Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1993.volume.13/vol13.iss101-150

Internet Message Format | 1993-03-03 | 1.0 MB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14839;
          16 Feb 93 6:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00591
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:55:42 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19485
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:54:35 -0600
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:54:35 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #101

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Feb 93 03:54:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 101

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Richard Nash)
    Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Steve Forrette)
    Any Experience With Prometheus Home Office Modems? (Chris Norley)
    Loops and ANI in (206) NPA (Ken Hoffmann)
    Cellular Phone Questions (Don Wegeng)
    Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Mark Ferris)
    Tone Decoding (Lance Neustaeter)
    E1 Lines - What Are They? (Danny Bielik)
    Third Party Network Connectivity (Ron Beach)
    Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service (Richard Osterberg)
    Using AT&T's Switch on 800/321-0ATT (Paul Robinson)
    Cellular Switching Question ([e-mail])
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Richard Nash)
    Re: Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why? (Richard Nash)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 07:56:37 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks


[e-mail] writes:

> Our University has a DMS of some kind.  Dialing 91072 gets you an
> intercept recording that states, "The number you have reached,
> 107-0000, has been changed.  The new number is 000-0000."


This announcement is most likely not directed from the DMS but rather
the Intercept System (AIS) that the intercepted number (107-0000) is
going to.  In the AIS database, the number is probably referenced to a
default status code and new number. When the number was placed on
intercept, either one of two things happened.  The number was placed
on operator intercept route, but the AIS database not updated to
reflect correct status, or the number should not have been placed on
operator intercept but rather a local mechanical treatment such as
"the number you have dialed is not on service".  The service order
clerk probably just goofed.


Richard Nash   Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:       [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 10:58:03 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls
> on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you
> should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only.
> Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all.   PAT]

Except if you live in the technological backwaters of Pacific Bell,
which offers no such service.  Nor do they offer other services
commonly available elsewhere, such as distinctive ringing.  Maybe they
will start doing so with their recently-announced modernization
commitment.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 12:53:18 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Any Experience With Prometheus Home Office Modems?


I am interested in getting a multi-capability modem for my mac at
home.  The Prometheus Home Office mMdems appear to do everything that
I would like/need. does anyone have any experience with these modems
or know of a viable alternative?

I would like the modem to be able to take voice messages or switch to
fax/modem as appropriate. Any information about this would be
appreciated!


chris norley    [e-mail]   or    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Hoffmann)
Subject: Loops and ANI in (206) NPA
Organization: Pacifier BBS
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:39:49 GMT


Hello, all.  I am looking for a list of loops and "ANI Numbers",
numbers that you call or dial in, and it will return the calling
number.

Also as for the Digest compiling stuff like this, I agree with PAT.
It'd be very difficult to keep current, but it IS possible.  Maybe if
we had some people from the local BellCo giving us a hand? :)


Thanks,

Ken


[Moderator's Note: Let's everyone try hard to laugh at Ken's little
joke about people from telco 'giving us a hand' in compiling 'hear
your number' codes. Uh, it was a joke, right Ken?  Here is my very own
submission for comp.dcom.telecom.humor.funny for today: Maybe the
telcos would standardize the number nationally, and ask TELECOM Digest
along with {2600} and other fine e-journals for the trade to assist in
publicizing it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Wegeng)
Subject: Cellular Phone Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 19:24:38 GMT


I recently bought a handheld cellular phone for personal use.  After
some playing and reading, I now have some questions.

Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A
channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area.  GenTel is affiliated
with Cellular One, NACN, and RA (but not FMR).

1. The phone is currently programmed to roam only with A carriers.
This probably makes sense for when I'm close to home, but I'm not so
sure about whether I should change this when I take the phone out of
the area.  It probably makes sense to compare roaming rates for the
cities where I'll be travelling, and program the phone to use the
cheaper one.  If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from
a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers.  Is my
reasoning correct?

2. The salesperson where I bought the phone suggested that I also
purchase a magnetic mount 3dB gain external antenna, for use when I'm
outside of the city limits (I have friends who live in the country,
but within the GenTel service area).  My EE background tells me that
an external antenna will probably help, but will the 3dB gain make a
significant difference (I realize that 3dB equals 2X). I didn't buy
the antenna, since I wanted to see how the phone performed without it
first (I haven't had time to try it yet).

Any other advice, tips, recommended accessories or recommended reading
will be appreciated.


Thanks,

Don   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own
kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree
to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one
(but not both) in a location. This happens now and then, but generally
you are wise to stick with the side you are on at home when you roam.
You may think their terms are outrageous, but wait until you see what
the other side will stick you with if you are not affiliated with one
of their sisters. Depending on the metropolitan area, some are so
saturated with cell sites (like Chicago) that it hardly matters if
you use an antenna on the phone or not. On my CT-301 I use a tiny
little dummy load (well almost, it is a thing about the size of my
thumb) when I am about town, and my TX/RX is fine. But when you get
outside the city, better quality antennas cut to the proper length do
make a difference. My dummy load will get me nowhere in Independence,
Kansas, but my 'good' antenna lets me TX/RX with ease via the Tulsa,
Oklahoma B carrier, with its nearest tower 40 miles away.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Ferris)
Subject: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:21:39 GMT


My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.
It seems to work in a similar fashion to the old BSR (?) home
protection boxes that allowed control of lights, etc via the
electrical lines.

One box was the transmitter, and it would support multiple receivers.
The ad mentioned that the phone signal was translated to an FM signal
and transmitted via the electrical wiring.

Anybody hear about this product?  Any comments?  Does it actually
work?  What's the signal/noise ratio via this method?  Would this
actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a
house?


Thanks for any info,

Mark Ferris           EMAIL: [e-mail]
Atlas Telecom         VOICE: [USA] 1+503.228.1400 x242
4640 SW Macadam Ave.  FAX1:  [USA] 1+503.228.0368
Portland, OR 97201    FAX2:  [USA] 1+503.225.5518


[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights
or other noise making conditions in the power lines.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 08:29:51 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lance Neustaeter)
Subject: Tone Decoding


Has anyone heard of any software which will analyse touch tones
(probably sampled from a tape or phone line) and display which numbers
are being dialed?  I know they have electronic devices which do this,
but I was wondering if it could be done with software and if so, how?
(If the advice were applicable to an Amiga, that would be even better,
but it's not totally necessary -- I'm curious if it's possible in
general.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Danny Bielik)
Subject: E1 Lines - What Are They?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 23:40:55 GMT


Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is?


Thanks,

Danny Bielik

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Third Party Network Connectivity
Date: 15 Feb 93 18:46:38 -0600
Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business
directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company
 - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third
party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil).

I need to identify real-world business examples of existing third
party connections, identify costs of providing restricted connections,
identify what costs would reduce (hopefully) to if the connection was
more 'open', and access the cost impact in terms of changes needed to
protect 'internal' information or resources or establish 'firewalls'
between parts of the 'internal' network-plus any costs for the time
of people to make these assements.

I know that's a pretty tough order, but if anyone is willing, please
send me email at [e-mail]. Please do not answer by
replying to this newsgroup. I do not get much opportunity to read the
news and likely any reply will be lost!!


Thanks,

Ron Beach    Manager, Telcom and Information Strategy
BP Research  4440 Warrensville Ctr. Rd
Cleveland, Ohio  44128    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Beach should review Unitel, the internal
telecom network for United Airlines. They've got tie-lines off their
centrex in Chicago into the centrex of every airport they fly into.
At their HQ here, you dial '8', get new dial tone then dial the three
digit designator for the city (i.e. 726 = SAN = San Fransisco) then
the four digit number on the centrex *out there*. Some of those
centrexes then have their own tie-lines going places, such as at
Seattle (732 = SEA = I think) where a three digit tie-line code drops
you on the centrex at Boeing Aircraft. The oddest example was a three
digit code out of Chicago which itself produced new dial tone; dialing
zero at that point produced 'operator' who when questioned said she
was the switchboard operator for the Las Vegas, NV City Hall. (??).
Finally after years and years, Unitel did away with progressive
dialing (that is, dial something, get new dial tone, dial something
else off that, get new dial tone, dial off that, etc) in lieu of an
intelligent switch in their Chicago HQ which simply takes seven digits
and makes its own decisions on where to route the call.  PAT]

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

Subject: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service
From: [e-mail] (Richard Osterberg)
Date: 16 Feb 93 02:46:51 GMT


A good friend of mine has run into a small problem. She's deaf, so she
uses the TDD Relay Service quite frequently. However, her parents are
currently in Bulgaria for some time (overseas work), and they can't
call into a relay operator from overseas. Each state has its own
statewide 800 number to access the relay service, however these can't
be accessed when dialing into the US from overseas. Is there some sort
of a national/international TDD relay service? It's quite frustrating.


Rick

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 23:08:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using AT&T's Switch on 800/321-0ATT


In Telecom Digest 13-98  Curtis E. Reid <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Can someone give us the procedure for using the AT&T's Switch at
> 800/321-0288?

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T tones, and the
> robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the number you
> are calling, or zero for an operator."  After entering the
> number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the
> same as any other credit card call.  Persons who have experiences with
> this are requested to write.   PAT]

You punch the number as ten digits WITHOUT DIALING 0 OR 1 FIRST.  If
the call is international, you punch 01 and the country, city, and
local numbers.  If you dial it correctly, you get a "bong" and it
allows you to punch in your calling card number.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (The Circuit)
Subject: Cellular Switching Question
Date: 16 Feb 1993 07:06:35 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee


I have a question concerning switching tones:

I've seen two references to tones that keep other mobile units off a
channel.  They are the Sieze Tone (1800Hz) and the Gaurd Tone
(2150Hz).

Now which of the two is actually used?  And if both, what is the
difference?

Also, could someone tell me If I have these other tones correct?

Idle: 2000hz
Connect: 1633hz
Dissconect: 1336hz

And last, could someone describe the difference between SAT's 00, 01,
and 10?

I realize this is alot, but any info would be greatly appreciated.  If
possible, reply in email too so as not to waste space on here.


Thanks much!

[e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 08:21:17 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


[e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin) writes:

> Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

>> There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to
>> set up a data network for general public access that has been referred
>> to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way
>> such a network would be used include such things as letting school
>> students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and
>> other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in
>> these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security
>> is planned for this environment.

> What I want to know is, why aren't the telcos pushing for this?

The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something
the public has stated they don't want anymore.

> But what bothers me even more than the telcos lack of initiative in
> this matter are the implications of the Feds running such a network.
> Based on the way the FCC has behaved itself in matters of free speech
> on the broadcast airwaves, it seems an easy step for the datacops to
> come along and shut you off the net if you don't profess politically
> correct ideology under the "limited resource" doctrine.  In speech-
> restricted California, we now have a law that will enable the
> PC-minded to arrest fourth graders for calling other kids ugly names.
> What's to prevent a similar law against puerile morons doing so on the
> digital highway?

Sooner or later someone will have to put their foot down on all the
stupidity making its way into law.  Eventually the laws all start to
contradict each other.

> A state-controlled "data superhighway" smells like an ingenious way
> for the U.S. government to do to two-way digital communications what
> the U.K. did to one-way radio broadcasting with the BBC: maintain
> control over access, and thus, content.  It would be an excellent tool
> for snooping on individuals.  As with driving privileges, no one is
> guaranteed access to the net, but if you sign this form handing over
> certain rights to the state, we'll let you on. Networking has so far
> been a tool for decentralization and democratization, but it could
> just as easily become a device allowing the state even further
> encroachments into our lives.

> GTE may offer terrible service, but at least they don't come into the
> houses of teenage hacking suspects, guns cocked.

Aside from the subversive possibilities that allowing the government
to set up and run such a data highway would cause, with such a
metaphor of the highway, think of the other entities that exist on our
roadways.  Traffic violators!  To address them, a special enforcement
agency will have to be established, a couple dozen or so layers of
beauracracy, and the makings of a DMV and Data Highway Patrol.:) Maybe
some faster cleaner routes could be set up with special *toll*
surcharges for those data users who demand uncongested data
movements.:)

Perhaps someone could add to this metaphor?


Richard Nash   Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:       [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 07:38:35 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why?


Marcus Leech writes:

> My sister volunteers for a women's shelter in Squamish, B.C.  They've
> been having problems with unauthorized long-distance calling, so they
> had B.C. Tel put toll-denial on the line.  The problem is that B.C.
> Tel says this also blocks 911 access.  I can't think of any technical
> reason for this, and it seems unreasonable.

> Is anyone familiar with the CO equipment they use in B.C., and why
> there would be this restriction?

B.C. Tel has a heavy investment in GTE (Microtel) equipment. GTD #5.
Perhaps toll restriction in a GTD is based upon toll-route selection
and quite possibly the 911 translation utilizes a toll route?


Richard Nash  Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #101
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01460;
          16 Feb 93 14:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23570
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14888
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #102

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:10:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 102

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Intel, BellSouth, RAM and Ericsson Sign Agreement (Ericsson Press Release)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Andrew Blau)
    North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers (Jaap Akkerhuis)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R Stearns)
    Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Scott Dorsey)
    EasyReach 700 Changes (John J. Butz)
    Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? (Ken Becker)
    High-Speed Dial-Ups (John Biederstedt)
    Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (John Nagle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1993 18:38:11 +0100
From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intel, BellSouth, RAM and Ericsson Sign Agreement


Intel Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, RAM Mobile Data and Ericsson
today announced that they have signed preliminary agreements relating
to the development of new products and new services for the rapidly
emerging mobile computing market.

The agreements will expand the market availability and increase the
uses of standard Intel processor-based mobile computers performing
two-way wireless communications via the nationwide, dedicated public
mobile data networks operated by RAM Mobile Data.  Later this year,
Intel-branded PC enhancement wireless products, coupled with mobile
communications services from RAM and BellSouth subsidiaries, will be
offered through the more than 6,200 retail outlets that serve Intel.

Intel and Ericsson have agreed to work on the joint development of PC
enhancement products, utilizing Ericsson's innovative radio
technologies.

"As the worldwide leader in the computer business, Intel's entry into
wireless computing is shifting the growth of this industry into high
gear," said Michael K. Harrell, president of BellSouth Mobile Data.
"With the convergence of computing and communications, these
cross-industry relationships are the crucial ingredients in
accelerating the growth of worldwide, wireless mobile computing."

"The integration of PC's and wireless communications is an enormous
opportunity. With these agreements we don't have to start from
scratch," said Intel senior vice president Frank Gill. "The
infrastructure already exists in the form of the huge installed base
of Intel-processor based mobile computers, the nationwide network from
RAM Mobile Data, BellSouth's worldwide mobile communications business
and Ericsson's wireless modem technology.  This momentum will be a big
help as we move forward to integrate Intel processor-based PC's with
wireless communications."

Intel's wireless products will enable computer users to communicate
nationwide on the Mobitex wireless data networks operated by RAM
Mobile Data, a partnership between BellSouth and RAM Broadcasting
Corporation. RAM Mobile Data operates wireless data networks that
cover more than 6,000 cities in the top metropolitan areas of the U.S.

"Our networks will provide service to approximately 90% of the urban
population by the end of June. They are already being used by mobile
professionals to send and receive wireless electronic mail and by
corporations to communicate time-critical information," said Carl
Aron, chairman and chief executive officer of RAM Mobile Data.
Networks incorporating the Mobitex technology are installed in Canada,
the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway, and plans are underway
to build such systems in France, the Netherlands, Australia, Latin
America and Asia Pacific.

"The days of one-stop shopping for mobile computing solutions are
here," said Ake Persson, vice president of business development for
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications Incorporated. "This will ensure that
mobile computing customers can purchase at retail a variety of
Intel-based computers and enhancements, an array of software
applications and RAM Mobile Data's wireless service."

Intel and BellSouth will also explore new mobile computing products
and services that can be used by professionals worldwide on a variety
of communications networks.

BellSouth is an Atlanta-based international communications holding
company. BellSouth provides local telecommunications services in nine
southeastern states, and offers a wide variety of innovative mobile
communications services worldwide, including cellular, paging and
dedicated wireless data networks.

RAM Mobile Data USA Limited partnership is a leader in providing
wireless data communications services based on the Mobitex
architecture, an open, international standard.

Ericsson is an international leader in telecommunications, recognized
for its advanced systems and products for wired and mobile
communications in public and private networks.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

Kathy Egan, Director of Press Relations, The Ericsson Corporation
 Tel [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 11:06:20 -0500
From: Andrew Blau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


In TELECOM Digest, V13, #101, [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
writes:

> [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin) writes:>

>> Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

>>> There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to
>>> set up a data network for general public access that has been referred
>>> to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way
>>> such a network would be used include such things as letting school
>>> students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and
>>> other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in
>>> these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security
>>> is planned for this environment.

>> What I want to know is, why aren't the telcos pushing for this?

> The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something
> the public has stated they don't want anymore.

In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
project.  Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who
should do what in that respect.  I think the government should not
build and/or operate such networks.  I believe that the private sector
can be and will be incented to build these networks...."  He held to
this even after being challenged by Gore, who seemed to suggest that
Allen couldn't have meant what he seemed to be saying.

LECs, too, are getting into this quickly.  They see data transport as
a big part of their future, and notion that the government might come
in and build a national infrastructure that isn't the telco
infrastructure raises lots of red flags (such as bypass on a massive
scale, for one). LECs and Bellcore submitted comments to the NSF on
last year's draft solicitation for the next generation of the NSFNet
(a/k/a the Interim Interagency NREN). In those comments and through
other actions they made it clear that they believe telcos have a
_very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of
tomorrow's 'data superhighways.'

Thus, both LECs and IXCs are in fact pushing here -- pushing to make
sure they are included.

> Aside from the subversive possibilities that allowing the government
> to set up and run such a data highway would cause, with such a
> metaphor of the highway, think of the other entities that exist on our
> roadways.  Traffic violators!  To address them, a special enforcement
> agency will have to be established, a couple dozen or so layers of
> beauracracy, and the makings of a DMV and Data Highway Patrol.:) Maybe
> some faster cleaner routes could be set up with special *toll*
> surcharges for those data users who demand uncongested data
> movements.:)

Some of these issues are already before policy makers, and you can bet
that more are on the way.  Last year, the Congress passed legislation
that included provisions to remove the NSF's "Acceptable Use Policy,"
which restricts traffic on teh government funded backbone.  At a
hearing two weeks ago, EFF asked the House Science Subcommittee, which
oversees the NSF, to ask why that had not happened yet.  The problem
isn't only one for the government-sponsored networks, though.  Private
carriers, including LECs as they offer newer services, also impose
"acceptable use policies" -- consider examples often discussed in this
newsgroup -- and there is no recourse except to go to another network.
Finally, I understand that groups such as "Morality in Media" have
asked Congressional leaders known to favor restrictions on certain
types of controversial speech (e.g., Jesse Helms), to look into some
of the information found in some newsgroups.  To protect free
expression on these info highways, we need to push for common carriage
principles (e.g., non-discrimination on content) in the Data
Superhighways/Infrastructure debate.

As a separate matter, we already have "faster cleaner routes ... with
special *toll* surcharges": private networks.  The issue is not
whether these might get set up; the issue is will the "National
Information Infrastructure" be affordable and accessible to all users,
will it promote free speech and exchange, and will it have options for
interconnection.  If somebody then wants to set up special routes,
they should be allowed to do that, too.


Andrew Blau                Electronic Frontier Foundation   202-544-9237(v)
Associate for              666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.      202-547-5481(f)
Telecommunications Policy  Washington, DC  20003            [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 11:56:17 EST
From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[e-mail]>
Subject: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers


   TOKYO (AP) _ North Korea, a bastion of totalitarian rule, has
changed many of its phone numbers, a Japanese phone company official
said today.

   A South Korean news report said the move might be aimed at stopping
sensitive information from leaking.

   Takeo Tanaka of Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co., Japan's leading
international telecommunications carrier, said North Korea notified
the company of the changes by telex in mid-October. The North's
message said the reason was a reorganization of the nation's
telecommunications system.

   Tanaka said North Korea has two area codes _ 2 and 81 _ and that
numbers beginning with 2 have become unreachable. Five-digit numbers
have been replaced with six-digit ones, he said.

   On Monday, South Korea's national Yonhap News Agency said in a
dispatch from Beijing that the hard-line Communist state has changed
every single telephone number in the country to block all contact with
overseas.

   Yonhap quoted unnamed observers in China as speculating that the
move is to prevent information on "communal turmoil" and the health of
North Korean President Kim Il Sung, 80, from reaching the outside
world.

   Several KDD operators today had to spend more than an hour when
requested by The Associated Press to get the new number of the North
Korean Foreign Ministry from North Korean operators.

   A ministry official who answered the phone at the new number
refused to respond to questions and hung up.

   Tanaka said North Korea does not publish a telephone directory,
apparently because it considers the information secret.

   Only a handful of people in North Korea have telephones.
Newspapers, radio and television are strictly government-controlled.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R Stearns)
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:19:40 GMT
Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc.


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

> The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples
> per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample.

> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for
> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps.  In North
> America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula
> called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe
> compresses it using a formula called "A law".  Europe also inverts
> alternate bits.  So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible.

Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen,
doesn't that make 62.667 kbps?


Fred R. Stearns -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 13:04:21 GMT


Of course, hotel charges of all kinds are outrageous.  $18.75 for an
average steak dinner?  Seven-fifty for a plate of eggs and bacon?
When you want it in the room, the dining room prices are inflated by
20-30 percent, and then a service charge is added on top of that.

Telephone charges for calls that cost the hotel nothing.  .75 or 1.00
for an 800 number.  $3.00 to launder a shirt.

How about a mandatory $2.00 surcharge for a safe installed in the
room, whether you use it or not.  I remember one hotel with a charge
such as this, where the safe was locked and therefore unusable, but
they were charging for it anyway.

I don't really place the blame for this at the hotel door though.  I
place it squarely on american business, especially at the CEO and Vice
President level.  American executives consume most of the business
travel dollars in this country, and they sign the expense reports of
the salespeople and other travelling employees.  If those holding the
purse strings on travel dollars would stop sitting still for such
charges, I believe that the market would drive hotel costs back to
reality.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Date: 16 Feb 1993 13:49:44 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm


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

> My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
> product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.

> Anybody hear about this product?  Any comments?  Does it actually
> work?  What's the signal/noise ratio via this method?  Would this
> actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a
> house?

Yes, these are great.  One of the folks in our neighborhood has
them, and we can all use their phone line together.


scott


[Moderator's Note: What a convenient arrangement!  I had heard these
devices get back as far as the transformer serving the neighborhood,
and I guess your experience shows this is true.  PAT]


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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 09:55:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (John J Butz [phone])
Subject: EasyReach 700 Changes


Has anyone noticed any changes to the EasyReach 700 service?


jZb

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 10:27:07 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: E1 Lines - What Are They?
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Danny Bielik) writes:

> Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is?

    Simple question, simple answer. E1 is the non-US/Japan
equivalent of a T1 line. In the US, a DS1 (or T1) signal runs at 1.544
Mb/s, has 24 64 kb/s channels associated with it, and so on as readers
of this group know. In Europe (and I'm sure other places) the standard
for DS1 is known as "E1" which runs 2.048 Mb/s with 32 64 kb/s DS0
channels. There are other interesting differences: the line code is
B3ZS; when not running clear DS1 one time slot holds framing and some
maintenance information; there is (optionally) a second time slot that
holds signaling information. So, a fully loaded T1 (USA domestic) has
24 time slots (DS0) channels; a fully loaded E1 (Practically
everywhere else) has 30 time slots (DS0) channels.

    There is one interesting difference between T1 and E1:
Channelized E1's don't have robbed bit signaling or an equivalent.
Therefore, all data (as compared to signaling) DS0's in a channelized
E1 are 64 kb/s clear.


Ken Becker    [e-mail]    DACS II hardware development

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

Subject: High-Speed Dial-Ups
From: [e-mail] (John Biederstedt)
Date: 16 Feb 93 11:35:15 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University


We have some T1 circuits and would like to provide high-speed dial
backup capability.  It would be nice to get 56 kb dial-ups.  Codex
makes such a modem, but it is compressed.  Dissapointingly, they are
moving to higher-speed asyncronous modems rather than syncronous
modems. :-(  Does the Internet have any suggestions?

Thanks!


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 18:00:46 GMT


tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood) writes:

> This is only one reason.  I worked in several systems and frequently
> had to disable cell sites power control features. Why?  Because of
> terrain and foilage conditions which changed during the year resulting
> in a large number of dropped calls.  By disabling this we were able to
> get rid of that problem.  We had to disable the power stepping in both
> directions.

And your handheld customers wonder why they get lousy battery life?


John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #102
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25369;
          17 Feb 93 2:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21154
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:44 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21796
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:01 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #103

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 00:17:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 103

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Phillip Dampier)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Steve Forrette)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Steve Forrette)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Al Varney)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 ([e-mail])
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John R. Levine)
    Re: 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Bob Longo)
    Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate (Jeffrey Jonas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:41:14 -0500
Subject: Cellular Phone Questions


In a message from: [e-mail] (Don Wegeng):

> 2. The salesperson where I bought the phone suggested that I also
> purchase a magnetic mount 3dB gain external antenna, for use when I'm
> outside of the city limits (I have friends who live in the country,
> but within the GenTel service area).

Having an account with GenTel here in Rochester and one of their basic
Motorola handheld units, I have found an external antenna is
completely unnecessary.

Genesee is in a constant battle with Rochester Tel to build cell cites
all over the Rochester LATA.  Rochester Tel really gives them a good
run for their money.  We have competitive cell phone prices here in
Greater Rochester (I have their Occasional Call Plan - $16.95 a month
plus 15c a minute off-peak (6p-8a), 50c a minute peak.  They have
other plans that will give you flat rate calling during off peak hours
for just a few dollars more.)

Because of the competition, I can take my handheld east to almost the
outer suburbs of Syracuse with a clear signal, because they have
loaded the area will cell sites along the NYS Thruway. I can get past
Batavia to the west with no problems either.

Western NY cell sites tend to be located close to the NY State
Thruway, since much of the east-and-west traffic follows that route,
and also north-south along interstates.  In Rochester, that means
Route 390 south.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:26:29 GMT


The outside antenna will make considerable difference in the fringe
areas.  It may be only 3 db gain, but consider that the built-in whip
inside the metal car is at least a 20db loss by comparison.

Its a good idea to use it whenever you are in the car.  This keeps RF
energy away from your body.  (RF is said by some to be hazardous to
your health.)


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] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Date: 17 Feb 1993 00:01:16 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A
> channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area.
> If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from
> a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers.  Is my
> reasoning correct?

> [Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own
> kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree
> to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one
> (but not both) in a location.

Generally speaking, if an A customer roams onto a B carrier, the B
carrier will not be able to bill the A customer's bill directly, and
will want to set up a temporary account billed to a major credit card.
Most every B carrier I've dealt with has been set up to handle credit
card accounts, but this is not very widespread on the A side as far as
I can tell.  My experience with the credit card temporary accounts is
that they are a big hassle.  First, there may be limited customer
service hours in the city you roam in, so if you arrive in the evening
or on a weekend, you may have to wait until the next business day to
get set up.

The last time I had to do this, it took over 20 minutes on the phone
with customer service to give the required information.  They want to
know your phone's number, ESN, home carrier, home address, social
security number, home phone number, credit card, etc, etc.  They are
really paranoid about fraud, so your regular cell phone's account has
to have the same name and address as the credit card and so on.  Then,
it takes them about an hour to get the account set up in the switch.

Also, since it's not a good idea to give out all of that confidential
information over the air, you have to be calling from a landline to
get set up which defeats a big advantage of having the cellular phone
in the first place, especially if you are driving.  The last time I
did this, the charge was $15 to set up the temporary account, which
was valid for up to 30 days.  Then you pay whatever the roaming
airtime rate is, usually $.99/minute.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And if all you are doing is passing through the
territory on the way to somewhere else, you may as well forget a cell
account with the opposite carrier. How long are you going to be in
their coverage area when you are driving down the interstate anyway, a
few hours perhaps?  It isn't worth the trouble to stop and talk to
them when you can just use the payphones at the rest stops.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Date: 17 Feb 1993 00:52:46 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred R
Stearns) writes:

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

>> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for
>> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps.

> Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen,
> doesn't that make 62.667 kbps?

The problem is that you don't know *which* samples have the 6th bit
robbed.  Also, each switching element in the connection path may use a
different synchronization to choose which sixth of the bits to use.
By the time the samples get to you, anywhere between 1/6 to 6/6 of the
low-order bits may be changed, and even if you know how many are, you
don't know which ones.  So, the custom is just to ignore the LSB and
use only the seven high-order bits.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 19:50:32 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred R
Stearns) writes:

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

>> The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples
>> per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample.

>> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for
>> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps.  In North
>> America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula
>> called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe
>> compresses it using a formula called "A law".  Europe also inverts
>> alternate bits.  So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible.

   Hmmm, inverts alternate bits??  My references don't mention this
explicitly.  Do you mean that the A-law table entries are "scrambled"
by having the entry for (say) 00000011 represented as 01010110?  That
doesn't sound right to me -- but I'll check.  On the other hand, if
you are talking about T1/E1 line coding over the transmission facility
using Alternate Mark Inversion (bipolar) to maintain a net DC power of
0, then both systems do "inversion".  Note that bipolar coding is part
of the transmission system, and not part of the DS1 data stream.  For
example, fiber doesn't use bipolar to transmit DS1 and higher data
rates (probably would if light had a fast, easily-detected polarity
not altered by fiber).

> Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen,
> doesn't that make 62.667 kbps?

   Thank you, Fred, for the lead-in.  (I think every class in digital
transmission has someone sharp that asks that question.)  There are
two facts that no one told you:

  o- The generator of a 64-kbps (DS0) stream is not synchronized with
any higher layer of the digital data system.  That is, the generator
only has to receive a bit clock from the network and generate bits at
that rate.  The generator is not aware of when the 6th (robbed) frame
is coming, and cannot thus anticipate which bit will be stepped on.

   Your solution to this problem could be to just send at 62.666 ...
kbps and let the DS1 level buffer bits and only insert seven bits into the
appropriate sixth frames.

  o- When the DS1 stream runs through a digital switching system, the
6th frame on the incoming circuit and the 6th frame on the outgoing
circuit are not synchronized.  Some multiplexors may also do this.
Since the signaling bits are independent on the two circuits, and at
random positions relative to each other, an eight-bit value that was
in frame three on the incoming circuit could be placed into frame six
on the outgoing circuit.  Now a byte has been damaged.

   The only answer is to assume the robbed-bit position in EVERY frame
could be garbaged, and just send seven bits in each frame.  Thus the
56-kbps rate.  The unit that places eight-bit samples into each frame
just forces the robbed-bit position to be a one.  If the system steps
on the bit, no one cares.  It's ignored at the receiver.  (This also
insures that all zeroes in the seven bits will not yield eight bits of
zero on the DS1 frame.  Two such adjacent fields would be treated as a
T1 framing failure.)


Al Varney

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 20:04:48 CST


Fred Goldstein said:

> The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples
> per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample.

> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for
> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps.  In North
> America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula
> called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe
> compresses it using a formula called "A law".  Europe also inverts
> alternate bits.  So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible.

> Of course, some long-haul transmission systems use lower bit rate
> audio, like ADPCM.

Actually, this is not (in most cases, at least), the primary reason
that data is limited to 56Kbps ... data connections do not typically
have one bit robbed for signalling.  However, in a T1 data stream,
there can not be more than 14 (I think ... it may be 15) consecutve
0's, as this could cause the repeaters to lose synchroziations.  In
voice lines, this is easy to fix ... just insert a 1 where needed ...
human ears won't be able to tell the difference ... but in data, this
is unacceptable, so they slow down to 56,000 bps and use one bit in
each group of eight bits and set it to 1 always, thus ensuring proper
one's density.  T1 lines using B8Z8 have another method of eliminating
the 0's problemand can be used at the full 64kbps.

Also, ADPCM is not generally used on commerical LD (AT&T, Sprint,
MCI), as it is not high enough quality.  (Its fine for voice, but
modems will not train at above 4800bps over an ADPCM trunk, and faxes
are also limtied to 4800bps).


Brett    ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:37:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE


In TELECOM Digest V13 #99 [e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter) writes:

>> I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear
>> as would any other one of that type.

> Pacific Bell has stated that a return call that is toll will appear on
> the bill with the last four digits converted to 'X's. Interestingly
> enough, that is very useful information. If I suspect that some known
> jerk in Hayward is calling me and I use "call return" on him and then
> the bill shows up with the Hayward prefix of this person, it would be
> strong circumstantial evidence of evil-doing.

> Imagine if I actually found out who was annoying me on the telephone.
> It drives the activists crazy to think that might be possible!

NYTel (at least in the New York LATA (NYC, Long Island, Part of Area
Code 914 and a small part of Area Code 203 (Conn.)) lists the number
called that was returned with Call Return so long as the call was
chargeable in both directions.

I haven't used this feature much since I don't receive that many calls
that are blocked (mostly from two people that I know).


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

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

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Feb 93 17:07:32 EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> Pacific Bell has stated that a return call that is toll will appear on
> the bill with the last four digits converted to 'X's.

> [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my
> bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was
> entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it.

You're lucky you don't live in France.  (Or perhaps the French are
lucky that you live in the U.S.)  French phone bills never show the
last digits of the phone numbers in the call detail, due to privacy
concerns.  This includes direct dial calls.  The theory is that the
digits that they do show are adequate to document the amount that
they're charging you.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 13:12:48 CST
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink


Juha Veijalainen ([e-mail]) writes:

> Motorola CT2 Silverlink cordless / TelePoint phones are supposedly
> digital and transmit data over a 38400 bit/s link to your base station
> or Telepoint cell.

> Salespersons also tell that 'conversations cannot be eavesdropped'.
> What they could not tell me is whether digital transmission itself is
> considered 'secure' or is the actual data crypted or scrambled.

As it happens, these phones are the exact units in use by Ameritech
for their PCS trial here in Chicago. I use one.

My understanding based on some conversations with Ameritech and with
fellow Telecom reader Stu Jeffery of GTE (Hi, Stu!) is that they are
indeed digital. My admittedly incomplete impression of the
transmission details is that the data is not encrypted per se; however
the frequency of the transmitted signal bounces around within a
specific range, with the receiver presumably also tracking the
frequency changes to keep up the connection. The theory as explained
to me is that this enables many units running separate conversations
to share the same spectrum, with a very low possibility of two
different paths simultaneously landing on the same frequency by
mistake. I don't know whether this is deliberately avoided by
algorithm somehow, or whether it's statistically highly unlikely to
happen.

Security-wise, this has been popular for military applications since
an eavesdropping receiver set to one particular frequency would not
find anything. Similarly, without the proper algorithm (or whatever
the handshake entails), an eavesdropping receiver would be unable to
follow the frequency changes. Finally, in the relative chaos of a
military field operation, a large number of units would be able to
share the same spectrum without having to worry about who should be
assigned what frequency, how they would be able to contact others, how
many could be on the air at once, etc.

I reserve the right to be wrong on some of the fine details above; if
Stu Jeffery is reading this, I'm sure he can straighten us out.


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

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

Date: 16 Feb 1993 15:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Curtis E. Reid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service


In a message received on 16 Feb 1993, 07:07 Richard Osterberg
<[e-mail]> wrote to TELECOM Digest V13 #101:

> A good friend of mine has run into a small problem. She's deaf, so she
> uses the TDD Relay Service quite frequently. However, her parents are
> currently in Bulgaria for some time (overseas work), and they can't
> call into a relay operator from overseas. Each state has its own
> statewide 800 number to access the relay service, however these can't
> be accessed when dialing into the US from overseas. Is there some sort
> of a national/international TDD relay service? It's quite frustrating.

There is no international TDD relay service to the best of my
knowledge.  If you can tell me which state she is in, perhaps I can
find the relay's local number where her parents can call via USA
Direct Service.  I've read somewhere in previous TELECOM Digests that
it is possible to call an 800 number via the USA Direct Service
provided that you tell them you are paying for it.  I don't know if
that works or not.


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

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

From: Bob Longo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Date: 16 Feb 93 13:26:34 PST
Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Justin Leavens) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
> L. McMillin) writes:

>> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to
>> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number
>> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled.  After all, privacy is the same thing
>> as anonymity ... NOT!

> But the CPUC *approved* CNID with its guidelines. So shouldn't PacBell
> (and GTE for that matter) be delivering CNID information where
> appropriate (on any line that is not unlisted)? Or are they not
> required to do anything that doesn't result in a profit?

Absolutely!  The lack of CNID is a result of PacBell and GTE acting
like spoiled children and NOT a requirement by the CPUC.  The CPUCs
ruling was great, and I believe it reflected the opinion of the
majority of Californians.  Californians want CNID, but they also want
per-line blocking to be available (which is what PacBell is vigorously
opposed to). That is reasonable in a state where 40% of phone
customers have unlisted numbers.


Bob Longo ([e-mail])   Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines   Los Angeles, CA

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:54:54 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate


Hmmm, I am already thinking of ways a BBS could avoid the tax:

1) if the BBS is free, 6% of nothing is nothing.
2) Do non profit organizations have to collect the tax?
3) Or, a way to dance around the tax: the BBS is free for members of
the club, and club dues are $xx/month and therefore not taxed.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #103
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27393;
          17 Feb 93 3:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21682
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:16:20 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18720
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:15:40 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:15:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #104

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 01:15:40 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 104

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' (Laurence Chiu)
    Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Hugh Eaves)
    Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? (Forrette)
    Re: V & H to Latitude/Longitude? (Bill Garfield)
    Re: Ma Bell Calling (Steven King)
    Pacific Bell and Out of State CID Delivery (Mark Rudholm)
    One-Way Outgoing Service (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Graybar Hotel, Sorry. (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Mike Riddle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21'
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 03:39:08 GMT


In a message to Comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] had the
following to say about Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21':

> The usual practice is for the customer to select the carrier they
> want.  Or they can often dial 1-0 and the three digit code (usually
> called the '10XXX code') belonging to that carrier.  Some telephones,
> especially private pay stations and hotels, have their lines connected
> to a specific carrier (because of commissions paid by the carrier) and
> even go so far as to block the '1-0-xxx' code (which is illegal, like
> 'red lining' some areas so that people can't use credit cards to some
> countries, but it's done anyway).  Also, if you are calling from an
> office that cannot give you a dial tone to dial a long distance call,
> you may have to use an operator and pay more for the call.

> So AT&T, like its competitors, implemented a code off of one of its
> 800 numbers you could dial into, then when you got to AT&T's "welcome"
> message, you could punch in '21' on a touch-tone pad and be given to
> AT&T's switch and be able to dial a call directly over AT&T's
> facilities.

I have a couple of comments and questions on that. Firstly, does
anybody know why when you call 1-800-CALL-ATT you get a message, "to
complete your call please press or dial 1 now" (or words to that
effect). Unless it's some kind of touch-tone determination.

I am going to find this a little annoying. 800-CALL-ATT is easy to
remember. Plus it's printed on AT&T's calling card. I use this way to
gain access to AT&T's network often enough because:

1) 10XXX seems to be blocked from my work phone (though all LD is
allowed via our default carrier of MCI) But I don't want to charge
personal calls on the company.

2) As many people have pointed out, intra LATA calls can be carried by
AT&T if you use this method, whereas if you do 10XXX or rely on a
phone's 1+ carrier, you usually get the local telco.  At peak times,
inter LATA calls via PacBell anyway are outrageously priced. I am
going to have to put a little sticker on my calling card now :)


Laurence Chiu    [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Feb 1993 22:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hugh Eaves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already!


[e-mail] (Bill Garfield) writes: (edited)

> My employer, at our Houston corporate office, has _all_ of one
> exchange plus 3,000 numbers in another exchange.  Approximately 4500
> of the total numbers are currently unassigned, reserved for expansion.
> Recently, I did a traffic study on calls going to intercept due to
> number not in service. I was shocked to discover that we're taking
> over 5,000 intercept pegs per day, every day.

> SWBT tells me that most of this is due to "scanning" and that there
> are legitimate companies that actually perform this "service".

> Why is this legal?  This to me, constitutes nuisance calling and
> harrassment.  What can be done to stop it?

> [Moderator's Note: It is harassment and nuisance calling to dial a
> number, let it ring once and disconnect when done deliberatly as
> part of a scan.    PAT]

Harrasment and nuisance is a misdemeanor in Virginia (it probably is
in most states). It is also against federal law. However, as stated in
Virginia law:

"Any person who, without intent to converse but with _intent to annoy_
any other person, causes any telephone not his own to ring, and any
person who permits or condones the use of any telephone under his
control for such purposes shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor."

It seems that it would have to be proven that the call was made with
"intent to annoy" as opposed to information gathering or other
purposes.  If I remember correctly, though, people have been arrested
for scanning.  Maybe they were prosecuted under a different law. Does
anyone have any better information on the current laws applying to
"scanning"?


Hugh L. Eaves                   Internet: [e-mail]
Medical College of Virginia     Bitnet: hleaves@vcuruby
Department of Human Genetics    Voice: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring?
Date: 17 Feb 1993 01:06:39 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl
Oppedahl) writes:

> According to Part 68 of the FCC regulations, the local telco is
> supposed to tell you how to make your line ring back ... so that if
> you have installed your own phone jacks you can test them out.

> The idea is to put do-it-yourselfers on a level playing field with the
> telco inside-wiring installers.  Otherwise, if they keep the number
> secret, their installers would have an unfair advantage.

> [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for
> this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They
> need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the
> business office could have told you to ask the operator to ring you
> back. That would have met the requirements.  PAT]

Are you sure?  If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide
non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the
telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that
non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT
providing a level playing field, now is it?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: V & H to Latitude/Longitude?
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 07:00:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


One of the new features in the upcoming release of the shareware
program 'NPA' by Robert Ricketts addresses this issue.  The latest
version is currently in final beta.  I will be notifying our Moderator
here when it is released to the public BBS networks and CI$.

NPA author Robert Ricketts is a personal friend of mine who so happens
to work at the same company as I.  He has provided me with a
pre-release beta of the latest version and has tentative plans to
release it to the public bbs network sometime within the next three or
four weeks.  It will also be posted on CI$ at the same time, in the
'Safety Net' I believe.

For those not familiar with this program, it is either command line or
menu driven lookup of *ANY* NPA-NXX which can sort on any field, city,
county, state, NPA, NXX, supports wildcards.  The newest version is
blazingly fast compared to previous releases.


Bill Garfield <[e-mail]> | Standard disclaimer applies.
PBX/Datacom Engineer                        | Opinions are my own and not
Panhandle Eastern Corp.                     | my employer's.

Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)
  Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard


[Moderator's Note: Please do let us know, and I'll put a coy in the
Telecom Archives for everyone who wants it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven King, Software Archaeologist)
Subject: Re: Ma Bell Calling
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:08:27 GMT


Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]> publicly declared:

> Concerning the relative cost of a DDD adventure as a youth in 1957,
> John wrote:

>> As soon as I realized what it was, I hung up. The charge? $2.00! And
>> those were 1957 dollars. (Today it would be what? $.20? Terrible!)

> That prompted me to get out a shareware program that's stowed around
> here, and see what the current dollar cost of $2.00 expended in 1957
> was. [...]

This threw me for a second too, but I believe John was refering to the
cost of the call being $.20 these days, not $2.00 in 1957 dollars
being worth $.20 in 1993 dollars.  It makes a lot more sense if you
read it this way!


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 15:40:18 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mark Rudholm)
Subject: Pacific Bell and Out of State CID Delivery


Well, Pacific Bell has never offered CID (as we all know) but *67 has
returned a secondary dialtone for at least three years now from my
parents' home (213-265) and other COs.  It works from my home as well,
213-930.  I'd really be interested in spending a few minutes one
evening calling someone who has Caller ID service.  I'd like to know
(and pass on to c.d.t. of course) what happens when I call a Caller ID
equipped phone both with and without *67.

By the way, I'm scheduled to have Call Return (*69) activated on my
phone (213-930) on March 1st!  I think it'll really surprise a lot of
crank-callers because there has been NO announcement or advertisement
made about it as far as I can tell (like most c.d.t. readers, I tend
to watch these things pretty closely.)  What fun!

Now everybody, repeat after me "The CPUC has NOT prohibited Caller ID
in California."  Understand?  Good.  Regardless of what Pacific Bell
and GTE CA would like you to believe, this is the case.  The reason
there is no CID here is because both of those carriers claim that they
believe that the restrictions would make the service unprofitable to
offer.  Their biggest complaint is with the requirement that
unpublished numbers will default to the per-line-blocked state.  Of
couse, the customer can have her/his line's blocking status set any
way they choose.

I honestly think that the telcos are wrong in their thinking that
anyone who can block, will block.  I think most people will decide
that they WANT to announce themselves whith CID when they place a
call, especially personal calls (which are most of the calls I place
from home by far, anyway.)  Sure, with blocking available, CID won't
be much good against crank-cals but call-return and call-trace should
deal with that pretty well and really, CID's biggest selling point
isn't dealing with crank-calls (and I wish telcos would stop acting
like it is) it's the fact that you can announce yourself.

So if anyone in World Zone 1 has Caller ID and would like to do some
experimenting, send me E-Mail.


Mark D. Rudholm     Philips Interactive Media of America
[e-mail]   11050 Santa Monica Boulevard
[phone]     Los Angeles, CA  90025

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 18:16:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: One-Way Outgoing Service


I am curious about this:

> [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls
> on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you
> should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only.
> Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all.   PAT]

Is "one-way outgoing service" an additional cost?  I've heard of the
opposite (incoming only, to prevent any long distance billing), but no
incoming calls -- interesting.  Would those lines even HAVE a phone
number?  Could they all be the same number, and billed based on some
imaginary number (trunk/line number just as places with more than one
line at the same number)?

At home, I have a second line that I'm currently using only for
outgoing modem/data calls.  Someday I may have a FAX or BBS, so I do
not intend to block incoming calls, but it is a curious idea.  Could
you elaborate why this service is offered?

If it is possible to have a phone line with no number, what would
Caller-ID report?  ANO?  I guess that *SOME* number must be associated
with every line for billing purposes.  Drat -- I'd like to have a
number with no ANI so 900 numbers can't bill me.  Or was I not
supposed to notice that?


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Lines equipped for outgoing only service generally
have regular phone numbers attached to them. Callers to those numbers
either get a busy signal (if the line is in use on an outgoing call)
or an intercept message, "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in
service for incoming calls" if the line is not busy. There are other
variations: Lines for incoming service only generally provide battery
but no dial tone to the subscriber if picked up with no call coming
in. Then there is this odd one: "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx
cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises." These are
centrex lines which can make or receive calls from other centrex
extensions but are blocked from making or receiving calls from outside
the local network. A strange one I came across the other day was on an
island in the area 809 group of small country/islands: "The number you
have dialed is restricted from receiving international calls. This is
a Cable & Wireless recording." (C&W is the local telco for a few of
those places.). Illiois Bell at least does not charge extra for lines
which are restricted in one direction or the other; you just pay the
regular monthly fee for having the phone there. I suppose restricted
lines (in either direction) are offered because the subscriber does
not want to receive incoming calls on those lines or have people
making any outgoing calls on them.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Graybar Hotel, Sorry.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 04:20:02 GMT


In Marin County, CA, the county civic center (the government building)
is a famous Frank Lloyd WRight structure.  It's pink, Spanish in design
and has a bright blue roof.  One of the things it houses is the Sheriff
and Jail.

While local residents sometimes call the Marin Civic Center "Big
Pink", the Jail is known as the "Blue Roof Inn."


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 04:21:32 GMT


My experience with 1-800-321-0ATT is that it's busy a lot. :-(


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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:00:10 CST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Riddle)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


[e-mail] (John Higdon)) writes:

> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
> in the brain cell department.

This may well be true, :-), but as the original post noted, the FCC is
under a mandate from our Congre$$ Critter$ to promulgate reguations on
this subject.  Now if anyone wonders about the collective I.Q. of
Congre$$ on technological matters ... PAT has some perfectly dry
tunnels under Chicago to sell.


Maximus 2.01wb    Riddle Law Office (1:285/28)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #104
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00857;
          17 Feb 93 5:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13740
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:40:42 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31244
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:39:43 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:39:43 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #105

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 02:39:40 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 105

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Third Party Network Connectivity (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: GTE On the "Move" (John Higdon)
    Re: EasyReach 700 Changes (Dave Rand)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (John R. Levine)
    UK PHoneDAY Details (Linc Madison)
    What About #? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunication) Info Request (E. Jang)
    FX Service Across Area Codes (Phydeaux)
    The War on Pagers (Jeff Hibbard)
    Beepers and Pagers Question (Molly Geiger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 23:05:33 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Third Party Network Connectivity
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA


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

> I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business
> directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company
> - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third
> party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil).

When I first read this request, I assumed, from my limited
perspective, that you were discussing data networks, with an emphasis
on TCP/IP protocols. I then noticed that Patrick was answering from
the perspective of phone networks, which on a second reading, was
equally valid.

> I need to identify real-world business examples of existing third
> party connections, identify costs of providing restricted connections,
> identify what costs would reduce (hopefully) to if the connection was
> more 'open', and access the cost impact in terms of changes needed to
> protect 'internal' information or resources or establish 'firewalls'
> between parts of the 'internal' network-plus any costs for the time
> of people to make these assements.

One egregious example of third party connection, is attaching the
corporate network to the Internet. To do this with some control over
the exposure and risk incurred, requires some planning, but the
requirements are fairly well understood.

In the case of the global TCP/IP Internet, the benefits from the third
party connectivity are obvious. The risks are much less understood.
Many people worry about random attacks from "malicious hackers"; but
while there is some potential for damage from such sources, the real
threat is more likely to come from disgruntled employees or
ex-employees.

To control the risk exposure, you need to partition your network in a
fashion similar to how you secure a building; indeed in some cases,
the network partitions may parallel building compartments.

1) At the gateways from the outside network to the corporate network,
access controls should be instituted on the border routers. Most
likely, these will take the form of packet filters, such as:

 - allow domain name querys to the two name servers
 - allow incoming MAIL, TELNET and FTP connections only to the three
  "public gateway" hosts.
 - allow incoming and outgoing news (NNTP) connections to the
   public gateways
 - allow outgoing Gopher, TELNET and FTP from anywhere in the internal
   network
 - allow no other traffic to pass

2) Similarly, a company-wide interdepartmental backbone can be
identified, with major departments connecting to the backbone in
manners similar to the way the company network connects to the
Internet. Similar access controls may be imposed at the gateways that
link departments to the backbone.

3) Finally, a companywide computer security policy must be in place,
which defines what risks one is concerned with, and what acceptable
use policies are in effect. Finally, the policy must plan what will be
done when violations are detected. RFC1244 provides an outline for
such a policy.

At my company, we have about 100 employees in our main facility, which
is on the internet, as CMC.COM; some smaller offices are connected by
dial-up links. Our parent company, Rockwell International, has its own
worldwide multiprotocol Internet, with sites connected on T1 and
56kbps links. When we joined Rockwell about five years ago, the
Rockwell network was mostly SNA and DECNET. Since then, it has become
mostly TCP/IP, and Cisco routers now connect departments to the
backbone, which is run by the corporate MIS department. The corporate
networking group is of a similar size as the U.S. regional Internet
service providers, and charges similar fees to the user departments.

> [Moderator's Note: Mr. Beach should review Unitel, the internal
> telecom network for United Airlines.

Rockwell, like other large companies with multiple sites, provides a
corporate telephone network with seven-digit numbers for almost every
employee world-wide, and allows most employees to dial these numbers
unrestricted while requiring the use of a "calling card" to call
numbers outside of this network. Until a few years ago, this network
was built on Rockwell-manufactured switches, but it is now implemented
by in IXC-provided "Software Defined Network" which is procured
competitively (and actually changes suppliers once in a while with no
change in phone numbers).

I have been very impressed with the translation services provided by
the SDN, as well as the accounting features. Considering the amount of
tedious data management that must be required to keep our translations
in a large number of IXC switches, alongside with the public dialing
plan and a few hundred other SDN translation sets, I find it
impressive that I have never heard of large-scale mistranslations.
Some people complain about connection quality, but mostly I think this
dates back to an institutional memory of the days before the network
was outsourced.


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]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 22:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE On the "Move"


[e-mail] (Paul Barnett) writes:

> This is the new reality at GTE Telephone Operations, based in Irving,
> where management wants nothing short of a complete culture change --
> from bureaucratic to lean and creative, from a regulated utility to a
> telecommunications services company.

Institutional propaganda has become the marketing tactic of the
nineties. When I read this article, I checked the date. It seems my
deja vu was triggered by the fact that Pac*Bell has been talking about
this (and doing something about it) for more than five years. Of
course, it did not have to move its customer service and repair
operations to Texas (or even Thousand Oaks) to stay on top of it.

Pacific Gas and Electric (a sorry excuse for a utility if there ever
was one -- the GTE of energy) has joined the "competition" frey. In a
recent {San Francisco Chronicle} article, spokespersons for PG&E
admitted that the company's rates were among the highest in the
nation. As a result, many of its largest customers have turned to
their own co-generation facilities for electric power. It turns out to
be cheaper for a large manufacturing company in California to generate
its own electricity than to buy from PG&E, even at "discount" rates.
Residence customers have been subsidizing business electric rates for
years.

But there was another shocker. "Our customers want more reliable
service", sayeth a PG&E executive. No excrement, Sherlock! It seems
that digital clocks and computers have put PG&E's little "mini-outages"
 in customers' faces. So what is the plan?

Cut the workforce, says PG&E. "We need to become lean and mean." Now,
given that PG&E's facilities suffer from gross neglect (causing many
of the outages), how does trimming the workforce make the company
better?  How does moving GTE's facilities to Texas improve that
company's service?

> In a considerably more competive world, GTE believes that its
> Telephone Operations unit must adapt to a fast-moving environment, and
> it must do so quickly.

So they move it all out of town? If droids in Thousand Jokes had no
idea where Los Gatos was, the weenies in Plano, TX, will probably ask
if it is in the US. And when I have to make the fifteen callbacks to
follow up on repairs, I will have to make sure that my long distance
calling plans include Texas, since GTE insists that you do business
with the company on your own nickel. (I hope Pac*Bell does not start
cutting costs in this manner.)

> There's an sidebar with a sampling of the goals of GTE Telephone
> Operations, extracted from an employee handbook.  I'll follow up with
> it later if there is any interest.

