for gift wishes. The line was set up in North
Pole, Alaska (formerly Moose Crossing), the self-declared home of
Santa Claus for many years.

The fax number is +1 907 488.4646 (that is, 488.HOHO).

Perhaps Floyd Davidson is still on the Digest; wonder how Alascom is
taking all of this?


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is a good time to mention a charity effort I
strongly support each year: The Chicago Main Post Office receives
literally thousands of letters each year addressed to Santa Claus;
they are typically from the children of impoverished families living
in ghetto areas of our city. Chances are likely the post office in
your community also receives these. The Chicago PO will give the
letters in any quantity desired to anyone who agrees to at least try
and fill the requests on an anonymous basis.  They are sorted by the
size of the family and number of children. Some of the kids write
Santa to tell him they have been good all year and hope he will
remember them.  Others ask Santa 'not to worry about them, but be sure
little brother or little sister gets something ...'  I think everyone
knows what I am leading up to ... ask at your post office for Santa
Claus letters in whatever quantity you can deal with; I take a few
every year, and perhaps you will feel led to do so also.  Thanks.  PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #907
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01998;
          17 Dec 92 4:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23335
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:49:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01913
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:49:01 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:49:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #908

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:49:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 908

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Dave Horsfall)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Tony DeSimone)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Tim Tyler)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (R. Chamarthy)
    Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network (Jeff Woolsey)
    Re: "The Net <tm>?" (Michael Schuh)
    Re: "The Net <tm>"? (Bob Clements)
    Re: "The Net <tm>"? (Craig Richmond)
    Re: "The Net <tm>"? (Matt Healy)
    Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing (David H. Close)
    Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing (Roger Fajman)
    Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing (Carl Moore)
    Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail (Dennis G. Rears)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (Jeremy Brest)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (J. Reschly Jr.)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (J. Philip Miller)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (Lars Poulsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:12:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA


Last I heard, they wound the number back to 66 (from the original 77)
for cost reasons.  I guess this means they'll now have to call it
"Dysprosium" :-)


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
[e-mail]                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 00:15:19 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tony DeSimone)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I had followed up on a similar thread some months back, but don't
remember seeing it in the Digest ... in case the mMderator thinks I'm
kidding, I'm not making this up!

On Thu, 17 Sep 1992 06:30:15 GMT, [e-mail] (Ben
Delisle) said:

> IRIDIUM

> Here are the Iridium specs.  Note that the constellation has been
> redesigned for larger satellite and cell size, reducing the number of
> satellites from 77 to 66:

Which, according the the ninth edition (1922) of the CRC handbook,
makes it not iridium (atomic number 77, from the Latin, "iris" or
rainbow) but dysprosium (atomic number 66, from the Greek for "hard
to speak with").

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: UMCC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:47:14 GMT


Exte extended the 15 DEC 92 deadline for committment from investors two
months, to a new deadline of 15 FEB 92.


Tim Tyler              Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735
P.O. Box 443           C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: [e-mail]
Ypsilanti MI  48197    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:17:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ramakrishna Chamarthy)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network


The name "Iridium" for Motoroola's Project for a System of 77
Satellites was based on the fact that "77" is the Atomic Number for
"Iridium".

Now, that the number of satellites in this project is (likely to be)
changed from 77 to 66, is there going to be a "change" in the name of
the project?  :-) :-)

Just curious.


Ramakrishna    E-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Woolsey)
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: Microtec Research Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:21:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Darren Ingram) writes:

> Various modifications have been made to the Iridum project during thr
> fourth quarter of 1992, with each satellite containing 48 beams onto
> the surface of the earth, an increase of 11 beams over the original
> design.  With the additional beamwidth, 66 satellites will be used
> instead of 77.

Then they'll have to call it the Dysprosium Global Satelite Mobile
Communications Network.


Jeff Woolsey            800 950 5554    [e-mail]
Microtec Research, Inc.         [phone]    [e-mail]
Nothing like a three-address mailer....        [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:27:15 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuh)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>?"


In the Nutshell Book, _Programming perl_ (page 274), the authors make
the following comment while describing "fixin - Fixes interpeter lines
on incoming scripts":

    Scripts that are published on The Net* often begin with a #! ...

At the bottom of the page, the footnote reads:

    *If anyone ever trademarks this term, we're all in trouble.


Mike Schuh * Motorola Mobile Data * Seattle
[e-mail] * [phone]

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

Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:16:16 EST
From: [e-mail]


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

> I haven't been this steamed since the last time a megacorp highjacked
> a common term, when IBM (in my mind, illegally) trademarked the
> acronym for "personal computer."

This isn't really very telecom-related, but:

I'm not one to defend IBM, particularly, but they did NOT trademark
the term "PC".

In, for example, "IBM PC/AT", the "IBM" part is trademarked and the
"AT" part is trademarked, but the "PC" part is not.

As you say, "PC" was well established at the time, meaning what we
would now call a workstation.  Of course, today people THINK that "PC"
means an IBM/Intel/Microsoft 80x86 machine.  But that's a marketing
success, not a trademark.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig Richmond - division)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:11:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia


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

> There's an article in the October 15th {Electronic Mail and Micro
> Systems}, which just made its way to me, about a reorganization of
> Mediatel and Telecom Canada to market both of their products (and a
> few other bits of this and that) under a new company name: "The Net."

In Australia the names "The Internet" and "AARNET" are registered
trademarks I believe.  Over in our University Computing Services
office, they have copies of the official documents that show this.  If
this is true elsewhere, you may be able to get them on the grounds
that "The Net" is a commonly accepted abbreviated for "The Internet".
I doubt anyone would get away with a company called "Coke".  I'm no
lawyer, but it does depress me that they can do that.


Craig Richmond.  Computer Officer -  Dept of Economics (morning) 380 3860
  University of Western Australia    Dept of Education (afternoon)
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We have a lot of coke dealers in Chicago, you know.
The crack house right across the street from where I live burned down
several months ago, and the landlord never has repaired or demolished
the remains, but the traffic through there is still plentiful. I
wonder how the Coca Cola Company feels about the way the word 'coke'
has been confiscated by the users/dealers of same ... not the
beverage, I mean the stuff you stick up your nose.  :(    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:41:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=
[e-mail] wrote:

> No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
> "The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
> Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

Isn't there already a network called Texas
                                     Higher
                                     Education
                                     NETwork

or THE_NET in operation?


Matt Healy   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David H. Close)
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:19:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> I'm in the process of writing a modem dialer, and I have the following
> question: is there any place in the US where an inter-areacode local
> call must be dialed as a 10-digit call, and where 1 + ten digits won't
> work?

Yes.  DFW TX.  Local calls across the 214/817 boundary MUST be dialed
as 10d.  Attempts to use 1+ result in the message, "We're sorry but it
is not necessary to dial a 1 or 0 before this call."  I've always
thought the message was especially apropos; SW Bell's approach in this
matter is indeed "sorry"!


Dave Close, [e-mail], BS'66 Ec

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992  17:46:42 EST
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing


> I'm in the process of writing a modem dialer, and I have the following
> question: is there any place in the US where an inter-areacode local
> call must be dialed as a 10-digit call, and where 1 + ten digits won't
> work?

On many PBXs long distance calls are prefixed with a digit other than
1.  On ours here it's 8.  I encountered one last week that used 5.


Roger Fajman                     Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health    BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA          Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:55:42 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing


Yes, I'm already taking that into account.  My question centered
around what is necessary once the call gets into the PSTN.  I think
I'm coming to the realization that I will have to have just about
every aspect configurable in order to deal with all of the strange
situations out there.


Thanks,

Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 9:53:53 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing


I don't know what if any inter-NPA local calls must be dialed as
NPA+7D and NOT as 1+NPA+7D.  Some inter-NPA local calls are still
published as just seven digits, such as:

 From Maryland to out of state (except from DC area suburbs to DC and Va.)
 From Delaware to out of state (but local from Pa. to Del. is published
as 1 + 302 + 7D, the step that was taken before most of 215 got rid of
the leading 1 for long distance within it)

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 8:42:35 EST
From: Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Continues to Dump Incoming Mail


Rich Greenberg asked:

> Are there so many MCI Mail addressees that sending each of them an
> individual copy would be impractical?  If not, and your software can
> be adjusted to do this, the initial headache of setting it up would
> eliminate future headaches. Just dump the bounces.

> [Moderator's Note: Your proposal would cause a lot of extra work for
> everyone in the middle ... it *would* work, but one of the reasons for
> the standards as they are written now is to avoid such extra handling
> of mail and the requisite bandwidth. I have several dozen subscribers
> on the mailing list at mcimail.com.  I won't do it as you suggest.  PAT]

   I have to agree with Pat.  I have 18 addresses with mcimail.  I
don't have the time to set up something special for mcimail and
compuserve.  Unlike Pat, I don't even bother trying to send the
messages separately.  People who do not run a list have no idea how
much time we spend on it.  Even when everything is going right I spend
at least five hours a week (my time not the company) time on my
Digest.  Pat spends at least two hours a night.  We shouldn't have to
waste time on it, when the company that is being *PAID* to run a mail
system doesn't do it right.

  Incidently most of the Moderators on the Moderator's mail list agree
with Pat and I on this issue.


dennis


[Moderator's Note: Dennis Rears is the Moderator of the privacy forum
which had its origins here in telecom a couple years ago and split off
when the eternal discussion on Caller-ID got out of control.  I've had
others suggest sending MCI readers individual copies rather than a
single copy with a mutiple-address (blind cc) envelope; my answer is
still the same. Many of the Moderators will agree: we have bent over
backwards to accomodate the commercial sites and their idiosyncracies;
I do not intend to impose on eecs.nwu.edu in this way; nor will I
impose on Reston (the gateway).  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Brest)
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:25:01 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> [e-mail]. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

If for whatever reason your host doesn't cope with [e-mail],
try [e-mail].


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, what a fine net-neighborly act! Let's dump
our traffic on the City University of New York. If they want to run an
open Bitnet gate, that's fine; but more than one institution has fixed
things so the local Bitnet gate is limited to their own users; local
traffic only, they do not run an email expressway through campus.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:41:43 EST
From: Robert J. Reschly Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers


> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> [e-mail]. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

      John,

   Be advised that .bitnet is a pseudo-domain from the Internet
perspective (as is .uucp, .decnet, and others).  However so much mail
comes in with return addresses of the form [e-mail], etc.,
that many mail administrators configure their mail systems to
automatically rewrite these addresses when they are encountered.

   In the case of .bitnet, there are six "semi-official" gateways
between the Internet and BITNET.  This laboratory uses
cunyvm.cuny.edu, so addresses of the form [e-mail] get
rewritten as [e-mail].


Later,

Bob

IP: [e-mail]   UUCP: ...!{{cmcl2,nlm-mcs,husc6}!adm,smoke}!reschly
U.S. Army Research Lab. / Advanced Computational & Information Sciences Dir. /
Networked Computer Systems Team / Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD  21005-5067 /
ATTN: AMSRL-CI-AC (Reschly) //   [phone]   FAX:-5075   DSN:298-

****  For a good time, call: [phone].   Seriously!  ****


[Moderator's Note: For an even better time, call 900-410-TIME, or if
you are a deadbeat like me, dial the POTS translated version of the
above number: 202-653-1800 and save yourself 50 cents.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:02:35 -0600 (CST)


John Higdon ([e-mail]) writes about PAT's complaint:

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> [e-mail]. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

Well this gets close to a religious discussion and our Moderator has
already warned us that e-mail is not a central topic to this Digest,
so I will only briefly comment that the problem is that .bitnet is NOT
a registered, correct domain.  Thus there is no obligation for any
Internet mailer to know what to do with it.  The fact that most major
sites accept it and do the right thing is more a reflection of folk
being nice than that they are playing by the rules.  The official,
correct address of someone on Bitnet (from an arbitrary Internet site)
is:

user%system.bitnet@<gateway> ...

where <gateway> is a system which groks .bitnet addresses and will do
the right thing.


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


[Moderator' Note: And if all else fails, dump your traffic on the
folks at cuny - vee-emm. :)      PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:40:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

>> If both these options are too much trouble, then I have to question
>> whether they really want to communicate with us.

>> [Moderator's Note: In the above example, '[e-mail]' works
>> just fine from here at Northwestern.  PAT]

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

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> [e-mail]. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

Addresses ending in .UUCP and .BITNET are not SUPPOSED to work from
the Internet. The reason is simple: They are not legal domain names.

On the other hand, it is trivial to "fix" either /etc/sendmail.cf or
the Domain Name Server so that all mail to addresses ending in .BITNET
is sent to CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU and all mail to whatever.UUCP is sent to
UUNET.UU.NET, and smart system managers do this as a courtesy to their
users. It is, however, politically impossible to have this done at the
root of the domain name server tree so that is can be available to
everyone.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer    Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l    Telephone: [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083        TeleFAX:   [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #908
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25350;
          18 Dec 92 4:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22911
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:21:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09155
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:20:41 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:20:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #909

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Dec 92 02:20:40 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 909

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Questions About Scanner Laws (William H. Sohl)
    Re: Questions About Scanner Laws (Troy Frericks)
    Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones (Linden Sisk)
    Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones (C. Mingo)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Marc Unangst)
    Re: Residential ISDN? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Sprint Dis-Cards (John Pettitt)
    Re: Sprint Dis-Cards (John David Galt)
    Re: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble (Bob Frankston)
    Re: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble (Dave Ptasnik)
    Re: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:44:49 GMT


Some minor corrections should be noted to the following:

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

> Is it legal to own a scanner that can receive cellular phone
> frequencies?

Yes, and the new law does nothing to outlaw any scanner you may
already have or purchase in the future.

> Is it legal to use one?

Only to the extent that it is illegal to listen to cellular frequencies.

> Is it legal to modify a scanner to receive these frequencies?

No, nor will it be in the future.  The new law places all the
burden of making a modify -proof scanner on the manufacturers.

> And ditto, with regard to cordless phones and baby monitors.  Same
> questions about scanning these things.

There are no federal restrictions at all with regard to cordless
phones and baby monitors.  The new law is ONLY directed at equipment
(scanners) capable of receiving CELLULAR phone frequencies.

> [Moderator's Note: If the scanner was made prior to the change in the
> law, then it is not illegal to own it or use it.

Actually, the new law goes as follows: Within six months of the laws
enactment the FCC must come up with new design requirements for
scanners, etc that will eliminate the ability of scanners to (1)
recieve cellular frequencies and (2) be easily modified to receive
cellular frequencies.  Until that happens, the manufacturers don't
have any specific requirements to follow/design to.

The next phase of the law takes place one year after enactment
(nominally around November, 1993).  At that time it then becomes
against the law for a manufacturer to in the USA to manufacture a
scanner with cellular frequency receive ability (i.e. the scanner must
meet the new FCC type acceptance requirements) and it will also be
illegal to import any scanner (reciever) capabale of receiving
cellular frequencies.

So, from the above it can be seen that (1) the sale of scanners is not
in any way impacted by the new law for almost one year AND (2), even
after one year, it will not be illegal for stores to continue selling
any "old stock," nor will it be illegal to own a scanner that was
made/manufactured or inmported before the final phase of the law takes
affect.

> It is illegal to listen to those frequencies, or in the event they
> are tuned accidentally to acknowledge any transmission overheard.

Agreed, and that has been the case for several years as a resuilt of
the ECPA, not the new scanner law.

> It is now illegal to make a scanner which receives those
> frequencies. It is illegal to modify a scanner to recieve those
> frequencies. In other words, if you had a Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner
> and you pulled diodes D-3 and D-4 from the circuit, you would be
> breaking the law. I am reminded of the 'Radio Hobbyists Guild' which
> some fool here in Chicago operated a decade ago when Oak/Channel 44
> was running scrambled pay television. He send out detailed schematics
> and copious notes to anyone who sent money to his post office box.
> These schematics and notes informed the reader exactly what NOT to do
> to avoid breaking any laws when building things which 'resembled'
> decoder boxes.  (What's that, Pfieffer? Who, me? Blush!).

See my comments above, as said, cellular cabable scanners can still be
made, sold, etc.  Additionally, modifying any receiver (scanner, etc.)
wouldn't be a violation of the new law as I understand it.

> During the 1920's, the Annheuser-Busch Brewing Company sent out kits
> for making your own near-beer ("be sure not to connect A to B or add
> any of ingredient C; that would be violating Prohibition ...")   PAT]

Bottom line ... there is probably over a million cellular receive
capable scanners that are in the hands of the public already and/or
can be modified to receive cellular.  The new law does NOTHING to
impact the ownership of those units.  Just don't get caught listening
to cellular.

Final note, I own a scanner, but it isn't capable of cellular, nor do I
want it to be so don't flame me for pointing out the general stupidity
of the new law as it relates to existing equipment.  Facts are facts
and ECPA or new scanner manufacturing ban isn't going to make cellular
anymore secure than it is (or is it isn't :-) already.

Another final note -- it is trivially simple to construct a broad band
converter that would allow a non-cellular scanner to recive cellular.
That being the case, the new scanner law is about as useless as ...


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: mcrware!![e-mail] (Troy Frericks)
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:15:17 GMT


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

> In other words, if you had a Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner and you
> pulled diodes D-3 and D-4 from the circuit, you would be breaking the
> law.

Pat,

I have seen this several times -- Did I just now get it?  PRO-"34" and
diodes D-"3" and D-"4".  Suppose this was coincidence?


Troy Frericks                      Internet: [e-mail]
Microware Systems Corporation          UUCP: uunet!mcrware!troyf
1900 NW 114th St                      Phone: [phone]
Des Moines, IA 50325-7077               Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: What an interesting coincidence! I really don't
know, but it is kind of fascinating.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:07:52 CST
From: [e-mail] (Linden B. Sisk)
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones


Kevin C. Castner ([e-mail]) wrote:

> My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies used by
> the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs), as well as the
> frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz, but don't quote me on
> that).

It is NOT illegal to monitor the 49 MHz frequencies used by cordless
phones.  In fact, the Internal Revenue Service has publically
announced that it is their policy to do precisely that, in order to
secure information for use in tax fraud cases.  One should assume that
anything one says on a cordless phone is being monitored, by your
neighbors if not by anyone else.  There is NO security on a cordless
phone.


Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk        | Voice: [phone]   Ham: AK5N
Research Electrical Engineer  | Fax:   [phone] Bix: lbsisk
Texaco, Inc.  P.O. Box 425    | MCIMail: lbsisk    CIS: 72047,2645
Bellaire, TX 77402-0425       |        Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:45:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones


Kevin C. Castner ([e-mail]) writes:

> My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies
> used by the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs),
> as well as the frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz,
> but don't quote me on that). The limiting factor is if any
> portion of the call goes over a landline, then the entire call
> is considered to be secured and immune from tapping, etc. without
> a warrant.

Under the ECPA, it is illegal to listen in on a cellular call.  It is
not illegal per se to scan the cellular frequencies, as long as you
don't happen to find any calls.  ;-)

Cellular calls are covered under the ECPA regardless of whether they
ever travel over a landline (eg, cellular to cellular calls are
covered).  The only exception is that _cordless_ phones are not
protected from eavesdropping between the handset and the base station.
It is still illegal to intercept a call from a cordless phone at any
point between the base station and the other end.

Hope this helps.

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:18:00 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel M.
Hoffman) writes:

> Does it really cost the telco more for more usage?  I don't think so.
> The telco owns the lines, and electronic lines >don't< require more
> repair the more they are used.  So, in fact, fixed-rate seems the most
> equitable way to go.

No, the lines don't require repair every <x> hours of use.  However,
consider the fact that no telco (well, no telco that wants to stay out
of bankrupcy for long) has enough capacity to handle every line it
serves going off-hook at the same time, or every line it serves making
an interoffice call at the same time.  Typically the telco has enough
switch capacity to handle 10% of the available circuits being used at
once.

Now, in order to avoid giving customers an all-circuits-busy message
(or worse yet, making them wait five minutes for dialtone after going
offhook), the telco has to have enough capacity to handle peak usage.
So, people who use the phone during peak usage periods of time *are*
costing the phone company money -- they have to install more switch
capacity to handle the additional calls.  But people who make calls
during non-peak hours are actually not costing the telco a cent since,
as you said, electronic circuits require no use-based maintenance.

Digital networking providers realized this years ago.  PC Pursuit was
originally designed as a plan to allow Telenet (now SprintNet) to make
money with their normally-unused network bandwidth during non-peak
hours.  That's why PC Pursuit was so cheap, and why you could only use
it during non-peak times.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Residential ISDN?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:05:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Dan Ganek <[e-mail].
com> writes ...

(in response to my comment on measured rates)

> Uh, have you checked with NYNEX about measured service from Littleton,
> MA?  From Groton MA it's $.001/minute with, I think, a $.10 set-up charge.

Actually, NET's current rate is $.016 (not .001) per minute, with a one
cent call setup charge.  That's for residence; business has a higher
call setup charge (7.something).  This applies to intra-CO data today
and inter-CO local data in May when the billing software catches up.

Interestingly enough, Littleton used to be all flat-rate unless you
really wanted measured.  Until a couple of years ago, exchanges with a
local calling area (1MU) of under 120,000 main lines could get 1FB
(flat rate business).  That's now grandfathered; new business accounts
are all 1MB (measured).


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards


Pat Writes [lots of stuff about credit law deleted]

> their system, and they'll have to fix it in a lawful manner. Why not
> consider using 'voice prints'? I think Sprint has such a thing they
> were testing, and 'voice prints' are almost foolproof, no?    PAT]

No.  The basic problem of how to identify users of remote systems is
one that lots of folks are trying to solve.  The current state of the
art as related to me by somebody who is consulting for VISA is still
not good enought to use Voice, Retina, Finger Prints etc on a
commercial basis.  The problem is that the `insult rate' (the number
of times you reject a valid customer) is too high (around 1 in 100 for
most of the technologies listed).  I'm told that the banks consider 1
in 100,000 acceptable for ATM use.

So if you want to make a fortune; find a way of identifying legitimate
users of remote system the works and patent it!  1/2 :-)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:38:18 PST


Quoth the Moderator:

> The possibility of fraud is not a sufficient reason to deny credit to
> someone.

Do you realize what you just said?  If the courts take your view, we
might as well legalize phreaking as they have in Holland -- we'll have
about as much chance against it.

Credit is not a right, whether the law says it is or not.  It's too
bad that a few thieves can create inconvenience for the many; but I'd
rather wait (or carry lots of coins) to make an international call
than have to pay big $$ because the telcos are losing millions to
rip-off artists.  TANSTAAFL.


John David Galt    Freedom of Lifestyle is an inalienable human right.


[Moderator's Note: I did not mean that you (or I, or anyone) applying
for credit should be automatically approved regardless of suspected
fraud in our application for credit. I did not mean that a merchant or
vendor must establish credit for customers when there is an unacceptable
risk of fraud which cannot be (easily) controlled by the credit grantor.
I meant that once an open line of credit has been established -- that
is, you have the plastic in your possession for your use -- it becomes
the merchant or vendor's problem to administer the credit correctly.
I'd even be happy if AT&T would publish a list of prohibited origin
and destination points where their credit card is concerned. But you
can be sure they'll not put that in writing.  A supervisor at the AT&T
International Operating Center yesterday confirmed to me that in fact
there are certain CO's which are redlined from using credit cards on
international calls to the Middle East countries. When I asked her to
send me a list or explain why those places where not noted in the
International Communications book they publish for public use, she was
candid with me: "We were told never to send anything out in writing
about that policy ..."   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble
Date: Thu 17 Dec 1992 19:28 -0400


With NET I've got the option of forwarding the first number or all
numbers.  This is a static option for the line that determines how the
*72 will operate.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:43:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Ptasnik  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help! Custom Ring + Call Fwd = Trouble


[e-mail] (William Petrisko) wrote:

> I recently ordered three custom ringing (distinctive ring) numbers for
> one of my lines into my home.  On this line I have a busy/no-answer
> call forward and standard call-forwarding (*72, any number I want.)

> The problem boils down to this: USWEST tells me that my call
> forwarding options are an all-or-nothing thing with the custom
> ringing.  (Either ALL custom-ring numbers follow call-forwarding or
> NONE do.)

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell told me it could not be done when I
> ordered the same service. Either all follow the main line or none
> do.  PAT]

On the US West 5ESS provided centrex at the University of Washington
we have been given the following options.  Custom ringing numbers
always follow Call Forward Busy and Call Forward Don't Answer to the
destination numbers established by the primary number.  ANI
information provided at the destination number reflects the number
dialed, not just the primary number.

With Call Forwarding Variable we have an option.  If the primary
number is equipped with a feature called MCFI, then the custom ringing
numbers will follow the variable forwarding.  If the primary number is
not equipped with MCFI then the custom ringing numbers will ignore the
Call Forwarding Variable, and cause the phone to ring even when the
primary number is forwarded.  We are not able to order different
functions for different custom ringing numbers assigned to the same
primary number.  All feature control is done thru the primary number.
That may well be a limitation of the software.  Certainly it seems
that the different telcos are being consistent with this aspect of
their custom ringing offerings.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of -

Dave Ptasnik          [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:26:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@
VM1.YorkU.CA> writes:

> A Reuters report notes that a new fax line to Santa Claus was swamped
> with thousands of calls for gift wishes. The line was set up in North
> Pole, Alaska (formerly Moose Crossing), the self-declared home of
> Santa Claus for many years.

> The fax number is +1 907 488.4646 (that is, 488.HOHO).

> Perhaps Floyd Davidson is still on the Digest; wonder how Alascom is
> taking all of this?

Hi David, and nice of you to ask about it!

Everyone who calls should be sure to get the number right, because the
poor folks who *had* 488-4040 got a free number change ... and the
company with a fax machine at 904-488-4646 is out of paper.  (The
right number is 907-488-4646.)

A group of volunteers in North Pole (which was never called Moose
anything, but is just up the road from Moose Creek) put in a couple
fax lines and sent out a press release to everyone from Jay Leno and
Rush Limbaugh to Paul Harvey.  They are offering to send a return fax
and mail a card postmarked from Santa at North Pole.

They did indeed get swamped.  5000 the first day.

Some of the faxes being received from little kids are facinating.  I
read one today "from" an almost born baby who wanted a really good
daddy ... and the reply said Santa would provide the best set of
parents from the inventory on hand!

And Jay Leno wouldn't mention it because they would not dedicate one
number only for his show.  A reply to him indicated maybe Santa would
provide him with a new attitude ... since he needs one.

They also got some interesting press in the local paper.  The local
telco, PTI Com (which is owned by Pacific Telecom, Inc.) set up the
fax machines and offered to pay for postage on the cards.  Alascom,
the long distance carrier (which is also owned by Pacific Telecom),
declined to provide any assistance.  A small long distance company,
GCI, then offered both money and technical assistance.  Of course long
distance service was switched to GCI immediately.  And all of that was
published in a front page article by the {Fairbanks Daily News-Miner}.

We took up a collection at work and an envelope was delivered today
with $5 from almost every Alascom employee at the Fairbanks Toll
Center.  It was specifically marked as being from the employees ...

I understand they will be taking calls up until the 21st, so if you
have kids ... give it a try, the reply messages are priceless.


Floyd

[e-mail]  A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska        system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 00:17:15 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Santa Claus Conquers the Fax Machine


David Leibold <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A Reuters report notes that a new fax line to Santa Claus was swamped
> with thousands of calls for gift wishes. The line was set up in North
> Pole, Alaska (formerly Moose Crossing), the self-declared home of
> Santa Claus for many years.

> The fax number is +1 907 488.4646 (that is, 488.HOHO).

Hrumph!  Everyone knows that the North Pole (and Santa Claus) are in
Canada.  Several years ago Canada Post assigned Santa his own postal
code, H0H 0H0.


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: Well, the Magnetic North Pole, perhaps ... Debra
Hawkins, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Main Post Office has pointed
out that my mention of the great need for elves to help Santa Claus
with his correspondence should have included the phone number to call
if you wish to have mail sent to you for handling.  312-765-3009.
According to Ms. Hawkins, the backlog of Santa Claus mail in Chicago
alone is currently 16,000 (as yet unclaimed by caring people) letters.
They've given away a lot of mail, but the backlog cntinues to grow.
The mail is sorted by size of family and number of children. They'll
send you as much as desired based on your promise to try and buy at
least some simple gift for each child mentioned and arrange its
delivery in an anonymous way from Santa Claus. The post office makes
no claims or representations about the people who have written, and
they ask that you not take more mail than you actually feel you can
deal with. The mail will be sent out to you immediatly; out of town
people wishing to participate can do so; your gift might arrive a day
or two late, but would still be welcome. You send the gifts direct to
the child(ren) who wrote the letters. A large percentage of the mail
has come from children of impoverished, single parent families living
in public housing here.   Again: 312-765-3009.   My sincere thanks.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #909
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15233;
          19 Dec 92 16:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18587
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:22:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11761
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:22:03 -0600
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:22:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #910

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Dec 92 14:22:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 910

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "The Net <tm>"? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: "The Net <tm>"? (Dave Leibold)
    Re: Questions About Scanner Laws (Paul W. Schleck)
    Re: Questions About Scanner Laws (William H. Sohl)
    Re: Questions About Scanner Laws (Kevin C. Castner)
    Re: GTE Mastercard (Tad Cook)
    Re: GTE Mastercard (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular Tinkering? (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: US Sprint's PC Pursuit (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems? (Matt Healy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:34:06 GMT


In fact, not only is "The Net" a bit broad as a trademark and thus may
not stand on those grounds, but it has been (almost) used before,
albeit not as a trademark.  A ham radio club in Germany, NordLink,
produces a program called "TheNet" which, inserted into a common piece
of ham gear called a TNC, turns the TNC (a Z80-based protocol
converter) into a sort of primitive router.

OF course NordLink is not in it for money, and has put TheNet in the
public domain (or copyleft or freeware or something).  And thus they
have no interest in trademarking it.  But they were there first.  The
latest version of TheNet, X1G, is said to do IP.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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


Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:24:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: "The Net <tm>"?


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

> No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
> "The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
> Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

Envoy 100, TradeRoute and iNet 2000 (with the "i" in front) have been
Bell Canada/Telecom Canada/Stentor trademarks for a while. I got some
promotional info on "The Net" which doesn't seem to indicate that "The
Net" is an actual trademarks.

One strange thing, though ... I recall that AT&T Easylink runs a
service that was called "Enhanced Fax", or something very close to
that name, and sells that service in Canada in competition with "The
Net". AT&T Mail as a whole competes with Bell's/Stentor's Envoy and
iNet.

> They're taking over that name to be a proprietary trademark.  It looks
> to me like a flagrant attempt to highjack the goodwill the Internet,
> et al, have built up over the years and to fool the telecom-illiterati
> into thinking that if they buy "The Net Mail" that they're connecting
> to what we all think of as The Net.

Of course, Bell/Stentor has never experienced *real* interconnection.
An actual Internet link from Envoy, let alone this "Net" might be
considered one of these centuries. The Bell/Stentor service promotion
mentions that an x.400 linkage available to a "substantial 65 PRMDs
(Private Domains) and a plan is in place for an ambitious expansion of
our global messaging interconnectivity.". Meanwhile, AT&T Mail already
has Internet *and* x.400; AT&T Mail customers can even reach Envoy
addresses via the x.400 as well as Internet addresses (which represent
more than a "substantial 65" whatevers). Even Fidonet has developed
linkages into the Internet (this posting being a case in point).

The Internet ... if you're not in it, you're out of it.

"The Net" is generally a repackaging of the electronic mail services
as done by Mediatel (the Bell Canada division responsible for data
services like Envoy, ALEX, iNet, etc). In Canada, the number given for
more information about these services is 1 800 465.2892


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:31:54 GMT


[e-mail] (sohl,william h) writes:

> Some minor corrections should be noted to the following:

> TELECOM Moderator noted:

>> It is illegal to listen to those frequencies, or in the event they
>> are tuned accidentally to acknowledge any transmission overheard.

> Agreed, and that has been the case for several years as a resuilt of
> the ECPA, not the new scanner law.

And it should also be strongly emphasized that the Communications Act
of 1934 (Ammended) already made illegal the use or dissemination of
information intercepted from most radio communications for criminal
purposes or other personal gain, and the ECPA does little or nothing
to add teeth to these provisions.  (Broadcast, and other specific
hobbyist-type services are exempted, of course).

Is everyone aware of a number of other frequencies covered under the
ECPA (mostly high UHF and microwave common-carriers) that most
manufacturers of scanners (including Realistic) still receive, and
this new legislation does nothing to address this fact?  Could this
new legislation reflect a concern over premature obsolescence of the
cellular physical plant due to increased pressure to implement
encryption, rather than any concerns for our personal privacy or more
effective enforcement of existing law?

I'd be interested in seeing how this legislation affects service
monitors and other calibration equipment for cellular phones, or the
reception of cellular frequencies for the purpose of tracking down
interference (explicitly permitted under the ECPA).

Digest readers might want to note that no one has ever been charged
with (or even successfuly prosecuted for) violations of the ECPA.
Even cases of extreme predatory monitory of cellular phone (such as
the monitoring of Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder) can be effectively
addressed with existing legislation, including the Communications Act
of 1934 and various federal wiretapping statutes.

But I'm sure Pat doesn't want to renew the whole ECPA argument all
over again :-).


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: No, I really don't feel like another spate of ECPA
pro and con ... it is a no-win situation, like Caller-ID messages. You
do raise a curious point though about service monitoring. Obviously
the monitors listen with the express purpose of benefitting from what
they hear, namely the improvement of the service or the correction of
problems which have developed. I wonder if they are exempt under those
limited circumstances from the 'do not act on or benefit from' rules
regarding overheard radio transmissions?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 13:13:05 GMT


OOPS ... I misread one question I answered the other day and the
answer should be the exact opposite ... see below:

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

>> Is it legal to modify a scanner to receive these (cellular) frequencies?

I answered as follows:

> No, nor will it be in the future.  The new law places all the
> burden of making a modify-proof scanner on the manufacturers.

I should have said: It is not illegal to modify any scanner (or any
radio receiver for that matter) to receive cellular.  The new
"anti-cellular receive capable scanner law" only makes it illegal to
"manufactuur" such equipment as of one year from the passage of the
new law.  From what I read, there's nothing in any existing laws nor
in the new law that prohibits an individual from modifying any type of
electronic radio receiving equipment once they own it.

Sorry I gave the wrong answer yesterday.

If you missed my prior post, the balance is included here as a
follow-up explanation as to what the new cellular scanner
manufacturing ban law actually says:

Actually, the new law goes as follows: Within six months of the laws
enactment the FCC must come up with new design requirements for
scanners, etc that will eliminate the ability of scanners to (1)
recieve cellular frequencies and (2) be easily modified to receive
cellular frequencies.  Until that happens, the manufacturers don't
have any specific requirements to follow/design to.

The next phase of the law takes place one year after enactment
nominally around November, 1993).  At that time it then becomes
against the law for a manufacturer to in the USA to manufacture a
scanner with cellular frequency receive ability (i.e. the scanner must
meet the new FCC type acceptance requirements) and it will also be
illegal to import any scanner (reciever) capabale of receiving
cellular frequencies.

So, from the above it can be seen that (1) the sale of scanners is not
in any way impacted by the new law for almost one year AND (2), even
after one year, it will not be illegal for stores to continue selling
any "old stock," nor will it be illegal to own a scanner that was
made/manufactured or inmported before the final phase of the law takes
affect.

Bottom line ... there is probably over a million cellular receive
capable scanners that are in the hands of the public already and/or
can be modified to receive cellular.  The new law does NOTHING to
impact the ownership of those units.  Just don't get caught listening
to cellular.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin C. Castner)
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: UPS Research & Development
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:07:43 GMT


sohl,william h ([e-mail]) wrote:

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

>> Is it legal to use one?

> Only to the extent that it is illegal to listen to cellular frequencies.

>> It is illegal to listen to those frequencies, or in the event they
>> are tuned accidentally to acknowledge any transmission overheard.

> Another final note -- it is trivially simple to construct a broad band
> converter that would allow a non-cellular scanner to recive cellular.
> That being the case, the new scanner law is about as useless as ...

I really have to agree with the triviality of bypassing the law
completely.  The problem is being attacked from the wrong angle.
Instead of outlawing receivers in cellular frequencies (which could be
legally analogous to outlawing radar detectors, which has been
overturned in some states) the burden of security should be in the
hands of the cellular manufacturers and the service providers.

Would it really be that difficult to have an encryption algorithm
based on a key that the person stores in his handset?  Upon setting
the key, the cellular phone could communicate the key to the cell for
later use.  To capture the call, the eavesdropper would need to first
capture the key, and then unencrypt the message at some later time.
Even the government would be happy because they could still tap the
call (with a warrant) by getting the key from the service provider.

I'm not 100% sure how the cellular net works, but I would be
interested in hearing ideas, problems, etc. about this.


Kevin C. Castner     [e-mail]
Unix Administrator   United Parcel Service

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

Subject: Re: GTE Mastercard
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 03:50:56 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)


The new GTE Mastercard was mentioned here the other day.  I think I
will start a new hobby ... collecting bank credit cards with no annual
fee issued by telephone companies.  So far I have AT&T VISA and
Ameritech Complete Mastercard.

Interested parties can get an application by calling 800-643-0997.  I
have not received mine yet, but my guess is that just like with AT&T
and Ameritech, one does not have to be a telephone customer to get
consumer credit from any of these companies.


Tad Cook   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: GTE Mastercard
Date: 19 Dec 1992 09:59:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I believe the bank that Ford owns is First Nationwide. I did't know
that Ford issed a card, I thought it was just GM and now General
Electric, as well as AT&T.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 17:41 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Larry King Knows of Disconnect


tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood) writes:

> These same people say wait ten rings, which puts you in the two minute
> category, which they then argue as 'well you must have connected and
> talked to someone or something since the call WAS two minutes', or 'we
> don't bill for non-connected calls so your wrong'.

When GTE Mobilnet first went on the air years ago in San Francisco,
the software had an interesting quirk. While the cellular customer
would not be billed for BY/DA, the billing program automatically added
one minute to each and every call that did supervise. This was readily
spotted by customers who found it a little strange that there were
absolutely no "one minute" calls charged for in the entire billing
period.

GTE first claimed that this only happened to one minute calls but then
finally admitted the truth. And then it refunded a major amount of
money!


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:08:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeff Hibbard) writes:

> [e-mail] (Craig Evans) writes:

>> I am interested in a headset for the phone especially for long trips

> Here in Illinois, if a police officer sees you driving with a headset,
> you'll get a fairly serious ticket.  Perhaps you should check the laws
> in your state before proceeding.

Here in California, a headset is legal as long as it only covers one
ear.  I used to use one for my ham radio, and was stopped many times.
As soon as I showed the cop it was only on one ear, they let me go but
I have stopped using it because of the annoyance factor.


Rich Greenberg      Work: [e-mail]   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: [e-mail]       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:53:48 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Re: US Sprint's PC Pursuit
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message dated 08-DEC-92, <mlksoft> writes:

> Having used PC Pursuit since 1986, I second PAT's comments.
> If you understand the limitations of packet networks, it works
> admirably for applications as diverse as interactive dialup,
> asynchronous DECnet, and UUCP.  At $30 for 30 hours of non-prime
> time, it is a good deal, especially if your usage isn't exclusively
> file transfers.