I will bet that is entertaining reading.

> The whole article reads more like marketing propaganda than anything
> else, but I thought it was interesting to see "The Phone Company"
> admit that they might be doing something wrong.

This is just the "new marketing". GTE never does anything wrong. I
have been told that thousands of times over the last thirty years.
Understand that GTE has to sooth many customers (particularly those
served by good phone companies that were taken over by the evil
empire) who justifiably feel abandoned when the local offices suddenly
sport "For Sale" signs. "We are slapping you in the face and walking
out on you and your town so that we can supply better service, blah,
blah, blah." Even GTE employees are bummed by the rush out of town.

I have always said that GTE was a disease. Now it is beginning to
metastasize. But it is nice to see that it took a course in Propaganda
and Public Relations. It used to just kick you in the teeth without
even so much as a by-your-leave.

At least at my residence I will be served by a company that maintains
a presence in California.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:09:54 PST
Subject: Re: EasyReach 700 Changes

[In the message entitled "EasyReach 700 Changes" on Feb 16, 12:10,
John J Butz <[e-mail]> writes:

> Has anyone noticed any changes to the EasyReach 700 service?

The EasyReach main menu has changed. The forwarding option that allows
you to forward your calls to the number you are calling from has been
removed, effective 02/01/93. There was no announcment of this prior to
the change. This also removes the highly useful ANAC feature
(determining the number that you are calling from).

Customer service gives two reasons for this change: Many people had
complained that using the feature would result in calls being
forwarded to the billing number, rather than the extension being
called from. This was also cited as a potential security problem, as
some businesses apparently did not want their billing number divulged.
The second reason has to do with customer service assisting people in
programming their forwarding.  When calling in via the 800 number, as
must be done from time to time due to billing restrictions, COCOT's
and the like, the customer service direct number would be used as the
target number (of course) rather than the customer's number.

The people that I spoke to were knowledgable, and very familiar with
the product. They are collecting customer feedback on this change, so
if you don't like it -- call them. The customer service number is
800-982-8480.  As EasyReach is not (currently) available outside the
USA, a direct-dial number is not available.

I still use the service, and find it an essential part of my telephone
needs.


Dave Rand   {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr
            Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Feb 93 17:13:53 EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


>[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights

Hmmn, flourescent lights?  I've been able to get flour to explode, but
never to glow continuously.  Have you told the USDA about this? Surely
price supports are needed.


Regards,

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

PS: :-)


[Moderator's Note: Sorry about that. After the first 50K bytes of text
go across my screen each day, I sometimes get careless. Those lights
can cause a lot of noise to communication systems however. I recall an
instance in about 1972: A friend was hired to relocate about eight
or so six-button, five-line phones for the First Unitarian Church in
Chicago, 312-FAIrfax-4100. He asked me to help him. They had four
outside lines and a dial intercom on the fifth position. One thing I
noticed before and after the relocating of the phones (they had moved
their offices around a little) was a very soft 'hum' in the background
om each outside line in the second or so the phone was off hook before
the dial tone arrived. Likewise, on incoming calls, the caller heard
this soft 'hum' instantly on connecting and during the ringing. It
went away once a connection was made, and could not be heard when
there was conversation on the line. I called repair service to see
about getting it cleared up, and shortly thereafter got a call back
from a foreman in the CO. This guy croaked like a frog and said to me,
"First Church, eh? ... I told you people a year ago to get the electric
wires for the ceiling lights in the office out of *my* conduit! No way
to get rid of the noise until you vacate the conduit. I'm going to
have the Business Office write you another letter on it."

All my arguments about conduit-in-common, and various court rulings
saying that everyone was entitled to use the *property owner's*
conduit including but not limited to telco went over his head. "We had
that conduit first! When we pulled pairs through there it was empty.
Then you people installed those new lights in the offices and pulled
wire right through *my* conduit ... I stood there a year ago and
watched them do it."  A letter from the Business Office a few days
later said that while it was true that conduit was available to all
for use, they were 'there first' and would not have used it had they
found 'other wiring not their own' inside it. Since it now had other,
non-telco wiring in it, we had to live with it or pull ours out. A
little experimentation with some filters got the noise to where it was
barely audible if you listened very closely.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 21:57:09 GMT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: UK PHoneDAY Details


[The following is excerpted from British Telecom's brochure about
"PHoneDAY", 16 April 1995, on which date significant changes will
occur in all numbers in the United Kingdom.]

THE COUNTDOWN HAS STARTED TO PH[ONE]DAY

On 16 April 1995 all UK area codes starting [0] will start [01].
Here's why.

A number 1 will be added to all UK area codes at 1:00am on the morning
of 16 April 1995.  Manchester's code, for example, will then change
from 061 to 0161.  This is happening to meet the huge demand
throughout the country for new codes and numbers.

These changes were decided by OFTEL, the telecommunications watchdog,
after lengthy consultation with those most affected, including
businesses and customers.  The result will be enough codes and numbers
to last us well into the next century.

Other changes to look out for:

There are two other changes taking place on 16 April 1995, in addition
to the changes to UK area codes.

The first concerns the cities of Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham,
Leicester, and Bristol.  They desperately need more numbers as a
result of the overall growth in telecommunications services, and the
rapid growth of the cities themselves.  Each of these cities will
therefore get a new area code and an additional digit (an extra 9 or
2) in front of the existing six-digit local telephone number.

* Leeds      - 0532 xxxxxx becomes 0113 2xx xxxx
* Sheffield  - 0742 xxxxxx becomes 0114 2xx xxxx
* Nottingham - 0602 xxxxxx becomes 0115 9xx xxxx
* Leicester  - 0533 xxxxxx becomes 0116 2xx xxxx
* Bristol    - 0272 xxxxxx becomes 0117 9xx xxxx

The other change taking place involves the international dialing
code.  At present it's 010, but a European Community standard requires
all European countries to share the same international dialing code.
From 16 April 1995, the code will therefore change to 00.  There is
also a move around the world to adopt 00 as the standard international
code.

[There follows a Q&A section.  Selected excerpts...]

Q: Will all numbers change?

A: No.  Mobile phones will still use the same codes [0831, 0836, 0850,
0860, and others]; only geographic area codes will change.  0800 and
0345 numbers won't change either.  Nor will recorded message phone
lines beginning with codes like 0891 [and 0898].

Q: Why couldn't these changes have been made at the same time as the
London code change?

A: London simply couldn't wait for an increase in phone numbers.  We
had to act by 1990, and OFTEL hadn't made a decision about the
National Code Change at that stage.

[The brochure also mentions that there will be permissive dialling in
effect beginning in August, 1994.]

Readers within the UK can dial 0800 01 01 01 for more information.

                      ----------

Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]
              ==  [e-mail]
59 Stourcliffe Close, London W1H 5AR  Tel. [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:48:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: What About #


Dear Elana Beach,

I wish to add to Pat's comments on why "#" is not used:

What about people using rotary/pulse phones?  Since "*" is a prefix,
you can dial "11" instead of the "*" (ex: call trace is *57 or 1157).
But how can you dial the "#" suffix using numbers only?  It's quite
ambiguous.  So shed those excess pounds!

(hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I modified the dialer to give
more than ten pulses -- what would I get?  Perhaps 11 pulses gives *,
12 pulses gives # so that playing with the dial as it returns could
give a hack for dialing * and #).


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Euee S. Jang)
Subject: DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunication) Info Request
Organization: UB
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 19:25:43 GMT


DECT( Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) information
needed:

I am considering the DECT for the environment for my experiment.
Right now, I am having difficulties in finding out the details in
DECT. I got some articles but it is just an introduction.  Does
someone have any kind of detail in DECT?

Also, can anyone recommend some articles on DECT?


Erik Jang   [e-mail]
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
State University of New York at Buffalo

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:41:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: FX Service Across Area Codes


Hi!

I'll soon be moving about a mile, from Springfield NJ (201-376
Millburn CO) to Union, NJ (908-686,687,688,851,964 Union CO).
Unfortunately, these are not served by the same CO, and NJ Bell tells
me that there is a $410 charge for FX service plus $11.67 for the
first mile and $3.35 for each additional mile per month.

Is FX service usually this expensive? Are there any other alternatives
which I'm overlooking?

    Trying to hold on to my current 201 number as long as I can,


reb


[Moderator's Note: FX service becomes expensive when it has to run
between two central offices which connect direct to each other. It
becomes *very expensive* when it involves tying up a pair full time
between two offices not next to each other (meaning it has to pass
through some third office). It is *very, very expensive* when it
involves different LATAs or some other telco or an LD carrier with
intervening offices, etc. At our firm here in Chicago, we have an FX
line to New Jersey and one to Los Angeles.  They cost BIG $$ monthly.
A modern alternative is 'remote call forwarding'. Ask telco to
terminate your current 201 number right in the CO where it is now and
put it on permanent call forwarding to your new number. That will only
cost $15-20 per month plus all calls it forwards at direct dial rates.
You'll get a lot of calls for the price of an FX, which is only needed
if you feel you must continue to make outgoing calls on the 201 number
as well. Despite what may be lower priced calls dialed via 201, you'll
need lots of them to justify what the line itself will cost you each
month.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: The War on Pagers
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 20:13:28 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
> of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
confiscate the cellular phone in my car.  An adult who gives a student
such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a
$10,000 fine.

Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
commercial broadcast band.  For example, if I let my son take my Radio
Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they
could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year.

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

From: Molly Geiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beepers and Pagers
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 03:00:14 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


I am looking for information on radio pagers and beepers.

Basically, I need to know how these instruments are being updated to
compete with current technologies.

Also, what types of communication are being used as alternatives to
the beeper?  What about PCN?  Voice-mail?  Post any information
please.

Thanks!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #105
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23575;
          17 Feb 93 15:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07220
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20985
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #106

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 12:45:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 106

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Directions, New Choices (Rochester Telephone via Phillip Dampier)
    AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Christopher Wolf)
    Boston-CT Delivery, NY Gets FMR (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Fiber Optic Television Information Request (Martin Egan)
    Cellular Switching Question (Gregory Youngblood)
    Telecom in Banking Industry (Clayton E. Kuetemeyer)
    Status of Cellular Resellers in California? (Robert Michael Gutierrez)
    Need Names of Carrier for 800-xxx Number (Glenn McComb)
    Multi-line Answering Machine (Paul E. Hoffman)
    Re: White House Phone Factoids (Brian Gordon)
    Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Dennis G. Rears)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Dampier)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 15:57:31 -0500
Subject: New Directions, New Choices


The following text comes from a booklet Rochester Telephone is sending in all
telephone bills this month.

| NEW DIRECTIONS |
| NEW CHOICES    |

** New Opportunities for Telephone Customers **

:: Rochester Telephone's "Open Market Plan" is Important to Everyone

Rochester Telephone is proposing an "Open Market Plan" which will
introduce competition for local telephone service in the Rochester,
N.Y. market.  It is our response to the reality of competition which
faces every business today, including ours.

:: Making the Move to An Open Market

Competition has changed the telephone industry for the better. From
long distance to cellular, competition is the way of the future.  Our
plan will allow customers, for the first time, to choose their local
service company.  We envision this will result in a broader selection
of products and services for Rochester customers.

Accordingly, Rochester Telephone has developed a plan for opening the
local market to all competitors.  To insure a level playing field and
provide customers with the best service at the best price, Rochester
Telephone plans to restructure itself by creating two new companies
under a parent Holding Company.

:: Creating Two New Companies To Meet the Needs of Both Customers & ::
Competitors

Our plan calls for creating two distinct companies.  One company,
temporarily referred to as R-Net, will be regulated by the New York
State Public Service Commission and act as a wholesale "network"
company.  It will let competitors use our network services.  These
competitors will resell these telephone services to area customers.

The second company, temporarily referred to as R-Com, will be a real
competitive company.  It will offer a complete package of telephone
products and services to the general public -- directly competing with
all other companies which enter the market.  Our competitive company
will buy from the wholesale network company at the same prices paid by
all competitors.

The new parent company will be formed to serve as a Holding Company
for all our subsidiaries.  All three companies will receive permanent
names at some point in the future.

"I don't want anything fancy.  Can I still get basic service from
Rochester Telephone?"

Yes.  You will be able to get basic service from our new competitive
company, R-Com.

"Will R-Com be like Rochester Telephone today?  Will it service both
residential and business customers?

Absolutely.  R-Com will offer basic residential and business dial tone
service, along with the extra features you already rely on to stay
efficient, like Voice Mail, Call Waiting, and many others.  You can
also look forward to some very exciting new features and service
packages.

:: Having More Choices Will Benefit Customers

For Rochester Telephone, Open Market restructuring offers us the
chance to broaden the scope and quality of our own competitive
products and services and to introduce new technologies.

Competition typically results in a greater range of choices, lower
prices and more attractive products and services.  We expect our
customers to quickly benefit from the new choices available to them.

"Is this good for me?"

We think so.  By eliminating some regulatory restrictions, we can move
faster to offer our customers a wider choice of advanced products and
services ... at competitive prices.  Long distance offers a perfect
example.  Competition in the long distance market has lowered rates as
much as 45% over the last 10 years.

"What will happen to local residential rates?"

We have proposed a multi-year Rate Stabilization Plan.  Under the
plan, Rochester Telephone guarantees no increase in basic residential
or Lifeline rates until at least January 1995.  After that, rates
would increase no more than inflation.  Further, any competitor buying
wholesale from R-Net and offering residential local service will be
required to pass along the same basic rates to customers.

:: There'll Be Plenty of Time to Make an Informed Decision

Rochester Telephone's Open Market Plan must first be approved by the
New York State Public Service Commission.  That process begins now and
will stretch well into 1993.  Once approved, it will take another six
or seven months for Rochester Telephone to completely establish its
two companies and for competitors to enter the market.

During this period, customers will be provided with new product and
service information from all competitive companies.  So, there'll be
plenty of time to make a careful decision.

"Will I see any changes right now?"

No.  This plan is subject to the New York State Public Service
Commission's approval, a process which will take several months.
Continuing to deliver high quality products and services is our
priority throughout the review period and beyond.

"Will my phone number change?"

Your phone number will stay the same no matter which telephone company
you choose to provide your local service.

"Why are you doing this now?"

Competition is coming to all local telephone service companies --
whether or not we initiate this change now.  Competition is
accelerating due to changes in technology and as a result of decisions
by state and federal regulatory agencies.  By taking this action, we
will be better prepared to serve customers in the future, as full
competition develops.

"How do I let you know which phone company I want?"

All local customers will receive a ballot to choose the local
telephone company they prefer.

"Is that like when we picked a long distance company?"

Yes.  It's very similar.

:: Any other Questions?

Although we've tried to anticipate many of your questions, if you have
others, Rochester Telephone will be happy to answer them for you
personally.  Simply call [phone] to discuss residential service
or [phone] with inquiries about business telephone service.


Rochester Telephone

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

From: [e-mail] (CHRISTOPHER WOLF)
Subject: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 16:40:40 -0500 (EST)


I have a question regarding the legality of something that AT&T is
doing.  It seems to me to be illegal.

Last month I ran up charges of $11.77 on my phone.  I live in
University housing, which uses the AT&T Acus Service, in which each
person in the room has a personal identity number which must be
entered in order to make a long distance phone call.  Supposedly, this
keeps everyone in the room from being disconnected when one person
does not pay his part of the bill.

Anyway.  I had $11.77 and sent them a cashier's check for $12.00, only
because I could not remember the exact amount of the bill when I was
at the bank.  The bill for this month came back with the credit for
$12.00 on it, and NEW CHARGES for $0.93

Now the fun part.

The Acus Service has a policy of charging 10% in late fees if the bill
is not paid by the due date.  In my case, the following is listed:

    If PAYMENT IN FULL received by 03/02/93, amount DUE: $0.70
If payment in full NOT received by 03/02/93, amount DUE: $0.79

Now, 10% of $0.70 comes to $0.07 in my book.  I called and asked about
this.  The gentleman I spoke with gave me a bit of a run-around in the
respect that every time I asked why it was 12.5% instead of 10% he
said that I shouldn't worry because I probably wouldn't get charged
anyway, being that my bill was under $5.00. When I pressed, he said the
$0.09 was because the late fees are charged on the NEW CHARGES, not
the NET BALANCE DUE.

If this legal?  They're trying to charge me late fees on something
I've already paid, namely the extra $0.23.

As an aside, I think their policies are horrible on this service.  If
I don't spend $0.29 on a stamp and $0.20 for a check fees to pay this
$0.70 in charges, I get a late fees and possibly disconnection of my
service.  This applied even if one only owes a few cents.  I argued
with them about a $0.12 bill one time.  Also, he agreed that it
shouldn't be $0.09, and asked that I call him back next month with
whatever late charges I get.

I few cents here, a few cents there, spread across a couple thousand
college student could really add up.


Christopher Wolf      Electrical Engineer    [e-mail]

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

Date: 17-FEB-1993 04:45:21.40
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boston-CT Delivery, NY Gets FMR


Customers of Cell One/Boston can now get calls in Metro Mobile's CT
and Western Mass systems, just as they may currently do in Rhode
Island.

To initiate Call Delivery, hit *28 (anywhere that accepts it, even in
Delaware, although you won't get calls there yet). To deactivate, hit
*29. In some areas outside of the "official" areas where you can use
*28/*29, you can use *350 (for *28) and *35 (for *29). Remember, you
will only get calls in all of Mass, Rhode Island, and Connecticut --
even though the *28/*29 may work in other Motorola-EMX markets, it
doesn't mean your calls will be delivered there. You should, however,
be able to continue using Call-Forwarding, Call-Waiting, and
Three-Way Calling from New Hampshire down to Delaware, with the current
exception of Cell One/NY.

I'm not sure as to any change in the Atlantic Cellular (CO/VT)/ Cell
One Boston "interim/partnership" service in New Hampshire regarding
call delivery. I'll check this out next time I'm there. All other
features should work fine, though.

If you have voicemail active, any unanswered calls in CT or W.Mass
will dump back to your voicemail after a few rings. You can of course
force calls to voicemail by hitting *29. I believe that there will be
a toll delivery charge for calls delivered to CT and W. Mass, ie, the
cost of an LD call from Boston to CT. (At least CT customers in Boston
will be assesed this charge, and since both are owned by Bell
Companies, I suspect the same will be true for Boston customers in
CT).

The same *28/*29 codes now work for Metro Mobile/CT customers in the
Boston system, but calls still don't seem to be delivered into Boston
for some reason, and callers are met with the standard Re-Order that a
Motorolla delivers when it can't complete a call for technical
reasons.

On another note, NYNEX/NYC *finally* got Follow Me Slowly ...errr
ROAMING ... sorry! :) I *HOPE* they have a sufficient number of "dummy
numbers" so that most *18 activations can be processed. The
NYNEX/Orange County and whoever does the B side in Syracuse have SO
few numbers that they usually run out by three in the afternoon, in
which case all subsequent FMR activations will get a confirmation but
never take effect.

Additionally, BAMS/Philly-NJ will be adding to its automatic
Call-Delivery network with Baltimore and DC by April (or so they tell
me), and other BAMS properties later on in the year. Thus, there will
soon be automatic delivery from NY (I-84) all the way down to Virginia
on the B side, which is rather impressive.

Note that if you are an SNET/Linx or BAMS/Philly customer, and you
activate FMR in some other market, and then come to NYC, you can now
avoid the "dead spot" in NY in terms of Call-Delivery by hitting *19.
You will need to do this in order to get Call-Delivery IF you have
activated FMR elsewhere the same day. Automatic Call-Delivery does NOT
supercede FMR (ie, call-forwarding), so FMR must be cancelled with *19
in order for Automatic Call-Delivery to kick in.

Finally, I don't think unanswered calls will go to voicemail -- you
need to turn your phone OFF if you want calls to go to voicemail.
There are no "codes" to force this to happen (although you can have
them turn call-delivery off at the switch on a semi-permament basis),
but the response is instantaneous, unlike the "A" side's NACN and
other delivery systems which may take over two hours after powering OFF
before calls go to voicemail (unless you use the *35/*350 "Do Not
Disturb" codes). This inability to "take back" a call and route it to
voicemail or anywhere is a MAJOR flaw in my opinion, and hopefully
they will be able to use IS-41 Rev.A or do *something* to correct
this.

Well, at least there's been SOME progress!


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

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

From: Martin Egan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fiber Optic Television Information Request
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:31:28 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


I am doing research on the benefits/disadvantages of the telephone
industry using fiber optics to enter the cable television industry.
If you have any information, or something similar, please send it.


Thank You.

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

Subject: Cellular Switching Question
From: tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 08:15:05 CST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services


[e-mail] (The Circuit) writes:

> And last, could someone describe the difference between SAT's 00, 01,
> and 10?

SAT tones are:  none, 5970, 6000, 6030

Here's where I'm going to stick my keyboard in my mouth probably.  I
don't remember exactly which range these are in. I want to say Hz.
I'll look it up in my manuals.


Greg

TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008
      Mail-server requests to:  [e-mail]
[e-mail]        or       [e-mail]
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta               or           ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta

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

From: Clayton E. Kuetemeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom in Banking Industry
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 05:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


Doing research on telecommunications in the banking industry.  Any
information on capabilities or effects on customer service would be
greatly appreciated.  Also very interested in automated teller machine
info.  Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Michael Gutierrez)
Subject: Status of Cellular Resellers in California?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Michael Gutierrez)
Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 06:06:58 GMT


Does anybody have any status of the CPUC decision on allowing
resellers in the Monarchy ... err ... State of California.  I
understand that the CPUC appeal was lost (3rd hand info, though), but
no info on the proposed lawsuit by the carriers against the CPUC for
that decision.

Secondly: If the decision is standing, is anybody poised to start
reselling?  I'll be the first in line to sign up, BTW.


Thanks in advance.

Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn McComb)
Subject: Need Names of Carrier for 800-xxx number
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 08:15:25 GMT


I am trying to find out how to get a custom 800 number, say
1-800-268-xxxx.  I was told that each carrier owns certain blocks of
numbers.  How do I find out this one in particular, and in general?

It was pleasing to here that you will soon be able to take your 800
numbers with you to another carrier.

If anyone know anything about this, please help!


Thanks!

Glenn A. McComb       [phone] ofc * 725-0222 fax
McComb Research        PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015
gmccomb @ netcom.com                MHS: glenn @ mccomb


[Moderator's Note: At the time of divestiture, AT&T was the only
supplier of 800 numbers. After the split, AT&T kept what 800 prefixes
they were using plus a few spares. The rest were put in a pool and
distributed to other carriers. I think Bellcore handled the distri-
bution. For a list of which carriers got which prefixes, pull some
files from the Telecom Archives: 'areacode.guide', '800*'. Use
anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives'.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul E. Hoffman)
Subject: Multi-line Answering Machine
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 17:17:09 GMT


I'm doing research for a friend. She wants five lines worth of
outgoing-only answering machines, low cost. Same message on each, and
in can be a barge-in system (one repeating tape with people coming in
in the middle).

 -- I know a company called "Skutch" makes some sort of system like
this.  Does anyone have a tele for them or a rep of theirs?

 -- Are there industrial-strength single-line systems that are cheap?
She doesn't mind duping the tape five times and dropping it in five
machines if that's much cheaper and/or more reliable than a five-line
system.

Please respond in email and I'll summarize the results here.


Paul Hoffman

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Gordon)
Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids
Date: 17 Feb 93 00:07:36 GMT
Organization: Sun


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

> "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington
> and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday
> attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon."

Maybe it's been moved, but the "hot line" _used to_ terminate
somewhere other than the Pentagon -- in the dark recesses of No Such
Agency ...


Brian G. Gordon       [e-mail]        [e-mail]
B.GORDON2 on GENie  70243,3012 on CompuServe  BGordon on AOL

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 9:31:43 EST
From: Dennis G. Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge


TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Have you ever considered having a call-extender
> type of device put on a line -- with a complex security code -- and an
> 800 number in to it to be used for ALL outgoing long distance calls?
> That way you would get the direct dial rate on all your long distance
> calls no matter where you are when you need to make a call. The
> 'surcharge' would be whatever you pay per minute on the 800 line, but
> the combination of charges would often times still be less than making
> a call via the hotel switchboard with its surcharge, or the surcharge
> your calling card requires.  Your biggest savings would come on very
> short calls where there is no opportunity to spread the surcharge over
> several minutes.  PAT]

Where can one get a "call-extender"?  How much do they cost?  Can one
do this with just two lines?


dennis


[Moderator's Note: Two lines is all you need; one for incoming calls
and one for outgoing calls. You can get them at various telephone
supply houses including (I think) 'Hello Direct' 1-800-HI-HELLO.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 9:51:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


A while back, I mentioned the zip-area directory as being of some
help.  I don't have the publisher's phone number in front of me, but I
could supply the address from memory.  Let me know if you need it.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #106
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01342;
          17 Feb 93 18:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13525
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:08:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05241
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:07:56 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:07:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #108

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 16:06:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 108

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Don Wegeng)
    Re: FX Service Across Area Codes (Mark Blumhardt)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Brent Whitlock)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Larry Ader)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Ihor Kinal)
    Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number (Doug Zolmer)
    Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? (John Anderson)
    Re: Third Party Network Connectivity (Ron Beach)
    Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups (John K Scoggin, Jr.)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R. Stearns)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Steve Scherer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 04:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


Bob Longo <[e-mail]> writes:

> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be
> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is
> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted
> numbers.

Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am
damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon
absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet
another useful technology.

I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is
useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the
country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas
that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way.

The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and
that no other state has required default per-line blocking and
per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the
mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The
restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the
offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists
won this round.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:11:17 GMT


I don't have an opinion on this issue, but there are some facts I
wanted to clarify.

In article <[e-mail]> jack.decker@f8.n154.
z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
> L. McMillin) wrote:

>> [e-mail] (Ken Dykes) writes:

>>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles.  I
>>> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing
>>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)
>>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of
>>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

>> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to
>> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number
>> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled.  After all, privacy is the same thing
>> as anonymity ... NOT!

>>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-)

>> It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really.

> I think I would take issue with both of these statements.  First of
> all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending
> the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy"
> flag attached.  If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then
> there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state,
> particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which
> means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway.

PacBell doesn't have this choice, because the decision of whether or
not Calling Party Number is sent is part of the IXC interstate access
tariff.  If the IXC subscribes to delivery of Calling Party Number,
the LEC must send it if it is available.  Regardless of whether anyone
can read it, the IXC has subscribed to receive it.

> Apparently the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they
> have to do is turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the
> extra income from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC
> allowed it.

The fact that numbers are being delivered to IXCs is not sufficient to
indicate that the Caller ID software is available or active in
PacBell's switches.  Sending CPN does not require the Caller ID
feature; it requires only SS7 ISUP.  Activating the Caller ID feature
requires payment of an additional Right-To-Use fee.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Wegeng)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:27:01 GMT


The replies that I have received about roaming and antennas have been
very useful, and are much appreciated.  There's still one area that
I'm still not clear on, namely emergency use of the phone when I'm
outside my home service area.

Consider the following scenario.  At home I have a contract with the A
carrier, and have the phone programmed to only roam with A carriers.
Now I'm travelling in another state, and come upon a serious car
accident.  My phone says that there's no cellular service in this
area, so I can't use it to summon help, regardless of whether this
particular area was covered by a B carrier.

In the above scenario, had I programmed the phone to roam on B
channels (or roam on both, with priority to A channels) would I have
been able to make an emergency call?  In other words, will carriers
accept emergency calls from any telephone, or will they only accept
emergency calls from phones that they recognize?


Thanks,

Don    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Blumhardt)
Subject: Re: FX Service Across Area Codes
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 19:03:07 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: FX service becomes expensive when it has to run
> between two central offices which connect direct to each other.

> A modern alternative is 'remote call forwarding'. Ask telco to
> terminate your current 201 number right in the CO where it is now and
> put it on permanent call forwarding to your new number. That will only
> cost $15-20 per month plus all calls it forwards at direct dial rates.

Let's make this a little more complex:

Let's say that I move from location A to B, and A and B are in the
same calling area (no toll).  Let's also say that C is in the same
calling area as B.  But C and A are not in the same calling area and
would have a toll charge if they called each other.  So, if I call
forward from A to B, and C calls A, would C be charged for a toll
call?  Sorry if this is too difficult to follow; a diagram would be
easier ...


Mark


[Moderator's Note: Yes, C would have a toll call to reach A and A
would have a local call to reach B. Likewise, if D was a phone sitting
right next to C and you had A forwarded to C, then when D called A,
the call would wind up on the same desk where it started and you would
have two toll charges; one going and one coming back. What A and B do
is of no concern to C. C wants to place a call to A, then C pays for a
call to A. The fact that A says 'send all my incoming calls to B' is
not important. C wants to talk to A, and A is making sure that will
occur, but via B. C gets what C paid for, with the added expense
charged to A because A wants coverage of his line. Each part of a
forwarded call is charged to where it *expects* to wind up; that is
the fallacy behind the idea that you can forward your phone to 'some
expensive 900 service' and stick the originating caller with the
charge. Do it and the joke will be on you.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:57:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


 From the message sent by [e-mail]:

> "It is my understanding that only the areas that are in the City of
> Los Angeles;"

I don't understand what this means.  Other sources indicate that the
City of L.A. is much bigger than just the Los Angeles exchange or the
900xx zipcodes.

> "downtown only remained 213 and the others went to 310. Those
> areas are West LA and such."

Montebello stayed in 213, and the central Los Angeles exchange (which
includes downtown, Hollywood, etc., plus the "foreign" L.A.  exchanges
appearing in what is now 818 and 310) also stayed in 213.  Yes, West
L.A. is among the exchanges which moved to 310.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 11:31:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?


[Moderator's Note: What a convenient arrangement!  I had heard these
devices get back as far as the transformer serving the neighborhood,
and I guess your experience shows this is true.  PAT]

Oh Pat, what a sense of humor you have!  In areas of private houses,
the pole transformers serve perhaps 3-10 homes (perhaps 20 - I'm not
sure).  That's hardly the entire neighborhood - just the block or
apartment building.  I don't think the signals cross between the
phases either -- that's why the X10 modules needed some capacitor
between the house's phases to let the signal propagate throughout the
house.

Yes, I agree that the signals are getting out of the house and into
neighbors' homes, but like a cordless phone, it's limited enough in
range that the risks are acceptable to many people (but certainly not
to us!)


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 21:38:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> >[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights

> Hmmn, flourescent lights?  I've been able to get flour to explode, but
> never to glow continuously.  Have you told the USDA about this? Surely
> price supports are needed.

> Regards,

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

> PS: :-)

Actually, virtually any material can be made to emit photons if enough
power is pumped into it.  I refer you to the paper on the first edible
laser, the "Jello" laser.  T. A. Hansch, M. Pernier, and A. L.
Schalow, "Laser Action of Dyes in Gelatin," {IEEE Journal of Quantum
Electronics} QE-7, 47, January 1971.

So, here's to those flourescent lights! :-)

    * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER:  I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * *
Brent Whitlock        Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology
[e-mail]    Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
            University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Ader)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Date: 17 Feb 93 06:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, CA


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

> My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
> product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.

> Anybody hear about this product?  Any comments?  Does it actually
> work?  What's the signal/noise ratio via this method?  Would this
> actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a
> house?

I tried using a pair of them myself.  The intent was to be able to use
it for connection to a modem in one of my rooms that doesn't have a
phone jack.  Unfortunately, when I "listened to the line" through a
telephone (after dialing one digit) there was a detectable hum on the
line.  I was able to discover the source of the hum -- I also have
several (formerly BSR) X-10 modules in my place.  If I disconnected
them, the hum went away.  I decided that that inconvenience wasn't
worth it.

I did try to make a modem connection anyway, and I guess the hum was
just too much for it (the modem).  Anybody want to buy a pair of them
(barely used)?


 Larry Ader    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 2550 Garcia Ave.  M/S  MPK03-201   Mountain View, CA   94043-1100
 amdahl!echidna!lra  (home) ph. 415/688-9721

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:46:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: AT&T


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

> My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
> product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.

> [Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights
> or other noise making conditions in the power lines.   PAT]

What concerns me, is the capability that someone could grab the line
remotely.  I remember that allegedly people use to cruise neighbor-
hoods looking for cordless frequencies to dial out on.  Nasty hassle
to resolve.

Is that possible with these devices?

Inquiring minds want to know ...  Standard disclaimers apply.


Ihor Kinal   att!trumpet!ijk

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:33:00 +0000
From: Doug (D.W.J.) Zolmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number


> I am trying to find out how to get a custom 800 number, say
> 1-800-268-xxxx.  I was told that each carrier owns certain blocks of
> numbers.  How do I find out this one in particular, and in general?

> It was pleasing to here that you will soon be able to take your 800
> numbers with you to another carrier.

> If anyone know anything about this, please help!

Bell Canada - Ontario region "owns" 800-268-XXXX.  There are a lot of
TV commercials in Ontario with 800 numbers with that exchange.  I
doubt very much if Glenn will be able to obtain an 800 number in that
exchange since it's in Canada.


Doug Zolmer     Internet: [e-mail]     Disclaimer: my opinions only
        Bell-Northern Research Limited, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
     Dept. 7N61 - Service Control Point - Routing Services Design
            Voice: +1 613.763.8217   FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Anderson)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 20:33:46 GMT


[e-mail] (John V. Jaskolski) writes:

> Does anyone know Tellab's phone number?

Tellab's Headquarters: 708-969-8800

Tellab's Technical Assistance: 708-505-0099


John D. Anderson, M.S.      |Internet:  [e-mail]
Motorola                    |uucp:      uunet!motcid!andrsonj
1501 W. Shure Drive         |Phone:     [phone]
Arlington Heights, IL 60004, Mail Stop: IL27-2237

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Third Party Network Connectivity
Date: 17 Feb 93 07:30:02 -0600
Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA)


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

> I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business
> directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company
>  - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third
> party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil).

Dear all -

Thanks to those that have replied to me. As hindsight, I should have
made it clearer that I meant data networks, not telephone networks.
There are no issues with connecting voice systems.

We have an international internal data network, and, of course, a
secure Internet gateway. We have quite a few current network
connections to things like banks, accounting firms, etc , and are
considering opening our data network by plugging into the networks of
business partners -- for instance joint operation of facilities and
sites. The head audit group is helping with the process, and currently
supportive. Cost is the issue. If it costs more to the whole
organization to open the network than to leave it closed,then we
probably won't do it. The businesses are fragmented -- with differing
needs for data connectivity. If our network is declared open and
insecure, then those business portions who don't like it, or are
sensitive (as finance, trading, etc) must spend money to close
themselves off. If the aggregate total cost for internal security is
greater than the aggregate total of costs of external 'firewalls'
needed, and there are no offsetting benefits, then we'll likely not
proceed.

Any leads to other companies who might have gone through this for
direct inter-business links (not via the Internet) would be
appreciated.


Thanks again,

Ron Beach            Manager, Telcom and Information Strategy
BP Research          4440 Warrensville Ctr. Rd
Cleveland, Ohio  44128  [e-mail]

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

From: John K Scoggin Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups
Date: 17 Feb 1993 12:31:57 GMT
Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John Biederstedt) writes:

> We have some T1 circuits and would like to provide high-speed dial
> backup capability.  It would be nice to get 56 kb dial-ups.  Codex
> makes such a modem, but it is compressed.  Dissapointingly, they are
> moving to higher-speed asyncronous modems rather than syncronous
> modems. :-(  Does the Internet have any suggestions?

Western Datacom makes a 56KBPS Synchronous modem that will run over
dialed lines or leased lines.  It uses compression, but they seem
pretty confident in it ...


John K. Scoggin, Jr.            Email: [e-mail]
Supervisor, Network Operations       Phone: [phone]
Delmarva Power & Light Company       Fax:   [phone]
500 N. Wakefield Drive               NOC:   [phone]
Newark, DE 19714-6066
The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the
product of an over-active imagination...

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R Stearns)
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:14:24 GMT
Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc.


> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred R
> Stearns) writes:

>> Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen,
>> doesn't that make 62.667 kbps?

Thanks to all of the following people:

Steve Forrette, [e-mail]
Brett    ([e-mail])
Al Varney
[e-mail]
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

For pointing out to me that you don't know which of the bytes has a
bit stolen, so you must assume that they all do.


Fred R. Stearns -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Scherer)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: CSU Fresno
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:23:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mike.riddle%inns@
axolotl.omahug.org writes:

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

>> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
>> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
>> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
>> in the brain cell department.

> This may well be true, :-), but as the original post noted, the FCC is
> under a mandate from our Congre$$ Critter$ to promulgate reguations on
> this subject.  Now if anyone wonders about the collective I.Q. of
> Congre$$ on technological matters ... PAT has some perfectly dry
> tunnels under Chicago to sell.

QST Magazine recently published an article on how to build a
modification to an existing scanner that would allow scanning of the
800 meg band. There was the usual disclaimer, but we all know how far
that will go.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #108
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05000;
          17 Feb 93 20:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26384
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:00:54 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17353
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 14:59:57 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 14:59:57 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #107

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 14:59:45 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 107

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (Brent Capps)
    Re: One-Way Outgoing Service (Al Varney)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (John Langner)
    Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) (Jack Decker)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1?
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 17:26:13 GMT


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

> Tas Dienes <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without
>> having to get T1 service?  I just have a couple of regular (actually,
>> Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint.  Sprint says
>> no, but I was wondering if anybody else can?

> In order to receive realtime ANI from a long distance carrier, you
> must have a "trunk-side connection". All connections from your telco's
> switch are "line-side connections". So the answer is no, you cannot
> get realtime ANI without having a direct trunk connection to a
> carrier's switch.

Correct.  MCI offers a "DTMF ANI" service that may mislead some people
into thinking that they'll get ANI over a line-side circuit.  However,
what this service is really designed to do is replace the MF with DTMF
so you won't need to order MF receiver circuits for your PBX or ACD
gear.  You still need a trunk-side circuit.

In article <[e-mail]> tim gorman <71336.1270@
CompuServe.COM> writes:

> Third, having said trunk side connections are available from the
> telco's switch, it is also necessary to point out that this probably
> won't help you in getting your ANI in any way. No switch I am aware of
> that is in use in the LEC networks will accept ANI from a carrier so
> the telco switches couldn't tandem ANI to you anyway. The telco
> switches aren't setup to pass ANI on the trunk side unless you are the
> billing office for a toll call, are a 911 PSAP, or are a Feature Group
> D interLATA carrier. If your PBX can handle Feature Group D signaling
> formats, you want to go through the process of being designated as an
> interLATA carrier, want to get an 800 NXX assigned (or wait until May
> 1 when 800 portability comes into play), and provide trunks into every
> sector where you may receive calls from then this may be a viable
> solution.

It's not necessary to be designated as a carrier.  You are correct
about the LECs giving FGD ANI only to IXCs and never accepting it from
them, but an IXC can still drop ANI to you over a trunk-side FGD
circuit (analog or digital).

FGD actually encompasses four different protocols.  The one that the
IXCs use to terminate to LECs is called the terminating protocol, and
it makes no provision for passing ANI information (which is why you've
never seen the LECs accept ANI from the IXCs).  However, the Exchange
Access North America (EANA) protocol used by LECs to terminate to IXCs
does provide for ANI signaling, and even though it's not officially
defined for IXCs terminating to end-users, it can be and is done all
the time, generally to inbound calling centers running large ACD
systems.  The only carrier I'm aware of that *won't* support this is
AT&T, and the reason seems to be that they want you force to buy PRI
or BRI if you want to get calling party information.

There's one more way to get ANI -- you can order an SMDI data link,
which is used by Centrex voice mail systems, and will also work on the
1ESS.  However it's much more limited in the ways it can be used than
FGD ANI.


Brent Capps
[e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 11:27:30 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: One-Way Outgoing Service
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeffrey Jonas) writes:

> I am curious about this:

>> [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls
>> on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you
>> should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only.
>> Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all.   PAT]

> Is "one-way outgoing service" an additional cost?  I've heard of the
> opposite (incoming only, to prevent any long distance billing), but no
> incoming calls -- interesting.  Would those lines even HAVE a phone
> number?  Could they all be the same number, and billed based on some
> imaginary number (trunk/line number just as places with more than one
> line at the same number)?

> At home, I have a second line that I'm currently using only for
> outgoing modem/data calls.  Someday I may have a FAX or BBS, so I do
> not intend to block incoming calls, but it is a curious idea.  Could
> you elaborate why this service is offered?

See below.

> If it is possible to have a phone line with no number, what would
> Caller-ID report?  ANO?  I guess that *SOME* number must be associated
> with every line for billing purposes.  Drat -- I'd like to have a
> number with no ANI so 900 numbers can't bill me.  Or was I not
> supposed to notice that?

   Lines without Calling Party numbers are not uncommon -- PBXs can
interface that way on some switches, and "rural" or multi-party lines
do not have a single number associated with them.  Most cellular calls
don't have a calling number with the current interfaces. International
numbers don't usually get transported, since the current Bellcore
specs specify only ten-digit numbers.

   One way or another, every line has a billing number (and thus has
ANI).  Multi-party lines get "per-call ANI" assigned by the Operator
Number Identification service ("What number are your calling from,
please?").  PBXs get one (or more) billing numbers assigned to
outgoing facilities.  Trunks, except for Private Facilities and
PBX/Service Provider trunks, don't have a billing number.

> [Moderator's Note: Lines equipped for outgoing only service generally
> have regular phone numbers attached to them. Callers to those numbers
> either get a busy signal (if the line is in use on an outgoing call)
> or an intercept message, "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in
> service for incoming calls" if the line is not busy. There are other
> variations: Lines for incoming service only generally provide battery
> but no dial tone to the subscriber if picked up with no call coming
> in. ...]

   Bellcore's LSSGR calls the two line capabilities "denied
origination" and "denied termination".  You can have either or both
assigned to a line.  (Service denial due to non-payment of bills is
normally accomplished using a separate capability that remembers all
your old line features. Denied origination requires that all
originating features (call forwarding, etc.)  be removed first.

   Anyway, denied origination should give no dial tone, but will
appear busy to incoming calls if off-hook.  Denied termination should
never receive a call (but operator ring-back is permitted), and should
NEVER appear busy to a caller, even if off-hook.  The appropriate
announcement on termination attempts is not suggested by Bellcore.

   One use for denied termination occurs in COs.  Usually at least one
line is marked this way, to assure there is always one line available
for outgoing calls.  That way, they can't all be tied up with spouses
calling in with a shopping list, etc.  I once was working on a CO
problem (remotely), and the WECo installer gave me a number for a
later call-back.  He didn't know (he claimed) that it was denied
incoming calls.  Not any worse than giving me the WRONG number, which
has happened more than once.


Al Varney - just my opinion, of course.


[Moderator's Note: In order for the operator to ring back, doesn't she
have to already be on the line (and apply ringing voltage) rather than
just dialing in?  If the operator dials in, won't the response be the
same as anyone else dialing in?  If she was talking to someone on that
line and they hang up (while she still has control of the conn-
ection) then she could ring their bell, but the connection has to be
there already. Am I correct on this?  Regards an outgoing only line
never giving a busy signal to a caller when it is in use, I have never
seen any in IBT territory which work that way!  I always assumed it
was the nature of the wiring on that type of service, at least in the
older crossbar offices, etc. Lots of payphones here are outgoing only,
and when I tested this by dialing the number from the same phone I
always got a busy rather than an intercept. Hang up the phone, go to
the next one over and dial the first number, then being idle, I got
the intercept message saying it was not in service for incoming
calls.  Lest you think it is me calling myself which generated the
busy, I'd get the same response if someone else was using that phone
when I dialed the number;  busy signal if in use, intercept message if
idle. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John W. Langner)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Advanced Visual Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:56:13 GMT


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

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

>> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
>> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
>> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
>> in the brain cell department.

> Actually, it's not the FCC by itself in this.  In fact, they have
> declined to attempt to regulate scanners in the past.  If you read the
> NPRM, you will see that the FCC is only attempting to set a rule in
> accordance with legislation passed by Congress.  It's the dummies in
> Congress who are short in the brain cell department.

Whining about the idiots in Congress won't do any good but a half
million letters to the FCC pointing out the problems with Docket 93-1
can't be ignored.

So, if you want to express your concern about this issue, please write
a letter to the FCC.  It will only take a few minutes.  Here is a
rough draft of what I plan to send.  Feel free to use it with little
or no modification.


John Langner WB2OSZ    [e-mail]


        Comments on Docket No. 93-1
        ---------------------------


                < Your address here >
                Feb. 16, 1993


    Office of the Secretary
    Federal Communications Commission
    1919 M Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20554

    Dear Commissioners:

    After examining the text of Docket No. 93-1, I am convinced
    this proposed rule would NOT contribute to the stated objective
    of ensuring "the privacy of cellular telephone conversations."

    Recent magazine articles on this topic indicate that there are
    already millions of scanning receivers in use that can receive
    frequencies in the 800 MHz range.  The proposed law would not
    not take effect for another year, providing ample opportunity
    for scanner manufacturers to sell many millions more.

    Even if a scanner isn't capable of receiving signals in
    this frequency range, a simple converter can be used between
    the antenna and receiver to shift the frequency of the radio
    signals.

    Trying to ban converters with 800 MHz in and some other
    frequency range out would be a futile effort.  These are very
    cheap and simple circuits that any electronics hobbyist could
    build.  Plans have been published in electronics magazines.

    Besides having no benefits, this proposed rule creates several
    problems:

        (1) The technically ignorant public might get the idea
        their conversations are suddenly more secure.  When
        they learn the truth they will be bitter and more
        distrustful of the telephone companies and government
        agencies that deceived them.

        (2)    Privacy might even be reduced. Before the publicity on
        this topic, most people didn't realize it was so easy
        to listen to cellular phone calls.  Many who never
        considered buying a scanner will run out and buy one
        during the next year.

        (3) New regulations would place an unnecessary burden on
        electronics manufacturers who would have to change designs
        and have them recertified.

        (4) It would set an unfortunate precedent.  If we have
        a ban on receivers capable of receiving a certain
        range of frequencies, other businesses will expect
        the same treatment for "their" frequencies.

        (5)    The regulations could hit unintended targets.  For
        example the 902 MHz band is now experiencing explosive
        growth for low power commercial and "ham" applications.
        Surely much of this equipment could easily be modified
        to pick up signals in the 800 MHz range even if the
        manfacturer didn't design it with that intention.

    I'm all for guarding the privacy of cellular telephone
    conversations but this is not the way to do it.  There is only
    one solution.  The cellular telephone companies must make
    encryption options available.

    In summary, I urge the Commission to reject the proposed regulations
    in Docket 93-1 because they would create many problems without
    making any progress toward the stated goal.

    Thank you for your attention to this important matter.


                    Yours truly,

                    < Your name here >


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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 12:21:15 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem)


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Aninda Dasgupta) wrote:

> Perhaps Jack Decker will let us know whether he finally succeeded in
> his attempts to ftp to mintaka.

No, I haven't, but I want to take this opportunity to thank all those
who wrote with suggestions.  Unfortunately, I don't have the source
code for the KA9Q program, and while sources are available, I think
the one I am using has been specially modified somehow for use with
MichNet (the statewide public data network in Michigan that I'm
using) ... I'm not sure of that but do know that I have tried newer
versions of KA9Q and for whatever reason, they don't seem to work as
well.  And even if I did have sources, I have no way to compile them
here.

There is a parameter that supposedly sets the IP TTL in KA9Q.  In
fact, my autoexec.net file (a list of commands that is automatically
implemented at startup) contained the line "ip ttl 32".  I doubled the
32 to 64 with no apparent change (I've even tried considerably higher
values temporarily).

I do know that someone using the EXACT same software, and also using
MichNet (but at a different access port in a different city) is able
to reach lcs.mit.edu with no problem.

However, it seems that in the Internet, where there is a will there is
a way!  While I still can't do FTP, I have found a way to at least
read some of the files stored in the telecom archives, thanks to a
TELECOM Digest reader who told me about this (I don't know if he would
want his name mentioned, but I've already thanked him via mail).  If
you can telnet to a Gopher system (which I can), and if that Gopher
allows you to access "other gophers" (most do), you should eventually
be able to find one that offers remote FTP access.  I've found that it
is often buried under some pretty cryptic menu items ... for example,
on one such Gopher you have to select "Network Info", then "Internet
files (FTP sites)", then you enter the location you want to FTP from
and then the Gopher automatically goes out and gets the directories
and lets you choose the item you want to read.  If you go in through
the right gopher system for your initial point of contact, you may
even have the option of mailing a copy of anything you find
interesting back to yourself (not sure I'd try that with some of the
larger archives, though ... some are pretty huge!).

I'm not mentioning which gopher(s) have the FTP access because I'm
sure that several do, and I don't want any one of them to get
overloaded.  Try all the gophers in your home state first, then try
adjacent states and fan out from there.  The closer you get to home,
the less delay you should experience (and gophers can be painfully
slow at times anyway, so every little bit helps).

As a side note, it seems as though there ought to be a newsgroup for
gopher users; a place where folks can share their "finds" on the
gophers.  Many of the gophers have fairly cryptic menus, so it can be
a daunting task to find what you are looking for, but there is a real
wealth of information out there IF you can find it!

I do have one request, if anyone has considerably better access to the
archives than I do.  I would like to find any references in the
archives to the referendums in the states of Maine and Oregon (I
believe these were both in the fall of 1986, if memory serves
correctly) in which the voters turned down mandatory measured service.
I've always wanted to get more information on that, including (if
possible) text of the actual initiatives passed by the voters.  If you
have the capability to grep the files and let me know of any issues in
which this information might appear, I would much appreciate it.  Of
course, I wouldn't mind receiving information on this from other
sources as well!

Anyway, thanks again to everyone who wrote!


Jack Decker | Internet: [e-mail] | Fidonet: 1:154/8


[Moderator's Note: Jack's suggestion about using gophers *does* work!
I just now went to the Telecom Archives using gopher and mailed a file
to myself. It is slow and cumbersome, but it gets what you want.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 04:20:41 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


Andrew Blau <[e-mail]> writes:

>> The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something
>> the public has stated they don't want anymore.

> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
> project.  Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who
> should do what in that respect.  I think the government should not
> build and/or operate such networks.  I believe that the private sector
> can be and will be incented to build these networks...."  He held to
> this even after being challenged by Gore, who seemed to suggest that
> Allen couldn't have meant what he seemed to be saying.

Three cheers, then, for Robert Allen.  We should hold off on the 21-gun
salute until AFTER we've heard AT&T's full proposal.

> LECs, too, are getting into this quickly.  They see data transport as
> a big part of their future, and notion that the government might come
> in and build a national infrastructure that isn't the telco
> infrastructure raises lots of red flags (such as bypass on a massive
> scale, for one).

It's no surprise that the LECs see digital services in their crystal
balls.  The question that needs to be asked is this: will these
digital services to the residential demarc be affordable?  My guess is
not, especially if the LECs or the IXCs have anything to say about it.

Outrageous pricing of digital services is the reason that EDS is
currently sueing AT&T (I believe -- I haven't got the {Forbes: ASAP}
article handy) over the issue of so-called "dark" (i.e., redundant and
unused) fiber.  EDS bargained for use of these dark fiber links,
pushing high-volume image data over them.  AT&T figured it was losing
T1 and T3 business this way, so after a time, tried to cancel its
existing "dark fiber" contracts with EDS.  But EDS, armed with General
Motors' capital and battery of lawyers, fought back under the common
carriage laws.  Moral: no player with the capital and the equipment
wants to see you get cheap two-way digital services.

(This story was much better told in the {Forbes: ASAP} supplement that
came out several months ago.  Therein was presented the reason behind
the "dark fiber" conflict, what it means for telephony, and why
tunable lasers and cheap fiber optic pipes can let you throw your 5ESS
in the dumpster -- at least, in theory.  The article forms the kernel
of a soon-to-be-published book entitled, {Into the Cybersphere}.)

Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can
produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable
nylons for the secretaries.  That is the approach we need to take with
digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread
their benefits widely.  All we need is the capital and the vision to
apply it.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #107
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26334;
          18 Feb 93 19:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07196
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:44:01 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:43:31 -0600
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:43:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #109

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:43:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 109

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Fax Machine Contact With Digest (TELECOM Moderator)
    Touch Tone is No Extra Charge (Part 2) (Paul Robinson)
    South American Phone Service is Better Than GTE (Wayne Lorentz)
    If GTE's the Disease ... (was: GTE On the "Move") (Robert L. McMillin)
    National Information Infrastructure Conference (Matt Lucas)
    Veriphone (Credit-Card Verifier) Protocols? (Russ Nelson)
    Virtual Private Networks - Users Opinions, Please (Mikko Tapio Lavanti)
    Help With Stolen Calling-Card Number!  Please! (Joel M. Hoffman)
    Mandatory Measured Service (Steve Forrette)
    RS449 or V.35 to Fiber Line Driver (Phil Green)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Machine Contact With Digest
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:00:00 CST


Effective at this time, and for a limited trial period, you may
contact me by Fax at 312-743-0002. This machine may or may not stay
here. It is only a small machine, not a large commercial one, so
please don't send big multiple-page documents without asking me first.
My budget for paper, etc is limited. Also, this line is used for
*long* outgoing calls by a modem, so there may be times the line is
busy for extended periods, mainly late in the evening. If busy, try
later.


Thanks,


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 13:31:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch Tone is No Extra Charge (Part 2)


In a previous issue of the Digest I explained how I have two phone
lines and decided to install two more.  I thought I'd tell people what
happened.

Yesterday the installer from C&P Telephone of Maryland came out to put
in the two new phone lines.  We discovered the following things about
my house:

1.  The place is so old that, from the days when there was not enough
lines running out here, there is a Slick-1 on the network block,
unused, for when they had to use subscriber carrier.  It was used, not
for other phones in the neighborhood, but so that this house could
have two phone lines by using subscriber carrier.  Also, he notes that
C&P has only recently stopped using subscriber carrier as they have
sufficient lines out here to handle the traffic.

2.  The original two lines were turned on from the office; no
installer came out.  Otherwise I would have discovered I had no
protection against lightning on either line; if there had been a
lighting short, it would have fried everything: all phones, my
computers, everything.