A few years ago, I tried using PCP for UUCP (g) transfers between here
(Omaha) and the LA area.  I NEVER got it to work right, despite
playing around with the various PCP parameters.  Typically it would
make it through the initial 'chat' phase and the init a/b/c handshake,
but when the actual session started it would kind of squirt back and
forth for a while and then error out and abort.  Closing the window
size seemed to increase the time before failure, but not eliminate it.

However, I must admit that it works quite well with Zmodem transfers.
On very large files it seems to predictably generate one error (buffer
barf ??) every 200k or so, but this recovers nicely.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems?
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:38:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Graham
> Toal) writes ...

>> However, we were wondering ... has anyone ever built actual
>> *telephones* for use in a building with local ethernet that used
>> tcp/ip?  If not, there's a tremendous market there: You can program
>> your phone with your extension, and take it with you when you move
>> office without reprogramming the exchange (a trivial point but one
>> that would be useful in *our* office where we're always bloody moving
>> :-( ) but more importantly you only need to run one ether trunk round
>> the whole building to cover all possible present and future phone
>> *and* network needs.

> It's not practical.  Ethernet has too much latency plus variable
> bandwidth.  Ethernet telephone's a classical hack of computer
> scientists with no telephony background who think the whole world's IP
> and wonder why anybody does anything else.

In communications theory terms, we are talking about different ways of
allocating the available bandwidth among users.  Ethernet is a
"baseband" system: while transmitting, a node uses *all* the channel's
available bandwidth for a short period of time.  Everyone else must
*wait* until that node is done transmitting.

Alternatively, one could, in principle, use the same coaxial cable to
carry a number of voice channels, each of which uses a different RF
carrier frequency -- a "broadband" system.  Now each node gets to use
a portion of the bandwidth for a long time.

Ultimately, bandwidth is bandwidth -- it can be sliced-up in different
ways, but the total cannot exceed channel capacity.

Ethernet, like other baseband systems, is optimized for computer data
communications: short bursts at very high data rates, with long pauses
in between.  These are not "realtime" systems -- the delay before a
packet gets through depends on what other traffic is present.

Broadband systems are optimized for real-time delivery of continous,
low-bandwidth, signals.  So long as there is no interference between
channels (and a properly-designed system should have very little
crosstalk), the amount of traffic on other channels will not affect
your channel.

Telephone companies devote a considerable amount of engineering
expertise to making a single high-capacity digital channel appear to
be a number of analog voice channels.  This requires very fancy
systems for arranging the packets so that nobody has to wait very long
for their next packet ...


Matt Healy   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #910
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14642;
          20 Dec 92 18:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13231
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:12:20 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10846
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:11:54 -0600
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:11:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #911

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Dec 92 16:11:55 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 911

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Conference: Asychronous Transfer Mode (Matt Lucas)
    MCI Response (TELECOM Moderator)
    Telecom Dial Up Site Being Planned (TELECOM Moderator)
    GTE and Subscriber Carrier (Jack Decker)
    X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please (Jason Chen)
    NSCA Terminal Emulator for LANS (Mike Scheuerman)
    Looking for VoiceSaver (tm?) (Dave Bonney)
    South TX CMT Rate Update (Mark Earle)
    Consumer Reports on Cellphones (Rich Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 12:27:54 -0500
From: matt lucas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference: Asychronous Transfer Mode


A TELESTRATEGIES CONFERENCE: ASYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER MODE

Plus a one-day pre-conference tutorial, "Understanding ATM/SONET
Technology and Applications"


January 26-27, 1993
Sheraton Crystal City Hotel   Arlington, VA

For complete information and registration, call TeleStrategies @
703-734-7050

Or, E_mail to: [e-mail]

TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1993

8:30 - 9:00 REGISTRATION

9:00 - 10:15  ATM STATUS REPORT

The speakers will examine recent developments concerning ATM.  Subject
matter will include vendor roll-outs for LANs, WANs and MANs; market
responses to ATM; likely trends; ATM and SONET; industry concerns
about ATM; unresolved technical issues and other roadblocks that may
inhibit ATM deployment; and ATM technology versus "short-term"
technological solutions like FDDI. The speakers will also address the
issue of whether ATM will become the bridge between the
telecommunications and computer industries or a wedge between the two.

Val Sribar, Consultant, Ernst & Young
Dr. James F. Mollenauer, President, Technology Strategy Associates

10:15 - 10:45 COFFEE BREAK

10:45 - 12:15  ATM AND LOCAL AREA NETWORKS

What progress have hub, router and bridge vendors made in accelerating
the movement to ATM? What are some of the technical and market
inhibitors to success? What are their plans to overcome the barriers
that standards bodies will raise? Some of the key players in this
field will discuss their solutions and offer insights on how the
market will develop.

Charles Giancarlo, Vice President, Marketing, Adaptive Corp.
William Lanfri, Vice President, Marketing, SynOptics
Representative, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Representative, Cabletron Systems, Inc.

12:15 - 1:30 HOSTED LUNCH

1:30 - 3:30  ATM TO THE DESKTOP

Bringing ATM to the desktop will be a primary factor in determining
ATM's success or failure and may also affect the future of BISDN. What
progress have manufacturers made in the development of adapters and
chip-sets for desktop CPE? What type of business alliances have been
formed? What are the technical and cost drivers? How long will
business customers have to wait until they can reap the benefits of
ATM on the desk?

Val Sribar, Consultant, Ernst & Young - CHAIRPERSON
Eric Cooper, President, Fore Systems
Vern Little, Manager, Product Marketing, PMC-Sierra, Inc.
Shekar Rao, Digital Communications Product Manager,
Engineering Manager, Hewlett-Packard

3:30 - 4:00 COFFEE BREAK

4:00 - 5:30  MARKET RESPONSE TO ATM: IXC AND LEC VIEWPOINTS

How committed are telecommunications carriers to ATM-based networks?
Some industry analysts believe they are hedging their bets until the
commercial market responds in a more definitive fashion. How are their
customers responding to the emergence of ATM? What are the carriers
offering as intermediate solutions until ATM arrives? How are they
helping customers plan for a migration to an ATM-based world.

Ben Lisowski, Director, Data Product Planning, SPRINT
John Strickland, Director, Broadband Technology
 U S WEST Advanced Communications
Scott Yeager, Vice President, Sales & Distribution, MFS DATANET
Representative, AT&T Data Communications Services

5:30 - 6:30 RECEPTION

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1993

8:30 - 10:30  ATM FIELD TRIAL RESULTS

Several ATM field trials involving commercial and government
applications are taking place around the country. One test bed is
using a switch known as packet transfer mode (PTM), which is designed
to test the gigabit speed barrier within and between desktop computing
systems. There are also plans to use the test sites to research op to
electronic switching systems for ATM transmission. The ultimate goal
of the field trials is to improve telecommunications and desktop-to-
desktop speed to the point where multimedia can become a reality. The
speakers will discuss test bed activities to date, switch platform
effectiveness, unresolved technical issues and economic considera-
tions. They will also make predictions about when the public is likely
to benefit.

William Dowey, Product Manager, GTE Government Systems
Dr. Rafi Gadron, Associate Director, Center for Telecommunications
 Research, Columbia University
Mark Juliano, Director, Marketing, Fore Systems
Jonathan Smith, Assistant Professor, Computer & Information
 Science, University of Pennsylvania Distributed Systems Laboratory
Anthony Villasenor, Program Manager, NASA

10:30- 11:00 COFFEE BREAK

11:00 - 12:15 PRIVATE ATM NETWORKS VS. FDDI AND SMDS

The panelists will give their views on the future of ATM and the
effect it will have to create synergies and complement other
technologies such as SMD. What role remains for FDDI? Will ATM
have a lasting effect on the telecommunications industry, or is it
just another fad?

Dr. Thomas Fowler, Principal Engineer, The MITRE Corporation
 CHAIRPERSON
Charles Giancarlo, Vice President, Marketing, Adaptive Corp.
Steve Starliper, Director, SMDS, Pacific Bell
William Lanfri, Vice President, Marketing, SynOptics

12:15 - 1:30 HOSTED LUNCH

1:30 - 2:30  THE ROLE OF CONSORTIA IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

The speakers will discuss the role of consortia in the advancement of
ATM technology. The speakers will provide the latest information on
technical activities and relate these issues to market requirements
and technology development. Other related topics will be discussed in
terms of their impact on the deployment and market acceptance of ATM.

Irfan Ali, Vice President, Marketing, The ATM Forum
Vern Little, Manager, Product Marketing, The Saturn Group

2:30 - 2:45  COFFEE BREAK

2:45 - 4:00  ACCELERATING THE DEVELOPMENT & DEPLOYMENT OF ATM SWITCH PLATFORMS

ATM switch technology appears the solution to solve many currently
plaguing LANs, WANs and many other telecommunications networks. For
example, ATM platforms embedded in SONET are expected to increase
transmission capacity and improve network management capability. IXC
and LEC plans to move to ATM have caused switch vendors to move more
rapidly to test and market ATM switches. The speakers will discuss
their plans for accelerating the testing and deployment of ATM and why
they are betting, along with others in the industry, that ATM is truly
an internetworking breakthrough.

Irfan Ali, Manager, Strategic Technology, Northern Telecom
Steve Cortez, Senior Manager, ATM Product Marketing,  DSC Communications
Roger Levy, Manager, Broadband Standards & Applications
 AT&T Network Systems

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

Date: Sun 20 Dec 1992 14:36:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: MCI Response


> Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This is a response from MCI Mail on their policy of bouncing
> messages sent to multiple mailboxes if one of the mailboxes is
> unreachable.

I got the same response from Bob Daley, that they use non-delivery
rather than partial delivery in order to have the mail reach all
recipients at the same time.  I got the impression he was saying that
in their application (business customers writing to other business
customers) that contemporaneous delivery was important and preferred.

You have to remember that when MCI Mail started a decade ago (my
earliest recollection of the service was about 1982-83), no one would
have ever envisioned the explosion of email we have witnessed in the
past ten years; no one (except a few of us perhaps) would have ever
thought email would be anything other than a service for businesses.

I wrote back to Bob Daley and said I would work along as best I could
during the interim, but I suggested he might want to think about the
idea of using their Bulletin Board feature as a way of posting the
TELECOM Digest rather than having it go to dozens of names each time.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:28:27 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: A Telecom Dial Up Site Being Planned


I've got a plan ... I started working on it a few days ago in ernest
and now feel I may have bitten off more than I can chew ...

I have come into possession of a Packard Bell 286 and a copy of Waffle
1.65.  I would like to put up a dialup site for the Digest and the
archives. I started working on getting the Waffle configured.

I am in over my head ...

I want this configuration:

People can call in and get the current Digest, many of the back issues
and the various files currently in the archives. I will run one local
board for telecom stuff, and have files access for anyone who wants it.
I want a UUCP connection which will call me to deliver each copy of
the Digest (and other files) and will pick up mail for the outside world.

People should be able to put messages here also for use in the Digest.

As I said, some of the UUCP stuff and gettiong the board configured are
really out of my league.  Anyone want to help?  If you know Waffle
really well and how to set it up as above (and how to get it listed in
the maps, etc as required with the proper configurations) then I would
really love to hear from you soon.

If this gets up and running, there will be a phone number anyone can
call (Chicago number) to download archives and digest files, post
messages for the group, or participate in the local telecom discussion
group.  I'll ask for donations to pay the cost of the whole thing
which I estimate will be around $300 per month to pay for the phone
line(s), the UUCP connection, etc.  It will be whatever people want to
send to help out. Nothing for myself in it, but I'd like to not be out
of pocket in running it. Perhaps a couple of organizations would be
willing to sponsor or fund the dialup in exchange for notice being
given on the system?

Please contact me if you really know what to do about this. Thanks.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 03:17:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: GTE and Subscriber Carrier


I recently moved from Michigan's glorious Upper Peninsula to the more
densely populated lower part of the state.  Unfortunately, the
property I purchased was in the middle of GTE territory.  I had
thought that the service just might be acceptable because my serving
exchange (Whitehall, Michigan) seems to be operating off of a modern
digital electronic switch, though I have no idea what type (anyone?).
I can tell you that there are no noticible clicks as the call
progresses, and when you call a number the phone actually rings before
the caller hears ringback tone, if that helps any.

Anyway, that isn't my problem.  It turns out that in the rural area I
live in, there simply aren't enough phone lines to go around, so GTE
has put EVERYONE out here on subscriber carrier.  Here is what I can
tell you about it:

1)  The box hanging on the pole outside my home reads as follows:

    LENKURT 82A
    STATION CARRIER SYSTEM
    8212A-03
    CHANNEL 3

2) I am told that this system puts six subscribers on one line, and
there is NO "baseband" subscriber (that is, one of the six does not
get the actual physical pair ... there's no "A party" and "B party" as
in some other carrier systems.

3) Apparently this system is obsolete, since GTE is using equipment
here that has been removed from service in other GTE exchanges (lucky
us)!

4) The "at rest" idle line voltage is only 15 volts, which has already
caused some problems with certain equipment I had.  However, the "off
hook" voltage seems to be a healthy six volts.

5) On voice calls, I find it very difficult to hear the person at the
other end (using a standard 500-type telephone).  However, my modem
seems to work fine at 2400 bps.  And, wonder of wonders, after being
told that my fax machine probably would not work on these lines, it
appears to work fine, at least for outgoing calls (haven't tested it
on incoming yet, but then I don't receive many faxes).  The folks I
call can hear ME loud and clear, so the low audio level is in one
direction only.

6) Don't know if it's the carrier or the central office, but dial
pulsing at 20 PPS (pulses per second) is NOT accepted... I had to drop
back to the standard 10 PPS.  You'd think a digital exchange would
accept 20 PPS, but maybe not.

7) If someone drives by using a two-way radio, the signal comes in
loud and clear on my phone for the few seconds that they are within a
couple hundred feet of my carrier unit (don't take the distance as
absolute truth; this has only happened once so the distance estimate
is a wild guess at best).

Anyway, I'd like to hear from anyone who knows anything about this
stuff.  In particular, I'm wondering why I have such low audio at my
end, and whether there is a way to boost that signal WITHOUT messing
up my fax and data transmissions.  Should I just leave well enough
alone and maybe get a volume control handset, or should I keep
badgering GTE to give me a better line?

By the way, they've already had to change out the carrier equipment
twice.  The first time, I had a whine on my line that sounded a lot
like a data transmission, but it wasn't coming from any of my
equipment because I wasn't even moved in yet (in fact, I had my phone
plugged into the network interface box outside).  Then they "fixed"
that and I promptly had the problem of having battery on the line, but
no dial tone (for two mornings in a row).  Now they've changed the
equipment again and I have the low volume problem, though I may have
had that before (it was very noisy outside so I had trouble hearing
anyway).

The GTE repairman told me that I am about seven or eight miles out
from the central office, but you'd think that since I'm on carrier
anyway, the carrier equipment would boost the signal strength.  Maybe
not, though.

I recall at one time reading some discussion here of a piece of
equipment designed for "long loops".  I don't recall what it was,
though, nor whether it would be applicable in this situation.  If such
a device would be helpful, I wonder what my chances would be of
convincing GTE to hang one on my line (assuming they've ever even
heard of such a device, which is doubtful in and of itself).

I do have one other question.  For the first time, I am a local call
from a MichNet node (in Muskegon).  I am wondering if there is any way
that I can read news or anything without actually having an account on
some system.  I don't want to do anything illegal, but I do know that
there are some things you can do (such as get a weather forecast, or
use the NETMAILSITES server) without being registered, and I just
wondered if maybe it was possible to read news too.  If any other
MichNet users are reading this and have an answer (or just know of
anything else useful that can be accessed), please let me know.


Internet: [e-mail]    Fidonet: 1:154/8
Jack Decker, via the Great Lakes Internet <=> FidoNet Gateway
Internet: [e-mail]
    UUCP: ...!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: [e-mail] (Jason Chen)
Subject: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 16:02:44 GMT


A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches
from an US company. I am collecting information for them.

All I need is the names, locations, and possibly phone numbers of the
companies that you know of having such a product. Your help is greatly
appreciated.


Jason Chen   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Scheuerman)
Subject: NSCA Terminal Emulator for LANS
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:27:27 GMT


We are in the process of installing a large LAN supported by a Unix
server running portable Netware and we need to be able to connect to
the host in normal terminal mode thru the LAN.  I understand that NSCA
has a pretty good terminal emulator that is in the public domain and
therefor inexpensive :-).  Does anyone know 1) if my information is
correct and 2) if so how one goes about getting a copy of the
emulator.

The workstations are PCs and the network is TCP/IP based.

Thanks in advance for your help.


Mike Scheuerman

[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)
PhoneNet: 503/227-0600

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 11:21:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Bonney)
Subject: Looking for VoiceSaver (tm?)
Reply-to: [e-mail]


I'm looking for information and source of supply for a device that can
be used by PBX operators or message centers to pre-record a 5-10
second greeting.  The (repetitive) greeting can then played back
instead of the operator repeating the same phrase over and over and
over ...

A device that did this was (if my memory serves) the VoiceSaver (tm?)
by ComDev.  However they seem to have gone away.  :/)

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

    [ A Telecommunications Professional Now Unemployed In Westford MA ]
 dab    [    No Employer, No Disclaimer.    Just My Own Thoughts.      ]
    [  Inquiries To MCIMail 422-4552    Internet <[e-mail]>  ]
    [            Telephone [phone]           ]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 08:40:21 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Mark Earle)
Subject: South TX CMT Rate Update


Possibly as a Christmas promition, Cellular One / McCaw agents are
offering a new rate plan:

    $40/month Includes detail billing, 100 minutes of *local* air
time, and 30 minutes of "free" long distance. Minutes above 100 are
billed at 21 cents/min peak and offpeak. The 30 mins LD also
decrements your 100 minutes air time.

    Roam minutes w/"cooperative" systems are .50/min plus daily
fee. They list many Texas cities with 0.00 as the daily fee, most
cities outside of Texas are from $1.50 - $3.00/day.

    Currently, Southwestern Bell offers two similiar (and better,
IMHO) packages. [They've had these in place all year, BTW]

    $60/month 200 local air minutes peak and/or off peak.
Additional minutes .22 peak or offpeak. Includes call forwarding,
waiting, 3 way, detail billing. $2/month additional for "Mr. Rescue"
gas/jump starts in the local area. Roam minutes typically .50/minute,
no daily fee in TX cities.

     $40/month unlimited off peak minutes, .41 peak minutes. .50
Roam I believe the features are $5/month for all of the above, or may
be added seperately.

    Both vendors offer voice mail at $5-10 month, depending on how
many msgs may be stored and length of messgae.

    Me: Usually satisfied two year customer of SWBMS. I've had a
Uniden President (first year) and this year a Motorola 8000H hand held
phone. I get much better use of the system with the hand held. With a
combination of voice mail, and call forwarding to a nearby "land"
phone, my peak useage is usually less than $5/month. Yet I'm either
"in touch" or folks can leave a message. Having the portable phone, if
I leave it on, gives a "call in absence" indicator, so I know to check
my vm. So I no longer need or carry the pager, saving $ to somewhat
offset the higher CMT bill. Also, when forwarding calls to a "land"
phone, the cmt rings one time and then the land phone rings. This lets
me identify calls for me when at other folks offices.  Quite handy.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 13:10:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Consumer Reports on Cellphones


Pat, The latest (1/93) issue of {Consumer Reports} has an article
which should be of interest to the readers of the TELECOM Digest,
especially those who are often asked how does a cellphone work and
whats the best one to get.

They give a brief (suitable for an intelligent layman) description of
the way a cellphone works, the cost factors involved, a privacy
warning, a rundown of features and a brief look-ahead on digital
cellphone service to come.

There is discussion of roaming and the various types of service plans
(monthly fee vs "free" airtime included).  They do warn that no matter
what you pay for the phone, it will be trivial compared to monthly and
airtime fees.

One of their conclusions was that while almost any cellphone is fine
in good signal areas, there are some that stand out when the signal is
marginal.

The top rated phone in their list is the Audiovox MVX-500.

Reccomended reading.  The only nit I might pick with it is that
the sketch showing a car, two towers, the cellular switch, the local
CO etc pictures parabolic dishes on the towers.  :-)


Rich Greenberg      Work: [e-mail]   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: [e-mail]       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #911
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05534;
          21 Dec 92 3:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04010
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:27:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09715
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:26:40 -0600
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:26:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #912

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Dec 92 01:26:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 912

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller ID Approved in Washington State (Seattle P-I via Larry Gilbert)
    Need Help For MNP Protocols (Arthur Marsh)
    Faxing From the Netherlands (Brad Dolan)
    Free Voicemail for the Homeless (John Higdon)
    Radio Stations in Prague (Richard Budd)
    New Fraud (Bob Frankston)
    AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# ([e-mail])
    ACUTA Facilities/Services Index (Craig A. Brown)
    Modem Connections, UUCP, and BT Exchanges (Howard Wilkinson)
    Stray Thought: IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones) (Shrikumar)
    Internet to Senegal (Fred Zimmerman)
    Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom (Doug Valkenaar)
    Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? (Stephen J. Friedl)
    Re: "The Net <tm>" ([e-mail])
    Re: "The Net <tm>"? - Message Incorrectly Attributed (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Gilbert)
Subject: Caller ID Approved in Washington State
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. [phone]
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:43:07 GMT


 From the {Seattle Post-Intelligencer}, December 17, 1992

State approves caller-ID phone service;
But panel specifies tough conditions to protect consumers

By Ed Penhale
P-I Reporter

     OLYMPIA -- US West Communications can offer caller-identification
service in Washington state, but under more stringent conditions than
the company planned, the state Utilities and Transportation Commission
decided yesterday.

     ... The service probably will become available in mid-1993.

     The commission attached several new conditions for the service.
US West agreed to the conditions after a public hearing in which
critics called the service a threat to privacy rights and supporters
hailed the new technology as an advance that will protect phone users
against unwanted calls.

     Under the new conditions:

     [] There will be an annual, 30-day open-enrollment period in
which telephone customers can choose to have their number blocked from
display on caller-ID equipment at no cost.  Otherwise, customers will
have 90 days after the start of caller ID in their area to make that
choice at no charge.  After that, they will pay $8 -- $13 for
businesses -- to choose line blocking.

     A caller could always block his or her number from display on a
per-call basis, however, by dialing *-67 ahead of the number to be
called.

     [] US West and other telephone companies planning to offer the
service would be required to adhere to a public-education program
approved by the commission.

     [] Volunteers who use home telephones while assisting crisis
centers dealing with domestic violence and sexual assault would be
given line blocking at no cost any time.

     [] People and businesses using caller ID are barred from
collecting numbers and names for sale to third parties for marketing
purposes.

     [] There will be a single starting date, probably midyear, for
caller ID statewide.  US West plans to offer the service in Seattle,
Bremerton, Tacoma, Olympia and Vancouver.  Other companies plan to
start the service elsewhere.

     Commission staffers recommended that people with nonpublished
numbers should get line blocking automatically, because they may think
their numbers would not be displayed on caller ID screens.

     But the commissioners decided those customers, like any other
customers, would have to take action to prevent their numbers from
being picked up by caller ID.

     State Assistant Attorney General Charles Adams and Jerry Sheehan
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington warned
commissioners that with caller ID, privacy rights would be compromised
because people may unintentionally give their names and numbers to the
people and businesses that they are calling.

     Mary Pontarolo, executive director of the Washington State
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said there are not enough
safeguards to protect battered women from inadvertently giving away
their number, which could be used to trace an address, to an
assailant.

     Commissioner Richard Casad said he recognized the importance of
privacy rights and added: "I am convinced that this (caller ID) does
not do violence to that concept."

     Sharon Nelson, the UTC chairwoman, voted to approve US West's
request to provide the service, but said she had reservations about
it.

     Nelson said she would block her number from the caller-ID system
because "I'm already on enough telemarketing lists."

     Mike Moran, regulatory director for US West, said the rules
adopted by the UTC for caller ID are among the toughest in the
country.  Thirty-four states now permit caller-ID service, but only 14
give phone customers a chance to have their names and numbers blocked
from the systems.

     Critics of caller ID said all numbers should be blocked from the
system, requiring telephone users to decide for themselves when they
want their number displayed.

     US West officials say that arrangement could severely devalue
caller ID, but they promised they would offer a service that would
allow people to unblock their calls selectively as soon as new
technology needed for that service is available, probably in October.


Larry Gilbert      [e-mail]   finger for PGP key

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

Date: 20 Dec 1992 23:41:56 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Marsh)
Subject: Re: Need Help For MNP Protocols
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Camelot Swamp bulletin board, Hawthorndene Sth Australia


On Tue 08 Dec at 20:52 [e-mail] wrote:

> Is there anybody who knows where I can get the algorithms of
> MNP 4 and 5 protocols? Is there a book concerning those?
> Thanks in advance for your replies.

Contact Microcom. I don't have the company details handy, but do have
the details for Greg Pearson, Senior Vice President, Technology
Management:

        Microcom Inc
        12955 Jolette Avenue
        Granada Hills CA 91344
        USA.

Tel [phone],
Fax [phone],
Voice mail [phone].


Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia  (8:7000/8)

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 8:28:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Faxing From the Netherlands


Apologies in advance, if these are considered FAQ or dumb questions:

With suitable power supply and telephone connector adaptors, can you
use a U.S. fax machine in the Netherlands?

Does anybody know anything about Dutch PTT international rates (to the
U.S.)?  What minimum increment of time do they bill you for when you
make an international call?

If this is considered too boring for the net, feel free to e-mail
directly to me.  Any help would be appreciated.


Brad Dolan  [e-mail] [e-mail]
            102880-700-NUCLEAR  N4VHH

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:48 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Free Voicemail for the Homeless


Pacific Bell has begun a program the makes voicemail boxes available
to the homeless. The hope, of course, is that having a way to be
reached when looking for employment and handling other affairs will
enable those who are temporarily without a permanent location to put
their lives back together.

Thirty boxes will be made available at the Salvation Army's Gateway
Center in San Francisco and a similar arrangement is being implemented
in southern California.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:00:14 EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Stations in Prague
Organization: CSAV UTIA


I heard today about a survey that Prague has the greatest volume of FM
stations in Europe.  Depending on who I ask or what I read, there are
between 19 and 25 radio stations in town.  The selection on FM in the
evening is the best I ever have experienced outside of midtown
Manhattan.

This is a far cry from my first visit to Prague almost 16 years ago
when the radio in the hotel room was fixed on one station.  You would
hear either martial music or fifteen minute harangues in a language,
of course, I could not understand.

Today, in addition to the stations belonging to Voice of America,
British Broadcasting Corp, and Deutsche Welle, there appear to be a
plethora of small private local stations, most who play popular music
both by English-speaking performers as well as local Czech bands.  The
four I see most often advertised on posters and bumper stickers are
BON-TON Radio, Europa-2 Praha, Prague 101.5, and 98-KISS FM.  That's
right, 98-KISS FM.  No relation to its namesake in New York City
though I must believe the common names are not coincidence.  The
Prague version plays AOR type music from current bands with a bit of
60s pop thrown in.  When I get back from Christmas vacation in the
Tatras, I'll try to do an informal survey for the Digest.

There's also a classical station for those with PAT's tastes in music.
A lot of Mozart - this was Wolfgang Amadeus's home away from Vienna,
as well as Dvorak, Smetana, and other 19th Century Czech composers.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Fraud
Date: Sun 20 Dec 1992 09:36 -0400


I just got an automated call from the Psychic Hotline that will reveal
my future for $1.98/min if I press "1" to accept the collect call.
Unlike TV where, in small type for those viewers capable of reading,
it tells you that your future is for entertainment purposes only, this
call is unequivocal about the promise.  I tried to flash and connect
the operator into the call, but the caller seems to have read its
future and hungup.  These are the times I wish for national Caller-ID
and ANI.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AOS PAYPHONES @#$%%%$#
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey, Glassboro, NJ 08028
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:15:24 GMT


Boy, I hate those telephones that are picked to Telesphere, 0-plus and
the like.

Now that they found ways to block 10-ATT-0, AT&T has an 800 access
That puts you into a call processing system. "Press 1 to place an AT&T
call" seems nice, doesn't it? Well guess what -- those rotten payphone
operators will not allow the dialpad to work after a call is placed!
A friend of mine was sooooo mad (read severely p----- off) he hooked a
chain around the bumper of his four wheel drive pickup and drug the
whole phone, stand, and concrete pad down the highway. What will they
think of next!

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig A. Brown)
Subject: ACUTA Facilities/Services Index
Organization: University of Arkansas
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:12:02 GMT


ACTUA has published a 1992-1993 Membership Facilities/Services Index.
Does anyone know of a machine readable version of this document?

Thanks,


Craig A. Brown   University of Arkansas

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

From: [e-mail] (Howard Wilkinson)
Subject: Modem Connections, UUCP, and BT Exchanges
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:57:34 GMT
Organization: Coherent Technology Limited


Hi,
    This is a real shot in the dark, but you may have come across
something like our problem elsewhere. We have recently started to have
problems with connections to sites supporting high speed
error-correcting modems, Uknet included. These sites are variously
running PEP, V.32 or V.32bis modems.  They are based in Staines
(sonyuk), Reading (wessex), Farnborough (pyrltd), and Canterbury
(uknet). The modems at our end are:

    o    Telebit T2500 Trailblazer, running PEP and V.32
        at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.
    o    Telebit T3500 WorldBlazer, running TurboPEP, V.32 and V.32bis
        at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.
    o    Miracom HST DUal Standard modem used in V.32 mode
        at 19200 baud fixed DTE-DCE speed.

We are using BSD-4.3 UUCP as supplied by Sony with their NeWOS.

The modems at the other end are:

    o    Dowty Trailblazer running PEP (pyrltd, sonyuk, uknet?)
    o    Telebit T2500 Trailblazer running PEP (wessex)
    o    ? at uknet running V.32bis.

We are seeing the following symptoms.

    We can establish a high quality error correcting connection to
any of the sites. Furthermore both sonyuk and wessex call us and
establish such connections to our T2500. We can start transfers and
support transfers of large numbers of small files or one or two large
files. When small files are being sent we can keep the line open for
long periods of time. However with large files we get a almost
consistent problem of loss of connection at the end of the first or
second file. The connection "freezes" that is the modems still think
they are talking to each other (we can hear tones going into the
network and what sounds like the exact tones coming back) but no data
flows. After 32 timeouts the line drops. If we recall we can restart
the conversation without problem but the same thing will occur again
within a minute of connecting. Very occasionally we get a "good"
connection, usually to pyramid, and the link will stay up for 20 to 30
minutes. The direction of data transfer does not matter, and we have
tried routing our calls through bith BT and Mercury.

    BT have been round and checked the lines and the local
exchange on our side and can find nothing wrong. I have a theory that
it may be that the exchange thinks the connection has gone away
because the machine at one end has gone quiet for a long period, but
this would have to be in the trunk network. I know that something has
changed in the last month or so to cause this but am at my wits end to
know what. DO you know of anything similar elsewhere. I have tried
TeleBit but they are baffled as well.

    It extremely annoying, as the link to uknet, pyrmid, sonyuk
etc has been robust for over two years and now we are getting
effective speeds of less than 1200 baud out of these fancy modems.


Howard

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:07:07 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Sys & Computer Networks Bombay India


Hi,

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ...

> It seems like cordless phones will soon be digital, just as phone
> answering machines are making the transition to digital recording
> storage.  While on an America West airline flight, I saw a catalog of

    Are there any cordless phone anywhere in the world (not likely in
US) that use InfraRed instead of RF?

  There are these IR stereo headphone gadgets that work fine, so no
reason why a IR cordless should not work. These would be untappable
and provable safe.

  Not likely to find such a gadget in the US market, (a) I haven't of
any such and (b) people here like to walk from room to room with their
cordless.

  Not that people in other countries dont walk :-) but I know the
there are phone feature combinations available in the Japanese market
that are not available anywhere ... so worth this query!


shrikumar ([e-mail], [e-mail])

[Moderator's Note: There are some 'cordless headsets' with a range of
around 10-15 feet which use infra-red I believe. They seem to be quite
expensive in my opinion. They are good for people who wear headsets at
work and wish to walk around within a short area looking for files and
other items as they chat with their caller.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Zimmerman)
Subject: Internet to Senegal
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:06:08


My company is in the planning stages of a project in Senegal.  We
would like to enable our customers in Senegal to have Internet access.
Any thoughts, suggestions, experience?

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 07:29:18 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom


I'm confused - and hopefully you (whoever this is) can help.

What is the relationshiip between this "mailing list" or "digest" and
the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup.  I thought they were two
separate things.  Is this really the "posting" mechanism for
comp.dcom.telecom?

Any clarification would be appreciated.


D. Douglas Valkenaar       ROLM PhoneMail         ([e-mail])
[phone]                                    FAX - [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I aleady wrote Mr. Valkenaar with more detailed
information. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are one and the same
thing. The messages are published in each at the same time. The only
difference is that the messages appear one at a time in the Usenet
group while several shorter messages are clustered together into a
single larger message when they are send to the mailing list. One
reason for the latter is the large number of readers who cannot get
the newsgroups for whatever reason, such as the folks on networks
other than the Internet.   PAT]

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

From: mtndew![e-mail]
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:36:11 GMT
Subject: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems?
Organization: Steve's Personal machine / Tustin, CA


Howdy, telecomsters,

     I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem
lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to
find a system that already does this rather than roll his own.  While
we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up
to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several
hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines.

     Shameless sales pitches from vendors who have experience with
will be very much accepted and appreciated.


     Thanks much,

Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:31:13 -0600 (CST)


In a recent TELECOM DIGEST our esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: We have a lot of coke dealers in Chicago, you know.

> I wonder how the Coca Cola Company feels about the way the word 'coke'
> has been confiscated by the users/dealers of same ... not the
> beverage, I mean the stuff you stick up your nose.  :(    PAT]

They shouldn't mind, after all their beverage once contained cocaine,
hence the name, COCA-COLA.  Remember 'Things go better with coke'?


W.A.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to the 104 of you who wrote to me with
essentially the same message. Yes it is true; a century ago, when
drugs such as cocaine were NOT illegal in the USA, the Coca-Cola
Company was the largest importer of (then legal) cocaine in the
country. The 'Coca' referred to the leaf which is used to make the
stuff people stick up their noses. After cocaine became illegal, the
Coca-Cola people were still permitted to legally import it for their
beverage for awhile; they've not used it now for many decades in their
product, substituting other stimulants instead.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"? - Message Incorrectly Attrributed
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:57:52 GMT


Very odd.  I just saw this note and it had ME as the From: field, but
Dave Liebold's signature.  I did NOT send it.  Somehow, Pat, Dave
Liebold's Fidonet submission got my header on it!  Here's the one:

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes ...

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

>> No, I'm not making this up.  A Canadian company has just trademarked
>> "The Net" and its derivatives, such as The Net Mail, The Net EDI, The
>> Net EnvoyPost, The Net Database Gateway, and The Net Enhanced Fax.

 ... much stuff removed

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

You figure it out.  I'm baffled.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.


[Moderator's Note: I apologize to Fred for any inconvenience this may
have caused. Sometimes ugly bugs show up in my software.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #912
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07660;
          21 Dec 92 4:48 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13210
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:32:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22949
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:31:31 -0600
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:31:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #913

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Dec 92 02:31:20 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 913

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems? (Jim Thornton)
    Help on Eudora (Steve Chan)
    New Canadian Area Code Charts (David Leibold)
    GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (Michael Henderson/FIDO via Jack Decker)
    Help: Satellite Earth Station Costs ([e-mail])
    Re: Caller ID on FX Lines (Maxime Taksar)
    HoHo Con '92 Gets a Bad Review (Goodman Byron)
    The Pro-34 (Dr. Math)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

> 2) I am told that this system puts six subscribers on one line, and
> there is NO "baseband" subscriber (that is, one of the six does not
> get the actual physical pair ... there's no "A party" and "B party" as
> in some other carrier systems.

It does, however, sound as though it is dysfunctionally the same as the
simple A/B subscriber carrier system that I have oh so much experience
with from GTE.

> 4) The "at rest" idle line voltage is only 15 volts, which has already
> caused some problems with certain equipment I had.  However, the "off
> hook" voltage seems to be a healthy six volts.

The reason for that is simple: the unit is powered off of a very
weenie fifteen VDC supply. Therefore the maximum open-circuit voltage
will be the fifteen that you measured. This can be a problem for any
line-powered equipment or any equipment that detects open-circuit
voltage to determine line status.

> 5) On voice calls, I find it very difficult to hear the person at the
> other end (using a standard 500-type telephone).  However, my modem
> seems to work fine at 2400 bps.  And, wonder of wonders, after being
> told that my fax machine probably would not work on these lines, it
> appears to work fine, at least for outgoing calls (haven't tested it
> on incoming yet, but then I don't receive many faxes).

The biggest problem with all of the subscriber carrier units is
INCONSISTENCY in levels. I had one that was so loud that the
distortion was painful -- that is until the power supply pooped out and
then it just faded away. You might want to check the transmission
times of your fax.  What is probably happening is that there is some
serious speed fallback going on. In other words, you may be able to
send a fax OK, but it may take three times as long as it should.

> 6) Don't know if it's the carrier or the central office, but dial
> pulsing at 20 PPS (pulses per second) is NOT accepted... I had to drop
> back to the standard 10 PPS.  You'd think a digital exchange would
> accept 20 PPS, but maybe not.

This is probably the fault of the subscriber carrier unit being unable
to follow your 20 PPS dialing interruptions. I had one that could not
even transmit 10 PPS; it was so bad that rotary dialing would not work
at all. Fortunately, a touch-tone phone worked fine so I just started
using one.

> 7) If someone drives by using a two-way radio, the signal comes in
> loud and clear on my phone for the few seconds that they are within a
> couple hundred feet of my carrier unit (don't take the distance as
> absolute truth; this has only happened once so the distance estimate
> is a wild guess at best).

These things are very sensitive to RF. Picture, if you will, one of
these things installed at the transmitter site for a high-power FM
station. Then try to imagine what it is like to carry on a
conversation with rock music several times as loud in the telephone as
the party's voice you are trying to hear. Fortunately, I had physical
access to the unit and found that using a garbage can lid
strategically placed, the RF-induced noise could be minimized.

> Should I just leave well enough alone and maybe get a volume control
> handset, or should I keep badgering GTE to give me a better line?

Always badger GTE. That company is going to have to learn someday that
its laughable service does not wash in a non-third-world country. I
now complain about every little thing on every single GTE account that
I am in charge of. If nothing else, it might harm the service stats
enough that the PUC might take notice. This applies to any phone
company; if Pac*Bell gave me anything approaching the miserable
service I have come to expect from GTE, it would be treated the same
way.

> The GTE repairman told me that I am about seven or eight miles out
> from the central office, but you'd think that since I'm on carrier
> anyway, the carrier equipment would boost the signal strength.  Maybe
> not, though.

This whole arrangement is totally obsolete. If you had a real phone
company, you would be served out of a digital remote switch physically
located near you. It, in turn, would be connected via digital circuits
to the master CO located in town. In this way, your telephone service
would sound as though you lived across the street from the central
office.

My business associate lives about twenty miles from his CO and his
phone service and transmission are flawless. But then his telco is
not-yet-GTE-ized Contel, and the switch is not the dreaded GTD-5, but
a DMS-100. Makes a big difference, you know.

> I recall at one time reading some discussion here of a piece of
> equipment designed for "long loops".  I don't recall what it was,
> though, nor whether it would be applicable in this situation.  If such
> a device would be helpful, I wonder what my chances would be of
> convincing GTE to hang one on my line (assuming they've ever even
> heard of such a device, which is doubtful in and of itself).

The only real fix is for your system to be brought into the nineties.
All analog boosters, loop extenders, etc., etc., are bogus when
compared to the now-standard way of doing things. Going digital would
increase capacity by an order of magnitude, make the audio transmission
perfect, and improve your service in every way. That is why I suspect
GTE has not considered it.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier
Date: 21 Dec 1992 02:07:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


That is old. We have long since done away with that type of carrier. I
would guess that within a year or so it should be gone there. You
might try and find out. It is a good system and will withstand just
about anything including age.

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

Date: 20 Dec 92 19:54 -0800
From: Jim Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ethernetted Office Phone Systems?


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Graham
> Toal) writes ...

>> However, we were wondering ... has anyone ever built actual
>> *telephones* for use in a building with local ethernet that used
>> tcp/ip?  If not, there's a tremendous market there: You can program
>> your phone with your extension, and take it with you when you move
>> office without reprogramming the exchange (a trivial point but one
>> that would be useful in *our* office where we're always bloody moving
>> :-( ) but more importantly you only need to run one ether trunk round
>> the whole building to cover all possible present and future phone
>> *and* network needs.

> It's not practical.  Ethernet has too much latency plus variable
> bandwidth.  Ethernet telephone's a classical hack of computer
> scientists with no telephony background who think the whole world's IP
> and wonder why anybody does anything else.

It has been done.  Xerox PARC developed a system called Etherphone(tm)
which integrates live and recorded voice into an office workstation
environment.  Applications of interest included things like voice
annotation and editing, narrated hypermedia documents, etc.

Here is a list of papers:

Polle T. Zellweger, Douglas B. Terry, and Daniel C. Swinehart, "An
Overview of the Etherphone System and its Applications", in
Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Conference on Computer Workstations (Santa
Clara, CA, March 1988), pp. 160-168.

Daniel C. Swinehart, "Telephone Management in the Etherphone System",
in Proceedings of the IEEE/IEICE Global Telecommunications Conference
(Tokyo, November 1987) pp. 1176-1180.

Douglas B. Terry and Daniel C. Swinehart, "Managing Stored Voice in
the Etherphone System", in ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 6(1),
February 1988, pp. 3-27.

Daniel C. Swinehart, "System Support Requirements for Multi-media
Workstations", in Proceedings of the SpeechTech '88 Conference (New
York; April 1988); Media Dimensions, Inc., New York, April 1988, pp.
82-83.

Polle T. Zellweger, "Active Paths through Multimedia Documents", in
Document Manipulation and Typography, J. C. van Vliet (ed.) Cambridge
University Press, 1988.  Proceedings of the EP'88 Conference on
Electronic Publishing, Document Manipulation and Typography, (Nice,
France; April 1988).

This information comes from the Computer Science Laboratory Technical
Report Digest: 1973-1990.  The papers listed are collected in techni-
cal report CSL-89-2 May 1989.


Jim Thornton, [e-mail]   University of British Columbia

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve)
Subject: Help on Eudora
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:25:11 GMT


Hey! Guys. I am using Eudora at BGSU through the University backbond,
but I want to use the software in the modem also.  My friend just
download a Toolbox image file from Apple com. site for me.  What I
suppose to do is to install all the scripts into the system and the
software should works.  But, it doesn't!

There is one file named "installCTB11".  This should be the program
which I can double click and then everything will be done for me like
magic.  But it doesn't work that well.  So if somebody out there knows
how to get the Eudora works in the modem.

Please reply my message at [e-mail].  I will very much
appreciate your help.  So, plea....se!

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 21:55:47 EST
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Canadian Area Code Charts


Some updates to the Canadian area code charts (copies of which are
available in the Archives) are now ready. However, the updates to
western Canada plus Newfoundland (NPA 709) and most of Ontario (except
NPA 613) are now available at ftp.yorku.ca in the file
pub/general/telephone-numbering and accessible via anonymous FTP.

These charts have not been sent to the Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu
as of yet. Holiday season stuff will delay any action on my part, but
I will consider any pick up and delivery offers (please e-mail me
first).

Many thanks to York University for offering space for the Canadian
area codes listings, and to the Moderator for similar FTP storage at
lcs.mit.edu.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:43:13
From: [e-mail]


The following was seen in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference, and is
forwarded without comment:

* From : Michael Henderson, 1:130/37 (16 Dec 92 21:42)
* To   : All
* Subj : Wireless Phone System

    I thought the following might be of interest to the members of
this echo.  I had no idea this sort of thing was being contemplated.

GTE makes rural area's phones entirely digital.

By Jean Pagel
Associated Press Writer

QUITAQUE, Texas (AP) -- A phone call to a neighbor miles across this
rugged terrain isn't what it used to be.

Something new is in the air -- literally -- over the scruffy brush,
hills and sheer drops below the caprock.

Radio waves are carrying callers' voices in technology that officials
say makes Quitaque the world's first city with entirely digital phone
service.

"It's the first wireless shot heard round the world," said Dave Smith,
vice president for corporate communications for Pennsylvania-based
InterDigital Communications Corp., which developed the technology.

"The significance is mind boggling in the years to come because
everything is going to go wireless."

GTE spent two years developing and installing the replacement to
traditional phone poles and wires. The switchover Dec. 2 went
smoothly, company officials said.

Bob Wolter, InterDigital's vice president for sales, explained the
system like this: A town resident picks up his receiver to make a
call.  A signal shoots through a short underground cable to a cluster
box shared by 24 customers.

The signal passes through the cluster up a nearby pole, where an antenna
points to a radio transmission tower in Turkey, 10 miles east. The tower
then signals equipment 30 miles northeast in Lakeview to trigger a dial
tone that buzzes back the same route.

That process takes 40 milliseconds, Wolter said.

Outside town, the process works the same way, except each rural
customer has his own pole and antenna.

Buddy Langley, chairman of InterDigital subsidiary Universal Service
Telephone Corp. in Irving, said the signals are sent through radio
frequencies the Federal Communications Commission assigned.

The FCC allotted the Quitaque system up to 23 frequencies in the range
of 450 megahertz, Langley said. The system can handle as many as 92
simultaneous telephone conversations.

Quitaque, a town of 513 people 90 miles northeast of Lubbock, made an
excellent pilot site because its 1970s-dated switching equipment
needed replacing anyway, officials said.

Skeptical residents warmed to the system after officials met with them
to explain benefits: No more lines broken by ice or high winds; no
threat of calls being monitored; greater clarity.

"You don't have to talk like this anymore," Wolter shouted into a
pretend receiver.

"We're proud to see the overhead wires go by the wayside," said
Quitaque banker O.R. Stark. "They've been nothing but problems."

The switch cost customers nothing.

GTE saves in no longer having to lay and maintain miles of copper wire
to serve isolated customers on these vast ranches and cotton and
peanut farms, said John Bowman, a GTE technician in Memphis.

The old poles and wires will remain in place, unused, while GTE and
InterDigital monitor the system for six months.

Smith called the Quitaque test a landmark in mobility: "It's the
dawning of a whole new communication evolution."

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

 From Jack Decker --- 1:154/8.0 FidoNet, [e-mail]
Gated through a Linux system

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Help: Satellite Earth Station Costs
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:57:22 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


A company here is setting up their own satellite ground station for
IBS service from COMSAT (either 4.5 meter in C-band or 3.5 meter at
Ku-band). This would be an: A, B, C, or E-3 standard earth station.
The other possibility was that they utilize COMSAT's Datanet service
and thus use a smaller antenna.

Are these antennas "maintenance proof"?  Would they need full-time
personnel to man the ground station?  How much would it cost to
actually operate one of these ground stations?

Since the price for setting up a 4.5 meter ground station is around
$70,000, they need to carefully control for *hidden* costs. Feedback
from operators of large satellite ground stations would be gratefully
appreciated.

Thanks in advance,


Josh   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 10:57:00 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS)
Subject: Re: CallerID on FX Lines?


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

> [Moderator's Note: I have experience with FX lines, and I can tell you
> it will cost you a bundle just to get the FX, let alone the various
> features you want.  For the FX, there will be a monthly mileage
> charge. In addition, FX is not tariffed for residence service ... only
> for business.

Not so in California.  Here we *do* have a residential FX tariff
(unless it's been removed since I last looked at it a couple years
ago.  John?).  I remember it being only slightly less outrageous in
price than the business equivalent.


Maxime Taksar   KC6ZPS    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Goodman Byron)
Subject: HoHo Con '92 Gets a Bad Review
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:14:25 GMT


HoHo Con '92 sucked.  I just wanted to say don't waste your time next
year.  Biohazard IDs are lame and for the most part the stories you
heard, you could not tell if the people telling them were true.


[Moderator's Note: Would anyone else who attended HoHo Con '92 care
to review the events for us?   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:35:30 -0500
From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Pro-34


I stopped by a Rat Shack last night to see if I could get myself a
Pro-34 scanner for Yule.  As others probably already know, it's been
discontinued for a little over a year. The original retail price was
around $350; they apparently stopped producing them and then started
dropping the price until they were all gone. IF anyone can find ANY
left in stock, the current retail price is $34.95 (!)

Oh, well. Guess I didn't need it that bad :)

Though I'm sure it's been discussed already, does anyone have pointers
to the laws about cellular interception and the new equipment ban?
It's probably online; I just don't remember. The Season does that, you
know :) :)


[Moderator's Note: $34.95 !!!!  Yeah, and the CT-301 cell phones went
way down in price also. I paid many hundreds of dollars for mine, and
I paid about $300 for the scanner. Does anyone remember the little
Sinclair computers (with the crummy membrane keyboard) back in the
early 1980's which started out at some high price and eventually wound
up being sold off the shelf at K-Mart for $9.95 (yes, nine dollars and
ninety five cents)?  Or how CB radios in the early/middle 1970's were
priced at $200-300 for a 'cheap' one and nearly a thousand dollars for
a nicer model?  They were about $19.95 when CB went to forty channels
a few years later. Telephone answering machines using accoustic
coupling techniques (because direct connection was still illegal) sold
for nearly a thousand dollars in the middle/late 1960's, and cordless
phones in those days 25 years ago were about the same price.  When I
was employed by the Amoco and Diners Club credit card processing
office in the middle sixties we got a few terminals ... CRT's they
were called ... about five thousand dollars each for the four or five
we got; 95 percent of the work was still done via 80-column punch
cards in those days. But $34.95 for the Pro-34? That is something!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #913
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20936;
          22 Dec 92 2:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20540
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:01:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04983
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:01:04 -0600
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:01:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #914

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:00:01 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 914

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Columbus Trade Point Center (Infoport) (Jane Fraser)
    Strange Operator Chatter (was 510-613 vs 613-NNX) (Andy Sherman)
    Annoying C&P Send-A-Call Service (Michael Rosen)
    The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services (Jeff Sicherman)
    Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! (Greg Woodcock)
    New List: TOUCHTON - Touch-Tone/Voice Response (John Sroka via J. Miller)
    Facilities For Low-Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's? (David Schachter)
    Cellular Rates in South Bend (Dr. Math)
    Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Roy M. Silvernail)
    FidoNet / Dial Up to Telecom (Mark Earle)
    Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones) (Lawrence Cipriani)
    Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones) (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier (John Rice)
    Re: CallerID on FX Lines? (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:12:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Columbus Trade Point Center (Infoport)


In August 1992, Columbus accepted the invitation of the United Nations
to establish a Trade Point Center (or "infoport") as part of a global
UN project called the Trade Efficiency Initiative.  Columbus will be
one of 16 sites around the world and the only site in North America.
Each Center will feature the use of video teleconferencing,
interactive information networks (offering bulletin boards, market
data, and trade information) and the use of electronic data
interchange (EDI), and related technologies.  The goals are to make
available and showcase paperless trading and to overcome many of the
traditional obstacles created by geographic, language, regulatory, and
commercial barriers.

Columbus Mayor Lashutka appointed a task force to prepare a
preliminary design.  Our plan so far is that the initial stages of
infoport will include (1) on-line access to trade information, (2) a
commercial and cargo transaction system, and (3) education, training,
and facilitation.  In later stages we might want to include other
services such as: a working group to share information on
international standards, telework centers to support telecommuting,
multimedia applications, and satellite connections.

I am a member of the task force and I've been asked to solicit input
on (1) ideas on specific services that could be part of infoport and
(2) resources to support infoport services.

If you want to help with ideas or resources, please respond by sending
me one page describing (1) your idea for a service that infoport might
provide, and/or (2) resources you can offer to make infoport happen.
You may send brochures, etc., on your organization, but the one page
will probably get more attention.

You can respond to this request (1) by sending me a printed one page,
(2) by sending electronic mail via CompuServe to 75300,2251, (3) by
sending electronic mail via Internet to [e-mail],
or (4) by using your personal computer and modem to call the local
bulletin board Strictly Business!  (614-583-9250, 8/N/1); upload your
response (in the new uploads file section) or leave a message (in the
Infoport message section) addressed to Jane Fraser.

We anticipate receiving many exciting ideas for infoport; therefore,
we may not be able to include your idea in initial infoport stages,
but we also plan to establish working groups that could proceed to
design later stages of infoport. Thanks for you help.

Please distribute this message to others who might be interested.


Jane Fraser, Co-Director, Center for Advanced Study in
Telecommunications, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Systems, 1971
Neil Avenue, Columubs, OH 43210.  614-459-7209 (voice), 614-292-7852
(fax), [e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Strange Operator Chatter (was 510-613 vs 613-NNX)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:32:06 EST


On 16 Dec 92 03:05:43 GMT, our esteemed Moderator noted:

> Even though oddly enough, on an international call I made today
> through AT&T when I dialed the operator she answered like this:
> [listen!] '.... Illinois Bell, may I ... I mean, AT&T, may I help
> you please? ...' ... yes, I thought it was strange also.

Actually, it's not as strange as you think.

AT&T still contracts to do local operator service for a lot of LECs.
But operators are not earmarked for particular calls.  Any call, AT&T
or LEC, coming into the Operator Services Center goes to the first
available position.  One of the things that comes up on the OSPS
console is the company carrying the call.  I suspect that your
operator was new and had just handled a few IBT calls and forgot to
check the screen before uttering the (branded) greeting.


Andy Sherman

Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Annoying C&P Send-A-Call Service
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 22:35:34 GMT


We have a service on the payphones around here (DC area) that will
record a message and attempt to deliver if a dialed number is busy for
an additional .25 cents.  Twice when I've tried to call a friend on
one of these phones, the called person has picked up and then a few
seconds later Send-A-Call kicks in and cuts me off.  It has happened
where once the person had call waiting and another time, after I got
the operator to connect my call after it happened again, there was an
audible click during the outgoing message of an announcement I was
calling.  Both of these may have somehow confused the Send-A-Call into
thinking the dialed number had actually been busy.


Michael Rosen
Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University
[e-mail]
[e-mail] or @lambada.oit.unc.edu

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:52:46 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  In view of PacTel's (or is that Pac Telesis) recent proposal to
split it self up to pursue emerging technologies, especially the
wireless games, it would be interesting to hear about the likely
future of non-mobile but wireless services encroaching upon the
existing installed wireplant and it's virtual monopoly on home and
business service.

   Is there sufficient potential bandwidth (for the system as a whole)
to take over a significant portion of this market?

   What are the likely costs and tradeoffs? Can it be competitive?

   How will Ma's illegitimate children fight back?

   Etc.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:50:00 +0000
From: Gregg (G.) Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls!


Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have
prior permission to contact you).  Pollsters and non-profit groups are
exempt.  Now if we just had CallerID we could all get rich!!


THANX...Gregg   [e-mail]   day 214.684.7380   night 214.530.2495

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: New List: TOUCHTON - Touch-Tone/Voice Response
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:14:46 -0600 (CST)


Forwarded message:

TOUCHTON on [e-mail]
     or [e-mail]
     Touch-Tone/Voice Response Systems Discussion List

TOUCHTON has been created to promote the discussion of the specifi-
cation, installation and maintenance of 'touch-tone' or voice response
technology.  While the discussions will likely concentrate on the
application of these systems to campus automated registration
(Periphonics et al), other uses for these systems are emerging and
their discussion is certainly encouraged.

To subscribe to this list, send the following note to LISTSERV@SJSUVM1
(or [e-mail]):

      SUBSCRIBE TOUCHTON yourfirstname yourlastname

List Owner:  John Sroka      [e-mail]
Technical Support Services   San Jose State University

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

From: [e-mail] (David Schachter)
Subject: Facilities For Low-Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:20:51 GMT


I run a computer bulletin board system (BBS) for PenPoint developers.
The BBS is in the United States and folks in Europe and South America
have expressed interest in accessing it, but not while paying normal
voice phone rates for international calls!  If y'all have information
about access methods that provide interactive data transmission (e.g.
PC Pursuit), please let me know.  Thank you.


David Schachter                                [e-mail]
801 Middlefield Road, #8                            ...!decwrl!llustig!david
Palo Alto, CA  94301-2916 USA      After 10 am, voice & fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well the people at Sprintnet (formerly Telenet, the
PC Pursuit operators) do offer PC Pursuit connections once an
international caller hits the gateway in the USA; probably at
Sprintnet's HQ in Virginia.  If your callers subscribed to PC Pursuit
*and* made local arrangements with the PTT administration in their
country for a data link to the USA, they could call that way, and even
with the expensive overseas circuits they would be using plus the cost
of PC Pursuit ($1 per hour once they get on this side) the cost would
still probably be less than voice circuits they'd otherwise be using.

Another alternative is to check out the cost of having a Sprintnet pad
right there at your site in place of one or more of your dialup lines.
You'd get a network address, and your overseas callers would use their
data link to make an international data call to the USA, then onward
to your pad and your system. You'd need to keep such a circut loaded
all the time -- one call after another constantly -- to justify the
cost; but if you could do this it probably would even be less
expensive than PC Pursuit plus the international circuit otherwise.
In addition to PC Pursuit, Sprintnet offers a corporate or business
version of the same service for more money with more flexibility, but
still less expensive than voice-grade lines and dialup calls would
cost. At one time a few years ago I asked Telenet to quote me a price
for a pad straight to my terminal from their switch in Chicago. Do not
quote me as my memory is fading, but I think they said in my specific
application it would be about $700 per month. I was not able to
justify that over dialup, even with the new rates then going into
effect with IBT (no more flat rate packages).  Check them out at
703-689-6000.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:23:13 -0500
From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Rates in South Bend


Two phone calls have just verified my suspicions. Here in South Bend,
there are two cellular carriers: Cellular One and Centel Cellular.
Their rates are almost identical; both charge for airtime on call
forwarding. Centel bills in six-second increments.

Activation    $25
Detail Billing    $1/month (Cell One)
        $2/month (Centel)

base        'free' minutes        extra minutes
$24.95        30            $0.60
$59.95        90            $0.30
$99.95 *    240            $0.20

* - Centel is $99.00; Cell One is $99.95.

The obvious question is WHY? No peak/off-peak rates are available,
coverage is basically the same ... I am somehow under the mistaken
impression that the purpose of the 'duopoly' is to foster some form of
competition in either features, price or levels of service. None of
this seems to be happening here. Am I missing something?


[Moderator's Note: Ah, you seem to be a man Unclear on the Concept.
With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very easy for
each of them to keep track of what the other one is doing and work
with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's agreements. The
same sort of thing happens with Ameritech and Cellular One - Chicago.
They are like two peas in a pod; they act like they are competing but
neither one does anything to really shake up the other, so they are
able to continue in their activities virtually unabated. Now let a
third or fourth one enter the scene ... then you would see some real
reform in the business as they all tried cutting each other's throats
at the same time. Cell rates would be five or ten dollars a month for
flat rate service and they would give the phones away free with no
contract required or anything else.   PAT]

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

Subject: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
From: [e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 00:08:28 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


A friend has one of these, bought on the sysop deal.  He says it does
everything but make coffee and take out the trash. :-)

Anyone know if it does CNID?  If so, what's the magic invocation?


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:31:49 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Mark Earle)
Subject: FidoNet / Dial Up to Telecom Archives


My FidoNet node has the Digest from 12 787 forward on line for
retrieval either by "File Request" from ohter nodes, or direct dial in
for regular folks with modems.

The system runs 24 hours/day, and employs a U.S. Robotics HST (one of
the original models). Callers with HST's will get a maximum of 1100
cps transfers. Callers with error correcting modems of other brands
should get 4-500 cps.

Files are stored in plain ascii format. There is a files list, of
course. Files ending in '.TXT' are ascii, cr/lf terminated. Recent
files are '.UNX ' terminated in cr only, Unix style. Both will work
with the majority of word processors on many platforms.

I don't store them in ZIP, ZoO etc to allow access by non-ms dos
users.

Access information/short notes: Dial [phone].

After you get a CONNECT msg, wait a few seconds. If you send a few ESC
characters, it'll speed things up. You'll get a Loading OPUS, Takes 20
seconds msg ... and when "Opus" loads, promts will guide you to enter
a password, etc. At the main menu, select F for files, then A for
area, 2, and once there at the files menu, F for file titles. There
are also some of the Computer Underground Digest files.

The BBS system is free of charge, and first time callers may download
with no "verification" or other troubles. 30 minute call limit
applies; simply leave mail (you'll be asked to at the 'g' oodbye
prompt) and you may have more time.

I post the copies of the Digest received from my mail box at work
daily, of course sometimes I do get behind.

If the system is "down" the modem simply does not answer. Busy implies
another caller is on line; try again shortly.

Re: Waffle

I've contemplated (over the holidays) adding Coherent, to gain UUCP
capability, and / or waffle, since at the call in point, I could
present callers with a "press 1 for Fidonet, 2 for Waffle/Internet"
type menu.  That might be fun. I'm like you on Waffle: don't know much
of the specifics.  Opus/Fidonet are more familiar to me, but I think
it'd be fun to have both here at home. Feel free to spread the above,
as the BBS is very lightly loaded.

The node number, needed for other folks in Fidonet to automatically
request files, is 1:160/50.  There is even a way to get mail from/to
Internet but I just use the account at the office :-)


 mwe

[Moderator's Note: I am pleased to spread the word: 512-855-7248 for a
good time :) picking up back issues of the Digest as needed. I've had
a couple other letters on this today, and perhaps soon will be able to
announce an alternate set of the entire archives on a dialup line for
our many non-Internet readers without ftp ability at their site.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:20:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


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

> Are there any cordless phone anywhere in the world (not likely in
> US) that use InfraRed instead of RF?

FYI, AT&T tested such a cordless phone several years ago, about six
years I think, and gave up on it because RF had better reception/
transmission and was more economical.  At least that's what I was told
second hand ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:48:18 -0500
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: There are some 'cordless headsets' with a range of
> around 10-15 feet which use infra-red I believe. They seem to be quite
> expensive in my opinion. They are good for people who wear headsets at
> work and wish to walk around within a short area looking for files and
> other items as they chat with their caller.   PAT]


Quick, tell me where ... I've yet to find cordless headsets that aren't
RF.  The Plantronics and 'Hello Direct' ones are RF. (900MHz)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL17
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GTE and Subscriber Carrier
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:23:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.
fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> I recently moved from Michigan's glorious Upper Peninsula to the more
> densely populated lower part of the state.  Unfortunately, the
> property I purchased was in the middle of GTE territory.  I had
> thought that the service just might be acceptable because my serving
> exchange (Whitehall, Michigan) seems to be operating off of a modern
> digital electronic switch, though I have no idea what type (anyone?).

Whitehall is a BIG GTD-5. Has alot of integrated digital remotes and
alot of old analog Subscriber Carrier attached.

> I can tell you that there are no noticible clicks as the call
> progresses, and when you call a number the phone actually rings before
> the caller hears ringback tone, if that helps any.

Stuff deleted

> I recall at one time reading some discussion here of a piece of
> equipment designed for "long loops".  I don't recall what it was,
> though, nor whether it would be applicable in this situation.  If such
> a device would be helpful, I wonder what my chances would be of
> convincing GTE to hang one on my line (assuming they've ever even
> heard of such a device, which is doubtful in and of itself).

What you're thinking of is a "loop extender". Basicly what it does is
to 'extend' the loop by boosting the loop battery voltage from @-48v
to either @130v or 260v (for 'really' long loops). Unfortunately, it's
not compatible with Subscriber carrier. Also, on a seven or eight mile
loop, while usable with a loop extender (but stretching it), the
receive audio level would still be pretty low.


John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                          |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                          |   Not my Employer's....
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 08:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: CallerID on FX Lines?


[e-mail] (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) writes:

> Not so in California.  Here we *do* have a residential FX tariff
> (unless it's been removed since I last looked at it a couple years
> ago.  John?).

It is tariffed for residence if you are willing to have measured
service. Pac*Bell no longer offers unmeasured service over FX lines
where measured is available -- and that covers just about the entire
service area.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #914
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02871;
          24 Dec 92 4:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12788
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:46:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10577
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:46:10 -0600
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:46:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #915

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Dec 92 02:46:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 915

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    ZyXEL Modem Review (Ken Levitt)
    NT Caller ID Unit (Jack Decker)
    Regional HQ and Telecomms Hubs Report Available (Tom Worthington)
    On the First Day of Christmas ... (Radio Comm Report via Leroy Donnelly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24-DEC-1992 01:37:23.85
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T?


I was over a friend's house today in New York (718-575), and placed a
direct dial (1+) call over AT&T to Milton, Mass (617-696/8).

To my suprise, less than *one second* after I dialed the last digit
the phone was already ringing in Milton! This is even faster than many
calls WITHIN the New York Metro Calling Area!

I had to place the same call two weeks ago, and it took the "normal"
time for an LD call to be placed, ie, maybe three seconds over AT&T
before ringing started.

Subsequent calls to Hingham, Mass (617-749) yielded the same results,
that is, ringing almost immediately after dialing the last digit. This
is similar to many locally-placed calls, ie, 718-575 to 516-621
(Roslyn) also ring in less than a second after the last digit is
dialed, but I believe this is because NYTel has placed SS7 "between"
these two (and other) offices. I've noticed the same pattern of very
swift call setup in LA starting in 1990, where two different exchanges
(but local to each other, ie, no IXCs) would place calls to each other
in under a second. From my house in North Salem, I can dial Armonk
(914-669 to 914-273) and the call goes through INSTANTLY, as if they
were on the same physical switch (they aren't). As a matter of fact,
ANY call from an SS7 equippped switch in the NYTel NY Metro LATA seems
to go through to Armonk VERY quickly - I tried 914-273-9901 (or
203-552-9901, same switch) from my friend's house and as soon as I
dialed the last digit I heard "You have reached Armonk DSO".

In the calls that I placed today from the 718-575 office, calls to a
busy number in Hingham were met with an IMMEDIATE busy signal on my
end, that is, LESS than .5 seconds!. I also placed similar calls to
Berkeley, CA (510-525, 510-450), and call setup was only slightly
slower, but still around one second. Specifically, I tried (510)
450-9963 (non-working), and got the Pac*Bell recording in LESS than
one second, which is pretty impressive.

Now I was wondering -- if this impressive call completion timing is
due to SS7, does that mean that Caller ID should work? (Assuming of
course that the origination and destination offices and all trunks in
between can handle SS7, or is that assuming too much?) We tried it
from Berkeley to NY, but all we got was "Out of Area". I will try it
from Milton tomorrow, and see if the CID works from there.

Is it likely to work, ie, are NETel swtiches (or Pac*Bell for that
matter) equipped to deliver CID information even though they may not
offer it to customers locally at this time? Or does SS7 connectivity
imply that the originating switch always delivers the CID info, and
that it is up to the rest of the equipment down the line to convey it,
if possible?

Just curious ...


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


[Moderator's Note: I can tell you the calls I make from my office to
Australia and New Zealand these days go through in a matter of only
two or three seconds. If I add the # key at the end of my international
calls, the number rings and I am connected to my party in less than
ten seconds in most cases.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 16:29:22 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: ZyXEL Modem Review


Since the ZyXEL modem has many features of special interest to Telecom
readers, I thought you might be interested in this review that I wrote
for the New England Fidonet Sysops.

Items of Telecom note are:  Caller ID, Distinctive Ring, Voice
record/playback, DTMF detection.

                               BASIC INFORMATION

Make:     ZyXEL
Model:    U-1496E (External)
ROM:      V 5.03c M
Speed:    14,400 in V.32bis, 16,800 with other ZyXEL modems
FAX:      Group III FAX with FAX software included.  Does Class II modem
          FAX commands and is compatible with many FAX software packages
Chip Set: ZyXEL (Not Rockwell)

                               SPECIAL FEATURES

This is the only modem that comes with software that will allow
Binkley or FrontDoor to answer a BBS call, find out that it is a FAX
call and chain off to the FAX software to receive a FAX.

Will decode and report Caller ID (caller number delivery) information
if this information is available on your phone line.  It will also
deliver caller's name, if this information is provided by your phone
company.

Remote configuration.

Two types of security features.  One does dial back, the other works
only with another XyXEL modem.

You can tell the modem to only answer on one of more distinctive ring
patterns.  The type of phone service is called RingMate by New England
Telephone, but has different names in every part of the country.

Has its own built in dialing directory.

Adaptive block size for bad lines.

Maintains statistical performance information that can be read back in
human readable form.

Special Voice/Tone Information.

   1.  Can read incoming touch tones (DTMF) and pass information on to
       your computer.

   2.  Has facilities to play a digitized voice recording out over the
       phone line or through the modem's speaker.

   3.  Has facilities to digitize and record voice messages coming in
       over the phone line.

   If you combine items 1, 2, and 3.  You see that you can build a
   voicemail system, or a front end that will answer your phone with a
   message and ask callers to select from Voice, Data, or FAX.  However,
   I have not found any existing software that will do this.  They do
   give you a program that has some of these features, but mostly for
   demonstration purposes.

   There are other modem models that have a better voice digitizing method
   that compress speech into smaller disk files.

They have a public access BBS that has information on using their
modems with many different FAX and communications packages.

When they issue a ROM update, if you have access to a PROM burner, you
can download the code from their BBS.  Otherwise, you can get an
upgraded ROM from them.

There is a light on the front panel indicating signal quality.

                               THE GOOD NEWS

My BBS is the Fidonet<->Internet Gateway for nets 101 and 322.  As
such I have many incoming and outgoing mail connections with other
Fidonet systems. This is the third 14,400 FAX modem I have tested.
The Supra and Zoom modems were both returned as being unacceptable for
a variety of different reasons. The ZyXEL seems to do the job quite
well.

The unit comes with a heavy duty power transformer (unlike the Zoom or
Supra), and seems well built.

With the exception of one system (see below), I can connect with all
other modems without any special setup strings.

                               THE BAD NEWS

The FAX software that comes free with the modem is not very
sophisticated.  If you only use FAX infrequently, you will be able to
use it, but if you are a frequent FAX user, you will likely want
something better.

The manual has most of the information you might want, but is not well
organized.  The Zoom manual was much better and had more information.

I had no reason to remove the case, but I wanted to take a peek
inside.  It was difficult getting the case open.  The instructions in
the manual on this topic were not all that clear.

The lights inside the modem are set back from the front panel far
enough so that it is difficult to see what is going on when you look
at them from an angle.  The more expensive model has a digital
display.

There are too many lights lit when the modem is not connected so that
it is difficult to tell from a distance if the modem is on-line.

The lights are arranged in such a way that you need to look very
carefully to know if you have an error correction connection.

You can tell from the lights if you have a v.32 connection, but you
can not tell the speed of the connection.

I have a problem which may be unique to my local phone exchange.  I
have had this problem with some brands/models of modems in the past,
but not all.  On an outgoing call, when the number called is busy,
about 10%-15% of the time, the ZyXEL modem will report RINGING rather
than BUSY.  This just means that the call attempt will take a little
longer to abort.  To deal with this, I have set Binkley to "RingTries 7".

I had one other problem which seems to have gone away since ZyXEL sent
me a replacement modem.  About every three or four days the modem
ended up in a state where the touch tones (DTMF) being generated by
the modem were not recognized by the phone company.  Dial tone would
come up, the tones would go out, and dial tone would still be there.
The only way to clear this was to power off the modem and power it
back up.  I have been using the replacement modem for about three
weeks now and the problem has not come back.  The second modem had a
later ROM revision, so I'm not sure if it was a ROM problem or a modem
problem.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: NT Caller ID Unit
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:08:57
From: [e-mail]


The following item was seen in the Fidonet MDF echomail conference:

* Forwarded by Jack Decker (1:154/8)
* Area : MDF
* From : Dan J. Rudiak, 1:134/14 (18 Dec 92 22:37)
* To   : All
* Subj : NT Caller ID Unit

Northern Telecom to Unveil $19.95 Caller ID Unit at Consumer
Electronics Show To make Caller ID available on every phone in the
home

NASHVILLE -- Northern Telecom today announced the industry's lowest
priced add-on units for Caller Identification.  The Interlude XT and
Interlude XT Plus are designed to fill a need for basic Caller ID
adjuncts that provide call screening only, on extension phones
throughout the home.

The devices will sit next to existing telephones and display the
number or the name and number associated with an incoming call while
the phone is ringing.  The Interlude XT supports incoming number
display and carries a suggested retail price of $19.95.  The Interlude
XT Plus displays the incoming name and number.  It has a suggested
retail price of $24.95.

"Consumers who already have a full-featured Caller ID terminal or
adjunct on their main phone line don't need the same functionality on
every extension phone in the home," said John Ryan, assistant vice
president, Small Business/Residential Marketing, Northern Telecom.
"Interlude XT and Interlude XT Plus offer consumers an inexpensive way
to put the call screening capability of Caller ID not just in the
kitchen, but in the family room bedroom or workshop."

Consumers must subscribe to the Caller ID service from their local
phone company.  Caller ID is tariffed in some part of 34 states today.
There are 2.1 million telephone lines with access to Caller ID
service.

Other Caller ID devices on the market today are designed to be used
with the busiest phone in the house.  They are equipped with extensive
memory capabilities which allow missed calls to be logged, no matter
which phone is nearest. The Interlude XT and XT Plus, howev er, are
simple devices which allow consumers to screen incoming calls from any
phone in the home."

The low price point of Interlude XT and Interlude XT Plus is expected
to generate increased sales of Caller ID devices for retailers and
increased subscription to the Caller ID service where it is available.
Consumers now have an inexpensive way to "try out" the service.

Distributors of this device may also choose to use the devices in
innovative promotions for Caller ID.  When sold together with an
integrated Caller ID telephone, the units might be offered as a
complete home Caller ID package.

The new products will be especially well suited to new partnerships
between telephone companies and retailers.  In 1992, Northern Telecom
teamed with Bell Atlantic and several retailers to test an innnovative
marketing program that promotes the sale of new services such as
Caller ID and voicemail along with telephone equipment at retail
outlets.

"The market acceptance of these new services and telephone devices
depends on establishing a high comfort level for consumers," said
David Lynn, vice president, retail sales, Northern Telecom .
"Interlude XT and Interlude XT Plus address this need by keeping the
equipment capabilities very simple and allowing the consumer to focus
on the services and their benefits."

Interlude and Interlude XT will be introduced at the Winter Consumer
Electronics Show in Las Vegas, January 7-10.  Northern Telecom will be
located at booth # 5005.  The units will be available in June 1993.
Additional product information can be obtained by calling Northern
Telecom's customer response center at 1-800-NORTHERN.

Northern Telecom is a leading supplier of telecommunications switching
equipment to telephone companies and offers software to support a full
range of Custom Local Area Signaling Services and other advanced
services such as Caller ID.  Northern Telecom, or its predecessor
companies, has been manufacturing telephones since 1882.  In 1990, the
company introduced the first telephone with integrated Caller ID
capability.  In 1991, it announced Maestro, the first phone device
capable of displaying a caller's name.  In addition to Maestro,
Northern Telecom offers other Caller ID terminals including Maestro
2000, Maestro 3000 and Rhapsody, as well as full-featured Caller ID
adjuncts: Interlude, Interlude and Interlude III.


Jack Decker --- 1:154/8.0 FidoNet, [e-mail]
Gated through a Linux system

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Worthington)
Subject: Regional HQ & Telecomms Hubs report available
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:45:19 GMT


REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS HUBS:
AUSTRALIA AND THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

A report by John Langdale for the Service Industries Research Program.

The Hon Stephen Martin MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Trade, launched this report on 23 November 1992.
He called for more positive steps to attract Regional Headquarters to
Australia and suggested that a 'one-stop shop' approach may be the
best option. Hubs and headquarters bring quality jobs and
opportunities for Australian firms to meet the needs of the
transnational headquarters.

In his report, Langdale suggests that Australia's greatest asset in
attracting headquarters and hubs is the high level of skills and
experience available in our service industries. In particular,
Australia has strong technical skills in telecommunications and other
information technology industries. We also have specialist expertise
in business services such as advertising, international business law,
media and consulting. Many of these skills are in short supply at an
international level and Australian wage rates for skilled personnel
are comparatively low. We should publicise our rich resource of
skills.

However, Australia is at a disadvantage in being geographically
peripheral to the region. We should not attempt to compete with
Singapore, but focus on the strengths which can give us a competitive
advantage.

This report is one of a series produced by the Service Industries
Research Program which is jointly sponsored by the Australian
Coalition of Service Industries (ACSI) and the Department of Industry,
Technology and Commerce (DITAC). Further information can be obtained
from Chris Paterson, DITAC [phone] or Judith King, ACSI (03) 663
2996.


Posted on behalf of DITAC by: Tom Worthington, Chairman, THE CANBERRA
BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMPUTER SOCIETY INCORPORATED


An electronic copy of the report is available by e-mail. Send a request
to: [e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 18:02:34 CST
From: [e-mail] (Leroy Donnelly)
Subject: On the First Day of Christmas ...
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


 From:  {Radio Communications Report}, December 21, 1992

                ON THE FIRST DAY OF CHRISTMAS ...
                        By Bill Maguire


     On the first day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me: a
merger with AT&T.

    On the second day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
two digital standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the third day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
three industry shows in a week, two digital standards and a merger
with AT&T.

    On the fourth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
four PCS definitions, three industry shows in a week, two digital
standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the fifth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS definitions, three industry shows in a
week, two digital standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the sixth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
six pioneers preferring, FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS definitions,
three industry shows in a week, two digital standards and a merger
with AT&T.

    On the seventh day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
seven Babies crying, six pioneers preferring, FIVE LAWSUITS FILED,
four PCS definitions, three industry shows in a week, two digital
standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the eighth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
eight waivers wavering, seven Babies crying, six pioneers preferring,
FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS definitions, three industry shows in a
week, two digital standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the ninth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
nine no decisions, eight waivers wavering, seven Babies crying, six
pioneers preferring, FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS definitions, three
industry shows in a week, two digital standards and a merger with
AT&T.

    On the tenth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
ten judges judging, nine no decisions, eight waivers wavering, seven
Babies crying, six pioneers preferring, FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS
definitions, three industry shows in a week, two digital standards and
a merger with AT&T.

    On the eleventh day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
eleven months of comments, ten judges judging, nine no decisions,
eight waivers wavering, seven Babies crying, six pioneers preferring,
FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS definitions, three industry shows in a
week, two digital standards and a merger with AT&T.

    On the twelfth day of Christmas the wireless industry gave to me:
twelve months of hearings, eleven months of comments, ten judges
judging, nine no decisions, eight waivers wavering, seven Babies
crying, six pioneers preferring, FIVE LAWSUITS FILED, four PCS
definitions, three industry shows in a week, two digital standards and
a merger with AT&T.