3.  He pointed to the line running across the street to the telephone
pole.  One of the lines had a splice in it.

So he decided to rip out the two lines that ran across the road and
replace them and add the two new ones with a brand new SIX pair wire.
He even reconnected the two lines he disconnected.  Also, he gave me
about 50 feet of four-pair wire which he strung at the time he was
putting the wire.  He installed in the basement, a brand new five-pair
network block that have the best GAS DISCHARGE surge protectors.  In
the event of lightining, they will blow, disconnecting the line.  He
also threaded the four-pair at the same time he inserted the main
wire.  He then left the spool on the roof next to my second floor
window for me to install.  He also did not install the new lines (and
I thought he was correct on this point) because the phone wire he gave
me was sitting outside, in the rain.  Also, because he suggested that
because of the construction on the house, I'd be better off having a
hole drilled in the siding and add the wire instead of using one of
the older holes.

The installer stated that if I just wanted to hook up the four-line
wire myself, all that would be charged is the installation fee, which
would save at least $50 for the additional work.  I agreed.

I thought it was funny that a while after he started there was a
second installer in a cherry-picker also out there on the pole doing
my installation.  Well, it turns out that the phone company didn't
bother to run the additional two lines out to the network box on the
telephone pole until after the installer showed up here.  He spent
about two hours here installing the two lines.  I am also the ONLY
user of the network box on that telephone pole, as I am the *last
customer* at the end of that run.  The house across the street uses a
pole further up the road.  The house on the side uses a pole on the
other street in the next central office.  The house on the other side
is also on the other central office.  Also, the network box on the
pole has enough room for up to TEN telephone lines.  If I ever get to
the point I need ten lines I'll get a T1-Line and a codec.

Which reminds me: I humorously mentioned about what would happen if I
wanted a T1 line (or fractional one).  He pointed out that AT&T would
have to put it in; C&P doesn't do T1 wiring!  I'd order the POP at the
central office, but someone else would have to supply the drop.

End result; I got the four-pair wire running into my room; he does
nice work as the wire had 8 feet of slack.  All I've had to pay for
was the base installation so I, in effect, got the new wire for
"free".  I brought the wire in my room and hooked it up downstairs.
This morning I hooked the two lines to the two line jack I have in my
room.  I tried using the 1073214049889664 number from both lines and
it read back the xx7-xxxx numbers I was given originally.  Calling the
main hunt number when it's busy causes the second number to ring.

As to whether it works for outgoing calls, this message was posted
from my new modem line!


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Congratulations on getting the job done right!  PAT]

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

Subject: South American Phone Service is Better Than GTE
From: [e-mail] (WayneL)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:13:50 EST
Organization: The East Wind  [phone]


Well, far be it from me to be the only one reading this newsgroup
_NOT_ to flame GTE, thus I'm blowing off a little steam.

I don't have a problem with the bill, since I only use GTE at work,
but I would like to say that I've used telephone setups in South
America that were better than what they've provided us.

A large percentage (at least 20%) of my calls within the area (914)
don't go through.  Sometimes I just get a re-order.  Sometimes it
gives me a busy signal, even though the line isn't (I tested this by
calling a phone in another studio that was empty at the time).  And if
that's not bad enough, many times if I dial xxx-xxxx I get a message
saying that I need to dial a 1 before the number.  So, I dial the same
number, with the "1", and get a message saying that the number cannot
be completed as dialed. (grumble grumble)

Since I work in the newsroom (at WALL/WKOJ) it's very important that
my calls go through the first time.  So, each reporter has come up
with their own solution ... I always diak 1-914-xxx-xxxx on ALL calls
within the area code, even if it's only down the street and in the
same prefix.  For whatever reason, it works.  Another guy uses the
social engineering approach: he ALWAYS calls the GTE operator to place
the call for him.  Every once in a while the operator protests, but it
doesn't take long for them to just put it through, anyway.

I live in a tiny tiny telephone company (The Warwick Valley Telephone
Company) that has only four pay phones in its entire operation, does
not allow Equal Access (either by 950-xxxx, or 10xxx), and has less
than 5,000 phones (split between 201 and 914).  I never thought any
telephone company could be worse, then I met GTE.

 -Flame off-


Wayne V.H. Lorentz :  WayneL  <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 04:38:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: If GTE's the Disease ... (was GTE On the "Move")


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have always said that GTE was a disease.

If that's true, is LEC competition the cure?  I sure hope so ...


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:57:59 -0500
From: matt lucas <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Information Infrastructure Conference


TeleStrategies Conference Announcement:

        The National Information Infrastructure Conference
             April 27-28, 1993   -   Washington, DC

                              PLUS

       "Understanding Information and Network Technologies
                       for Non-Engineers"
                    Monday, April 26, 1993


Tuesday, April 27, 1993

8:30-9:00  Registration

9:00-10:00

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: WHY DO WE NEED A NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE?

What are the decisions to be made and alternatives to be faced?
Should the NII be a single national system or specialized networks
loosely interconnected? What should federal policy be?

Senator Conrad Burns, (R - Mt.)

10:00-10:30  Coffee Break

10:30-12:00

DEFINING THE VISION AND PROVIDING LEADERSHIP

The panelists will present a variety of policy views from the
perspectives of their constituencies.

Jerry Berman, Executive Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fiona Branton, Technology Counsel, Computer Systems Policy Project
Ken Dowlin, Director, San Francisco Public Library
Marc Rotenberg, Director, Washington Office
  Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

12:00-1:30  Hosted Lunch

1:30-3:00

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Should the Federal government build the NII, pay for it in order to
provide technology transfer, or should it just provide leadership and
articulate a national interest point of view?

Ralph Andreotta, Director, Technology Infrastructure, AT&T
John Clement, Director, Consortium for School Networking
Stewart Personick, Vice President, Information Networking and
  Research, Bellcore
Paul Peters, Director, Coalition for Networked Information

3:00-3:30  Coffee Break

3:30-5:00

WHO WILL BUILD THE NII?

This session will focus on issues related to building the NII.
Panelists will discuss the parts of the infrastructure that are
already in place and examine the components that still need to be
added. The roles of the following players will be described: TCP/IP
network service providers; the Community Learning & Information
Network; industry and manufacturing nets (EINet); and the Internet
Society and its role in international issues.

Rick Adams, Chairman, Commercial Internet Exchange
Ken Fiduk, Director, Enterprise Integration Network, MCC
Anthony Rutkowskii, Secretary, Internet Society
Sam Wyman, Chief Operating Officer
  Community Learning & Information Network

5:00-6:00  Reception

Wednesday, April 28, 1993

8:30-10:00

THE ROLE OF THE NSFNET AND NREN

Where do the NSFnet and NREN fit in the context of a NII? How is the
role of the NSF changing in terms of the final backbone solicitation?
How will (or should) NSF subsidies affect the NSFnet mid-level
infrastructure?

Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher, COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
Tom Grunder, President, National Public Telecomputing Network
John Rugo, Project Manager, NEARnet
Steve Wolff, Director, NSFnet

10:00-10:30  Coffee Break

10:30-12:30

THE ROLE OF CARRIERS, CABLE AND WIRELESS

A NII will bring new opportunities for delivery of information to the
home and business. What are the risks and potential rewards facing the
telcos, cable TV, and wireless industries as they make their plans to
participate in these new services?

Mark Coblitz, Vice President, Strategic Planning
  Comcast Corporation Bob Doyle, Director, Marketing, Science and
Education, US Sprint Lucie Fjeldstad, IBM Vice President and General
Manager of been serving as a testbed for new ideas and services.
Senator Kerrey has ambitious plans to pick up the pace of Nebraska's
involvement by funding a grassroots computer network within the state.
Issues involving access to the NII will also be discussed.

Carolyn Fuller, Counsel, Office of Senator Kerrey
Frank Odasz, Director, Big Sky Telegraph
Roy Perry, Network Architect, U S West Advanced Technologies
Samuel A. Simon, President, Issue Dynamics Inc.


For complete information call TeleStrategies at [phone]

Conference Hotel: The conference will be held at the SHERATON
RESTON HOTEL 11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA  22091, (703)
620-9000. THE HOTEL IS LOCATED 15 MINUTES FROM DULLES AIRPORT.

Seminar Hours: Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April
26 and Tuesday, April 27. Seminar hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
on Monday and Tuesday, and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
April 28

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

From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Veriphone (Credit-Card Verifier) Protocols?
Date: 18 Feb 93 02:57:10 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY


Does anyone have the specification used by a VeriFone credit-card
verifier?  I borrowed a friend's and did a little reverse-engineering
on it.  It dials a pre-programmed phone number, and connects at 1200
baud.  It waits for ENQ, sends the info on the transaction, then waits
for ACK followed by something (don't know what).

ASCII ENQ  ->
       <-    ASCII STX
       <-    Merchant account number
       <-    ASCII FS
       <-    @
       <-    credit-card number
       <-    ASCII FS
       <-    four digits of expiration date
       <-    ASCII FS
       <-    dollar amount to be verified
       <-    ASCII ETX
ASCII ACK  ->
something??->


russ <[e-mail]> Businesses persuade; Governments force.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mikko Tapio Lavanti)
Subject: Virtual Private Networks - Users Opinions, Please
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 12:43:15 GMT


Hello!

I'm doing my final thesis on Virtual Private Networks in the Helsinki
University of Technology, Finland.  I have a lot (about 1000 pages) of
written material but most of them are seen from the Operator point of
wiew.

I'd like to have as well some oppinion from the VPN users. Does anyone
here have experience in using VPN (say SDN,Sprint VPN, GVPN or others)

What have been the greatest benefits/disadvantages in using VPN?  What
should be considered in taking VPN in use for the company?  Is there
any good material seen from this point of view?

How about using international virtual private networks?

Thanks in advance,


Mikko Lavanti

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Help With Stolen Calling-Card Number!  Please!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 15:29:09 GMT


Two months ago someone got hold of my calling card number (from AT&T).
My bill for last month was well over $500, and included two carriers.
My bill for this month is also well over $500, but includes dozens of
LD carriers.  The phone calls are to such places as Guam and Saudi
Arabia; there can be no doubt that the card was used illegally.  I'm
having three problems resolving this issue.  Can anyone help??

1.  Last month I only paid for the calls I made, and wrote a letter to
the local telco explaining that the other calls were not made by me.
They ignored my letter and sent me a notice that my phone service
would be cut off.  When I called them about it, they told me that I
have to resolve the problem by speaking to someone on the phone; a
letter is not good enough!  I know this isn't possible.  What should I
do?

2.  The local telco told me that I have to resolve the problem with
each LD carrier independently.  They will not act as a go-between for
my and the LD carriers.  Based on my experience in 1. (above), this
would entail HOURS and HOURS of work.  Is the local telco right?

3.  Somehow, one of the LD carriers lists a calling-card call from MY
HOME PHONE.  I >KNOW< I didn't make that call, because I never use the
calling card from home and I've never heard of the LD carrier.  How
could that have happened?  Is it possible that this is an "inside
job"?  Is there any other explanation?

Please help.  This has become an administrative nightmare, and I
really don't have time to spend hours on the phone and writing
letters.

MANY thanks in advance!


Joel    ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Let me ask this: Has AT&T now killed the PIN so the
card can no longer be used?  If so, then it is likely they are
investigating the charges. It is really inconvenient for them and
telco to put a hold on your bill and send you a manually corrected
one, so you may be living with false charges coming through for a
couple more months. And, if your call to telco or AT&T came too close
to your billing cut off date the first time around, then it is likely
the credit did not make it through in time causing your bill to become
delinquent and obviously quite large. It is true each long distance
company will have to investiogate the phraud calls which pertain to
it, but telco can assist by charging back all the phraud as you
identify it each month. You did the right thing by paying onyly foe
what was yours.  See if the billing settles down back to normal over
the next couple months.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 19:43:56 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mandatory Measured Service


There are bills pending in both houses of the Washington State
legislature which would permanently ban mandatory measured service in
this state.  Sounds like a hard thing to argue against, doesn't it?
Well, guess who is against the ban?  The PUC!  That's right, the
Public Utility Commission in WA is against a ban on mandatory measured
service.  They say that it would possibly interfere with their ability
to guarantee universal telephone service!  Their argument goes that if
some point in the future it would become necessary to enact a tariff
containing mandatory measured service in order to maintain universal
telephone service availiability, that this law would prevent them from
approving it.  Now I've heard everything.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Believe me, there are people who prefer measured
service because their use of the phone is so minimal. Modem users and
telecom 'enthusiasts' like ourselves may find measured service not in
our best interests, but for lots of people, it is a great deal. When
we went to measured service here several years ago, with the complete
elimination of plans which allowed unlimited calling across northern
Illinois for a flat fee, a local consumer utility watchdog group gave
the new (measured rate) plans a great deal of support because they
perceived their constituents to mostly be people with limited
financial resources who make limited use of the telephone.  For quite
a few people here, measured service cut their monthly bill in half.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 10:32:56 MST
From: Philip Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: RS449 or V.35 to Fiber Line Driver
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM


I am looking for a device that will convert a rs422 or v.35 sync
signal to fiber. The driver needs to handle up to 1.5mbit/sec. I want
to connect a sync high speed line from a T1 mux to a router that is in
another building.


Thanks,


Phil Green      [e-mail]
NRAO        505.835.7294

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #109
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11425;
          19 Feb 93 3:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07443
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:58 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15163
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:31 -0600
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #110

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:24:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 110

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Future of North American Numbering Plan (Dave Leibold)
    A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? (RISKS via Monty Solomon)
    Telecommunications Policies (Mike Seebeck)
    NETSIG / Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (Skip Addison)
    Unifi Distributed Call Center Information Wanted (Jim Karkanias)
    Press Release - Canadian Marconi FAX-X.400 Switch (Bill St. Arnaud)
    Directory Services Billing (Mark Blumhardt)
    Correction: Ontario Communications Ministry Merged (Nigel Allen)
    Satellite Modem For Sale (Al Wong)
    ISDN Book Wanted (Jim Karkanias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 01:48:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Future of North American Numbering Plan


I have a copy of "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's
Proposal on the Future of Numbering in World Zone 1", 4th January 1993
(second edition).In January 1995, there will be a new
"interchangeable" area code (or NPA - Numbering Plan Area) format,
where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the
middle digit. This will mean dialing changes throughout most of North
America to reflect the loss of distinction between area codes and
local number central office (exchange) codes.

Some notable items are contained with document sectional references as
appropriate. Not everything is covered here in full detail; this is my
approximate summary of the document - the official version is
available from Bellcore.

Direct Distance Dialing started 10 November 1951 in Englewood NJ (sec.
2.1); there was early use of 11X+ codes for long distance, then
eventually 1+ long distance dialing. 0+ dialing was started in 1960
for operator assistance; 011+ and 01+ for overseas started in 1970.

Bellcore (Bell Communications Research) was assigned the function of
administering the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) (sec. 2.2) in
1984 following the U.S. telephone divestiture.

The NANP is expected to remain a ten-digit plan for the time being
(sec.  3.3.4) that is area code of three digits plus seven-digit local
numbers, and will continue to consist of decimal digits (0-9)
consistent with CCITT recommendation E.164 (23 Aug 1991) (sec. 3.3.5).

Numbers can be classified as "geographic" (the traditional local
numbers, with area codes based on geographical boundaries) and
"non-geographic" (such as the 800 or 900 area codes which apply
throughout the NANP and not necessarily restricted to certain portions
of the NANP) (sec. 3.4.1).  A non-geographic purpose could also
include future systems that assign a single number which can be
forwarded to various places in North America (ie. a "lifetime" number
that allows for moving to various cities)

Section 4 recommends a method of assigning the new area codes:

Geographic codes:      N2X, N3X
Growth/expansion:      N4X - N7X
Non-geographic codes:  N8X, N9X

N represents a digit from 2 to 9, X represents any digit. Thus, area
codes like 223, 734, 520 would be geographic codes under the proposal,
while area codes like 987, 294, 740 would be non-geographic. This
middle digit of the area code is referred to as the "B" digit, thus
the B digit indicates a new geographic or non-geographic code. As the
initial set of geographic or non-geographic codes are used up,
expansion takes place by using the nearest available expansion set.
Thus, N4X codes are next in line for geographic codes expansion, while
N7X codes are next for non-geographic expansion.  Ultimately,
expansion to more digits will be needed in the distant future, and it
is proposed that either the N5X or N6X codes can be used to provide
for "expansion" codes to set up a numbering plan of more than ten
digits.

The Carrier Identification Code (CIC) format of 10XXX+ (to select MCI,
use 10222+ or Sprint 10333+) will be expanded to 101XXXX+ "in the near
future". Nearly all of the 10XXX codes are assigned at this point.

Since some services like Domino's Pizza are setting up 950 numbers
like the long distance carriers (ie. dial 950.1430 to order their
pizza), there is concern about seven digit "national numbers" and that
there isn't enough room to provide these on the current system.
(sec.6.3).

On 31 December 1996 (referred to as "Time T"), there will be an
expansion of the maximum international number length from 12 digits to
15 digits according to CCITT recommendation E.164 (sec. 7.4). There is
a clalim that "at least one country has already expanded its numbering
format to 13 digits and that additional countries outside WZ1 [world
zone 1 ie. NANP] will also be expanding their digit format to exceed
the currently allowable 12 digits".  There was no mention of which
country expanded to the 13 digit format. One carrier in NANP can
apparently handle international numbers up to 14 digits already,
according to a report footnote.

"Overlay" NPA codes (sec. 7.6) are proposed in such cases as
metropolitan areas. This means more than one area code can cover a
geographic area; New York City already uses the 917 area code as an
"overlay" to 212, and eventually more area codes will be needed.

Now, section 7.7 states: "It is recommended that the North American
telecommunications sector resolve to evolve to ten-digit dialing for
station-to-station (network based) calls, *including local*" (my
emphasis).  The idea is to start in the metropolitan areas using
"overlay" NPA codes like New York and perhaps other areas soon. This
section also proposes that 1+ be eliminated as a long distance access
prefix; in other words, any call in North America would consist of ten
digits, whether local, long distance, or to a 900 service, or
whatever.

Section 9 of the report deals with the formation of steering
committees for the NANP, with a proposal for the World Zone 1
Numbering Steering Committee (WNSC) with representation from Canada,
U.S., and Caribbean groups.

Section 10 is the Action Plan; there will be a Future of Numbering
Forum (FNF) meeting 16-18 March 1993 in the Washington DC area. Those
contributions to this forum received by Bellcore by 8 March 1993 will
be forwarded to participants in the forum.

For the complete document, or for more information, contact: NANP
Administration, Bellcore - Room 1B225, 290 West Mt Pleasant Ave,
Livingston NJ USA 07039 Tel: [phone] or fax: [phone].


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:16:48 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel?


Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 14.33

 Date:  Sat, 6 Feb 1993 15:42:07 +0100
 From: [e-mail]
 Subject: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel?

German newspapers report broadly on risks of hand-held telephones used
in flight. Following a report of a new German weekly magazine FOCUS
(some sort of Anti-Spiegel published since mid-January 1993, with some
remarkably well-investigated articles on IT InSecurities), Germany's
federal airtransport authority (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, LBA in
Braunschweig) admitted that major problems with passengers telephoning
with "handy" mobile hend-held telephones have recently been
experienced in some German airplanes.

Newspapers report that hand-held telephones have influenced flight
instruments (e.g. indicating velocity) even in landing approach. An
LBA manager responsible for analysis of flight systems' security
mentioned a B737 approaching Hamburg airport under IFR conditions when
slope indicator suddenly began to jump; the pilot interrupted descent
and made another (successful) approach. In som. The LBA manager was
quoted to say that if velocity indicators be adversely affected by
some influence of such a "handy" telephone, the pilot may be tempted
to diminish the velocity below the critical value, with catastrophic
influence on the plane.

When contacted by me, this LBA manager refused some overdrawn
citations but admitted that LBA sees serious problems and had warned
carriers several times.  Meanwhile, passenger instruction concerning
emergency exits etc now also mentions risk of hand-held telephones
which (according to some old German law) are not allowed to use
in-flight. According to him, wires in planes are traditionally
"hardened" against some electromagnetic induction; but the order of
magnitude of such protection (about 3 Volt/meter) is, according to
recent measurements of MBB (part of German Airbus, DASA) significantly
lower than the 30 Volt/m which some hand-helds induce. Signal
induction may even be worse as effects of reflections and resonances
(which may develop in edges and channels below the cabin) may well
enlarge the effect in a way hardly to measure.

In public debates, such new facts add to the criticism that some
overly computerized systems (e.g. Electronic Flight Management
Systems, Fly-by-Wire) may enlarge in-flight risks. But at least one
more advanced technology may reduce the risk of electromagnetic
radiation: German Airbus is preparing to replace one (of 3) wires for
some part of A340 communication (at least experimentally) by
Fly-by-Light connection; in such a system, risk will remain with
opticouplers between electromagnetic and optic parts as well as with
traditional non-optical computers but the lines near the passengers
parts will become immune against electromagnetic effects.

Klaus Brunnstein (Univ Hamburg, February 6,1993)

PS: this year, some of you may have missed my traditional report from
Chaos Conference. Luckily, I was unable to participate, because
several participants independently informed me that NOTHING worthwhile
to report happened.  Participation was said to be significantly lower
than ever before, and even some journalists which are CCC's good
friends did not report this year.  Moreover, due to very chaotic
organisation, CCCs usual electronic articles were not available for
FTP. "Downsizing" CCC seems to be in interesting contrast to US
hackers (2600) which become more active, as visible from the Pentagon
raids.


[TELECOM Moderator's Note: I don't think he meant 'Pentagon raids'. I
think he meant the Justice Department/FBI activities.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Seebeck)
Subject: Telecommunications Policies
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:13:28 GMT


    I am working on telecomm policies for a corporation.  We are
looking at all aspects of telephone and data transmission.  Subjects
of interest are long distance service, cellular use, data links,
executive suites, etc.

    Are there any reference materials or resources available that
I can be directed to?


Thanks in advance,


Michael Seebeck   Sr.Telecomm Consultant
RMH Group, Lakewood, CO,USA
main(303)239-0909      direct 239-2761

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

From: [e-mail] (Skip Addison)
Subject: NETSIG / Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:24:12 GMT


               Software Entrepreneurs' Forum
             Networking Special Interest Group
                         *presents*
        Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
                           Panel
            including RAM Mobile Data and others
                          7:00 pm
          Tuesday, February 23rd, Novell/Sunnyvale


Need "Information At Your Fingertips" be restricted either to an
office or whereever a phone line can be accessed?  NETSIG will host a
panel of experts such as Kurt Christofferson, a Product Manager at RAM
Mobile Data and a NETSIG participant.  He and others from industry
players such as GO and RadioMail will tell us where wireless
communication is headed and how to take advantage of this burgeoning
industry is headed.

Admission is free for SEF members; $10.00 for non-members.  For more
information, contact Skip Addison (408.283.3545).  The Novell facility
is located at 890 Ross Drive in Sunnyvale, where 101, 237 and Mathilda
Avenue converge.  Come around to the "Sales Seminar Entrance" at the
back of the building.

SEF is a non-profit trade association of people involved in the
creation, publishing and support of innovative commercial software.
For more information about SEF call Barbara or Ellen at 415-854-7219
(and tell 'em Skip sent you ;-).  NETSIG normally meets the fourth
Tuesday of each month at the Novell Sunnyvale facility.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Karkanias)
Subject: Unifi Distributed Call Center Information Wanted
Organization: Merck Research Laboratories
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:21:19 GMT


I'm interested in any opinions regarding the Unifi Distributed Call
Center.  It's a software solution to providing automatic call
distribution (ACD) by exploiting the processing and other advanced
capabilities inherent in ISDN.  Anyone care to share any info or
experience regarding such devices?  Any info. would be grand.  Thanks.

What's the rated bandwidth/data capacity of ISDN?  Thanks.


Jim

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill St. Arnaud)
Subject: Press Release - Canadian Marconi FAX-X.400 Switch
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:33:56 EST


CANADIAN MARCONI WINS FAX-X.400 CONTRACT IN DENMARK

Canadian Marconi, a member of the VISION 2000 Consortium, has won a
major contract to supply its FAX-X.400 Enhanced Facsimile Switching
equipment to Fyns Telefon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tele Danmark
A/S, the national telecommunications agency of the government of
Denmark.

The contract represents Canadian Marconi's second major sale of its
FAX-X.400 system to a major European public carrier company.  British
Telecom was Canadian Marconi's first customer in Europe for this
equipment.  This new contract secures Canadian Marconi's position as a
leading supplier of value added services in Europe.  According to
Bryan Locker, Marketing and FAX Group Manager at Canadian Marconi:
"Our goal now is to extend this success throughout continental and
northern Europe."

Canadian Marconi's FAX-X.400 Enhanced Facsimile Switching Equipment
uses an X.200 OSI layered architecture incorporating X.400 message
handling and switching for national and international routing of FAX
messages.

Canadian Marconi is a world leader in the innovative design and
quality production of facsimile, communications, avionics, radar and
navigation systems.  Canadian Marconi is also an active participant in
the VISION 2000 consortium.  The VISION 2000 consortium is a
Communications Canada and industry initiative to accelerate and foster
the development of personal communications in Canada through the use
and deployment of new developments in FUTURE FAX technology.

For more information please contact:

Bill St. Arnaud          Tony Oliver
VISION 2000         Canadian Marconi Company
V: +1 613.567.2000     V: +1 613.592.6500
F:  +1 613.567.4730      F: +1 613.592.7427

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

Bill St. Arnaud       Internet: [e-mail]
VISION 2000 INC.         X.400: C=CA; A=TELECOM.CANADA;
203-294 Albert St.         O=VISION2000; DDA:ID=V2K.EMS
Ottawa CANADA                    Voice: [phone]
K1P 6E6                          Fax:   [phone]

VISION 2000 INC:  A Department of Communications and industry initiative to
foster and accelerate the development of personal communications in Canada.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Blumhardt)
Subject: Directory Services Billing
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:36:45 GMT


Just a quick question.  When you use directory assistance (1+411),
where is billing initiated?  The end office where the 411 call was
made, or the directory assistance center, or ...?  Are AMA records
generated?


Thanks in advance.

Mark Blumhardt


[Moderator's Note: It is billed by your CO, based on the charge for
the service made by your one-plus carrier (if an inter-lata call) or
the local telco (in the case of 411). Yes, call records are kept. When
I have had occassion to examine the detailed billing records for my
phone lines, '411' and '0' have been listed in the amongst the other
calls.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Correction: Ontario Communications Ministry Merged
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Earlier this month I reported that Ontario's Ministry of Culture and
Communications had been merged with the Ministry of Tourism and
Recreation.

The Communications Division of the former Ministry of Culture and
Communications, I have since learned, is *not* part of the new
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. It is now part of the new
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. According to mail I
received from someone at the Communications Division, the address is
expected to remain the same for the forseeable future.


Nigel Allen          [e-mail]
52 Manchester Avenue       Voice: [phone]
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Wong)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:12:22 PST
Subject: Satellite Modem For Sale


I have a SM-200A Satellite Modem made by Fairchild for sale.  The
modem appears to be new as it is still in the original bubble wrap
packaging.  THe modem works in the 52-88 Mhz range.  I would be happy
to mail/fax the spec sheets to anyone who is interested.  Please
respond directly to me as I am not subscribed to this list.  The modem
sells new for at least $10K but I am willing to sell it at a gross
discount.


Thanks,

Al Wong   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Karkanias)
Subject: ISDN Book Wanted
Organization: Merck Research Laboratories
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:27:34 GMT


Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN?

Thanks,

Jim


[Moderator's Note: Why yes, as a matter of fact, telecom reader Fred
Goldstein has written the very book you are seeking. I reviewed it
here awhile back, perhaps Fred will write you with details, and send a
cc: to the Digest so we can plug his book again to new readers who
did not see the earlier review.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #110
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12249;
          19 Feb 93 3:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01254
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24850
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:00 -0600
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #111

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:10:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 111

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Adam Frix)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Hanrahan)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Hans Ridder)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Conrad Kimball)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Adam M. Gaffin)
    The War on Freedom (Paul Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 23:39:29 EST
From: [e-mail] (Adam Frix)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones


[e-mail] (Geoffrey P Waigh) writes:

> Whenever I have heard of this plan, I have wondered how Americans
> will continue to design radio equipment. Is there some clause
> that I missed that will allow RF engineers to continue purchasing
> spectrum analyzers, mixers and other simple to connect gadgets
> for the purpose of testing their equipment? If so, what is
> going to stop these devices from being used to scan cellular
> communications? It would be amusing if spectrum analyzers
> had to be kept under lock-and-key to prevent use by anyone
> other than a "certified, responsible entity."

> Much like printing presses and fax machines under current Chinese
> rule, or under the old Soviet Union.

Agreed.

I can't wait until law enforcement decides they want to communicate
with each other in, say, a certain color of blue.  There will be
special billboards along the roadside where cops can leave messages to
one another.  To ensure that Joe Public "can't" read these messages,
cops will pass laws stating that it is illegal for any
non-law-enforcement agent to see that particular frequency of EMR.
Because it's a law, by definition no one will "be able" to read these
messages, and therefore such communication will remain private,
privileged law enforcement communication.  Anyone who dares to see
that particular frequency can and will be put in jail, an obvious
menace to society.

Isn't it great to see what happens when ignorant old fogies, easily
boozed and swayed by special interests, are in charge of drafting laws
relating to and intertwined with basic laws of physics?


Aloha,

Adam

America OnLine: AdamFrix (okay)
Internet: [e-mail]. (convenient) OR
[e-mail] (if you must, but try CIS first)
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!uunet.uu.net!towers!bluemoon!cmhgate!Adam.Frix
INET: [e-mail]
Please use bang path until my mail forwarding gets fixed.

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

From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: 17 Feb 93 21:32:52 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego, CA


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
> technological war with anyone.

I know the basics of how cellphones work, but not the "internals", so
forgive me if I am displaying my ignorance by asking:

Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
so?

If you only move one call at a time, you'd only need one free channel
in the cell.

Granted this would be no defense against a determined eavesdropper
(neither is the FCC's proposed rule), but it would certainly make it
more unlikely that someone with a standard scanner could hear anything
useful.


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp: uunet!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (Hans)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:32:39 GMT


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

> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
> in the brain cell department.

Remember, the FCC is only doing what its told to.  The real
"below-average morons" are *your* elected officials who passsed the
law so no one could listen to their phone calls.

We have no one to blame but ourselves for putting these idiots into
office. :-(


Hans-Gabriel Ridder <[e-mail]>
DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA
Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest.


[Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting
wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and
others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on;
civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is
more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear
people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a
new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the
FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC?  I don't blame myself for putting
idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Conrad Kimball)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Date: 18 Feb 93 07:02:04 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services (ESP), Seattle, WA


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

> Bob Longo <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be
>> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is
>> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted
>> numbers.

> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am
> damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon
> absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet
> another useful technology.

Perhaps you can site surveys that support _your_ desires?  It's hardly
fair to claim your position should be adopted by default in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.  The converse position is just as
defensible (but obviously _you_ don't like it).  I'm damn sick of
self-centered techno junkies writing off people that express privacy
concerns as being uninformed ignorant boobs.

> I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This says it all ...  Sounds like my four-year old: "Give me what I
want!!  Give me what I want!! (whine, whine, whine...)."  Fortunately,
most people's parents managed to properly socialize them.

> useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the

"Aww, mom!!  All the _other_ kids get to do <xxx>, why can't I?".

> country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas
> that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way.

Let's see ... absence of (reported) negative effects over an
observation period of a year or so, therefore: there _are_ _no_
negative effects ... first rate reasoning there.

> The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and
> that no other state has required default per-line blocking and
> per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the
> mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The
> restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the
> offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists
> won this round.

Right on!!


Conrad Kimball       | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services
[e-mail]   | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
[phone]       | Seattle, WA  98124-0346

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:50:34 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> Bob Longo <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be
>> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is
>> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted
>> numbers.

> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am
> damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon
> absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet
> another useful technology.

  This is a reasonable request, but restricting in the public interest
is not stifling by its definition. And in your business you hardly
represent the attitudes of the average consumer of telecommunications
services.

> I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is
> useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the
> country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas
> that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way.

  Yes, the self-righteous rarely care what other people want, but,
John, I think you're a lot more intelligent and decent than this; you
seem to have a few hot buttons when your own 'expert' view of telecom
is challenged. Trouble is, this is not a technical issue at all, it's
a civil rights and privacy one; you're technical rights and desires
rank quite a bit below that.

> The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and
> that no other state has required default per-line blocking and
> per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the
> mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The
> restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the
> offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists
> won this round.

  Please stop pontificating yourself. If you have any proof of this
grand conspiracy to stifle caller-id, please present it. Otherwise, we
may just take the situation at face value: that there is a difference
of opinion as to what privacy rights ought to be with respect to the
use of the telephone, and that the phone companies views didn't win.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Date: 18 Feb 1993 03:02:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


It did not reflect the majority of the California public, it reflected
the few people that took time to go to the hearings or write plus a
couple of groups ran by a bunch of fuddy duddies that want us to go
back to a manual system. Those were the same people that raised a
storm when Catalina Island finally came into the 20th century. They
may do a lot of good, but in this case they blew it and people should
not support them unless they wake up. This service is available almost
across the US and Canada plus a few foreign countries and there has
not been the doom prodicted by these people. Besides the PUC has never
been receptive to either the companies they regulate or the public.
They should be elected or if they are appointed we should be able to
vote on them as we do with the Supreme Court in California.


Steven H. Lichter    COEI GTE Calif.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:08:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Hibbard) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
>> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
>> of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
> students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
> confiscate the cellular phone in my car.  An adult who gives a student
> such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a
>$10,000 fine.

This sounds blatantly unconstituational, being seizure with due
process.  Has this law had to stand up in court yet?  Has anyone been
jailed or fined yet?  Or is it too new a law, still?  It would be
interesting to know how long this law has been around and if any other
states have it.

Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids
pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is
forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*.

Sounds like it's time to start sending the ACLU money ...


Maxime Taksar     KC6ZPS    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:15:51 GMT


Here in Framingham, Mass., administrators and teachers have
confiscated five or six beepers from students this year.  But the
principal doubts the students are using them to arrange drug deals.
He says his students are wearing them as status symbols -- if they
were selling drugs, they wouldn't be dumb enough to wear their beepers
where teachers could see them!


Adam Gaffin
Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
[e-mail]
Voice: [phone]. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone].

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

From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The War on Freedom
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:00:02 -0500 (EST)


[e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard) on the Subject: The War on
Pagers In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 105 wrote:

>> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
>> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
>> of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

Let's call it what it is: the War on the Constitution.  Fifty years
ago, the U.S. Government used hysteria to put American Citizens in
U.S. Government operated Concentration Camps.  Now, it is aiming at
another group of people: those who have a profile of whatever it
doesn't like.  And, to add insult to injury, it is using every means
it can imagine to deny them any means in law to challenge these acts
of terror.  Anyone whose property is confiscated in 'civil forfeiture'
has essentially zero chance of recovering it; the fact that they are
totally innocent of any wrongdoing is irrelevant.

> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
> students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
> confiscate the cellular phone in my car.  An adult who gives a student
> such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a
> $10,000 fine.

> Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
> to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
> applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
> designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
> commercial broadcast band.  For example, if I let my son take my Radio
> Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they
> could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year.

This sort of thing needs to be fought and stopped.  Write to the FCC.
This is a clear interference in interstate commerce since these radios
are operated by authorized users communicating with federally licensed
carriers.  Most people probably feel they don't have the time or the
money to mount a court fight but one aught to be made.  Laws like this
have the nasty habit of being used as a stepping stone for even worse
onslaughts on people's rights.  First it's $10K for giving someone a
pager; how long before it's the death penalty for posession of a
single-edge razor blade?  ("So what are you on death row for?"
"Giving my son a razor to use in arts-and-crafts.")  :(

The Interstate Commerce Commission might have an issue in this: if a
truck with a CB radio drives past a school in Illinois, the truck
might be stopped and its radio confiscated.  (Most laws prohibiting
posession of something in or near a school include as much as 300
feet.)  This could interfere with the efficient moving of material in
interstate commerce.

Try contacting the ACLU, however because they tend to approve of more
government controls on the public, they might think the law is a nice
idea.  Or try contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Or get the media involved: Let them know about this.  You may have to
gore their ox and point out that this sort of thing could be used
against them:

Knowing how bad Chicago politics are, you might want to send a note
about this to the radio and television stations there: the next time a
reporter from a station or newspaper runs articles which are
unfavorable to the school board is at a school board meeting, or is
doing a report at a school, the security guard confiscates the
microwave transmit truck!

Think this is unlikely?  During the famous "zero tolerance" issues,
where the government was taking the policy of confiscating any vehicle
entering or leaving a U.S. Border, if it had even miniscule amounts of
drugs on it, it was noted that all that would have been necessary was
to find a couple of joints in a passenger cabin, and the U.S.
Government could have siezed the {Queen Elizabeth II}!


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #111
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19493;
          19 Feb 93 21:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24011
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25418
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:06 -0600
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #112

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Feb 93 11:43:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 112

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Gregory Youngblood)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (David E. Sheafer)
    Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (A. Alan Toscano)
    Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (Dave Levenson)
    Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (F. Schimmel)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Doug Granzow)
    Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate (Steven H. Lichter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
From: tcscs![e-mail] (Gregory Youngblood)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 22:11:34 CST
Organization: TCS Consulting Services


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

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

>> Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A
>> channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area.
>> If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from
>> a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers.  Is my
>> reasoning correct?

>> [Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own
>> kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree
>> to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one
>> (but not both) in a location.

> Generally speaking, if an A customer roams onto a B carrier, the B
> carrier will not be able to bill the A customer's bill directly, and
> will want to set up a temporary account billed to a major credit card.
> Most every B carrier I've dealt with has been set up to handle credit
> card accounts, but this is not very widespread on the A side as far as
> I can tell.  My experience with the credit card temporary accounts is
> that they are a big hassle.  First, there may be limited customer
> service hours in the city you roam in, so if you arrive in the evening
> or on a weekend, you may have to wait until the next business day to
> get set up.

This also depends on who the carriers are.  When I established roaming
agreements for one carrier, I kind of made the policy as I went along.
As a result, within the main areas of competition (Houston/Galveston/
Conroe TX) we didn't allow A and B roaming, only A.  But, anywhere
else we always did our best to set up roaming with A and B carriers.
My thinking, which was backed up by the bosses, was that our customers
deserved the greatest convenience, and since some markets one carrier
was far better than the other, so we tried to allow our customers to
roam on either one.

> The last time I had to do this, it took over 20 minutes on the phone
> with customer service to give the required information.  They want to
> know your phone's number, ESN, home carrier, home address, social
> security number, home phone number, credit card, etc, etc.  They are
> really paranoid about fraud, so your regular cell phone's account has
> to have the same name and address as the credit card and so on.  Then,
> it takes them about an hour to get the account set up in the switch.

This is probably because the market(s) where this happened did not
have raoming agreements with your home carrier.  If they did, then
they could bill directly to your phone bill.  Actually, when you're
roaming, your calls are billed to your carrier in bulk at a fixed rate
set in their contracts.  The roaming carrier where you're at then
sends in their billing tapes, and the billing company sorts all the
call records and generates bills for the home customers, and tapes for
the rest, which then generate the roaming reports.  These tapes, or
the data on the tapes, will get to your home carrier's billing company
who then include the calls on your personal bill.  Before that happens
though, the roaming carrier has a series of reports and bills which
detail the bulk calls (or whatever the contracts require) to be paid.
Last I checked the carriers paid for roaming in a 30 day window, but
the calls wouldn't show up on the cellular bills sometimes for 45 to
90 days.  They were trying to bring that window of carrier paying
carrier down to 15 days.


Greg
 TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008
       Mail-server requests to:  [e-mail]
 [e-mail]        or       [e-mail]
 ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                or           ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Date: 19 Feb 1993 01:03:27 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> In other words, will carriers accept emergency calls from any
> telephone, or will they only accept emergency calls from phones that
> they recognize?

Generally speaking, cellular carriers will always accept calls to 911
or 611 (or whatever the customer service number is).  A noted
exception to this rule is LA Cellular, which won't let you call
anyone, not even 911 or the LA Cellular customer service number, if
you're not recoginized.  I was stuck in LA for four days in December
and was completely without service.  I tried to get an account set up
with the B carrier, but they were closed because of Christmas and the
weekend.  At least they would let 911 calls go through, so I was set
for emergencies once I figured out that I should switch my phone to B.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Sheafer)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Date: 18 Feb 93 20:03:56 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Don Wegeng) writes:

> The replies that I have received about roaming and antennas have been
> very useful, and are much appreciated.  There's still one area that
> I'm still not clear on, namely emergency use of the phone when I'm
> outside my home service area.

In Mass I've dialed the the state police with a cellphone that was no
longer signed up with either carrier and it worked fine.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 18 Feb 93 20:07:46 GMT
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued


In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 104, [e-mail] (Laurence
Chiu) writes:

> I have a couple of comments and questions on that. Firstly, does
> anybody know why when you call 1-800-CALL-ATT you get a message, "to
> complete your call please press or dial 1 now" (or words to that
> effect). Unless it's some kind of touch-tone determination.

This was implemented back in November, presumably to accomodate rotory
callers. Previously the "timeout defaults" for the 800 CALL-ATT and
800 882-CARD main menus were to route the caller to the Calling Card
Customer Service center in Kansas City, MO. (800 CALL-ATT is used for
personal/consumer Calling Cards, while 800 882-CARD is used for
business/corporate Calling Cards.) These Customer Service Reps, in
addition to normal functions, had to handle call completions for
rotory callers who could not reach an Operator through traditional
means. They did this by transferring the caller to a Kansas City area
AT&T OSPS Operator, and relaying billing information about the call
while the caller was still on hold. This resulted in slower service to
everyone, and inadvertantly, in "call splashing" of a sort, causing
poorer connections.

With the changes made in November, the "main menus" for both of these
800 numbers were placed behind the initial prompt to which Laurence
refers. On 800 CALL-ATT (but not on 800 882-CARD,) for calls placed
from Equal Access end offices, the "timeout default" for both initial
and "main menu" prompts became AATOS, the Automated Access To Operator
Services part of AT&T's Operstor Services network. (Actually it didn't
matter what you dialed in response to the initial prompt, thus while
the new menus prompted dialing "1-1" to reach AATOS, the older "2-1"
continued to reach AATOS as it had before.) Rotory callers would now
timeout to AATOS, and subsequently timeout again to an OSPS Operator
near the caller's location. This allowed rotory users to be routed to
someone well trained in call completion, and eliminated the "splashing"
problem for them. (Rotory callers needing to contact Calling Card
Customer Service could either ask the Operator to connect them, or
call 800 882-CARD themselves and timeout.)

The initial prompt reduces the holding time required by a rotory
caller before timeout occurs. The 800 CALL-ATT and 800 882-CARD "main
menus" have become rather extensive over the years! A timeout on the
800 CALL-ATT "main menu" now takes nearly one full minute!

I'd like to add my own thoughts about 800 321-0ATT:

As I see it, the introduction of this number represents a FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE in Corporate Policy and thinking on the part of some folks at
AT&T. For years, AT&T resisted in implementing an 800 access number.
When the FCC issued regulations, persuant to federal legislation,
requiring that either an 800 or 950 access number be established, AT&T
adapted its Fully Automated USA Direct Service for domestic use, but
placed it behind an 800 Call Prompter menu that tutored the caller to
first attempt to dial in a preferred way. The service was slowly
phased in across the country over a three month period from mid-March
of 92, through mid-June. Initially it only served TouchTone callers
from Equal Access switches. The changes implemented last November
accomodated rotory callers, albeit with some timeout waiting, but not
callers from non-Equal Access switchs.

The March 10 rollout of 800 321-0ATT provides "universal access" for:
     TouchTone and rotary callers;
          (Rotary callers now have an even shorter timeout wait)

     Equal Access and non-Equal Access callers;

     Callers from non-compliant (illegally blocking) COCOTS;

     Callers from most business PBXs - which may legally block 10ATT-0+
          (BTW: Many PBXs will allow 9-18003210288 to be stored in
          Speed Dialing - some, however, may block *all* outside
          calls from certain stations);

     Callers from cellular systems - which may also block 10ATT-0+
          (Not all cellular systems send 0+ calls to AT&T - I know of
          none which allow 10XXX-0+ calling);

Also, the "tutoring," which may be accessed via 800 CALL-ATT (option
"12"), now suggests 800 321-0ATT on an *equal par* with 10ATT-0+.

Once some problems with Busy Tones are cleared up, AT&T will finally
have in place an access number that I personally believe will serve
its customers very well (provided that COCOT/AOS companies don't try
to overtly block it - an act that's now apparently a federal offense).

I applaud AT&T for providing this long needed access number.

Finally, a Usage Tip: After dialing "the number you are calling,"
press "#" for faster progression. As previously noted, this technique
also speeds up "sequence calling."

Disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T - I'm just a customer.


A Alan Toscano -- Houston, TX -- <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:21:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Robinson <[e-mail].
GOV> writes:

> Effective April 1, dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT, then dialing extension 21
> will no longer be available for getting direct access to AT&T's
> switch.

> Oh horrors!  What will we do, what will we do?

> Fortunately, AT&T has an answer.  They have a new number which is
> *exclusively* for connecting to their switch.  The new number is:

>      1-800-321-0-ATT

I have read about this number in several articles on today's issue of
the Digest.  I have dialed this number repeatedly from my office here
in Stirling, NJ, and I always get a busy signal.  Does this not work
yet?  Are all of the readers of this Digest trying it out today and
overloading it?

I really would like to use this, because I spend a lot of time at a
customer site where they block 10288 and force me to use a carrier who
doesn't accept my AT&T corporate calling card.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Schimmel)
Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring?
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 18:44:20 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl
> Oppedahl) writes:

>> According to Part 68 of the FCC regulations, the local telco is
>> supposed to tell you how to make your line ring back ... so that if

[some stuff deleted]

>> [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for
>> this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They
>> need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the

[some more stuff deleted]

> Are you sure?  If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide
> non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the
> telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that
> non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT
> providing a level playing field, now is it?

Just adding another log to the already incredibly high pile of
articles about ring-your-phone numbers and Caller-Id too:

I live in southern New Jersey and just subscribed to CLID. When I installed
my box, I wanted to test it. (Yeah I know, call a friend and ask them to
call you back ... which I had to do, because...

Well, after reading about all these people who wanted their phone to
ring on command, I decided to try and remember how I used to do it (as
a teenager a long time ago). All I remembered was dial 55? and the
last four digits of your phone number. So I tried various 55? calls
til one gave me something other than a please check the number
intercept.  The number for (609) (this week anyway) is 553-dddd where
dddd is the last four digits of your phone number. This number answers
and gives you a high pitched tone, after which you should issue a
hook flash (confirmed by an interruption of the tone), then hang up.
Your phone should now ring. The tone should be there again so don't
bobble the phone on the way back down or it may ring you again. I have
gotten this "stuck" where I almost couldn't get rid of the stupid ring
test.  I also vaguely remember using this number to test the touchtone
keypad (it speaks back to you the number you press) but I didn't
verify if that feature was there. Also note that this number is busy
at times, so try again later. I did my tries at night, not too many
phone installers then.

Anyway, the finish line is that the ringback did ABSOLUTELY nothing to
my CLID box, which caused me to use step number two above, whereupon
the CLID did what it was supposed to, and I could amaze my friend that
I knew it was him calling, because my CLID said it was his number
[etc. etc.].

Sorry about the rambling Pat. Now for the obligitory test number
query, does anyone know any other test numbers (like to verify
touchtone keypad, etc.)?  In this area I do know that xxx-9966 is a
quiet termination (you can use this to see if your line has crosstalk)
and xxx-9971 gives a 1KHz test tone (I guess at 0dBm0). (yes xxx above
is your local exchange prefix)


Fred Schimmel     my opinions > /dev/null/flames
Gandalf Systems Corporation   Cherry Hill NJ


[Moderator's Note: To test the pad here, we dial the ring back number
and have it ring back, but instead of hanging up at that point, hit
the digits 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0 in that order and if all is well you
will hear a short double beep.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes
Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:01:25 EST


[e-mail] (Bob Denny) writes:

> My kid tells me that it is "in" to have a pager, whether you're a drug
> dealer or not. Each of those pagers have their own seven-digit phone
> number, and you can buy 'em at the local stationery store. The service
> is something like $15/mo.

Pagers are not permitted in schools around here.  This rule was
implemented a few years ago, like PAT said, as part of the War On
Drugs.  There were to be no exceptions.  A friend of mine, who is a
volunteer firefighter, was personally told he could not bring his
pager to school or any school related events. He didn't pay much
attention to their threats, and they never did anything to him. I
guess the school officials weren't interested in seeing a newspaper
article titled "Student Suspended For Putting Out Fire".

> No wonder phone numbers are disappearing so fast!!!

This is also a result of wasteful use of phone lines by businesses.
Where I work, we have five different computers, each with its own phone
line.  Most of these computers receive/make one call per day (one of
them gets one call per week).  It would be cheaper to put them all on
the same phone line (it would be cheaper still to put all the programs
on one computer), but that would require too much coordination.


Doug Granzow         [e-mail]  or  ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig
Call: The Cynosure BBS | Free | Internet | 14.4kbps USR DS | [phone]
Ask me about the a2-bbs mailing list!

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate
Date: 19 Feb 1993 03:05:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


Just look at what happened in California with the tax on newsprint.
The free papers had to pay tax even though the paper was free. That
was fixed but the way the govenment thought they would try and collect
it anyway.  Didn't you know we work for them? I was told by the
Public Works Director of Riveride, Calif when I asked why they act the
way they do and his answer was we are thou. They think they are gods.


Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif. COEI

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #112
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23473;
          19 Feb 93 23:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16999
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:55:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29412
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:54:36 -0600
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:54:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #113


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:54:20 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 113

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Jack Decker)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon)
    AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Dave Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 02:23:09 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


In message <[e-mail]>, John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> wrote:

> [e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes:

>> Why not use both carriers?  I would suggest you do this: Switch your
>> line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls.

> As previously stated, I would suggest the opposite. Keep AT&T as your
> PIC. That way you have much easier access to AT&T's vastly superior
> operator services. I really hate it when I pick up a phone, dial an
> operator assisted call and have one of the "brand X" operators answer.
> MY guests never have to deal with that.

John, my phone is here for MY convenience, not that of my guests.  As
a matter of fact, if anyone tries to use my phone to make an operator
assisted call, they are going to HAVE to dial a ten-triple-X code
first, because I have no default PIC (and I specifically asked for the
line to be set up that way!).

Maybe you have guests that you feel are so important that they cannot
be inconvenienced by having to dial five extra digits in order to use
their calling card.  Personally, I don't see it as a big imposition,
and anyone who makes operator assisted calls with any regularity these
days had better know how to reach the carrier of their choice!

>> If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via
>> MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain!

> Good luck. MCI droids are worthless. You will never reach a resolution
> on the first try. You will be lucky to even ever speak to anyone who
> even knows what you are talking about. You should see the hell we go
> through ANYtime we have to deal with even the slightest technical
> matter with MCI.

I will agree with you that the other carriers fall down a lot on
communicating with the customer, but as I've mentioned previously,
most of us don't have the same demanding telecommunications
requirements that John Higdon does!  :-) And, all of my recent
contacts with MCI have resulted in reaching someone who was quite
helpful and fairly knowledgeable.  They may not be perfect but I think
they are a lot better now than they were a few years ago.

>> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their
>> quality is better.

> If your definition of quality is "does the call (eventually) go
> through and can I hear the person at the other end?", then I would
> agree that such an advertising statement is probably meaningless.  But
> AT&T is still the only company where you can actually speak to a
> knowledgeable technician on the first call and speak to a rep who
> actually knows about the service in question and can give you real
> answers.

I just hope the other carriers are listening to this, because you are
making some valid points here.

>> If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to
>> complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that
>> AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the
>> local telco.  Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you
>> would probably have been just as satisfied with the result.

> Not necessarily true. MCI and Sprint outages are legion and legendary.
> Sprint is constantly suffering from local outages here in the Bay Area
> and MCI's answer to a complaint about calls not going through is for
> the caller to dial '10288' before the number. Sure is a good thing
> AT&T is there when you REALLY need to call.

AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the
bigger they are, the harder they fall!"  I still contend that many of
the problems that are attributed to the carriers actually occur in the
facilities of the local telcos.  I believe that in the few cases where
AT&T can really claim superior connections, it is only because they
are still using some of the pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group
C?).  When all the carriers are on a level playing field, I suspect
you will not see a great difference between at least the top two
carriers.

>> AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ...

> Yes, they annoy me as well. But since I do not use media advertising
> as a basis upon which to select a carrier (pro or con), AT&T's
> commercials do not send me into a tailspin, ignoring reality and the
> facts. And the fact is that AT&T remains the most responsive,
> comprehensive, and consistently the highest quality IEC in the world.
> Its operator services are not even in the same universe as the
> pretenders. Yes, MCI, Sprint and a host of other carriers have some
> specific services and plans that MAY (but not necessarily) be
> incrementally cheaper than AT&T, but for most purposes involving FGD
> long distance, the company's services are hard to beat.

But, John, if it had not been for the competition, you know that AT&T
would still be giving us the same level of service (at the same high
prices) as we had in the 70's.  I think the reason that the AT&T
commercials bother me is because it still shows that in some ways they
are not playing fairly ... they are using questionable claims to try
and destroy the competition. If they only had, say, 30% of the market
share this might be appropriate, but since they are a former monopoly
and still the dominant carrier, their ads come off as mean-spirited.
It's clear they want all the marbles and would do anything they could
to put MCI and Sprint out of business.

> MCI and Sprint are slowly (very slowly) getting better and better. But
> the truth is that AT&T is also beginning to smell the coffee. Right
> now Sprint is hawking its "digital network with the most modern
> signaling", etc., etc. The thrust is that it was the leader in digital
> telephony.  What a laugh. Who do you supposed invented it? AT&T did
> misread the importance of "digital quality", and lagged in giving
> digital connections to customers. But when Sprint started making hay
> with it, AT&T became fully digital in very short order (the network
> WAS already in place, long before Sprint even thought about it).

Well, if you want to go back into history, let us not forget that when
AT&T owned the Bells, we could not even (legally) install our own
extension telephones.  I don't think Sprint is claiming to have
invented digital telephony, but they were the first carrier to have a
100% fiber optic network.  If only they had invested as much in
upgrading their billing system and in training customer service
personnel, they might be at least the number two carrier today.

> And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in
> about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected
> via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it
> goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how
> intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it.

Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the
more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't
available to other carriers?  Tell me why, for example, an AT&T
operator can hold my line open until she releases the call, while OCC
operators cannot?  Have these superior connections been made available
to other carriers?  I think not.  Again, once AT&T has to compete on a
totally level playing field, I think a lot of these so-called
advantages will disappear (when was Feature Group C supposed to be
discontinued, anyway?).

> Both MCI and Sprint have experienced major billing problems and then
> demonstrated a serious lack of ability to handle them. Yes, I had a
> billing problem with AT&T that turned out to be Pac*Bell's problem.
> But AT&T did not attempt to ruin my credit and turn me over to a
> collection agency as Sprint did. (Sprint ended up giving me a $50
> credit over and above all of the disputed amounts as a "good will"
> gesture, but I really prefer having it done right to begin with.)

Agreed, agreed, agreed!  Especially with Sprint.  Sprint really
mystifies me.  They come up with these wonderful calling plans and
then shoot themselves in the foot by giving poor customer service.  I
have to wonder if any Sprint executives have ever called in AS A
CUSTOMER to see what sort of treatment they would receive?  I would
rather be on Sprint's "The Most" plan than on MCI's "Friends &
Family", but MCI's customer service people are FAR easier to deal
with, in my experience (one caveat ... I gave up on Sprint about three
years ago and have NOT tried them recently, and if you recall the
article that I posted about a month ago describing how one of their
bill collectors tried to dun me for a debt that wasn't even mine,
you'll understand why I'm not inclined to try them again!).

> I have no stock or interest in AT&T. But every time I have used MCI or
> Sprint for whatever reason, some monster rears its head and a major
> inadequacy is revealed.

I think it's a problem with the whole telephone industry.  By the way,
John, do you have a personal AT&T rep?  It might make a big
difference.  I will concede that if you spend a LOT of time talking to
your carrier's customer service department, then how you are handled
there is going to be very important to you.

I just wish the other carriers would take these comments to heart.
Even someone like I, who is pro-competition and maybe even slightly
anti-AT&T, can get VERY frustrated when dealing with incompetent folks
on the other end of the phone line.  To that end, I'd like to offer
the "seven deadly sins" that lose business for the other carriers.

1) Waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ... on hold, usually while
listening to interminably boring music interspersed with commercials
for the carrier.

2) Getting transferred from department to department, with each
department saying something like "I wonder why they transferred you
here" or "Why did they send you back here, couldn't they help you?"
(As if *I'm* supposed to know the answer to that!)

3) Service or repair reps who won't even let you finish describing
your problem before they put you on hold and go searching for the
wrong answer!

4) Giving out just plain WRONG information (e.g. "You have to be a
'dial 1' customer to use that plan" when it really isn't true).

5) The inability or unwillingness to give immediate credit for problem
calls ("You'll have to wait until you get your bill and then call us
back!").

6) Repair clerks who make out trouble reports that are then deposited
in a "black hole." The trouble doesn't get fixed, you call back and
are told "We have no outstanding trouble reports on that problem."  Or
worse: "Didn't someone contact you about that?"  (Obviously not, or I
wouldn't be calling back).

7) Finally, what can generally be described as an inability of the
folks who answer the phones to do anything meaningful to resolve a
problem or to get an immediate answer.  When I call with a question, I
want an answer NOW, particularly if it's something fairly
straightforward (something printed in black and white in the tariffs,
for example).  When I call repair, I want the person who answers to
take some personal responsibility to see that the problem will be
fixed (not to just have the attitude of "I'll make out a trouble
report and we'll hope for the best!").

In short, you'd think that folks in the business of communications
would learn how to communicate with customers.  Apparently many of the
OCC's are having a big problem in that regard!


Jack Decker | Internet: [e-mail] | Fidonet: 1:154/8

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 03:45 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


On Feb 19 at 02:23, Jack Decker writes:

> I will agree with you that the other carriers fall down a lot on
> communicating with the customer, but as I've mentioned previously, most
> of us don't have the same demanding telecommunications requirements
> that John Higdon does!

No, but a lot of people do. And until the OCCs can deliver major long
distance to demanding customers rather than those who are impressed by
the commercials, they have no hope of being truly major players. I
have clients who now have "AT&T-only" policies after being burned big
time by MCI and Sprint. In essence, they will not even consider
services by OCCs no matter how attractive they sound because of major
business-disrupting screwups in the recent past.

> AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the
> bigger they are, the harder they fall!"

AT&T has had a couple of major outages. I find these much more
tolerable than hundreds of minor outages which are characteristic of
the OCCs. "The Great AT&T outage of 1989" which lasted part of one day
has not irritated me nearly so much as MCI's outage yesterday for an
hour, Sprint's problems last week, etc., etc.

> I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior
> connections, it is only because they are still using some of the
> pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?).  When all the carriers
> are on a level playing field, I suspect you will not see a great
> difference between at least the top two carriers.

All connection facilities enjoyed by AT&T are available to any OCC.
But it takes two to Tango. AT&T is the only carrier offering coin-paid
calls from utility (non-COCOT) payphones simply because the other
carriers do not want to be bothered with the substantial tooling up
required to offer the service. Not enough money in it -- let AT&T do
it.  If an OCC has inferior connection arrangements, that is squarely
the fault of the carrier and none other.

> But, John, if it had not been for the competition, you know that AT&T
> would still be giving us the same level of service (at the same high
> prices) as we had in the 70's.  I think the reason that the AT&T
> commercials bother me is because it still shows that in some ways they
> are not playing fairly...  they are using questionable claims to try
> and destroy the competition.

If you have even read a fraction of my Digest ramblings, you would be
fully aware that there is no greater advocate of competition. In fact,
the one major area where the Moderator and I disagree is my insistence
that divestiture was the greatest thing that has ever happened to
telephony. I have no doubt that without competition AT&T would still
be a Bad Deal with HoHum service (no features). But the truth is that
AT&T IS still the dominant carrier BECAUSE it is competing. The
"monopoly advantage" evaporated some time ago. The OCCs would like you
to believe the opposite since it would take some of the heat off of
them in the competition arena. They would love to maintain the
crippling regulations on AT&T.

I do not think that anyone at AT&T believes that anything is going to
"destroy the competition". It is a competitive jungle out there and
AT&T is entitled to use the same tactics that both MCI and Sprint have
themselves used.

> I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony,
> but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network.

Technical point of order: bits is bits. In digital telephony, it makes
no difference whether the data stream is carried via copper,
microwave, or fiber. There is nothing magic about the quality of a
fiber optic connection over a microwave digital connection. And even
so, I will bet that AT&T's fiber facilities are far more massive than
Sprint's.

> Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the more
> direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't
> available to other carriers?

Again, these connections are available to everyone.

> Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open
> until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot?  Have these
> superior connections been made available to other carriers?  I think
> not.

Why would they want them? What you describe is the old TSPS (left over
from pre-divestiture). The facilities available now are obviously more
advanced.

> I think it's a problem with the whole telephone industry.  By the way,
> John, do you have a personal AT&T rep?

No. AT&T is one the forward-thinking companies that has instituted the
policy of one-stop customer service. The person that answers the phone
has access to all necessary account info, rate info, plan info, and is
empowered to make adjustments and changes on the spot. Pacific Bell
also handles customer service in this manner (in fact, there were some
major write-ups on it in the trades).

GTE and the OCCs shuffle you around from one person to another, have
to "call you back", and no one seems to have the authority to do
anything even remotely unusual to keep a customer happy. My little
adventure with Sprint (bogus billing) involved about five people
including some upper level managers. In fact, resolution only came
when one of those managers happened to read one of my posts on the
net.

Oh, the OCCs and the telcos read this forum. They know what we are
saying. But their market is not people like us. It is the average
telephone buffoon whom they perceive will buy into the carefully
contrived advertising. AT&T also participates in this, but at least it
also has the depth to offer major league service to demanding
customers, something still sorely lacking at the OCCs.

> I will concede that if you spend a LOT of time talking to your
> carrier's customer service department, then how you are handled there
> is going to be very important to you.

It should be important with everyone. It is all part of the product.

> I just wish the other carriers would take these comments to heart.
> Even someone like I, who is pro-competition and maybe even slightly
> anti-AT&T, can get VERY frustrated when dealing with incompetent folks
> on the other end of the phone line.

I am not "anti" or "pro" anyone, AT&T or OCCs. I just want a certain
product at a fair price. Part of that product is interaction with
company representatives. And part of that product is consistent
quality of connections. And we have not even talked about price. One
would not realize from all the OCC advertising that within the state
of California, AT&T has plans that wipe the competition away. AT&T's
problem is itself. To find out about those plans, you have to do some
digging -- AT&T does not bother to advertise them.

> To that end, I'd like to offer the
> "seven deadly sins" that lose business for the other carriers.

> 1) Waiting...

> 2) Getting transferred from department to department...

> 3) Service or repair reps who...put you on hold...

> 4) Giving out just plain WRONG information...

> 5) The inability or unwillingness to give immediate credit...

> 6) truble reports that are deposited in a "black hole."...

> 7) inability of the folks ... to do anything meaningful...

Very good! I could not have made my case any better.

> In short, you'd think that folks in the business of communications would
> learn how to communicate with customers.  Apparently many of the OCC's
> are having a big problem in that regard!

And until they fix it, they are not in AT&T's league. AT&T may be
arrogant, but it is the service that I buy. As long as a company has
that to sell, count me in. When the other companies come around, I
will give them due consideration.


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 08:09:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #106 [e-mail] (CHRISTOPHER WOLF) writes:

[ text about extra charges on phone bills deleted - dwn ]

> As an aside, I think their policies are horrible on this service.  If
> I don't spend $0.29 on a stamp and $0.20 for a check fees to pay this
> $0.70 in charges, I get a late fees and possibly disconnection of my
> service.  This applied even if one only owes a few cents.  I argued
> with them about a $0.12 bill one time.  Also, he agreed that it
> shouldn't be $0.09, and asked that I call him back next month with
> whatever late charges I get.

> I few cents here, a few cents there, spread across a couple thousand
> college student could really add up.

You bet it does.  I'm still going round and round with NYTel about
overcharges in billing to one single exchange in the 516 area code.
All looked well in November '92 but December saw a fallback to the old
charging scheme.  I had to get on the phone with NYTel again and
complain.

January '93s charges to this exchange are now back to where they
should be.

I suspect that there was a problem with the new ratetables (probably
an exchange or exchanges being added, but I don't know for sure) and
the old ones were reloaded.

In each case, I get a correction on each succeeding month's bill
which is usually $.10 to $.20US.

PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day
on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it
soon adds up to real money."


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


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase.
He said it in the Senate, but he had earlier used the phrase when
hosting one of the 'College of Complexes' programs we held on Saturday
night. The CoC met weekly, and presented a different speaker every
week, or sometimes a debate. Time was always allotted for the audience
to question/challenge/cheer/boo/hiss the speakers, some of whom were
crackpots.  When I was involved, in the 1960-70's, Dirksen came to
speak a couple times a year. The College charged fifty cents tuition,
and that got you one cup of coffee or cola, or a beer.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #113
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04427;
          20 Feb 93 4:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03759
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18543
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #114

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:34:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 114

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Terry Kennedy)
    Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Kevin Wang)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Mark Steiger)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Guy Hadsall)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Brad Hicks)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Graham Toal)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Bob Frankston)
    Re: The War on Pagers (John Nagle)
    Re: The War on Freedom (Alan T. Furman)
    Re: California Caller-ID (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: California Caller-ID (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Arthur Ruubi)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Richard Nash)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John Temples)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Terry Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ?
Date: 19 Feb 93 23:48:14 EST
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> [Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the
> frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your
> number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside
> the telco to know these or use them, thus the routine varies from
> community to community, and sometimes from month to month. You would
> have a lot of changes in your list on a regular basis.   PAT]

  Well, 958 is popular in this area (New York/New Jersey). I think it
may have been a Bellcore recommendation at one time. Most of the other
older styles, like 55x-your# for ringback and 200-xxx-yyyy for your
number were phased out as the prefixes were needed for expansion.
Also, they were set up based on mechanical switches, while the newer
stored-program switches can do all of this with a single number.

  For example, recent 1A generics can be configured with a single
number in the reserved space, usually on the first exchange a switch
serves, which can be used to return the calling number, determine loop
distance, open a line for a brief interval, calculate loss, generate
test tones, etc. - far more info than was available with the old
methods, and more accurate and faster as well. However, these numbers
require a dialed pass- word and have additional restrictions on
security-related features like verify. With such a system, a single
test number can serve fifty thousand to well over a hundred thousand
lines.


Terry Kennedy        Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]    St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Wang)
Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ?
Organization: The Outland Riders
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:57:17 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] writes:

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

>> RINGBACK:    445<your number>
>> HEAR YOUR NUMBER:
>>        958

> Maybe I was asleep or something ... could someone tell me why these
> services would be useful?

If you *MUST* figure out your lines at home, I just dial the operator
and ask "is this xxx-yyyy or aaa-bbbb?" and they verify it for me.
They can't officially just give it out, but the will verify it for
you.


Kevin Wang

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:04:58 -0600
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS:  Minnetonka, MN (Free!)


[e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard) wrote:

> Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
> to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
> applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
> designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
> commercial broadcast band.  For example, if I let my son take my Radi
> Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they
> could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year.

Sure hope they don't have any Ham Radio clubs there ... could be a
killer if they want anyone to do any demonstrations ...


Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Fido: 1:282/4018  Simnet: 16:612/24

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:42:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


Most of the national paging concerns have self-imposed rules for new
paging subscribers outside of normal credit proceedures.  These rules
hinge on AGE > 18 and EMPLOYMENT > 6 months.  WHY?  Because of the
national studies and outcries from government and the public have
pointed towards these groups as "problems".

As competition in the paging/wireless industry had increased in 1983,
the "value" of the new subscriber had increased dramatically.  Most of
the newcomers to the industry started cannibalizing market shares by
offering pagers to any new customer.  Right or wrong, they need new
customers to cover the high overhead costs of developing a paging
system.

What you see now as the paging industry is comprised of (in my
opinion) 80% or more cash power companies, including the Bell
companies that have remained.  These companies *still* need customers,
and sometimes reduce there standards to survive.  By the way, the
average price of paging service pre-1983 was $35 (Telocator
publication) and as of 1992 was $9.  The start ups like PageNet,
PagePlus, FirstPage, and a few others began with "junk bonds" or at
elast risk investment plans.  The market has driven the price *way*
down; but its THE market and the US is a free market system. Survival
of the fittest.

Just my $.02.


Guy Hadsall

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

From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=[e-mail]
Date: 19 Feb 93 19:08:25 GMT
Subj: Re: The War on Pagers


Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to
make them perfectly reasonable.  Change the law so that (a) =students=
are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all
other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a
legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local
principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING.

I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
who has it.

If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the
school.  They know where the student is and can relay a message as
quickly or as slowly as it requires.  (If they don't know where your
child is, then you have an even bigger problem.)  If a student in
school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until
after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to
think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other.


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 21:48:54 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


[e-mail] (Maxime Taksar) said:

> Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids
> pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is
> forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*.

Whereas over here in the wake of a child-kidnapping, parents are being
*encouraged* to buy pagers for schoolchildren, so that if they're late
picking them up, they can give instructions, and the children are told
never to go with anyone unless they've been messaged by their parents.


G

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Date: Fri 19 Feb 1993 19:47 -0400


Sounds like time to do a story on the good uses of pagers. It's worth
noting that all the baby places sell pagers.  When the {Boston Globe}
did an article on traveling with technology a few weeks ago, they
missed the whole topic of mundane use of technology in his
concentration on business use.

My son wants a pager partially in imitation of me.  But it would also
be a great way of letting him roam free but still be contactable.  If
he is expecting me or his mother to pick him up from school, how else
can we tell him that we're late?  Pairing this with personal 800
numbers (especially when they are the same as the home phone number so
even preschoolers can call home from anywhere) provides a very
effective means of staying in touch. While it would be nice to give
each kid a pocket phone for safety, a pager is a more appropriate
technology in terms of cost and size.

Next, we've got to figure out why airlines are so scared of portable
PC's and cellular phones with dead batteries.  Or are they just being
nice when I board a plane and want to make sure that I've got a
charged battery when I take such a device onto the plane?

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 07:29:25 GMT


Motorola recently introduced a line of decorator pagers, neons and
clear, aimed at the high-school market.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The War on Freedom
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:55:47 PST


"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law..."
         -- Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution, deceased

As there is no way I could even scratch the surface of a topic like
forfeiture without trial while staying inside the boundaries of the
TELECOM Digest, I present instead an annotated set of pointers:

The International Society for Individual Liberty is now organizing a
coalition to challenge the massive escalation of forfeiture without
trial now being conducted by governments, courts, and police forces at
all levels.

Collaborating groups are: The Drug Policy Foundation (which produces
the PBS series "America's Drug Forum"), the Institute for Justice (a
civil-rights litigating group like the ACLU, focusing on free
enterprise and property rights issues), and F.E.A.R (Forfeiture
Endangers Americans' Rights, founded by forfeiture victims).

For more information, contact ISIL at [e-mail]
Telephone [phone]; snailmail 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA
94102.

The investigative report "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the
War on Drugs" which originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Press, 11-16
August 1991, and was reprinted in other newspapers over the following
weeks, is a good starting place to find out about this situation.
Reprints cost $5 for the full series of articles.  A book called
_Spectre of Forfeiture_ by Judy Osburn explores the legal "rationale"
of this blatant repudiation of the Bill of Rights.  Both are available
by mail order from ISIL.  Those interested in discussing this suject
online can try alt.politics.libertarian on Usenet, or the Internet
mailing list Libernet (subscription requests to
[e-mail]).


Alan T. Furman   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 11:34:42 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: California Caller-ID


Steve: I'm mailing this to TELECOM because I don't seem to be
explaining myself clear enough.  I hope you don't object to making
this public, particularly since we've been quite polite and I want to
ask others to clarify or correct me.

TELECOM:  Please help me clarify the situation and correct any
of my misconceptions.

    -- start of e-mail

Steve Forrette <krfiny!uunet!wrq.com!stevef> posted an article in
TELECOM asking about caller-id from California callers.  TELECOM
readers have noted that all calls from CA are delivered either as "out
of area" or "private" (sometimes arbitrarily either for the same
caller) due to Pac Bell's (mis)interpretation of the ruling banning
caller-id.

Steve e-mailed me:

> If I subscribe to CO-based "block blocking", then this prevents me
> from receiving any calls from anyone in California under the present
> state of affairs.  Considering that all of my family and many of my
> friends live in California, this is not a workable solution for me.

I replied that my understanding is that "PRIVATE" calls can blocked,
traced and returned with call block, etc.  "PRIVATE" means that your
CO got the number but won't let you get it, but you may access it as a
"black box".  You can use call block with the "add last number to the
list" option but it won't read it back to you when you perform list
maintenance.

"Out Of Area" calls can't be traced or blocked or anything because no
number was received (the call was not SS7 all the way).

Oh yes, if call trace, call return or call block is not available at
the recipient's CO, that's the real obstacle.

If I am correct, then why does Steve fear blocking all of California?

Steve wanted CPE (Customer premesis equipment) to perform call
screening.  Hmm, he knows to use the CPE acronym but one of us is
certainly confused about caller-id!

> Caller ID can be a useful tool in screening out the garbage,
> especially if you have block blocking, or a CPE-based device that will
> cause PRIVATE calls to not even ring.

I have been thinking about CPE based caller-id processing.  There's a
real problem with call block.  Let's say I get a call and caller-id
identifies it as a call I am blocking.  What can I do?

 - not answer the phone?  Even if the CPE doesn't ring the phones, I
cannot get a dial tone until the caller hangs up, and nobody else can
call me since the line is busy.  That's denial of service: I can't
call out and nobody else can call in while an annoying call is in
progress.

 - go off hook and on hook.  That can take 5-20 seconds to clear the
line.  I still am denied use of the phone line for a while.  If the
pest keeps redialing me, it would be difficult for me to make calls or
receive calls.

That's why the CO based call block has a 'home turf' advantage.  You
can use the "add last call to call block list" command and even
"private" numbers can be blocked and not only never ring your phone
again, but they cannot even get near your lines (can't even know if
your phone is busy or not).

CPE cannot block private numbers, CO based call block can.  CPE uses
the line even for unwanted calls, CO based call block does not let the
call get that far.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 14:12:54 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Caller-ID


Call Trace, Call Block, etc. are NOT acceptable recourses to most
annoying calls.  What are you going to do, call the police and tell
them "Hey, this chimney sweep just called me - throw the bum in
jail!"?  Nor is Call Block going to be effective, as the same chimney
sweep is not likely to call you back again.  Again, Call Trace and
Call Block are not effective against telemarketers and many other
sorts of annoying calls.  They only work in cases where the same
person calls you many times.  A "private" call should tell you that
the person calling has specifically requested anonymity, and not that
they have done so OR live in California.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 18 Feb 93 18:09:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Arthur Rubin)


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Levine) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my
>> bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was
>> entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it.

> You're lucky you don't live in France.  (Or perhaps the French are
> lucky that you live in the U.S.)  French phone bills never show the
> last digits of the phone numbers in the call detail, due to privacy
> concerns.  This includes direct dial calls.  The theory is that the
> digits that they do show are adequate to document the amount that
> they're charging you.

Convenient for hackers, or telecom personell using your phone line for
their work.  (I had several calls to a number in PacBellLand a few
years ago, which turned out to be an internal work reporting number.)


Arthur L. Rubin: [e-mail] (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything
important.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:17:35 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer
> Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the
> LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are
> creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID.  What if
> a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their
> telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE.  This will prevent
> any incoming calls from anyone in California!  Similarly, I would
> imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose
> to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE.  How are you supposed to
> differentiate between people who have specifically requested that
> their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to)
> from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's
> best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)?

Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their
calls blocked with blocked blocking.  Demand that the telcos must
insert a tag number to be used instead of marking as PRIVATE.  ACB and
AR would utilize this tag number to look up the real number to be
used. Just think of all the new telecom headaches that could be
created! :)


Richard Nash    Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:        [e-mail]

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

From: jwt![e-mail] (John Temples)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Organization: Private system -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 03:01:02 GMT


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

> Their biggest complaint is with the requirement that unpublished
> numbers will default to the per-line-blocked state.  Of course, the
> customer can have her/his line's blocking status set any way they
> choose.

Perhaps PacBell should offer free blocked-call blocking on all lines
by default.  This would certainly discourage people from choosing per
line blocking, since it would be very inconvenient to call almost
everyone.


John W. Temples -- Preferred:  [e-mail]    (jwt![e-mail])
                -- Alternate:  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #114
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08197;
          20 Feb 93 6:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10409
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:59 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02591
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #115

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 04:04:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 115

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising) (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Patricia A. Dunkin)
    Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Mark Malson)
    Re: Mandatory Measured Service (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 1ESS and CNID (Dave Levenson)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (M. McCormick)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Sicherman)
    Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7 (John Pettitt)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Andrew Blau)
    Re: White House Phone Factoids (Tim Tyler)
    Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem (Tim Mangan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:32:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising)


Tony Pelliccio writes:

> Similar things happen here in the US. A few years ago New England
> Telephone went on strike and lo and behold, a few of the key fiber
> trunks got cut.

Ah, but was it ever determined who did the cutting?

If the sabotage turned out to be the work of rogue striking telco
workers or their sympathizers, then the motivation was simply to bring
the company's management to its knees so that it would quickly cave in
to union demands.

This is quite a different thing than the Bangkok scenario, wherein
outraged *customers* were venting their frustration at the whole
telco.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 17:39 EST
From: [e-mail] (Patricia A Dunkin [phone])
Subject: Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Matthew Harttree) writes:

[ amusing story of unexpected recording on misdial ]

> If this type of thing amuses you too, I would love to hear about it.

Since you asked, several years ago, I was in a motel somewhere east of
the Mississippi, trying to call my sister in Nevada.  The otherwise
thorough dialing instructions in the room didn't say how to charge a
call to a credit card (possibly they didn't want to offer help to
guests wanting to avoid surcharges), so I had to experiment a bit
before I found the right combination.  (Okay, I *could* have called
the front desk and asked, but that wouldn't have been nearly as
interesting.)

One of the misdials connected me to a recording that said something
like, "Direct dialing service is not available to the country you are
trying to reach.  Please call the operator for assistance."  I never
did figure out which country the switch thought I wanted.

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

From: kgw2!![e-mail] (Mark Malson)
Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit
Organization: Xetron Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:34:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitch
Wagner) writes:

> I've always thought that if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't
> stop phoning, even when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that
> if they didn't stop calling I would file harassment charges against
> them with the police.

One way to avoid harrassing phone calls is (if you are willing to
spend $20 a year) to join a group called "Private Citizen". They
provide your name to all the major phone number vendors and tell them
that you are hereby notifying them that you no longer permit them the
free use of your telephone and your time for their profit. If they
wish to call you anyway, your fee is $500 per call. Or something
pretty close to that.

I haven't joined the group yet (I just got my package), so I am not
ENDORSING them. Anyone interested can call 1-800-CUT-JUNK and talk to
them (or their machine).


Mark D. Malson              Xetron Corporation
40 West Crescentville Road  Cincinnati, Ohio  45246   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service
Date: 20 Feb 1993 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> There are bills pending in both houses of the Washington State
> legislature which would permanently ban mandatory measured service in
> this state.

> [Moderator's Note: Believe me, there are people who prefer measured
> service because their use of the phone is so minimal.

That's fine.  Then those people who prefer it can order measured
service.  Right now in Washington State, both business and residence
customers can choose between measured or unmeasured service.  The
bills pending in the legislature would only ensure through statute
that it stays this way.  US West says it currently "has no plans" to
phase out measured service, but wants the prohibition to last only 5
years.  The PUC wants the authority to ban unmeasured service at any
time.  Just whose side are they on?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: 1ESS and CNID
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:34:55 GMT


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

> I encourage Pac*Bell to not send blocked status on interstate calls.

That is a good position to take.  In Virginia, the telco offers a
customer-controlled per-line option called Anonymous Call Rejection.
If you enable this option, you'll still get "Out of Area" calls (calls
from non-SS7-connected areas), but you will not receive calls where
the calling number is available but its display is blocked.  The
caller reaches a recording which explains how to enable the
transmission of CNID.  If callers from California are prevented from
reaching parties in Virginia, then Pac*Bell probably ought to be
'encouraged' not to send mandatory anonymous calls.  The question is,
John, do they ever listen to your encouragement?


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

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

Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 10:57:44 -0600
From: Martin McCormick <[e-mail]>


> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
> so?

     The idea of channel-hopping to increase security is, on the
surface, a very good one.  It is another variation on the
military-style system of frequency hopping in a pseudo-randomized
sequence to thwart eavesdropping.  For cellular telephones, as we
presently know them, it wouldn't work very well because of the way a
cellular telephone receives digital control signals.  Presently, once
a cell phone is tuned into a talk channel, the only way the switch can
get its attention is to send it a burst of data on the actual voice
channel.  These bursts are presently used to initiate handoffs to the
next cell and request changes in output power.  They are slightly
disruptive to voice communication and extremely disruptive to any data
communication which relies on a continuous carrier.  That is why data
communication through cell phones works best when done with a modem
actually designed for this purpose.

     When a cellular phone receives a control command from the switch,
the user may hear a little dropout in audio lasting about 1/4-second.
If a frequency hopping scheme were in use, those little dropouts would
happen each time a new channel was selected.  For most people, this
would create an unacceptable degradation of sound quality.

     The only real solution is to go digital.  This would stop casual
eaves-dropping since the scanner-owner would just hear a bunch of
noise, if that much.  Handoffs and other house-keeping commands could
be accomplished without even a click since digital buffering would
take care of any discontinuity as long as it wasn't too bad.

     About the only thing that an intelligently-written law can do to
enhance privacy is to keep it from being too easy.  It probably would
make sense to ban manufacture of scanners with a digital demodulator
built right in, but that is about all that can be done.  If somebody
does figure out how to decode the signals, on their own, then what
they hear is already covered by the Communications Act of 1934.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:48:37 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> Esteemed Moderator parades
his biases again:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting
> wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and
> others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on;
> civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is
> more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear
> people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a
> new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the
> FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC?  I don't blame myself for putting
> idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em!   PAT]

   Then again, none of us got to vote for the Telecom Moderator but we
have to put up with him. There seems to be an element of tyranny in
his management of the responsibilities he has undertaken and I don't
always agree with his policies or opinions but I am generally willing
to accept that he is human, fallible, quirky, opinionated, stubborn,
sometimes self-righteous but also a dedicated and hard-working doer of
the moderation task. He does the job as he sees his responsibility to
the 'consumers' and to the policies and laws regulating the medium.

   Frankly, it's hard to see any really essential difference between
his role and modus operandi and the public servants he seems to feel
some superiority towards.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Ah, but there is a big difference. There is an
unmoderated forum you can use any time expressly devoted to telecom
and Lord knows how many other unmoderated news groups are operating on
the net at any given time. Try telling Uncle you're going to take your
business elsewhere, to an ungoverned country. You can get away from me
anytime you wish ... try avoiding Uncle's hard, staring and watchful
eyes. And despite my own biases, which I freely admit to, I print a
huge diversity of opinion here including yours. If you think I am
disagreeable and hard to get along with, try the <F>ederal <B>ureau of
<I>nquisition. Uncle's little worker bees may humor you, but they can
afford to: when all is said and done, despite your bravado they know
you'll be an obedient and meek citizen when they point a gun at your
head. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:31:11 PST


Following on the from the thread regarding numbers from California
being marked private, I called Pac Bell and asked them about what
happens when I call out of state.  The rep said she did not know and
somebody would call back.

Well they just did.  After we got to the same level (yes I understand
ANI, SS7, CLASS etc etc) the following is the postion:

1) If I call NY from here (Palo Alto, CA) then depending on which LD
company I use they may or may not get my number.

2) Pac Bell is looking for customers to complain about display of
numbers out of state so that they can "ask the long distance companies
to not pass on the number".

3) When I asked how they were to do this -- the rep did not know and
seemed confused as to a) they would discontinue SS7 in an out of CA (I
don't believe this) or b) they would mark data private.

4) I asked that my lines not be marked private as I wanted people in
the rest of the country to take my calls.  This completely confused
him.

Anyway he promised to go find some papers on the subject and fax them
to me. I will OCR anything that arrives and pass it on.

Confused?  Not as confused as Pac Bell is !

If somebody out of state has a caller ID box I can call we can run
some tests and see just what is going on.


John Pettitt      Mail: [e-mail]
CEO, Dolmus Inc.  Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:36:12 -0500
From: Andrew Blau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #107, Robert L. McMillin ([e-mail])
writes:

> Andrew Blau <[e-mail]> writes:

>> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
>> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
>> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
>> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
>> project.  [Allen's quote deleted]

> Three cheers, then, for Robert Allen.  We should hold off on the 21-gun
> salute until AFTER we've heard AT&T's full proposal.

Absolutely.  I don't think that anything I wrote could or should be
construed as a 21-gun salute to Robert Allen or AT&T.  It's simply to
suggest that telcos have become quite vocal about trying to get in on
the Data Superhighway action.

> It's no surprise that the LECs see digital services in their crystal
> balls.  The question that needs to be asked is this: will these
> digital services to the residential demarc be affordable?  My guess is
> not, especially if the LECs or the IXCs have anything to say about it.

[...Info about EDS v. AT&T "dark fiber" controversy deleted...]

> Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can
> produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable
> nylons for the secretaries.  That is the approach we need to take with
> digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread
> their benefits widely.  All we need is the capital and the vision to
> apply it.

Three cheers, then, for Robert McMillin.  I could not have said it
better myself.  Affordable digital service for residential users so
that the benefits of this system can be widely shared is one of the
most critical public policy issues in this area, and one that is often
overlooked.  Moreover, much of the financial capital that Mr. McMillin
refers to has already been sunk over the last eight years, if we are
talking about the first level of digital services for the home.  The
real capital that needs to get spent is likely to be political
capital, and, following Mr. McMillin, the vision to apply it.


Andrew Blau                Electronic Frontier Foundation   202-544-9237(v)
Associate for              666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.      202-547-5481(f)
Telecommunications Policy  Washington, DC  20003            [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:03:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian
Gordon) writes:

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

>> "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington
>> and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday
>> attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon."

> Maybe it's been moved, but the "hot line" _used to_ terminate
> somewhere other than the Pentagon -- in the dark recesses of No Such
> Agency ...

    Using a reasonable definition of 'terminate,' you're wrong.  The
primary 'subscriber' terminals for the CONUS end of the computer and
facsimile link are at the Pentagon and White House.


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

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

From: Tim Mangan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem
Organization: TyLink Corporation
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 03:29:13 GMT


More strange phone setups --

I had a phone in college that was set up to not have a dial tone.
This prevented anyone from making an outside call from the phone; you
could only receive calls.  So far so good ...

If someone left the phone off the hook when the caller hung up, the
next caller would get connected without the phone ringing.  As there
were several extensions to this phone it would happen quite often.
When you gave anyone your phone number, you had to add the
instructions that after dialing if they hear hall noises instead of a
ring, yell like crazy until someone notices that you are on the line.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #115
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22410;
          20 Feb 93 14:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07566
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04597
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:00 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #116

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 12:09:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 116

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ISDN Book Wanted (Pat Turner)
    Re: ISDN Book Wanted (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Cost of ISDN Voice Terminals? (Ben Stoltz)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners ([e-mail])
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Bob Longo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 11:34 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ISDN Book Wanted


Jim Karkanias writes:

> Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN?

What follows is the biblography from a paper I wrote on ISDN about a
year ago.  You will find several good books listed in it.  Gary
Kessler's and Fred Goldstein's are among the better ones.  William
Stallings' books are also very popular, but as a EE, I think he
touches on a few issues he doesn't really understand.  Then again, I'm
no computer network expert, and only have a BS in electrical
engineering.

The paper was more concerned with the physical interfaces and lower
level protocals than aplications, thus the references are slanted in
that direction.  A few of these articles deal with fiber optics,
privacy issues, or other aspects that may not interest you.

[1] S. Hardwich, ISDN Design ; A Practical Approach, Academic
Press, San Diego, Ca., 152 pp., 1989.

[2] B. G. Kim, Current Advances in LANs, MANs & ISDN, Artech House,
Boston, 369 pp., 1989.

[3] G. Kessler, ISDN : concepts, facilities, and services, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 302 pp., 1990.

[4] J. Spragins, Telecommunications : Protocols and Design,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 716 pp., 1991

[5] N. Burd and F. Benetti, "A single chip 2B1Q U interface for
customer access to ISDN," Electronic Engineering, vol. 62, no.7,
July 1990.

[6] C. Wolinsky and J. Sylvester, "Privacy in the
telecommunications age," Communications of the ACM, vol. 35, no. 2,
Feb. 1992.

[7] M. Rotenberg, "Protecting Privacy," Communications of the ACM,
vol. 35, no. 4, Apr. 1992.

[8] W. Stallings, ISDN and broadband ISDN, Macmillan, New York, 633
pp., 1992.

[9] W. Stallings,  Tutorial : Integrated Service Digital Networks
(ISDN), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., 325 pp., 1985.

[11]  C. Wilson, "Pacific Bell to upgrade 112 COs to National
ISDN-1 standard," Telephony, vol.222, no. 1, Jan. 6 1992.

[12]  C. Wilson, "The Changing Face of the CO Switch," Telephony,
vol. 222, no. 15, April 13 1992.

[13]  S. Jones, "National ISDN-ONE," Telecommunications, vol. 25,
no. 9, Sept. 1991.

[14] T. Bartee, ISDN, DECnet, and SNA Communications, H. W. Sams,
Indianapolis, Ind, 414 pp., 1989.

[15] M. Thomas, "ISDN: Some Current Standards Difficulties,"
Telecommunications, vol. 24, no. 6, June 1991.

[16] K. Marrin, "U Interface silicon crystallizes ISDN standards,"
Computer Design, vol. 29, no. 44, Nov. 1, 1990.

[17] J. W. Lechlieder, "Line codes for digital subscriber lines,"
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 27, no.9, Sept. 1989.

[18]G. Dicenet, Design and Prospects for the ISDN, Artech House,
Boston, 280 pp., 1987.

[19] N. Johal, "U Interface tackles non-ISDN applications,"
Computer Design, vol. 29, no. 44, Nov. 1, 1990.

[20] T. Lin, "ISDN Basic Rate Interface Architecture For ADPCM
Transmission," Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 18, no. 1,
Nov. 24, 1989.

[22]  L. Golding, et. al., "VSATs:Expert Views On Future Trends,"
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 27, no.6, May. 1989.

[23] Y. Yamamoto and T. Wright, "Error Performance in Evolving
Digital Networks Including ISDNs," IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 27, no. 4, Apr. 1989.

[24] G. Achaibar and M. Pauzer, "NT1: key to basic rate access,"
Communications News, vol. X,no. 1, Jan. 1991.

[25] N. Rogers, "Power controllers for ISDN basic access,"
Electronic Engineering, vol. 61, no.8, Aug. 1989.

[26] G. Lee and C. Un, "Delay Analysis of the ISDN D Channel Access
Protocol," Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, Sep.
1, 1990.

[27] M. Donlin, "Single chip U transceiver provides ISDN echo
cancellation," Computer Design, vol. 28, no. 48, Dec. 1, 1989.

[28] P. Fletcher, "Telephone With Modular Plugins Paves The Way For
ISDN Services," Electronic Design, vol. 39. no. 45, Nov. 7, 1991

[29] Y. Hishino, et. al., "ISDN Telephone Sets With Advanced Voice
Features," IEEE  Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol.37, no.
3, Aug., 1991.

[30]"ISDN: A World of Services," Electrical Communication, vol. 65,
no.1, 1991.

[31]  B. Baldwin, "Integrating ISDN Lines for Financial Users,"
Telecommunications, vol. 24, no. 6, June 1991.

[32] R. W. O'Dell and M. Kurnick, "Adapt Non-ISDN Terminals To ISDN
Data Rates," Electronic Design, vol. X, no. 17, Apr.25 1991.

[33] D. Gulick, "ISDN Terminal Adaptor Options," Telecommunications,
vol. 25, no. 9, Sept. 1991.

[35] A Lindstrom, "RHCs gear up for ISDN marketing challenge,"
Telephony, vol. 222, no. 11, Mar. 16 1992.

[37] J. M. O'Neil, "Videoconferencing: It's more affordable when
you use ISDN," Communications News, vol. X, no. 7, July 1991.

[38] A. Day, "International Standardization of BISDN," IEEE LTS
Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991.

[39] H. Helgert, Integrated Services Digital Networks :
Architectures, Protocols, Standards, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass,
449 pp., 1991.

[40] R. E. Basch, et. al., "VISTAnet, A BISDN Field Trial," IEEE
LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991.

[41] H. Bauch, "Transmission Systems for the BISDN," IEEE LTS
Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991.

[42] E. Goeldner and M. Huber, "Multiple Access for BISDN," IEEE
LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991.

[43] N. Ailawadi, et. al., "Broadband Photonic Switching Using
Guided-Wave Fabrics," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, May 1991.

[44}K. Nakagawa, et. al., "Optical  Amplification in Trunk
Transmission Networks," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 3, no. 1, Feb.
1992.

Missing number are for personal contacts.  I also erased Fred
Goldstein's book by mistake.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Even though you erased Fred Goldstein's listing in
error, Fred did respond also, and discusses his book in the next
message of this issue.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ISDN Book Wanted
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 22:44:50 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Karkanias) writes:

> Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN?

> [Moderator's Note: Why yes, as a matter of fact, telecom reader Fred
> Goldstein has written the very book you are seeking. I reviewed it
> here awhile back, perhaps Fred will write you with details, and send a
> cc: to the Digest so we can plug his book again to new readers who
> did not see the earlier review.    PAT]

Well, Pat, so long as you asked ... :-)

My book is called "ISDN In Perspective", is a 246-page paperback,
published by Addison-Wesley with ISBN 0-201-50016-7.  It talks about
ISDN services, switching and transmission, protocols, B-ISDN/ATM, and
various other related matters.  And of course it's blatantly
opinionated and seasoned with ISDN "folklore".  If you want to do me a
favor, you can pester your local tech bookseller into stocking it.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]  NOT "dnet"!
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ben Stoltz)
Subject: Cost of ISDN Voice Terminals?
Date: 20 Feb 93 00:47:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA


What is the lowest cost ISDN voice terminal that you know of for your
local ISDN standard?

I am trying to compile a list of low cost ISDN voice terminals. It is
nice to have HOLD, CONFERENCE, TRANSFER, and DROP buttons as well as 3
call appearances, a speaker, and a display.  However, I am also very
interested in no-frills versions with a corresponding lower cost.

Please send email to [e-mail]. I'll compile a list and post
it in a week or so.


Thanks,

Ben Stoltz    Voice:    [phone]
Fax:    [phone]  Email:    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:43:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.
fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> In message <[e-mail]>, John Higdon <[e-mail].
> com> wrote:

>> AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the
>> bigger they are, the harder they fall!"

This is very true, especially when you consider the traffic volumes.
AT&T has approximately 63% of interexchange traffic, MCI approximately
20%, Sprint approximately 12%, and the remaining carriers split up the
rest.  Now let's do a thought experiment.  Assume that half of the
customers out there in the world are knowledgeable enough to dial
10XXX to select an IXC other than their PIC.  Assume further that half
will try each of the other two major carriers.  (Any of these
assumptions are open to challenge; I'm using the theorem that says if
you don't have any information about a distribution, assume it's
uniform.)

Now, consider a failure scenario where a given set of callers can't
reach a given IXC, whether due to IXC failure, LEC failure, failure on
the boundary, or whatever.  If the IXC is MCI, using the above
assumptions, AT&T's total traffic load will increase by (5/63)%, or a
delta of 7% -- less than normal daily variation, probably.  If the IXC
is Sprint, the impact on AT&T's total traffic volume is even less
significant -- an increase of under 5%.

If, however, the IXC is AT&T, Sprint and MCI promptly get swamped
under the overflow -- MCI's load increases by 80%, and Sprint's by
more than 130%.  So when AT&T falls, everyone hurts ...

>> I still contend that many of the problems that are attributed to the
>> carriers actually occur in the facilities of the local telcos.

No argument here :-)

> I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior
> connections, it is only because they are still using some of the
> pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?).

Argument here.  There's very little FGC left out there (I don't know
hard numbers, but I'd guess less than 5%).  The BOCs have had ten
years to implement FGD, and they've been pretty agressive.

Where there is a difference is in the exchange access routing.  AT&T
connects directly to many End Offices.  Other IXCs connect primarily
to Access Tandems, which aggregate their traffic and route it to/from
End Offices.  If you have another switch and another set of trunks in
the path, you're more susceptible to failures.  I submit this is a
major advantage AT&T has.  Of course, we pay for it, because we've got
to have facilities to dozens of EOs in a LATA instead of one or two
ATs, requiring more small trunk groups instead of fewer larger trunk
groups, which are more expensive on a per-trunk basis.

> I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony,
> but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network.

(personal gripe): Actually what get's me is Sprint's commercial where
the v/o says "If you were going to build the perfect 800 service,
you'd do what AT&T did: Follow Sprint."  Of course, this disregards
the fact that AT&T invented and patented 800 service.

>> And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in
>> about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected
>> via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it
>> goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how
>> intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it.

> Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the
> more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't
> available to other carriers?

Yes, and no.  The advantage is due to the more direct connections to
EOs; those connections are available to other carriers, but they
choose not to purchase them.  We can't buy anything from an LEC that
any other IXC can't buy, if they so choose.

> once AT&T has to compete on a totally level playing field, I think a
> lot of these so-called advantages will disappear (when was Feature
> Group C supposed to be discontinued, anyway?).

 From my favorite Bellcore document, "Notes":

"AT&T must convert their access service to FGD when an end office is
converted to equal access.  Most end offices have now been converted
so the use of FGC is diminishing."  No numbers, tho.

Note also, though, that AT&T must continue to incure the cost of FGC
(CAMA/OSPS) access to support coin-sent-paid calls as carrier of last
resort.

Claimer: I work for AT&T Communications Services; I'm not in Access
and don't work on this stuff normally, but I know some of it from
general knowledge.  This is not an AT&T ad, but I do take some pride
in my employer ...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (The Stony Brook Press)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 15:56:45 GMT


[e-mail] (Hans) writes:

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

>> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
>> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
>> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
>> in the brain cell department.

> Remember, the FCC is only doing what its told to.  The real
> "below-average morons" are *your* elected officials who passsed the
> law so no one could listen to their phone calls.

> We have no one to blame but ourselves for putting these idiots into

> [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting
> wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and
> others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on;
> civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is
> more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear
> people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a
> new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the
> FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC?  I don't blame myself for putting
> idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em!   PAT]

Not only that, In this country you only have a choice between
Republicans and Democrats. There isn't that much difference between
them, compared with the choices you have in other democracies.  Also,
our representetives get a lot of presure from lobbiests,that are
usually big corporations. the representetives also need financing from
these corporations too, so in a large way, they depend on them for
their election. All this means that the representetives don't reallyy
represent us that much.


signature:          THE STONY BROOK PRESS
The State University of New York at Stony Brook Community's Feature Newspaper
Snailnet: The Stony Brook Press   |  internet: [e-mail]
      S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook |  bitnet : sbpress%ic.sunysb.edu@cunyvm
          Stony Brook N.Y. 11794  |  Voicenet : [phone]
alternate e-mail(if sbpress@ic... doesn't work): [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Longo)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Date: 20 Feb 93 09:58:21 PST
Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines


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

> Bob Longo <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be
>> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is
>> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted
>> numbers.

> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am
> damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon
> absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet
> another useful technology.

Sure.  Glad to.  I personally attended one of the CPUC's public
hearings several months before the ruling where they were soliciting
public opinion. A large majority of the individuals that spoke at that
hearing were in favor of no CNID at all!  A much smaller percentage of
the people wanted some flavor of CNID -- ranging from no blocking
available at all to a per-line blocking which ended up the be the
ultimate (and in my opinion best) compromise.

The comments made by the individuals speaking at that (and other
hearings conducted throughout the state) are available for review at
the CPUC.

The only stifling of this technology has come from the phone company.
They could offer it today if they wanted to.  By trying to force the
CPUC to disallow per-line blocking, they expect they can reap more
profits because they believe more subscribers will purchase the
service.

> I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is
> useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the
> country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas
> that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way.

But your signature indicates that you live in California.  It sounds
to me that you (being a Californian) DO care.

> The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and
> that no other state has required default per-line blocking and
> per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the
> mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The
> restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the
> offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists
> won this round.

The restrictions passed were based upon popular public opinion.
Obviously not popular with the phone companies or a few paranoids who
are going to refuse to answer their phone unless they can see a number
first -- but popular with those who expressed their opinion to the
CPUC.

Everyone had the option of expressing their opinion prior to the CPUC
ruling at the public hearings or in writing.  I don't feel too sorry
for those who want unrestricted CNID who didn't bother to express
their opinion prior to the ruling.

I'm curious -- for those who believe CNID should be forced on everyone
to make this technology useful, do you also believe that unlisted
numbers should be unavailable?  After all, what use is the phone book
if everyone isn't in there?  To be consistent in their logic, the
phone company should stop printing the phone book until the CPUC
forces everyone to have listed numbers, right?


Bob Longo ([e-mail])  Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines  Los Angeles, CA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #116
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01414;
          20 Feb 93 19:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02973
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:51:15 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28667
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:50:45 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:50:45 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: My New Venture: The Orange Calling Card

Before you read further, be advised I am going to try to sell you
something.

I recently resigned my employment of several years and have begun a
business of my own as an independent sales agent or contractor for
Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a small but
growing long distance carrier. They offer 1+ dialing and a telephone
calling card which has *no surcharge* associated with its use.

To use it, you dial an 800 number, then the number you are calling,
the ten digit card number and your PIN.  It can be used from any phone
anywhere, and is particularly useful if you are at a private payphone
with high rates or at a phone where choice of carrier is restricted.
It is quite useful in hotels where there is a surcharge added for the
use of the phone. University phone systems are another example where
the Orange Card is useful.  If you are at a phone which allows you to
call an 800 number, then you can use the Orange Card.

Orange Card charges a flat rate of 25 cents per minute, and they bill
in six-second increments rather than whole minutes. You can see that
the savings in using this calling card come from short (one to ten
minute) calls. If your long distance calls are all mostly short, then
you'll save quite a bit of money monthly.

Orange Card:

    Has no monthly minimum, no annual fees.

    Has open account billing; you pay from a statement rendered monthly.

    Has a customer service 800 number for billing inquiries and
    assistance with completing calls as needed.

    Allows calls to anywhere in the USA including Alaska and Hawaii
    for the flat rate of 25 cents per minute at any time.

    Allows Directory Assistance calls at the prevailing rate for same.

    Has a one-time $10 charge to process your application, put your
    account in the computer and issue your plastic calling card.

You can make local calls around town from a payphone using the Orange
Card also; bear in mind the savings applies when the calls are short,
before the local telco surcharge can be 'spread across' the minutes
of a longer call.

To get to the point: I'd like you to sign up for an Orange Calling
Card. Try it for a month or two as an alternative to the calling card
you are currently using. See if it doesn't save you money anywhere you
would normally pay a surcharge for calls, such as at payphones, hotels,
etc.

Profits to me will be used to offset my increasing costs involved in
moderating TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom. You'll save money on
your long distance phone bill and I'll make a little money to pay the
phone bill here. Is that fair enough?

If you write me, I'll send you a brochure and application by mail. You
complete it and send it with your $10 signup fee direct to Orange at
the address on the application.

Thanks for reading this and your support.


Patrick Townson
The TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 1570
Chicago, IL 60690

     or you may fax your request to me at 312-743-0002.
     or you may email your request to: [e-mail]

Please do not respond to the Digest address!


PAT










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08253;
          20 Feb 93 22:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27060
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01017
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:29 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #117

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 20:40:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 117

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The War on Pagers (Kyle J. Cordes)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Matthew Crosby)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Samuelson S. Rehman)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Pat Turner)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Jonathan Bradshaw)
    Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs (Robert Masse)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Bill Stewart)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Carl Moore)
    Re: Meet Me at the Power Line (Matt Healy)
    Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange (Richard Nash)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Bernard Rupe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kyle J Cordes)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:48:02 GMT


Well, I can think of a legitimate reason to have a cellular phone at
high school:

  FOR FUN.

A few years ago (when I was in high school) a friend of mine had a
car-phone.  Neatest toy in the world.  Yeah, it cost him $0 a month
at the time, but it was so neat that it was easily worth it.  (In
retrospect, that is.  Of course, he had a job at the time and I
didn't ...)

(At our high school, a sizable fraction of the upperclassmen had cars,
and in the suburban area where we lived, going anywhere required
driving around.)


Kyle


[Moderator's Note: I am quite sure Kyle made a typo in his message
with the cost of the phone being 'zero' per month ... but I have no
idea what he meant to put there so I did not change it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Crosby)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:14:08 GMT


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

> Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to
> make them perfectly reasonable.  Change the law so that (a) =students=
> are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all
> other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a
> legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local
> principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING.

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
> drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
> hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
> who has it.

*sigh* Why oh why do people feel that hs students should be treated in
a fascist manner?  Why do people consider people unable to act
responsably just because they haven't had that magic 18th birthday
which immediately changes them from an irresponsible teenager to a
responsible adult?

For the record: I am a freshman in college, so I recently finished
high school.

Now, when I was in high school, there where several people who had
pagers, and had legitimate reasons for having them.  A couple needed
them for work.  A large number where volunteers in various
organizations, like fire departments or search/rescue and where
regularily on call.  Occasionally these would go off.  It was
certainly no more interruption then, say, a watch.  I can't speak for
cellular phones, because I didn't know any one who had them.

> If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the
> school.  They know where the student is and can relay a message as
> quickly or as slowly as it requires.  (If they don't know where your
> child is, then you have an even bigger problem.)  If a student in
> school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until
> after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to
> think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other.

My high school had about 3500 students.  It had five buildings and
large grounds.  If a student was in class, he could have been found.
If he recieved a call during one of his off periods, his chance of
being found was virtually nill.  He may not have even been on campus,
considering most of us where allowed off campus during our off hours.
Are you seriously suggesting that the office should have really been
able to find a student at all times during the school day?

On the broader sense, why must something be banned just because a
small minority uses them for illegal dealings?  What on earth is it
the business of the school administration if we choose to have
something that generally has no bearing on the rest of the school?  If
people where shoes with shoelaces, they can strangle their classmates
to death.  In addition, many drug dealers wear shoes.  Does this mean
that shoelaces should be banned?

I'm sorry if this comes off as being too much of a flame, or too off
topic, but when I was in high school I was sick and tired of people
assuming that just because I was a student I must be a violent rowdy
drug-dealing irresponsible hooligan, and therefore it was perfectly
all right to treat me like that.  This attempt to ban pagers is, imho,
just another example of the facism of the war on drugs.


Matt   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Samuelson S. Rehman)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:31:53 -0800
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


I have been listening for sometime and I'm very confused.

Are we so ignorant that we actually think for one second that the best
way (or even the only way for some) to help a child grow is not to
inspire them, let them understand (not just "remember") what may be
right (to us) and what may be wrong (as we look at it), but to
merely wipe away everything signs that you dislike or similarities
that they have to those "bad" kids?

I can understand the fear a loving father might have in seeing his
kids growing up with the "style" of a so-called bad person.  Or how
annoying it could be when a beeper goes off in a most inspiring
lesson, both for the teacher and the students.  But do you think
taking away the pagers will settle their hearts?  Or to be more
extreme, will taking away the guns stop others from killing?  I'll say
no. "It's the thought that hurts, not the act."

      The pager is just a reception device.
      Televisions are reception devices.
      Your eyes are reception devices.  Ears are reception devices, ...

Everyone seems to symbolize problems from time to time, so as to
identify them easier.  And soon we forget the root of such problems.
So we blindly attack the "symbols", instead of the actual matter it
represents. And then we make more symbols.  And then, again, we
attack.  And this goes on endless.


Best Regards,

Samuelson S. Rehman
{Systems Programmer - RnD.NCA, Director of NIS Systems}
Newspager Corp. of America
voice: [phone] | fax: [phone] | email:[e-mail],[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 15:13 EST
From: rsiatl![e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Brad Hicks writes:

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
> drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
> hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
> who has it.