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

Merry Christmas to all.


[Moderator's Note: Ditto from here. I've got enough messages waiting
in the queue I could post several issues daily from now through Boxing
Day and not run out ... I'll try to get a few more issues out to the
net between now and the weekend ... but there are other things in my
universe in addition to telecom, you know ... :)   My best wishes to
all for a happy holiday and a wonderful new year.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #915
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29522;
          25 Dec 92 17:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15410
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:44:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01573
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:43:59 -0600
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:43:59 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #916

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Dec 92 15:44:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 916

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    No CNID in CA Says PacBell (Richard M. Greenberg)
    No Caller-ID in California (John Higdon)
    California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions (Randy Gellens)
    Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Jim Haynes)
    Airfone Calls 911 (Callback via Brent Chapman)
    Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone (Will Martin)
    Strange LD Problem With Modems (Jack Winslade)
    EMBARC Service Information Wanted (Mike Harpe)
    Wiring Reference Book Wanted (Mark Vickers)
    Reminder: AUDIOTEX Mailing List is Available (Lauren Weinstein)
    No Link Between Location and CO? (Randy Gellens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 01:50 PST
From: [e-mail] (Richard M Greenberg)
Subject: No CNID in CA Says PacBell


In Wednesday's (12/23) {LA Times} business section, PacBell announces
that because the PUC did not ease the proposed restrictions on CNID
service, they will not offer the service at all.  Their main complaint
seems to be that people with unlisted numbers (aproximately 40% of
Californians) automatically be given the right, free of charge, to
block CNID on all calls.  (i.e. "per line blocking").

PacBell joins GTE which declined to offer CNID six months ago.

Starting in March '93, PacBell will offer three other Class features;
Call Trace, Call Screen (with a limit of ten numbers), and Call
Return.


Rich Greenberg      Work: [e-mail]  310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: [e-mail]      310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....


[Moderator's Note: My sympathy to the folks in California who believe
they have the right to know who is calling them on the phone. But even
without Caller ID, the screening service will be a valuable addition
to them, as it will enable (for example) BBS operators to lock out
crackers and phreaks who otherwise 'take a liking' to their system.
The neat thing about Call Screening is that you don't have to know the
number of the person calling, and often times who cares anyway. Just
add call screening to the first line of each hunt group; then when you
spot someone *on any line in the hunt group* you don't want to have
around, dump the call and immediatly go on the first line in the hunt
group and dial *60 #01# provided your syntax on this command is the
same as ours. If his was 'the last call received' he'll be gone, gone,
gone from your life. This works since the filter for screening sits in
the CO path *before* the decision is made to hunt, but it does require
that the call be to the lead number. If the caller dials direct into
a back line then he will get around the screening; if that is an issue
then add screening to those lines also. I believe (but won't swear to
it) that an IBT tech said to me once that all your call screening
filters could be chained or slaved to a master. Simple solution is to
only give out the lead number; never give out the other numbers and
always keep them sort of obscure and out of any logical sequence.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 07:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: No Caller-ID in California


As a result of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon the service by
the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell has announced
that it has no plans to offer Caller-ID at the present time. These
restrictions make it impossible to offer a viable product to
customers, according to Pac*Bell.

The two major stumbling blocks are the requirement for per-line
blocking (and the correlary requirement that ALL unlisted numbers be
blocked by default), and the stringent customer notification and
education that Pac*Bell would have to provide in advance of the
offering. Pacific Bell indicated that since forty percent of
residences in California have unlisted numbers, any Caller-ID offering
would be of little value to potential users.

So my heartfelt thanks go to each and every one of the staff and
commissioners who have deemed it necessary that Californians will
continue to be deprived of services that are commonplace in the rest
of the country. And we wonder why all the high-tech companies are
moving out!

By the way, no other state in the union has the requirements that the
CPUC has imposed upon the CNID offering. It is good to know that
anonymous and crank callers have people in high places looking out for
them. No where else but in California would this be the case. Too bad
the real, productive people in this state have no advocates.

For what it is worth, Pacific Bell will begin offering Call Block,
Call Return, and Call Trace beginning in March. As long as the person
who is being harassed cannot find out who is doing the harassing, the
CPUC has said that Pac*Bell can offer these services. Whoopie.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: If PacBell wants to make an end-run around the PUC,
all they need to do is implement Blocked Number Call Blocking, and
educate their caller ID subscribers on how to automatically reject
calls from unidentified parties. When that forty percent with non-pub
numbers found out that fifty percent of the other subsribers were
refusing their calls, they'd soon ask for their number to start being
displayed by default also.  PAT]

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 25 DEC 92 01:52
Subject: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions


The {L.A. Times} reported on November 24th [I'm a bit behind in my
reading] that the California PUC met on November 23, and voted 3-to-1
to ease some of the CLID restrictions they had imposed in their June
ruling.  They said that the LECs only had to educate people in the
areas where they were going to offer the service, not statewide.  The
PUC also ruled that per-line blocking with per-call unblock, required
in their June ruling, would be subject to a "limited rehearing" on its
technical feasibility.

Pacific Bell said in a July filing that developing the technical
capability to offer that form of blocking would take three years.

In response to this latest ruling, Michael J. Miller, Pac Bell's VP
for regulatory affairs, said "I'm encouraged by the words I see, but
we can't really say [if we want to offer CLID] until we look at the
order ... and do some more economic analysis," which could a couple of
weeks.

GTE and Contel also said they would have to review the order before
deciding if they would offer CLID.


Randy Gellens                [e-mail]
A Series System Software                 if mail bounces,  forward to
Unisys Mission Viejo, CA                         [e-mail]
Opinions are personal;   facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself


[Moderator's Note: I am confused. Is this message from Randy
superceeded by the two messages from Greenberg and Higdon in this
issue based on the 12/23 news reports? Is the 'limited rehearing' they
mentioned what resulted in the 12/23 news stories?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 03:40:23 -0800
Subject: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works


There was a piece in Monday's paper saying a federal judge in Oregon
has temporarily suspended enforcement of a new law banning recorded
telephone sales pitches.  Katherine Moser, manager of a small business
in Keizer OR complains that the law discriminates against small
businesses by prohibiting inexpensive recorded telephone soliciting
machines, but continues to allow live sales pitches that big companies
can afford.

"In an affidavit, she said no other form of advertising brought her as
much business as the recorded sales pitch that reached customers
through an auto-dialer she purchased for $1,795."

First, lets hope the judge recognizes this as a tragedy-of-the-commons
situation. [reference to Garret Hardin's highly influential essay "The
Tragedy of the Commons" in which he shows how an act which is
insignificant when performed by one person becomes devastating to the
community when everybody does it] Second, the fact that people
actually respond to her sales pitch is, well, sickening.  Maybe
instead of crusading for a national list of people who don't want to
receive telephone solicitations, we should crusade for a list of those
who do want them, and permit only the people on that list to be
called.

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

Subject: Airfone Calls 911
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:31:54 -0800
From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>


Here's a story from the November, 1992 issue of {Callback}, the
monthly newsletter published by NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting
System (ASRS).

"Dialing Dillies"

Pay telephones (Airfones) are being installed in increasing numbers
for passenger use on commercial aircraft.  A recent ASRS report
highlights one airfone use that we're sure aircraft operators never
anticipated:

After takeoff, crew noted ... no transponder received on left or right
by ATC and TCAS was inoperative.  While passing upwards through FL240
right pack trip "off" light illuminated, but reset was impossible
using irregular checklist.  This meant loss of pressurization
capacity.  At FL300 loss of second pack was indicated by the left pack
trip "off" light -- also not resettable.  Captain directed First
Officer to use oxygen masks and initiate emergency descent.  ATC
cleared aircraft to to FL240, then 15,000 feet, then 10,000 feet
enroute back to airport.  Cabin pressurization reached 9500 feet but
cabin oxygen masks never actuated ...

This flight was in sunny, dry conditions with no loss of controls or
engines ... [Crew later discovered that] a passenger in first class
used airfone to call 911, Highway Patrol, and report aircraft out of
control and in danger of hitting mountain.  In fact, aircraft was
never in danger of hitting anything, and except for initial pushover
of nose and actuation of speed brake to begin descent, operations were
mostly normal.

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

For the benefit of our international readers, 911 is an all-purpose
emergency telephone number used in the U.S. for contacting
ground-based emergency services such as fire and rescue, police and
highway patrol, ambulance services, and other emergency services.
Some days you just can't win!


Brent Chapman            Great Circle Associates
[e-mail]    1057 West Dana Street
[phone]          Mountain View, CA  94041

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:57:54 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone


I was speaking with my elderly aunt and uncle the other day, and they
mentioned how they had difficulty getting to the phone before it
stopped ringing. Of course, the usual answer to that these days is to
have a cordless phone you keep near you, perhaps clipped to a walker
or in a basket hung from it.  When I mentioned that, my aunt said that
the problem she had with any cordless phone she's tried is that the
handset is too bulky for her arthritic hands -- she cannot grasp it.
She can hold a regular-telephone handset with the thinner mid-portion.

So I told her I'd see what I could find in the way of a cordless phone
in which the handset is made more like a regular phone, with a thinner
mid-section between mouthpiece and ear-portion. (I would suppose the
dialling buttons would have to be at one end, maybe around the
periphery of the microphone or on a flip-out panel of some kind.)
Nothing like this appears in Hello Direct or any other catalog I have
checked. Does anyone on the list know if such a device exists?

If it doesn't, here's a marketing opportunity for the entrepeneurs on
the list -- a product for which there is demand but no supply ...

If there are such devices and I get e-mail about them that doesn't
also appear on Telecom, I'll post a summary. (I'll be away until New
Years -- Happy Holidays to the group and the Esteemed Moderator!)


Regards, Will

[e-mail] OR [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And happy holidays to you too, Will, and the rest
of our readers.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 23:59:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Strange LD Problem With Modems
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


We feed a site down in Lawrence, KS.  They usually poll once every
evening using dial-1 AT&T.  We had good transfers up until recently.
They bought a new modem, a Supra v.32bis.  It worked fine for a while,
but ...

I got a call from him tonight stating that his sessions are being cut
off as if the carrier was dropped after a few minutes.  He forced a
poll while I was watching, and I noticed garbage streaming and the CD
flashing on and off.  I suggested that he change back to the original
modem (a USR Dual, square LEDs) and try the poll again.  He did, and
the session barfed about two minutes into the data transfer.  It was
as if somebody had simply pulled the plug.  I watched this a couple of
times, and BOTH ends showed hangup and failed session.

I then had him repeat the poll with Sprint, with the same results.

I then forced a call to him.  The session went perfectly.  Several
batches, about 1.5 megs total.  I was using AT&T.

Has anyone ever encountered anything like this?  I've seen hundreds of
random failed sessions and idiopathic disconnects, but never those
that were as easily repeatable.

We're using a TB Worldblazer with the latest non-fax ROM revision on
this end.  We have a rather new but burned-in #5 ESS <tm> on this end
and, from the sound of the call-waiting clicks on his voice line, it
appears that he has a #1 or #1A ESS <tm> in Lawrence.  He's noticed
this on both the Supra and the USR.  (The Supra is definitely bad, and
is going back.)

It amazes me that the sessions are totally clean one way, but
regularly and repeatedly disconnect the other way.  I think we've
shown that it is not the modem on his end or the LD carrier.  Anyone
care to guess?


Good day.   JSW

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1
DRBBS - Merry Christmas -- Happy Hanukkah  (1:285/666.0)


[Moderator's Note: Let's use a process of elimination. What is the one
thing in common about all the bad, failed connections?  He originated
the call.  The Supra and the USR modems couldn't change it. Two
different modems: both bad ... doubtful. First on one carrier, then on
another (Sprint): neither carrier able to deal with it ... doubtful.
When you call him, the modem works fine and the carrier handles it
with no problems. Try these things:

Call him a few more times. See if it always works okay using various
carriers and even various modems on his end. Have him try to call some
other site on the opposite end of the earth, or at least in some other
part of the Land of Ahs ... still screwing up? Maybe inadvertently
some obscure piece of code in the uucp software went bad; something
that is only used when he originates uucp ... but not when he receives
uucp.  Have him use the phone line normally used to poll to call your
line voice; the two of you can chat for a few minutes and see if the
line is (or gets) trashed out after a few seconds or a couple minutes.
If so, then the problem may be with telco. Keep these tests up until
you find one unique element always present in the bad connections.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Harpe)
Subject: EMBARC Service Information Wanted
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:01:10 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


I just saw an ad for Motorola's EMBARC information service based on
NewsStream pagers.  Is anyone out there subscribing to this?  I would
like to hear about it, what services are provided?  Cost?

Any information is helpful.  Thanks in advance!


Michael Harpe, Programmer/Analyst      Information Technology, Ormsby Bldg.
[e-mail]            University of Louisville
[phone]                          Louisville, Ky. 40292

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Vickers)
Subject: Wiring Reference Book Wanted
Organization: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:38:05 GMT


Can anyone please recommend a good book/document that describes wiring
for phone (US), 10 base-t, Token-ring ... etc, etc. Something from
NEMA, IEEE, CCITT, I don't really care where it's from as long as it's
detailed and accurate.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Reminder: AUDIOTEX Mailing List is Available


Greetings.  The recent announcement of a "Touchtone" mailing list
suggests that I should remind the readership of the already
established Internet AUDIOTEX mailing list.

AUDIOTEX has been running since summer and already has a sizeable
readership representing an impressive cross-section of audiotex
manufacturers, developers, and users (quite low volume, but that's a
function of what people care to send in).  Below is an excerpt from
the AUDIOTEX information file:

>>> What is the AUDIOTEX mailing list? <<<

The AUDIOTEX mailing list is an Internet discussion forum for topic
areas relating to the field of "audiotex" systems.  "Audiotex" is a
general term covering the broad area of telephone-based information
systems of a wide variety of types.  The distinguishing characteristic
of an audiotex system is usually the use of either recorded or
synthesized voice to output information to the user, with either
telephone touch-tone keys or in some cases voice recognition systems
being used for input.  Voicemail systems, information
collection/retrieval systems, and entertainment services are all
examples of audiotex applications.

All aspects of audiotex systems, including currently deployed systems,
research and development issues, user interface design, applications
concepts, security considerations, etc. are valid topics for
discussion in this mailing list.

For more information regarding the AUDIOTEX mailing list, including
subscription instructions, ftp and archive information, etc., please
send a message with a BODY consisting of the line:

   information audiotex

to:

   [e-mail].

Please be sure to include the "-request" on the address!  The subject
field of the message is ignored, and the information line should be
the first line in the body of the message.  Hope to see you on
AUDIOTEX.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 7:32 pm PST
From: Randall Gellens <RANDY@MPA15AB>
To: Telecom Digest <telecom%eecs.nwu.edu @ TREDYSVR>
Subject: No Link Between Location and CO?


I now live in a GTE area, across the street from the CO (a nice Art
Deco building).  I'm thinking of moving to an area that is served by
PacBell, in a 2-year old development.  When I called to find out what
prefixes I could be on and which switch types, I received some
conflicting information.  It seems that I could be served by any of
three COs, with 19 prefixes, and a mix of 1, 1A and 5 ESS switches.
Even though the total area served by the COs is rather large, it
appears as though any location within the total area could be served
by any of the three.  Anywhere else I've been, each CO has a defined
area it serves.

Is this the case?  Why does PacBell do it this way?

(By the way, when I asked when CLASS features would be available, the
rep insisted that they would be turned on after permisive dialing
ended for the 714/909 split.  She insisted that PacBell never
implements new features when permissive dialing is in effect.  Was she
just confused, or does PacBell have a "one thing at a time" policy for
changes?)


Randy Gellens                [e-mail]
A Series System Software                 if mail bounces,  forward to
Unisys Mission Viejo, CA                         [e-mail]
Opinions are personal;   facts are suspect;   I speak only for myself

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #916
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03219;
          25 Dec 92 20:18 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30788
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:24:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05824
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:24:05 -0600
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:24:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #917

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Dec 92 18:24:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 917

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (John Higdon)
    New England Telephone Ringback Numbers (Richard D. Goldstein)
    Caller ID Unit With Computer (RS232) Query (Terry Parks)
    Caller ID Box With RS232 (Paul Migliorelli)
    Need to Run a Promptus ISDN Card Under SCO Unix: Driver Needed (Steven Orr)
    Bell Atlantic Cellular in Ukraine? NOT! (Paul Robinson)
    End Run Around CA Law (Richard M. Greenberg)
    Help Needed With References (Michael Robinson)
    How Does Caller ID Work if Phone is Forwarded? (Seng-Poh Lee)
    Telecom Journals Wanted (Russ Wilton)
    Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted (George S. Thurman)
    Re: ACUTA Services Index-Readable ([e-mail])
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Steven L. Johnson)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Tony Pelliccio)
    Re: Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom (Bill Higgins)
    Re: Other Bitnet Servers (Andy Sherman)
    Introduction to CONNECT Magazine (Patricia Snyder-Rayl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:26 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...


I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of
AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear,
the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the
system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's
Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy"
recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.

Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.
A lot of good it does to have calling plans with AT&T on holidays; you
cannot use them!


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Query: Who told you they do this? Other than 'a number of
AT&T employees', that is ... what possible reason could there be for
shutting down large parts of the operation on the very times when the
demand is greatest?  Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the
opposite of what you say: network traffic is very high on many 'family'
holidays. Why has AT&T spend many millions of dollars in upgrading
their network if they plan to shut it down on holidays?  This just
does not wash, JH.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Goldstein)
Subject: New England Telephone Ringback Numbers?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:11:33 GMT


As the subject says, I am looking for any "specialty" numbers which
might be good for New England Telephone in the Newton "332" exchange,
especially the number to ring my own phone.  I would also like to
learn of any loop numbers (one port is OK), since what I am trying to
do is to send a fax from my fax machine to my pc/modem/fax board in
order to use my fax machine as a scanner.  This means that I need a
live pair with talk battery but without the usual reversal of
polarity, etc. (Also, if anyone has any other tricks to accomplish
this, I am all ears!).


Thanks in advance!

[e-mail]     Richard D. Goldstein
Schiller & Kusmer   Patent Attorneys At Law  [phone] Telephone


[Moderator's Note: I'll let people in your area write you direct with
any ringback numbers they know, etc.  Regards your request for
loopback, I'm sure telco would gladly sell you a dedicated live pair
(what used to be(?) called a private circuit or private line) with
both ends terminating on your premises. But why not make your own
instead: it is simple and easy to do.

Place a 24 volt power supply with clean DC in the middle, with the two
devices wired in series through it. Take your two devices off hook and
instruct each of them to start their operation.  You could probably
get by with a 13.8 VDC supply from Radio Shack.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Terry Parks)
Subject: Caller ID Unit With Computer (RS232) Query
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:14:08 GMT


I'd like information on the availability of Caller ID units which I
can hook to my computer. Thanks.


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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 2:56 est
From: [e-mail] (Paul Migliorelli)
Subject: Caller ID Box With RS232


I was wondering if any of you know of the availability of Caller ID
boxes with RS232 ports on them.  My plan is to connect such a box to a
speech synthesizer and have it act as a printer dump for the data.
Having a PC with speech output already, I'm sure I could probably use
some sort of modem with the caller id feature built in as well.

However, I'd really like to go the box route, and have something
self-contained.  I've had several consulting clients who are blind ask
me about the possibility of rigging up such a device, and I'd also
like to do this for myself.  I was surprised that the Hello Direct
folks didn't have any available with ports, and neither did the two
distributors that New York Tel mentioned.  I also think a talking
Caller ID box would be a great item for someone like Radio Shack to
market.  Any names and models would be appreciated.  Thanks as always
for all of your quick and efficient responses.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven W Orr)
Subject: Need to Run a Promptus ISDN Card Under SCO Unix: Driver Needed
Organization: SysLang, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:09:12 GMT


Subject sez it all. If anyone can give me a pointer to how to do this
we would be mucho grateful. Please email me or call 617-221-0444x314.

If anyone is in the same boat as us, also let me know and we might be
able to collaborate.


Steven W. Orr      [e-mail]     uunet!world!steveo

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992  14:09:44 EST
Subject: Bell Atlantic Cellular in Ukraine?  NOT!


I just discovered something that is either a bug or a feature
depending on your opinion.

I was attempting to send a fax to a number in Kiev, Ukraine.  To
attempt to call one of these numbers during the day is almost always
futile unless you try one of the less-used alternate carriers such as
Sprint or MCI.  So I had a number in the Ukraine that looked like
this:

7 044 5xx xxxx

Well, the correct way to dial this would have been:

 9 10333 011 7044 5xx xxxx

But I had dialed it like this:

 9 10333 704 45xxx xxx

The interesting thing was that the phone company never gave me an
announcement saying that I should not dial a carrier code.  Also, I
note it didn't toss me a "you must first dial a one when calling this
number" which I would have expected.

At first I thought the phone company was misinterpreting calls made to
Ukraine.  Then I could have said something to the effect of "I knew
that Bell Atlantic Cellular has a larger calling area than Cellular
One, but this is ridiculous!"


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
These opinions are mine alone.


[Moderator's Note: Nope, telco just decided you were placing a call to
704-45xx which happens to be a cellular number and as a result they
did not have to pass you to Sprint (10333) or an international center
(011) for the purpose of handling the call.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 16:44 PST
From: [e-mail] (Richard M Greenberg)
Subject: End Run Around CA Law


Here in sunny CA, a cellular dealer may not require service activation
as a condition of the purchase of the cell phone.

The dealer MAY offer it, and if so the user MAY accept it but it can't
be required.  Well, the other day I was in an electronics shop buying
myself a present when I overheard another salesman saying to the
customer that this phone was already set up with XXXXX carrier, just
fill in the handy application/credit form we and will fax it to XXXXX
and you will be all set.  I asked how can you sell it that way?
Bundling is illegal in CA.  He looked worried, asked if I was a
lawyer.  I said no, and then he said they sell the phones both ways.
Minor detail is that if you want it without a NAM already in it, that
was a special order and would take six to eight weeks to get it in.
Sure sounds like bundling to me.


Rich Greenberg      Work: [e-mail]  310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: [e-mail]      310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Robinson)
Subject: Help Needed With References
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:59:35 GMT


Hello everyone,

I need help getting the complete details of the following books.
Please could you send me any information you have.

1) JK Holmes -  Aquisition + Tracking -  Publisher?, Year?, ISBN?

2) Simon, Komara, Scholtz, Levitt - Spread Spectrum Communications,
Three volumes -  Publisher?, ISBN?, Year?

3) Wozencraft + Jacobs -  Principles of Communications Engineering, ISBN?


Merry Christmas,

Michael


[Moderator's Note: Merry Christmas to you too, Michael, but have you
considered that old standby, "Books in Print", a book which lists all
the above details and more?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Subject: How Does Caller ID Work if Phone is Forwarded?
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:30:28 -0500 (EST)


I have a question about Caller ID. It is not yet available here in
Connecticut, but will start service sometime in 1993.

What happens when you call a phone that has been forwarded to another
phone?  Does the ringing phone display the original calling number, or
the number from which the call has been forwarded from?


Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: The number of the ORIGINAL caller is displayed; and
the number of the FORWARDING caller is charged for the cost if any.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 11:23:22 MST
From: Russ Wilton, Systems Manager <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Journals Wanted


Hi:

  I have recently been given responsibility for our campus telephone
exchange, a Northern Telecom Meridian system.  Although I am familiar
with computers and networking, having managed a VAXcluster for several
years, telephones are new to me.  So, I am looking for trade journals
to subscribe to, to bring myself up to speed with both the technical
and managerial side of running a 1200 line campus telephone system.

  I would gratly appreciate any suggestions you may have, on journals
you have found particularly useful.  Please include the publisher's
address if you can.  Thanks.


Russ Wilton   Telecom Manager
Univ of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (George S. Thurman)
Subject: Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:12:43 GMT


A friend recently purchased a used answering machine at a garage sale.
It came with no instructions, and he has been unable to figure out how
to retrieve messages with the touch-tone remote control.

It is a General Electric machine with the model number RSVP 2-0910c.

Any help would be appreciated.

                 George S. Thurman
   [e-mail]    Voicemail: 312-509-6308
      US Snail: POB 1538, Chicago, IL 60690-1538

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 10:31:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ACUTA Services Index-Readable


ACUTA has the Index on Pagemaker which if I understand can be
converted to WP.  I can't speak for headquarters but they would
probably sell you a copy of the disk.

ACUTA phone: [phone]  - Del Combs or Bill Robinson

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:53:03 -0500
From: Steven L. Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] writes:

> Now that they found ways to block 10-ATT-0, AT&T has an 800 access
> That puts you into a call processing system. "Press 1 to place an AT&T
> call" seems nice, doesn't it? Well guess what -- those rotten payphone
> operators will not allow the dialpad to work after a call is placed!

But doesn't that eventually connect you to an ATT operator, if you
don't press anything, who can place your call for you?

> What will they think of next!

The most recent twist that I've personally experienced was a phone
that after you dial 10-ATT-0-etc, comes back *bong* ITI Communications.
So I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise that when I dialed
1-800-CALL-ATT that I heard "Press 1 to ..." (I forget the rest of the
wording) and after entering the phone number again heard *bong* ITI
Communications.  Both 0 and 00 were directed to ITI operators whot
claimed they were unable to connect to either local NYTel or ATT
operators.  Very thorough.


Steve, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You should have offered to pay with a generous
squirt of Crazy Glue down the coin slot, then attached one of the
little 'AOS Out of Compliance' stickers we discussed here in the
Digest some time ago. (See the file on same in the Archives.)  :)  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:02:22 EST
From: Tony Pelliccio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#%*&(*@#$&!


Well ... taking the phone with you isn't the best idea in the world
especially if there happens to be a police cruiser nearby. Those
phones have ALWAYS had the capablility to block 10xxx calls since what
you punch on the pad isn't neccesarily what goes out. The CPU sees the
10xxx and routes you to that bogus "Press 1 for AT&T" prompt that
disables the ttp. I'd actually go one better ... just take a really
large rock and smash the dial pad. That'll put the phone out of
service for a short time. :)


Tony Pelliccio, N1MPQ/AG   pjj125 @ uriacc.uri.edu

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: Relationship Between This Address and Comp.dcom.telecom
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:11:30 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen


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

> I'm confused - and hopefully you (whoever this is) can help.

> What is the relationshiip between this "mailing list" or "digest" and
> the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup.

> [Moderator's Note: I aleady wrote Mr. Valkenaar with more detailed
> information. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are one and the same
> thing.

Hmm, but does it Do The Right Thing when I FOLLOWUP a Usenet message?
In the past I've always e-mailed to the Internet address to submit a
posting to the Digest.


Bill Higgins                            Internet: [e-mail]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Bitnet:   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When you 'followup', it should do the right thing
and send *but a single copy* of the message here. At some sites using
older software however, this does not happen and the message is posted
to the group, eventually causes dozens, hundreds or even thousands of
copies of the message to show up here, where my duplicate-ID filter
attempts to send all the copies to dev/null, not always with success.
Direct email postings are preferred.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:48:31 EST


On 16 Dec 92 23:25:01 GMT, [e-mail] (Jeremy Brest)
said:

> If for whatever reason your host doesn't cope with
> [e-mail], tr`y [e-mail].

To which Pat, our Moderator replied:

> [Moderator's Note: Ah yes, what a fine net-neighborly act! Let's
> dump our traffic on the City University of New York. If they want
> to run an open Bitnet gate, that's fine; but more than one
> institution has fixed things so the local Bitnet gate is limited
> to their own users; local traffic only, they do not run an email
> expressway through campus.  PAT]

Actually, the City University of New York, *does* seem to have agreed
to be the "official" gateway from the Internet to Bitnet.  I've seen
countless numbers of documents on the net in the comp.mail.*
newsgroups pointing at them.  Also, checking a few nameservers around
the net, cunyvm.cuny.edu appears in everybody's list of MX records for
host.bitnet, even if as the gateway of last resort.  Something tells
me they volunteered.

But I agree with your sentiment of not dumping on a friendly site just
because they're friendly.


Andy Sherman   Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."

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

From: [e-mail] (Patricia Snyder-Rayl)
Subject: Introduction to CONNECT Magazine
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 03:11:30 EST


[Moderator's Note: Ms. Snyder-Rayl asked about the best way to notify
telecom people about this new magazine starting early next year. I
suggested she tell us about it right here in the Digest.  PAT]

        Announcing CONNECT -- A new telecomputing magazine covering
the major commercial online services, Internet/Usenet and bulletin
board system networks, CONNECT focuses on telecommunications from a
user's perspective. The first bi-monthly issue of CONNECT will be
available in March, 1993.

Issue after issue, CONNECT shows you how to get the most from the
commercial online services you're using -- CompuServe, Delphi, America
Online, Prodigy, GEnie and BIX. With columnists on staff to cover
these services in depth, you'll find CONNECT a valuable resource.

CONNECT also shows you what "free" networks like Internet have to
offer.  Every issue of CONNECT contains Internet coverage that helps
you find your way around the biggest network in the world.

But CONNECT doesn't stop there. BBS callers also receive a wealth of
information from each issue. All varieties of computer platforms are
covered in the pages of CONNECT, as are the many different types of
bulletin board software and services found on these computers.
Articles spotlighting BBSes in specific cities or similar categories
(such as medical BBSes or handicapped-related systems) appear
regularly.

For more information, please contact Pegasus Press at 3487 Braeburn
Circle, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 or phone [phone].  For the fastest
response and a copy of the subscription form, please email us at
[e-mail].

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #917
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05329;
          25 Dec 92 21:42 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23291
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:50:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25551
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:49:39 -0600
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:49:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #918

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:49:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 918

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Facilities For Low-Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's? (Dr. Josh Backon)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Jon Luckey)
    Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend (Bill Garfield)
    Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones) (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones) (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions (John Higdon)
    Re: Sprint Dis-Cards ([e-mail])
    Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services (Guy Hadsall)
    Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! (G Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Facilities For Low-Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's?
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:46:32 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


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

> I run a computer bulletin board system (BBS) for PenPoint developers.
> The BBS is in the United States and folks in Europe and South America
> have expressed interest in accessing it, but not while paying normal
> voice phone rates for international calls!  If y'all have information
> about access methods that provide interactive data transmission (e.g.
> PC Pursuit), please let me know.  Thank you.

Well, anyone with Internet access can pay a $50 one-time fee to MERIT
and obtain a password to their DIALOUT-AA service. Local Ann Arbor MI
calls are free, 800 number modem calls (like to MCI Mail) are billed
$0.25, and if one has a phone card (Sprint, MCI, etc) one can use
DIALOUT-AA to login to American BBS's. I've done this a few times.
Incidentally, one can also login to a local BT Tymnet number in Ann
Arbor as well as to local Ann Arbor SprintNet and Compuserve numbers.
Sure beats overseas phone calls!

For info on DIALOUT-AA:

telnet hermes.merit.edu and type a ?  at the WHICH HOST prompt. Check
the menu for the section on DIALOUT-AA. To obtain an account, send
email to: [e-mail]

I'm in medicine and the only way I can access the 100 or so medical
BBS's in the States is by MERIT.


Dr. Josh Backon   Cardiology   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Luckey)
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:04:07 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Boy, I hate those telephones that are picked to Telesphere, 0-plus and
> the like.

> Now that they found ways to block 10-ATT-0, AT&T has an 800 access
> That puts you into a call processing system. "Press 1 to place an AT&T
> call" seems nice, doesn't it? Well guess what -- those rotten payphone
> operators will not allow the dialpad to work after a call is placed!
> A friend of mine was sooooo mad (read severely p----- off) he hooked a
> chain around the bumper of his four wheel drive pickup and drug the
> whole phone, stand, and concrete pad down the highway. What will they
> think of next!

Actually, some of those payphones are doing those odd things less than
for trying to make you use 'their' long distance company, then for
trying to avoid fraud.

A recent article in "2600" details vulnerabilities in COCOTs (Customer
Owned Coin Operated Telephones), which are supposed to allow a third
party to resell service on a regular subscriber loop as pay phone
service.  They do this by giving a fake dial tone, and then redialing
the target number after the correct toll has been inserted.

Well, if one isn't careful, such as letting people dial anything that
begins with 10-ATT-0, then people can dial 10-ATT-011xxxxx and get
INTERNATIONAL calls for 'free' on these phone.  And if one waits after
a call for the other party for dial tone to return, its possible to
make another call, local, interstate, international, 900, without
paying.  This is one reason keypads get disabled after a call is
initiated.  I suspect they are vulnerable to those 800 numbers that
use the ANI information to call you back collect.

Well, after reading about these scams, I'm a bit more sympathetic for
the 'tricks' these payphones seem to play than I was when I first read
of things like 1-ATT-0 blocks.  But not entirely, as if they had made
it flexible enough when they designed these phones they could block
things like 10-ATT-011 while letting legitimate 10-ATT-0 calls go
through.  Its only software!  :)

Disclaimer:  10-ATT-0 is used an example, of course the same arguments
apply for the 10-Codes for other carriers.


[Moderator's Note: Well, genuine Bell payphones don't seem to have
those problems, and they are routed through a variety of carriers
where credit card and collect billing is concerned, although they all
default to AT&T for coin calls. Maybe the COCOTS could start using a
little better software.  I am not sympathetic.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 15:56:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


Our contributor [e-mail] writes;

> Activation      $25
> Detail Billing  $1/month (Cell One)
>                 $2/month (Centel)

> base            'free' minutes          extra minutes
> $24.95          30                      $0.60
> $59.95          90                      $0.30
> $99.95 *        240                     $0.20

Other stuff deleted for brevity ...

And our esteemed Moderator's comments (also edited for brevity)

> With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very easy for
> each of them to keep track of what the other one is doing and work
> with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's agreements.

I think it must also have a LOT to do with the size of the market
area.  We have two cellular providers here in Houston (4,000,000 +
population) and the cellular rates offered by GTE Mobilnet and Houston
Cellular, while virtually identical, seem to be _much_ cheaper than
those in smaller towns.  One would think it the goal of these two
cellular systems to put a cellular phone into the hands of every human
being.

For example, today, in Houston, a Motorola 8000 handheld will cost you
exactly one dollar. Assuming you work for a company with a lot of
cellular phones and can therefore qualify for the "company rate" (both
providers allow this), a one year contract goes for roughly $24/mo
which includes detail billing. No "free" minutes, but air time runs
$0.23 peak, $0.11 off-peak and something absurd like $0.04 midnight to
6 AM.  The service area of both providers is simply enormous. And so
inexpensive is it, in fact, that folks in outlying areas (outside the
"core" of SWBT's toll-free service area) who frequently place toll
calls into the core, can use cellular service as cheap or cheaper than
subscribing to the landline carrier.


Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)
  Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Date: 25 Dec 1992 13:55:47 -0500
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Moderater noted in a response to me:

> [Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
> catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
> But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
> error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
> or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]

The Hello Direct one is 900MHz. The stuff I saw from DAK last time
they had one was a Plantronics 49MHz one (not even the newer 900MHz).
AT&T no longer has theirs and Plantronics has abandoned the PhoneBEAM
line of products they used to have (I have a 'non functional' Phone
Beam IR speaker phone here from that era)

I never had problems with the IR Recption, and it worked great, but
was a battery hog.  RF has the usual problems in a large computer
environment, plus the security risks.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL17
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: Craig R. Watkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Date: 25 Dec 92 11:45:02 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


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

> Are there any cordless phone anywhere in the world (not likely in
> US) that use InfraRed instead of RF?

I've used a Plantronics "speakerphone" which is a normal speakerphone
except for the fact that the microphone is located in a box the size
of a small IR remote control which is supposed to be placed on the
person, such as in a shirt pocket.  This "remote" transmits IR to the
base.

It works well and has much less room echo than regular (consumer)
speakerphones.  It was called something like a PhoneBeam.  I don't
know if they still produce them.


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


[Moderator's Note: According to Syd in the message before this, the
product line has been discontinued.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 16:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions


On Dec 25 at 15:43, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I am confused. Is this message from Randy
> superceeded by the two messages from Greenberg and Higdon in this
> issue based on the 12/23 news reports? Is the 'limited rehearing' they
> mentioned what resulted in the 12/23 news stories?  PAT]

The decision mentioned by both Rich and myself is the final, latest
word from Pac*Bell after the PUC did not meaningfully reduce its
stifling restrictions. This decision comes a full month after the PUC
said that it MIGHT reduce restrictions.

BTW, what this means is that forevermore, callers will have to be
screened by my machine. Everyone that calls will be assured that he
WILL be charged for the call, whether I am home or not.

Good going, CPUC!


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well I *assumed* people who called and got the
routing device you have on the line were in fact being charged from
when that thing picked up ... are you saying the charging only begins
when either (a) a live person answers or (b) the system starts taking
a message or (c) the caller elects to page you?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 11:54 CST
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards


> Pat writes [lots of stuff about credit law deleted]:

>> their system, and they'll have to fix it in a lawful manner. Why not
>> consider using 'voice prints'? I think Sprint has such a thing they
>> were testing, and 'voice prints' are almost foolproof, no?    PAT]

> No.  The basic problem of how to identify users of remote systems is
> one that lots of folks are trying to solve.  The current state of the

According to the following news clips, we may be using voice prints
for ATM access in a little more that a year:

AT&T IN THE NEWS *** ATMs LISTEN -- Someday, perhaps as soon as early
1994, account holders may be talking back to their automated teller
machine -- and it won't be in disgust.  AT&T and its computer unit,
NCR, the world's largest maker of computerized bank tellers, are
developing a new machine that identifies clients by voice, rather than
by passwords punched into a keyboard.  The voice-identification system
being tested by NCR and AT&T will make it more difficult for thieves
to use stolen ATM cards, most of which are now easily decipherable by
machines that read the card's magnetic strip and therefore the
password.  The new NCR automated tellers, set to be widely tested by
banks in mid-1993, use voice-identification technology and "smart
cards" that have no magnetic strips, both developed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories.

Previously, voice-identification technology had been hampered by
laborious "maturing the template," teaching the computer to identify
the unique characteristics of a particular human voice so that it was
not fooled by similar voices.  AT&T technology, said John Gray,
assistant vice president of the NCR unit responsible for ATM machines,
takes fewer than eight attempts to "mature" the machine and can be
used by rattled, flu-stricken customers. [NY Times 12/9]

"We're testing the idea of using speech verification to get access
into your account," said Diane Wetherington, president of AT&T Smart
Cards.  Jim Adamson, vice president of NCR's self-service and
financial systems division, said it means increased security.
"Magnetic-strip cards are fairly easy to reproduce, and fraudulent
withdrawals made using counterfeit cards cost banks millions of
dollars per year," Adamson said.  The systems can be installed in
existing NCR teller machines.  AT&T plans to make the card "interface"
available to other terminal developers as well.  [NY Newsday 12/9]

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 09:00:43 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Future of Wired vs Wireless Services


  GREAT QUESTIONS !!!
  ===================

I am eager to hear the views of those here!

Guy's Opinion: I see wireless taking a sizable share of the entire
"telecom" industry by the year 2000.  Landlines are out; they're
expensive, difficult to maintain, and carry less than wireless
(promises) in relative terms.

But don't fret for MaMa (RBOC's and AT&T) she'll be OK.  The RBOC's
(pronounced Reebocks like the shoes becuase there value is in image
only -- aside from a *huge* asset base) are old but getting younger by
the week.  Most have plans or have taken action to split up into high
specialize operating units thus bein g allowed to take advantage of
the market and the laws (remeber MFJ prohibits them from doing a lot
still).  PacTel is a most recent example.

I see the teleom industry in a growth stage that will not stop until
the year 2100 or Judge Green tosses another *stupid* ruling out
preventing the natural course of the market.  Wireless is *definitely
the market to be in for the next decade or two ... but watch out for
*new* ideas and ways of "communication".

These are my $.02, what are yours?


Guy Hadsall   Grad. Student in I.S.   The American Univ. - Wash DC


[Moderator's Note: Well, if the growth stops in the year 2100 I won't
be too concerned personally ... and since the world is scheduled to
come to an end in July, 2126 (as per news reports about the comet
scheduled to possibly hit Earth and knock us out of orbit sometime
that month), I guess a quarter-century of little no growth in the
telecom industry won't be a problem. :) But I do seriously wonder
sometimes what the future holds. After all, who in 1800 could have
imagined voice traveling over a piece of wire and being heard in the
next room, let alone thousands of miles away? In 1900, who could have
imagined the state of the art switches we have now? In 1980, who would
have imagined the explosive growth of email, computer networks and
cellular phones we have now?  Now perhaps you, the reader, can tell us
what telecom will be like in 2010 (to make it easy) or 2100 if you
would really like a challenge.  If I get enough replies, I will run
them in a issue or two of the Digest to start the new year.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 14:12:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls!
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> Gregg (G.) Woodcock
<[e-mail]> writes:

> Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
> collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
> call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have

Does it specifically say 'company', or anyone who dials your number
with a non-human attendant? Get rich in Texas, publish your phone
number a some super-duper BBS then wait for the calls to come in ...
cha-ching!

I also wonder what "non-human" means ... can I have a computer call
and as long as a human is monitoring the call this is legal or does a
human need to be at the from end of the call?


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)  [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs   614-860-5965


[Moderator's Note: Publishing your number in a BBS listing then
'waiting for the calls to come in' would not benefit you anything
other than a lot of grief. The intent is there must be *no basis* for
the calls; your number appearing in such a list would provide the
basis for such calls to be made. I think the intent also is to exclude
from punishment those 'accidental or occassional calls' which a
mis-programmed fax machine or computer modem might cause. The intent
of the legislation is to prevent the deliberate automated-dialing of
calls to people who do not want them. I suppose a BBS operator who
refused to correct his listings or his uucp software after being
notified of the problem could be punished ... but who in the world
would refuse to make such corrections?  If someone as a sick joke
published your number in a BBS list, your recourse would be against
the submitter and possibly the editor/publisher of the list; but not
against the caller, and not under the law being discussed.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #918
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09618;
          25 Dec 92 23:49 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23829
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:56:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17323
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:55:39 -0600
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:55:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #919

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Dec 92 21:55:40 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 919

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (John Boteler)
    Re: Faxing From the Netherlands (Brent Capps)
    Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Consumer Reports on Cellphones (Dave Levenson)
    Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T? (John Higdon)
    Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please (Rob Warnock)
    Re: NT Caller ID Unit (Stuart Tener)
    Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (Louis A. Mamakos)
    Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? (Ron Bean)
    Re: Facilities for Low-Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's (Joe Bergstein)
    GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless (Leigh Melton)
    Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless ([e-mail])
    Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges (Rith Peou)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Boteler)
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Date: 25 Dec 1992 19:53:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA


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

> A friend has one of these, bought on the sysop deal.  He says it does
> everything but make coffee and take out the trash. :-)
> Anyone know if it does CNID?  If so, what's the magic invocation?

I don't think the PPI modem does CLID, but this new ZyXEL U-1496E+ I
have does do CLID, as well as FAX and mediocre voice to boot. Don't
forget its selectable Identa*Ring cadence detection which allows it to
recognize any combination of four ringing patterns.

They even have special firmware for those nasty GTD-5 and NT DMS100
switches which have apparently not followed standard specs when
implementing CLID timing parameters.

The voice is suitable for not much more than the cheapy "press 1 for
fax, 2 for data modem, 3 to leave a voice message" setup that seems so
popular these days.

I don't sell ZyXELs, but thought I'd throw in my $0.02 to aid in the
discussion of such fancy modems.

You're gone ...


[e-mail] (John Boteler)

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: Faxing From the Netherlands
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:04:52 GMT


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

> Apologies in advance, if these are considered FAQ or dumb questions:

> With suitable power supply and telephone connector adaptors, can you
> use a U.S. fax machine in the Netherlands?

Oddly enough, your biggest problem isn't likely to be with power or
the phone line, but with paper size.  In the Netherlands and
throughout Europe the standard is A4 paper (a little taller and a
little narrower than legal size) and you are not permitted to hook up
a standard 8.5 by 11 machine to the PSTN there.  There is no mechanism
for enforcement other than the fact that 8.5 by 11 paper is all but
unobtainable in stores.  Do you want to cart several reams of paper
with you over the Atlantic?

> Does anybody know anything about Dutch PTT international rates (to the
> U.S.)?  What minimum increment of time do they bill you for when you
> make an international call?

Several PTTs in Europe offer store-and-forward services for
international facsimile transmissions at rates much better than what
you'd obtain on a dialup basis.  I know for a fact that PTT Telecom
Netherlands offers such a service.  Rates vary, inquire locally for
details.


Brent Capps   [e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems?
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:01:10 GMT


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

> I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem
> lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to
> find a system that already does this rather than roll his own.  While
> we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up
> to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several
> hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines.

An interesting approach is offered by a company named Primary Access.
With their hardware/firmware/software solution you would have several
T-1 (digital) lines carry the telephone lines into the Primary Access
box.  Digital Signal Proccessors in the box would do V.32 or whatever
and you would connect the box to your host over T-1, RS-232 or whatever.

Apparently this is used extensively by Compuserve.

I don't know anything more about these guys than what their brochures
say.


Vance Shipley     [e-mail]
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports on Cellphones
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:38:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich
Greenberg) writes:

[regarding {Consumer Reports} on Cellular Telephones]

> Reccomended reading.  The only nit I might pick with it is that
> the sketch showing a car, two towers, the cellular switch, the local
> CO etc pictures parabolic dishes on the towers.  :-)

Actually, cell sites are often located at considerable distances from
the MTSO and from landline facilities.  This means that they often
have dish antennas on the same tower that supports the UHF telephony
antenna.  Of course these dishes are for microwave links to the MTSO,
and not for communication with nearby mobile units.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 09:44 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: SS7 Links Fron CA to NY via AT&T?


Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]> writes:

> Now I was wondering -- if this impressive call completion timing is
> due to SS7, does that mean that Caller ID should work?

Yes, and this is greatest joke of all on Californians. The activists
won the Caller-ID battle here by convincing the brain-dead CPUC to put
all kinds of restrictions on any CNID offering. Pac*Bell just days ago
announced that it was, in effect, giving up on any Caller-ID in
California.

But what people do not understand is that those preciously private
telephone numbers will soon be displayed out of state on a wide scale.
It is only other CALIFORNIANS that will not see the number displayed.
Already, I am told, telephones in Las Vegas display the numbers of
California callers. As AT&T and MCI (Sprint seems to have fallen by
the wayside) rapidly deploy SS7 connectivity to exchanges nationwide,
the CLASS services will traverse LATA boundaries.

This is the best 'gotcha' I have ever seen to hit technophobes.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: We seem to be getting some out of LATA Caller ID
messages here now also. Not many yet, but more than this time last
year. Remember the judge in Pennsylvania, who in his wisdom declared
Caller ID was an 'illegal trap and trace device'? I wonder if he'll be
getting after us here in Chicago once SS-7 makes delivery of caller
numbers from Pennsylvania to us a reality?  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 13:25:30 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] writes:

> A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches
> from an US company. I am collecting information for them.

Be aware that X.25 packet switches fall under the COCOM export
controls.  You will need an export license, and can't ship at all to
some countries.  As Phil Karn said at the time:

> In case anyone is interested in seeing the complete text of the new
> export control regs, they appeared in the Federal Register on August
> 29, 1991.

> Pay particular attention to page 42871. This is where "datagram" and
> "dynamic adaptive routing" technologies are mentioned. Read it and
> weep (or laugh, as the case may be.)

"Dynamic adaptive routing" is considered a strategic dual-use item,
because it can make it harder for our military to knock out the other
guy's C-cubed.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [phone]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.,  2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA  94043

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Tener)
Subject: Re: NT Caller ID Unit
Date: 25 Dec 1992 04:07:46 -0500
Organization: Widener University CS Department, Chester PA


Is Caller-ID available in PA, and if not does anyone know if and when
it will be arriving?

Is there a Caller-ID box that has an RS-232 output?


Thank you,

stuart b. tener   [e-mail]    (215)-338-6005
email is prefered rather than posting a reply to the news group.


[Moderator's Note: Caller-ID is considered an Evil and Bad Thing in
PA. A judge there ruled that Socially Responsible people would not use
it since it is 'an illegal tap and trace' device. There are devices to
do what you want and various software programs as well, but if you are
in PA, you can forget it.  What do PA and CA have in common? I'll let
John H. respond to that.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Cellular Rates in South Bend
Date: 25 Dec 92 19:08:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> With only two, there might as well be only one ... it is very
> easy for each of them to keep track of what the other one is
> doing and work with each other under certain unspoken gentlemen's
> agreements."

It is easy, although it would be illegal.  But I don't think that's
what we're seeing.  The cellular providers are spending their energies
in expanding the market -- signing up people who don't yet have
cellular service.  You don't see ads asking people to switch; you see
ads suggesting that first cell phone purchase.

There's enough growth to be gained in this way that they don't need to
compete aggressively.  Once a market is saturated, I think we'll see
actual competition between the providers.


Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
     (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:56:20 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


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

> The FCC allotted the Quitaque system up to 23 frequencies in the range
> of 450 megahertz, Langley said. The system can handle as many as 92
> simultaneous telephone conversations.

> Skeptical residents warmed to the system after officials met with them
> to explain benefits: No more lines broken by ice or high winds; no
> threat of calls being monitored; greater clarity.

So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
eliminates that threat of them being monitored?  And since they are
not cellular telephone calls, it may even be legal to monitor them
under the ECPA.

Right.


louie

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

Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 13:03:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix![e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Julian Macassey) writes:

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

>> Does anyone know where I can get a small memory dialer?  Something
>> about the size of Radio Shack's mini tonepad would be good, and I only
>> need a maximum of a dozen memories.

> You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
> Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
> number 43-141?

   Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?

   They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".


[e-mail] (Ron Bean)   uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Bergstein)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 11:15:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Facilities for Low Cost, Non-US Access to US BBS's


I've responded via Netmail to several recent inquiries regarding both
domestic and international access to BBS or other online systems.
Compuserve offers a service called "Network End User Billing" which
will allow users to connect to your BBS via compuserve at a rate of
$7.50 per hour (up to 9600 bps).  This is generally cheaper than DDD
or 800 cost, and the advantage for users is that the price uniform
throughout the day, and the rate is distance insensitive.

But, the best thing of all, is that if your BBS users generate $3,500
or more of connect time to your BBS via Compuserve, (equivalent to
466.67 hours) then the BBS operator pays _NOTHING_ for the 9600 bps
dedicated circuit and associated eight port X.25 PAD which Compuserve
installs to connect to your system.

Best way to find out more is for you or and reader to contact any
CompuServe sales rep directly for latest details and pricing.


Happy holidays,

Regards,

Joe Bergstein

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

Subject: GTE Betting the Bankroll on Wireless
From: willard![e-mail] (Leigh Melton)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:50:59 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- [phone]


GTE is betting the bankroll on wireless systems.  It's the number one
priority in Stamford HQ, or so I'm told by a friend who works for GTE.
They apparently feel that wireless is their chance to "dig ATT's
grave" and finally beat Ma Bell at a *different* game, as they never
could using current systems.  So far, the wireless PBX seems to be the
item that everyone is drooling over.


[e-mail] (Leigh Melton)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!peri  emory!uumind!willard!peri
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike S.)
Subject: Re: Stray Thought ... IRcordless? (was Cordless Phones)
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:05:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Syd Weinstein) writes:

> Quick, tell me where ... I've yet to find cordless headsets that
> aren't RF.  The Plantronics and 'Hello Direct' ones are RF. (900MHz)

> [Moderator's Note: Well Syd, I *thought* I saw one in the "Hello Direct"
> catalog (a great thing to read by the way, call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO).
> But if you say they were RF at 900 megs, then I must have been in
> error. What about what's-his-name -- that other catalog guy, Drew Kaplan
> or the other one, Sharper Image?  I'm sure I saw one somewhere. :(  PAT]

I believe the model listed in the "Hello Direct" catalog is one-way
infrared.  In other words, the headset is transmit-only; the remote
party is heard through a speaker on the base.

Collisions are a big problem with two-way infrared communication.  It
would probably be necessary to digitize the signal to sort everything
out.  If I am not mistaken, even the IR LANs only transmit in one
direction at a time, switching at a rapid rate.


Mike     [e-mail]

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

From: Rith Peou <[e-mail]>
Subject: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:48:25 GMT


We have a problem with people dialing long distance on our phone.
Even if we block the long distance calls, a person can use our phone
and charge it to a third party; when the third party refuses to pay,
the phone company sticks us with the bill anyways.  Apparently there
is no way for the phone company to block a third party call -- as
least that's what they say.  A person called AT&T and there is a
device (or is it system) that would block all calls beginning with a 1
or a 0 (this is the only way to make a third party call).  The catch
is that the device costs an amazing $1500.  We don't have that kind of
money and would like to know if there is another place to get this
device or is there any other alternatives to this big problem.

Thanks in advance for any comments/suggestions!


Rith

P.S.  Netnews is very slow, so please email me any/all responses.


[Moderator's Note: Request that telco set your default LD carrier to
NONE. This will effectively deny all one-plus and zero-plus calls
except those in the telco's local area (LATA). It will also cause all
double-zero (00) type calls to a long distance operator to be blocked.
Here in IBT-land, lines with NONE as the LD carrier get an intercept
saying their call cannot be completed as dialed when they attempt to
one-plus, zero-plus or dial 00 except when calling 312/708/815. The
local operator can however hand the call over to a carrier's operator
in the way an OCC/AOS can hand a call over to an AT&T operator on
request; likewise from a phone designated NONE, a caller can dial the
800 number for the carrier of choice (and be identified as to the line
they are calling from), and they can dial 10xxx + 1 + and still stick
you with the calls.  You can buy toll restrictors for a lot less than
the $1500 you were quoted; Hello Direct has them for a couple hundred
dollars. There is also a special type of touchtone pad you can buy and
install in place of the regular one which has a limited amount of
logic on its own: it will deny more than seven digits as well as deny
any call with a leading digit zero or one. I think these are about
$50, but I forgot which catalogue I saw them in. These are a problem
if some 'local calls' are ten digits, i.e. from 312 to 708 or 212 to
919 for example.  Likewise have telco put 'billed number screening' on
your line. This will prevent anyone from accepting a collect call at
the number or billing third number calls to you.

A few years ago, a naive fellow with a little toy store in Chicago set
up a 'Hot Line to Santa Claus'. This was a phone with an automatic
dialer on it which dialed a preset number when the phone went off
hook. It was intended for children 3-5 years old as a way to listen to
stories from Santa and his wife Mrs. Claus, but some nasty phreaker
discovered that in the two or three seconds the phone was off hook
(with dial tone) before the autodialer started doing its thing, his
pocket tone dialer could cut that dial tone and let him call anywhere
on the store's nickle.  Provided he got his digits dialed before the
autodialer cut in, telco accepted his digits and ignored those from
the device. Stuck with several thousand dollars in phone charges on
calls to Inner Mongolia and other international points, the store
discontinued the service.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #919
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10632;
          26 Dec 92 15:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27519
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:38:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04212
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:37:49 -0600
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:37:49 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #920

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Dec 92 13:37:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 920

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (John R. Levine)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (Robert McMillin)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (John R. Levine)
    Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions (John Higdon)
    Re: No Caller-ID in California (Howard Gayle)
    Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem (Shag)
    Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (J. Robert Burgoyne)
    Notice to AT&T USADirect Customers (Paul Robinson)
    AT&T Adds Service Charge on Credit Card DA Calls (Paul Robinson)
    FidoNet / Dial Up to Telecom Archives (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 02:56:18 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Well, genuine Bell payphones don't seem to have
> those problems, and they are routed through a variety of carriers
> where credit card and collect billing is concerned, although they all
> default to AT&T for coin calls. Maybe the COCOTS could start using a
> little better software.  I am not sympathetic.   PAT]

My brother-in-law has recently gone into the business of selling
COCOTs!  (That's what brothers-in-law are for, don't you know.)  While
I want my wife's brother to make money, I cringe every time he tells
me how much business he's doing, since each sale represents one more
place from which I can't make a phone call. :-) I told him so, of
course.

Torre tells me that he can now, in California, obtain a "Coin Line"
from Pacific Bell.  This line has the following features, detailed
discussion of which leads me to believe that Torre is telling the
truth, and even understands it :-)

* Pacific Bell operator collect and return.
* Pacific Bell/AT&T coin calling with standard Pacific Bell call
costing.
* Subscription to the operator service of your choice (Torre's phones
typically are subscribed to AT&T or MCI.  Having been burned himself, he
does not sell sleazy AOS service.)
* No computer in the phone.
* No need to cut off the keypad.
* Uses standard Western Electric coin phone.
* This one is amazing:  Pacific Bell 611 (repair) service with
Email/Fax dispatch of the coin phone provider's serviceperson.

Torre states that he uses these lines for high traffic phones, and
uses more traditional COPT lines (not POTS lines) for lower traffic
areas.  The coin lines are about $250.00 to put in and about
$55/month, although they carry free local calling (owner keeps the
20c)

Is this service news, or an I only the last to hear about it?


Edward W. Greenberg  | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
1600 Stokes St. #24  | Work: [phone] | DoD#: 0357
San Jose, CA  95126  | Fax:  [phone] | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH)

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

Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:32:52 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> [Moderator's Note: Well, genuine Bell payphones don't seem to have
> those problems, and they are routed through a variety of carriers ...

Real payphones have calls charged and routed in the CO, which has the
advantage of real-time access to supervision info, not to mention
definitive digit decoding (i.e., if the CO can't decode it, you can't
call there.)

I do agree that COCOT manufacturers should be required to understand
all valid digit patterns if they attempt to decode them at all.  I've
noted in Telecom that the telco pay phones at the Newark and
Philadelphia airports have a COCOT-like hack in which they look for
calls to the "waiver areas" across the Hudson and Delaware rivers,
respectively, and prepend the appropriate 10XXX to route the call via
the telco's own LD service rather than AT&T.  BUT, and this is a big
but, if you dial your own 10XXX or anything else except a non-10XXX
call to the waiver area, the phone sends through exactly the digits
you dialed and never disables the tone pad.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
From: [e-mail] (Robert McMillin)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 04:47:07 PST
Organization: PBSR (Private Beta Site Research - Certified NetWare Engineer)


[e-mail] (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

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

>> The FCC allotted the Quitaque system up to 23 frequencies in the range
>> of 450 megahertz, Langley said. The system can handle as many as 92
>> simultaneous telephone conversations.

>> Skeptical residents warmed to the system after officials met with them
>> to explain benefits: No more lines broken by ice or high winds; no
>> threat of calls being monitored; greater clarity.

> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?  And since they are
> not cellular telephone calls, it may even be legal to monitor them
> under the ECPA.

Perhaps the unwritten assumption made by the author here is that the
links are point-to-point microwave using parabolic dishes.  This would
make it harder, not impossible, to monitor calls than ordinary
cellular, which is omnidirectional.


| Robert McMillin                 PBSR - Private Beta Site Research          |
| Voice: [phone]           13611 Purdy St.  Garden Grove, CA 92644    |
|                                 USENET 'R' us                              |
| Internet: [e-mail]        Certified NetWare Engineer - Novell PDP    |
| Unix Systems Engineer   Private Beta-Test Site Resource for Netware NLM's  |

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

Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:26:46 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


>> [GTE says] benefits: ...; no threat of calls being monitored

> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?

I suspect they were referring to monitoring by nosy neighbors on party
lines.  Phone calls are carried all over the place by microwave.
Although it's certainly possible to snoop if you really want to, the
tightly focused beams require the snooper to be close to the line of
sight between the two dishes, and there are usually multiplexing
schemes more complex than your usual Radio Shack scanner can decode.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 01:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions


On Dec 25 at 19:49, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Well I *assumed* people who called and got the
> routing device you have on the line were in fact being charged from
> when that thing picked up ... are you saying the charging only begins
> when either (a) a live person answers or (b) the system starts taking
> a message or (c) the caller elects to page you?   PAT]

No, what I am saying is that now that there is no hope of CNID in
California, ALL of my lines, including my private lines, will be
processed by my answering machine. There will be no way to reach me
directly because there will be no way for a direct-in caller to be
identified. I will be modifying my call screener to request (via DTMF)
the area code and number of the caller. Based upon that information,
the screener will act accordingly. Naturally the caller can "lie", but
for now that is all I have. BTW, no number, no further progress on the
call.

My apologies to all who will be charged needlessly for long distance
calls, but the activists have given me no other alternative.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well good golly, how did you manage to make do all
these years before Caller-ID was invented?  How did you manage to deal
with all the strangers on your phone lines in the past? Whatever you
did, just keep on doing it.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 08:56:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (Howard Gayle)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> The two major stumbling blocks are the requirement for per-line
> blocking (and the correlary requirement that ALL unlisted numbers be
> blocked by default), and the stringent customer notification and
> education that Pac*Bell would have to provide in advance of the
> offering. Pacific Bell indicated that since forty percent of
> residences in California have unlisted numbers, any Caller-ID offering
> would be of little value to potential users.

This is strategic bargaining between the PUC and Pac Bell.  The PUC
made a political decision.  Those 40% of residential subscribers have
non-pub to protect their privacy. The PUC calculates that most of
those subscribers would see calling number delivery (CND) as invading
that privacy.  (It's irrelevant here whether CND really increases or
decreases privacy; only perceptions count.)  Those 40% aren't selected
at random, either: those with non-pub tend to be richer and more
powerful than those with published numbers.

Pac Bell calculates that having non-pub lines default to block CND
would be a lot less profitable than having them default to deliver the
number.  That's because they assume that most people won't change the
default, whatever it is.  They also assume that most people won't dial
per-call blocking or unblocking codes.  Pac Bell calculates that most
of the profit from CND will come from businesses, but only if those
businesses get a shot at collecting the non-pub numbers of those
richer subscribers.  Few, if any, businesses can afford to use blocked
number call blocking, i.e. refuse to answer calls from potential
customers.  Businesses can get 800 numbers with ANI; more may do so if
they can't get CND, especially as ISDN prices come down.

At this point it's worth remembering that most residential subscribers
are *not* like most TELECOM Digest readers.  Most residential
subscribers, even the ones with non-pub, do not currently plan to get
CND.  They don't think about per-line and per-call blocking.  They
don't know about ANI.  They just pick up the phone and dial.

As for "the stringent customer notification and education," this would
likely turn out to be a billing insert, a few ads, and an 800 number,
all ordered by the PUC and thus funded by us subscribers.  And does
anyone believe that it would take three years to deploy the software
to do per-line blocking, whatever the default?

This whole mess is the result of using politicians to make decisions
that ought to be made by a free market.

> [Moderator's Note: If PacBell wants to make an end-run around the PUC,
> all they need to do is implement Blocked Number Call Blocking, and
> educate their caller ID subscribers on how to automatically reject
> calls from unidentified parties. When that forty percent with non-pub
> numbers found out that fifty percent of the other subsribers were
> refusing their calls, they'd soon ask for their number to start being
> displayed by default also.  PAT]

If 50% of subscribers wanted CND without default per-line blocking of
non-pub numbers, then they wouldn't have to use blocked number call
blocking (for some number of dollars a month), they'd just have to
make one call to the PUC.  Hell, if 50% of subscribers phoned the PUC
and said they wanted all phone numbers to spell the names of Tolkien
characters then that's what the PUC would order.

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

From: [e-mail] (Shag)
Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals V42bis Modem
Date: 26 Dec 92 04:23:05 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest


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

> A friend has one of these, bought on the sysop deal.  He says it does
> everything but make coffee and take out the trash. :-)
> Anyone know if it does CNID?  If so, what's the magic invocation?

No Caller-ID, but I've heard very few complaints of people with them,
and those were blatantly dysfunctional units.  I believe the only
modems with Caller-ID (in the sub-$500 range) are the Supra and ZyXel.
The Supras I have encountered tend to be a tad bit antisocial toward
other 14.4's, and nobody in my area has a ZyXel yet that I know of.

I'd like to see Caller-ID on my PPI V.*bis toy ... or perhaps an
improved daughterboard to support higher speeds (V.fast), but
responses to a question I asked on c.d.modems indicated that few
manufacturers -- if any -- would have daughterboard upgrades from
V.*bis to V.fast.

Oh well, maybe the nice folks at Bell-Atl.Com will write back and tell
me when I'll be able to get residential ISDN, and I can forget about
V.fast. :)


Shag                    | Operator, ShagNET | Editor of "Screaming in Digital"
[e-mail] |  Rutgers / NJIN   |  The Queensryche E-mail Digest
[e-mail]    | dialup access for | [e-mail]
[e-mail]  | Burlington County | Anything Queensryche, every week

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Robert Burgoyne)
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works
Date: 26 Dec 1992 05:58:07 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


[e-mail] (Jim Haynes) writes:

> First, lets hope the judge recognizes this as a tragedy-of-the-commons
> situation. [reference to Garret Hardin's highly influential essay "The
> Tragedy of the Commons" in which he shows how an act which is
> insignificant when performed by one person becomes devastating to the
> community when everybody does it] Second, the fact that people
> actually respond to her sales pitch is, well, sickening.  Maybe
> instead of crusading for a national list of people who don't want to
> receive telephone solicitations, we should crusade for a list of those
> who do want them, and permit only the people on that list to be
> called.

Now just a moment.

Many people make their living through various telemarketing, both
inbound and outbound. I don't, but can understand and appreciate their
arguments.

The telephone is an undeniably essential tool of business. And the
role it plays and the services it provides are dynamic. Simple
mechanisms exist to prevent autodialers from reaching you. But others
see the autodialer as providing them with useful products and/or
services, and thus they don't object to the auto-calls, and further,
they respond to the offers.

We don't need more regulation. This country needs to rid itself of
regulation. This country needs to have more of its citizens accept
some minimal level of responsibility without resorting to whining for
the government to always do something.

If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
phone when it rings.


A free market capitalist to the core, I am,

J. Robert Burgoyne          Maryland FYI          Laurel, Maryland
  301-317-0726 24 Hours       [e-mail]    301-317-0587 FAX

                Have a Happy, Happy Holiday this year!

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992  15:38:37 EST
Subject: Notice to AT&T USADirect Customers


 From Page A2, {Washington Post}, December 24, 1992:

PUBLIC NOTICE TO AT&T INTERNATIONAL USADirect (R) CUSTOMERS

AT&T announced plans to adjust initial and additional minute charges
on AT&T USADirect (R) Service calls from some countries.  On December
22, 1992, AT&T filed a tariff with the Federal Communications
Commission to increase certain rates on AT&T USADirect Service calls
to the US Mainland and Hawaii from the following countries listed
below to become effective January 5, 1993.  On December 22, AT&T also
filed a rate restructure on AT&T USADirect Service calls originating
in Mexico and terminating in the U.S. Mainland and Hawaii, to become
effective February 5, 1993.

These rate changes will have the effect of raising the average
USADirect call by 6% from the following countries/areas listed below.
The service charges for Calling Card, Collect Station and
Person-to-Person calls would remain the same.  The rate changes the
initial and/or the additional minute from the following
countries/areas:

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, People's Republic of China,
Columbia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Gibraltar,
Hungary, Paraguay, Phillipines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay,
Venezuela, and Zambia.

The rate restructure for Mexico consolidates the Mexico schedule from
64 to 3 rate bands and changes USADirect from a 3 minute to a 1 minute
minimum.  These rate changes represent both increases and decreases to
the customer.

If you have any questions, or would like more information concerning
the adjusted rates for any of the above countries, please call toll
free, 1 800 331-1140, ask for ext. 118, or if out of the U.S. call
collect via USADirect Service [phone] and ask for ext. 118.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
These opinions are AT&T's alone.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992  16:09:26 EST
Subject: AT&T Adds Service Charge on Credit Card DA Calls


Found on Page B6 of the December 24, 1992 {Washington Post}:

NOTICE TO AT&T LONG DISTANCE CUSTOMERS

On December 22, 1992, AT&T filed tariff revisions with the Federal
Communications Commission which would institute credit card and
operator-handled service charges on interstate Directory Assistance
calls.  As of February 5, 1993, the effective date of the proposed
change, customers will be billed service charges of $.80 for Directory
Assistance calls billed to a calling card and $1.88 for Directory
Assistance calls placed with the assistance of an AT&T Operator.
These service charges will apply on all Directory Assistance calls
between states, to Canada and between the 809 area code and the U.S.
and are in addition to the existing tariffed rate for Directory
Assistance.

Locations within the 809 area code are Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas,
Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, St
Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail] These opinions are AT&T's alone.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:34:46 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: FidoNet / Dial Up to Telecom Archives


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) writes of his Fidonet node which
makes TELECOM Digest materials available.

I should mention The Super Continental BBS, which has a read-only link
to comp.dcom.telecom, as well as a telecom files section with some
material from the Archives (though not a complete or formal subset of
Archives material). It is also home to a couple of related Fidonet
conferences on telecom, cellular, FCC, etc.

The Super Continental can be reached at +1 416 398.6720 using
USRobotics HST/v32bis Dual Standard, 24 hours a day (maintenance, mail
processing excepted). No charge to use or get access; downloads should
be available on the first call, similar to Mark Earle's system
description.

Digest postings are limited on this BBS in a few respects: there is a
message limit, and old messages are automatically purged as new ones
arrive (at least the last 150 should be available). The newsgroup
comp.dcom.telecom also depends on regional hubs getting the posts and
reeling them in.

Fidonet node number for polls, file requests, etc is 1:250/730.  If
file requesting, try the alias name 'FILES' to get an idea of what
file features are available.

Hopefully a Fidonet-based Digest Archives mirror site can be
established soon.


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



[Moderator's Note: I am not getting as far with this as I expected,
since there are other variables not yet resolved on this end. If
someone would be willing to establish or maintain a dialup site where
the Telecom Archives were kept (or some portion of them) along with
perhaps a year's worth of back issues of the Digest and make this
available to whoever wanted to call in and pull missing issues or
other files, it would be greatly appreciated.  One person did write me
about a month ago to say he was getting his site up and running and
would have a telecom section; I am greatly embarassed to say I lost
his name and correspondence. If he will write again, I will immediatly
add him to the mailing list if he is not already on it.

If those users who operate sites and allow dialup from strangers and
are also stocking back issues of the Digest and archives files want to
participate, please let me know. Around the first of the year I will
print a list of all the phone numbers, site names and instructions.
This should finally make it possible for our many non-internet readers
to have more or less full access to the archives files.  Thanks.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #920
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06492;
          27 Dec 92 13:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23323
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:54:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10320
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:54:07 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:54:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #921

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Dec 92 11:54:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 921

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (John Higdon)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (James Hartman)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Steve Howard)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Bob Frankston)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Richard Cox)
    Re: No Caller-ID in California (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: No Caller-ID in California (Mike Schenk)
    Re: No Caller-ID in California (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions (John Higdon)
    Pennsylvania Judge Bashing (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 01:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
0rganization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...


On Dec 25 at 18:24, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the opposite of what you
> say: network traffic is very high on many 'family' holidays. Why has
> AT&T spend many millions of dollars in upgrading their network if they
> plan to shut it down on holidays?

Then AT&T has a lot more work ahead of it. Just out of curiosity I
made some test calls. Out of twenty-two attempted calls to Victorville
from San Jose on AT&T, exactly one went through between 1 PM and 2 PM
Christmas Day. Out of the same number of attempts on Sprint, all
twenty-two went through without delay with exactly the same results
were noted on MCI.

How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I
tried at some length to get though to my home from southern
California.  All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call
went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to
the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a
disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's
policies are not always imitated by the competitors.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Do you think it could be the reason you got through
on Sprint is because not that many people (relative to the facilities
available) were using Sprint?  AT&T is still the national favorite by
a wide margin. Could it be the facilities available to the one are
disproportionate to the actual traffic requirements?  I still don't
think they 'shut things down' ... an earthquake or other emergency is
different than a family holiday.   PAT]

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

Subject: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
From: [e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 14:18:48 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.
> A lot of good it does to have calling plans with AT&T on holidays; you
> cannot use them!

After which, our Moderator said (in part):

> [...]  Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the opposite of
> what you say: network traffic is very high on many 'family' holidays.

Indeed, my sister lives in Germany, and throughout Christmas morning
(the only time we could really call and expect to get someone who's
awake), we kept getting a message telling us that the circuits are
busy in the country we were calling.  I asked my folks what long
distance they had, and they said it was AT&T.  I pulled out my Sprint
card and tried connecting via the 1-800 number on Sprint; same result.
This leads me to wonder how much of the resources AT&T and Sprint
share, and perhaps someone in Germany needs to install more incoming
lines to the country.


[e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, [phone]
After December 31, [phone]
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 16:09:15 MST
From: Steve Howard <breck1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#


> The most recent twist that I've personally experienced was a phone
> that after you dial 10-ATT-0-etc, comes back *bong* ITI Communications.
> So I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise that when I dialed
> 1-800-CALL-ATT that I heard "Press 1 to ..." (I forget the rest of the
> wording) and after entering the phone number again heard *bong* ITI
> Communications.  Both 0 and 00 were directed to ITI operators whot
> claimed they were unable to connect to either local NYTel or ATT
> operators.  Very thorough.

And very unfortunate.  Why don't you try to avoid using the businesses
who have these COCOTs on their premises (when possible)?  Or complain
to someone at the business and mention that you will be going to
his/her competitor in the future?  We take compaints like this *very*
seriously.

Don't bother complaining to the COCOT company, they aren't going to
listen to you.  They will listen very closely to the business owner
who can easily have the phone replaced!  Every COCOT company knows
that there are hundreds of other COCOTs that would love to be in his
location!

> [This from a different article] Actually, some of those payphones are doing
> those odd things less than for trying to make you use 'their' long distance
> company, then for trying to avoid fraud.

I don't think that this is a valid excuse.  We use COCOT payphones
exclusively.  We are not vulnerable to any of the techniques you
listed above (I hope :-).  With good programming, COCOTs are much
better than LEC payphones.  Our COCOTs offer services to guests that
LEC payphones can't touch.  Including:

1) $1.00 coin = 4 minutes anywhere in the continental US;

2) Rates equal to or lower than AT&T for credit card calls;

3) Transparent handling of propriety AT&T cards via outpulsing 10ATT0 +
   number + card number after the bong;

4) Voice mail for busy or no-answer numbers for $0.25 local or $1.75
   long-distance (Well, $1.75 is a bit steep).

5) Free calling to almost anywhere in our resort.  (Handy to check on
   that child at day-care or to check snow conditions).

6) Ability to make international calls with a credit card.  (This is
   *very* valauble -- Most IECs won't do this from a payphone unless you
   have their calling card -- very difficult if you are just visiting
   the US).

My point is that COCOTs are not all bad, just most of them. :-( When
properly programmed they are *great*!!

Greed motivates more than fraud potential.  Each of those potential
sources of fraud are easily prevented.

COCOTs wouldn't be here if people didn't use them.  The vast majority
of our population doesn't realize that they have different options and
choices when using payphones.  I don't think that most people know
whether a call is cheap or expensive ... they just pay the bill and
don't ask any questions.  If people were shown how they have been
"ripped off" and were better educated about COCOTs they might use them
more wisely (Dan Rather/Hugh Downs are you listening?).  A little bit
of customer education could easily force the COCOT industry to change!


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Date: Sun 27 Dec 1992 08:06 -0400


Unlike the Moderator, I've got some sympathy for the problems that
COCOTs have.  People who rent out their homes or condos have similar
issues with loaning their phones to others.

Given these issues and the problems with the current phone network,
are there any protocols, perhaps in ISDN, that can be used to flag a
line as being a "loaned" phone that accepts no billing.  Not only
would this block 900 numbers but it could also be used to flag telcos
that there is no recourse to the owner of the phones for credit card
fraud.  Perhaps some carriers would block such calls or, treat them
like they would calls from their own coin phones, find some other way
to recover their costs such as going after the called party.  It would
also deal with new services such as 0-700 which sometimes bills back
and sometimes doesn't.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 13:06 GMT
From: Richard Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) wrote, on 26/12/92:

> I do agree that COCOT manufacturers should be required to understand all
> valid digit patterns if they attempt to decode them at all.

By definition at the manufacturing stage they can, if they so wish,
include all current valid digit patterns in PROM. But that's a short
term situation since telecomms, like most aspects of technology, is a
developing environment.

How long will those digit patterns stay valid? How can you be sure
that they will be updated if BELLcore change the rules (as they are
about to do)? Here in the UK back in 1990, London had an area code
split. Code 1 split into (71) and (81) -- all calls remained at local
measured rate. Lots of our COCOTs were programmed to accept (1) as
local and with about 50 preset exceptions, charge the maximum inland
landline tariff for all other codes.  Instantly all COCOTs started
charging maximum fee on calls that crossed the split line which meant
that calls of a few hundred metres were charged as if they were
routing a few hundred miles (even though the telcos still charged the
COCOT owner at their "local" rates).  Did the COCOT owners rush to
have the phones reprogrammed?

No, sir, they did not!

There is a need for all COCOTs to have their tariff tables updatable
remotely (as some already can) and to ensure that the updating process
is mandatory at the time of a change in the dialing plan.  Well, one
can but dream.

Happy New Year from Wales to all TELECOM Digest readers .....


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: [phone]      Fax: [phone]      VoiceMail: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:06:58 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


Responding to John Higdon's negative comments about the CPUC after
PacTel decided to not provide CNID, the Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: If PacBell wants to make an end-run around the PUC,
> all they need to do is implement Blocked Number Call Blocking, and
> educate their caller ID subscribers on how to automatically reject
> calls from unidentified parties. When that forty percent with non-pub
> numbers found out that fifty percent of the other subsribers were
> refusing their calls, they'd soon ask for their number to start being
> displayed by default also.  PAT]

  Without rehashing the endless discussions of Caller ID, its merits,
its deficiencies, the civil liberties issues on BOTH sides, which have
all been covered ad nauseum ...

  Though well intentioned, I don't think that your proposal is a very
viable solution, PAT. Remember, you're dealing with a population at
large that still has trouble with their VCR's and get lost and
frustrated with automated attendent systems. The most likely
consequence of multiple layers of blocking is a confused user base,
complaints of bad phones and bad service, most of which will turn out
to be misunderstanding by the populace, and probably even lawsuits by
ambitious lawyers when some important and/or live-saving call fails to
get through because of some call blocking scenario and the phone
company is accused of not adequately educating the public to its use
and considering the consequences. With the phone companies deep
pockets, it's too inviting a target for the sharks.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Schenk [phone])
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Organization: PTT Research
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 13:13:03 GMT


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

> As a result of the ridiculous requirements imposed upon the service by
> the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Bell has announced
> that it has no plans to offer Caller-ID at the present time. These
> restrictions make it impossible to offer a viable product to
> customers, according to Pac*Bell.