When you consider that school property includes the parking lot, the
law is a little more unreasonable.  I have one friend that kept
several pagers and a Wilson land mobile rig in his car when in high
school.  He worked for a two-way dealer.  I don't think cell phones in
students cars are a bad idea either, some rural students drive up to
40 miles to high school.  I had a two-meter and a CB in my truck for
part of high school.

How the rules are actually enforced,of course, is up to the teachers.
I was sent to the office when I was in high school for carying drug
paraphanalia (a set of aligator clip leads I had been using while
adding an extension to the school's Merlin.), yet raised no concern
about having a Hilti gun in my locker, or running a chain saw in the
school lobby (to prune the student council Christmas tree).

When I was in high school, there was a pay phone for students to use.
One of the teachers tells me it was removed the next year when the
school received a bomb threat.  The Assistant Principal ran out of the
office to call police from another phone, only to hear the girl
calling the threat in from the pay phone in the lobby.

Ah the life of a high school technogeek.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

From: Jonathan Bradshaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:17:52 GMT


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

> Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to
> make them perfectly reasonable.  Change the law so that (a) =students=
> are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all
> other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a
> legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local
> principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING.

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
> drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
> hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
> who has it.

First, that would ban HAM RADIO which as a high school student I was
very involved in. Secondly, I carried a cell phone in high school. Of
course, it was turned off during class but I had two jobs, worked 34
hours a week and went to school. I never carried a pager but
considered it.  At 17 I was a licensed disc jockey so I also carried a
SCANNER to monitor the radio station I worked for communications too.
(Check the .sig for the station).

Lets get off the idea that controlling technology will control
problems.

HOWEVER, I agree fully with the (b) section of your message. Trouble
is, in every school I have seen that IS ALREADY IN EFFECT. So, all
that happens is the kids go accross the road during lunch etc. which
isn't school grounds to do their deals. Didn't exactly make a
difference. And you can hardly ban kids from going outside the school
grounds before/after school!


Jonathan Bradshaw | [e-mail] | PGP Key Available On Request
Packet: n9oxe@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na | Prodigy: XMSN02B | (Os/2)(DOS)(Linux)
WNDU-AM/FM/TV South Bend, IN | Disclaimer "My opinions are not my employers"

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Masse)
Subject: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:53:08 GMT


I attend CEGEP and it is full of kids with pagers.  To them, it is
'cool' and neat to have them (age 17-24).  Only ten or so have
cellular phones.  Out of all of them, one guy uses his cellular phone
to get messages from his father (his father was a mobster a while
ago), what he does now is unknown.

In high school (age 12-17) I was the only one to have a cellular phone
(for work) and when I first got it I received a lot of flak from
teachers who thought the drug trade was going to start in our school.
After talking to the principal, I assured them I was not dealing in
illicit drugs.

Now my old high school is full of kids with them, and I hear that the
teachers are getting fustrated of hearing beep-beep-beep or dring
dring in class.  They aren't doing anything about it either because
they are too scared now.  Mind you all of these high school kids are
using them for status symbols.

I hope it doesn't come to outlawing them like previous posters
mentioned, where in my opinion a person's right to carry one shouldn't
be denied.


Robert Masse    Computer Consultant
Voice [phone]   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Fax   [phone]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:50:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society


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

>> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is
>> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number".  If telco
>> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and
>> complete the call?!

> It doesn't know what number is intended.  It knows what number you dialed.
> The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong
> number!  But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a
> local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a
> long-distance (or out-of-area) call.  Since everyone knows the extent
> of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling
> the wrong number.  Please try again and dial the right number now."

ARRGH!  There's nothing more annoying than a piece of hardware that
thinks it knows what you want better than you do!

I go to the San Francisco Bay Area occasionally on business.  I often
want to call places from pay phones when I do.  I have enough trouble
keeping track of whether the person I'm calling is in 408, 415, or
510, without also having to keep track of what the often-illegible
phone number on the stupid pay phone is, much less having any clue as
to whether this is officially a long distance call or a local call or
which side of the LATA boundary it's on.  If I dial 1-415-NXX-XXXX,
then I want to talk to 1-415-NXX-XXXX.

And if the pay phone says it's run by Joe's Garage COCOT service and
uses FooBar Long Distance, I want to dial 10ATT-0-415-NXX-XXXX and not
have some stupid friendly phone tell me I don't need to dial 1 and
"Have a Nice Day - Click!"  I want to get the AT&T Bong.


Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 [e-mail] AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 17:27:43 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan


To repeat an old story from me in this Digest: I answered a call at a
Newark, Del. pay phone [phone]xxx), got an operator (British-
sounding voice) who was trying to complete a collect call, and I
learned she was trying to reach 203 instead of 302.

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: Meet Me at the Power Line
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 15:58:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Nagle) wrote:

> [text deleted]
> distance to the conductors is key.  When you are far away from a pair
> of wires near each other (like an ordinary power cord) the effects of
> the two conductors cancel out.  Twisted pairs cancel even better.  So
> an analysis based on a single-line model isn't valid.

> Three-phase lines require more analysis, but I think that the
> effects of all three lines cancel similarly, since there's no net
> electron flow (the current in all three lines instantaneously sums to 0).

The effects had *better* cancel; if not then you have a ground fault.

This is, in fact, how ground fault circuit interruptors work.  The
GFCI has a sensing coil looped around all power-carrying lines in the
protected circuit.  The path integral of flux around the loop should
be zero if the currents balance.  A non-zero current in the sensing
loop means juice is going someplace it should not go, so the GFCI
trips.  Close to the wires, there will be local net fluxes, but at a
great distance they cancel out.

This also is the reason for the old electrician's rule that you make
_one_ hole in a metal enclosure for all the power wires of a given
circuit.  If the wires are run through different holes, so there's a
non-zero net current, then you can get lots of eddy-current heating in
the enclosure walls.

Before I left engineering for science, I designed AC switchgear; after
a couple years I decided if you've seen one motor control center
you've seen them all.


Matt Healy    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 09:08:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange


[e-mail] writes:

> YES!  This is the not the first time that a telco has hosed their
> routing tables.

> One Saturday morning I got a call from our Southern Division Energy
> Control Center in Salisbury MD that they could not get any calls from
> Southern Delaware.  I tried it myself -- Delmarva has an extensive
> private fiber net and I have a bunch of OPX lines in various counties
> terminating on the sets in the Network Operations Center here.

> Sure enough, Kent and Sussex Counties had NO long-distance access
> through MCI -- AT&T worked fine.  Talked to the folks at MCI -- they
> had several open problem reports on the same thing.  They were getting
> nowhere with Bell of Pennsylvania (MCI has two big DMS250's in
> Philadelphia that apparently handle Delaware, as well as eastern PA).

> Anyhow, I raised enough hell that I finally spoke to a switchman in
> Bell's Market St CO.  Finally found that they had installed a new
> generic the night before and had forgotten to load some of the
> translation tables!

Yup, the ONP (One Night Process) from NT strikes again!  The group
responsible for performing these software loads may be experiencing
staffing problems, either due to over-worked individuals, or else from
being less than fully trained.  NT recently implemented their software
*quality* program, (we are now beginning to see the the results from
it.:) One of the installation steps requires that the applicator
actually has to read the error report generated from the tables
transfer routine.  (Data from old side copied across to new software
side).  A lot of applicators ignore these errors, but are usually
picked up that a.m., as the troubles start rolling in! :) :) --


Richard Nash  Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:      [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 09:03:31 CST
From: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Bernard Rupe)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 14:59:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Don Wegeng) writes:

> Consider the following scenario.  At home I have a contract with the A
> carrier, and have the phone programmed to only roam with A carriers.
> Now I'm travelling in another state, and come upon a serious car
> accident.  My phone says that there's no cellular service in this
> area, so I can't use it to summon help, regardless of whether this
> particular area was covered by a B carrier.

> In the above scenario, had I programmed the phone to roam on B
> channels (or roam on both, with priority to A channels) would I have
> been able to make an emergency call?  In other words, will carriers
> accept emergency calls from any telephone, or will they only accept
> emergency calls from phones that they recognize?

Probably yes.  Most systems should allow any phone to make an
emergency 911 call (ie. no subscriber validation).  Some phones are
even set up to allow calling 911 when the phone is locked.


Bernie Rupe       1501 W. Shure Drive  Room 1315
Motorola, Inc.    Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Group  [phone]  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #117
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09851;
          20 Feb 93 23:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14232
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00608
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:00 -0600
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #118

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:35:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 118

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jon Krueger)
    Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (D. Levenson)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Pat Turner)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (John Barcomb)
    Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (John R. Levine)
    Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX (Adrian Godwin)
    Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? (Graham Toal)
    Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: Directory Services Billing (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (David G. Lewis)
    Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? (Lynne D. Gregg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:58:14 -0800
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ingres Corporation, a subsidiary of The ASK Group, Inc.
From: [e-mail] (Jon Krueger)


Andrew Blau writes:

> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
> project.  Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who
> should do what in that respect.  I think the government should not
> build and/or operate such networks.  I believe that the private sector
> can be and will be incented to build these networks...."

Yes, that was a *very* interesting little statement.  Mr. Allen
chooses his words most carefully.  Indeed private enterprise builds
highways.  Does that mean it owns them?  Or that a particular
enterprise could have de facto monopoly via its ownership of
particular routes?  Of course not.  Mr. Allen's speech carefully
glosses over these differences.  As we have seen, they are critical.

> LECs, too ... have made it clear that they believe telcos have a
> _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of
> tomorrow's 'data superhighways.'

The question of course being: what role.  The role played by my
manager and by my condo's management company, for instance, are
usefully different.


Jon Krueger  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:38:34 GMT


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

> Are you sure?  If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide
> non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the
> telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that
> non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT
> providing a level playing field, now is it?

I don't see why the regulation requires that the telco provide such a
service, manually or automatically.

If I choose to be in the telephone installation business, I am free to
employ a person at my office who, at the request of one of my
installation personnel, will dial any number they want to verify
inbound calling.  If it must be a device, rather than a person, I am
free to build a device which allows my installation force to call in
and enter a number at which it subsequently calls them back.  In other
words, the playing field is level.  New Jersey Bell and I are each
allowed to provide ringback services, automated or human, for the use
of our own service personnel.

I am also free to build a device which receives Caller*ID information
and voices it back to the calling party -- thus providing automatic
number identification to assist installers in circuit identification.

(I'm just playing 'devil's advocate' here ... I'm certainly not
opposed to having the telco provide these services, but I don't feel
that it should be required.)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 11:36 EST
From: rsiatl![e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?


Pat writes:

>  "First Church, eh? ... I told you people a year ago to get the electric
> wires for the ceiling lights in the office out of *my* conduit! No way
> to get rid of the noise until you vacate the conduit. I'm going to
> have the Business Office write you another letter on it."

> All my arguments about conduit-in-common, and various court rulings
> saying that everyone was entitled to use the *property owner's*
> conduit including but not limited to telco went over his head. "We had
> that conduit first! When we pulled pairs through there it was empty.

Don't know how the rules were in 72, I was only three then.  Today
however, this is taboo.  According to the NEC, 800-52(c):

1) Communication conductors shall not be placed in any raceway,
compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar fitting with
conductors of electric light or power circuits or Class 1 circuits.

Two exceptions allow this for the case of a partition separating the
conductors or if the electric circuits supply power solely to
communication equipiment.

Pat, if you had problems then, you ought to try that now with all the
switching power supplies and such in modern buildings.

Disclaimer: This is from the 1990 NEC, I haven't purchased a copy of
the 1993 edition yet.  This paragraph was revised in the 90 edition
from the 87 edition.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:09:12 GMT


    It seems to me that the conduit should be available for other
compatible uses, and AC power distribution would not be a compatible
use on two counts: The first is the crosstalk you observed from
running several amps at 120 volts in the same conduit as 600 ohm 1 mW
voice signals.  The second concern would be safety.  Is it legal to
run AC power in the same conduit as telephone wiring?


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (John Barcomb)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Date: 20 Feb 93 21:41:38 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.


Roaming is a really strange animal when it comes to making emergency
calls.  I recently read an article in a trade magazine where the
editor of the magazine was roaming and watched a really bad accident
occur.  She picked up her phone and dialed "9-1-1" and got nowhere.
Next she dialed "0" and had the operator connect the call.

The operator assisted call did charge her account for the call.  If
she were in her "home" area, she generally* would not have been
charged if she dialed 9-1-1.

I have roamed on both the A and B carriers in different cities
depending on coverage and availablity of cells.  Your best bet is to
call your cellular carriers Roaming Department (if they have one) to
find out all of this information BEFORE you leave your home area so
that you know.  GENERALLY $3.00/day and $1.00 a minute are rates that
you can count on for roaming.


John

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:49:57 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411


Charles Stephens writes:


>> In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly
>> five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop.

> Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge
> you US$.30!!!

Perhaps in Georgia.  Here in NC, Southern Bell allots five monthly
freebies, after which the charge is *fifty* cents per call.

This is just another example of the dangers of generalizing about a
particular Baby Bell's activities in the states it covers.  Just
because something is true in state A doesn't mean it will apply in B
or C.  State public utilities commissions often have the final say.


Bob Goudreau        Data General Corporation
[e-mail]    62 Alexander Drive
[phone]        Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:24:58 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)


On 13 Feb 93 20:02:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Jack
Decker) said:

> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their
> quality is better.  In my mind, this is just about as valid as the
> advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one
> brand of gasoline was better than another.  In many cases, all the gas
> stations in a town got their gas from the same source!  It was the
> same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was
> better!

But the analogy doesn't hold.  Phone companies don't get their
infrastructure from the same source.  They lay their own transmission
lines, and they deal with different vendors for switching and
transmission equipment.  To say that with all the variation in supply
and design that quality is obviously identical is arrent nonsense.

While the local exchange carrier (the fall-guy for quality problems in
Jack's original post) is a common factor for all long distance
carriers, that doesn't mean that all interconnections are the same.
It depends upon what the carrier is willing to pay for.  A small
carrier may have only one point of presence in a LATA with trunks to
only one tandem office while a large carrier may have several, with
redundant routing to several tandems.  Carriers choose to buy
different numbers of trunk groups to the LECS, which may be digital or
may still be analog.  Their equal footing with the LEC is that they
all *may* buy they exact same services, not that they all *do*.

If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier have
consistantly faster call set-up times?

If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier usually
provide faster modem and fax throughput?

Could it be that all carriers don't provide equal quality?  Naaah,
there must be some other explanation ...


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] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal?
Date: 20 Feb 1993 21:02:07 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day
> on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it
> soon adds up to real money."

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase.]

I thought it was "a billion here, a billion there, ..."


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure it was millions; I don't think I ever
heard it expressed as billions.  Maybe I'm wrong, it was years ago,
but the sentiment is true in either case.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 20 Feb 93 16:32:07 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code format,
> where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the
> middle digit.

Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get
the very first interchangable area code?  I imagine that they may find
themselves hard to call for a while.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Adrian Godwin)
Subject: Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX
Date: 20 Feb 93 15:36:05 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK


In article <[e-mail]< [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

<  From: [e-mail] (Bill St. Arnaud)
<  Subject: 150th Anniversary of FAX

< For more information on the past, present and future of FAX there is
< an excellent article in this month's issue of {New Scientist} by Tim
< Hunkin.  Mr. Hunkin has built a replica of Bain's first FAX machine
< which is now on display at the British Science Museum.  Mr. Hunkin
< will also be talking about the past and future of FAX on the
< television show "The Secret Life of Machines" on the Discovery
< Channel, Tuesday night, February 23 at 9:30 PM EST.

The TV program was shown last night (18th feb) on Channel 4 in the UK
 -- it's great -- don't miss it!  Especially the lathes ... look
particularly for the sign on the wall behind them :-).


Adrian Godwin : [e-mail] : [e-mail] : g7hwn@gb7khw
ObDisclaimer  : I believe this rubbish .. don't imagine that anyone else does.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:41:08 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel?


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> FTP. "Downsizing" CCC seems to be in interesting contrast to US
> hackers (2600) which become more active, as visible from the Pentagon
> raids.

> [TELECOM Moderator's Note: I don't think he meant 'Pentagon raids'. I
> think he meant the Justice Department/FBI activities.  PAT]

I think he was referring to a raid of a 2600 meeting *held in* the
Pentagon Mall, not a raid by the Pentagon itself ...


G


[Moderator's Note: Good point, and I stand corrected.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 17:49:23 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers


The message says there are two area codes in North Korea: 2 and 81.
Compare this to the archive file which has country code 850 for North
Korea, with only city code 2 listed (that's for Pyongyang, the
capital); it says other locations are only reachable via the operator.
Where would calls to this area code 81 be coming from?

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Directory Services Billing
Date: 20 Feb 1993 20:20:51 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Just a quick question.  When you use directory assistance (1+411),
> where is billing initiated?

> [Moderator's Note: It is billed by your CO, based on the charge for
> the service made by your one-plus carrier (if an inter-lata call) or
> the local telco (in the case of 411).

This is not entirely correct.  Most inter-LATA calls have the records
used for billing purposes recorded within the IXC network.  However,
it is likely that the originating local CO records the information as
well.  The IXC has the option of purchasing the records from the local
telco, or recording it themselves.  US Sprint used to purchase them
from the local telco (around 1985), and this contributed to the delays
in getting billed for calls that was common back then.  Sprint would
have to wait for the local telco to process the billing tapes and
generate tapes just for Sprint calls and mail them to Sprint.  These
days, it is much cheaper and more convenient for the IXC to do this
themselves.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:21:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard Nash) writes:

> Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

>> It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer
>> Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the
>> LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are
>> creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID.  What if
>> a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their
>> telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE.  This will prevent
>> any incoming calls from anyone in California!  Similarly, I would
>> imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose
>> to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE.  How are you supposed to
>> differentiate between people who have specifically requested that
>> their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to)
>> from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's
>> best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)?

> Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their
> calls blocked with blocked blocking.

Hey, alright!  So now we'll have Calling Number Delivery, Calling
Number Delivery Blocking, Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection,
and Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection Override! ;-)

You *are* kidding, right?

> Demand that the telcos must insert a tag number to be used instead
> of marking as PRIVATE.  ACB and AR would utilize this tag number to
> look up the real number to be used. Just think of all the new telecom
> headaches that could be created! :)

Great -- let's blow the NANP numbering space even *more* out of the
water.


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

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

From: Lynne D Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E1 Lines - What Are They?
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 10:58:00 PST


[e-mail] (Danny Bielik) asked:

> Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is?

E1 is the Euro equivalent of a T1 line.


Regards,

Lynne

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #118
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16636;
          21 Feb 93 2:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28298
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:12:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08492
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:11:39 -0600
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:11:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #119

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:11:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 119

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Judge Finds Nynex Guilty in Criminal Contempt Case (NYT via Eric De Mund)
    Wanna Call Ukraine? (Oklahoman & Times via [e-mail])
    AT&T Switch Bribe Now Up to $75 (W Schleck KD3FU
    National and Regional Telecom Newsgroups (Nigel Allen)
    U.C. Berkeley Short Course on High-Speed Communications (Harvey Stern)
    CPUC Predispositions (John Higdon)
    Let's Do a Figure-8 (Jim Gottlieb)
    Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Paul Kubinski)
    Long Subscriber Loop Problems (John Braden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:08:50 -0800
From: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Judge Finds Nynex Guilty in Criminal Contempt Case
Reply-To: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services


Here is an item of great interest from the {New York Times} this past
week.

[NYT Wednesday, February 17, 1993]

         Judge Finds Nynex Is Guilty In Criminal Contempt Case
                          By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
                     Special to The New York Times

     WASHINGTON, Feb.  16 -- A Federal judge convicted the Nynex
Corporation of criminal contempt today and fined it $1 million for
willfully selling an electronic information service in violation of
the antitrust decree that broke up the Bell System in 1984.

     Nynex, the parent company of both New York Telephone and New
England Telephone, said it had done nothing wrong and would appeal the
verdict.

     Today's conviction, handed down by United States District Judge
Harold H.  Greene, is the first instance in which one of the"Baby
Bell" telephone companies Nynex refused to admit any has been found
guilty of criminal contempt.

    But the verdict is based on a prohibition on the Bell companies
that was ended in late 1991 by a Federal appeals court in Washington,
meaning it involves actions that would not be illegal today.  And
whether successfully appealed or not, the case will have little impact
on Nynex's profits and virtually none on the rates that its telephone
customers pay.

     The verdict does indicate, however, that Nynex aggressively
pushed the boundaries of the law and had little patience for the
central restrictions of the decree that broke up the old Bell System.

      Work for MCI at Issue

     In a strongly worded verdict, Judge Greene ruled that Nynex
officials knew full well they were violating a provision of the decree
that barred the regional Bell companies from owning electronic
information services.  As a result, he said, the company should be
punished with a fine that would be taken as more than "mere license
fees for illegal conduct."

     The charges stemmed from a small Tennessee computer company
called Telco Research that Nynex bought in 1986 and later sold. The
company had developed software that could help long-distance companies
design private networks for big corporate customers.

       One of Telco Research's customers was the MCI Communications
Corporation, which mailed data about telephone traffic to the company.
Telco Research then processed the information on a computer and used
telephone lines to send MCI a network design.

The Justice Department, prompted by information brought by Scott J.
Rafferty, a Telco Research vice president who had been dismissed,
charged that Nynex knew these activities were illegal under the decree
and went ahead anyway.

Nynex refused to admit any wrongdoing, arguing that at worst it had
run afoul of ambiguities in the decree. It adamantly refused to settle
the charges out of court, much as another regional Bell company, U.S.
West, had settled similar charges in 1991 by agreeing to pay the
Government $10 million.  Instead, Nynex spent millions of dollars in
its defense.

Nynex argued that its subbsidiary had essentially been leasing a
computer and software, rather than providing an information service,
and that its managers thought they were complying with the law.

But Judge Greene said that the activities of Telco Research clearly
violated the decree and that Nynex officials received clear
indications of this from Justice Department attorneys as well as some
of their own employees.

"Nynex officials were aware that the MCI service bureau presented
decree problems," wrote Judge Greene.  "While Nynex employees
continued to discuss the potential violations, this produced only
delay, not a remedy."

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wanna Call Ukraine?
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:17:55 PST


 From the _Saturday Oklahoman & Times_, 20 Feb 93, p. 25:

Copyright (C) 1993 The Oklahoma Publishing Co.

               Ukraine Gets AT&T Phone Switch
                      By Bob Vandewater
                        Staff Writer

  Telephone users in Ukraine are now placing calls through a digital
telecommunications switch made at AT&T's Oklahoma City equipment
manufacturing plant, officials said Friday.

  Plant manufacturing Vice President Pete Gannon said an AT&T switch,
a highly-computerized electronic call routing system, was placed into
service this week in Ukraine.

  "This is another example where a 5ESS exported from Oklahoma is
providing state-of-the-art telecommunications services," Gannon said.

  "The digital switches made in Oklahoma City are now operating in 36
countries around the world."

  The Oklahoma City plant is the only domestic AT&T factory that makes
and ships completed 5ESS switches.  But AT&T has formed joint ventures
in some other countries that allow for some 5ESS units that are
partially built in Oklahoma City to be completed at plants in those
nations, AT&T spokesman Ed Beltram said.

  AT&T Network Systems and Ukraine have formed such a telecommunications
joint venture named UTEL to modernize the country's long-distance
network.

  The first 5ESS unit installed in Ukraine was entirely built in
Oklahoma City.  UTEL recently signed a $35 million agreement to buy
six additional 5ESS switching systems for Ukraine.  Final assembly of
those additional switches will take place at a joint venture plant in
Chernigov in Ukraine.

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

Subject: AT&T Switch Bribe now up to $75
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:00:38 CST
From: Paul W Schleck KD3FU <[e-mail]>


I live in Omaha, use US West, US Sprint, and have Caller-ID.  I
usually don't pick up the calls that say "Out of Area" too often, but
figuring it might be someone important, I picked it up.

"Hello, Mr. <almost unrecognizable butchering of my name>?"

"Uh Huh"

"I'm so-and-so from AT&T, how are you this evening?"

I'd usually hang up the phone at this point, but I was bored, and
continued with the social pleasantries, and let him get on to the meat
of the matter, which was a $75 bribe (not a coupon, a check) in
exchange for switching to AT&T.  That's right, SEVENTY-FIVE SEMOLIANS
(the equivalent of at least several months of long-distance bills for
me).

I really shouldn't do deals over the phone, particularly telemarketing
cold-calls, but as I said before, I was bored, and wanted to get more
of the details.  When he paused for Q&A, I asked the usual:

Q:  If I'm at a pay-phone, and your long-distance service is not the
default, what is the access code?

A:  1-0-ATT (10288, reality check to make sure I'm not talking to "ATNT"
or "ATMT" or similar)

Q:  Do I have to pay the switching fee?

A: No, a coupon to reimburse the fee will be sent to you (I had
previously gotten a $35 bribe in the mail, but the switching fee was
my responsibility).

Q:  If I agree to the service, how long do I have to stay?

A: I can leave in 30 days, and keep the $75 check (forgot to ask if I
have to pay to switch back)

Q:  How soon will the change take effect?

A:  4-5 weeks

And, in a moment of extreme weakness, I said "yes."  I was then
connected with a "neutral confirmation representative" (probably an
AT&T employee to make sure that their telemarketing firm wasn't
pulling an MCI slam-fest on them), who pronounced my name correctly.
She confirmed that all the information was correct, and I wasn't some
neighbor's kid, or cat-burglar who picked up the phone.  What was
amusing was that she asked for a "confirmation code," which could be
several things, including mother's maiden name (probably have my
credit-report on the screen right in front of them).  I gave them an
incorrect code, which was accepted (if they check them at all, they
probably check them off-line).  Will be interesting to see what they
do with my order, either tear it up, call me back ("Mother's maiden
name?  Oh, I'm sorry, I though you said *Grandmother's* maiden name?" :-),
or drop me a letter.

So, am I missing something?  Is this whole prospectus for real?  I
would assume that if the terms are very different in writing than over
the phone, I can return the check uncashed and demand to be switched
back.

I'll take the heat for encouraging telemarketers, but I'd be
interested in opinions of this latest AT&T sales pitch.


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 14:34:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: National and Regional Telecom Newsgroups
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


What national and regional telecom newsgroups exist? I know about
uk.telecom from the United Kingdom? Are there any others, in English
or other languages?

Sites that don't receive the uk.* hierarchy may want to turn on
uk.telecom anyway, so that users who are interested in
telecommunications can read any uk.telecom articles that are
cross-posted to internationally-distributed newsgroups.


Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: U.C. Berkeley Short Course on High-Speed Communications
Date: 20 Feb 1993 01:49:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


U.C. Berkeley    Continuing Education in Engineering
Announces 2 Short Courses on Communications Technology


SONET/ATM-Based Broadband Networks: Systems, Architectures and
Designs   (May 17-19, 1993)

It is widely accepted that future broadband networks will be based on
the SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) standards and the ATM
(Asynchronous transfer Mode) technique.  This course is an in-depth
examination of the fundamental concepts and the implementation issues
for development of future high-speed networks.  Topics include:
Broadband ISDN Transfer Protocol, high speed computer/network
interface (HiPPI), ATM switch architectures, ATM network
congestion/flow control, VLSI designs in SONET/ATM networks.

Lecturer: H. Jonathan Chao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Brooklyn
Polytechnic University


Gigabit/sec Data and Communications Networks   (May 19-20, 1993)

This short course provides a general understanding of the key
protocols and networking elements needed to design and implement
gigabit local area and wide area networks, including the protocols and
implementations for HiPPI, SONET, ATM, and FCS.

Lecturer:  William E. Stephens, Ph.D., Director, High Speed Switching
and Storage Technology Research, Bellcore Applied Research

For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor
bios, etc.) contact:


Harvey Stern
U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay
800 El Camino Real Ste. 150
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 14:11 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: CPUC Predispositions


In a recent article, references were made to the CPUC public hearings
on Caller-ID. As an example of the pre-disposed bias contained in
these proceedings, allow me to cite the tone at another hearing topic:
IntraLATA competition.

The method of completing calls within the LATA but with another
carrier should intraLATA toll competition eventually be approved has
long ago been decided by the CPUC, who caved in to Pac*Bell. There
will be no presubscription as there now is with interLATA calling. For
instance, after approval if I wish to call San Francisco (in my
"service area") on any carrier other than Pac*Bell, I MUST dial the
carrier code (10XXX) before the number. The only default carrier
allowed is Pac*Bell.

Someone at the hearing (was it I?) mentioned that having to dial a
five-digit number before every call gave Pac*Bell a distinct
competitive advantage for intraLATA traffic. None other than the
Administrative Law Judge himself was quick to point out (even to the
point of interrupting the current speaker) that inexpensive dialers
were available and that it was "a simple matter" to use them to
prepend the carrier codes. And this was the prevailing attitude:
having to dial a five digit code was a trivial matter and not worth
considering.

Now let us enter our time and space machine and go to a Caller-ID
hearing. Suddenly we find that having to dial *67 before the number of
those from whom we wish to hide our phone number is an insurmountable
task, capable of being performed by only the most brilliant and
technically-minded individuals. The prevailing attitude: it is too
hard to remember to dial a three-key code before making an anonymous
call, therefore the default should be "private".

It is amazing how the pre-disposed agenda changes at the CPUC
hearings.  And it is funny: the same tired old activists were at both
meetings!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Subject: Let's Do a Figure-8
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 09:14:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> do I detect a little antipathy :-) toward interchangeable area
> codes?  Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead?

I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers.
Think of it; a simple change where every existing number in the
country has a certain digit added to the front of it, and it's done.
No more area code splits, at least for the next 20 years.

And no problem of dialing a number and finding it disconnected (or
answered by an unknown party) because the prefix was changed to some
unknown area code.  Or worse, you assume the company went out of
business.  With an eighth digit added, you always know what to do,
even five or ten years after the change.  Here in Tokyo, where such a
change occurred two years ago, there are plenty of signs that still
show a seven-digit number.  But it's no problem; everyone knows to add
a '3' to the front.

Contrast that to the situation in Los Angeles, where one now never
knows what area code one is in while out of familiar territory (and it
matters because 1 + NPA + NXX-XXXX to your own area code is denied).
Directory Assistance, as already mentioned in these screens, is
another problem.  You know that someone lives somewhere in Los
Angeles.  But if you don't know where in Los Angeles, you'll have to
make three directory assistance calls.

I would even be so bold to suggest that after the conversion to
eight-digit telephone numbers, L.A. go back to a single area code.

I often try to feel for those poor souls who don't read Telecom
Digest.  I look on a piece of equipment here in Japan and call the
number printed to ask a question.  It's a +1 312 number.  When I reach
a telco recording, I know to try +1 708 instead.  But how many people
in Japan know to do that?

Eight-digit numbers are the answer.


Jim Gottlieb         Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
<[e-mail]>     In Japan: <[e-mail]>
Fax: [phone]     Voice Mail: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Kubinski)
Subject: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted
Date: 20 Feb 1993 15:52:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hello to all,

 From the responses I've received I'm not sure I framed my question
correctly.  Here it is once again (with a diagram and brief
explanation of the desired integration with the customer application).

Backround: Small manufacturing company wants to make their customer
service application more "responsive". They would like to pull the
Caller-ID of the incoming call and use it to key a database retrieval.
They want to do this today, under SunOS, and not use native ISDN
connections to their Sun server. The number of incoming customer
service lines will be small, probably two or three.

Idea: For the most part, Caller-ID is available in the metro area. One
can purchase a Caller-ID display unit for $50 or so from several
sources (ie. AT&T phone centers, Radio Shack). I've heard that some of
the newer caller id display units have RS-232 connections which may be
used to capture the calling phone number's digits (in ASCII?) and send
this info to a computer or a serial printer. Does anyone know if these
devices w/RS-232 output exist? If so, can you point me towards the
vendor of this item?

Big picture diagram:

               RS-232
   Sun Server--------------caller-id..........incoming phone line
       |                       box           :
       |                                     :
       |                                  telephone
       |   local Ethernet
|-------------------------------------|
           |                   |
           |                   |
      Sun Client          Sun Client


Any alternate ideas are welcome.

Cheers!


PAK

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

From: [e-mail] (John Braden)
Subject: Long Subscriber Loop Problems
Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:16:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


I've got a problem with high-speed modem communication and I hope
somebody can help.  My home phones are located at the end of a 56,000
foot. local loop (copper wire) from the central office (as measured by
the lineman at the network interface).  The signal level I read (using
an at%l) from my modem connection is -33 to -34dB down from the 0dBm
switch reference level.  The lineman's box said 35dB.  It also said
this is acceptable for a voice-grade line.  I checked with the
Telecommunications Division of the Massachusetts Public Utilities
Department, and was told that there is nothing in the tariff which
defines an acceptable signal level for a telphone connection.  I've
been told by others that typical losses should be about 5dB through
the central office and 8db on the local loop.

After their visit, the phone company agreed to put a "bridge lifter"
(which someone else called bridge clips) in to help the signal level,
but I noticed no improvement.  As a result of the attenuation
distortion present on my lines, I cannot establish a V.32bis LAP-M
connection and have some problems with a plain V.32 LAP-M connection.
I'm using Zoom V.32bis modems with rev. 2.0 PROMs (Rockwell chip set)
on both ends.  I need some information and advice on my alternatives:

1. What is a "bridge lifter" (or bridge clips)?

2. Are there ANY modems which do well with -35dBm signal levels?

3. Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network
   interface?

4. Is there anything I can do to get acceptable signal levels included
   in the published tariff for Massachusetts?

5. I investigated the cost of a foreign exchange with a closer central
   office and an analog FDDA circuit from my central office, but these
   are just too expensive.  Is there an alternative I missed?

6. Should I just give up & be glad I can sometimes connect at V.32 speeds?

Thanks for your help!


John Braden     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #119
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03592;
          21 Feb 93 12:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26828
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29423
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #120

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:02:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 120

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Adele Ponty)
    Script Files PcPlus (Chet Pager)
    C&P Service Notes (Joe Bergstein)
    Automatic Disconnect on Mexico City Exchanges? (Don Franki)
    Telco Book and Equipment Advice Needed (Ed Ramsey)
    Need Graphic Network Tool (Bruce Sullivan)
    More Telecom Fora? (Olof Lundberg)
    Caller-ID and DTMF Chips For Sale (John Schuch)
    Sources For FAX Back Equipment Wanted (Jeff Brown)
    Need Switch/Relay to Interrupt a Leased Line (Phil Green)
    301-303 Revisited (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Adele Ponty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls
Organization: UTCC Public Access
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 13:43:17 -0500


On Tuesday February 9th, 1993, I posted news regarding Bell's
application to amend LDA (local 411 directory assistance) and LDDA
(555-1212 long distance directory assistance) otherwise known as the
CRTC Telecom Public Notice 93-14.

As I stated then, my main concern over this application was Bell's
request to eliminate free directory assistance for the print
handicapped, seniors, the disabled and anyone using long distance
directory assistance.  (Little wonder why Bell did not publically
announce their application, unlike what they did recently in the
{Toronto Star} with their application for the community calling plan).
The CRTC made a press release public on January 29th, informing the
public that they had until March 1st to challenge Bell's application
for dialing assistance ammendments.

Nigel Allen's response to my posting on February 11th included a 1-800
number for Bell Public Affairs.  Thinking that I would call this
number (1-800-668-2355) to discuss the issues concerning essential
services for the disabled which include dialing assistance, I called
out of curiosity, even though I knew that any official statements
coming from Bell's Public Affairs would be unsatisfactory.

To my surprise, the Bell employee I spoke to claimed no knowledge
whatsoever of the application to alter the tariffs on directory
assistance.  Had I not already spoken with the CRTC, I might have been
led to believe that the whole issue was simply misinformation. Only
after a lot of persistence inflicted on a second Bell employee, was I
then referred to the director of Special Needs at Bell Canada, Shayna
Maislin.

Ms. Maislin informed me that an in-depth study conducted by Bell
Canada concluded that telemarketers, with the co-operation of exempt
individuals who held directory-assistance exemption cards, were
soaking Bell for thousands of dollars. Ms. Maislin claims that the
exemptions were being abused by the disabled employees of
telemarketers who work from their homes and who make excessive numbers
of long distance directory assistance calls.

Ms.Maislin could not comment however on my question regarding how
these individuals could place a 411 or 555-1212 call for a number if
the name needed for the search was on a list, equally unaccessable for
them.  (I think that Bell has drawn an erroneous conclusion here from
a survey that suggests that since both telemarketers/listmakers and
the disabled make an above average number of directory assisted calls,
then therefore the two groups must have something to do with each
other. Interestingly, Angus Reed of Angus Telemanagement Group gave an
entirely different statement on CBC Radio regarding Bell's motivation
for this application, claiming that it is based on revenues lost to
long distance competitors).

When I was then told by Ms. Maislin that the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind had agreed to decline from challenging the
amendments, I decided to call the CNIB myself.

The CNIB Public Affairs department first told me that the matter was
"confidential" and that they could not discuss it with me.  So I
decided to speak with the CRTC analyst handling the file, a Mr. Robert
Noakes. Mr. Noakes read to me the statements included in Bell's
application submission, that claimed that a consumer panel set up by
Bell and composed of reps from small, medium and large businesses, the
disabled, seniors and low income customers among others, had been
consulted with.

Bell's application stated that nine specific groups including
the CNIB, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, among others
 ... had been consulted and basically had no objections to the tariff
changes.  Mr.Noakes pointed out that Bell wanted to offer 25 free LDA
and LDDA calls per month from the exempt individual's home phone (less
than one call per day). For many including Alzheimer's patients and
the totally blind this could mean real hardship. The "average" caller
makes 20 LDA and LDDA calls per month.

Meanwhile, access to all new listings not in the book would carry a
charge, while the charge per locally assisted call would drop from 60
cents to 50 cents, (despite the $88 million dollar loss Bell claims
for the service). How are they going to pay for the service next
year?

Just when I thought I had heard enough, a Mr. Jim Sanders called me
from the CNIB to tell me that he was the appointed liason between the
government and Bell Canada. When I asked him if he had been part of
the consumer panel that conferred with Bell Canada on their
application, Mr. Sanders told me that he had only been contacted a
week ago by Ms. Maislin. (Bell's application was filed last
September). When I then asked him what the CNIB's position was on the
elimination of unlimited directory assistance, he told me that the
CNIB was adamently opposed. I then referred to the letter on file with
the CRTC regarding the statement of approval given to Bell by the
public groups. Mr. Sanders said it was obviously unfounded and a
potential source of embarrassment for Bell Canada. The question is
now, how many of the other groups mentioned on Bell's application were
consulted with and when?  Which of these groups will actually show up
at the CRTC hearings to dispute Bell's claim?

When you couple the above events with the fact that Bell never made
this application public (it leaked to the press only a month ago), you
get this appalling picture of a corporation that will do anything, it
seems, to retain its position as the most profitable organization in
Canada. If the most profitable organization says that they cannot
afford to provide "essential" services for the needy, then who can,
and who will?  Bell Canada is setting a dangerous precedent for other
greedy groups to follow, including the government. And aside from
this, where is the incentive for Bell to maintain current listings in
print if they are allowed to charge all of us for access to new
listings not in the book? Obviously, unpublished numbers generate more
profits.

The main point I wanted to make here is that Bell Canada Public
Affairs appears to be actively dissuading the public into believing
that they have no designs to eliminate directory assistance for anyone
while deliberately misleading the CRTC into believing that they have
the public's approval to trim services.  With tactics like Bell's, who
needs lawyers?

If anyone is interested in a copy of the CRTC Public Notice then I can
FAX it to you.  The deadline for written challenges from the public is
March 1st.


INTERNET:  [e-mail]
    UUCP:  [e-mail]  (bbs)
           [e-mail]  (alternate)
BELL: [phone]   FAX:[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chet Pager)
Subject: Script Files and PcPlus
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:38:17 GMT


1) Unfortunately, my Unix system doesn't support zmodem or even
xmodem.  I have found kermit to be painfully, stupidly slow.  My modem
handles up to 2400 baud, but I generally use 1200 because there are
much fewer errors/noise, and kermit doesn't have to re-send so many
packets.  But I'm wondering, would a simple ascii screen-dump be
faster?  I always thought the protocals and compression meant greater
speed alongside the error correction, but maybe not ...

    (Any way to speed up kermit? 1byte cheksum 94 packet size
as-is.  Why is it so slow, anyway??)


2) Anybody use procomm pcplus?  The older version, 1.something?  I'm
trying to write a script file to:

    a) Automatically dial a number and invoke a script from the
DOS command line prompt; even better if I could tell it pulse or tone
from this point as well.

    b) log on and all that, with some sort of flexibility to skip
or repeat steps, because the asp file I have now keeps getting
confused (even a wait for fiveDk"Kc(T\/o,Nb']duB?;qRc>mmand which, if [string] is
received during those five seconds it will go to [label], and if
[string2] is received it will go to [label2] and if neither is
received it will continue...

    c) SEND (using kermit or ascii protocal) *.* from a certain
directory, and then RECEIVE a file from unix.

>    d) If I decide to use ascii screen dumps, I need to find some way
for procomm to, "for each file in [directory]", not only send the file but
give unix some commands using that filename as a variable, eg
"mail [filename]" SEND [filename] "^D"

Well, if anyone knows 1) or is bored and would like to enlighten me on 2)
(I also use bitcom or comit sometimes), please do!  but I don't read news,

So please EMAIL responses to [e-mail].

Thanks a lot.

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Bergstein)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 22:16:05 -0500
Subject: C&P Service Notes


Paul Robinson wrote in msg. on 2/18:

> Which reminds me: I humorously mentioned about what would happen
> if I wanted a T1 line (or fractional one).  He pointed out that AT&T
> would have to put it in; C&P doesn't do T1 wiring!  I'd order the POP
> at the central office, but someone else would have to supply the drop.

Your C&P installer was incorrect.  C&P certainly does install T-1s.
They install entire intra-LATA T-1s, and also the local loop portion
of inter-LATA T-1s.  If you ever needed an inter-LATA T-1 or FT-1,
from AT&T they would arrange for C&P to install the run from the AT&T
POP through C&P land to your local CO and to your house.  And if you
ever had enough lines, and could justify the cost of a T-1 mux, it is
possible to get T-1 to connect to the CO switch for local line access.
However, since most of the outlying areas from CO's are already served
by fiber runs to SLC huts, ordering up a T-1 for local line access
really doesn't buy much.

> [Moderator's Note: Congratulations on getting the job done right!  PAT]

Bell Atlantic has embarked on a Quality Improvement program since
1989.  They are using the Philip Crosby quality improvement process.
C&P Telephone now offers "Service When You Want IT (sm)".  That means
that when a residential customer orders service, TELCO (C&P) no longer
_tells_ you when they'll show up (i.e. the old interval). They will
show up when _you_ want them.  That means if you call one morning at 9
AM, and ask for installation that afternoon at 3:30, they'll do it! If
you ask them to show up Saturday morning at 6:30 AM, they'll do it!
Their motto is "Quality is meeting customer requirements".

Over the past several years they've reduced the interval for T-1
installation from 45 business days, to two weeks (as of last summer),
to about three days right now.  In fact, if a business orders a T-1
for a building already equipped with a fiber termination, you can
sometimes get the T-1 installed in the same day!  How's that for
service!  What a refreshing change from the old "Ma Bell"!

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

From: radian![e-mail](Dan Franki)
Subject: Automatic Disconnect on Mexico City Exchanges?
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 15:25:41 GMT
Organization: Radian Corp.


We are temporarily operating a network router over dial-up lines in
Mexico City.  The link goes down every few hours and is often
difficult to reestablish without changing to another phone line.  The
link is only used for a few minutes each hour but the intent is
maintain the connection continuously.

The question arises, do some switching systems automatically
disconnect a line after a few hours?  All the lines are pulse dialed
and as far as I know there is nothing in the way of digital switches
involved.  I can't feature a bunch of stepping relays having enough
savy to decide that a conversation is boring (or pointless) and end
it.

I do not know the make or model of the switches involved so it is easy
to imagine all sorts of 'features' that might make the system tolerant
of other problems.  Any one know one way or the other?


Dan Franki     Radian Corporation    512-454-4797    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ramsey)
Subject: Telco Book and Equipment Advice Needed
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Info Sys, Purdue Univ.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:59:43 GMT


I am looking for a good introductory and troubleshooting text on phone
communications and modem operations.  I want something that will help
me use basic measurements such as signal strength, ring voltages,
etc..  in tracking down line noise problems and in isolating marginal
modems.

I want to understand telephone system issues so I can talk
intelligently with our local phone office and modem suppliers
concerning large inbound long distance modem pool rotaries and
problems we are having concerning line noise, etc ...

I would also like information on appropriate (but cheap) test
equipment to use in tracking down these problems.


Thanks,


Ed Ramsey [e-mail] 317/494-0442 FAX/494-9727
CERIS (Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems)
Network Services Manager/UNIX Systems Administrator

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 01:56 GMT
From: Bruce Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Graphic Network Tool


I am looking for graphical tool to 'manage' and document my network
equipment, circuits, contacts, etc. I'm currently working with a
system (though that's a gracious term for it) that pre-dates my
existence at this organization by several years (In other words, I
take no blame). It consists of a flat file into which are 'drawn'
multiple diagrams, each representing the end-to-end connectivity for a
particular location.  Here's an example:

  ______________________          _________________        ___________
 !   CENTRAL SITE       !        ! REMOTE SITE  A  !      ! SITE B    !

  !\                  -              _                              /!
  ! \                !F!            ! !                            / !
  !  \  ____________ !L! WXX-12345  !D! ____________ C6E123456789 /  !
  !   \ \   745    / !M!  (WILTEL)  !D! \   745    /  (MCI)      /   !
  !740 \ \ NODE   /  !5!      !     !M!  \ NODE   /     !       / 740!
  !     \ \ 201  /   !0!      !     !1!   \ 202  /      !      /     !
  !NODE  \_2    3____!/!____________!0!____1    3_____________/  NODE!
  !      /  \  /     !1! 1.544 MBPS !0!     \  /  !128 KBPS  !\      !
  ! 5   /    \/      !5!            !0!      \/   !          ! \  7  !
  !    /             !0!            ! !           !          !  \    !
  !   /              !_!            !_!           !          !   \   !
  !  /             US WEST        US WEST         !          !    \  !_
  ! /              FUJITSU        DDM1000         !          !     \ ! !
  !/                FIBER         T3 MUX          !          !      \! !
                     MUX                24HCGS123456  64HCGS123456     !
                                          (US WEST)    (US WEST)  ___  !
                                         LOCAL LOOP   LOCAL LOOP !___!-+
                                                                MUX DIAL

 Makes your head hurt, doesn't it?

This one is actually a fairly simple diagram. Others could include
Front-end-processors, matrix switch, modems or DSU/CSUs, right down to
the end devices (IBM controllers, typically).  As you can imagine,
I've hated this for a long time. However, we're making a big move in
the direction of a client/server based application, along with LANS,
routers, et al.  I'm attempting to make the point that our old
approach simply won't cut it any more.

However, I haven't seen anything that will do what I need. It must be
more than a paint or draw program such as Corel and the others.  I or
several others need to be able to update it easily, and it would be
nice if it took a database approach to things so that I could do
reporting, etc, off of it.

I'd appreciate it if anyone on C.D.T has any information on or
experience with products such as this that they could share with me.

 You can email me directly. I can post the results if there's
interest.


Thanks,

Bruce Sullivan
MCI Mail: 4544760 ([e-mail])
CI$:72747,2737 ([e-mail])

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] (Olof Lundberg)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:6.8.12
Subject: More Telecom Fora?
From: [e-mail] (Olof Lundberg)


Pat,

In Digest #115 you refer to an unmoderated telecom forum.  Being just
recently plugged in to The Internet World it prompts me to ask whether
you have a list of other telecom/wireless-related sources on Internet?


Olof Lundberg                   Internet:       [e-mail]
Inmarsat                        CIS User ID:    73330,212
40 Melton St
London NW1 2EQ, England
Office phone: [phone]    Home phone:     [phone]
Office fax  : [phone]    Home fax  :     [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Readers, please write Olof with your advice.  PAT]

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

From: mcdphx![e-mail] (John Schuch)
Subject: Caller ID & DTMF Chips For Sale
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 13:13:03 GMT


If anyone is interested in buying single or small quantities of either
Caller ID Receiver chips, or DTMF decoder chips, E-mail me and I'll
send you the details.


John R. Schuch  -  Motorola Computer Group  -  Manufacturing Engineering
N7XVS - [e-mail] - [phone] - CompuServe: 70733.3330

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Brown)
Subject: Sources for FAX Back Equipment?
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 21 Feb 1993 01:55 EST


I'm looking for sources of FAX-Back equipment.  I'm interested in
various levels of sophistication, from PC based to stand-alone units.
Any pointers appreciated.  Thanks.


Jeff Brown   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:30:46 MST
From: Philip Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Switch/Relay to Interrupt a Leased Line
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM


I need a switch or relay that will interrupt a four-wire leased line.
I need to be able to remotely force a modem into its dial backup
state.


Thanks,

Phil Green  [e-mail]  NRAO    505.835.7294

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 9:51:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 301-303 Revisited


301-303 has now appeared on my phone bill as BERWYN, MD, so it's in
301 and not in 410.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #120
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03651;
          21 Feb 93 12:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25975
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:43 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16479
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:14 -0600
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:14 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #121

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:55:15 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 121

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey? (Laird Broadfield)
    Repair Center Numbers (Dave Niebuhr)
    Hotlines in Nepal - Literally (Dave Leibold)
    Quality of Telco Services (was AT&T Are You Listening? (Mike Schenk)
    Zipcode, City, State, and Area Code List (John Villalovos)
    Different Rates in Same Home? (Doug Granzow)
    Scanners That Pick up Cellular Phones (Hans C. Klinger)
    Cable's Future Role in Telephony (Matt Lucas)
    Re: 800 Numbers That Charge (Carl Moore)
    Strange Ringing Behaviour (Linc Madison)
    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Bruce Albrecht)
    Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (K. Thompson)
    A Civil Servant Responds to Moderator Bias (John W. Shaver)
    Re: National Data Super Highways - Access (George Gilder)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Alan Furman)
    Re: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs (John Higdon)
    Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Dave Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hotel Surcharges again -- Survey?
Date: 21 Feb 93 11:14:45 GMT


Okay, I stayed in *another* hotel with >=$.50 charges for *any* calls
(800, CC, local, everything) and I'm getting tired of it.  (BTW, the
last time I stayed at this hotel it didn't have charges for anything
except direct-dialed LD, and they had to revise my bill when I checked
out because 10XXX confused the billing program.)

I've been thinking for a while about maintaining a list of hotels and
chains and their sleazy/good policies; I'm not quite ready to do it
mostly because my Usenet mail access is by courtesy of a friend right
now and I'd like to keep the traffic down.  However, in the interests
of exploring this, what am I missing from the following form?

HotelName:
ChainName:
HotelNumber:
ChainNumber:
Carrier800Surcharge:
Other800Surcharge:
CCSurcharge:
LocalSurcharge:
ChainwidePolicy?:
Submitter:
SubmitterComments:

I know some of us (c.d.t et al) travel a lot, and some of us
administer phone systems for companies that might be interested; is
this a worthwhile project?  (Also, would anyone like to leap forward
and do the work, now that I've thought of it?  :-)

Oh yes, the hotel was the Comfort Inn on Diversey in Chicago, part of
the Days Inn chain.


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


[Moderator's Note: And Comfort Inn is not even that great of a place.
For the first fifty years or so (it is an older building), it
functioned as the 'Diversey Arms Apartment Hotel'. I think they only
sold the building to Days Inn as of a couple years ago. I do want to
remind everyone that I am now marketing the 'Orange Calling Card' to
earn money to buy food for myself and my cats. This is a no-surcharge,
25 cent per minute calling card from Orange Communications, and if you
would be interested in signing up, write to '[e-mail]'
for an application. It is a great deal for short calls from payphones
and hotel phones, etc, and uses an 800 number for access.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 08:24:59 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Repair Center Numbers


Some time back (last year, I think) there was a discussion about
calling repair service for a home phone problem from an out-of-area
phone, ie. another area code.

NYTel is publishing two numbers for this: 611 and 1-890-6611 (area
code 516 only, I don't know about the other area codes that NYTel
serves, nor Rochester Tel.).

So, if I were experiencing problems at home and I was in, say Maryland
(AC 301), I would call 1-516-890-6611 and should be connected to the
NYTel repair center.

I was going to post this sooner, but forgot about it at the time of
the discussion or didn't have the bill handy.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 04:06:44 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Hotlines in Nepal - Literally


The Independent News Service, by way of {The Toronto Star}, reports of
warnings in Nepal regarding connections made between the telephone
system and power lines. The Nepal Telecommunications Corportation
refers to the incidents as accidental; meanwhile the telco issued
bulletins that phones with prolonged ringing are not to be picked up
lest it be on the receiving end of 600 volts.

At least one Katmandu resident was killed by the crossed connections
with other reports of telephones burning up and at least one fax
machine melted "to the consistency of yak butter".


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

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 11:12:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: [e-mail] (Mike Schenk [phone])
Subject: Quality of Telco Services (was AT&T Are You Listening?)
Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands


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

> On 13 Feb 93 20:02:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Jack
> Decker) said:

>> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their
>> quality is better.  In my mind, this is just about as valid as the
>> advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one
>> brand of gasoline was better than another.  In many cases, all the gas
>> stations in a town got their gas from the same source!  It was the
>> same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was
>> better!

> But the analogy doesn't hold.  Phone companies don't get their
> infrastructure from the same source.  They lay their own transmission
> lines, and they deal with different vendors for switching and
> transmission equipment.  To say that with all the variation in supply
> and design that quality is obviously identical is arrent nonsense.

More importantly, people tend to forget that it's not the quality of
the transmission and switching systems that counts. Nowadays, probably
all of these systems are of good quality. But what really matters is
the way in which operators manage their (often very complex) networks.
Ultimately, this will be the distinction between operators and not the
quality of their transmission and switching systems.


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (John Villalovos)
Subject: Zipcode, City, State, and Area Code List
Date: 21 Feb 93 09:45:52 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.


Previously I posted a request for a data base listing of Zipcodes to
City, State, and Area Codes.  I didn't get any answers about it but
did get a lot of requests from people asking me to send them info if I
found anything.  Well ...