I don't think these requirements are ridiculous. If Caller-ID is
introduced in the Netherlands I would most likely block it for my
lines as well. If I want somebody to know my phone number I will give
it to them. I think the advantages of Caller-ID are much less than the
disadvantages.

> [Moderator's Note: If PacBell wants to make an end-run around the PUC,
> all they need to do is implement Blocked Number Call Blocking, and
> educate their caller ID subscribers on how to automatically reject
> calls from unidentified parties. When that forty percent with non-pub
> numbers found out that fifty percent of the other subsribers were
> refusing their calls, they'd soon ask for their number to start being
> displayed by default also.  PAT]

Why would people reject an unidentified party? I wouldn't. I would
just answer the call and break it off if I don't like the call for some
reason.

If somebody familiar calls you will most likely recognize them anyway
so you don't need Caller-ID. And if somebody you don't know calls, you
won't recognize the phone number anyway so you have to pickup the
phone anyway.

So what is the great advantage in Caller-ID anyway? (And don't tell me
it is easy to stop crank calls because anybody smart enough would make
crank calls from phone booths!)


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: No Caller-ID in California
Date: 27 Dec 1992 11:27:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


It is my understanding that the legislature is going to attempt to
pass a bill that would override the PUC ruling, but then those are the
same people that could not pass a budget. Maybe the companies should
take the PUC to court or do like Texas did a while back, cut the
funding so they could not do anything.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:13 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California PUC Reduces CLID Restrictions


On Dec 26 at 13:37, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Well good golly, how did you manage to make do all
> these years before Caller-ID was invented?  How did you manage to deal
> with all the strangers on your phone lines in the past? Whatever you
> did, just keep on doing it.   PAT]

What I have done was patiently waited until CNID would become
available, tolerating the mostly useless (to me) voice telephone the
best I could. Now that I see the waiting has been in vain, it is time
to change strategies.

The telephone is for my convenience to talk with those people with
whom I wish to speak and none others. The fact that I have a telephone
is not an open invitation for any and all to bother me -- whether it
be to sell something or to harass or even to chit-chat when I am
otherwise occupied. I have been waiting patiently for CNID so that I
could take back control of my phone. Now that those who know what is
better for us than we do ourselves have decided that we who have
telephones are to be punished by never knowing who is at the other end
before it is answered, I am taking matters into my own hand.

I have a phone in the garage. I do not know how many times I have been
loading the bike or truck and the phone rings. Since there is the
possibility that the call is from someone at my destination or someone
who has information that will otherwise be useful during my day's
activities, I usually answer it. About 80% of the time it is someone
calling with chit-chat, or non-essential information that can wait
until later, or even a junk call.

Sample: I notice that I am going to be just about on time for an
appointment as I am rolling the bike out of the garage. As the garage
door is going down, the phone rings. So I slide in under the door and
grab the phone. "Yeah, John! This is Fred (a client). I wanted to talk
to you about some changes in that latest software." "Actually, I'm on
my way out the door. Could I talk to you later?" "Oh, this will only
take a minute. Here's what I was thinking ... (blah, blah, blah)."
"Yeah, OK, uh Fred -- I've really got to go. Why don't you decide what
you want and then e-mail me." "Well, I think that covers it ... oh, by
the way ... (blah, blah, blah)."

Ten minutes later, I'm out the door and late for the appointment.
Unless, of course, I get another call or two while talking to Fred.
Then I may as well cancel the appointment. With CNID, a glance at the
phone tells me that it is Fred and since I have no urgent business
with him, I let it ring and let my machine (which is inside the house
and out of earshot) do its job.

Without CNID or my full-time-everyone-who-calls-gets-screened-device,
the only other two possibilities are: 1) get rid of the phone except
for fax and modem use; or 2) just become much more rude ("Sorry, I'm
busy! <click>", after I have discovered that it is someone that is
non-essential.)

You can perhaps suggest another alternative?


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 00:07:05 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pennsylvania Judge Bashing


> [Moderator's Note: We seem to be getting some out of LATA Caller ID
> messages here now also. Not many yet, but more than this time last
> year. Remember the judge in Pennsylvania, who in his wisdom declared
> Caller ID was an 'illegal trap and trace device'? I wonder if he'll be
> getting after us here in Chicago once SS-7 makes delivery of caller
> numbers from Pennsylvania to us a reality?  :)   PAT]

> [Moderator's Note: Caller-ID is considered an Evil and Bad Thing in
> PA. A judge there ruled that Socially Responsible people would not use
> it since it is 'an illegal tap and trace' device. There are devices to
> do what you want and various software programs as well, but if you are
> in PA, you can forget it.  What do PA and CA have in common? I'll let
> John H. respond to that.

Come off it, PAT.  Judge Schnierle looked at the Pennsylvania law and
wrote a decision based on it.  The law is clear as day: Caller*ID is
not legal in PA.  Bell of PA proposed an ingenious misreading of the
wording that the judge had to point out.  Two PUC commissioners wished
it were not so, and overrode his decision.  Higher courts, in *their*
wisdom, decided that the law, rather than the wishes of the
commissioners, is what counts.

Whatever you or I or anyone else thinks of the state law, it is a
matter for the appropriate legislature to change the law, not for a
PUC to pretend it doesn't say what it says.  Leave the messenger
alone!


Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: Well, I think his role was a wee bit more than just
that of a messenger ... but that is obviously a subjetive decision on
my part.  Happy holidays to one and all from TELECOM Digest!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #921
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08529;
          27 Dec 92 14:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04424
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 27 Dec 1992 12:49:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31749
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 27 Dec 1992 12:48:54 -0600
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 12:48:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #922

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:48:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 922

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cell One/NY Delivery to Philly (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please (Joel M. Snyder)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (Marc Unangst)
    Re: Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted (Joe Bergstein)
    Re: Sprint Dis-Cards (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding (Terry Begley)
    Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US (Samy Touati)
    Intra-lata LD and COCOTs (Jay Ashworth)
    Information Wanted on Spread Spectrum Regs in Europe (Shlomo Kalish)
    Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone (Doug Faunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27-DEC-1992 05:23:42.18
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell One/NY Delivery to Philly


I just noticed that Cell One/NY has finally started delivering calls
to the ComCast/Metrophone system in Philadelphia (SID 00029) and the
Cell One/DE system (SID 00123).

Cell One/NY customers only have to drive to the area -- there is no
need to enter any special codes to receive calls. As you enter the
systems you are (or should be) registered autonomously, where the
local swtich tells the NY switch to send calls down to Philly or
Wilmington. (I think all the calls are processed through Philly,
though.) Also, customers do NOT pay a toll charge to send the call to
ComCast/NJ, so it may also be true that they will not pay a toll for
calls received in Philly. I haven't checked this yet.

In Philly, all of the NY customer's features will work -- Call
Waiting, Three-Way Calling, and Call-Forwarding. There is the usual
and unfortunate caveat that Voice Mail will NOT work unless the caller
forces calls to voicemail using the "Do Not Disturb Feature", or *35.
Thus, if you are powering "OFF" your phone, one must hit *35 to force
calls to voicemail immediately. Otherwise, there will be approximately
a 1/2 hour gap where calls will be sent down to Philly and where
callers will receive the "Out of Vehicle/Area" message.  Once you
power the phone back on you will need to hit *350 to cancel this
"feature", assuming you hit *35 to begin with.

As of yet, Do Not Disturb and all other features will NOT work in the
DE system.

(As an aside: McCaw and Ercisson are aware of customer disatisfaction
with the *35 feature and the inability of the NACN (or other local
networking systems they operate) to automatically route calls back to
the home switch if there is no answer in the remote system. However,
it may help to expedite things if other customers who are disatisfied
with the system as it now stands will chose to inform McCaw Cellular
of their feelings on the matter. I get the impression that the more
compalints they get, the higher priority this issue will get. They DO
seem to care a great deal about what their customers think, so it
would seem likely that an increased number of complaints regarding the
need for *35/*350 will lead to a faster solution to the problem.)

I'm not sure if Philly and DE are on the NACN yet -- I suspect that
they are not, and that only Cell One/NY customers can get calls and
use features in these markets. (Just as they can in most of New Jersey
and Connecticut.)  Eventually, though, these systems are planned to
come on to the NACN so that other NACN customers can receive calls
automatically in these areas as well.

Finally, it may be noteworthy to compare Cell One/NY's call-delivery
system GTE's Follow Me Slowly ... errr ... that's ROAMING ... system.

I hit *18 from two different phones today after entering Philly, and
it didn't activate all day. After midnight (mindful of the two to
three hour post midnight delay) I hit *18, and it still didn't
activate. I'll bet that tomorrow when I try it still won't work.

Now although this is unusual, it illustrates how flaky and unreliable
FMR is. *Generally* the system is acceptable -- most DAYTIME
activations occur within ten minutes, many in under two. Yet I tried
activating in Montreal last week at 6PM, and it took *two* hours! The
week before, I hit *18 in upstate Vermont (Burlington), and it never
kicked it. Same goes for "Star Cellular" in Maine. So aside from the
"post midnight activation delay", which GTE has been intransigent in
correcting, the system in many other respects is quite unreliable.

In all fairness to GTE, it is not always "their fault", ie, their
system in Tampa is usually up and running just fine. As a matter of
fact, if you call them and ask "Hey, how come FMR hasn't been put up
for my account yet, it has been over an hour?!", they will usually
take a look at the record and say something like "Oh, you hit *18 in
Dallas at 3:50PM, your request was processed in our switch at 3:52PM,
but the Dallas system hasn't assinged you a number yet due to a
backlog at their switch". It is typcially that sort of thing -- a slow
switch, repair work, etc., which causes the delay or failure to
activate, and it is usually outside of GTE's control.

Overall, then, FMR is acceptable for the casual user who would benefit
from call delivery in a remote market but who does not *depend* on it
on a regular basis. But its reliability is SO poor that it can not
stand up with systems like Cell One/NY's or the NACN in general. I am
very happy that Philly has been added -- prior to the addition I'd
have to guess if FMR would activate quickly enough and if I missed any
calls in the interim. I really shouldn't have to worry about this, and
now I don't. (Note that FMR also can not return a call to the home
switch if it goes unanswered by the roamer.)

GTE probably realizes that the future for "Follow Me Roaming" type
services is limited, and that its about time for automatic roaming
systems such as the NACN. I don't blame them for not wanting to spend
time to correct the major deficienies with FMR, nor can I fault the B
systems who don't seem to care too much if FMR is a bit slow on their
system. Yet its about time that the B side implement a new system (be
it IS-41 Rev A or whatever), because right now all I have with them is
FMR, and I'm so discouraged with it I'm increasingly reluctant to even
attempt to use it anymore. :(

Anyhow, for those who can make use of it, enjoy the automatic call
delivery from Connecticut all the way down to Delaware!


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please
Date: 27 Dec 1992 00:08 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department - Mosaic Group


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
writes ...

> [e-mail] writes:

>> A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches
>> from an US company. I am collecting information for them.

> Be aware that X.25 packet switches fall under the COCOM export
> controls.  You will need an export license, and can't ship at all to
> some countries.

That's not strictly true.  X.25 packet switches do not fall under
COCOM export controls by name.  However, there are packet switching
technologies which are commonly included in X.25 packet switches which
mean that for some countries (not all), you may have to have a
validated license.  In particular, fast select and high bandwidth
specifications are mentioned.  If you were to implement an X.25 switch
with a total bandwidth below the specs (both pps and bps) and which
did not do fast select, it would not fall under these regulations.

The statement "will need an export license, and can't ship at all to
some countries" is also a little misleading.  For products for which
an export license is required, the license is required.  A better
statement is that some licenses are easier to get than others.
Pointers as to which are easier than others are given in the
regulations, but you can ALWAYS apply (if application is necessary,
which it isn't for all products, countries, or situations, including
things like accompanying baggage and ships stores).

In any case, readers who are interested in working with foreign
nationals, in foreign countries, or in selling equipment abroad,
should consult the appropriate export control regulations and possibly
a lawyer.  Getting free advice (like this) is worth what you paid for
it.

>> In case anyone is interested in seeing the complete text of the new
>> export control regs, they appeared in the Federal Register on August
>> 29, 1991.

This citation is out of date, and was incorrect in any case.  The
current export administration regulations, including the famous
commodity classification list, appear as 15 CFR 770-799, dated January
of the current year.  You also need to know about the munitions list,
which is in 22 CFR 121 (the 121 may be wrong; my handwriting is a
little scratchy here.  But 22 is the right place to start), and
possibly the nuclear rules which are in 10 CFR 110.  (1992 cites;
these may -- but don't often -- change from year to year.)

If you go to a law library to read these -- and they'll be updated to
the 1993 versions very soon -- you MUST also read a document called
"LSA," the List of Sections Affected.  It takes you from the 15 CFR
770-799 to relevant pages in the Federal Register over the past year
which have modified those sections.  That is, to get CURRENT law, you
need to get the published CFR (code of federal regulations) and then
update to the current date by checking the Federal Register (which the
LSA helps by doing a backwards index sort of).  You can usually find
the LSA well thumbed next to the CFR.


Joel M Snyder, 1103 E Spring Street, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Phone: [phone] (voice) .4095 (FAX) .4093 (data)
BITNET: jms@Arizona  Internet: [e-mail]  SPAN: 47541::telcom::jms

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:35:18 GMT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
McMillin) writes:

>> The FCC allotted the Quitaque system up to 23 frequencies in the range
>> of 450 megahertz, Langley said. The system can handle as many as 92

> Perhaps the unwritten assumption made by the author here is that the
> links are point-to-point microwave using parabolic dishes.  This would
> make it harder, not impossible, to monitor calls than ordinary
> cellular, which is omnidirectional.

Last time I checked, 450MHz was not considered in the microwave range.
While it is possible to design a directional antenna setup for such a
low frequency, the signal is still going to spread out a great deal
more than something in the 10GHz range or so.  And if they keep the
power low enough to reduce eavesdropping, they'll probably get
complaints from the users when propagation gets bad and they start
getting static or dropouts.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Bergstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:52:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Help With G-E Answering Machine Wanted


 George S. Thurman asks for help in locating a product manual:

 > A friend recently purchased a used answering machine at a garage
 > sale. It came with no instructions, and he has been unable to figure
 > out how to retrieve messages with the touch-tone remote control.

 > It is a General Electric machine with the model number RSVP 2-0910c.

Why not just try calling the GE Answerline which GE runs 24 hours per
day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.  They can answer questions on
any GE product.  The number is 800.626.2000

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 21:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint Dis-Cards


[e-mail] writes:

> AT&T technology, said John Gray, assistant vice president of the NCR
> unit responsible for ATM machines, takes fewer than eight attempts to
> "mature" the machine and can be used by rattled, flu-stricken
> customers. [NY Times 12/9]

Right! I will believe this when I see it. Last April, I developed a
severe infection in my sinuses. As it started to take hold, I flew to
Chicago.  The altitude and climate changes managed to agravate it into
a situation where my hearing was severely impaired and my voice
reduced to a whisper for about six weeks. During that time no one,
even those who know my voice well, could recognize me on the phone.

Would it not be wonderful to find that one's access to his funds had
been cut off by a machine that could not recognize the legitimate
user's voice? This would be particularly annoying if it happened while
the person was out of town.

I will be very surprised to see these things fly, particularly as
early as 1994.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: Terry Begley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:02:10 CST


< What happens when you call a phone that has been forwarded to another
< phone?  Does the ringing phone display the original calling number, or
> the number from which the call has been forwarded from?

> [Moderator's Note: The number of the ORIGINAL caller is displayed; and
> the number of the FORWARDING caller is charged for the cost if any.  PAT]

In my experience, the number of the forwarding call is displayed.  I
have my cellular phone set up to ring my home number if I do not
answer in four rings.  My home CID unit displays the "out of area"
message that cellular (and out of area) callers show.


Prof. Terrence M. Begley   ||    Voice       :  [phone]
Creighton University       ||    CU Fax      :  [phone]
College of Business Admin  ||    Home Fax    :  [phone]
Omaha, NE  68178-0130      ||    Dittos! BBS :  [phone]
[e-mail]


{Moderator's Note: I think the catch here is the cellular carrier does
not deal with the caller-id when a call arrives at the cell switch. I
do not think it is 'true' call forwarding as the telco does it.
Instead of the CO switch dealing with it internally and sending it
along, the call is delivered to the cell company and they forward it.
For instance, if you called me and my personal call diverter answered
the line and patched you out to some other number, your call would be
passed right along to the new outside destination, and the end
recipient would get my number rather than yours because strictly
speaking, I was placing the call to him and handing him your call
rather than the CO merely diverting it. I think the cell carrier gets
the incoming call and deals with it rather than the CO which feeds the
cell carrier. That is the difference, and the cell carrier has no ID
to give the CO for the outgoing call.  Try it between two 'regular'
lines with call forwarding and caller-id, then see whose number is
shown.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 11:16:52 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Samy Touati)
Subject: Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US


Hi,

Some while back there was a service offered by Galaxy (in New Mexico)
which consisted of offering dialout access through modems installed in
major cities by BT TYMNET. Someone calls the local Tymnet number and
then logs in to the modem in his city of choice; then dials the local
number there.

But unfortunately this service dissapeared and PC Pursuit is
unavailable from Canada.  Does anyone know of a similar service that
could be available from Canada or an internet service without per
minute fees available from Canada?


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A service called Canada DataPak has a gateway to
Telenet/Sprintnet. I know nothing about the rates, but you could use
it to connect to Telenet/Sprintnet then into the PC Pursuit service.
I do not think the Canada DataPak rates would be all that expensive
compared to DDD rates. You'd have to check it out with them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Intra-lata LD and COCOTs
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 00:33:01 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/8649


GTE Florida recently converted my service area from 0 + 7 for
intra-lata LD calls to 0 + 10.  Now, it took the local COCOTs about a
month to catch on, and allow 0 + 813 + 7 calls at all, but their
fixing that leaves me with another problem.

Well, maybe it's not a problem, but I _am_ curious ...

Since these phones automagically route LD calls to the phone owner's
preferred AOS/IXC, (which I'm told is no longer illegal), _all_ calls
go there.  Even calls that would normally go through the LEC.

Is there an equal access code that routes calls through whatever LEC
owns the line?  Or specific ones for each LEC -- although I suspect that
would be impossible to administer.

If not, how long do you think it will be before the LEC's start
screaming for such a code ... when they discover their revenue
sliding?

And would anybody else use such a code, anyway?  (Note: Most LEC card
calls are flat rate, most IXC intra-lata card calls very probably are
not.)


Cheers,

jra   Ashworth & Associates * [e-mail] * [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!tct!mechanic!8649!Jay.Ashworth
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between USENET & FIdonet.
      For information write to [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 22:21:44 IST
From: Shlomo Kalish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Spread Spectrum Regs in Europe


I am looking for information on the regulations covering the use of
Spread Spectrum wireless technology in Western Europe.  Does anywone
knows of possible published sources on the topic, or experts on the
subject?  Help will be appreciated.


Shlomo kalish    Acknowledge-To: <T76@TAUNIVM>

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 16:11:55 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Small-Handset Cordless Phone


How about putting a handle she can grip on a normal cordless phone?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #922
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08584;
          28 Dec 92 2:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10755
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:33:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06781
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:33:00 -0600
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 00:33:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #923

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Dec 92 00:33:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 923

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Apartment Leases vs. Telecom (Gordon Burditt)
    Bellcore PCS -- Request for Industry Input (Scott Loftesness)
    Consulting Contracts (Joe Bergstein)
    Looking For Information About Phone Service in Quebec (David Bernholdt)
    Is it Possible to Avoid Phone Line Hookup Service Charge? (Michael Rosen)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (John Rice)
    Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital (Brian Gordon)
    Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems? (Howard C. Berkowitz)
    Re: NT Caller ID Unit (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Apartment Leases vs. Telecom
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:37:38 GMT


A son of a friend has an interesting lease with some telecom
implications.  The apartments are rented mostly to just-off-campus
college students.  Are any of these provisions enforcable, or do FCC
regulations and associated laws override any of these?  The wordings
here aren't exact, and the descriptions are from my friend's son's
memory.  I think he's the only one who actually read the lease before
signing it.  The apartments are located in New York state, if it
matters.

The apartment has a very, very high rent, but you can get an 80%
discount (down to a reasonably competitive level. The apartments have
a nice location, and are a bit larger than most, and have better
parking) if you agree to the rather restrictive (er, fascist) terms.
If you're caught violating them, the rent goes up, retroactively, and
you will be thrown out.

Tenant agrees not to call, or allow to be called, services such as 900
or 976 numbers (I wish I had seen the actual lease to see the
definition used - it's not "sex lines") from the property.  Completion
of dialing the area code or exchange once violates the lease.  This
covers, by specific example, land lines, cellular phones, guest's
cellular phones, car phones -- regardless of who owns the car,
cordless phone base stations, cordless phone handsets, and pay phones.
Phone patches via radio also count.  Phones off the property don't
count, unless the call is going through something on the property.

Again by specific example, if you get a ride home and the driver uses
his cellular phone to call 976-TIME before his car is all the way off
the property, you're out on your ear -- if you get caught.  The tenant
agrees to fink on himself at his own expense.  If you take your
cordless phone over to your neighbor's and a third neighbor calls a
900 number on it, all three of you are out.

Tenant agrees not to accept, or allow to be accepted, collect calls,
to any phone on the property.

Tenant agrees not to make calls outside the United States except to
one country which tenant may designate when signing the lease (and may
change on the first Monday in July only, in person only), from any
phone on the property.

Sounds like the landlord runs a PBX and is having trouble with fraud?
Nope.  The only telecom the landlord provides is one "pay" phone
supposedly rigged to permit you to dial 911 only, and if you ask for
permission to install land-lines, you can use what's there for
demarc-to-apartment wiring (there seems to be one giant demarc for the
whole building) as-is (most everyone has one line; many have had two
at one point; one guy has a lot) or have someone install it, but if
you ask for X lines, you'd better leave with wiring working for X
lines or the landlord will charge you for it.  If you order phone
service, you deal with the phone company directly.

There has been a small amount of trouble with installers, mostly the
local phone company, stealing multidropped demarc-to-apartment pairs
that were in use.  One guy almost got lynched by the tenants for
trying to install his own line and killing service for half the
building -- by drilling a hole in a sewer line which drenched the
patchboard.  The laundry room, on the other side of the basement,
never smelled the same again.

It sounds like the writer of the lease thinks that by providing
demarc-to-apartment wiring, the landlord might get stuck with the
bills, especially if the not-so-creditworthy college students vanished
or couldn't pay.  Any truth to this?

The lease is even more paranoid about drugs -- no drugs on the
property without a prescription from a doctor.  Aspirin, alcohol,
cigarettes, *MATCHES*, insulin, syringes, beer, cigars, cigarette
wrapping papers, gasoline in non-approved containers, and all
non-prescription drugs are drugs.  Drugs in cars (or taxis, or the
city bus service) picking up or dropping off the tenant or his guests
are the fault of the tenant.  Ever try to get a WRITTEN prescription
from a doctor for aspirin?

The landlord claims the right to audit people's phone bills in the
lease (at their expense).  None of the current tenants have heard of
this being done.  The landlord claims the right of access to police
reports of any happenings on the property, and apparently has it -- if
the police are called about a loud party and someone is drunk, the
host gets booted.  Someone got booted for having cigarettes after a
fire apparently caused by smoking in bed.  Nobody can recall the phone
rules being enforced.  Apparently way back in history the landlord
required all the other tenants to help him move an expelled tenant out
with three minutes warning, consisting of the fire alarm -- a procedure
which usually took less than half an hour, and generally happened
around midnight, and the expelled tenant agreed to reimburse the
landlord for the cost of damaging the tenant's property in the lease.

The landlord claims the right to enter the apartments at any time, but
nobody seems to think that right is used to search.  Maintenance and
spraying for bugs are common, and nobody's been thrown out for just
leaving cigarettes or beer out in the open.

Oh, yes, tenants aren't allowed to make copies of the copyrighted
lease or take it off the property.  And they have to return their copy
of the lease to get their deposit back.


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: That sounds like the weirdest, most repressive
place to live I have ever heard about. I think if the landlord were
sued, most of those lease provisions would be invalidated. To the
point of this forum, he certainly has no right to dictate where a
tenant may call on the telephone unless he can demonstrate that he is
financially responsible for the phone bills. If I were living there, I
think I would deliberatly make such calls, then invite his inspection
of the bill so he could commence a suit for eviction if he wished,
with a counter-suit from myself to defend against at the same time.
I think the tenants as a Class could have the lease invalidated in
court, or certainly large chunks of it.  You'd think the free market
would have driven this guy out of business long ago, but perhaps there
is a law in New York saying one must reside in his apartment complex.
This would probably be the same kind of law which requires people in
Chicago to do their banking at First Chicago.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Loftesness)
Subject: Bellcore PCS -- Request for Industry Input
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 13:11:32 PDT
Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[from Bellcore's Digest of Technical Information, Dec. 1992]

Request for Industry Input
Personal Communications Applications

Bellcore is currently understaking the investigation of new network
access services to meet the communications needs of people on the
move.  The goals are to identify networking requirements and access
network interfaces to achieve complete location and access
transparency for applications using all media and to understand the
impact on exchange and exchange access networks.  This research takes
the broad view of providing network access to personal, secure,
location-independent, multimedia communications through both wireline
and wireless facilities using a wide range of customer terminals,
including pocket phones, notebook computers and portable workstations.
The areas of research include:

Systems and software architectures and access network interfaces for
personalization and portability of services,

The access network requirements generated by applications for new user
interfaces and portable terminasl, including stylus-based notebook and
palmtop computers,

Interfaces and requirements for access to network-based data,
signaling, and connection and resource management associated with
personal, multimedia applications which include image, data, voice and

Opportunities for local exchange networks to enable portable, secure,
wireless transaction-oriented data services to support emerging
non-voice applications such as messaging, point-of-sale transactions,
database queries and file transfers.

Bellcore is seeking industry participation in these investigations
through the establishment of research collaborations to trial
prototypes of new access network elements and interfaces used in
conjunction with emerging wireless networks and end user technologies
and their applications.

If your company is a potential manufacturer of products in the
personal communications applications area, a potential information
service provider, a potential wireless service provider or a private
or public laboratory with a research program in telecommunications and
wishes to participate in these activities, we invite you to submit a
brief, non-proprietary description of your proposed product or service
and the potential applications.  Members of the industry who are
interested in participating should respond by January 15, 1993.

Please forward all information, comments and questions to:

Richard S. Wolff, Director
Personal Communications Applications Research
Bellcore
445 South Street, Room MRE 2M293
Morristown, NJ 07960-6438
Phone: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Scott Loftesness   Redwood City, California
Others: [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Bergstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:09:59 -0500
Subject: Consulting Contracts


I would like to know if any TELECOM Digest readers are willing to
share copies of consulting contract forms (and any letters of agency
forms).  Specifically, I am performing a service as a
telecommunications consultant, whereby I am providing advice,
expertise, guidance, soliciting information and proposals from
vendors, helping client in equipment, vendor, and service selection,
performing network and equipment configuration. Work may possibly
include recommendations for software changes to PBXs, voicemail
systems, bridges, routers, etc.  Are telecommunications consultants
often issued an LOA (letter of agency) by the client so that they can
act on client's behalf in dealing with LECs, IXCs, and CPE vendors? Or
is this uncommon?

I have incorporated.  I am looking for contract forms which focus on
scope of work, yet limit liability.  I am particularly concerned about
liability issues (a mistake or error on my part causes client to
suffer losses due to network outage, for example).

Any help or advice in this area would be appreciated.

BTW, a lawyer whom I know advised me that a tightly written contract
was a much better form of liability protection than 'errors and
omissions' insurance.

Thank you.


Joe Bergstein     Fidonet:    1:109/544.501
Internet:   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:32:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For Information About Phone Service in Quebec


My wife will be moving to Sherbrooke, Quebec shortly for a job.  I'd
like to find someone familiar with the area some simple questions
about basic telephone service there so we know what to expect.

Please reply by email as I doubt it will interest too many other
readers of this list.  Thanks very much.


David Bernholdt        [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project    [e-mail]
University of Florida   Gainesville, FL  32611
904/392 6365

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Is it Possible to Avoid Phone Line Hookup Service Charge?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 19:58:02 GMT


I've seen talk on a WWIVNet telecom sub saying that one can avoid the
service fee (approx. $40) by attaching the line yourself and then
calling up and asking for a line to be activated.  We currently have
two lines in this house.  Is it possible for me to run a new line and
then just have it activated?  Is my house likely already set up for
more than two lines?



Michael Rosen     Tau Epsilon Phi - George Washington University
[e-mail]   [e-mail] or @lambada.oit.unc.edu


[Moderator's Note:  There are two types of installation charges. One
deals with the paperwork and central office technical work. This is
sometimes described as the 'service ordering fee' or similar, and it
cannot be avoided. That work has to be done regardless. The second
charge deals with work done at your premises -- post-demarc -- and it
can be avoided by hooking up the line at your end once the work at the
CO and the billing/accounting office has been done. This second
charge is the one you primarily want to avoid if possible; the rates
are much higher and might easily run $75-100 if the work becomes at
all complicated.  But try it yourself in an older highrise with a real
messy demarc and hundreds or thousands of house pairs to deal with and
you'll wish you'd spent the $75, believe me you.  It is impossible to
say what your house is wired for. My suggestion is if you do not know
at this point, you'd be better off letting telco do it for additional
expense.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 00:28:46 GMT


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

>>> [GTE says] benefits: ...; no threat of calls being monitored

>> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
>> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?

> I suspect they were referring to monitoring by nosy neighbors on party
> lines.  Phone calls are carried all over the place by microwave.
> Although it's certainly possible to snoop if you really want to, the
> tightly focused beams require the snooper to be close to the line of
> sight between the two dishes, and there are usually multiplexing
> schemes more complex than your usual Radio Shack scanner can decode.

450 Mhz (As noted in the original post) is not 'microwave'. 'Dish'
antennas aren't normally used at these frequencies. I am, however,
confused about the message header (referred to "digital"). There
wasn't anything in the message about 'digital radio', which would be
difficult to monitor. The bandwidth required to run 24+ channels of
digital, on 450 Mhz would be pretty wide, considering that most of the
other services in the 450 Mhz band are NBFM (Narrow Band F.M.).

If anyone has more information on these systems, please enlighten us.


John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                          |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                          |   Not my Employer's....
[e-mail]     |   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Gordon)
Subject: Re: GTE Rural Area Phones Go Digital
Date: 28 Dec 92 04:07:51 GMT
Organization: Sun


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

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

>> Skeptical residents warmed to the system after officials met with them
>> to explain benefits: No more lines broken by ice or high winds; no
>> threat of calls being monitored; greater clarity.

> So, let's see: the phone calls are transmitted over radio now, so that
> eliminates that threat of them being monitored?  And since they are
> not cellular telephone calls, it may even be legal to monitor them
> under the ECPA.

I suspect that the first reference to "no threat of calls being
monitored" was a reference to party line evesdropping, which is
presumed to be a rather common form of entertainment in rural areas.


Brian G. Gordon    [e-mail]            [e-mail]
B.GORDON2 on GENie    70243,3012 on CompuServe   BGordon on AOL

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

From: [e-mail] (Howard C Berkowitz)
Subject: Re: Anybody Know of LARGE Modem Server Systems?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:55:06 GMT


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

> I have a customer who may need to set up a huge number of modem
> lines to service incoming calls to his UNIX system, and he wants to
> find a system that already does this rather than roll his own.  While
> we could probably do it ourselves for small numbers of lines (say, up
> to 32), these may just not scale up very well to handling several
> hundred modems and serial lines and phone lines.

I would look seriously at getting one or more of commercially
available X.25 PAD devices (Codex, Dynapac, Hughes, etc.), and connect
it to a software PAD i the UNIX box.  If a software PAD were not
available for some reason, there could be a "reverse PAD" to serve the
switch.  If the user wants concentration functions, then the number of
ports on the PADs would be greater than the number of active ports on
the software or hardware PAD serving the host.

   Many commercial PADs can also be switches Depending o the user
requirement, a private X.25 network might make sense.  This would
allow servers (i.e., PADs) to be geographically distributed when that
made economical or operational sense.


Howard

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

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: NT Caller ID Unit


On Dec 25 at 21:55, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> What do PA and CA have in common? I'll let John H. respond to that.

Not a whole lot. There are no laws in CA proscribing CNID; in fact
even the current PUC regulations do not prohibit the offering of that
feature. PA has a law; CA has an attitude.

California is an example of special interests gone berzerk. Unless a
person is a member of some definable special interest group or
classification, he has no rights. In this case, we have the group
inappropriately labeled "privacy advocates" who has had its way.

The average telephone user such as myself (who is not a member of any
special interest group) has no say. Except for letters of annoyance
that went off to my assemblyperson and my state senator (both of whom
I believe are against Caller-ID anyway), there is not much left to do
but make whatever limited adjustments are possible within the crippled
scope of operation allowed within this state. Or move; but I am not so
inclined.

I am actually considering a screening system using one of my business'
800 numbers. Let us see the "anony-freaks" get around that!


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: They'll call you from cellular phones. Here in
Chicago, the cell phones do report a number for ANI, but it will
always be some idiot number which is meaningless and one-way outbound
calling only. For example, my cell phone reports (to my 800 ANI print
out each month) a number which is NOT the cell phone number, which
when dialed says the number dialed xxx-xxxx is not in service for
incoming calls, and when checked with Name and Address Service (a
public IBT offering at 312-796-9600) returns as its entry, "Eye Bee
Tee Company" at an address on 87th Street in a western suburb; there
is a CO at that address; and a concentrator to the cell carrier.  It
is always the same number on a consistent basis. Caller-ID on the
other hand reports the cellular as 'Out of Area' and when I try call
screening against the number at the IBT Co, the screening attempt
fails for lack of supervision; unsupervised numbers can *never* be
forwarded to, screened against or Caller-ID'ed here. In other words,
telco can *always* get through when they want to call you!  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #923
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22721;
          29 Dec 92 5:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28555
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:05:27 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16067
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:05:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:05:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #924

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Dec 92 03:05:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 924

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby (J. Goldstein)
    Telco Service in Utah? (Lance Ellinghouse)
    Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#) (M. H. Khan)
    AT&T Mail Munges SMTP to X.400 Translation? (Brad S. Hicks)
    CID Device Recommendations Wanted (Gantt Edmiston)
    Caller-ID Substitute (John Higdon)
    Demarcs and Shared Wiring (Richard Cox)
    More Idiocy From GTE (Charles Mattair)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Andy Funk)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Hans-Gabriel Ridder)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 12:39 EST
Subject: How to Prepare For the Startup of an AM Radio Tower Nearby


Hello Telecom Readers,

My parents and their neighbors were unable to block a radio station's
request for zoning exception in Germantown, Maryland.  The result is
four very high towers that will soon be broadcasting in the AM band (I
don't know the broadcast power, though.)

Can anyone suggest any measurements, recordings, or other things that
should be done now, before broadcasting starts, that will help if we
need to later complain to the FCC about interference, bad phone noise,
etc.?  If there are any firms that specialize in this type of
measurment, their names or numbers would be appreciated.

FYI, my parents and neighbors aren't suffering too much from the NIMBY
syndrome, they just don't like the way the site was picked -- the
rezoning wasn't well publicized, with the required information sign
being positioned well back from the road.  Furthermore, the sign only
vaguely mentioned construction of a tower, which the majority of
people assumed meant yet another power company microwave tower, of
which there is already one in a nearby sub-station.  When the locals
finally realized what was happening, they didn't have much time to
prepare a case for the final zoning review board.  Naturally, the
radio station had a slew of well-qualified lawyers, etc specializing
in radio tower/FCC matters, versus the attorney that the local home
owners had hired out of their own pockets.

Any information or advice would be appreciated.


Jamie Goldstein   AT&T Bell Labs / Federal Systems Advanced Technology
[phone]     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Now and again in an effort to reach a compromise
between the radio station and neighbors who are beseiged with the
dense radiation to be found within a mile or two of a very powerful
transmitter, the FCC will require the station to spend time, effort
and money to reduce the interference to a minimum. In one such case
reported here in the Digest a few years ago (and reprinted just a
month or so ago), WYCA-FM in Hammond, Indiana was required by the FCC
to work at no charge with anyone within a 1.7 mile radius of the
station and provide them with filters and technical help installing
them. The station was required to work with the two telcos serving the
area. They were required to provide this assistance for a period of
one year, and additionally they had to announce over the air the FCC's
requirement. The announcement had to be made over the air several
times daily for the first week or two, then less often for about one
month.

The last report I have from Hammond is that the interference has been
reduced about 80-85 percent as a result of WYCA's work with telco and
others in the commmunity.  But the reduction in interference took a
*long time* to cure: WYCA-FM was breaking no laws or FCC regulations,
and they knew it, as well as their rights under the Communications Act
and related regulations. For about two years the neighbors had to
tolerate it; telco could not help them; neither could the FCC. It was
not telco's fault, so telco said they would 'try to work things out'
but at some expense to complaining subscribers.  Had the FCC taken a
hard line, they'd have gotten no where unless at some future point
they found a violation at the station and used it to get their way.
Through some 'gentle pursuasion' and the implication that 'the
Commission works along with stations that work along with us; help us
get the neighborhood off our back and we may find a more liberal
interpretation of our rules sometime when you need it ...', the owners
of the station, 'WYCA Christian Broadcasters, Inc' were induced to
sign an agreement with the FCC and dedicate a tech person to the
project full time for several months. Once the telcos saw that WYCA-FM
was putting some money in the project to show their intentions, the
telcos did the same, and put a couple guys on it full time for a few
months; it was literally a house-by-house job.  PAT]

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

From: Lance Ellinghouse <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Service in Utah?
Organization: Mark V Systems Limited, Encino, Ca
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:09:17 GMT


Can anyone answer these simple questions about Utah and their phone
systems?

1) Is CNID available?
2) What is a reasonable charge for installation?
3) What CLASS features are available in Utah?
4) Is ISDN available at all?


Thank you,

Lance Ellinghouse

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

From: [e-mail] (M. H. Khan)
Subject: Loaned Phones/Courtesy Phones (Was AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:22:27 GMT


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

> COCOTs have.  People who rent out their homes or condos have similar
> issues with loaning their phones to others.

> Given these issues and the problems with the current phone network,
> are there any protocols, perhaps in ISDN, that can be used to flag a
> line as being a "loaned" phone that accepts no billing.

Things you can currently do:

1) Ask for a toll restriction. In one place I had to pay a one time
   charge. In another there was a monthly charge. (Not altogether
   sure about which was which but I think the monthly charger was
   Illinois Bell, the other one Southwestern Bell.  Other differences
   were being able to reach Operator.

2) Anyone can (without charge) ask for a password to be associated
   with the account for any changes or information to be given out.
   Both the aforementioned companies honored that request.

   If you do decide to have this done on a new line mention it
   early so it appears on the first "screen" when they pull up your
   record.  In the one case where they failed to ask me the password
   as the first thing (but discovered the requirement after a
   minute or so) that was the reason mentioned, and  "correction"
   implemented.

Of course a toll restricted phone is of somewhat limited utility but a
lot better than having driving to a payphone for even local calls.
Incoming long-distance calls are of course not restricted.  And if you
happen to have a calling card you can even get direct dial rates (from
AT&T at least) if you tell the LD operator (800 numbers can be
dialled) that you are at a toll-restricted phone.

With regard to your suggestion, yes there need to be better provisions
made for this.  This need, of one owner but changing users, should be
better provided for.  Also, the current practice of charging as if an
entirely new line was being put in, when only the billing information
is changing is not justified.