I wrote a program (in VBDOS) which with the program ZipKey will output
two data files.  One is a listing of state abbreviations and
corresponding full state names (this also includes territories i.e.
Guam).  The next data file is a listing of all known zipcodes, city,
state, and area code.  There are around 41000 zipcodes listed with the
version of zipkey I used.  There is an updated zipkey database which I
haven't tried yet.  If anyone is interested in the program they could
send me some email or preferably someone could give me a site to send
it to via ftp.  You will also need to locate a copy of zipkey.  I
found a copy on simtel20.army.mil in the database directory called
ZK*.ZIP.  There are two files, one is the program and the other the
data.


Later,

John Villalovos    [phone]     [e-mail]
Computer & Network Consulting   Mobile Disk Jockey
Certified Netware Engineer      Parties, Dances, and Weddings

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Different Rates in Same Home?
Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 04:46:47 EST


Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes:

> Here's the details from C&P Telephone of Maryland:

> Unlimited residential service is quoted as $20 a month.  I note that
> because I already have unlimited local service, the new lines must
> also be installed that way; the sales clerk told me that this was the
> case.  Her exact words were that it was "a violation of tariff
> schedules to install measured and unmeasured service at the same
> house."

Is this true?  We have two lines where I live (C&P area).  One is a
flat monthly rate plus $.09 per call, the other is $20/monthly for
unlimited calls. The only difference here is that we get two seperate
bills and the lines are registered under two different names.  But
they are in the same home, and both lines run to all of our phones.
Has the phone company allowed us to go against the tariff?


Doug Granzow         [e-mail]  or  ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig
Call: The Cynosure BBS | Free | Internet | 14.4kbps USR DS | [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:48:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Hans C. Klinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones


    I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that
can intercept cellular phone transmissions.  Then I learned from a
reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to
scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a
diode or something).  Can anyone verify this?  Can any scanner be
modified and what is the procedure for doing so?

I realize that creating such a device to listen to phone users is
borderline illegal but this is for a research project involving the
ease of eavesdropping of cellular phones and I would appreciate any
information on how it is accomplished.


Thanks,

Hans


[Moderator's Note: It is not 'borderline illegal' -- it is illegal. I
am surprised the RS salesperson openly admitted what could be done.
Usually they wait until you buy the unit then mention that 'they heard
it could be done ...' and that 'a customer' left 'these notes and
schematic here in the store one day ...' or words similar. We have
covered this several times here in the past, and yes, modifications to
scanners are quite easily accomplished for the most part. I do not
know about the unit in question since you did not mention a model
number, but with the PRO-34 (now discontinued) it was as simple as
pulling a couple diodes (D-3 and D-4) off the circuit board. The radio
then lost 30-50 megs as a result, but picked up full 800 coverage.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:40:42 -0500
From: matt lucas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable's Future Role in Telephony


The February issue of {TeleStrategies Insight} features an article by
Dr. Jerry Lucas entitled "Cable's Future Role in Telephony: or how the
Cable MSO' can eat the RBOC's Lunch." It is an in-depth analysis of
where cable is today regarding telephony; why cable companies must
partner and who they must partner with to succeed; and how the cable
industry should define their business to establish a winning vision
for the 21st century.

If you're interested in receiving an email copy of this article, send
your request to [e-mail].


Thank you,

Matt

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 14:09:36 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers That Charge


I tried 1-800-555-4578 from a pay phone which defaults to AT&T, and it
said could not complete the call with the area code or number I had
dialed. 10222 plus the above said could not be completed with the
access code I had dialed.  No mention of any charge.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 93 22:41:13 GMT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Strange Ringing Behaviour


I recently moved into a shared flat in London, and set about
modernizing the telephony of the place.  Prior to my arrival, the only
instrument in the place was an old, old black rotary-dial desk phone.
The first addition to the family was an answering machine, but we
noticed that it was very difficult to catch the phone before the
machine did.  This was causing problems, as the phone and machine were
on different jacks and therefore the machine didn't reset when the
phone went off-hook.

At the same time, though, I also got a telephone for my room, to run
off the jack extension I ran for my modem.  I kept the ringer off at
first, but then turned it on one day.  I discovered something quite
strange: the "old reliable" set (rented from BT) DOES NOT RING on the
first ring!  The ringing cadence in the UK is a double burst; the
first ring is often just a single burst, but even in cases where it's
a double burst the old phone doesn't ring at all.  The behaviour is
entirely consistent in all observed instances.

What could cause the phone not to ring on the first ring?


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]
              ==  [e-mail]
59 Stourcliffe Close, London W1H 5AR  Tel. [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 23:22:18 CST
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?


> [e-mail] (Paul Barnett) writes:

>> This is indeed specific to the local telephone company.  In Mpls-St.
>> Paul, which is served by US West, you HAVE to publish the number, or
>> pay an extra charge.

> That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. So, if I wanted to
> avoid paying unlisting charges on my residence lines, the phone book
> would look something like this (?):

This is not true.  I live in St. Paul, and have two phone lines.  Only
the first line is listed, and I do not pay an extra charge for not
listing the second.  If I only had one line, I would have to pay for
being unlisted.


[e-mail]

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring?
Date: 21 Feb 93 15:02:32 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


) [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for
) this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They
) need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the
) business office could have told you to ask the operator to ring you
) back. That would have met the requirements.  PAT]

 ... and cost me $1.25.

Ken Thompson    N0ITL
NCR Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development
3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   [phone]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But as a writer pointed out yesterday, you are free
to set up your own arrangements if you want to be in the telephone
installation and repair business. No one says you have to use telco to
do this. You can have your own personnell to ring phones and identify
lines like any other repair/installation service. Lots of companies
use private vendors for their phones instead of telco.   PAT]

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 00:19:22 MST
From: Mr John W Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Civil Servant Responds to Moderator Bias


Pat,

As an employed Civil Servant, you did not elect me, but you elected
idiots who passed laws which make it difficult to do anything in the
Government. There are some regulations which civil servants enact or
cause to be generated but most of these are in response to the
legislators.

I probably am just as irritated as you are at stupid government
actions, but the source is the lawmaking ability. Sorry Pat, It is
still your fault.


            John W. Shaver
602 538 7622 // DSN 879 7622 // FTS 658 7622
FAX [phone] // DSN 879 0656_// FTS 658 0656

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:34 GMT
From: George Gilder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Data Super Highways - Access


The article described in Robert L. McMillin's entry in V13 #107
discussing the future of Dark Fiber was entitled Into the Fibersphere
and appeared in the December issue of Forbes/ASAP.  It was written by
me, George Gilder, and will be part of my new book Telecosm.  The
issue of ASAP can be acquired by calling 415-802-6880.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:31:22 PST


Mr./Ms. Stony Brook Press writes:

> Not only that, In this country you only have a choice between
> Republicans and Democrats.

Imagine my surprise.  I have been voting Libertarian for years, and
occasional TELECOM Digest contributor Toby Nixon has been a
Libertarian Party candidate for the Georgia legislature.


Alan T. Furman    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My sympathies are with the Libertarians also, but a
lot of good it does to vote for them. The television news does not
even bother to report the Libertarian election results.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs


[e-mail] (Robert Masse) writes:

> Now my old high school is full of kids with them, and I hear that the
> teachers are getting fustrated of hearing beep-beep-beep or dring
> dring in class.  They aren't doing anything about it either because
> they are too scared now.  Mind you all of these high school kids are
> using them for status symbols.

Of course. When in any kind of public meeting situation (movie
theater, conference, PUC hearing :-), or staff meeting), I set my
pager to vibrate rather than beep. But then that defeats one of the
main reasons for a high school student having the thing in the first
place. How can you impress your peers if it does not beep once in
awhile, particularly during class.

> I hope it doesn't come to outlawing them like previous posters
> mentioned, where in my opinion a person's right to carry one shouldn't
> be denied.

I agree fully. But then maybe the kids ought to be informed about
"pager courtesy" in public meetings and classroom situations. No place
like school to learn about proper real world behavior.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 08:19:23 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411


In TELECOM Digest Volume 13 : Issue 118 [e-mail] (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

> Charles Stephens writes:

>>> In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly
>>> five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop.

>> Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge
>> you US$.30!!!

> Perhaps in Georgia.  Here in NC, Southern Bell allots five monthly
> freebies, after which the charge is *fifty* cents per call.

Come up north to NYTel land where a 411 call is $.48 *per pop*, no
freebies, nada, zilch or whatever else you want to call it.

Remember that this is the same NYTel that is part of NYNEX which got
ripped by Judge Greene, the same NYTel that still can't get it's
routing tables straight for some of it's customers.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #121
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28251;
          22 Feb 93 0:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08073
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16333
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:06 -0600
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #122

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:37:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 122

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges (Adele Ponty)
    Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Nigel Allen)
    Call for Articles: ConneXions (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    International Calling Services (Jim Sturtevant)
    More About General Turmoil (Brian D. McMahon)
    Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines? (David C. Kovar)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Pat Turner)
    Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Bruce Sullivan)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT (Laird Broadfield)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Adele Ponty <[e-mail]>
Subject: CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges
Organization: UTCC Public Access
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 15:53:21 -0500


CRTC news release
January 29, 1993

BELL, B.C. TEL, APPLY TO INTRODUCE NEW DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES

OTTAWA/HULL - The CRTC today announced that it has received
applications from both the British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C.
Tel) and Bell Canada (Bell) to revise their customer charges for
directory assistance (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-13 and 93-14).

Bell and B.C. Tel both propose to apply a directory assistance charge
for each requested telephone number, whether it be for a number in
Canada or the United States.  Specifically, the two companies are
proposing to introduce a $0.50 local directory assistance (LDA) charge
for requests for local numbers not listed in the current editions of
their telephone directories; introduce a long distance directory
assistance (LDDA) charge of $0.50 for Canadian telephone numbers
outside the subscriber's free calling area, and; reduce the LDDA
charge for requests for telephone numbers in the United States from
$0.80 to $0.50.  Bell also proposes to reduce its LDA charge for
listed numbers from $0.60 to $0.50.

The proposed changes would also affect the exemption currently
available to persons with disabilities and, in the case of Bell, those
persons 65 years of age and over.  Currently, Bell provides unlimited
local directory assistance free of charge to seniors and persons with
disabilities.  There is also no charge for persons with disabilities
for lond distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada.  For
numbers within the United States, the general limit of 50 free
requests per month is applied.  Under Bell's proposal, there would not
be unlimited free directory assistance but rather a combined maximum
of 25 free local and long distancE directory assistance requests per
month per residence customer account.  B.C. Tel currently allows
persons with disabilities unlimited local directory assistance and
unlimited long distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada
or to the United States.  B.C.  Tel now proposes to only exempt
persons with disabilities from paying local directory assistance
charges if he number requested is listed in the company's telephone
directory.  There would no longer be any free long distance directory
assistance.

The applications made by Bell and B.C. Tel are available for
examination at any of their respective business offices, or at the
offices of the CRTC.  The Commission invites anyone affected by the
proposed changes to submit their comments in writing, by March 1,
1993.  Note: Both the public notice and this news release are
available in Braille and on audio cassette.


Contact:

Bill Allen, Director
CRTC, Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0N2
[phone] - TDD [phone] -
Fax [phone]

or one of our regional offices listed below:

Halifax,Nova Scotia -  [phone] -  TDD [phone]
Montreal, Quebec - [phone] - TDD (514) 283-831
Winnipeg, Manitoba  - [phone] - TDD [phone]
Vancouver, British Columbia - [phone] - TDD [phone]

or the Department of Communications Regional Office:
Toronto, Ontario - (416)  973-8215

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Notice

Ottawa, 29 January 1993

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-14

BELL CANADA - REVISIONS TO DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES

Reference: Tariff Notice 4505

The Commission has received an application from Bell Canada (Bell),
dated 11 September 1992, for approval of tariff revisions related to
directory assistance charges.

In its application, Bell proposes to apply a common directory
assistance charge of $0.50 per requested telephone number for both
local directory assistance (LDA) and long distance directory
assistance (LDDA).  Specifically, the company proposes to:

(1)   reduce the current LDA charge from $0.60 to
      $0.50;

(2)   eliminate the current free allowance of 50 LDDA
      calls to the United States per access per month;
      $0.50;

(3)   reduce the Canada-U.S. LDDA charge from $0.80 to $0.50;

(4)   introduce a Canada/Canada LDDA charge of $0.50;

(5)   introduce a charge of $0.50 for requests for (a)
      out-of-book numbers (i.e., numbers that are
      within the same local calling area, but listed in
      another directory), (b) numbers that are new,
      changed or not listed, (c) foreign listings, and
      (d) 800 Service numbers via LDA, and

(6)   introduce a charge for LDA/LDDA requests from
      hotel PBX Service, and for requests for Bell
      numbers and for special instruction-type listings
      (for example, "if busy call" or "after hours
      call").

The company proposes to establish a free monthly allowance of 25
LDA/LDDA requests per residence account for (1) persons certified as
being 65 years of age or over, and (2) persons who are certified as
physically or mentally disabled, functionally illiterate or who inform
the company of a temporary handicap or disability preventing them from
using the directory.

Bell also proposes changes to the exemptions and exceptions to the
application of LDA and LDDA charges.

In support of its application, Bell has submitted information for
which it has claimed confidentiality.  An abridged version of this
information has been provided for the public record.

The Commission addressed interrogatories to Bell with respect to its
application.  The company responded to these interrogatories on 21
January 1993.

The application may be examined at any of Bell's business offices or
at the offices of the CRTC, Room 201, Central Building, Les Terrasses
de la Chaudiere, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec, or Suite 602,
Complex Guy-Favreau, East Tower, 200 Rene-Levesque Blvd. West.
Montreal, Quebec.  A copy of Bell's application and of its responses
to the Commission's interrogatories may be obtained by any person upon
request directed to the company at the address shown below.

If you wish to comment on the application, please write to Mr. A. J.
Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, by 1 March
1993 (fax: [phone]).  A copy of your letter should be sent to
Mr. B. A> Courtois, Vice President, Law and Regulatory Affairs, Bell
Canada, 105 Hotel-de-Ville Street, 6th Floor, Hull, Quebec, J8X 4H7
(fax: [phone]).

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:28:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy
Organization: R-node Public Access Unix - 1 416 249 5366


Bell Canada's Yellow Pages subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications)
Inc., makes Quebec companies that want to advertise in the English-
language section of the Yellow Pages buy an advertisement of the same
size in the French-language section as well, according to {Marketing}
magazine (February 15, 1993, p. 3). French-language advertisers don't
have to buy English-language advertising, though.  This particularly
affects small companies in Montreal and Hull that primarily serve the
English-speaking community. The policy is apparently the result of a
private agreement between Tele-Direct and a Quebec government agency,
the Office de la Langue Francaise.

As well, Bell Canada only puts the French-language Yellow Pages in
Montreal phone booths, the article reports. (That is, the booth would
have the white pages and the French-language Yellow Pages, but not the
English-language Yellow Pages. In practice, many Bell phone booths
don't have any directories at all.)

I have capitalized Yellow Pages, as it is a registered trade mark in
Canada. In the U.S., it is a generic term. (In the same way, Aspirin
is a registered trade mark in Canada, but not in the U.S.)


Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 9:03:17 PST
From: Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call for Articles: ConneXions


Call for Articles

ConneXions -- The Interoperability Report is a monthly technical
journal which covers all aspects for computer networking and
distributed computing. ConneXions seeks articles ranging from
technology tutorials and user case studies, to letters, opinions and
book reviews. For author guidelines, send a message to
[e-mail]. Authors receive a complimentary lifetime sub-
scription.

*** PLEASE: Do not include my message in your reply. If you must
include it, please do so AFTER your reply rather than before it. Thank
you very much.***


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Sturtevant)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 13:22:43
Subject: International Calling Services
From: [e-mail] (Jim Sturtevant)


Pat, I've been monitoring the TELCOM group for quite awhile and enjoy
it a great deal.  I want to ask if you are familiar with an
consultants who are knowledgable on various techniques for providing
international callers with inexpensive access to US long distance.
For example there are services where you call once from Euorpe, then a
return call is placed connecting the caller with their desired party
at US intl rates rather than expensive European PTT rates.

Also, do you know of a resource (online or printed) to get
international rate tables for calls originating outside the US?

Thanks for your help, any direction would be helpful.


Jim Sturtevant     Internet:[e-mail]
The Complete PC    CIS UserID: 71333,612
1983 Concourse Dr. San Jose, CA
Phone:[phone]  Fax:[phone]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 16:51:13 cdt
From: McMahon,Brian D <[e-mail]>
Subject: More About General Turmoil


I heard yet another interpretation of what the letters GTE stand for
from a long-time employee ... Going to Texas Eventually.

He then went on to say that he'd jokingly told a switchman that the
local CO was moving down south, too.  The instantaneous reply: "That
already happened.  What do you think all those dishes up on the roof
are for?"

Apparently GenTel is the butt of as many jokes inside the organization
as it is on the outside.  Gee ...


Brian McMahon (BDM13)    <[e-mail]>    <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (David C Kovar)
Subject: Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 18:20:59 GMT


I have a Uniden transportable phone that I use occassionally. I was
wondering if there was any way of adapting it so I could use it as a
normal phone, ie, connected to a house phone jack? I prefer it's
handset to the other ones I have and I also would like to have one set
of stored numbers rather than two or more. Thanks, in advance.


David

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 06:34:17 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes about the
Seven Deadly Sins of Telecom.  I would propose an eighth: the
attitude, common among both MCI and Sprint, and seen elsewhere, that
the customer can always prepend 10288 to his calls and get through.
It is an excuse for shoddy service, plain and simple.  How long was
South Carolina out of service before Sprint finally came back on line?

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 13:46:12 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #113 [e-mail] (Jack
Decker) writes:

> Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open
> until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot?  Have these
> superior connections been made available to other carriers?  I think
> not.

John Higdon <[e-mail]> replies:

> Why would they want them? What you describe is the old TSPS (left over
> from pre-divestiture). The facilities available now are obviously more
> advanced.

The AT&T operator can hold your line open for exactly the same reason
AT&T can provide true coin service -- they are the only carrier
willing to invest in the network capability for doing so. This
capability has been available for the carriers to order in SWBT since
1989. Thats four years. It would appear to me that the other carriers
have no excuses, they just aren't interested in providing the same
fully capable service as AT&T does.  Economics, I suppose.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 14:30 EST
From: rsiatl![e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems


John Braden writes:

> 1. What is a "bridge lifter" (or bridge clips)?

To the best of my knowledge:

Bridge clips: nickel plated bronze clips used to jumper adjcent
terminals on a punchdown (esp 66) block.

Bridge lifters: Inductors used on OPX lines.  Without loop current,
they presented a high impedence to voice frequency.  When the line
went off hook, the loop current saturated the core of the inductor,
lowering the impedence.  This isolated the on hook side of the OPX
from the in use off hook side.

> 3. Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network
> interface?

There are a number of cards built by Tellabs/Wescom/XEL for this.  I
can't recommend a specific one because I don't know how they handle
ringing.  I would call your local Graybar/Anixter/North/Alltel office.
Cost will be around $150 for the card and $50 for mounting.

> 4. Is there anything I can do to get acceptable signal levels included
> in the published tariff for Massachusetts?

Not really, they would be unlikely to file a second tariff unless the
PUC forces them to.

> 6. Should I just give up and be glad I can sometimes connect at V.32
> speeds?

Absolutely not, V.32/32 bis modems were designed to function over the
public switched telephone network (PSTN).  You can't expect the same
preformance as someone with a Slick in his/her backyard, but you
should be able to connect regardless of tariffs.  I would call in
another ticket, without mentioning modems.  Tell them the problem is
"long levels".  If they can't help you I would give your PUC a call.

>  As a result of the attenuation distortion present on my lines,

Just for reference, attenuation distortion refers to attenuation vs.
freq, usually referenced to 1004 Hz.  This is a different problem, but
quite likely also happening on you line as well. For POTS lines this
is measured with a three tone slope (404, 1004, 2804).


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 20:15 GMT
From: Bruce Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems


> Are there ANY modems which do well with -35dBm signal levels?

I doubt it. I don't do much work in the dial-up world, but for a
leased circuit, -35db is pretty darned cold. My modems will typically
alert me if the RSL goes outside of about -9 to -20db or so, even
though we can still pass data beyond that. -35db would definitely get
the telco a call from me. When we were ordering a lot analog lines
(pretty much DDS only these days..) we paid extra at provisioning time
for 'conditioning.'  I don't know if this is an option with switched
services, since they can't control where you go once you get past your
serving CO. Still, *that's* where you problem appears to be, so if
they can condition it that far, it might be of some help. There are no
doubt others on CDT with far greater knowledge of that than myself.

> Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network
> interface?

Unless the problem exists on your premises, again I doubt it. Even if
the problem is there, you'll be taking shots in the dark unless you
have the equipment to measure it at various points.


Bruce Sullivan ([e-mail] OR [e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:32:55 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes:

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

>> Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead?

> I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers.

Wasn't the original reason for thinking of alternatives to the current
proposal that some vendors thought it would be too big of a change to
their equipment in order to support NXX area codes?  Can you imagine
how many things in the US would break if the conversion were made to
eight digit local numbers (or four digit area codes)?  I can't imagine
how long it would take the 500+ local carriers, and about as many long
distance carriers, to convert.  (LA Cellular still does not have the
213/310 split working correctly for roamers in all cases :-() And this
does not begin to include all of the private-sector automation that
deals with phone numbers.

Since the current plan will run out of area codes in less than two
years, I don't think this is nearly enough time to make any
large-scale changes to the NANP.  The FCC has set a 1997 deadline
before publicly-accesible PBX's and COCOTs must be replaced to support
10XXX dialing.  I would think that at least a similar five-year
warning would have to be given to everyone involved before such a
change could reasonably be implemented.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT
Date: 21 Feb 93 10:13:22 GMT


Pat writes:

> [Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T
> tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the
> number you are calling, or zero for an operator."  After entering the
> number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the
> same as any other credit card call.  Persons who have experiences with
> this are requested to write.   PAT]

Slightly amusing story: the "please enter the number you are calling"
message confused the bejeezus out of an operator at a hospital I was
working at this week; from the phone I was borrowing, any off-premise
calls had to be made through the operator, including 800 calls (don't
ask me, I don't understand why either.)  So, after a number of calls
to the operator to get me our corporate voicemail, it happened I
needed to make a personal call.  So, I called the operator, asked for
800 321 0288, and then we got "please enter the number you are
calling".  The operator (still on the line) says, in one of the most
bewildered voices I've ever heard, "Didn't we just do that?"


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #122
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29216;
          22 Feb 93 0:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00273
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26911
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:06 -0600
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #123

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Feb 93 22:20:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 123

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The War on Pagers (Marc Unangst)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Jim Graham)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Kyle J. Cordes)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon)
    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Steve Pershing)
    Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones (Michael Schuster)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc Unangst)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Date: 21 Feb 1993 13:16:49 -0500
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI


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

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.

Well, I'm a high school senior here in Ann Arbor (Huron High School).
I also carry a pager, both when I'm at school and when I'm not.  A few
reasons why I find it convenient to have a pager:

1. It makes it much easier for people to get a hold of me when I'm not
at home, or when I'm not going to be near a single phone, or when I'm
going to be moving around a lot.

2. My parents don't like getting calls on their line after 11:00pm or
so.  So instead, I just have the person page me, and I call them back.

3. I work after school as a computer technician; sometimes my employer
has to get a hold of me.  Yes, even at school.

4. My computer at home (a 486 running SVR4 Unix) will soon have a
system set up whereby it automatically pages me with one of a special
set of codes if various things happen, such as running out of disk, an
improper shutdown and reboot, the INN server getting indigestion, or
something similar.  I might be able to take care of something like
that with one of the school's computers and their modem, but it's
rather difficult to teach my computer to leave a message with the
school office.

5. I do volunteer work with a local computer conferencing system;
sometimes other staff members need to get in touch with me to ask an
important question or something.  Again, paging me is a lot easier and
more efficient than having the school relay the message.

6. I do a bit of computer consulting/programming work in my spare
time.  It doesn't look very professional if your customers don't have
a way of getting in touch with you during school hours.

7. I don't have to give any reason at all.  If I'm not violating
anyone else's rights and not disturbing the learning process (see
below if you think pagers do this) through my actions, then I should
be allowed to carry out those actions.  The school should not be
allowed to make arbitrary and capricious rules that adversely affect
my ability to make a living and go about my (perfectly legal)
business, simply because they can't figure out any other way to
control the student body.

> if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom hours, it is
> an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person who has it.

You obviously aren't familiar with recent pagers.  The ones being used
around here by most of the paging services (the Motorola Bravo and
Bravo Plus) both have vibrating-alert modes.  Obviously, I don't leave
my pager in "loud and annoying" mode when I'm at school.  Cellphones
might be a different problem; I'm not sure if the ringer can be turned
off independent of the phone.  Of course, you could also just leave
the phone turned off, and turn it on if you need to make a call.

> They know where the student is and can relay a message as
> quickly or as slowly as it requires.

Of course, that assumes that the school official is qualified to judge
how urgent the message is.  And it also assumes that the school is
able to relay the message; some of the people working in my high
school's office would have trouble blowing their nose without
assistance, let alone accurately taking a (sometimes technical) phone
message and relaying it to me.  Besides, the school isn't there to act
as my personal answering service and secretary; I should be
responsible for taking care of my own phone calls.

> If a student in school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can
> either wait until after school or ask the office for permission;

Well, the school I'm at doesn't let students use the office phones.
They have two banks of three payphones each, and students are expected
to use those for calls.  Unfortunately, those phones are frequently
out of order or all in use for an extended period of time (this is
especially true during lunch, which is one of the few times that I'd
have an opportunity to use them).  And, depending on what service plan
you have for your cellphone, making the call from the cellphone can be
cheaper than making the call from a payphone; this is almost certainly
true if you are making an intra-LATA zone call.


Marc Unangst, N8VRH    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:52:57 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeff Hibbard) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are
>> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students.  This is part
>> of the War on Drugs.   PAT]

I wish I'd seen this thread from the start ... looks like it would have
been an interesting one.

This part makes sense most of the time. There are exceptions (a friend
of mine back when I was in high school was one of those exceptions ...
he was an EMT, and was on call a lot --- he had special permission to
get up and leave at anytime if required, and could make up tests, etc.
later), but they're probably rare.

> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
> students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
> confiscate the cellular phone in my car.

This part, on the other hand, seems pretty absurd. What about a doctor
who is on call (aren't doctors always on call?) and wants to go to
some type of performance his/her child is in, or some other type of
school activity on the school grounds?  Is this law trying to forbid
them from going?

But then again, we are talking about Illinois, right?  I guess that
makes the absurd a lot easier to believe.  Y'all wouldn't believe how
glad I was to get out of that miserable place (I lived in Chicago for
a while, and hated almost every minute of it).

> Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was
> to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually
> applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything
> designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the
> commercial broadcast band.

Ok, what about schools that have Amateur Radio clubs?  I know that
some high schools do have club stations setup where interested
students can learn about the hobby, radio, and related issues. What
about Amateur Radio activities such as SAREX (Shuttle Amateur Radio
EXperiment) that devote part of the time specifically to school kids?
Is the government in Illinois trying to say that these are to be
eliminated as part of the war on drugs?  Oh yes, I can certainly see
the logic in that ...

Seriously, while this law was probably written with nothing but the
best intents, it's yet another case of people writing laws with their
heads up their [backsides], and not considering the other, totally
innocent areas they impact.

Actually, I've got an even better idea than the ones these politicians
came up with. Going by their logic, the only people in the world who
use cellular phones and pagers are drug dealers, right? So let's just
make both of them completely illegal, no matter where you happen to be
at the time. After all, the drug problem isn't limited to schools.
While we're at it, drug dealers use regular phones too, right? Ok,
*ALL* telephones are now illegal.

And for anyone who believes that kind of reasoning, umm, I've got some
land I'd like to sell ... it's about 25 miles south of Ft Walton.
Anyone interested?  ;-} (Pretend this is in ultra-tiny print: {You
must be a certified diver or have your own submarine.})

Later ... gotta get some stuff done around here.


jim

#include <std_disclaimer.h>                             73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]  ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)       AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL


[Moderator's Note: Well, you don't have to worry about Amateur Radio
clubs here being hurt by this law; I don't think there are any in the
Chicago schools. Most extracurricular activities here were dropped
years ago. A few schools still offer some, but mostly the schools here
function as holding-tanks for six hours daily. The school bus ride
takes an hour each way and having 2000 students go through the single
metal detector takes 60-90 minutes each morning. That doesn't leave
much time for amateur radio or computer clubs. So you disliked Chicago
when you were here? I hate it also. It is a terrible place.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyle J Cordes)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 20:20:06 GMT


[e-mail] (Kyle J Cordes) writes:

> car-phone.  Neatest toy in the world.  Yeah, it cost him $0 a month

Hmmm.  I'm still having trouble getting the key binding of this editor
down ... I meant $50 / month.  Everyone got the point, right?

Anyway, there is also the issue of freedom here ... does the school
have the right to completely control the communications of students
from the moment they enter campus?  My high school also attempted to
prevent people from bringing radios on campus, with little effect.


Kyle


[Moderator's Note: In most places, the law provides that during school
hours, school administrators have parental rights -- I forget the
exact Latin term -- and as such have complete authority over the minor
children in their custody.  I guess they can set the rules, just as
parents can set the rules at home.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 13:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


[e-mail] (Bob Longo) writes:

[ I wrote: ]

>> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up?

> Sure.  Glad to.  I personally attended one of the CPUC's public
> hearings several months before the ruling where they were soliciting
> public opinion.

No, I mean reality. If you regularly attended these hearings and had
some understanding of the hearing process you would realize two
things:

1. The same old tired activists show up time and time again. These
people are against EVERYTHING that represents a technological change
in the way the telephone works. They were even out in force when the
telco wanted to replace the manual office on Santa Catalina Island!

2.  The hearing process is a formality that is required by rules
and statute, but has little to do with policy making.

> A large majority of the individuals that spoke at that
> hearing were in favor of no CNID at all!

Of course. Not unexpected at all. For various reasons, I still attend
these circuses, but the show is totally predictable. First, you have
the telcos stating their desires. Then you get a parade of meaning-
less, uninformed drivel, punctuated with the usual anti-technology
nonsense.  And wiping up the rear comes the so-called consumer-
activist groups such as TURN giving their tired old garbage about how
[you name the proposal] will hurt the Aunt Marthas of the state.
Occasionally the Administrative Law Judge or a staff member will ask a
stupid question, but the flow is relatively smooth.

Go to a couple more hearings and see if I am not correct in my
description.

> The comments made by the individuals speaking at that (and other
> hearings conducted throughout the state) are available for review at
> the CPUC.

Snore!!

> By trying to force the CPUC to disallow per-line blocking, they
> expect they can reap more profits because they believe more
> subscribers will purchase the service.

To do any less would be a disservice to stockholders and other
customers.

> The restrictions passed were based upon popular public opinion.

You have not demonstrated this.

> Everyone had the option of expressing their opinion prior to the CPUC
> ruling at the public hearings or in writing.  I don't feel too sorry
> for those who want unrestricted CNID who didn't bother to express
> their opinion prior to the ruling.

Given the nature and actual effect of the hearings, what is the point?
The decision had been made before any of those roadshows were
presented. You obviously were taken in, but in some of those hearings
it is exceedingly obvious that the Administrative Law Judge and the
staff members are going through the motions. At least you were
reinforced in your own beliefs and can feel comfortable.

> I'm curious -- for those who believe CNID should be forced on everyone
> to make this technology useful, do you also believe that unlisted
> numbers should be unavailable?

I have no problem with per-call blocking. Never have. If someone feels
that he MUST keep his number private and he MUST bother me on the
telephone (remember, I cannot see his number if he never calls me),
then he can take the responsibility to remember to dial *67. Then I
have the option to ignore his call. In that way, everyone is served.

> After all, what use is the phone book if everyone isn't in there?
> To be consistent in their logic, the phone company should stop
> printing the phone book until the CPUC forces everyone to have listed
> numbers, right?

That is nonsense, and what makes arguments against CNID seem so
pointless. You cannot make a case on the actual reality of the matter,
so you come up with silly and ridiculous faulty analogies. Stick to
the issue. It is not about published or unpublished numbers, women's
shelters, or anything else. It involves the instantaneous ability for
a person to transmit (or not) his number to the called party before
the call is answered. If you feel that you must call someone
anonymously, then dial *67. Is that such a big deal?

I already know the answers: 1. The stupid and lazy must be protected;
and 2. You should not have to lift a finger to continue to make
anonymous calls. Got it. No more need be said.


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

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

Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany
From: [e-mail] (Steve Pershing)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:44:13 PST
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: [phone]


A while ago, [e-mail] (Steve Pershing - that's me) wrote:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We
> will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a
> 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the
> Questor site.)

> For information on how to use the mail-server (and for a directory of
> available files), send e-mail to:

>      [e-mail]

> and enter the following at the left margin of an otherwise blank
> message body:

> help
> dir
> end

I was mistaken about the fact that they were approved.  They are NOT
approved *yet*.

There are at least three distributors selling them quite successfully
in Germany, however.

The latest news I have from ZyXEL is that they are *pending approval*.
Also, ZyXEL is apparently in process of translating the operating
manual into the German language.

My apologies for the mis-information and any inconvenience it may have
caused anyone.


  Steve Pershing, SysAdmin  <[e-mail]>    The QUESTOR Project
FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more.  [also UUCP]
  on a ZyXEL-U1496S+  =>  v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps.
 Fones: (+1 604)  Data: 681-0670  Telefax: 682-6160  Voice: 682-6659

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 19:26:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hans
C. Klinger) writes:

> I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that
> can intercept cellular phone transmissions.  Then I learned from a
> reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to
> scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a
> diode or something).  Can anyone verify this?  Can any scanner be
> modified and what is the procedure for doing so?

Many scanners sold in the US are also sold abroad, where there is no
ECPA and reception of cellular phone frequencies is a selling point.
Uniden and GRE, two of the manufacturers of Radio Shack scanners,
often take short cuts by enabling full 800 MHz coverage and
specifically disabling it for sets sold in the US. This is done using
a matrix of diodes which select various features. On the older
scanners these diodes were large and had leads which could be clipped.
The newer ones (PRO-39 and PRO-43) use surface mount components which
are a lot more difficult to handle; but not for the experienced
hacker.

Even without doing this, most RS scanners can receive cellular
frequencies at the base frequency plus two times the second IF. This
"image" technique is a legal way of cheating, since it is an
undesireable side effect of the design rather than a feature.


Mike Schuster   [e-mail] | [e-mail]
[e-mail] | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #123
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23736;
          22 Feb 93 12:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05224
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:47 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04571
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:19 -0600
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #125

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Feb 93 09:57:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 125

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ontario Telepresence Project (Barbara Whitmer)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Bob Longo)
    Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones (William H. Sohl)
    Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Gary W. Sanders)
    Touch-Tone Database Questions (Chris Hudel)
    Cellular Phone Questions (Jonathan Shapiro)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Barbara Whitmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ontario Telepresence Project
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:55:58 -0500


The Ontario Telepresence Project:  A Brief Overview

Bill Buxton, Scientific Director
Ontario Telepresence Project, CSRI
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
tel: [phone]  fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

January, 1993


The Ontario Telepresence Project

Telepresence is the establishment of a sense of physical presence in a
geographically or temporally remote location.  We are concerned with
reciprocal telepresence, that is, situations where people in two or
more remote locations have a sense of shared presence.  Our interest
in this is centred on our desire to support collaboration at a
distance, and to create environments that foster a strong sense of
community, despite the distance separating those active in it.  In
short, we are interested in technologies that support a sense of
social proximity despite geographical and/or temporal distance.

Due to the rapid convergence of telecommunications, computational and
audio/visual technologies, new opportunities to support this kind of
telepresence are emerging.  The Ontario Telepresence Project is a
joint government, university and industry project, set up to undertake
research to exploit these opportunities. Its intent is to leverage the
combined skills of its partners in order to gain rapid strategic
advantage.

The research is human centred.  Our objectives are to develop insights
into applications and their usage (usability and usefulness), and the
implications of these applications on the delivery infrastructure
required for their support.  Consequently, a large part of the
research involves prototyping new applications, and evaluating them
through user testing and field studies.

The project exists under the auspices of two Ontario Centres of
Excellence: the Information Technology Research Centre (ITRC) and the
Telecommunications Research Institute of Ontario (TRIO).  The research
activities are split between the University of Toronto and Ottawa.
The University of Toronto is responsible for social science, field
studies, prototyping applications, and user interface issues.  The
Ottawa site is mainly responsible for the engineering aspects of the
project, including developing the experimental platform and multimedia
databases.

Technology transfer takes place through the direct and active
participation of partners in the planning and execution of the
research.  Such participation is facilitated through the accommodation
of industrial researchers on campus and the use of telepresence
technologies to enable collaboration at a distance.

The project has an international component to the research.  Ontario
has an association with four provinces, known as the Four Motors of
Europe.  These are, Baden-Wurttemberg (Germany), Catalonya (Spain),
Lombardia (Italy), and Rhone- Alpes (France). This association has
collectively decided to undertake joint research in Telepresence, and
the Telepresence Project is the Ontario part of that agreement.  The
main contribution of the European partners is in applications,
especially telemedicine and distance education.

Through the association with the Four Motors, The Ontario Telepresence
Project will have the opportunity to test designs across linguistic,
cultural and time zone barriers.

The Telepresence Project is precompetitive research.  It is based upon
the understanding that technologies introduced to the project will be
shared openly among the partners.  There are two reasons for this: (a)
it is assumed that any competitive edge lost will be made up for by
the contribution of other partners and the trend to standardization
that this approach fosters; (b) to enable the project to be as agile,
lean and efficient as possible by minimizing the legal and
bureaucratic overhead.  The belief is that this will work as long as
it is coupled with the understanding that any partner can, on its own,
build proprietary technology on top of ideas generated through the
partnership.

The Ontario project is funded for three years, starting January 1992.
Half of the funds ($2.6 Million) come from the Technology Fund of the
Ontario Premier's Council.  The other half is to come from other
sources (such as industry and the federal government) in the form of
matching funds, or "in kind" contributions.

If you have any further questions, please contact me.


Thank you,

Barbara Whitmer  Ontario Telepresence Project

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

From: Bob Longo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: 22 Feb 93 00:48:50 PST
Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines


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

> Also, what is the FCC's definition of "easily modified"? I happen to
> know someone who has rewritten the firmware for a very popular
> handheld phone to allow it to act as a powerful monitor of cellular
> communications. Unlike an ordinary scanner, this modified product has
> the ability to follow a conversation after a handoff.

> Believe me, if I wanted to listen in on cellular traffic I would not
> waste any time or effort with my venerable Yaesu. The [name withheld]
> "Special Edition" cellular phone would be my weapon of choice!

> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
> in the brain cell department.

I was talking to a guy yesterday at the ham radio store on this
subject.  Apparently the cellular phone industry has a LOT more to be
worried about than just who is listening to the calls.  He told me
that in New York 25% of all cellular calls are fraudulent.  Apparently
there are devices available that are able to easily pick up a
transmitting phone's ID number (or whatever the correct terminology
is).  They take that number and clone a pile of chips and make calls
on it till the phone company disables it.

One of these "cloned" numbers in LA recently recieved a bill from
PacBell Cellular for $14,000 for one month!  PacBell credited the guy
all for the bill.

Does anyone have any additional information on these bogus cellular
numbers?  Can anything be done to stop it?  Or is it going to get
worse when someone invents a phone that the number can be changed
dynamically without the need to plug in a chip?

The cellular industry seriously underestimated the technical
competence and determination of the population when they were
designing the current system.


Bob Longo ([e-mail])    Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines   Los Angeles, CA

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

From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:35:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Hans C. Klinger <hk0z+@
andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that
> can intercept cellular phone transmissions.  Then I learned from a
> reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to
> scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a
> diode or something).  Can anyone verify this?  Can any scanner be
> modified and what is the procedure for doing so?

That's, I believe, essentially the case for most (maybe all) of the
scanners made by Radio Shack.  There are, however, scanners already
available that do not require any modification from other
manufacturers.

As to the legality, it is NOT illegal to modify and/or own a scanner
capable of listening to cellular calls.  The existing law (The ECPA)
prohibits listening, but does not make ownership/modification of
equipment that can listen illegal.  There's a new law, passe in
November 1992, which will make it illegal to manufacture and/or import
a scanner capable of listening to cellular frequencies, but the impact
of that law does not take place until November 1993.  Even after Nov
93, ownership of a scanner that can receive cellular will not then be
illegal.

Summary ... it is the act of listening to cellular that is illegal.
Owning (or for that matter modifying) equipment capable of listening
to cellular is not now, nor will it be after November 1993, illegal.

> I realize that creating such a device to listen to phone users is
> borderline illegal but this is for a research project involving the
> ease of eavesdropping of cellular phones and I would appreciate any
> information on how it is accomplished.

As you mention, most "modifications" involve removing a diode which is
used to block the frequencies of cellular in the internal soft/firmware
of the scanner.

I do not condone listening to cellular, I'm just reporting the facts
as I understand them.

> [Moderator's Note: It is not 'borderline illegal' -- it is illegal. I
> am surprised the RS salesperson openly admitted what could be done.
> Usually they wait until you buy the unit then mention that 'they heard
> it could be done ...' and that 'a customer' left 'these notes and
> schematic here in the store one day ...' or words similar. We have
> covered this several times here in the past, and yes, modifications to
> scanners are quite easily accomplished for the most part. I do not
> know about the unit in question since you did not mention a model
> number, but with the PRO-34 (now discontinued) it was as simple as
> pulling a couple diodes (D-3 and D-4) off the circuit board. The radio
> then lost 30-50 megs as a result, but picked up full 800 coverage.  PAT]

Sorry Pat, you got the legality issue on this one wrong.  Nothing in
the ECPA makes ownership and/or modification of any type of receiving
equipment (scanners, etc.) illegal.  Furthermore, if modification was
illegal, why are there still many scanners available that do not block
cellular at all?  Additionally, nothing in the new cellular scanner
manufacture/import law addresses modification by an individual.  The
new law directs that manufacturers should only make/import units which
can not be "easily modified."  If, however, someone figures out a way
to modify such a scanner, that act (the modification) is not, in and
of itself, illegal.

I do not condone listening to cellular, I'm just reporting the facts
as I understand them.


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] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy
Date: 22 Feb 1993 10:22:53 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Nigel Allen) writes:

> Bell Canada's Yellow Pages subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications)
> Inc., makes Quebec companies that want to advertise in the English-
> language section of the Yellow Pages buy an advertisement of the same
> size in the French-language section as well, according to {Marketing}
> magazine (February 15, 1993, p. 3). The policy is apparently the result of a
> private agreement between Tele-Direct and a Quebec government agency,
> the Office de la Langue Francaise.

I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in
Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in
English.  Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not
allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller
indicates that they want to speak English.  And, (perhaps in the
"Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call
businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these
regulations.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
Date: 22 Feb 1993 10:26:39 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(tim gorman) writes:

> The AT&T operator can hold your line open for exactly the same reason
> AT&T can provide true coin service -- they are the only carrier
> willing to invest in the network capability for doing so.

Another nice thing about AT&T is that during a calling card call, you
can just flash the line to get an operator.  This makes it more
convenient to get credit for wrong numbers, bad connections, etc.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 07:01:03 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


Marc Unangst <[e-mail]>, a high school senior (coulda
fooled me!), writes about his legitimate reasons for having a pager:

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

>> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
>> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
>> or her at school.

> Well, I'm a high school senior here in Ann Arbor (Huron High School).
> I also carry a pager, both when I'm at school and when I'm not.  A few
> reasons why I find it convenient to have a pager:

[excellent set of reasons for a high school student to have a pager
deleted]

The {Orange County Register} recently carried a story about a local
teenager whose parents are very conservative Indians (they're from the
subcontinent, not misnamed Native Americans) who can't stand the idea
of him going out on dates with girls.  His solution: prospective dates
page him, he goes to the nearest payphone, calls the supplicant back,
and together they plan a rendezvous.  If mom worries where her boy is,
she pages him, and he calls back presently.  Everybody's happy.

Somehow, I knew there had to be a way to work sex into this.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: So why couldn't you have worked a story into it
about a call to his pager telling the poor boy to call some 540 number
in New York where he would hear some wanton woman, causing his
parent's phone bill to be some fantastic amount. We all like those
kinds of stories here.  :) PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 15:42:19 GMT
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: AT&T


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

> Motorola recently introduced a line of decorator pagers, neons and
> clear, aimed at the high-school market.

 From all references I have seen on the designer pagers it is geared
to the medical profession. Nurses were not impressed with the "any
color you want as long as its black" choice.  I did notice a large
number of doctor/nurses wearing them the last time I was at a
hospital. I also hear that Motorola is comming out with changeable
shells so you can coordiate your pager with your outfit.

I just wish big M would come out with a 800mhz watch pager, My vhf
model has lots of holes in the building.


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)   [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs   614-860-5965

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

From: Chris Hudel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch-Tone Database Questions
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 08:40:06 -0500 (EST)


Hello,

I'd like to enquire about a phone/hardware system that would allow me
to create a "touch-tone" database (of which I hope you're all
familiar) so that after dialing my number you hear -- completely
automated -- prompts for stuff like:

    "Press 1 for information about widgets"
        "Press 1 for service information"
        "Press 2 for product information"
        "Press * to go back"
            "(recorded message)"

Possible? Of course!  But where? and how? and how much $$?  I'm
thinking of a suped up PC with some tele-smart software on it but I'm
likely stuck in a mindset.


Thank you,

Chris

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan Shapiro)
Subject: Cellular Phone Questions
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads).
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 07:21:38 GMT


I really need some information on cellular phones - how they work,
advantages, disadvantages, etc ...

If anyone has information for me, I would appreciate it if you would
email me (our news service is less than fully reliable :-)


Thanks in advance,

JON   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, you've posed some very open-ended questions.
The discussion about cellular phones has gone on here for years. Maybe
one or more of our resident cellular phone experts here will write you
in email and try to answer your basic questions.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #125
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23857;
          22 Feb 93 12:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30121
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:18:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:17:56 -0600
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:17:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #124


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Feb 93 02:22:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 124

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Al Varney)
    Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Abhin Singla)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Al Varney)
    Re: Different Rates in Same Home? (John Higdon)
    UK PhONEyday (Richard Cox)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Alan Furman)
    Re: The War on Freedom (Jim Graham)
    An ISDN Paper I Wrote (John Landwehr)
    Hardware For Connecting Two Telephones Together With Dial Tone (S. Ibrahim)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Stephen H. Lichter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:45:57 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
Sun.COM writes:

> Backround: Small manufacturing company wants to make their customer
> service application more "responsive". They would like to pull the
> Caller-ID of the incoming call and use it to key a database retrieval.
> They want to do this today, under SunOS, and not use native ISDN
> connections to their Sun server. The number of incoming customer
> service lines will be small, probably two or three.

> Idea: For the most part, Caller-ID is available in the metro area. One
> can purchase a Caller-ID display unit for $50 or so from several
> sources (ie. AT&T phone centers, Radio Shack). I've heard that some of
> the newer caller id display units have RS-232 connections which may be

   They have Caller-ID via RS-232 on some versions.  However, you
could consider another approach.  For about $200, you can get a Supra
FAXModem Plus that will do Caller-ID, voice cut-through and works as a
9600 baud FAX unit.  Whether this is a reasonable method for your
application depends on whether the FAX part is useful to you, and
whether they support Sun-OS or can provide some "generic" software
interface.

   Supra is on 1-800-727-3443

   If you want to explore a TELCo-provided interface, you could look
into the one commonly used for Voice Messaging systems.  These
commonly use an RS-232 interface to the CO and can send combinations
of the called, calling and forwarding numbers in ASCII.  I don't know
if the tariffs on this are beyond the 3-line application, but it's an
alternative you could look at.


Al Varney - just my opinion, of course.

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

Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:47:51 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted


The device you request does exist.  It converts Callerr ID data to
ASCII and sends it to an RS232 port.  Try MoTron Electronics. (They
have a 1-800 number) but I don't have it hear now.  Let me know, and I
can get it for you.


Abhin Singla (u19520@UICVM)

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:11:32 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: AT&T


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes:

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

>> do I detect a little antipathy :-) toward interchangeable area
>> codes?  Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead?

> I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers.
> Think of it; a simple change where every existing number in the
> country has a certain digit added to the front of it, and it's done.
> No more area code splits, at least for the next 20 years.

   The NANP Administration has certainly suggested that NPA splits are
to be a thing of the past, assuming "overlay" NPAs like New York's
work out.  Seems more reasonable to me.

> And no problem of dialing a number and finding it disconnected (or
> answered by an unknown party) because the prefix was changed to some
> unknown area code.  Or worse, you assume the company went out of
> business.  With an eighth digit added, you always know what to do,
> even five or ten years after the change.  Here in Tokyo, where such a
> change occurred two years ago, there are plenty of signs that still
> show a seven-digit number.  But it's no problem; everyone knows to add
> a '3' to the front.

> Contrast that to the situation in Los Angeles, where one now never
> knows what area code one is in while out of familiar territory (and it
> matters because 1 + NPA + NXX-XXXX to your own area code is denied).

   Again, the NANP folks say 1 + home-NPA denial is stupid -- and I agree.

> Directory Assistance, as already mentioned in these screens, is
> another problem.  You know that someone lives somewhere in Los
> Angeles.  But if you don't know where in Los Angeles, you'll have to
> make three directory assistance calls.

   DA bureas set up on NPA boundaries are stupid.  (IMHO)

> I would even be so bold to suggest that after the conversion to
> eight-digit telephone numbers, L.A. go back to a single area code.

> I often try to feel for those poor souls who don't read TELECOM
> Digest.  I look on a piece of equipment here in Japan and call the
> number printed to ask a question.  It's a +1 312 number.  When I reach
> a telco recording, I know to try +1 708 instead.  But how many people
> in Japan know to do that?

   Under the "new" NANP Administration proposal, no number will ever
have to change NPAs, because new NPAs will overlay the old ones.  In
effect, the North American rather unique concept of NPAs will
gradually be altered to a ten-digit number whose first three digits
has a geographic association -- but a geographic location won't have a
unique NPA.

> Eight-digit numbers are the answer.

   Jim, the NANP folks are more far-sighted.  They claim:

1) Ten-digit dialing is the answer (no 1+, just ten0 digits in World
Zone 1, except for maybe 809) {why do eight digit now, then nine
digit, then ten, when ten is doable today for almost no cost?},

2) Variable-length digit conversion (mixing seven and eight digits,
retaining the concept of NPAs as "optional" digits, etc.) is not
easily done without mass confusion (when do you dial 1 + NPA + 7 vs. 1
+ NPA + 8, and how do the ICs all coordinate their routing with each
LEC) {whereas ten-digit dialing doesn't add or change ANYONEs number},
and,

3) The cost to add inter-changeable NPAs is several orders of
magnitude less than eight-digit "exchange" numbers, and doesn't change
the size of telephone numbers stored in data-bases, etc.

   So, with old NPA exhaust forcast for 1995 (mid-year), it was
clearly quicker and cheaper to go with interchangeable NPAs.  No one
was willing to even consider the cost of replacement of all those
seven-digit/ten-digit software (and hardware) structures in place in
the public telephone network, all within a few short years.


Al Varney - just my opinion, of course.

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 11:56 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Different Rates in Same Home?


[e-mail] writes:

> The only difference here is that we get two seperate bills and the
> lines are registered under two different names.  But they are in the
> same home, and both lines run to all of our phones.  Has the phone
> company allowed us to go against the tariff?

You may have slid through because of the two different billing names.
Also, tariffs vary widely from company to company and state to state.
For instance, I have in my home some business service, residential
unmeasured service, and residential measured service -- all in my name
and even sharing a common Commstar group (mini-Centrex). No problem.
The Pac*Bell tariff is silent on this matter.

However, if I lived four miles away in GTE territory, this would be
prohibited. With GTE, all lines must be the same class of service.
Why?  I don't know. Why does SWBT limit customers to three residence
lines? I don't know about that either. But it is screwy tariffs such
as these that will hasten customer acceptance of local dial tone
competition.

As I have pointed out before, Pac*Bell smelled the coffee long ago.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 00:49 GMT
From: Richard Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK PhONEyday
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) said:

> The result will be enough codes and numbers to last us well into the
> next century.

Unfortunately it won't.  Key area codes are likely to exhaust their
present number supply before long as, with the exception of five
cities, the change will not create any more numbers under existing
area codes.  London, which suffered an area code split in 1990, is
likely to run out *again* somewhere between 1999 and 2004.

If the UK must have a complete change (and with only 3% of the
possible numbers actually being used, the need for it is somewhat
debatable) then at least the change should be to a numbering scheme
that will be stable for a realistic period of time.

>>  Q: Why couldn't these changes have been made at the same time as the
>>  London code change?

>>  A: London simply couldn't wait for an increase in phone numbers.
>>  We had to act by 1990, and OFTEL hadn't made a decision about the
>>  National Code Change at that stage.

But when the London changes were publicised, BT could have considered
telling its customers that further number changes would be necessary.
Oddly enough, they didn't seem to even mention the possibility.


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 dialable on 511 in mainland USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:10:52 PST


Our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: My sympathies are with the Libertarians also, but a
> lot of good it does to vote for them. The television news does not
> even bother to report the Libertarian election results.  PAT]

You are of course quite right.  There is a major "catch-22" going on
with The Media: no publicity, no wins; no wins, no publicity.  But
this situation is changing.  Tamara Clark was endorsed by the
largest-selling newspaper in Nevada when she ran for the state senate
last November (and may have won--the election is still in dispute).
Here in California, LP dues-paying membership doubled in 1991, and
registrations increased by 30,000.  Last weekend, a libertarian named
Jim Warren, cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, gave a
talk at the California LP's convention.  At the national level, the LP
is verging on bankruptcy after mailing out propaganda in response to
the nearly 100,000 telephone inquiries that came in on 800-682-1776
last year.

And elsewhere: the Hungarian libertarian party, called FIDESZ, has
several seats in Parliament (what a difference proportional
representation makes ...).  Vaclav Klaus, the prime minister of the
Czech Republic, is a libertarian, as are a number of local government
officials in St. Petersburg, Russia.  (I found all this out, in case
you are wondering, from the newsletter of the International Society
for Individual Liberty, [e-mail]).