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:32:12 GMT
Subject: AT&T Mail Munges SMTP to X.400 Translation?


Here's an update on our ugly little problem with our X.400/Internet
gateway here at MasterCard.  To refresh your memory, we bought
Soft-Switch's group of products (Soft-Switch X.400, Soft-Switch
Central, Soft-Switch MHS, etc.) to connect all of our e-mail systems
together and to connect the whole assembly to AT&T Mail via X.400.
(I'm sending this message from QuickMail.)

After months of whining on our part, Soft-Switch finally put the
appropriate expert on the job, and this morning he started asking
specific questions about what was in our logs and what showed up in
the "names directory," and now he's got a few of us convinced that the
problem lies in the way AT&T Mail does SMTP to X.400 translation.

When I send a message out, Soft-Switch X.400 sends my X.400 address as
c=us, admd=attmail, prmd=MasterCard, ou1=0205295, sn=Hicks, gn=Brad.
(Which is correct.)  When AT&T Mail translates this to SMTP, they send
it as follows: mc/gn=Brad/sn=Hicks/ou1=[e-mail].  Note
carefully that "mc" instead of "prmd=MasterCard"; that seems to be
where the problem comes in.

When a ListServ turns that around, AT&T retranslates it back into
c=us, admd=attmail, ou1=0205295, sn=hicks, gn=brad, dda=id!internet
(b)mhs(b)mc. Notice that not only is the DDA field filled in (the
problem we'd noticed, which it turns out Soft-Switch can handle) but
the PRMD field is missing!

In other words, AT&T translates X.400 addresses to a non-standard form
that even they don't or can't parse correctly on the way back in.

At the very least, the problem does not lie entirely with Soft-Switch,
and since I probably gave that impression in the past, I would like to
apologize and clarify things.

*sigh* When we call AT&T Mail tech support, we get people who haven't
the foggiest idea of what SMTP or X.400 mean, let alone the niceties
of addressing or the concept of ListServ.  I know that there are X.400
and SMTP wizards who work there, but we don't know the magic words to
get the people who answer the phones to let us talk to one.  Can any
of the AT&T people who read this help us out?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Gantt Edmiston)
Subject: CID Device Recommendations Wanted
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:42:49 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


Lo and behold, CID is coming to North Carolina!  Actually, it's
already available in some areas but in Raleigh, NC, it will be
available Jan 30.  I called an signed up and now I have to find some
CID devices.  Can someone point me to sources for CID equipment?  I
have the Hello Direct catalog, BTW.  I also hear the Northern Telecom
will be making a ~$20 CID device in 93.

I know it's been asked before, but I am also interested in a device
that would output RS232 CID info to my PC.  Email and I will post a
summary.  Thanks.


Gantt Edmiston - SysAdmin  SAS Institute Inc.   Quality Assurance - V416
           Cary NC 27513 919-677-8000 x6091  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:20 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Caller-ID Substitute


I have an interesting workaround to the lack of Caller-ID. It is
called DID. Here is how it works:

You have installed one or more DID trunks and buy 100 or 200 or
whatever necessary amount of telephone numbers from Pac*Bell. Then you
obtain a switch capable of DID with the additional ability to display
the called-number (the number the caller actually dialed to reach
you).  Now, when you give out phone numbers, you give a different one
to each and every person that calls you on any kind of a regular
basis. You also have a listed number that is always answered by a
machine for those people you might like to hear from but are not yet
privy to a "special number".

So now when pulling out of the garage and the phone rings, you see on
the display the number you gave to "Long-Winded Fred" and you just
keep backing out. It would be just like CNID, only you look for the
number you gave the caller rather than the caller's own number.

I may call my rep tomorrow and order DID. See? Getting around the lack
of CNID is easy; at least for people with sufficient means.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 11:51 GMT
From: Richard Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Demarcs and Shared Wiring
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I was intrigued by some of Pat's comments on the cost of installing
new lines.

Commenting on a posting by [e-mail] (Michael Rosen), Pat
said:

> try it yourself in an older highrise with a real messy demarc and
> hundreds or thousands of house pairs to deal with and you'll wish
> you'd spent the $75, believe me you.

Over here we are not allowed to have any other service in the same
cable as an exchange pair, downstream of the demarc (which we call an
NTTP - Network Test and Termination Point).  Having more than one
customer's services in a single cable (which the telco does not
manage) seems to open up a large can of worms/possibilities of
maintenance conflict, fraud, etc.

How did this situation come about in the US? Are there any proposals
to "regulate" it?


Richard D G Cox

Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF
Voice: [phone]      Fax: [phone]      VoiceMail: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]     Not diallable on 511 in mainland USA


[Moderator's Note: In the USA, much of the wiring goes back to long
before divestiture -- when there was but a single Mother Company, and
who cared?  Lots of demarcs and the 'house pairs' from them are fifty
years old or more. Example: A building nearby, whose basement I am
familiar with has a demarc with four hundred house pairs and about
three hundred pairs coming in from the CO to serve the two hundred or
so apartments in the (thirty story) building, constructed in 1927.
When new service is requested, if telco records do not show a CO pair
which has been wired 'straight through' to a house pair and then to
the apartment, a technician comes out, locates the assigned CO pair on
one side of the demarc and punches it down on the other side where the
house pairs terminate. Sometimes telco records say the pair is already
wired through and the tenant's phone still does not work so the tech
has to come out. All the pairs from the CO are multipled; that is they
show up on the demarcs of other buildings nearby. A certain number of
house pairs are also multipled in such a way that a tenant who wants a
second line may wind up getting a house pair that previously had
served as a line for another apartment. Some house pairs are multipled
between the 'local demarcs' located on each floor of the building in a
janitor's closet.

Records kept at the demarc are notoriously out of date and frequently
inaccurate. In the building I am speaking of now, one punchdown block
with fifty pairs on it sits sort of apart from the rest and has a
penciled note written on the wooden backboard: "This fifty pairs is
multipled to the new building across the street." (signed) J. Gordon,
May 12, 1936 ... and another note, apparently by the same long-
forgotten probably dead 'J. Gordon' says "Rogers cable 95 went open
and I took five pairs from here for the switchboard."  Not only that,
but when you take the big wooden doors off the demarc cabinets, dust
and cob-webs greet you, and cockroaches scurry away to hide.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 09:07:25 CST
From: [e-mail] (Charles Mattair)
Subject: More Idiocy From GTE
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX


12/26, trying to call (713) 370 from (713) 337 (roughly, far far south
Houston to far northwest Houston, GTE to SWB).

I don't know if it's long distance so I first try 7D.  SID tones (at
what feels like 110db), "The number you requested cannot be completed
as dialed, please consult ..." message.  I'm sure I dialed the number
correctly so try it again (this time holding phone far from ear) --
same screech followed by same message.

Call operator -- verify the call is LD and GTE is just issuing the
wrong message.

As I'm at a friends house, I decide to put the call on calling card.
102880+10D.  <boing> GTE.  Huh ...?  I know this is intralata but I
told them to use AT&T.  They can't override my choice of carrier can
they?  Try it again except as 102880 + 7D (713 has gone 1/0 + 10D on
all LD calls but who knows what GTE is doing).  <boing> GTE.

Call the operator to see whats going on -- it should work, you must be
misdialing, etc.

Finally, in disgust, 1028800.  <boing> AT&T.  Placed the call and
nobody answered :-(

Just for the record, SWB and GTE are staging major lobbying efforts
for the upcoming session of the Texas Legislature.  The desired goal
is the effective deregulation of telcos in Texas.


Charles Mattair             [e-mail]
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Funk)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:02:27 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC


> [Moderator's Note: Do you think it could be the reason you got through
> on Sprint is because not that many people (relative to the facilities
> available) were using Sprint?  AT&T is still the national favorite by
> a wide margin. Could it be the facilities available to the one are
> disproportionate to the actual traffic requirements?  I still don't
> think they 'shut things down' ... an earthquake or other emergency is
> different than a family holiday.   PAT]

It's likely, IMHO, that SPRINT, MCI, et. al. have more "headroom" than
AT&T, especially when dealing with the residential service.  While I
don't have any statistics, I suspect the ratio of AT&T to alternative
LD carriers is higher for individuals than businesses.  So, AT&T will
likely be affected more by holiday calls than the other carriers.

As far as limiting calls *into* a disaster area --- This is an
excellent practice if there is a chance the network will become
saturated.  Communications *from* a disaster scene should take
precedence over communications into the area.  Most calls into an
affected area are health and welfare inquiries ("Gee, Aunt Carol, is
everyone OK?) while calls originating from the scene may well be
requests for needed assistance ("National Guard?  Can you direct the
choppers with the food and medical supplies to the football field of
the high school?").

The Amateur Radio Emergency Service and National Traffic System hold
health and welfare inquiries until the disaster scene is ready to
accept them, placing a much higher priority on real emergency traffic.

I recall hearing a few years ago that AT&T long distance circuits were
setup to limit incoming calls, when necessary, so outgoing calls
always would have circuits available.


Andrew Funk, KB7UV        Internet: [e-mail]
ENG Editor/Microwave      Packet: kb7uv@kb7uv.#nli.ny.usa
WCBS-TV Channel 2 News    BBS: 718-956-7133

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

From: [e-mail] (Hans)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:39:05 GMT


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

> I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
> practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays.

[Stuff deleted]

> This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy" recording, not
> because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.

> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.

Er, I had just as much trouble getting through on Sprint and MCI as I
did on AT&T (same recording.)  I guess we could blame it on GTE ...  ;-)


Hans-Gabriel Ridder <[e-mail]>
DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA
Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 10:51:43 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> phaedrus@unkaphaed.
gbdata.com (James Hartman, Sysop) writes:

> Indeed, my sister lives in Germany, and throughout Christmas morning
> (the only time we could really call and expect to get someone who's
> awake), we kept getting a message telling us that the circuits are
> busy in the country we were calling.  I asked my folks what long
> distance they had, and they said it was AT&T.  I pulled out my Sprint
> card and tried connecting via the 1-800 number on Sprint; same result.
> This leads me to wonder how much of the resources AT&T and Sprint
> share, and perhaps someone in Germany needs to install more incoming
> lines to the country.

Whenever my parents [in Ohio] call their relatives in their home town
in Italy during the holidays they get an "All circuits busy" very
frequently.  If they call other relatives elsewhere in Italy, they get
through almost always.  I believe this happens because there are a lot
of people near where my parents live who call relatives in that same
town.  So, it seems to be more than just more incoming lines to a
given country.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #924
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03014;
          31 Dec 92 4:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10526
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:04:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29843
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:04:38 -0600
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:04:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #926

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:04:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 926

Index To This Issue:                        Happy New Year to Everyone!

    Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charge (Forrette)
    Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charge (D Bonney)
    Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding (Brent Capps)
    Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding (John Desmond)
    Re: Caller ID and Forwarding (Guy R. Berentsen)
    Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? (J. Delancy)
    Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer? (Bryan J. Abshier)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Pat Turner)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (John R. Levine)
    Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$# (Tony Pelliccio)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges
Date: 31 Dec 1992 03:41:41 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


The Moderator noted:

> A few years ago, a naive fellow with a little toy store in Chicago set
> up a 'Hot Line to Santa Claus'. This was a phone with an automatic
> dialer on it which dialed a preset number when the phone went off
> hook. It was intended for children 3-5 years old as a way to listen to
> stories from Santa and his wife Mrs. Claus, but some nasty phreaker
> discovered that in the two or three seconds the phone was off hook
> (with dial tone) before the autodialer started doing its thing, his
> pocket tone dialer could cut that dial tone and let him call anywhere
> on the store's nickle.  Provided he got his digits dialed before the
> autodialer cut in, telco accepted his digits and ignored those from
> the device.

There are auto-dialers available that prevent this.  I tried this
trick with the elevator phone in our building.  When you take the
phone off-hook, you hear dialtone, then hear it dial the answering
service for the elevator company.  As soon as the dialer hears a
touchtone generated from the headset, it hangs up the line.  Boy, they
won't let anybody have any phun these days!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Now that is interesting! I wonder how they do it?
Apparently if the autodialer hears a tone, and *it* did not make the
tone, it disconnects. Is that how it works?  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 13:13:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Bonney)
Subject: Re: Suggestions Wanted For Phone Device to Restrict Toll Charges


In <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> asked for
help .... but didn't give enough info for a thorough analysis...

However ...

-> We have a problem with people dialing long distance on our phone.

   1.) There are mechanical locks that can be used to physically lock
the dial pad.

   2.) There are 'Toll Restriction' devices that can be used to
disallow leading '0' , '1', and/or '10xxx' type calls.  Some of these
have an 'overide code' that can be used for 'authorized' calls.

   3.) New England Telephone (I'm assuming you're at MIT in
Massachusetts) and most other local operating telcos, offer Toll
Restriction and/or Call Screening services for a nominal monthly
charge.  Contact your local telco for details.

[Note: USOC = Universal Service Order(ing) Code]

  USOC DHL - Operator screening to deny originating toll calls
  USOC DH2 - Screening to deny 1+ and 411. (1+800 allowed.)
  USOC DHP - Operator screening to deny terminating (collect) toll calls.

For 2.) above, you might try contacting 'TEK COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.'
They advertise their 'Call Manager' as being able to:

   Restrict all combinations of 10xxx, 976, 900, 555, 411, 1+, and 0+;
     as well as local calls.
   Prevent fraudulent use of equal access codes.
   Restrict both Rotary (DP) and Tone (DTMF) dialing.
   Restrict all outgoing calls if desired.
   Restrict a specified number if desired.
   Able to restrict any or all prefixes.
   Capable of executive overide with PIN.
   Fully programmable by Touch Tone phone.
   Pricing: $69.00 for single line unit.
        $89.00 for two line unit.

   TEK can be contacted at 6 Progress Drive, Manchester, CT 06040

   [Disclaimer: The above is from their ad.  I have not personally
   tested their claims or the limitations of this unit.]

And for 3.) above, please be aware that these tariffed offerings work
in conjunction with shared databases.  And if the long distance
carrier (or AOS) doesn't participate, then all bets are off. (Major
Carriers DO participate.)

Regards, and Good Luck!

[ --->     Dave Bonney   <--->   Telephone [phone]   <--- ]
[ A Telecommunications Professional Now Unemployed In Westford MA ]
[       No Employer, No Disclaimer.    Just My Own Thoughts.      ]
[ Inquiries To MCIMail 422-4552 or Internet <[e-mail]>   ]


[Moderator's Note: I've had Billed Number Screening on all my lines
for quite some time and like it.  Collect or third number calls billed
to my lines are automatically denied, per the data base.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:41:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Terry Begley <tbegley@
parrot.creighton.edu> writes:

> What happens when you call a phone that has been forwarded to another
> phone?  Does the ringing phone display the original calling number, or
> the number from which the call has been forwarded from?

> [Moderator's Note: The number of the ORIGINAL caller is displayed; and
> the number of the FORWARDING caller is charged for the cost if any.  PAT]

> In my experience, the number of the forwarding call is displayed.

> {Moderator's Note: I think the catch here is the cellular carrier does
> not deal with the caller-id when a call arrives at the cell switch.

Carriers don't use CLID, they use ANI.  These two technologies handle
this issue differently.  CLID, designed for residential use, sends the
number of the calling party.  ANI, designed for billing use, sends the
number of the billed party (i.e., the forwarding party).  Other
technologies that provide caller ID information (e.g., SMDI, ISDN)
tend to identify the calling party.


Brent Capps | [e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

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

From: [e-mail] (John Desmond)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:14:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding
Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS:  Minnetonka, MN (Free!)


> [Moderator's Note: I think the catch here is the cellular carrier does
> not deal with the caller-id when a call arrives at the cell switch. I
> do not think it is 'true' call forwarding as the telco does it.
> Instead of the CO switch dealing with it internally and sending it
> along, the call is delivered to the cell company and they forward it.
> For instance, if you called me and my personal call diverter answered
> the line and patched you out to some other number, your call would be
> passed right along to the new outside destination, and the end
> recipient would get my number rather than yours because strictly
> speaking, I was placing the call to him and handing him your call
> rather than the CO merely diverting it. I think the cell carrier gets
> the incoming call and deals with it rather than the CO which feeds the
> cell carrier. That is the difference, and the cell carrier has no ID
> to give the CO for the outgoing call.  Try it between two 'regular'
> lines with call forwarding and caller-id, then see whose number is
> shown.  PAT]

   In the above example of forwarding a cell phone to a landline
phone, the cellular carrier is no doubt not connected to the SS7
network.  That is why the out of area message was displayed on the
display unit.  If the call was SS7 all the way thru the call ID would
most likely be displayed rather than saying out of area.

   With SS7 the calling number is passed all the way along the
network, the decision as to if the calling number is to be displayed
or not is made by the terminating switch depending on what other flags
are set in the SS7 message that was sent.  If you make a call and have
the ID blocked on your line, the SS7 network will inform the
terminating switch of this and not deliver CID to the called party.

   The out of area message is used when the call has passed thru a
switch that is not on the SS7 network at some point.

   Oh BTW, the cellular carriers switchs that I have seen are actual
Class 5 type switches.  They are DMS's 5E's ect.  They run basicly the
same software that the other class 5 switches run except they need to
be able to communicate with the cellular phones in the field and make
many other decisions that the landline switchs do not need to worry
about.  Granted their hardware is somewhat different, the basic switch
is still the same internally and many of the same software modules are
used in the cellular software as are used in the landline version of
that switch.

As far as the rest of the landline network is concerned the cell
switches are just another CO.  So they would handle call forwarding,
etc the same way as any other CO would.


John Desmond  K0TG    U S WEST Communications
The Dark Knight's Table BBS [phone] Minnetonka, MN USA
Free access to Usenet news and e-mail

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:14:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Guy R Berentsen)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Forwarding
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Seng-Poh Lee,
Speedy) writes:

> What happens when you call a phone that has been forwarded to another
> phone?  Does the ringing phone display the original calling number, or
> the number from which the call has been forwarded from?

I had my home phone (708-554-xxxx) forwarded to my work phone (708-979-
xxxx) for a week or two whhile my answering machine was out of service,
and observed the following behavior:

If the call originated from the same exchange as my home phone (other
554 numbers) the orinator's phone number was displayed on the caller
ID display of my work phone.

If the call originated from other exchanges my home phone number was
displayed for the forwarded call.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:06:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?


Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix![e-mail]> wrote:

> Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?

> They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
> have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
> ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".

Well say what you will about "Rip Off" Shack pocket dialers, but I've
had one of theirs, with sixty memories, for over seven years.  It aint
failed yet nor has the "cheap" construction been a problem. Like a
well known watch advertisement "It takes a licking and keeps on
aticking" ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Bryan J Abshier)
Subject: Re: Pocket Auto-Dialer?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:51:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix!
zaphod%astro [e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey) writes:

>> You mean something like the Radio Shack "Budget Dialer" Part
>> Number 43-139? Well how about the Radio Shack "Memory Dialer" part
>> number 43-141?

> Are those really the ONLY pocket dialers still on the market?

> They don't look very well constructed to me. And in any case, I'd
> have much more faith in them if the label said "Sharp" or "Casio", or
> ANYTHING other than "Radio Shack".

     I have been using a Radio Shack "Pocket Tone Dialer" p# 43-138
for about six years.  In all this time it has suffered a marginal
amount of physical abuse, being dropped, sat on, etc ... and it is
still going strong on the original batteries!  Over that time I've
gone through two "Sharp" calculators.  Just because Radio Shack sells
it dosen't automatically mean it's worthless, even though it usually
is :-)


Bryan J. Abshier  --  [e-mail]  --  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:03 EST
From: rsiatl![e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#


Recently, on the way back home for Christmas, I dropped by to see a
friend who retired from the outside plant construction business.
Outside the store he bought was a brand new COCOT.  (As COCOTs are
typically made to look like RBOC or GTE payphones, they stand out like
a sore thumb in Contel land.)  I asked Jim about it and he showed me
the contract.  The basic terms were a five year contract in exchange
for 10-35% of the coin box.  No mention was made of AOSs except for a
statement saying that LD service would be handled by a carrier of the
COCOT owners choice "such as AT&T, MCI, or Sprint".  I went outside to
look at the phone.

The label said Sprint was the IXC, but a 1" square label on the
fiberglass enclosure said an AOS (ITI I believe) was the IXC.  Dialing
O+ connnected to the AOS rather than Sprint. FGD access was allowed.
Jim was a little ticked that they neglected to mention that they also
made money from the non-coin LD without sharing it, or even mentionimg
it in the contract.  As the COCOT replaced a phone Contel removed due
to insufficent use, he really didn't lose anything.  Another
interesting thing was that no protection was given to the quad wire
that connected the COCOT to the NID on poorly lit back of the store.
I wonder why they don't at least use ground start lines instead of
loop start POTS lines.

Two days later I found out I have to select a COCOT for a resturant
after Bell removed their pay phone.  Without the payphone, customers
tie up the resturant's line that is otherwise needed for credit card
verification.  The company I hope to get uses Telecom USA as the IXC,
as well as offering $.25/min LD.  (A good deal, IMHO)


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why did Bell remove the payphone? If due to not
enough use, there is a way around it: ask Bell to return the phone as
a semi-public coin phone. *You pay them* for having it there, and they
get to keep all the money, giving you none of the commissions, but
this is preferable to a COCOT if only because of the customer complaints
caused by the private payphones. I'd think the goodwill was worth a
few dollars per month.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:42:47 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


I wrote on 26/12/92:

> I do agree that COCOT manufacturers should be required to understand all
> valid digit patterns if they attempt to decode them at all.

Richard D G Cox responded:

> How long will those digit patterns stay valid? How can you be sure
> that they will be updated if BELLcore change the rules ...

US COCOTs have to be updated all the time so they can figure out how
much to charge.  For example, from 508-369 in Concord Mass., 617-862
is a local call to nearby Lexington, while 508-299 is a toll call to
Naushon Island, so the COCOT has to know about all of the prefixes in
508 and 617.

New prefixes are announced about every two months, so with an update
frequency like that I'd think that changes in dialing patterns, which
occur more like once every five years and are always announced at
least a year in advance, would not be hard to handle.

Except for the upcoming change to interchangable prefixes and area
codes, which has involved some changes of when to dial "1" before a
number, all of the changes have merely assigned meanings to previously
invalid combinations.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:39:47 EST
From: Tony Pelliccio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Payphones @#$%%%$#


The reason the COCOT provided payphones are everywhere is because the
deal they make with the business is MUCH more attractive. They
actually pay YOU to put the phone there, unlike the LEC who wants you
to pay at least $35 a month to have a payphone on premises. Believe
me, I negotiated the installation of a payphone and well, went with
the COCOT but at least the one we had gone with didn't lock the
dialpad and allowed access to AT&T if the customer chose.  Most of the
calls made from the unit were local anyway so we didn't lose any
money and neither did the COCOT.

BTW ... the companies were New England Telephone (Blecch!) and ITI,
aka Integratel.


Tony Pelliccio

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #926
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03424;
          31 Dec 92 4:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31241
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:20:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01093
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:20:08 -0600
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:20:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #925

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Dec 92 01:20:00 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 925

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Andy Sherman)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (John Higdon)
    Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ... (Richard Nash)
    Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works (Jim Graham)
    Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! (C. Mattair)
    Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls! (G. Sanders)
    Re: Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US (Peter Tindall)
    Re: Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:09:36 EST


On 25 Dec 92 21:26:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John Higdon) said:

> I would have thought that by now AT&T would have stopped its annoying
> practice of drastically reducing its capacity on holidays. A number of
> AT&T employees have told me that for reasons that are not very clear,
> the company has traditionally blocked off a major amount of the
> system's capacity on various holidays such as Christmas and Mother's
> Day. This is the real reason you get the "All Circuits Busy"
> recording, not because there is an inordinate amount of traffic.

I will admit I don't know whether this is true or false (a rare
admission -- treasure it) but it doesn't make any sense.  Every year
after Mothers' Day, Thanksgiving, etc., AT&T issues a press release to
the effect that they set yet another volume record with X completed
calls from Y attempts.

I can't imagine why they would deliberately turn away business, since
they make money selling it.  Furthermore, if you go find back issues
of the {AT&T Technical Journal} in a library, I suspect you will find
that Mothers' Day is the acid test for new routing algorithms like
DNHR (Dynamic Non-Hierarchical Routing) and RTNR (Real Time
Non-Hierarchical Routing).

> Naturally, there is no trouble calling anyone on Sprint or MCI since
> these companies do not engage in this silly ritual of network choking.

They also don't have anywhere near the market share, which means their
networks aren't presented with anywhere near the load.  I *have* heard
that the OCCs have more headroom, since they have all those trunk
routes in place but lower market share ...

Maybe one of my ex-colleagues will address this issue?

On 27 Dec 92 09:24:00 GMT, [e-mail] (John Higdon) said:

> How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I
> tried at some length to get though to my home from southern
> California.  All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call
> went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to
> the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a
> disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's
> policies are not always imitated by the competitors.

The choke after the earthquake had a reason behind it.  It was to
reserve some large fraction of trunk capacity for outgoing calls from
the disaster area.  That policy and the reason for it was plastered
all over the media, in hopes that people would wait for the "I'm OK"
call rather than flooding the network with call attempts to empty
houses.  I believe that the disaster assistance agencies also liked
that arrangement, since it improved the chances of their folks on the
scene being able to call out.

I'm quite surprised to hear my ex-employer take it on the chin for
their response to a disaster.  Time after time, when disaster strikes,
they send out portable COs and portable phone banks to help put the
victims in touch with relatives and with help.  So where are the OCCs
at those times?


Andy Sherman   Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."

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

From: zygot![e-mail] (John Higdon)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:49:10 PST
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...


On Dec 31 at 00:09, Andy Sherman writes:

> I'm quite surprised to hear my ex-employer take it on the chin for
> their response to a disaster.  Time after time, when disaster strikes,
> they send out portable COs and portable phone banks to help put the
> victims in touch with relatives and with help.  So where are the OCCs
> at those times?

All I can remember was arriving in SoCal at around 7PM and turning on
the TV and seeing scene after scene of Bay Area destruction. And when
I found out the those scenes were 50 miles from the epicenter (and my
own home was ten miles out) I got very worried. Not being able to get
through to neighbors was the most distressing thing to happen to me
all that week :-) And I also remember that getting through to a
neighbor (using Sprint) was a great relief.

BTW, some AT&T tech called yesterday to tell me that the blocking that
I experienced on Christmas Day was the result of my local telco, not
AT&T. Yeah, right. And just whose recording is "408-2T"?


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:22:13 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: All Circuits Are Busy Now ...


John Higdon <[e-mail]>

> On Dec 25 at 18:24, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>> Statistics published by AT&T show in fact the opposite of what you
>> say: network traffic is very high on many 'family' holidays. Why has
>> AT&T spend many millions of dollars in upgrading their network if they
>> plan to shut it down on holidays?

> Then AT&T has a lot more work ahead of it. Just out of curiosity I
> made some test calls. Out of twenty-two attempted calls to Victorville
> from San Jose on AT&T, exactly one went through between 1 PM and 2 PM
> Christmas Day. Out of the same number of attempts on Sprint, all
> twenty-two went through without delay with exactly the same results
> were noted on MCI.

> How soon we forget. Hours after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I
> tried at some length to get though to my home from southern
> California.  All circuits were busy. Then I tried Sprint. The call
> went right through. Discussions right here on the Digest pointed to
> the policy of AT&T of purposely restricting incoming access to a
> disaster area. I, for one, was very grateful for the fact that AT&T's
> policies are not always imitated by the competitors.

> [Moderator's Note: Do you think it could be the reason you got through
> on Sprint is because not that many people (relative to the facilities
> available) were using Sprint?  AT&T is still the national favorite by
> a wide margin. Could it be the facilities available to the one are
> disproportionate to the actual traffic requirements?  I still don't
> think they 'shut things down' ... an earthquake or other emergency is
> different than a family holiday.   PAT]

Personal observation has shown that network managers tend to act upon
a conservative approach to network loads, preferring to intentionally
restrict traffic, rather than risking an avalanche network failure.
After all, these guys (and gals), want to have a job tomorrow. :) :) :)

Network managers will definitely restrict traffic during heavy holiday
periods, (Christmas, and Mothers Day).  The difference between a good
and poor network manager are immediately felt by the calling
subscribers, with All Circuits Busy treatments a norm from the poor
manager, and completed calls by the good manager.  A good manager
knows how to take calculated risks, ensuring that all available
trunking is satuarated with completable call traffic.  My advice, is
to recommend that a little patience pays off.

Just as on the freeways, if one wishes to avoid ultra long
bumper-bumper car jams, avoid the periods that this event happens in.
Avoid the peak calling periods, and by that time, the numb-minded
network managers will have taken their controls off the network! :) :) :)
Or, take a lesser used route (MCI or Sprint).  For the future, the
LD carriers are investigating newer, more hands off automatic network
traffic control systems.  However, the present generation of network
managers must either die off or adapt to trust these types of systems.
They still very devoutly believe that they must have semi-manual means
to bypass the automation, preferring to hobble the system and cause
the problems that John Hidgon always experiences with AT&T.  Perhaps
both Sprint and MCI have new-age network managers? :) :) :) :)


Richard Nash    Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:        [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:31:20 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(J. Robert Burgoyne) writes:

> The telephone is an undeniably essential tool of business. And the
> role it plays and the services it provides are dynamic. Simple
> mechanisms exist to prevent autodialers from reaching you. But others
> see the autodialer as providing them with useful products and/or
> services, and thus they don't object to the auto-calls, and further,
> they respond to the offers.

Then those of us who think autodialers are a pain in the you-know-what
just have to put up with it because someone else likes it?  Harumph.

> We don't need more regulation. This country needs to rid itself of
> regulation. This country needs to have more of its citizens accept
> some minimal level of responsibility without resorting to whining for
> the government to always do something.

I view these types of calls in the same category as junk mail and the
"plastic bag of coupons and junk" left on my door stoop.  I don't want
it and I'm tired of dealing with it week after week.  I've asked for
it to stop and it just keeps coming.  Telemarketing calls are just so
much electronic litter [which by the way, there are laws against and
free market economics is not opposed to as far as I know].

BTW, Some mail carriers will not deliver 4th class junk if you ask
them, but it is illegal for them to not deliver it.

> If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
> my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
> phone when it rings.

This is what we've resigned to do.  We let our answering machine
screen all calls; a hassle but it works.

> A free market capitalist to the core ...

So am I.


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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:06:05 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works


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

> [e-mail] (Jim Haynes) writes:

>> instead of crusading for a national list of people who don't want to
>> receive telephone solicitations, we should crusade for a list of those
>> who do want them, and permit only the people on that list to be
>> called.

Sounds like a list I would *NOT* want to be on ... and it sounds like
a good idea, too. Too bad the high-paid lawyers won't allow their
respective telemarketing firms (and the bribes those firms may well be
handing to certain, uhh, key people) to be subjected to such hassles
(just as they dodged the auto-dialer bit for now).

> Simple mechanisms exist to prevent autodialers from reaching you.

Such as?  Remember, Caller-ID isn't available everywhere, and (as far
as I know) doesn't identify the calling party as an auto-dialer (i.e,
non-human) as such.  So even if you do have Caller-ID, you can't just
tell the system to block any call that's from an auto-dialer (*ANY*
auto-dialer, *ANYWHERE*), and pass any others.  Some people can't
afford to ignore all calls except those from a set of specific
numbers, so you have to know the offending machine's number ahead of
time (meaning you have to be called to avoid being called).  So
Caller-ID is obviously not a very good answer.

I assume, therefore, that there is another device out there which
*DOES* identify whether the calling party is human or machine, and can
block all calls from one or the other.  I also assume that this is
available for a price that the average person can afford, and is not a
hassle to them to use (i.e., you don't force the caller to go through
a menu or anything just to get to you --- it all happens behind the
scenes).

Anyone care to enlighten me as to what this device is, and where I
can send my $10 or $15 to get it?  or do I just run down to K-Mart for
it?  :-)

> This country needs to rid itself of regulation. This country needs
> to have more of its citizens accept some minimal level of
> responsibility without resorting to whining for the government to
> always do something.

Responsibility does not mean allowing telemarketing machines to call
at whatever time they just happen to get to your number, and interfere
with your time/privacy at home.  Not wanting to get annoying automated
calls does not imply a lack of responsibility.  Telemarketing calls
are bad enough to begin with.  Non-human telemarketing calls are out
of the question.

> If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
> my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
> phone when it rings.

Well, obviously, we can't all just never answer our phone.  What if the
person on the other end is an important caller?  What happens if they're
not calling from a number you know (defeats using Caller-ID and only
allowing a few numbers to pass)?  If you never answer your phone,
there's no telling what kind of calls you could miss ...

Any other bright ideas?  Anyone know a way to key in a DTMF sequence
that will, uhh, confuse (i.e., lock up) an auto-dialer that's called
you (preferably while keeping a long-distance call up for an extended
time, thus making them pay the toll for using your phone for their
business ... but if nothing else, shutting the blasted thing down for
a while)?

Along the same lines as the above, if you have call-forwarding, can
you forward a call after it is established (like you can on a PBX)?
It seems that the easiest thing to do then would be to immediately
forward the call to time and temperature ... it still sees a phone
off-hook, hears voices, and who knows, might even sell something to
T&T.  ;-}

Yes, I'm rather unhappy about that ruling, but I don't have the money
to buy a ruling that would reverse it.


jim
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                                 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]
          [e-mail]       (OLD): [e-mail]
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb        AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL       ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:27:18 CST
From: [e-mail] (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls!
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Gregg (G.) Woodcock
> <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
>> collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
>> call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have

Does anybody have a citation for this claim?  I haven't been able to
find anyone locally who knows anything of this.


Charles Mattair                 [e-mail]
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:28:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Texans Entitled to <=$1500 Damages For Computerized Calls!
Organization: AT&T


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Gregg (G.) Woodcock
> <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Under a new law that just passed in Texas, consumers are allowed to
>> collect up to $1500 in fines agains any company who initaites a phone
>> call with a non-human and can be identified (and who does not have

> [Moderator's Note: Publishing your number in a BBS listing then
> 'waiting for the calls to come in' would not benefit you anything
> other than a lot of grief. The intent is there must be *no basis* for
> the calls; your number appearing in such a list would provide the

My concern was that someone could publish a phone number as a prank.
A simple post to Usenet that some wisbang bbs is now in operation for
only the call can generate a lot of phone calls ... I had my voice
phone published in a magazine as a BBS line; I had calls at all hours
of the day and night.

> would refuse to make such corrections?  If someone as a sick joke
> published your number in a BBS list, your recourse would be against
> the submitter and possibly the editor/publisher of the list; but not
> against the caller, and not under the law being discussed.   PAT]

Why not under the law? Its suppose to be assocated with non-human
callers?  My computer calls all day long with no humans around. About
the only part that doesnt fit is company, what consistues a company.
If I get a junk mail caller and have it randomly dialing from my home
phone I get around the law.

No arguing with the law, just that the TX as many other computer laws
are being made by people with no idea how the real world works.


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)   [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs  614-860-5965


[Moderator's Note: Why it would not apply to the human making the call
in the case of an innocent BBS user calling your number is because he
had some basis for making the call; namely a list of numbers which he
accepted in good faith and tried to use.  He is not in the habit of
making **random** calls with his computer to just any number.  He
makes calls to numbers that he believes he has been invited to call.
He anticipates that he is calling another modem/computer -- not that a
human being will answer.  What telemarketer begins with that premise?
Now where this new law would probably involve guys with modems calling
computers would be in the case of the crackers/phreaks who scan an
entire exchange looking for modems. *They* use non-human equipment to
scan entire prefixes, causing all the phones on the exchange to ring
as their computer dials them one after another. I'd like to see that
breed get slapped with the full force of this law.   PAT]

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

From: Peter Tindall <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:00:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US


> But unfortunately this service dissapeared and PC Pursuit is
> unavailable from Canada.  Does anyone know of a similar service that
> could be available from Canada or an internet service without per
> minute fees available from Canada?

I spoke to Sprintnet last month -- they indicated that PC Pursuit could
be available for Canada early in the new year.

> [Moderator's Note: A service called Canada DataPak has a gateway to
> Telenet/Sprintnet. I know nothing about the rates, but you could use
> it to connect to Telenet/Sprintnet then into the PC Pursuit service.
> I do not think the Canada DataPak rates would be all that expensive
> compared to DDD rates. You'd have to check it out with them.   PAT]

Datapac (correct spelling) -- is a much more expensive alternative
than Telenet/Sprintnet. Even so you cannot use it to connect to PC
Pursuit.

Here in Toronto, we have a local Sprintnet port, but because Sprint
has not (yet) sold PC Pursuit in Canada, we have been unable to use it.

(A discussion with a Sprint employee revealed that with a US billing
address -- there was no technical reason that PC Pursuit would not work
from within Canada (ports in Tor, Montreal and Vancouver)).


Regards,

Peter Tindall  Internet: [e-mail]
VE3TJP         Mississauga, Ontario
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


[Moderator's Note: Well excuse me, but both the literature from
Datapac and (the old) Telenet (I am reading something from 1985) say
that Datapac gateways into Telenet for 'various USA services including
Compuserve ...'.  Now-a-days (1992) I think the Compuserve network
does its own thing with Datapac ... am I wrong on this? Does the
gateway exist but PC Pursuit is specifically excluded from using it
(given the USA billing address, etc ...)? And doesn't Datapac run its
own outdial service in various cities in Canada something like PC
Pursuit, or more likely the business version of PCP which Sprintnet
offers?

Several years ago there was a bug in the Telenet network which allowed
calls to be made from this country to Canada Datapac network addresses
which were outdials. The same bug allowed PC Pursuit ID's to connect
all over the world using the (then) unlimited usage flat rate style
PCP accounts. For more information on this, see my 1988 article "Let
Your Fingers Do the Walking" in which I discussed some of the curious
international network connections achievable: some as mundane as
connecting to the British Telecom (data network's) Master Clock
service, the on-line terminal on the 'help desk' at the Hong Kong
Telephone Company (someone there would chat with you on line) and
something called 'Mercury' in Japan which would provide various tests
and test patterns, along with the time expressed in JST.  Telenet was
not happy with me for writing that article, but the bug disappeared
soon thereafter, as did the unlimited usage PCP accounts a couple
years later in lieu of the $30 for 30 hours deal they have now.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 01:01:38 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet or Dial Out Access From Canada to US


[e-mail] (Samy Touati) wrote:

> Some while back there was a service offered by Galaxy (in New Mexico)
> which consisted of offering dialout access through modems installed in
> major cities by BT TYMNET. Someone calls the local Tymnet number and
> then logs in to the modem in his city of choice; then dials the local
> number there.

> But unfortunately this service dissapeared and PC Pursuit is
> unavailable from Canada.  Does anyone know of a similar service that
> could be available from Canada or an internet service without per
> minute fees available from Canada?

I'm not sure why you think Tymnet's outdial service has gone away.  To
my knowledge BT Tymnet has outdial facilities in hundreds of US
cities.  Try calling BT Tymnet's customer service number (800)
336-0149.