If you, the reader, are tired of the bogus "choice" between the
right-wing and left-wing styles of governmental micromanagement of
your life, there is an alternative.  But you're going to have to check
it out yourself; The Media aren't going to bring it to you on a silver
platter.


Alan T. Furman     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 12:06:36 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Freedom


Since my followup yesterday, and after reading some of the followups
since then, I've got some more comments, and an interesting observa-
tion to add ... this law actually works *AGAINST* law enforcement ...
read on.

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

> Let's call it what it is: the War on the Constitution.

Yep, that's about the size of it.

> [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard) on the Subject: The War on
> Pagers In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 105 wrote:

>> [Illinois law that forbids " `communication devices', which the law
>> defines as anything designed to receive or transmit radio signals
>> outside of the commercial broadcast band" with the intent to "forbid
>> cellular phones and pagers"].

Now, here's the interesting part.  :-) The police normally have
two-way radios, do they not?  These are a very important to both their
ability to do their jobs and to their safety, no?

So, consider this: the cops are called in to check something out at
the school ... nope, sorry, can't do that. Have to stay off school
grounds with that radio ... too bad.

And a slight twist on that one .... you go to pick up your son/daughter,
and the school staff wants to confiscate your cell-phone.  you refuse,
and they call the police.  a cop arrives, with his/her radio.  guess
what ... they just got their radio confiscated, too.

Now, consider this one: a kid in school is injured, severely ill, or
whatever.  An ambulance is called.  Nope, sorry ... we can't come on
school property because of the two-way radios in here. You'll have to
bring the kid to us, and if he/she is immobile, well, there's nothing
we can do. At the very best, the EMTs or paramedics (whatever) go to
the kid, but can't make any calls to a hospital, etc., until *AFTER*
they get off school grounds and back to the ambulance.  Doesn't seem
like a very good situation to me.

Another thing --- the high school I went to (in San Antonio, TX) used
two-way radios. All of the faculty members, and even the janitors (if
I remember correctly ... it's been a long time) had a radio on them
(except when teaching a class).  I suppose these are outlawed in
Illinois, too?

The law obviously applies to all of the above people just as much as
anyone else (after all, cops, ambulance drivers, and teachers are not
above the law any more than we are), so it seems to me that, if
enforced, it could actually do more damage than good, even to those
who wanted it in the first place.

> This sort of thing needs to be fought and stopped.  Write to the FCC.
> This is a clear interference in interstate commerce since these radios
> are operated by authorized users communicating with federally licensed
> carriers.

Here's how I look at it, with regards to Amateur Radio.  I have a
license issued to me by the FCC that authorizes me to use certain
types of radio equipment on certain frequencies within the US (and
elsewhere, if proper agreements exist and the right paperwork is
shuffled around), provided that I stay within the regulations as
specified in Part 97.

Now, say I walk onto school grounds, and they try to take my HT.  I
just politely explain to them that I have a license issued by the FCC,
and ask if they have the authority to override that license (knowing
that they don't), they lose. If they try to STEAL my HT, I defend
myself as I would against any other common (unarmed ...) thief.

Gee, I wish I'd known about this bs law while I was in Illinois ... I
would have walked across some school campus as a shortcut on my way
home from work or something ... while in the middle of a conversation
on one of the local repeaters.  :-)

Someone up there, do keep us informed as to how absurd things get if
anyone actually tries to enforce this law ...


jim

#include <std_disclaimer.h>                                 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]     ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)          AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL


[Moderator's Note: This is all getting just too silly to continue the
thread so let's close it off.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 15:41:38 -0600
From: John Landwehr <[e-mail]>
Subject: An ISDN Paper I Wrote


Pat,

I subscribed to your list a while back, and have found it very
interesting.

With all of the talk of ISDN, I just thought I would let you know that
I wrote a paper on ISDN called: "The Golden Splice, Beginning a Global
Digital Phone Network" for an independent study class here at
Northwestern last fall.

I thought you might want to make it available to people on the list at
a ftp site or something.

(And since I am graduating in June, maybe I can get a couple job
offers from somewhere :-)

It was created on a NeXT, but should print elsewhere ...


JL


[Moderator's Note: John's paper is quite lengthy and has been filed in
the Telecom Archives under 'isdn.paper' for interested readers. Use
anonymous ftp lcs.edu for access.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Shahril Ibrahim)
Subject: Hardware For Connecting Two Telephones Together With Dial Tone
Date: 21 Feb 1993 23:38:16 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Hi Fellow Netters,

I am looking for some cheap hardware that will allow me to connect two
phones together with a dial tone. I am trying to test a voicemail
system I've been working on.  The box/hardware doesn't have to connect
to an outside line.

Any help would be much appreciated,


Cheers,

Shahril    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Date: 22 Feb 1993 07:58:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


I can't believe it -- John quoting my statement on the old bitties out
a dozen or so years ago when Catalina Island was being brought into
the 20th century with a real switch and not just a strip on the San
Pedro cord board. By the way there was a system much like that in
Santa Barbara when Reagan became President that went in to Santa
Barbara Toll. GTE placed a EAX remote out there and boy was there a
hoot from the locals.


Steven H. Lichter    GTE Calif COEI

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #124
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24905;
          23 Feb 93 4:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26030
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16815
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:00 -0600
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #126

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Feb 93 01:01:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 126

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phone Outage in Livermore, CA Area (Lin Zuccoin via Mark Boolootian)
    Toll Station Conversion (was CA CNID Stuff) (John Higdon)
    Need Help With CCITT Recommendations (Tracy M. Nelson)
    Just Dial 10-ATT-0 (Dick Rawson)
    Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Douglas W. Martin)
    Executech M0412 Manual Wanted ([e-mail])
    RBOC Detail Billing Records Retention; Interesting Case (Mark Seiden)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Mark Walsh)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Andrusiak)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Marvin)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Ed Hopper)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mike Seebeck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: Phone Outage in Livermore, CA Area
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:54:11 -0800 (PST)


[Moderator's Note: Mark passed along this interesting item. Thanks.  PAT]

  Date: 18 Feb 1993 09:06:10 U
  From: "Lin Zucconi" <[e-mail]>
  Subject: "Telephone Service Cut Off"

The {Valley Times} (Feb.18) reported that telephone service was cut
off for more than four hours to about 37,000 phone lines in Livermore,
CA including "911" and operator "O" lines. The article said that "the
significance (of the malfunction) was in having three prefixes that
can't reach emergency phone lines. The phone company [Pacific Bell]
was stymied in correcting the problem because diagnostic tests of the
equipment told technicians that there was no problem. Technicians
eventually located the problem in a call processor computer tape and
replaced the malfunctioning tape." Luckily for those of us that live
here, this is a relatively low crime area and no serious crimes
occurred during the outage. Some banks compensated by letting in only
a few customers at a time because they were concerned that their alarm
systems wouldn't be able to call police.

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

Mark Boolootian        [e-mail]        [phone]
Disclaimer:  booloo speaks for booloo and no other.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 13:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Toll Station Conversion (was CA CNID Stuff)


[e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter) writes:

> I can't believe it -- John quoting my statement on the old bitties out
> a dozen or so years ago when Catalina Island was being brought into
> the 20th century with a real switch and not just a strip on the San
> Pedro cord board.

Hey, truth is truth. While I did not attend that particular hearing,
the arguments presented were the source of much urban legend. In fact,
every time a manual office is about to bite the dust, there is much
protest. After all, as a correspondent pointed out, after conversion
you lose such features as "voice recognition", "wake up service",
"auto call-forwarding", and even a form of Caller-ID.

And speaking of manual conversions, does anyone know if the toll
stations up toward Sonora Pass have gone away yet? I am speaking of
Clark Fork #1, Clark Fork #2, Dardanelle #1, Dardanelle #2, etc.
Within the last couple of years the Mojave Desert stations have gone
dial (e.g. Ludlow), but it has been awhile since I have had time to go
camping up above Pinecrest and Strawberry. (And you can bet the road
is closed right now from all the crystalized future drinking water.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tracy M Nelson)
Subject: Need Help With CCITT Recommendations
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:21:43 GMT


Can anyone tell me what the recommended guidelines for data-quality
lines are (regarding attenuation, frequency response, losses between
switch points, etc.)?  I have gone through much of the CCITT Blue Book
(however I *don't* have fascicle III.3, recommendations G.601 through
G.654 on transmission media).  Most of the references I have read seem
more oriented towards measurement of existing conditions.  What I need
are minimum requirements to ensure a relatively low error rate during
V.32 synchronous communication.  Can anyone point me in the right
direction?  I've read EIA-634, but that wasn't quite what I needed.
Any help will be greatly appreciated!


Tracy Nelson

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 19:48:57 PST
From: [e-mail] (Dick Rawson)
Subject: Just Dial 10-ATT-0


I'm in the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Raleigh NC, just now, in room 1028.
A little earlier I got a good laugh from a wrong number.  The phone
rang; all I heard when I picked it up was a touch-tone beep.  Now look
at my room number again!

This is one of those hotels that doesn't support 10xxx IEC selection.
(And it's a T1S1 meeting; T1S1 does ISDN standards.  Oh well.)


Dick Rawson, BT North America


[Moderator's Note: In 1969-73 I worked in an office where my centrex
extension was 7264. Outside calls were placed by dialing 9 and the
number. On the first floor of this building was a bar and grill where
large numbers of employees went for lunch each day, or they would call
downstairs and have lunch delivered up to their offices. The number
for the place downstairs was (not on our centrex) RANdolph (726)-4xxx.
Every day almost without fail at 11:45 AM my phone would ring. I would
answer, a voice on the other end would say 'oh shit' or something
similar and hang up. Almost daily, someone would forget to dial the 9
for an outside line.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 08:28:52 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin)
Subject: Quirks and Questions on international dialing


     Just some quirks of international dialing:

Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement"
"Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region."  In
Diego Garcia, (246) all numbers appear to be four digits, with the
first digit always a nine.  Any other combination got "Your
international call cannot be completed as dialed."

In Malaysia (60) dialing 1-xxxxxx got a recording to the effect that
it was now necessary to dial (11) instead of just (1) to reach mobile
phones in Malaysia.  The Zone 6 file in the archives has 60-2 as its
first entry.

I was unable to connect to either Wallis and Futuna (681) or Papua New
Guinea (675); all attempts got the American intercept, "your
international call cannot be completed as dialed."  Does anyone know
of working numbers or intercepts in these places?  And another
question: Can dialing too many digits cause the call not to complete?
e.g. if a country has four-digit numbers, and I dial seven digits,
should the call complete on the first four, or could the extra digits
cause "your international call cannot be completed as dialed"?
Finally, has anyone successfully called the Australian Antarctic
Territories?  If so, please supply a working number.


Thanks,

Doug Martin      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Regarding Antarctica, for some reason a call from
thirty plus years ago stands out in my memory. The old 'Rate and
Route' bureau in Morris, IL told the local operator to hand me off to
the overseas operator in Oakland, CA. That operator in turn looked
into the matter and reported that contact with Antarctica was made by
the Sydney, Australia radiotelephone operator, and that " ... they
allow calls from the USA on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday" at some
time of day I've long since forgotten. I remember her saying there was
some time available "a couple days from now if you want me to book
you for it ..." I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are
now direct dialable.  I have no idea what the country code is.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 12:56:32 -0500 (EST)
From: MedImage <[e-mail]>
Subject: Executech M0412 Manual Wanted


We have a Excutech M0412 phone system and the installers refuse to
supply the manual.  It has all sorts of programmable features.  So,
the articles I read about unauthorized use of a company's telephone
lines worries me.  Also, I know the installers are incompetant and
there has to be easier ways of setting up some of the features here.
Does anyone have the manual?  Can I get a copy?  (Rev C, by the way).


[Moderator's Note: *Why* do they refuse to supply the manual? Have
you asked the company itself (customer service, etc) for copies?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Seiden)
Subject: RBOC Detail Billing Records Retention; Interesting Case
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:05:46 GMT


I've gotten involved (just as a pro-bono telecom consultant) in an
interesting case, which perhaps telecom readers can help with.
Please, only make authoritative suggestions based on your expert
knowledge of the technology -- no amateur legal advice needed...

Without naming names:

In 1990, our client, an unsophisticated investor who had inherited
some money, lost a lot of it in the market. The claim is her
broker, who had discretionary trading authority, churned her account,
resulting in sizeable commissions to him.

Now, here's the interesting twist:

Both the client and the broker are deaf. The broker claims to have
(but has not produced) TDD thermal paper messages (when the TDD was
acting as an "answering machine" (and a few interactive conversations)
from the client showing her specific approval of and substantial
participation in the trading.

The client claims no such conversations occurred. Her phone bills
also show no such calls.

We are looking for a mechanism whereby we can establish what calls the
broker placed to the client.

The phone company, NYTel, claims that detailed records of calls are
not available beyond 18 months of the billing date, or perhaps the
calling date. This is the factoid I doubt ... anyone know who at the
NY PSC could tell me what the proper records retention should be and
in what form these records are actually stored?  (The period in
question would be almost three years ago, mid '90.)

I find it incredible that the retention period of phone records
wouldn't be at least as long as the statute of limitations for
criminal actions.

These would not be local calls, but itemized calls between 212 and 516
area codes, so no IXC is involved.

We are trying to find out whether the brokerage firm had voice logging
or SMD; they disclaim (or haven't produced) detail records of local
calls.

(Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any records of messages done in
real time on a magnetic medium, only on paper ... and at the moment we
only have transcripts of them, not the originals.)

(If anyone knows of document examiners with special expertise in dating
thermal paper, send them my way, we may need them if the original tape
is produced ...)


mark seiden, [e-mail], 1-[phone] (voice)


[Moderator's Note: I strongly suspect the records you seek are on
microfilm, although possibly in an obscure location somewhere such as
a warehouse. But at three years, you are pressing your luck. I'd get
them now if they are around at all.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Walsh)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Date: 22 Feb 93 20:41:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jamie
Hanrahan):

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

>> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
>> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
>> technological war with anyone.

The FCC knows this.  They are merely implementing the will of our
beloved elected representatives.

> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
> so?

> If you only move one call at a time, you'd only need one free channel
> in the cell.

Do you realize what you are suggesting?  Why, this would cause the
cellular phone industry to spend several dollars more per phone!  It
is far, far cheaper for them to continue to buy off our elected
officials, and make them pass laws which give the cell phone user an
illusion of security.  I mean, an illusion is as good as the real
thing, isn't it?  :-(


Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861

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

From: John Andrusiak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:24:16 GMT


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

> Then again, none of us got to vote for the Telecom Moderator but we
> have to put up with him. There seems to be an element of tyranny in
> his management of the responsibilities he has undertaken and I don't
> always agree with his policies or opinions but I am generally willing
> to accept that he is human, fallible, quirky, opinionated, stubborn,
> sometimes self-righteous but also a dedicated and hard-working doer of
> the moderation task. He does the job as he sees his responsibility to
> the 'consumers' and to the policies and laws regulating the medium.

> Frankly, it's hard to see any really essential difference between
> his role and modus operandi and the public servants he seems to feel
> some superiority towards.

The difference is quite clear. Goto the news.announce.newusers group
and read "What is Usenet".

The answer is that when I disagree with the TELECOM Moderator, I can
go and set up comp.dcom.telecom.unmoderated. (Or alt.dcom.telecom.
unmoderated if I want to go all out.) Nothing is preventing you from
going elsewhere to discuss things you want to.

This is a major difference from your average civil servant, who when
you suggest how you can "go around" that person quite easily, gets
upset and starts listing how many different ways they can have you
thrown in jail.  As a comparision, go try and set up your own version
of the FBI. You'll have much more trouble than trying to set up
comp.dcom.telecom.unmoderated.

The attitude shows in the policy of the FCC trying to pretend that
part of the spectrum is not there. The real solution is quite simple.
Encryption. It would not be that difficult to add encryption to the
next generation of digital cellular phones. It might not even require
the assistance of the carriers. But is would mean the FBI/NSA/CIA
couldn't spy on the citizens it's supposedly trying to protect.


John Andrusiak - [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 17:43:39 -0700
From: John Marvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO


> Does anyone have any additional information on these bogus cellular
> numbers?  Can anything be done to stop it?  Or is it going to get
> worse when someone invents a phone that the number can be changed
> dynamically without the need to plug in a chip?

Or worse yet (better yet for the criminals), what about a cellular
phone that automatically monitored for valid ID's and then
automatically used a new one for each fraudulent call?

> The cellular industry seriously underestimated the technical
> competence and determination of the population when they were
                                     ^ criminal
>  designing the current system.

That's the truth!


John Marvin   [e-mail]

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

From: ehbbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Ed Hopper)
Date: 22 Feb 93 07:08:00 GMT
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Berkeley Lake, GA - 404-446-9462
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ed Hopper)


> Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get the very
> first interchangable area code?  I imagine that they may find themselves
> hard to call for a while.

I work in AT&T's internal data processing and telecom organization
(IMS).  Our job is to provide those services to the various business
units.

At any rate, we have about 400 switches at different locations around
the US.  In addition, there are a good number of switches that are
owned outright by the business units.  We are working hard on NANP
conversions.  In some cases it's easy, just a software upgrade.  Older
switches need new hardware.  In any event, it has tied up a lot of our
resources.

If you're responsible for a switch, you better be making plans to
insure that it will cope with the changes.


Ed Hopper's BBS - ehbbs.com - Berkeley Lake (Atlanta), Georgia
USR/HST:404-446-9462 V.32bis:404-446-9465-Home of uuPCB Usenet for PC Board

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 12:35:17 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


I thought I saw something in the Digest about 813 (Florida) possibly
being split by using one of the NNX area codes.  It's apparently too
soon to be announcing a new area code in Florida (which now has 1 +
NPA + 7D statewide for all toll calls, and I personally saw this
posted near Pensacola in area 904).

I am wondering how full (at least of NNX) area 703 in Virginia is.  I
was just back in Winchester after some absence, and the local phone
book listed three Winchester prefixes I had not seen before:
336,542,678.  Area 703 has N0X/N1X prefixes, but as far as I know they
are still not found beyond the Washington DC local calling area.  If
703 will have to be split with an NNX area code, my guess is that at
least the DC area will stay in 703.

Obviously, Maryland, where I am, would not be the first to get an NNX
area code.  301/410 split was just fully cut over last November.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Seebeck)
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:03:52 GMT


This will soon be a moot point in US West territories and elsewhere.
The North American dialing plan is being changed because we have run
out of area codes.  The solution to this problem is to remove
restrictions that require area codes to have a "1" or a "0" in the
second digit and central office codes to have digits from "2" through
"9" in their second position.

    The consequence is that area codes and co codes will no longer
look different.  It will be possible to have a number such as
(303)303-XXXX.  To deal with this the RBOC will require that area
codes be dialed with all toll calls.  Numbers that are presently
dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil now be dialed 1-(NXX)NXX-XXXX.

    This will have an economic impact on many owners of phone
systems.  The routing tables of many PBXs will require an update to
available memory if the PBX is using least cost or automatic routing.
PBX manufacturers are providing updates to the software to handle the
need for larger tables.  Many owners will require both an upgrade to
the software and a hardware upgrade.  Esitimates as to the number of
systems incompatible with the new dialing plan range from 30% to 60%.
Looks like switch manufacturers will be doing a bang up business in
upgrades.


Michael Seebeck     Sr.Telecomm Consultant
RMH Group, Lakewood, CO,USA   main(303)239-0909      direct 239-2761

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #126
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27746;
          23 Feb 93 5:42 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11159
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 02:32:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18198
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 02:32:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: I am the Stupidest Klutz Alive! :(
To: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 2:32:03 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]


I am sitting here kicking myself in the butt. For no reason other than
my own clumsiness, ALL the Orange Card requests you sent me were wiped
out .... :(

I had received several hundred requests. They were all in a file in
my home directory on '[e-mail]' entitled 'orange.requests'.
They had been accumulating all day for a mailing to get underway on
Tuesday.

Then one arrived in the telecom mailbox ... and for no reason other
than I apparently don't have my head screwed on straight today, I
chose to put the one from the telecom account over in the other
account with this command:

     mv ~/orange.request /users/guest/ptownson/orange.requests

Of course, a fraction of a second after I hit the return key I
realized I had just wiped out the file and replaced it with the
one entry .... :(

Now I would like to go out and shoot myself or something. It is after
2 AM here and I do not need this.

 **** Everyone who wrote me email asking for a brochure and application
      please write and ask again *****

Please!   and accept my heartfelt apologies for the confusion this
has caused.  I am terribly embarrassed by this.

Remember, I need a snail address to mail out the brochure.


Patrick Townson

Please write to: [e-mail]
         fax to: 312-743-0002   (faxes were NOT lost)
Mail to: Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690

(attempting to be a long distance reseller but with a very red face.)











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20377;
          23 Feb 93 16:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27783
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:15:24 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30040
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:14:56 -0600
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:14:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #127

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Feb 93 13:14:40 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 127

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The War on Pagers (Paul Lutt)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Kevin M. Dunn)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Kous van den Hout)
    Re: The War on Pagers (Scott D. Brenner)
    Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Bohdan Tashchuk)
    Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Matt Healy)
    Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Kevin Davis)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (John Rice)
    Re: Touch-Tone Database Questions (Wil Dixon)
    Re: Different Rates in Same Home (Mark Williams)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Lutt)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:41:57 GMT


One reader expressed the sentiment that there was no valid reason for
a student to have a pager.  Our local county Search and Rescue
organization uses trained Explorer scouts for low land searches.
Trying to perform a callout during school hours is a nightmare.  Many
of the active student participants have purchased digital pagers that
are programmed for a group page that pages the whole unit.  These
pagers have both the beeper and vibrate modes, so the students can get
pages without disturbing those around them.

Now I suppose there will be those that would argue that these students
should stick to school and not go on searches.  My personal experience
has been that those that take the training and participate in searches
are quite mature and don't use searches as an excuse for not getting
their school work done.

Just my $.02 worth.


Paul Lutt  Domain: [e-mail]  UUCP: uunet!fluke!pwl
Voice: [phone]
Snail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett, WA 98206-9090

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

From: Kevin M. Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Date: 23 Feb 93 12:47:27 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


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

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
> drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
> hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
> who has it.

  What about volunteer firefighters/ambulance attendants.  My high
school was located about 200 feet from my ambulance service, and
within 1 mile of the local fire station.  Many's the time I was
required to leave school because of an emergency call.

  Of course, my leaving had been pre-arranged with the principal, the
school board, and all of the teachers involved.  I was responsible for
all work and lessons missed, and of course used common sense: I didn't
leave during tests, for example.

 As for an impediment to learning, nonsense.  A pager turned on
minimum (or even with only an earphone-jack, as many of my friends
used) is less disruptive then passing notes!


Kevin M. Dunn ([e-mail]), HRB Systems, Inc. State College,  PA
#include "disclaimer.std" |   #include "saying.witty"
Volunteer Firefighter     |  Volunteer PA Emergency Medical Technician

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:34:24 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: In most places, the law provides that during school
> hours, school administrators have parental rights -- I forget the
> exact Latin term -- and as such have complete authority over the minor
> children in their custody.  I guess they can set the rules, just as
> parents can set the rules at home.   PAT]

I believe the term is "in loco parentis", "in place of the parents" or
something similar.  The modern translation is "you gotta be loco to
want parental authority", since if you claim "in loco parentis"
authority, you become liable for failure to control the child,
particularly in the case of the child becoming pregnant or getting
someone pregnant.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 17:07:23 GMT+2
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers


[e-mail] (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) writes:

>> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide.  Illinois state law allows
>> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just
>> students) who brings them onto school property.  If I visit my son's
>> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it.  If I
>> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can
>> confiscate the cellular phone in my car.  An adult who gives a student
>> such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a
>> $10,000 fine.

> This sounds blatantly unconstituational, being seizure with due
> process.  Has this law had to stand up in court yet?  Has anyone been
> jailed or fined yet?  Or is it too new a law, still?  It would be
> interesting to know how long this law has been around and if any other
> states have it.

> Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids
> pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is
> forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*.

I'm sorry, this must be something 'really american' that I am missing
here, but what is wrong with carrying a pager or a cellphone ? I can
see usage in class as a minor offence against school rules, but 'not
allowed to bring onto the premises by law' is something completely
different.

Would someone please enlighten me on this matter ?


Grtx.

Koos van den Hout ----------------------------------------------- Sysop
Student Computer Science (AKA HIO)       BBS Koos z'n Doos ([phone])
Inter-: [e-mail]                 300..14400 MNP2-5,10,V42bis)
net   : [e-mail]    |  Use PGP for  |   Fido: Sysop @ 2:500/101.11012
Schurftnet : KILL !!!     | private mail! |       Give us a call !!

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

From: [e-mail] (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: Re: The War on Pagers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:54:46 GMT


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

> Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to
> make them perfectly reasonable.  Change the law so that (a) =students=
> are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all
> other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a
> legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local
> principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING.

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  Never mind the
> drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom
> hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person
> who has it.

> If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the
> school.  They know where the student is and can relay a message as
> quickly or as slowly as it requires.  (If they don't know where your
> child is, then you have an even bigger problem.)  If a student in
> school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until
> after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to
> think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other.

Sorry to butt in here, but I have a question about pagers that I think
many of the participants of this thread would be able to answer.  But
before I ask it, I'll put in my $0.02 about "The War on Pagers."  I
agree that it's hard to think of a reason that a school kid needs a
pager or a cellphone. I suppose there might be a few extenuating
circumstances, but they would be very rare; the school principal,
administrators, and teachers could be informed of the situation and
make a special allowance or come up with some other arrangement.  I
don't think that passing laws is the best way to solve the problem.

Now for my question: Although I used to carry a pager for work, I
don't anymore (I'm *not* upset by this!).  My wife is due to give
birth to our first child in June.  As the due date approaches, I'd
like for her to be able to get in touch with me instantly.  I have a
transportable cellphone that I turn on whenever I'm in the car, and
she (obviously) has my phone number at work.  But if I'm in a meeting,
or otherwise away from my desk or car, she has no way of contacting
me.

I'd like to get a pager just for a month or so.  Since they've always
just been given to me at work when my employer wanted me to carry one,
I've never actually procured one myself.  Is it possible to get one
for such a short period of time?  Where would I get one; who would I
contact?  And what should I expect it to cost?  Is this a poor
solution to my situation; are there any better alternatives?

All advice (especially from you "new" parents) would be greatly
appreciated.


a T d H v A a N n K c S e

Scott D. Brenner          AT&T Consumer Communications Services
[e-mail]                  Basking Ridge, New Jersey


[Moderator's Note: This thread really has gone on longer than most and
the replies are becoming redundant; so let's kill it at this time.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Subject: Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls
Organization: Fast Technology --- Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:59:44 GMT


> When you couple the above events with the fact that Bell never made
> this application public (it leaked to the press only a month ago), you
> get this appalling picture of a corporation that will do anything, it
> seems, to retain its position as the most profitable organization in
> Canada. If the most profitable organization says that they cannot
> afford to provide "essential" services for the needy, then who can,
> and who will?

Who can? Who should? You, the taxpayer, DIRECTLY!

The beauty of telecomm costs is that they are so easily identified and
segregated. If you, as part of your vision of a greater Utopia, feel
that certain classes of people deserve free or subsidized phone
services, then you can work thru your elected representatives to
achieve that goal.

In general (not commenting on the particular situation here), these
types of subsidies exist SOLELY because they are hidden. There isn't
enough broad-based support for them for the legislature to appropriate
funds directly. That's why the special interest groups find it easier
to achieve social policy thru fiats made by unelected regulatory
agencies.

Collectively, you the taxpayers are by far the "most profitable
organization" in the country. If this subsidy is worthwhile, then YOU
should pay for it. Don't whine if your attempted coercion of another
organization is met with resistance.


Bohdan

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls
Organization: Yale U. - Genetics
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:43:37 GMT


I always thought the policy should be: if, and only if, the number is
correct in the printed directory, they get to charge you.  If the
directory is wrong or outdated, then it's free!

My reasoning is simple: they claim the reason for charging for DA is
to encourage me to use my local directory.  I do!  I only call DA when
the local phone book does not have what I need!  Name another business
where they can get away with charging to fix their errors!

That might encourage more accurate directories, more frequent
reprinting of directories, better intercept facilities for changed
numbers, etc ...


Matt Healy    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Davis)
Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:29:45 GMT


Ronal Thompson writes:

> I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU
> products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process
> and require information of current vendors. Our list now includes:

INC (Integrated Network Corp)    Bridgewater NJ
Transtream Inc            Agoura Hills CA

The INC 1056E has been around a long time and is quite reliable.  Also
offered in a two-unit rack-mount version.

I was involved in testing two sw56 CSU/DSU from Dowty (Case/Datatel ?)
about five years ago.  All I can say is: I hope they have improved
since then.  (RS366 dialing was "dowt-ful" and user interface was very
poor).


[e-mail]    Kevin Davis   PictureTel Corp

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 17:33:09 GMT


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> their equipment in order to support NXX area codes?  Can you imagine
> how many things in the US would break if the conversion were made to
> eight digit local numbers (or four digit area codes)?  I can't imagine

Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for
three digits + seven digits.  They would have to remain on a seven
digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to
do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation.

Outdialing would still work, but every auto-hyphenation scheme would
be immediately broken ... it expects xxx-xxx-xxxx.  And most software
which uses phone numbers would be broken.  Interfere? Of course we'll
interfere. Always do what you're best at, I say.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 16:21:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Krueger) writes:

> Andrew Blau writes:

>> LECs, too ... have made it clear that they believe telcos have a
>> _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of
>> tomorrow's 'data superhighways.'

> The question of course being: what role.  The role played by my
                                --------
> manager and by my condo's management company, for instance, are
> usefully different.

Why the role to get paid by the users?  What other role could they
possibly be interested in?


John Rice   K9IJ     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Wil Dixon)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Database Questions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 19:59:20 GMT


Chris Hudel <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'd like to enquire about a phone/hardware system that would allow me
> to create a "touch-tone" database (of which I hope you're all
> familiar) so that after dialing my number you hear -- completely
> automated -- prompts for stuff like:

>    "Press 1 for information about widgets"
>        "Press 1 for service information"
>        "Press 2 for product information"
>        "Press * to go back"
>            "(recorded message)"

The Complete PC, Big Mouth, Watson are all readily available products
in the $200 -$400 range that will do what you want.  The scheme is
often called automated attendant, audio text, receptionist and
probably a dozen other things.

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

Date: 23 Feb 1993 01:11:55 +0000 (GMT)
From: [e-mail] (Mark Williams)
Subject: Re: Different Rates in Same Home?
Organization: Texas Christian University


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

> However, if I lived four miles away in GTE territory, this would be
> prohibited. With GTE, all lines must be the same class of service.
> Why?  I don't know. Why does SWBT limit customers to three residence
> lines? I don't know about that either. But it is screwy tariffs such

I currently have four lines at my residence in Fort Worth, used to
have four lines at my residence in Houston, and talked to a SWBT
residential billing representative last week that mentioned a customer
with six residential lines in a hunt group.  All are within SWBT
areas.  But the reps do get curious ...


Mark Williams    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:09:57 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan


[e-mail] (Mike Seebeck) writes:

> This will soon be a moot point in US West territories and elsewhere.

This comment, although immediately followed by comment about the
coming of NNX area codes, is a little out of context.  What will soon
be a moot point?

> [current] restrictions ... require ... central office codes to have
> digits from "2" through "9" in their second position.

As noted in the history.of.area.splits archive file, this restriction
has already come off in several area codes to stave off a split then
and there.  But in that same file, it's asked: when area codes become
NXX in form (not just N0X/N1X), what becomes of "no N0X/N1X prefixes
until NNX runs short"?

> It will be possible to have a number such as (303)303-XXXX.  To deal
> with this the RBOC will require that area codes be dialed with all
> toll calls.  Numbers that are presently dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil now be
> dialed 1-(NXX)NXX-XXXX.

Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all
toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes?  If so, please
provide specific area codes if available.  There was a recent blurb
about a change (to be done for the same reason) in the New England
states except Connecticut; however, those areas will use 7D for all
calls within an area code.

A "courtesy" that emerged with the coming of N0X/N1X prefixes is that
you don't use your own or nearby area codes as prefixes.  In
advertisements, word of mouth, etc., this avoids some confusion so
that when you hear your own or a nearby area code, you know there are
seven (not four) more digits.  Such "courtesy" was made "legal" in the
Washington DC area (and where local service exists across the 301/410
boundary in Md.), because people there are instructed to use NPA + 7D
(no leading 1 required, but optional as far as I know) for local calls
across area code boundary.  (In MD and VA, other cases of local calls
to another area code are still seven digits.  Long distance within
301,410, 703 -- not yet 804, which still has 1 + 7D -- is 1 + NPA +
7D.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #127
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12540;
          24 Feb 93 2:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15417
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:25:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10186
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:24:55 -0600
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:24:55 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees


I am pleased to present this transcript in its entirety of the
meeting on Monday, February 22 between President Bill Clinton and
Vice-President Gore with the employees of Silicon Graphics. My thanks
to the Internet Society for supplying the transcript and Mark Boolootian
for preparing it for the TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom group.

PAT

  From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
  Subject: Transcript of Clinton/Gore SGI meeting
  Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:53:39 -0800 (PST)


The following is provided via the courtesy of the Internet Society
White House Press Release Gopher Service.


  E X E C U T I V E   O F F I C E   O F   T H E   P R E S I D E N T

                        THE WHITE HOUSE

                 Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                          February 22, 1993


                         REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                          AND VICE PRESIDENT TO
                        SILICON GRAPHICS EMPLOYEES

                             Silicon Graphics
                        Mountain View, California


10:00 A.M. PST

        THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I want to thank you all for the
introduction to your wonderful company.  I want to thank Ed and Ken
 -- we saw them last night with a number of other of the executives from
Silicon Valley -- people, many of them with whom I've worked for a
good length of time; many of whom the Vice President's known for a
long time in connection with his work on supercomputing and other
issues.

        We came here today for two reasons, and since mostly we just
want to listen to you I'll try to state this briefly.  One reason was
to pick this setting to announce the implementation of the technology
policy we talked about in the campaign, as an expression of what we
think the national government's role is in creating a partnership with
the private sector to generate more of these kinds of companies, more
technological advances to keep the United States always on the cutting
edge of change and to try to make sure we'll be able to create a lot
of good new jobs for the future.

        The second reason -- can I put that down?  We're not ready yet
for this.  The second reason I wanted to come here is, I think the
government ought to work like you do.  (Applause.)  And before that
can ever happen we have to be able to get the people, the Congress,
and the press who have to interpret all this to the people to imagine
what we're talking about.

        I have, for example, the first state government in the country
that started a total quality management program in all the departments
of government, trying to figure out how we could reinvent the
government.  And I basically believe my job as President is to try to
adjust America in good ways so that we can win in the 21st century, so
that we can make change our friend and not our enemy.

        Ed said that you plan your new products knowing they'll be
obsolete within 12 to 18 months, and you want to be able to replace
them.  We live in an era of constant change.  And America's biggest
problem, if you look at it through that lens, is that for too many
people change is an enemy, not a friend.  I mean, one reason you're
all so happy is you found a way to make change your friend, right?
Diversity is a strength, not a source of division, right?  (Applause.)
Change is a way to make money, not throw people out of work, right?

        If you decentralize and push decisions made down to the lowest
possible level you enable every employee to live up to the fullest of
their ability.  And you don't make them -- by giving them a six-week
break every four years, you don't force them to make these sharp
divisions between your work life and your private life.  It's sort of
a seamless web.  These are things we need to learn in America, and we
need to incorporate even into more traditional workplaces.

        So I'd like to start -- we'll talk about the technology policy
later, and the Vice President, who had done so much work, will talk a
lot about the details at the end of this meeting.  But I just want to
start by telling you that one of our missions -- in order to make this
whole thing work we're going to have to make the government work
differently.

        Example: We cut the White House staff by 25 percent to set a
standard for cutting inessential spending in the government.  But the
work load of the White House is way up.  We're getting all-time record
telephone calls and letters coming in, and we have to serve our
customers, too.  Our customers are the people that put us there, and
if they have to wait three months for an answer to a letter, that's
not service.

        But when we took office, I walked into the Oval Office -- it's
supposed to be the nerve center of the United States -- and we found
Jimmy Carter's telephone system.  (Laughter.)  All right.  No speaker
phone, no conference calls, but anybody in the office could punch the
lighted button and listen to the President talk.  (Laughter.)  So that
I could have the conference call I didn't want but not the one I did.
(Laughter and applause.)

        Then we went down into the basement where we found Lyndon
Johnson's switchboard.  (Laughter.)  True story -- where there were
four operators working from early morning till late at night --
literally, when a phone would come and they'd say, "I want to talk to
the Vice President's office," they would pick up a little cord and
push it into a little hole.  (Laughter.)  That's today -- right?

        We found procedures that were so bureaucratic and cumbersome
for procurement that Einstein couldn't figure them out, and all the
offices were organized in little closed boxes -- just the opposite of
what you see.

        In our campaign, however -- we ran an organization in the
presidential campaign that was very much like this.  Most decisions
were made in a great big room in morning meetings that we had our
senior staff in, but any 20-year-old volunteer who had a good idea
could walk right in and say, "here's my idea."  Some of them were very
good and we incorporated them.

        And we had a man named Ellis Mottur who helped us to put
together our technology policy who said -- he was one of our senior
citizens; he was in his 50s.  (Laughter.)  And he said, "I've been
writing about high-performance work organizations all my life.  And
this is the first one I've ever worked in and it has no organizational
chart.  I can't figure out what it looks like on paper, but it works."

        The Vice President was making fun of me when we were getting
ready for the speech I gave Wednesday night to the Congress; it was
like making sausage.  People were running in and out saying, put this
in and take this out.  (Laughter.)  But it worked.  You know, it
worked.  (Applause.)

        So I want to hear from you, but I want you to know that we
have hired a person at the Office of Management and Budget who has
done a lot of work in creating new businesses and turning businesses
around -- to run the management part of that.  We're trying to review
all these indictments that have been issued over the last several
years about the way the federal government is run.  But I want you to
know that I think a major part of my missions is to literally change
the way the national government works, spends your tax dollars, so
that we can invest more and consume less and look toward the future.
And that literally will ^L require rethinking everything about the way
the government operates.

        The government operates so much to keep bad things from
happening that there's very little energy left in some places to make
good things happen.  If you spend all your time trying to make sure
nothing bad happens there's very little time and money and human
energy left to make good things happen.  We're going to try to pare
away a lot of that bureaucracy and speed up the decision-making
process and modernize it.  And I know a lot of you can help.
Technology is a part of that, but so is organization and empowerment,
which is something you've taught us again today.  And I thank you very
much.  (Applause.)

        We want to do a question and answer now, and then the Vice
President is going to talk in more detail about our technology policy
later.  But that's what we and Ed agreed to do.  He's my boss today;
I'm doing what he -- (laughter.)  So I wonder if any of you have a
question you want to ask us, or a comment you want to make.

        Yes, go ahead.

        Q    Now that Silicon Graphics has entered the supercomputer
arena, supercomputers are subject to very stringent and costly export
controls.  Is part of your agenda to review the export control system,
and can industry count on export regulations that will keep pace with
technology advances in our changing world?

        THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me start off on that.  As you may
know, the President appointed as the Deputy Secretary of Commerce John
Rollwagon who was the CEO at Cray.  And he and Ron Brown, the
Secretary of Commerce, have been reviewing a lot of procedures for
stimulating U.S.  exports around the world.  And we're going to be a
very export-oriented administration.

        However, we are also going to keep a close eye on the
legitimate concerns that have in the past limited the free export of
some technologies that can make a dramatic difference in the ability
of a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons or ICBMs.

        Now, in some cases in the past, these legitimate concerns have
been interpreted and implemented in a way that has frustrated American
business unnecessarily.  There are, for example, some software
packages that are available off the shelves in stores here that are,
nevertheless, prohibited from being exported.  And sometimes that's a
little bit unrealistic.  On the other hand, there are some in business
who are understandably so anxious to find new customers that they will
not necessarily pay as much attention as they should to what the
customer might use this new capacity for.  And that's a legitimate
role for government, to say, hold on, the world will be a much more
dangerous place if we have 15 or 20 nuclear powers instead of five or
six; and if they have ICBMs and so forth.

        So it's a balance that has to be struck very carefully.  And
we're going to have a tough nonproliferation strategy while we promote
more exports.

        THE PRESIDENT: If I might just add to that -- the short answer
to your question, of course, is yes, we're going to review this.  And
let me give you one example.  Ken told me last night at dinner that
 -- he said, if we export substantially the same product to the same
person, if we have to get one permit to do it we'll have to get a
permit every time we want to do the same thing over and over again.
They always give it to us, but we have to wait six months and it puts
us behind the competitive arc.  Now, that's something that ought to be
changed, and we'll try to change that.

        We also know that some of our export controls, rules and
regulations, are a function of the realities of the Cold War which
aren't there anymore.  But what the Vice President was trying to say,
and he said so well -- I just want to reemphasize -- our biggest
security problem in the future may well be the proliferation of
nuclear and nonnuclear, like biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction to small, by our standards, countries with militant
governments who may not care what the damage to their own people could
be.  So that's something we have to watch very closely.

        But apart from that, we want to move this much more quickly
and we'll try to slash a lot of the time delays where we ought to be
doing these things.

        Q   Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, you've seen scientific
visualization in practice here.  As a company we're also very
interested in ongoing research in high-performance computing and
scientific visualization.  Can we expect to see a change in the
national scientific agenda that includes scientific visualization?
Right now I don't see the scientific visualization as being
represented, for example, on the FCCSET committee.

        THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is a good question.  One of the people
who flew out here with us for this event and for the release of the
technology policy in just a few minutes is Dr. Jack Gibbons, who is in
the back of the room -- the President's science advisor and head of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  And he will be in charge
of the FCCSET process.  That's an acronym that -- what does it stand
for, Jack - - the Federal Coordinating Council on Science and
Engineering Technology.  And visualization will play a key role in the
deliberations of the FCCSET.

        We were actually, believe it or not, talking about this a
little bit with Dr. Gibbons on the way over here.  I had hearings one
time where a scientist used sort of technical terms that he then
explained --it made an impression on me.  He said, if you tried to
describe the human mind in terms applicable to a computer you'd say we
have a low bit rate but high resolution.  (Laughter.)  Meaning --this
is one of the few audiences I can use that line with.  (Laughter and
applause.)

        But he went on to explain what that means.  When we try to
absorb information bit by bit, we don't have a huge capacity to do it.
That's why the telephone company, after extensive studies, decided
that seven numbers were the most that we could keep in short-term
memory.  And then they added three more.  (Laughter.)  But if we can
see lots of information portrayed visually in a pattern or mosaic,
where each bit of data relates to all of the others, we can instantly
absorb a lot of information.  We can all recognize the Milky Way, for
example, even though there are trillions of points of light, stars,
and so forth.

        And so the idea of incorporating visualization as a key
component of this strategy is one that we recognize as very important
and we're going to pursue it.

        THE PRESIDENT: Let me just add one thing to that.  First of
all, I told the crowd last night that the Vice President was the only
person ever to hold national office in America who knew what the
gestalt of the gigabit is.  (Laughter.)  But anyway -- and now we're
going to get some very funny articles out of this.  They're going to
make fun of us for being policy wonks.  (Laughter.)

        Let me say something to sort of take this one step further.
This whole visualization movement that you have been a part of in your
line of work is going to merge in a very short time with the whole
business in traditional education theory called applied academics.
We're now finding with just sort of basic computer work in the
elementary schools of our country dramatic differences in learning
curves among people who can see the work they're doing as opposed to
people who are supposed to read it.  And we're now finding that the
IQs of young people who might take a vocational track in school may
not be all that different from kids that would stay in a traditional
academic track and wind up at Stanford, but their learning patterns
are dramatically different.

        And there are some people -- this is a huge new discovery,
basically, that's coming into the whole business of traditional
educational theory.  So someday what you're doing here will
revolutionize the basic teaching in our schools, starting at
kindergarten and going forward, so that the world of work and the
world of education will begin to be merged backwards all the way to
the beginning.  And it's going to be, I think, the most important
thing we've ever done.  And very important for proving that in a
diverse population all people can reach very high levels of
achievement.

        MR. MCCRACKEN: The President and Vice President have also come
here today to present a new national technology policy for the
country.  Do you want to --

        THE PRESIDENT: We'll answer some more questions.  (Applause.)
I'm going to forego my time and just let him announce the policy, so
we can hear some more questions.  Got to give the man equal time, I
know.  (Laughter.)

        Q       I'd just like to say, I didn't vote for you; I wish I
had.  (Laughter.)

        THE PRESIDENT: I hope you feel that way four years from now.
(Laughter and applause.)

        Q   Well, that's actually why I'm standing up -- I really see a
possibility in what you stand for and I really think this is why you
were elected.  That you say you stand for change; you said that during
your campaign.  I think the company believed that.  They're counting
on you -- I'm nervous -- and I just want to say we're really with the
country behind you.  I think that's why the statistics are saying that
we're willing to have our taxes increased, we're willing to have cuts,
because you say you're really going to do it this time and decrease
the deficit.  I hope to God that you do.  We need it not just for this
present time, but by your actually fulfilling on this it will make a
major change in how we feel about government; that when government
says they're going to make a difference and they really come through,
it will make a huge impact for the future.  And I'm really personally
behind you all the way.  I wish I'd voted for you.  (Applause.)

        THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.  I really appreciate that.  Let me
make one comment in response if I might.  I think it's important --
and you can help others understand this -- to understand why we have
to reduce the deficit, which is something that is normally not done
when unemployment is high.  And unemployment is still too high.  Even
though we're in an economic recovery, most of our recovery is due to
high productivity from firms that, in turn, this time are not hiring
new people for all kinds of reasons.

        And we have to reduce the deficit for two reasons: Number one,
if we don't -- we're already spending 15 percent of your tax money
just to pay interest on past debt.  If we don't change present
patterns we'll be over 20 cents by the year 2000.  That's money we
should be spending on education and technology in the future.

        Number two, the more money we take out of the pool of funds
for borrowing the more expensive it is for companies like this and
other companies that have to go into the markets and borrow to borrow.
Just since the election, since we made it clear we were going to try
to bring the deficit down, long-term interest rates have dropped .7 of
one percent.  That is a huge savings for everybody that is going to
borrow money or that has a variable interest rate on a loan, whether
it's a home mortgage or a business loan or a car loan or whatever.
That's important.

        The second thing we're trying to do that I know you will also
appreciate is to shift the balance of money we do spend more away from
consumption toward investment.  Investments in education technology,
environmental cleanup, and converting from a defense to a domestic
economy.  That one of the bizarre things that happened to us in the
'80s is that we increased the deficit first through defenses expenses
and then through exploding health care costs and increasing interest
payments.  But we reduced our investments in the future and the things
that make us richer.

        So those are the changes we're trying to effect.  Let me just
make one other point.  I will not support raising anybody's taxes
unless budget cuts also pass.  (Applause.)

        Q      One of the things that Silicon Graphics has been really
successful is selling into the international markets, approximately 50
percent of our revenues come internationally, including a substantial
market in Japan.  What types of programs does your administration plan
to help the high-growth companies of the '90s sell to the
international markets?

        THE PRESIDENT: Two things.  First of all, we intend to try to
open new markets and new markets in our region.  That is, I believe
that high-growth companies are going to -- to keep America growing, I
believe high-growth companies are going to have to sell south of the
border more.  And to do that we have to negotiate trade agreements
that will help to raise incomes in those countries even as we are
growing.  That's why I support, with some extra agreements, the NAFTA
agreement; and why I hope we can have an agreement with Chile, and
hope we can have an agreement with other countries like Argentina that
are making a serious effort to build market economies.  Because we
want to build new markets for all of you.

        With Japan, I think what we have to do is to try to continue
to help more companies figure out how to do business there and keep
pushing them to open their markets.  I don't want to close American
markets to Japanese products, but it is the only nation with which we
have a persistent and unchanging structural deficit.

        The product deficit with Japan is not $43 billion, which is our
 overall trade deficit, it is actually about $60 billion in product,
in manufactured production.  So we have -- we've got a lot of problems
we have to work out there.

        With Europe, we sometimes are in surplus, we're sometimes in
deficit, but it's a floating thing.  So it's more or less in balance.
With developing nations like Taiwan and Korea, those countries had big
surpluses with us, but as they became richer they brought them down,
so that we're more or less in balance.  We have our biggest trade
relationship with Canada and we're more or less in balance.

        So we have to work on this Japanese issue while trying to help
more of you get involved.  Let me make one final comment on that.  I
think we should devote more government resources to helping small and
medium-size companies figure out how to trade, because that's what the
Germans do with such great success and why they're one of the great
exporters of the world.  They don't waste a lot of money on the real
big companies that have already figured it out, but they have extra
efforts for small and medium-size companies to get them to think
global from the beginning of their endeavors.  And I think we're going
to have to do more of that.

        Q    In addition to concerns about the economy, Silicon Graphics
employees are also concerned about the environment.  Your economic
plan does a great job of promoting R&D investment.  Are there any
elements that are specifically targeted to promote the application of
Silicon Graphics' technology to environmental-friendly initiatives
such as the electric car or the -- train?

        THE PRESIDENT: I think I should let the Vice President answer
that since it's his consuming passion.  And if I do it, his book sales
will go up again.  (Laughter.)  You see, we devoted a lot of time and
attention to that because -- for two reasons.  One is the environment
needs it.  Secondly, we think it's wonderful economics, because I
believe that all these environmental opportunities that are out there
for us represent a major chunk of what people who used to be involved
in defense technologies could be doing in the future if we're going to
maintain a high wage base in America.

        So I'd like for the Vice President to talk a little about the
specifics that we're working on.

        THE VICE PRESIDENT: That goal is integrated into the
technology plan as one of our key objectives.  The Japanese and the
Germans are now openly saying that the biggest new market in the
history of world business is the market for the new products,
technologies and processes that foster economic progress without
environmental destruction.

        Some have compared the drive for environmental efficiency to
the movement for quality control and the quality revolution in the
'60s and '70s.  At that time, many companies in the United States felt
that the existing level of product quality was more or less ordained
by the forces of supply and demand and it couldn't be improved without
taking it out of the bottom line.  But the Japanese, taking U.S.
innovations from Dr.  Demming and others, began to introduce a new
theory of product quality and simultaneously improved quality,
profits, wages, and productivity.

        The environmental challenge now presents us with the same
opportunity.  By introducing new attention to environmental efficiency
at every step along the way, we can simultaneously reduce the impact
of all our processes on the environment, improve environmental
efficiency and improve productivity at the same time.  We need to set
clear specific goals in the technology policy, in the economic plan.

        And, you know, both the stimulus and the investment package
focus a great deal on environmental cleanup and environmental
innovation.  And whereas, we've talked a lot about roads and bridges
in the past, and they're a big part of this plan also, we're putting
relatively more emphasis as well on water lines and sewer lines and
water treatment plants and renovating the facilities in the national
parks and cleaning up trails; taking kids from inner cities and
putting them to work cleaning up trails in national parks, for
example, as part of the summer jobs programs.

        So you'll find when you look at both the technology plan and
the economic plan an enormous emphasis on the environment.
(Applause.)

        THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead sir.  They say we have to quit in a
minute.  I'll take one more question after this.

        Q    Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, the news stories and
articles that the public has access to regarding the budget and the
economy are very often confusing and contradictory.  I might explain
it in the same terms you used: the information is delivered low-bit
rate, but the problem is huge and requires the high-road's view.  So
my question is I wonder if you're using Lyndon Johnson's computer to
analyze the budget and the economy -- whether or not you might be open
to using some of the things you've seen here to get the bigger picture
and also communicate that to us.  (Laughter.)


        THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.  There are two things I'd like to
respond to on that and I'd like to invite you to help.  I'd like to
invite you to help and I'd like to invite you to help on two grounds:
One is the simple ground of helping to decide which visual images best
capture the reality of where we are and where we're going.

        Senator Moynihan and I went to Franklin Roosevelt's home in
Hyde Park, New York, just a couple of days ago.  You may have seen the
press on it.  And on the way back he said to me that the challenges
that we face are different from those that Roosevelt faced, but just
as profound.  Unemployment was higher and America was more devastated
when he took office, he said, but everybody knew what the problem was.
Therefore, he had a lot of leeway working with the Congress in the
beginning to work toward a solution.  Now, he said, we are facing
severe challenges to a century of economic leadership and it's not
clear to every American exactly what the dimensions of the problem
are.

        The capacity you have to help me help the American people
conceptualize this is quite significant: showing the trends in the
deficit, showing the trends in the investment, showing how the money
is spent now and how we propose to spend it.

        The second big problem we have you can see if you look at the
front page of USA Today today, which shows a traditional analysis,
yesterday's analysis -- of the business section -- of the economic
program.  It basically says, oh, it will bring unemployment a little
and it will increase economic growth a little if we do this, but not
all that much.  Now, why is that?  That's because traditional economic
analysis says that the only way the government can ever help the
economy grow is by spending more money and taxing less.  In other
words, traditional changing economics will run a bigger deficit.

        But we can't do that.  The deficit is already so big, I can't
run the risk to the long-term stability of this country by going in
and doing that.

        This analysis doesn't really make a distinction between
investment and consumption; doesn't take any account of what we might
to with the technology policy or a trade policy to make the economy
grow faster; has no way of factoring in what other good things could
happen in the private market if you brought long term interests rates
down through the deficit.

        So you could also help us to reconceptualize this.  A lot of
the models that dominate policymaking are yesterday's models, too.
I'll give you just one example.  The Japanese had a deficit about as
big as ours and they were increasing spending at 19 percent a year
 -- government spending -- back in the early '70s when the oil prices
went way up and they were more energy-dependant than we were on
foreign oil.  And they just decided they had change it, but they
couldn't stop investing.

        So they had a budget which drew a big distinction -- a literal
distinction -- legal distinction between investment and consumption
and they embarked on a 10 or 11-year effort to bring the budget into
balance.  And during that time they increased investment and lowered
unemployment and increased growth through the right kind of spending
and investment.