> [Moderator's Note: A service called Canada DataPak has a gateway to
> Telenet/Sprintnet. I know nothing about the rates, but you could use
> it to connect to Telenet/Sprintnet then into the PC Pursuit service.
> I do not think the Canada DataPak rates would be all that expensive
> compared to DDD rates. You'd have to check it out with them.   PAT]

I assume 'Canada DataPak' refers to Datapac (which is the world's
oldest public X.25 network).  It indeed has gateways to Sprintnet and
BT Tymnet.  But BT Tymnet also has dial in access in several Canadian
cities, so it may not be necessary to put up with the speed and cost
penalties of a gateway.  Datapac also has outdial service in major
Canadian cities, but as they will not place outbound long distance
calls it will not get you to the US.


Tony Harminc


[Moderator's Note: He did not mean Tymnet's outdial service had gone
away. He meant a competitor of PC Pursuit (actually, someone brokering
a large quantity of Tymnet resources in competition to PCP, which is
'in-house' to Sprintnet ... the Galaxy thing was not part of Tymnet)
had gone out of business. Unlike PCP, Tymnet charges to use their
outdials, and it is not cheap; besides the network connection they
were charging for the outdial use -- I think it was telco plus ten
percent. And we all know that interstate LD rates overnight these days
are only about 11-13 cents per minute in the USA; any 'savings' as a
result of using Tymnet's outdials for a local call were dubious at
best.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #925
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08820;
          1 Jan 93 1:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24553
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:55:10 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11348
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:54:47 -0600
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:54:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #927

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Dec 92 22:54:30 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 927

Index To This Issue:                        Happy New Year to Everyone!

    Bell Canada Card Fraud Woes (Dave Leibold)
    Legality of City Ordinances Against Junk Calls? (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    A "Sound Mark" and What it Means to You (Paul Robinson)
    Hand-Held Signal Generator Ideas? (Rob Bailey)
    Caller*ID->RS-232 Schematics (Rob Bailey)
    Sprint 800 Residential (Ken Jongsma)
    About a Second Line in My Home (Ben Black)
    Panasonic KXT-123211 Software (Bill Petrisko)
    DID as Replacement for Caller ID? (Paul Robinson)
    Bell System Pension Class Action Suit Settled (John Adams)
    U.S. Telephone Billing Details and California (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Calling Card Collectors (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Multiple Modem Replacement (Simon Townsend)
    It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ... (Michael Starr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:27:17 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Bell Canada Card Fraud Woes


(Bell Canada recently distributed the following in its phone bills ...)

Protect Yourself Against Calling Card Fraud:

Twice in 1992, Bell Canada set temporary restrictions on Calling Card
[tm] calls placed from payphones within its territory. All calling
cards are affected -- those of Canadian, American and international
telephone companies. These temporary restrictions have been imposed in
order to protect the company and innocent customers from growing
calling card fraud.

What you can do:

Fraud, unfortunately, is everybody's problem. Calling Cards, like
credit cards, can be subject to abuse if not properly guarded. There
are a number of ways you can protect yourself againnst fraud:

+ NEVER give your Calling Card to anyone;

+ NEVER reveal your Calling Card number to anyone;

+ make sure no one is looking over your shoulder when you key in your
Calling Card number on a telephone;

+ make sure there's no one close enough to overhear you when you give
your card number verbally to an operator;

+ NEVER give your card number to someone who claims to be a phone
company representative unless you've called *them*;

How to make your calls:

Calling cards can no longer be used as a billing option when placing
long distance calls from payphones in Bell territory to certain
destinations:

+ locations in 809 area code(*) (as of October 30, 1992);

+ overseas (as of April 13, 1992) unless you call from a Millenium
payphone;

In spite of these restrictions, there are still a number of ways you
can place overseas or 809 calls from payphones:

+ use your American Express, Visa, Mastercard or EnRoute card in
Millenium phones (these are the "card swipe" phones);

+ place a person-to-person collect call;

+ bill your call to a validated third number in Canada or the United
States, or

+ place a cash call from a regular payphone.

For further information on Calling Cards, please refer to the terms
and conditions of use you received with your card, or call your local
business office.

(*) Includes Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British
Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada,
Jamaica, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia,
St Vincent and the Grenadines, Turks and Caicos Islands, Trinidad and
Tobago, U.S. Virgin Islands.


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


[Moderator's Note:  Well here we go again with the telcos claiming
that 'fraud is everyone's problem ... '  it is NOT everyone's problem;
it is telco's problem. They won't install the technology to eliminate
or help reduce fraud; it is simply easier to discriminate against
large numbers of citizens whose national origin is that of an affected
country. I must say Bell Canada seems to be more open about admitting
what they do; you'll never see AT&T ever put anything in writing about
their illegal and discriminatory practices. Of course I don't know the
law in Canada; maybe Bell Canada is breaking no laws by blocking calls
in this manner. AT&T needs to have the screws turned to them harder
than ever on this issue.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:16:48 EST
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence V Cipriani)
Subject: Legality of City Ordinances Against Junk Calls?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.



Some Ohio cities [e.g., Bedford] have ordinances against telephone
solicitations.  What is the legality of such an ordinance?  Does
federal or Ohio state law preempt this ordinance somehow and allow
telephone solictations in spite of city ordinances?  And what are the
jurisdictional issues?  So this small city has an ordinance; the
marketer is in another city, or even another state.  The solicitors
probably just shrug and go on to the next phone number.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, it is a lot like the soon-to-be and ex-cons
in the Chicago City Council passing an ordinance saying Chicago is a
'nuclear free zone ...'  .. about as stupid as they come. We can no
more keep bombs from landing here than Bedford, OH can keep people out
of their jurisdiction from ringing their telephones or citizens in CA
or PA can keep people out of state from seeing their phone numbers.
Maybe the Bedford authorities had nothing better to work on that day.  PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992  17:05:56 EST
Subject: A "Sound Mark" and What it Means to You


When some person or organization creates a word or phrase which they
use to identify their product or service, the U.S. Federal Government
will allow them generally to register that word or phrase if it is
used in interstate commerce.

As technology changes, so do ways of doing things.  The U.S. Patent
and Trademark office, for decades, has allowed those whose identifier
for a service which consists only of a {sound} to register it as a
mark.  Some famous registered sounds include a "roar of a lion" for
motion pictures, and the notes "g","e", and "c" struck on a xylophone
as a mark for radio broadcasts.  There are a few others.

And you can add another one: a "glissando" series of notes followed by
the spoken "AT&T" as a mark for telephone service.

For those interested in specifically using AT&T, {this} is the sound
to listen for.  Some places, I have read in this forum, pull all sorts
of stunts to hide that they are an alternate operator company.

There is a specific advantage.  This sound is federally registered.
If someone else "fakes" this sound, that constitutes servicemark
infringement against AT&T, but more importantly, it constitutes {wire
fraud} against someone who uses that system being deceived into
thinking they are using some other company than the actual provider.
As a result of this fraud, the customer could have the charge for the
call removed, or even sue them not only for the cost of the call, but
for punitive damages.

If you think this is overreacting, consider how these trademark owners
would react if a store chain took its own cola product and packed it
in cans marked "Coca-Cola" or "Pepsi".


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
These (uninformed) opinions are mine alone; no one
else is (stupid enough to be) responsible for them.

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

Date: 31 Dec 92 17:56:34 EST
From: Rob Bailey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hand-Held Signal Generator Ideas?


If you were going to build a hand-held audio signal generator for
radio and telecommunications use, what would you teach it to do?  I'm
going to build just such a box, and I'd like ideas for what it ought
to know how to do. I may be convinced to build more than one, so give
it your best shot.

I plan on building a small, hand-held, two-voice, microprocessor
controlled signal generator, and I've got a few ideas already:

Telecommunications related noise: dial-tone, CO ring-back, PABX
ring-back, busy, trunk-reorder, PABX error alarm, DTMF, and MF.

Radio related sounds: Tone PL, Digital PL, two-tone sequential paging,
5/6 paging, morse code, arbitrary sweep, and a few arbitrary
(programmable) continuous or pulsed tones.

Any ideas?


Rob Bailey ([e-mail] or 304.925.2721)

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

Date: 31 Dec 92 18:01:09 EST
From: Rob Bailey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID->RS-232 Schematics


If you didn't get your Caller*ID->RS-232 schematics and you sent me an
SASE, don't despair. I've been away on business and I will reply to
what I have left next week. My company will also be making a small
Caller*ID->RS-232 interface early next year for a pretty reasonable
price, along with some nice software; if you can wait, I'll post more
when we get close to release.

I received several green-stamps from people, which I will be
returning.  If you sent me anything but an SASE, you will get it back.
(Thanks for the thought, but I'm not in this for the $$.)


 ...de Rob WM8S ([e-mail] or 304.925.2721)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Sprint 800 Residential
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:20:30 -0500 (EST)


About a month ago, a Sprint rep called and asked if I wanted to try
Sprint's Residential 800 service (I currently have Sprint as my PIC).
They offered to waive the installation charge as well as the monthly
service charge for the first six months. I travel frequently and
thought it might be interesting to see how well it works.

After one month, I have mixed feelings about it. On the positive side:

 - It's a "real" 800 number, with no PIN required. Sprint
   translates it to my home phone.
 - The rate is reasonable, .25 per minute, 24 hours a day,
   with no per call setup charge, from anywhere in the US.
 - My USAA group discount applies.
 - The calling number shows up on the bill (ANI).

On the negative side:

 - It's billed separately from my other Sprint services. I called
   to ask if it could be combined, but apparently it's being handled
   by a different billing center and they can't combine at this time.

 - Of the five calls on my first statement, two were mine, made locally
   to "try out" the number. One was originated by Sprint, apparently
   as a test. (I called the number back and was connected to a
   customer service rep who was very confused. Apparently using her
   "direct" number doesn't setup up her computer screen.) Two were
   plain "wrong numbers."

I'm confused about the monthly service charge. I thought the rep said
it was $5 a month, but my first bill shows $1 (with a corresponding
credit.)

I'll give it the full six months, but I'm concerned about the number
of wrong numbers. It could be more trouble than it's worth.


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

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

Date: 31 Dec 92 14:40:20 EST
From: Ben Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: About a Second Line in My Home


I've ordered a second line in my home for computer use. There is
standard four wire cable in the wall (red/green/yellow/black.)

Can I use the unused pair (yellow/black) for the second line, saving
me the trouble of running a new pair all the way to the network
interface?


Thanks,

Ben Black             [phone] home   MciMail 541-3160
2734 Penn Meade Drive [phone] fax    CI$ 76672,2564
Nashville, TN 37214  USA       Internet [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes you can, provided it is connected all the way
back to the interface, and provided all the connection boxes in your
home are wired in the standard way. If you are using single line
phones in your home, at the connection boxes where you want the second
phone to be, disconnect the red/green spade lugs from the screws in
the box, tighten the screws back up, then put the red/green spade
lugs where you see the yellow/black ones (removing them in the
process). Now your single line phone, which traditionally expects the
red/green pair to be fed to it will be getting yellow/black up to that
point and via the cross-over you just made, what it expects into the
phone itself.  *Be certain* nothing else is connected to the yellow/
black anywhere, such as a transformer for Princess phone, any other
gadgetry for a previously used intercom, etc.   PAT]

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

Subject: Panasonic KXT-123211 Software
From: [e-mail] (William Petrisko)
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:40:04 MST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson


We recently purchased a Panasonic KXT-1232-11D hybrid key telephone
system.  One feature that attracted us to it was the availablity to
program it over the RS-232 port.  This, however, leaves A LOT to be
desired ... infact, it seems it is actually easier to program from a
display set, because it actually tells you what you are programming
instead of having to use the program book to reference the cryptic
codes.  Does anyone know of PC software available as a front-end to
programming the Panasonic phone system?

Also (just an annoyance factor) when dialing, it seems that the
touchtone echo is *delayed* until you get to the third or fourth
digit.  So one starts dialing (moderately fast paced) and about the
fourth digit in, digits one to four quickly echo back, which really
throws you off if you are used to hearing ONE digit echoed IMMEDIATELY
after each button pressed.  Anyone have a clue about this?  (ie: is
there a programming feature OR something that will either fix/turn it
off?)


Thanks,

bill petrisko                 [e-mail]
aka n7lwo   ...!uunet!4gen!warlok!gargle!omnisec!thumper!bill

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992  06:04:54 EST
Subject: DID as Replacement For Caller ID?


In TELECOM Digest 12-924, John Higdon <[e-mail]> says:

> I have an interesting workaround to the lack of Caller-ID.  It is
> called DID ... you have installed one or more DID trunks and buy 100
> or 200 ... telephone numbers ... obtain a switch capable of DID with
> the additional ability to display the called-number ... I may call my
> rep tomorrow and order DID ... at least for people with sufficient
> means.

VERY sufficient means.  Care to inform us how much Pacific Bell
charges for this service, John?  It's {not} going to be cheap.  I'll
give you an example which I researched for the Washington, DC area and
Maryland suburbs.

For the "switch" you'd probably need something akin to one of
Panasonic's small business PBX which sells for about $1000 if I
remember (unless you can purchase a single line DID-trunk capable
telephone for less, or you might know enough to build your own; if you
put a protective coupler on the phone line at the demarc, the
equipment doesn't even need FCC approval.)

The phone lines aren't too bad; here in Maryland the rate for an
incoming DID trunk (minimum you have to order: 1) is $20 or so.
Outgoing trunk is about the same.  (You might be able to order two-way
trunks, I didn't really investigate it that closely.)

Phone numbers are reasonable in Maryland: in DC and Virginia, C&P Tel
charges $1 per number; they are 20c each in MD.  So 200 numbers would
cost $40.

So for say four lines and 200 phone numbers, the cost would be about
$100 a month.  Not too bad, but you still have to pay for OUTGOING
trunks.  Now we are at about $200 a month.  (Unless you just buy one
and one, in which case we have $80.)

But here's the kicker; the phone company installation charge for phone
numbers for DID lines is $1 apiece after the first 20 lines.  The
installation charge for the first 20 lines is $750.00.  Very
expensive.

Therefore the installation cost if you have, say, two lines each way,
is going to be about $3,000 then about $120 a month.  But you'd have
200 phone numbers.  And you could even have some of the numbers do
things like give your own recording without supervision, i.e. "We're
sorry, but the number you have dialed is not available to stupidos
like you.  Hang up and dial the correct number.  This is a recording
..."  "The call you have made requires a twenty-dollar coin deposit.
Please hang up, insert twenty-dollars in coin, and try your call again ..."

It's still *very* expensive except for people who have the kind of
money that they are willing to spend upwards of three grand to put PBX
capability in their multi-million dollar houses.  Which I wouldn't be
surprised since one advantage in such a case is that *every* room can
have a dedicated telephone number which can be dialed from outside.
And, their calls can follow them onto their cellular phone, and so on ...


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
These opinions are mine alone

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

From: [e-mail] (adams,john)
Subject: Bell System Pension Class Action Suit Settled
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:07:05 GMT


Thanks to my friend and colleague, Rob Ziemba, for bringing the
following to my attention which may be of interest to the c.d.t.
community.

In the December 14th issue of {Telephony Magazine}, an article reports
that the class action suit brought against AT&T and the Regional
Holding Companies has been settled in favor of the employees.  Quoting
a specific section of the article:

"... Attorneys in the class action suit announced last week that they
have reached an out-of-court settlement with AT&T and the Bell
regional holding companies.  Under terms of the settlement, employees
who moved from one former Bell System company to another after January
1, 1985 - usually leaving AT&T to work for the RHCs - and were
improperly denied portability rights to their pension will receive
cash awards to cover the lost benefits ..."

More details are supplied in the article.


Jack (John) Adams       Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
[phone] {Voice}       [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:24:25 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: U.S. Telephone Billing Details and California


I have the impression that there's some tariff/law/tradition in the
U.S. that whoever plays for the phone call is entitled to a detailed
record of the call.

AT&T, NY Tel, NJ Bell (among others) take this to mean that I as a
subscriber get a bill listing call duration, city/state and number
called (except for local calls).  ITT/Metromedia's calling card
doesn't list the number.  I thought this was the reason that the owner
of the 800 number gets a list of all callers, since they're paying the
bill.

Is this true?  Is there a tariff or law specifying the detailing of US
phone bills?

Ok, now what if a Californian uses return call (where Caller-ID was
recently rejected by the PUC).  Will the returned call show on the
phone bill with the city/state/number (as long as it's not local)?
Or will part of the identity be masked?

        ex:     Oakland, CA [phone]
            or  Oakland, CA (415) 795-81xx
            or  Oakland, CA (415) 795-xxxx
            or  Oakland, CA (415) *private

Will only California numbers be blocked, or those that are "private",
or all numbers?  Are "private" numbers passed as ANI to 800 numbers?
If so, then they should be passed to me with return call by the same
argument that I'm paying for the call.

The one time I tried "return call" in NJ, I recall seeing the $.75
surcharge but the call itself was probably local.

TELECOM readers have already mentioned that:

- in some states, the "return call" reads back the number before dialing
        (a clever way to use Caller-ID with no premisis equipment and
        probably without subscribing either.)
- using "add last call to call block" and reading back the call block
  list won't work - the number is reported as 'private'.

PS: [phone] is the number for Logitech Tech Support, used for
example only.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If 'Return Last Call' causes a toll billing, then
yes, you would see the number. But this is mostly a moot point since
the amount of SS-7 connectivity between toll points is still very
limited. 99.999 percent of the time, you can't 'return last call' to a
place outside your LATA at present (or frequently outside a couple
nearby CO's), so it is doubtful you would learn the number that way.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:22:15 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Calling Card Collectors


I took the Staten Island Ferry to work today and spotted strange
phones in the ferry terminal in Staten Island.  Large square yellow
metal boxes with a card slot.  They take a N.Y.Telephone debit card.
There was no information on how to buy one, and no vending machine in
sight.  The illustration showed a card with a strip with a guage
showing up to $2.50 credit.  My guess is that the card is punched or
marked as the credit is consumed.

Since I've moved several times the past three years (NJ-NY-NJ), I have
a fair collection of calling cards (NJ Bell, NJ Bell, AT&T, MCI,
Sprint, ITT).  Just how many can one have legally running at once?


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You can have as many as you like and the telcos
will give you.  Just don't try to call Israel or Puerto Rico via AT&T
with an AT&T/Bell card. After all, as the AT&T operator explained to
me 'Israel does not accept our calling card ...' I tried to keep from
smirking when I heard that, but I guess it didn't matter, the poor
dear couldn't see me anyway.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:25:01 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Simon Townsend)
Subject: Multiple Modem Replacement


What we currently have is quite a few sites doing this:
                          ______
         _________                              __|____  |
   ----------|           |--------[modem]-----|      | | Sun 690
             |        |                      | Async| |
   ----------| Call   |--------[modem]-----|  io  | | VME or
         |        |               | cards| | SBus
   ----------| Dist   |--------[modem]-----|      | |
        .    |        | .           |      | |
  PSTN  .    | Equip  |    .           |      | |
        .    |        |    .           |      | |
   ----------|           |--------[modem]-----|      | |
             |        |               |      | |
   ----------|           |--------[modem]-----|      |_|
             |________|               |______|
                            upto (say) V32bis

i.e., Multiple PSTN lines coming into a call distributor (same PSTN
number), which chooses a free modem which is connected to an asynch
card in the sun, where we can finally start looking at whats coming in
 ... messy.

So, I understand that something like the following may be available:

                   _________
                   |        |
                      | DSPs   |   Sun 690
    Exchange           |  &     |   VME or
   --------------------------------| Analog |   SBus
    E1 (T1) line or equiv       |        |
    ((PRI))               |  Stuff |
                   |________|


Anybody got any ideas or preferebly experience on this sort of thing?

Or, could I have a Primary rate ISDN line from the exchange, with the
PTT doing the V32bis etc conversion to digital ... ideas?

PS, I'm in Belgium, so approvals, etc are the next question if anyone
has detailed knowledge ...


Thanks,

Simon Townsend.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Dec 31 15:35:20 EST 1992
Subject: It's Not a Bug, it's a Feature ...


This past Christmas my sister gave my 13 year old son an AM radio kit.
One of the interesting things I discovered was that my son had never
heard of AM radio.

This brought back many memories of when I was his age, and how I
probably spent as much time with my transister AM radio as he does
with his video games.  I would spend many of a late evening hour
attempting to "DX" from my Baltimore home, with my best bets being New
Orleans and Toronto (an international DX!).  Occasionally, when I
travel home late at night, I'll still hunt around the AM dial on my
car radio and try to pick up distant cities.

Another memory is of the radio that was in my father's car in the
early '60s.  It was a tube job, and when you first turned it on, the
oscillator would hum loudly, and there would be a wait as the tubes
warmed up.  As the tubes hit operating tempature, the sound would
slowly increase until it inevitably become too loud.  And of course,
as we travelled, we would loose the signal everytime we went under a
bridge.

Included in my son's AM kit was a booklet of the "A-Zs of radio
communications".  My son was reading this, when he came to me
excitedly to show me the chapter on static.  His reaction was "Wow,
look what you can do with this!"  To paraphrase, the book stated that
AM radio can detect lightning storms well before they hit your area,
and if you want to know if a lightning storm is headed your way, turn
on your AM radio.

Gee, when I was growing up, I considered this feature an annoyance.


Michael Starr   [e-mail]   att!hriso!starr   attmail!starr


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for a great story to close this issue, and
Happy New Year to you  ... and all readers!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #927
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11237;
          1 Jan 93 2:04 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19596
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:00:58 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00142
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:00:35 -0600
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:00:35 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #928

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Dec 92 23:59:50 CST    Volume 12 : Issue 928

Index To This Issue:                        Happy New Year to Everyone!

    SNET Rate Request (Jerry Leichter)
    The Recent East Coast Storm (Jeffrey Jonas)
    A Good Telephone Company (David Esan)
    Information Needed on Toshiba Key System (Steve L. Rhoades)
    Public Phone 2000: The Bill (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Good Opportunity For Fraud (Gordon Hlavenka)
    Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes (Halim S. Say)
    800 Numbers and Live ANI Advice Sought (Gregory Youngblood)
    TDD: Possible on Mac With Mike? (Dan Ross)
    New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works) (Richard Nash)
    What Are the 'Prefix Codes' for Tone Dialing? (Mike Arena)
    EasyLink and Internet? (Donald R. Newcomb)
    PRO-34 Wanted (Bill Huttig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 10:53:36 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET Rate Request


SNET, which serves most of Connecticut (and little bits of New York -
some of the LATA lines here don't match the state borders) has filed
for a new rate plan with "$160 million in new telephone rates
[whatever that means] to be phased in over three years".  The most
interesting part of the new rates is that they actually ENCOURAGE flat
rate calling.

Currently, phone rates are based on three dimensions:

- Exchange class I-III (depending on the size of the exchange).
    Class II is about 10% more expensive than Class I; Class III
    about 10% more than that.

- Residence or Business line.  Business line rates are almost exactly
    three times the corresponding residence rates.

- Flat rate, message rate (30/90 free calls (residential/business),
    then 12 cents/call), or Select-a-Call (measured:  1-2 cents
    per minute after an initial 3-5 cents, depending on distance).
    Select-a-Call has a fixed rate independent of exchange class.

Under the new scheme, we have:

- Exchange classes I-V, and some of the inter-class differences are
    larger (up to 20%).  (The difference between the smallest and
    largest class was about 30%; it's now about 60%.)

- Residence, Business, or a new Home Business category.  Business
    base rates are uniformally double the corresponding Residence
    rates.  Home Business rates are uniformally 1.5 times the
    Residence rates.

- Message rate disappears.  Select-a-call becomes "per call" (should
    really be called "measured") and is now uniformally 5 cents
    per minute, within the Extended Calling Area.  Flat rate
    splits into two possibilities:  Home Calling Area or Extended
    Calling Area.  The difference is in the number of exchanges
    included in the flat rate.  If you have HCA, calls to the
    Extended area are the same 5 cents/minute as for "per call"
    service.  Only ECA rates vary with exchange class.

    Home Business lines MUST have HCA service.

Needless to say, overall rates are up.  To take my home town of
Stamford (in exchange class II) as an example, current residence rates
are: Flat $11.19, Message $7.59, and Select-a-Call $6.00.  New rates
(now exchange class III) will be: HCA $15.00, ECA $25.65, and Per Call
$10.00.

It's unclear how the current Flat Rate area (which generally includes
your own town and physically adjacent ones) compares to the new HCA's
and ECA's, though SNET claims that for "most customers" the new ECA is
larger than the current Flat Rate area.

It looks as if ECA is the service SNET will try to get most customers
to take.  It's the most expensive base rate -- but it's also a flat
rate service.  For people who want to save money, the $5 difference
between Per Call and HCA is rarely going to make much difference --
with a break-even point of 100 minutes of even local calls per month,
it's not a very good deal in most cases.

The Home Business classification is an interesting innovation.  It
entitles you to a business white pages and DA listing, and you can buy
a Yellow Pages listing.  (Business service includes a free YP
listing.)

In the past, it's been officially impossible for different lines at
the same address to have different classes of service.  (In practice,
SNET *asks* you if you have another line, and what its class of
service is; they never seem to check what you tell them.)  It'll be
interesting to see whether they will allow you to mix Residence with
Home Business lines.  If not, the Home Business lines may be much less
attractive.

Intra-state LD also sees major changes.  SNET wants a uniform 22
cent/minute rate anywhere in the state.  (There are steep after-hours
discounts.)  This is a decrease for most longer calls, but a
significant increase for some shorter ones.  My table of phone rates
of some nearby towns (about a 50 mile radius) ranges from 10 to 25
cents/minute.  It's not clear which of these might be included in the
new ECA; the only one I'd bet on is the 10 cent/minute one.  (This one
will hit me, since my most common intra-state call is to Danbury,
about 35 miles and several towns away.  Calls there are currently 32
cents plus 18 cents/minute.)

Various charges like line connections go up ($35.73 to $45.00 for
residence, for example).  Centrex lines go up by up to almost 50%.
Pay phones go from a flat ten cents to 25 cents for five minutes plus
five cents for an additional three, a major increase.  One of my
favorites, non-listed phone number (note: NOT non-published;
non-listed IS available from DA, they just have to leave it off the
yearly list they send to the printers) goes from $1.00/month to
$2.00/month.  I'd love to see the salaries for the people who must go
through and pull the non-listed numbers out by hand; nothing else can
justify that kind of charge.  (Before you say, well, non-listed
numbers generate more DA calls: DA calls go from 24 to 40 cents, plus
they go from first 5/3 free for residence/business to 3/0 free.)

These are all proposals to the DPUC.  I don't recall the local DPUC
being particularly active around here, so I expect this stuff to go
through pretty much as it stands.


Jerry

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 13:53:28 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: The Recent East Coast Storm


I was just cleaning my desk (a yearly event) and I found the long
detailed TELECOM Digest reports of the Chicago flood.

Am I correct that I haven't seen even a peep in the TELECOM Digest
about the large storm that NY/NJ suffered a few weeks ago?  Although
the stock exchanges and major switching equipment is not near the
shore, in Manhattan "Water Street" lived up to its name with flooding
reaching four feet at the South Street Seaport.  Several bank
buildings (such as Chemical Bank) were severely flooded and mobile
banks of phones were in the streets a few days later.  Most of the
underground train service was out of service that day (the PATH trains
that cross from NY-NJ under the Hudson were hartest hit, losing the
Hoboken terminal for about a week).  LaGuardia Airport was shut down
for several days.  All trains were severely delayed.  And there's
nobody to blame!

I guess the most major telecom aspest of the storm was people like me
getting cabin fever after staying indoors for three days and starting
to call friends and relatives to relieve the boredom.

I wonder if John Higdon tried calling anybody in NY/NJ during the
storm emergency just to gripe about the AT&T call choking.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are correct. Not a word was mentioned here. I
did not see it personally, and no one bothered to write about it. :(
Thanks for bringing it up.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: A Good Telephone Company
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:35:54 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


I recently prepared to move, and was quite worried about all the
problems that could occur with my telephone: crossed lines, exorbitant
fees, phones shut off early, or turned on late, etc, etc, etc.

I want to report a very good experience.  I am served (the appropriate
verb) by Rochester Telephone, one of the largest independents in the
country.  Due to a whole slew of legal problems I was not able to tell
them of the move until two days before it happened.  I was able to
keep my number.

On the morning of the move my old line was dead by 7:30 am.  My new
line was activated.  There were no spurious messages, no interference
(well some, but that was poorly installed receptacles, which I
promptly fixed).  The bill just arrived.  Not a $45 charge for
punching in some numbers in a computer, but $3.84 for line switching.
Not a bad price considering overhead to the small work they had to do.

Just mark me up a happy Rochester Telephone customer.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve L. Rhoades)
Subject: Info Needed on Toshiba Key System
Date: 31 Dec 1992 01:37:47 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


I recently became the proud (?) owner of a Toshiba Key Telephone
system with the following components:

HKSU701 is the model on the KSU.  By looking at the unit, it appears
to be capable of handling six CO lines and sixteen stations.

I also have nine Toshiba stations, model EKT6010-H.

Does anyone have an idea of what the market value of this equipment
is?  Anyone want to buy it?

Replies via Email, please.


Steve L. Rhoades            | Voice: [phone]
Post Office Box 1000        |
Mt. Wilson, Calif 91023     | Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Public Phone 2000: The Bill
From: [e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:37:01 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


I finally got my bill for those Public Phone 2000 data calls I made
back in September.  As many people pointed out, the bill came from
AT&T Services.  It was mailed on a Jacksonville, FL permit, but I'm
supposed to send my payment to an Atlanta, GA address.

The bill is split into items for keyboard rental and the actual call.
I guess I misunderstood the instructions, as I expected a single item
for each call.  That'll teach me to read ... :-)

One really unusual point: The 'Location' entry for the keyboard usage
charge is given as Los Angeles, but the location for the phone call
charge is given as Inglewood, CA.  Both entries carry the same phone
number for the originating phone.

BTW, I've found the Minneapolis installations.  One is in a corner of
MSP airport that I'd never visited.  The other is downtown, in the
Hyatt Hotel.  That one is usually out of order, and when it isn't, it
tells me my card number is invalid when I punch it in.  As far as I
can tell, none of these phones will take a regional calling card in
the swipe reader, except for Southwestern Bell cards.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (gordon hlavenka)
Subject: Good Opportunity For Fraud
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:46:00 GMT


I've been working on a credit card / phone project, and discovered
something that is probably known to many but was news to me: My PIN is
_on_ my calling card!  Recorded on Track 2, offset 23 characters after
the SS.  In the clear.

The card is an Illinois Bell "America's Calling Card" (the blue one
with clouds all over it).

The hardware to read this info can be bought for under $200 and is
trivially simple to use.  Someone only needs access to my card for a
few seconds to start ripping me off.

I suppose it could be argued that validating PINs on-line is a
difficult task, but on the other hand my ATM card works in London and
if the PIN is recorded on this card it's encrypted ...


Gordon S. Hlavenka   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (say,halim s)
Subject: Format of ZIP Code Bars on Envelopes
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:39:08 GMT


Hi there,

I would like to find out the encoding for the ZIP code bars on USPS
mail envelopes.

I could figure out this much:

Ones are long bars, zeros are short bars.  Start and end with a one.
Each digit has five characters.  I could figure out what zero through
nine correspond to.

The only remaining part is the check digit at the end.  Only one check
digit is used both for five digit regular ZIP code and nine digit
extended code.

Now my question is: What is the encoding/decoding rule for this single
check digit?

Does anyone know or could you tell me a reference for this "standard"?
I am sure some address generator software would have this algorithm.

Thanks and my best wishes for a Happy New Year!


SABiT   [e-mail]

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

Subject: 800 Numbers and Live ANI Advice Sought
From: tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:52:50 CST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services


There was a bit about 800 numbers and live ANI and certain equipment
that could be used to read it.

Now my boss wants it, and I dont have any idea where to go or what to
ask.

If anyone is willing to help me out I'd really appreciate it.  Who
offers the services like this, and what does it cost?  Who do I call
and what do I ask for to get it?

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth, but I hope someone can help me out.


Thanks,

Greg
TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                 ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta


[Moderator's Note: All the big carriers offering 800 service are in a
position to send it to you in real time ... for a price. It is not
nearly as inexpensive as the delayed reporting you get with the bill
each month, but if your business depends on fast retrieval of customer
records and responding to same, then getting ANI in real time is the
way to go. Ask any business consultant at the Big Three (AT&T, Sprint
or MCI) who sells 800 service for details.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Ross)
Subject: TDD: Possible on Mac With Mike?
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:25:26 GMT


Does anyone know/have experience with implementing TDD on a Apple
Macintosh with a microphone?  (This means the sound generating
hardware (speaker) and input hardware (microphone, a-to-d/whatever)
are already there.)  It seems like one could use just software to
decode the incoming signals (or to generate outgoing signals).  The
physical connection to the phone line might be a problem, but since
it's a carrierless protocol, one could just take a phone off the hook
and dial manually, then line up the speaker and microphone with the
handset.

There IS computer software to decode RTTY and FAX transmissions on
shortwave -- is there anything special about TDD that would make this
impossible?  It seems perfect (for Mac users, at least) since regular
modems can't do TDD and TDD modems are relatively expensive.

I wouldn't know how to program the frequency recognition part -- does
anyone know of any good books or references on this?

Also, is there a standard reference for TDD protocols?  (I've heard
there's no standard-standard, like V.22 etc., but does just a "most
common usage" description exist?)


Dan Ross   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:16:27 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: New Call Feature (was Sad to Say, Telemarketing Works)


[e-mail] (J. Robert Burgoyne) writes;

 ... much stuff deleted ... but this comment I take particular
exception to:

> If you don't like outbound automated calls, do something about it. As
> my Dad says, there is no law which says that you must pick up your
> phone when it rings.

So if no one answers the phone when it rings, why bother with a phone?
Certianly when *you* call someone, you expect that the called party
will answer the call if available?  Sorry, but telemarketeers are a
virus that require radical steps to rid ourselves of them.

My proposal is that all telemarketeers are required by law to identify
their intent to the called party's CO which would determine if the
called party wishes to receive solicitation.  If not, the call is
automatically rejected and a fitting 'slime off' recording is played
out to the marketeer.  Any telemarketeer not identifying correctly
could be easily identified with the Call Trace feature that would dump
the incoming call memory of the called party to the telco's
surveillance equipment and would be used for prosecution of the
telemarketeer.  The usual penalties of fines and terms of imprisonment
would be suitable to address persistant offenders.  Of course, various
classifications of telemarketeers may be necessary.

     i- charity (Salvation Army)
    ii- community league (Brownie cookies)
   iii- business promotions (Joes Pizza and Bar giving free pizza)
    iv- resort property sales (Banff Springs Condos)
    iv- outright scams (you have won one million dollars, give us your
        bank account number so that we cann deposit it)
    etc...

The classification granted to a marketeer (other than scams) could
require at least two years of hearings for each submission and a very
short term of license (sp?).  Bonafide charities would receive
government assistance getting the approval.

Just as there are databases for calling cards, 800 numbers and the
like, a mandatory national database could be assembled that would
reflect the wishes of individual POTS lines.  The telemarketeers would
be required to subscribe to this service and pay fees to perpetuate
this database service.

> A free market capitalist to the core, I am,

And I will run the database capitalizing on the telemarketeers.:) :) :)

Seriously, what do fellow telecom readers think?  Is the proposal at
all workable?  Would it create more headaches rather than solve the
problem?  As it is much simpler for industry to first provide a
solution, rather than be legislated into forcibly producing one, is
anyone out there in a position to talk to the equipment vendors to
provide this feature as an enhancement to the Call Management
Features? Hello AT&T, BNR and GTE?


Richard Nash  Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:      [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:34:53 -0500
From: Mike Arena <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Are the Prefix "Codes" For Tone Dialing?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Arena)
Organization: Credit Technologies Inc.


I have heard that there are codes with which you can precede dial
strings so that you can disable call-waiting, etc.

What are these codes?  Are they carrier dependent?


Michael James Arena    Credit Technologies Inc.
[e-mail]    281 Winter Street, Suite #100
[phone] x237    Waltham, MA  02154


[Moderator's Note: Features like call-waiting and number blocking are
local telco things and have nothing to do with long distance carriers.
Since we (mostly) cannot choose local carriers yet, the codes are not
'carrier dependent'. The ones I know of are:

*70 suspend call waiting for the duration of the call which follows.
If you have three-way calling, you can flash and insert this in the
middle of an incoming call as well, automatically returning to the
call in progress.

*67 block (or unblock, in other words, change the default) of number
identification (blocking) sent to the number being called. If you wish
to use *67 and *70 on the same call, you can do so; I suggest using
the *67 FIRST, since in some generics it is ignored if it is not the
very first thing you dial; Lord knows you could probably deal with a
call waiting tone you did not expect with more ease than you could
giving away your number to someone you did not think you were giving
it to.

*72 followed by seven or ten digits forwards calls to the number
dialed.   *73 standing alone (dial it, then disconnect) cancels call
forwarding.

There are others:

*69 return last call -received- .   *66 repeat dial last call -placed-.
*86 or *89 erases the queue of returns/repeats. (Either code cancels both.)
*60 activate call screening
*80 deactivate call screening
*65 turn on delivery of caller id (if you are subscribed)
*85 turn off delivery of caller id (why would anyone want to do this?)
*74 plus seven or ten digits programs eight number speed dialing.
*75 plus seven or ten digits programs 32 number speed dialing.

There are still others; the above are the most common. In most places,
an eleven, i.e. '11' can be substituted for the *. In other places,
they don't use the *, but they put a # after the two digits. In some
places, silence is the delimiter; you can dial 70 and then just sit
there waiting; after a few seconds you'll get the burps and a fresh
dial tone to continue with the string.

Finally, the # acts as a carriage return; if short cut dialing is
possible but many be ambiguous, adding # to the end hastens the
process of sending the call on its way, i.e. international dialing of
variable length numbers and using just the calling card PIN when
calling the number to which the card is assigned. Ditto, 0# tends to
get the operator faster without having to wait for the zero plus
process to time out.    Is that good enough for starters?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Donald R. Newcomb)
Subject: EasyLink and Internet?
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Thu 31 Dec 1992 15:18:02 GMT


I have long understood that sending email between EasyLink and
Internet was out of the question. Recently, however, an associate sent
me an EasyLink x.400 envelope wrapped up in slashes "/" and referenced
to "@attmail.com". When I tried to send to that address, I got a
bounced mail message to the effect that the ADMD "western_union" was
not available.

Can anyone tell me there has been a change of policy at EasyLink re.
Internet mail? Can we send to EasyLink? If so, what is the proper
set-up for the address envelope? Can they send to us? What does the
address look like?


Thank you.

Donald R. Newcomb  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:43:54 -0500
From: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Subject: PRO-34 Wanted


I can't find any Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanners left around here ... if
any one can find one for me I would be gald to pay the $39 + shipping
+ misc to receive one.


Bill Huttig


[Moderator's Note: I paid $300-something for mine over two years ago.
I get sick every time I hear the $39 price for the few remaining
models. I'll bet you'd like to buy mine!  The hell you say!  :)  I
love it.

With this message, we end Volume 12 of the Digest. We had 928 issues.
At this time, there will follow some special issues, mainly for the
benefit of our Usenet comp.dcom.telecom readers including an up to
date index of the Telecom Archives, a copy of the Telecom FAQ file,
and a special issue devoted exclusively to recent replies in the
latest spate of Caller-ID pro/con messages. I expect most of you will
junk that one unread .. :)  I would too if I did not work here.

When I return, we'll start the new year with Volume 13. An index to
the authors and subjects in Volume 12 will be available in the next
day or so.  Until then, its been fun!  Have a Happy New Year!

That's all folks!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V12 #928
******************************