        And I want to lead in, if I might, and ask the Vice President
before we go to give you some of the specifics of this technology
policy by making one more pitch to you about this whole economic plan.
This plan has 150 specific budget cuts.  And I will be welcome -- I'm
welcome to more.  I told the Republican leadership if they had more
budget cuts that didn't compromise our economy, if they helped us, I
would be glad to embrace them.  I'm not hung up about that, but I did
pretty good in four weeks to find 150.  And I'll try to find some more
on my own.

        It also has the revenue increases that you know about.  It
also has some spending increases and there will be debate about that.
There will be people who say, well, just don't spend this new money,
don't immunize all the kids, don't fully fund Head Start, don't pay
for this technology policy, don't invest in all these environmental
cleanup things, and that way you won't have to raise taxes so much.

        The problem is, if you look at the historic spending trends,
we are too low on investment and too high on the deficit -- and both
are problems.  And secondly, we've got to have some of these economic
cooperations in order to move the economy forward.

        So I want you to listen to what the Vice President says in
that context.  Because what you will hear is, we don't need to do what
we think we should do in this area.  If we don't, I think we'll be out
of competition.  People like you will do fine because you've got a
good company here, but the country as a whole will fall behind.  And
you can help on both those points.

        So would you proceed?

        THE VICE PRESIDENT: I want to give you just a few of the
details of this technology policy.  There will be a printed copy
available and you will be able to see for yourself all of the goals
and all of the elements of it.

        But I want to start by describing how it fits into the
President's economic plan.  You know, some of the special interests
who oppose the President's plan are saying to the American people,
don't pass this plan because everything is fine just the way it is.
Well, anybody who says everything is fine with our economy hasn't been
to California lately.  We need some change.  We can't stand the status
quo.  (Applause.)

        California has to participate in the recovery in order for
America to have a recovery that is worth the name recovery.  So that we
 can start creating new jobs.  And many of the high-skill, high-wage
jobs of the future are in technology areas.  And that's why a key
component of the President's economic plan is the technology policy
that we're announcing here today.

        It starts with an appreciation of the importance of continuing
basic R&D, because that's the foundation for all of the exciting
products that this company and others like this company come up with.
It continues with an emphasis on improving education, because in order
for companies like this one to survive and prosper in the world
economy, we as a nation have to have highly educated, well-trained
young men and women coming out of colleges on to campuses like this --
it's not called -- you call it a campus, right?  That's the term
that's very common now.

        We also have to pay attention to the financial environment in
which companies like this have to exist.  In order for this company to
attract investors for the kind of products that you are building here,
you have got to be able to tell them that the interest rates are not
going to be too high if they're borrowing money to invest; you've got
to be able to tell them, look, President Clinton is making permanent
the R&D tax credit, for example, and there are going to be specific
new provisions in the law to encourage investment in high-risk
ventures that are very common in the high-technology area.

        And then this plan makes specific investments in something
called the national information infrastructure.  Now, infrastructure
is a five- dollar word that used to describe roads, bridges, water
lines, and sewer lines.  But if we're going to compete in the 21st
century, we have to invest in a new kind of infrastructure.

        During the Industrial Revolution, the nations that competed
most successfully were often ones that did the best job of building
deep-water ports; those that did the best job of putting in good
railway systems to carry the coal and the products to the major
centers where they were going to be sold and consumed.  But now we are
seeing a change in the definition of commerce.  Technology plays a
much more important role.  Information plays a much more important
role.

        And one of the things that this plan calls for is the rapid
completion of a nationwide network of information super highways.
(Applause.)  So that the kind of demonstrations that we saw upstairs
will be accessible in everybody's home.  We want to make it possible
for a school child to come home after class and, instead of just
playing Nintendo, to plug into a digital library that has color-moving
graphics that respond interactively to that child's curiosity.

        Now, that's not the only reason to have such a network or a
national information infrastructure.  Think about the importance of
software.  If we could make it possible for talented young software
writers here in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the United States to
sell their latest product by downloading it from their desk into a
nationwide network that represented a marketplace with an outlet right
there in that person's home or business, we would make it possible for
the men and women who are interested in technology jobs here in the
United States to really thrive and prosper.

        And in keeping with one of the questions that was asked
earlier about how we can export more into the world marketplace and
how we can be more successful in world competition, one way is by
making our own domestic market the most challenging, most exciting,
with the most exacting standards and levels of quality of any nation
in the world.  And then we will naturally roll out of our domestic
marketplace into the world marketplace and compete successfully with
our counterparts everywhere in the world.

        Now, there are some other specific elements of this package
which you can read for yourself when you see the formal package.  Let
me just list them very briefly: A permanent extension of the research
and experimentation tax credit; completion of the national information
infrastructure; specific investments in advanced manufacturing
technology with measures such as -- (applause.)  And in response to
one of the questions that was asked over here, there is a specific
program on high-speed rail to do the work necessary, to lay the
foundation for a nationwide network of high-speed rail transportation,
and a specific project to work cooperatively with the automobile
companies in the United States of America to facilitate the more rapid
development of a new generation of automobiles that will beat all the
world standards and position our automobile industry to dominate the
automobile industry of the future in the world.  (Applause.)

        We also have a specific goal to apply technology to education
and training.  Dr. Gibbon* and others have given a tremendous amount
of thought to this because, after all of the dashed hopes and false
expectations for computers in schools, ironically, we now have a new
generation of educational hardware and software that really can make a
revolutionary difference in the classroom, and it's time to use it.
(Applause.)

        And we are going to save billions of dollars each year part
way through this decade with the full implementation of environmental
technologies and energy efficiency technologies, starting with federal
buildings.  We're going to save a billion dollars a year in 1997 just
in the energy costs of federal buildings around the United States by
using off-the-shelf technology that has a four-year payback on the
investment.  And then we're going to encourage the use of those
technologies around the country, and we're going to invest in the more
rapid creation of new generations of that technology.

        Now, the other details of this technology program will be
available in the handout that's going to be passed out here.  And any
of you who have ideas on how we can improve it and make better use of
technology, we invite you to contact us and let us know how we can
improve this program as we go along.

        But one final word.  The President's economic program is
based, as he said, on cutting spending; reducing the deficit over
time, including with some revenue increases that are progressive and
fair; and also investing in those things which we know will create
good, high-wage, high-skilled jobs here in the United States.  You all
are pioneers in a sense, showing how that can be accomplished.  We
want to make it easier for working men and women throughout this
company and other companies to follow your example and to create more
jobs in high technology.

        And that is the focus of this economic -- of this technology
policy, which is part of the overall plan to create more jobs for the
American people and get our economy moving again.  (Applause.)

        THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

                            END 10:41 A.M. PST


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

Mark Boolootian        [e-mail]        [phone]
Disclaimer:  booloo speaks for booloo and no other.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15055;
          24 Feb 93 4:03 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13758
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:52:09 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25251
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:51:30 -0600
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:51:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #128

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Feb 93 01:51:20 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 128

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules (NY Times via Eric De Mund)
    Cellular Technology Questions (Greg Boop)
    Austel's Privacy Report (Arthur Marsh)
    NYTel is Introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) Service (Dave Niebuhr)
    Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Dave Niebuhr)
    1-800 Phone Book or Database? (James Dahan)
    "Murder By Phone" is Back! (John Boteler)
    Congress Orders FCC to Study Security For Cellphones (John Nagle)
    Wrong Rate Tables (was Illegal Billing Practices) (Jeffrey Jonas)
    PacBell in Orange County (Randy Gellens)
    Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (Paul Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 20:28:13 -0800
From: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules
Reply-To: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services


[NYT, Tuesday, February 23, 1993]

             Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules
                             By STEVE LOHR

                     Special to The New York Times

  PHOENIX, Feb. 22 -- The chairman of the House subcommittee on
telecommunications warned today that the computer industry was in
danger of losing out in the emerging but potentially enormous business
of providing computer services to American homes and offices unless it
became involved in the Federal standard-setting that will occur this
year.

  The panel's chairman, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of
Massachusetts, told a gathering of computer executives here that under
the Clinton Administration, with its penchant for technology policy,
crucial steps will be taken this year in setting the nation on the
path toward establishing a so-called data superhighway that will
eventually reach every home in the country.

  At issue, Representative Markey said, is the possibility that the
early ground rules would be written to the advantage of companies that
send wires into homes, like telephone companies -- a situation that
would squeeze the role and profits of service providers, like computer
software companies.

                          Tailoring the Rules

  "Decisions will be made this year that will affect the rest of your
lives," Mr. Markey said. "And unless you participate, the rules will
be cut in a way that may not be to your advantage."

  The regulated telephone industry is a seasoned practitioner of
shaping government rules, but most computer and software companies are
entrepreneurial upstarts that have grown and thrived outside the reach
of regulatory controls. Traditionally, the industry rarely dealt with
Washington.

  But that attitude is beginning to change with the merger of computer
and telecommunications technology, and the prospect of high-speed
computer networks bringing video conferences, books, movies, factory
blueprints or medical advice into homes and offices. Estimates of the
size of the potential market for these computer-generated services go
as high as $2 trillion over the next decade.

  The speed at which that business develops and what companies will
get the benefits hinge on Federal and state regulations. Some in the
computer industry say the vital first step is to insure that digital
phone service is available nationally at affordable rates. The main
digital format available is called the Integrated Services Digital
Network, or I.S.D.N.; it transforms information into the ones and
zeros of computer code. The network makes it possible to send voice,
video images and computer data simultaneously at high speeds on
ordinary phone lines.

  The digital network is a middle ground between the current
technology and the super-speed fully fiber-optic network that is often
discussed.  But the fiber-optics data highway, by most estimates,
would not reach most households until after 2010 and at a cost of
hundreds of billions of dollars.

  By contrast, the digital network could reach every office and house
in America in less than five years, estimates Mitchell Kapor,
president of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A few phone
companies, led by the Bell Atlantic Corporation, are already
installing digital networks, but the effort varies by company.

  A computer pioneer turned advocate, Mr. Kapor is pushing Federal and
state regulators to insure that the digital network is available,
standardized and affordable nationally.

  "What we need is an open platform that is going to serve as the
basis for innovation," Mr. Kapor said in an interview here. "And it is
not clear that telephone or cable companies would do that on their
own."

                    Efforts by Lawmaker

  Representative Markey is preparing Federal legislation to push the
digital format later this year. "I.S.D.N. is something that can be
done now," he said, "and it will help unleash the next wave of
computer and software innovation, creating jobs and wealth."

  He added that policy to push the digital format looked more
attractive because budget constraints would reduce the role the
Government could play in financing the more ambitious fiber-optics
network.

  "The Government should set standards for openness and fund pilot
projects, but it isn't going to pay for the information highway,"
Representative Markey said. "The money just won't be there."

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:02:14 -0500
From: aurs01!aurxcf![e-mail] (Greg Boop)
Subject: Re: Cellular Technology Questions


> I really need some information on cellular phones - how they work,
> advantages, disadvantages, etc ...

I am also interested in receiving some information regarding the
operation of cellular phones in the AMPS network.  I am particularly
interested in call set and termination over the air in regards to
procedures or tones that are used. Any pointers regarding which TIA
(or other any other association) documents cover cellular technology
and where these documents can be obtained will help me out.

Our incoming mail system is not always in good order, so please be try
to follow up with me if mail bounces.

I regularly read the telecom newsgroup; so if any material regarding
cellular technology (that contains interest to all) is posted, I will
receive it.


Thank You and Best Regards,

Greg Boop, Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, N.C.
phone # [phone]    fax   # [phone]

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

Date: 23 Feb 1993 04:33:06 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Arthur Marsh)
Subject: Austel's Privacy Report
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Camelot Swamp bulletin board, Hawthorndene Sth Australia


I have rough ASCII text version (that still includes some 8 bit
characters) of the Australian Telecommunications Authority (Austel)
December 1992 report "Telecommunications Privacy" available for
download or Fidonet file request from my bulletin board (3:800/812 in
Fidonet, ph [phone] V.22 - V.32bis with MNP 4) as AUSTPRIV.ARJ
94352 bytes.

It covers privacy issues of Caller-ID, reverse directories, telemarket-
ing and the like, but is lacking in its use of exact terminology.

If I can get a better quality ASCII text copy I'll pass it on to David
Leibold who may be in a better position than me to submit it for
inclusion in the Telecom Archives.


Arthur
Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia (8:7000/8)
Camelot Swamp bbs, data: [phone] reply to [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:16:33 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: NYTel is Introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) Service


NYTel is in the process of introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) for businesses
and has sent out a flier in the monthly bills describing this feature
and how it might affect residential customers.

First of all, this feature is based on area codes 800 and 900 with
three exchanges: 910 in area codes 212 and 718, 920 elsewhere in the
state for area code 800 and exchange 880 in the 900 area code.

The flier states, and I'm going to summarize as much as possible,
"Among other features, CIRCUIT 9(sm) allows business subscribers to
identify a caller's "billing" telephone number, even if the number is
not published in the telephone directory."  (Nothing new here - dwn)

Charging: calls to 800-910/920 are free while there is a charge
to 900-880.  (again, nothing surprising so far.  - dwn)

The meat of the article:

"There are important limitations on the ways in which businesses that
obtain your number through CIRCUIT 9 Service may use this information.
For example, they may use your number to route or screen calls, or to
obtain billing information about your account with them.

"However, subject to certain exceptions, businesses that obtain your
phone number through CIRCUIT 9 Service may not use your number to
establish telemarketing lists or to conduct outgoing telemarketing
calls without your consent."  (This is interesting - dwn)

NYTel will offer blocking to these exchanges; the kicker here is that
calls to exchanges 394, 540, 550 970, 976 and area codes 700 and 900
will also be blocked.


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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:33:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears


NYTel has announced that full cutover to area code 718 in the Bronx is
getting closer to full implementation.

 From the monthly flier:

"*From now through May 15, 1993, we're helping customers to learn the
dialing changes by having an adjustment period.*

1) Calls from outside the 718 area code to the Bronx will be completed
   whether the caller dials 212 or 718.

2) Calls from the 718 area code -- Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island
   to the Bronx will be completed whether the caller dials 1 + 212 or
   just the seven-digit telephone number.

3) Bronx customers have no dialing changes yet, except when dialing
   Manhattan, where they may dial 1 + 212 + seven digits or just the
   seven-digit telephone number."

"*On May 15, 1993, the adjustment period ends and the dialing changes
become permanent.*

1) Calls from outside the 718 area code to the Bronx *must* be dialed
   as 1 +718 + seven digits.

2) Calls from the 718 area code -- Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island
   to the Bronx *must* be dialed using seven digits only.

3) Bronx customers calling Manhattan *must* dial 1 + 212 + seven digits
   or they may reach a wrong number.

4) Bronx customers calling Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island can and
   should dial seven digits; however, dialing 1 + 718 + seven digits
   will complete the call.  On September 25, 1993, Bronx customers
   *must* dial seven digits only."

Anything enclosed in *'s is NYTel's emphasis, not mine.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (James DAHAN)
Subject: 1-800 Phone Book or Database?
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:16:55 GMT


I am looking for any 1-800 phone directories, books or databases.  If
they exist do these directories list the numbers by city, state or
entire country: USA?.


[Moderator's Note: Ask AT&T. They publish several 800 directories. The
two largest are the 'Business Directory' and the 'Comsumer Directory'.
They also have some very specialized 800 directories now. And of
course the big 800 database is 800-555-1212 operated by Southwestern
Bell under contract to AT&T and other carriers offering 800 service.  PAT]

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Murder By Phone" is Back!
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 12:22:05 -0500 (EST)


Warner has re-issued several genre titles including "Murder By Phone",
also known as Bells.

This is a must-have for any good phone phreak. Don't let your library
go without any longer.

BTW, if you locate this little gem, let us know where so that we can
begin the hunt in the proper place. Also, if you see it on LaserDisc,
that would by great to know, also.


[e-mail] (John Boteler)

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Congress Orders FCC to Study Security For Cellphones
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 17:33:45 GMT


When congress ordered the FCC to deny type-approval to "scanning
receivers" that can receive cellular phone frequencies, they also
ordered a study.  The law reads:

        "The commission shall report to congress no later than June 1,
1993, on available security features for both analog and digital radio
signals.  This report shall include a study of security technologies
already available as well as those in development.  The study shall
assess the capabilities of such technologies, level of security
afforded, and clost, with wide-spread deployment of such technologies"
(P.L. 102-556 Sec. 403 (b)).

        This is the chance to lobby for fully encrypted cellular
telephony.


John Nagle

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 18:42:01 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Wrong Rate Tables (was Illegal Billing Practices)


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 113, Message 3 of 3
Dave Niebuhr posted that:

> In each case, I get a correction on each succeeding month's bill
> which is usually $.10 to $.20US.

Is this only when you call and complain, or automatic?  It should be
automatic, just as my gas and electric bills often contain small
rebates as 'adjustments'.

To make these rate adjustments, wouldn't the phone company have to
retain detailed calling records -- the same detailed ones that people
have been asking to get to proves phone calls were made (such as a
recent TELECOM request regarding a stock broker?)  It would have to
remain in machine readable form if billing corrections were mandated
(by admission of error, FCC ruling or court order) and such refunds
could be based on calls made years ago, particularly for court
rulings.

If my guess is correct, then calling details are available in machine
readable form for many years and if it's accurate enough for the phone
company to bill on, it ought to be legal evidence (else the phone
company would be guilty of fraud -- charging for calls not placed).

With the high density of CD-ROM, wouldn't it make sense to
archive the records on CDs instead of microfilm to save on

  - space;
  - keep it machine readable;
  - faster, easier searching;
  - longer life, fewer ways to deteriorate.

When it comes to self interest, phone companies are on the ball.  So
ideally, getting detailed records should be easier.  Oh, the FBI/CIA
would love that -- getting all of a person's phone calls sorted every
which way all by computer.


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The FBI *does* get records sorted the way you
suggest whenever they ask. A clerk in the law department at IBT
accepts service daily (or more often as needed) from the United States
Marshall calling for telephone records subpoened by federal grand
juries and the like as part of FBI investigations in progress.  PAT]

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

From: MPA15AB![e-mail]
Date: 23 FEB 93 19:34
Subject: PacBell in Orange County


I'm moving from a GTE area to a PacBell (both in south Orange County).
I was looking forward to being served by a 1A, so I could get
call-waiting on a three-way call, and better quality three-way
calling, but PacBell informs me that they are not assigning any new
numbers on 1As.  They say all 1As will be replaced by 5ESSes by 1994.

I was also told that CLASS features, including Call Trace, Call
Return, Call Redial, Priority Ringing, and Call Blocking, will be
offered starting Monday (March 1).  I was told that *all* switches in
the area were using SS7 (the 1As were the first).

The rep I spoke with understood about the 1As (she is served by one)
but said there was no way I could get on one.  She said it was bacause
the 1As needed copper to the curb, and they are phasing out all copper
lines.  Everyone gets fiber to the curb.

Note that in order for two numbers to be billed together, they must be
on the same switch!  If they are, the calls are not broken down by
calling number, unless you pay an extra $3.75/month, or so I was told.
(I have two numbers from GTE, billed together, and each toll call
shows the calling number).  I think I'll get the two PacBell numbers
on different switches.


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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:39:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There


 From the {Washington City Paper} of Feb 19-25, page 18:
News of the Wierd by Chuck Shepard:

"In January, Israel's national telephone company initiated a fax
service that transmits messages to God via the Wailing Wall in
Jerusalem.  In May, the Roman Catholic Chuch will unveil a high-tech
confessional at a trade show in Vincenza, Italy, that will accept
confessions by fax.  And in December, a sect of Orthodox Jews in
Brooklyn, NY began selling its members special beepers so they will
know instantly when the Mesiah arrives on earth."

And there is precedent for a response, I guess:

"Your Majesty, I have a message from God for you."
  - Judges 3:20

Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

"They can't stop us.  We're on a mission from God"
  - The Blues Brothers


[Moderator's Note: When Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian
Science passed away (they prefer not to say 'died') in the early years
of this century, a telephone (live and operating) was buried with her
in her casket so that when she awoke from her sleep she'd be able to
contact her followers, many of whom suspected she would only be
resting for a short time before rejoining them. The line remained
connected for several years, but no mention is made of her choice of
default long distance carrier or if she had local measured service or
not.  Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #128
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17755;
          24 Feb 93 5:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30686
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:37 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20100
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:07 -0600
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #129

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Feb 93 02:59:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 129

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 (Andrew C. Green)
    Multi-Line Answering Machines: Summary (Paul E. Hoffman)
    The Moderator's New Employer (Andrew Luebker)
    Novatel Accessory Needed (Joe Smooth)
    Uniden Cell Phone Handset Question (Joe Smooth)
    A Pager For Jughead (Col. G.L. Sicherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:36:29 CST
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4


Here's a long overdue update on the Ameritech PCS Trial, an test
involving several hundred ordinary citizens who have been issued
hi-tech portable digital wireless telephones and ordered to reach out
and touch someone with them. I have had my PCS phone since October of
last year and will presumably be using it through the end of the test
at the end of this year, unless Ameritech feels otherwise after
reading my postings. :-)

Following on the heels of several incentive cash payments for
performing such difficult tasks as making ten phone calls in ten days
($10) and carrying it everywhere for two weeks ($75), Ameritech
summoned many of us to their headquarters one evening for surveys and
interviews ($65). On the appointed evening I arrived at their
sprawling complex in Hoffman Estates, in the Land Beyond O'Hare.

This building deserves special mention. On a huge site, they've built
a high-tech, drop-dead, gee-whiz complex requiring hyphenated
adjectives to describe, apparently designed by Lee Iaccocca on
steroids. Anyone who doesn't leave this place with an overwhelming
sense of good old American "Can-Do" attitude is legally dead.

We were ushered in via the employee entrance, through a slick
ultra-modern security checkpoint and along a suspended walkway passing
through the middle of a large office atrium. Everything purposely
showed off its construction, from steel framing everywhere down to the
ridiculously overengineered lights illuminating the walkway.

 From my vantage point I could look down at cubicles on several floors
opening into the atrium from either side. "Hmmm," I thought, "I want
to make fifty copies of my resume and fling them off this balcony
RIGHT NOW ..."

Anyway, we were sorted into groups of about 30 each, and given a short
presentation showing Ameritech's plans, followed by a computerized
survey on PCs to collect our views. What follows here are my views
only, combined with comments overheard from others:

It turned out that there were three different models of phone in the
trial.  I had been issued a "medium"-sized CT2 SilverLink phone
weighing about seven ounces. They had also given out what they called
a "large"-sized DiamondTel 99X, about nine ounces, and a "small"-sized
NEC Portable Phone, with a claimed weight of three ounces, looking
vaguely like a pocket windshield scraper. Finally, as a promise of
things to come, they showed a Rolodex Directory Assistant credit-card
calculator and announced that they were thinking of doing a phone like
this in the future. I cringed at the thought of coming around a curve
and finding some bozo wandering into my lane as he picks at the tiny
buttons of that thing.

They also presented some alternative service area plans. Aside from
the obvious choice of simply swamping northeast Illinois with
1/2-mile-wide service cells, they also had three other options:
Chicago city limits only, major thoroughfares only, or payphone
locations.

The Chicago city limit idea basically involved saturating Chicago and
leaving out the suburbs altogether. This went over like a lead balloon
with the suburbanites.

The major throughfares idea made good sense. Transceivers would be put
in all public areas and along major routes, so that you could just
pull over if you wanted to make a call while you were out somewhere.
(When you're at home, you switch the PCS over to Private mode and use
your base unit anyway, plugged into your home phone line.)

The payphone idea was to have a transceiver built into, or hung on,
all public payphones. This makes sense initially, but on further
reflection means that in strange areas, you still have to find a
payphone for the purpose of not using it:

Me: Excuse me, where's the nearest phone?

Pedestrian: Well, there's one inside the supermarket, but it's closed.

Me: That's O.K. I just need to make a phone call.

The unspoken impression that this gave was that they were fishing to
see how soon they could launch the product, if it was possible to do
so before they had the Chicagoland area completely saturated.

Following the presentation, we were plonked in front of PCs for a
survey. This was a sort of statistical cross-product affair where
you're presented two pairs of options and asked to pick which set you
prefer. Then the options are rearranged and you're asked again.  After
a while I began to wish that they'd just drop all the statistical
gymnastics and ask us flat-out to rate each choice, but no. I answered
carefully, and gave high marks to the wide service area, low proposed
prices, inbound call capability and low rates.  I hammered the
credit-card phone idea and limited service areas. Had they asked, I
would have said that my preference is for a phone that has moderate
heft to it and is big enough to balance on my shoulder, at least until
they make one that I can strap on my wrist.  ;-)

In other news, reliability has been a bit of a problem. My neighbor's
original PCS expired within two weeks from some unspecified ailment,
but was promptly replaced by Ameritech. My original PCS also succumbed
after three months, with a pager problem that prevented you from
recalling the paged number, or even getting the darn thing to shut up
when it beeped. My phone was also promptly replaced, and although the
new one arrived with a dead backlighting LED in the keypad, it has
been performing all right for the most part. I have learned to live
with occasional dropouts and some befuddled low-battery behavior.

The Public/Private mode switching between air service and land-line
(base unit) use has come in handy. I worked out a method for getting
into our building after hours using the PCS to bypass our phone-dial
access panel at the front door (some details deleted for security!):

1) My PCS base unit is plugged in to my office phone. From outside
   the building, I dial the office switchboard from the building's
   front door access panel. As this is after hours, the night bell
   rings.

2) I switch my PCS to Private mode, and answer the night bell from
   outside via the PCS using my desk line. When I speak into the PCS
   I can hear myself on the access panel intercom.

3) I press "9" on the PCS to buzz myself in, and enter the elevator.

4) The elevator must be called up from an upstairs floor. Again using
   my PCS, I get on the office PA system and call someone to press
   the button on an upstairs floor. I'm up and in.

I'll post more details on the PCS as they occur. Tomorrow evening they
have another focus group session scheduled ($75). Don't thank me, I'm
just doing my job.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul E. Hoffman)
Subject: Multi-Line Answering Machines: Summary
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:40:20 GMT


Here is a summary of the messages I got concerning multi-line answering
machines. My original post was:

> I'm doing research for a friend. She wants five lines worth of outgoing-only
> answering machines, low cost. Same message on each, and in can be a barge-in
> system (one repeating tape with people coming in in the middle).

> --I know a company called "Skutch" makes some sort of system like this.
> Does anyone have a tele for them or a rep of theirs?

> --Are there industrial-strength single-line systems that are cheap? She
> doesn't mind duping the tape five times and dropping it in five machines
> if that's much cheaper and/or more reliable than a five-line system.

Here are the most useful replies:

 From [e-mail]

You may want to look at a company called Interailia (sp?) and also at
a company called Viking Electronics.  They refer to them as multi-line
announcers.  Most often you would use this at a movie theatre to
announce show times, etc.  Some models are very similar to answering
machines and others will actually store the message digitally.  A good
source for information on these type of devices is Telconnect
magazine.  They periodically run an issue on CPE auxilary equipment.
BTW CPE stands for customer premise equipment.

 From [e-mail]

You'd be much better off obtaining a multiport digital recorded
annoucement device, much like those used to provide message while on
hold for airlines, credit card firms, etc.  The annoucement is
recorded and stored digitally, so there's no moving parts or sound
quality degradation.  You need to find a multiport model which can
handle five lines.  And most have options to either have new call
enter in the middle of message, or continue to ring until beginning of
message.  Also get one with internal battery so you don't lose a
recorded digital message if you have a power outage.

 From [e-mail]

Skutch Electronics
209 Kenroy Lane #7
RosevilleCA 95678
[phone]

Skutch makes some very inexpensive and innovative products.  I'm not
certain they make a 5-line announcer.

You may want to consider using a service, rather than buying hardware.
For instance, Pacific Bell will sell me voicemail on a Centrex line,
for $20/month; the voicemail will answer any number of calls
simultaneously.  Similar results are available from paging companies,
altho they tend to stretch their resources a bit thinner at times,
which may result in busy signals.  If you have the phone lines
exclusively for the purpose of announcements, you could save a lot of
money with a service, disconnecting the existing lines.

If equipment is the only way to go, I've had VERY good experience with
Takacom over the last 7 years.  I have 26 of their three-line
loop-tape announcers; they run about $400/three lines.  None have ever
failed me.  They also have digital equipment.  1-800-421-1858, or you
can check with their local distributor, Tri-County Telecom,
818-885-1411, ask for Jack.  He, too, has never failed me.

 From: [e-mail] (Kennelmeister)

Sounds like what you want is similar to the things that broadcasters
use -- endless loop carts, or even better, digital recorders.  Sonifex
make stuff like this, along with phone interfaces.

That's one relatively expensive, but reliable option - these things
will run for tens of thousands of calls before the tape needs
replacing.

The other option that springs to mind is to get one of those
relatively cheap phone answering machines which digitally records the
outgoing message and either remove the i/c message tape, or set it to
announce only. If it works, buy four more. Cheap, and no moving parts.

 From [e-mail]

I don't know the cost-effectiveness of this, but your friend might
just want to get one answering machine and some kind of
teleconferencing bridge. If you take a meet-me type bridge and
configre each port to "listen-only", and then pump the endless-loop
tape in another port.  With that, you could then add more lines as
needed.

 From [e-mail]

        For announce only "barge in" applications, you might talk with
Henry Engineering.  I believe they make such a device using digital
voice storage.  It may also handle multiple lines, making only one
recording necessary.

Contact:        Hank Landsberg
                Henry Engineering
                503 Key Vista Drive
                Sierra Madre, CA 91024
                phone [phone]
                fax   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 19:30:07 CST
From: Andrew Luebker <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Moderator's New Employer


Pat,

I found this article in a back issue of the {Minnesota Daily}
newspaper.  Are they also paying you that fat 28% commission of seven
cents on every quarter spent?  If so, you ought to be able to buy
plenty of cat food!

Minnesota Daily     Monday, April 30, 1990      Page 5
"Orange Phone rings in new era of cheap long distance calls"

     By Stephanie Armour
       Staff Reporter

  It may look like the Bat Phone, but it's not.

  It's called the Orange Phone, and local businesses think it will
ring in a new era of cheap long-distance calls.

  "It's turned the price back 40 years," said Bill Mangels, presi-
dent of Mega Orangge Marketing, a Plymouth coompany which markets the
phone to local businesses.  "It saves customers money and builds up
the use of pay phones."

  The Orange Phone, a pay phone that costs only 25 cents per minute
for continental long-distance calls, has been springing up in
businesses and on college campuses nationwide.

  While a three minute AT&T pay-phone call from the Twin Cities to
Floridta costs $2.75, the same call on an Orange Phone is only 75
cents.  Overall rates are one-fourth the cost of Bell pay-phone
services, and Mangels said users of the Orange Phone can call anywhere
in the United States except Alaska and Hawaii.

   Local marketers of the phone are banking that students will let
their fingers do the walking -- right on over to Alpha Print, where
the first Orange Phone in the Dinkytown area was just installed.

   "You know everyone is happy," Mangels said.  "You can use a calling
card, call 911, 411 and operator assistance."

   The Alpha Print phone has been in service for only a week but store
owner Ali Mahavadi said that it's been very successful.

   "When students come in for course material or copying, they can use
the phone," Mahavadi said.  "Prices are very cheap compared to regular
phones."

   But Alpha Print is just the beginning.  In the future, Mangels
said, he hopes to have at least eight other area stores busy with the
Orange Phones.

   "Usually businesses aren't known for producing long-distance calls
because of the rates," Mangels said.  "You have to pour in a lot of
change.  This is something that the pay phones couldn't do."

   The phone has also been a big hit with students at St. Cloud State
Universitty, said Jim Harstad, president of Telecommunication
Consultants Inc.

   Installed last September at St. Cloud State's Atwood Memorial
Center, the first Orange Phone earned about $100 a month for the
school, which leased it at a commission of seven cents per call, said
Joe Opatz, director of the center.

  "It's been used extensively," Harstad said.  "We go through over
4,000 minutes worth of calls a month."

   The phone has also been in stalled in three dormitories at St.
Cloud State, he said.

   However, Opatz isn't as optimistic.  Although he said the Orange
Phone waas initially popular at the student center, use of the phone
has declined.

  "The last report for March was about $66," Opatz said.  "I don't see
long lines waiting to use it."

   But Bob Albertson, creator of the Orange Phone, is expecting lines
to grow.

  Albertson, an inventor from Minnetonka, got the idea for an
inexpensive pay phone following his 1980 success in breaking up the
AT&T monopoply on long distance service.

   As a result of Albertson's dispute with the Minnesota Public
Utility Commission, the monopoly was dissolved.  Other competitors
were then able to bid for services in April 1989 -- including
Albertson, who bought $60 million in long-distance service from the
company.

   Because long-distance service is now offered by more than one
pay-phone company, Albertson siad, he was able to offer lower rates by
buying bulk amounts of time.

   Increased competition, technological breathroughs and computer
advances also contributed to the low rates.

   Albertson said he anticipates that the inexpensive longn-distance
services will be a boon -- especially on college campuses.

  "We want to get these phones at the U of M," Albertson said.  "And
the students want the phones."


[Moderator's Note: I must point out I an NOT employed by Orange Comm-
unications, I am merely an independent contractor for their new
service called the Orange Card, a no-surcharge calling card which
bills in six-second increments *including the first minute* at 25
cents per minute flat rate for calls all over the USA, using an 800
number for access to their switch.  I think perhaps I shall also have
something to do with the placement of the Orange Phones; that is not
resolved yet.

Thanks to everyone who helped me reconstruct the list of brochure
requests following the horrifying debacle on Tuesday morning. A couple
hundred of the brochures and applications were put in the mail Tuesday
afternoon. I'll mail more on Wednesday; everyone who wrote should have
it by the end of the week.  Consider this like an 'affinity calling
card' in our case: profits will offset the increasing costs I face in
moderating the Digest with its growing mailing list. This calling card
is best suited for SHORT calls of one to ten minutes from phones where
a surcharge would normally apply.

To answer a couple of technical questions brought up several times by
people who requested an application: yes, they offer actual
supervision, not just 'guesstimates' as to if/when your call connects.
The first minute is also broken into six-second intervals. Yes, you
can make local calls via their switch. No, they do not require you to
use their 1+ service, and they do not 'slam' or play games. At the
present time, their 800 number is *not* well known to hotels, thus it
is likely your call to their switch would pass unnoticed.  If a
calling card like this would meet some requirements of yours, then
please order it through me. :)  Send your snail-mail address to me at
[e-mail]  or via fax [phone].  Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: Joe Smooth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Novatel Accessory Needed
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:42:44 GMT


I am looking for the plastic "S" insert that is used in the Novatel
transportable bag phones ... I have called Novatel, and they don't
make them anymore. If anyone knows where I can get one, or has one to
sell, please let me know! Thanks a lot!

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

From: Joe Smooth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Uniden Cell Phone Handset Question
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:34:44 GMT


I was wondering if there was a way to modify a normal Uniden mobile
phone handset into one of the special 'programming handsets' used by
Uniden?

I have heard that you can do so by grounding a test line in the
handset or something like that, but I wanted some feedback first.

    If you know how it can be done, PLEASE let me know!

(I'm also interested in any information you have on Uniden mobile phones
at all. Thanks)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 20:47:05 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Pager For Jughead
Organization: AT&T


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

> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school
> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him
> or her at school.  They are there to learn, period.  ...

A voice from the past!  As we enter a world in which we can talk
together just by wishing it, we still isolate young people in
institutions dedicated to the principle that whatever we need to tell
one another can be told with books.

No, pagers and schools don't mix.  But now that interaction matters
very much, and training people to serve as interchangeable parts for
the dying age of machines can only hurt us -- let's keep the pagers
and get rid of the schools.

Even if only to reduce drug use ...!


Col. G. L. Sicherman    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That does it! Now for sure I am killing this thread
once and for all. I'm sorry I started it!  Further messages with
'pager' in the subject go straight to /dev/null!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #129
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07403;
          25 Feb 93 3:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05178
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:38:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19588
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:37:33 -0600
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:37:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #130

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Feb 93 01:37:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 130

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Paul Robinson)
    TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Paul Robinson)
    ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Albert Lopez)
    Message Waiting Lights (Matthew Waugh)
    Call For Papers: Technology: Whose Costs, Benefits (Jackie Hunter)
    Ameritech Asks For Local Competition (John R. Levine)
    A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (Paul Robinson)
    Re: A Pager For Jughead; Discussion Moves to aus.acs (Tom Worthington)
    Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Nick Sayer)
    Re: Multi-Line Answering Machines (Paul Robinson)
    3DO Platform and Base Unit (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson, Contractor <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993  18:17:52 EST
Subject: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments


On Page D1 of the 2/24 {Washington Post} is an article titled "AT&T To
Modernize China's Telephones".

It's going to be a joint venture between Communist China and AT&T in
an attempt to expand that country's "fledgling telecommunications
system through an unprecedented investment in new factories and
research ventures."

There are two phones per 100 people now, by 2020 the Mainland
Government wants to raise this to 40 per 100.  (Compare this to
Washington, DC, which has a current count of 112 phones per 100
people.)  The country has a population of 1.2 billion people and is
expanding at the rate of 1 1/2% per year.  This task will require
billions of dollars; by the year 1996, it is estimated that the
Government of Mainland China will be spending $2 Billion a year on
technology.  In order for AT&T to be able to make the equipment there,
the U.S. Government will have to approve the transfer of the
technology needed to build it.  AT&T expects to build about twice as
many switches in China as it does in the United States.  AT&T would
own 51% of the Joint Venture.

The Chinese Government agreed to fix copyright and Patent laws after
the Bush Admininistration investigated it for unfair trade practices.
Suspicion is that the venture is part of the commitment to that
agreement.  This agreement cancels the prohibition on foreign
companies making telephone equipment there by the Chinese Government.

General Comments:

This, of course, is the typical thinking of a "First World" country
which is still heavily using peasant labor for agricultural
development.

Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably
install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in
the country for a lot less.

Let's see: China is aproximately 3500 x 3000 miles in size (it's
smaller some spots and larger in others, so it will even out), and
let's estimate that one tower can reach an area of 7.5 miles in each
direction, meaning you need one every 15 miles (which makes this
exhibit trivial), then you need to have a matrix of 300 x 200
switches, or 50,000 cellular switches.

If, in these large quantities and the well-educated prison labor
(courtesy of Tianamen Square) they can bring the price down to say
$100,000 per cellular switch, the total cost to provide cellular phone
service -- which would give the entire country telephone service at
once -- would cost in the neighborhood of $5 billion dollars.  Based
on the figures that are talked about, the service could be installed
in four years.

AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches
to that country.  Also a communist country would find it much more
attractive to have people only able to use physical wired connections
that tie them to a certain specific, easily identified spot.  And it's
a lot harder to monitor or track the calls of dissidents on a cellular
phone or the Irridium scheme from Motorola (the satelite might not
even be in China, thwarting their ability to collect information),
than it would be to just instruct a local switch to record the
incoming and outgoing numbers of all calls going in and out of a
particular dissident's phone, often without the dissident even being
aware of the monitoring until they come for him, or her.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]
These (uninformed) opinions are mine alone, no one else is (stupid
enough to be) responsible for them.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993  18:41:40 EST
Subject: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications?


I have to ask a question about something, but first I'll give some
information about the transaction in question.

The office I work out of gets telex service from a company called TRT,
which had, a few years ago, bought the FTCC telex company and merged
with it.  We recently received a press release from them dated 2/9,
which said:

 On January 25, 1993, IDB Communications announced that
 it had entered into an agreement for the acquisition of
 all of the stock of TRT communications.

The letter and a subsequent reprint from the 2/1 issue
of {Telecommunications Reports} indicate that:

- IDB has been in this business since 1985;
- IDB bought World Communications (Worldcom) which
  gives it a satelite broadcast operation;
- IDB paid only $1 million in cash, the rest of the
  deal is a stock swap of 4.5 million of its shares,
  worth $80 million at the price when the deal was
  announced (the stock has gone up in price.)
- IDB currently has 90 E-1 (2.048 Megabit) submarine
  fiber optic cables, the deal will increase this to 190
  in use or available for use;
- TRT has two-way voice traffic with about 25 countries,
  including "significant return traffic" of which IDB
  has very little return traffic;
- Pacific Telecom, Inc, TRT's owner, will immediately
  get 1.3 million shares of stock which it will keep
  even if the deal fails, so that it isn't left holding
  the bag as it was when Cable & Wireless discovered
  it couldn't get regulatory approval to buy TRT back in
  1991;
- For the 1.3 million shares, IDB immediately got some
  non-TRT telecom assets owned by Pacific Telecom including
  the 347 acre Niles Canyon earth station operated by
  Bay Area Teleport, and includes two Imarsat earth stations,
  and that they wanted the satelites more than the telco
  bypass capability;
- France Telecom owns almost 15% of TRT, this deal doesn't
  affect that part;
- IDB will take about a $35,000,000 loss to do this deal,
  the company expects, by the time the smoke clears, to
  be having about $350,000,000 in annual revenues;
- IDB sees that there might be room for a fourth
  international voice carrier after AT&T, MCI and Sprint
  they think they can operate cheaper;
- Since the deal was announced, the value of the stock
  to be issued has risen by about $30,000,000.

So here's the whole point of this request: one of the people in the
office asked me to find out if anyone on TELECOM Digest knew anything
or had ever heard of IDB before.

So, has anyone heard of IDB before?


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (albert lopez)
Subject: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel
Date: 24 Feb 1993 23:56:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Can someone help to clear up my mis-understanding?

I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it
eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't
understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using
extended super frame (ESF).  Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24
for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent
clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames
for clear channel transmission.

Thanks for any explanations.


Albert

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Message Waiting Lights
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 20:42:37 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.


You've heard this story before: We bought a new PBX, too cheap to buy
phones with message waiting lights on them. We've been working on
upgrading phones by swapping out the whole faceplate on a 500 set for
one with a MWL installed. We'd been using Allen-Tel units, but they
changed the design, and for some reason the new design is very dim,
and in an office lit with bright lights you just don't see them flash.
Graybar denies knowledge of an alternative supplier. Can anybody help
me out with alternative makers of the full faceplate replacement (we
don't really want to get into drilling holes in faceplates if we can
avoid it)? Maybe this "dim light" problem is common, and we're doing
something wrong and somebody can help us out with that. Any help
appreciated.


Thanks,

Matthew Waugh    [e-mail]
RTP Network Services     Data General Corp.   RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:04:21 EDT
From: HJ#[e-mail]
Subject: Call For Papers: Technology: Whose Costs, Benefits


                         CALL FOR PAPERS

            TECHNOLOGY: WHOSE COSTS?..WHOSE BENEFITS?

                     Areas of Concentration:
                   Computers and Communications
                          Health Care
                    Energy and the Environment


 The International Symposium on Technology and Society 1993
                           (ISTAS '93)
  The International Symposium that links Technology and Social
                             Effects

                            Sponsors:
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc. (IEEE)
        Society for the Social Implications of Technology
             The IEEE National Capital Area Council
         The IEEE Technology Policy Conference Committee

               Washington DC  October 22-23, 1993

  Technology is constantly changing the our world.  New ways of
 doing things bring benefits undreamed-of just a few years ago.

These technologies also have their price.  The costs can be financial,
but also less freedom, more risks, more stress.  How do we balance
benefits and costs?  Do those who enjoy the benefits bear their fair
share of the costs?  How can we determine a fair share?  If we can,
and don't like the results, what do we change?  Is the Government
always the best way to change things?

ISTAS '93 invites significant contributions on these issues from a
wide spectrum of scholarly and concerned individuals. The
contributions can be papers, proposals for a session or panel of
invited experts, or proposals for "poster" or discussion sessions.
Please send a 100 word summary for papers or a 1000 word proposal for
sessions, to the General Chair:

                      Dr. William J. Kelly
                           Attn. IEEE
                        MITRE Corporation
                            m/c Z568
                       7525 Colshire Drive
                        McLean, VA 22102
                    E-mail: [e-mail]

         Deadline for Submission:       March 12, 1993
         Notification of Acceptance:    April 12, 1993
         Camera Ready Copy:             June 30, 1993

For information call Jackie Hunter (703)-803-8701

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

Subject: Ameritech Asks For Local Competition
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:17:57 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


According to the {New York Times} Ameritech has asked regulators to
allow local exchange competition in the areas it serves in exchange
for the right to offer inter-LATA long distance service.  It is the
first of the Baby Bells to do so.  They'll need permission from the
Justice Department and also from Judge Greene.

Competitors, particularly AT&T, said they should be allowed into LD
only after it has been established that local competition is really
there, since it would be easy for Ameritech, with its 100 year head
start, to continue to be at an advantage in a nominally level field
of competition.

Nobody expects anything concrete to happen for several years.

Have readers in the Ameritech area seen any response?


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 12:33:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?]


Our Esteemed Moderator said:

> [Moderator's Note: That does it! Now for sure I am killing
> this thread once and for all. I'm sorry I started it!
> Further messages with 'pager' in the subject go straight
> to /dev/null!   PAT]

That's too bad.  Now I won't get to ask the readers of the Digest a
question someone asked me.  :)

A customer of mine asked if there was a way for her to be able to
page one of her associates without having to spend money on an
activation fee and a monthly charge.

All the customer wants is a means to send someone a page signal such
as a tone to tell them to call into their number.  Radio Shack was
selling them about two years ago for $50, $10 activation plus the $4 a
month number fee and 10c per page rate.  (I had it for a month or two
but didn't use it enough to justify keeping the service.)  Now paging
companies in this area are offering $39 pagers, $25 activation and $9
a month for the service.  And these allow the person to indicate the
call-back number; the Radio Shack ones were strictly for a single
tone.

I know that when Citizens Band radios had to be licensed, there were
two classes: Class D for voice and Class C for "remote activation of
devices used to attract attention."

I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for
paging people without having to pay monthly service charges.  Any
device available commercially would have to have some kind of
selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms.

I would appreciate responses.  If there are several, I'll summarize.
If there's a lot of interest, maybe I can sell some!  :)

Oh wait, I forgot this message is never going to be seen.  Never mind.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, I only meant 'pagers and school'
messages, not pagers generally. But this gives me a good chance to
lead into the next message in this issue received from someone who
feels there is still room for more discussion.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Worthington)
Subject: Re: A Pager For Jughead; Discussion Moves to aus.acs
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:41:15 GMT


This topic appears to be of general interest. I invite people to
continue the discussion in the ACS's newsgroup "aus.acs".

Someone might like to post a summary of the discussion so far, to
inform others on aus.acs.

Tom Worthington
Director of the Community Affairs Board
Australian Computer Society Incorporated
G.P.O. Box 446   Canberra A.C.T. 2601  Australia
Ph:  [phone]    Fax: [phone]
Internet e-mail: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Long time readers will recall that two of the most
popular mailing lists available today had their origins here in the
telecom group:  Computer Underground Digest began from a discussion
here on hacking which turned a bit acrimonious and Dennis Rears' very
popular e-journal on privacy topics was started here as an offshoot of
a discussion pro and con on Caller-ID which overran my queue with
several hundred messages. If Mr. Worthington believes the topic of
pagers in schools warrants continued discussion in a forum more
appropriate, I certainly give my imprimateur to his plan; not that he
requires it by any means. Best wishes!  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: [phone], log in as 'guest'.
Date: 24 Feb 1993 18:07:32 UTC


Let's pretend that Joe and Fred have Unix boxes and that they live
across town from each other (but still in range of zum 0 dialing).
They get a modem line each and set it up so that a connection is
permanently dialed from one to the other. If they get disconnected, it
dials right back. Thus, they effectively have an analog leased line
for about $20/mo (unmeasured service presumed). How much does this
cost the telco?

What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them
an analog leased line? How much does this cost the telco relative to
the situation in the first paragraph? Why is it that the price charged
by the telco for this situation is so much higher than in the first
paragraph?  Remember: Joe and Fred aren't businesses, they just got a
good deal on an expensive disk drive and decided to buy it jointly and
have Fred NFS mount it over the phone. :-)


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
[phone], log in as 'guest'   PGP 2.1 public key on request


[Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the
expense of having certain common equipment in the central office
unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling
you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you
will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would
lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep
the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if
the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call,
you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a
leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it
becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call
basis on demand. If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need
quite as much traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty.
Just how good of a deal did you get on that disk drive, anyway?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 12:21:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Line Answering Machines


I thought I had posted a response to his request, but since he didn't
have it I guess I forgot.

If this woman already has five lines, couldn't she use something like
that device we saw here that bridges two lines?

I was going to suggest that what is needed is a cheap device that
lifts the hook on receipt of ring current, and drops it when the line
is disconnected.  Have the part that picks up sound be a jack port,
perhaps instead of a handset.  If they can make cheap phones for ten
bucks, something like this should not be that expensive.

Now, running the speaker output to all of these devices, wired onto
the same line so that all of them hear the announcement.  (If you
don't accept the voice output from any of them, they can't be heard or
hear each other.)

Now if she's going to do this and doesn't already have the lines
installed, I've got a simpler and cheaper solution:

Rent a voice mail box for fifteen bucks a month.  Check the voice mail
companies in the area for one that offers the ability to disable the
taking of messages.  Most of these systems will allow as many as ten
or more simultaneous callers on the same box.  This rate might, in
some areas, be less than the price of ONE phone line.


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 10:49:08 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: 3DO Platform and Base Unit


A friend of mine got to see the new 3DO platform at the American Film
Institute last night... very nice.  Supposedly, it's powered by the
same CPU that Apple will use in its Newton box -- that, and four
graphics engines.  From a CD, the 3DO base unit will play full-motion
NTSC video, among other things.  The base units will be priced at
around $700 initially when they come out in October.  My friend didn't
say how much they expect the software to cost, but he estimated about
$50/unit.

The machine demonstrated was a prototype.  The engineers from 3DO
brought what they claimed was a working production prototype, but this
they did not use.

Part of the demo consisted of a "jello sheet" type display with
transparent texture mapping on the jello.  Another demo was a rotating
texture-mapped earth that slid on several surfaces, each with
differing viscosities.  The results my friend likened to the output
from SGI's Reality Engine graphics processor -- very fast, and very
slick.  All of the above was controlled by an Apple Macintosh
(Quadra?), not a CD in the 3DO.

Developers will pay the 3DO people $3 per unit shipped for the
privilege of developing on the platform (sounds like something to be
contested in court, if you asked me).  When the platform ships, there
should be something like 50 titles available.  The present authoring
platform is the Macintosh.  However, 3DO will complete development of
an operating system for their box, enabling authors to dispense with
the Mac and use the 3DO directly (presumably, on some special
mastering machine).

AT&T, one of the 3DO founding members, has plans to send digital video
from your digital switch to your 3DO box.  This will be slightly lower
quality than that you get from the CD, probably 250-275 lines of
resolution compared to 425 lines from the CD.

Stay tuned ...


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #130
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10606;
          25 Feb 93 5:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30449
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 03:00:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05069
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 02:59:46 -0600
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 02:59:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #131

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Feb 93 02:59:45 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 131

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (David E A Wilson)
    Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (John R. Levine)
    Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Christopher Davis)
    Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Liron Lightwood)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Richard Pauls)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Steven King)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Graham Toal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 16:29:38 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)


On 19 Feb 93 07:23:09 GMT, [e-mail] (Jack
Decker) said:

> In message <[e-mail]>, John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> wrote:

>> And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in
>> about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected
>> via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it
>> goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how
>> intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it.

> Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the
> more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't
> available to other carriers?  Tell me why, for example, an AT&T
> operator can hold my line open until she releases the call, while OCC
> operators cannot?  Have these superior connections been made available
> to other carriers?  I think not.  Again, once AT&T has to compete on a
> totally level playing field, I think a lot of these so-called
> advantages will disappear (when was Feature Group C supposed to be
> discontinued, anyway?).

AT&T completes calls so quickly because a) its network is 100%
internally connected via SS7, b) because it has SS7 interconnections
with the local network wherever possible, and c) the routing
algorithms used in its network have been redesigned and reimplemented
TWICE since divesture.

SS7 is a postdivestiture technology.  Any carrier can use it, but they
have to be willing to invest money to do so.  I doubt the two routing
algorithms, DNHR and RTNR, are for sale, since they were invented by
Bell Labs well after divestiture.  But any carrier can choose to
invest or not invest in R&D.  AT&T chooses to do so.  Is there a
"McGowan Labs" doing world-class R&D?


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."

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 16:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


On Feb 24 at 16:29, Andy Sherman writes:

> But any carrier can choose to invest or not invest in R&D.  AT&T
> chooses to do so.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many in the industry, that the
OCCs are more "sales driven" than "engineering driven". Where AT&T had
an infrastructure, history, and a vast R&D mechanism, MCI and the
others had loads of venture capital and a lot of MBAs whose goal it
was to scoop up some of the vast amounts of money in the long distance
industry.

Recall that the usual "post monopoly" pattern took place: MCI (and
Sprint) carried calls between the largest of the markets ONLY. It was
the cream -- lots of volume and relatively little investment. These
companies view engineering and technology as an unavoidable expense; a
banana peel in the road that leads to making money.

AT&T actually has an R&D arm. It has entire departments dedicated to
no other purpose than the improvement of the state of the art of
telephony. (Friends and Family, The Most, et al, are not exactly
milestones in telecommunications development.) Of course, that "market
savvy" can pay off. Sprint took technology pioneered and developed by
AT&T and designed an historic marketing plan around it. The results
were so impressive that it forced AT&T to phase in digital
transmission well ahead of its original schedule.

It really needs to be emphasized that there is a key premise in MCI's
and Sprint's marketing strategies. The OCCs would have you believe
that long distance service is simply a commodity such as wheat or
gold. The only difference between one company and another is the price
one pays.  Mr. Decker first seemed to buy into this reasoning,
criticizing AT&T for making claims to the contrary. Then he quickly
turned on himself, mentioning about a dozen ways that AT&T service IS
actually better.  But then he moderated that stance by suggesting
reasons (making excuses for the OCCs, actually) that would explain
AT&T's techological edge.

So it comes down to a matter of "to each his own". There are many who
prefer a "sales and marketing" approach. These are people with
relatively simple and straightforward requirements. Others, such as
myself, are more interested in technical and engineering solidity.
AT&T is well aware that the days of not having to compete are over
forever.  But sometimes, AT&T's marketing ineptitude can be
overwhelming. I would be willing to bet that many who read this forum
are completely unaware of the unbeliveably vast array of services that
are offered by AT&T.  And even when one becomes aware of a particular
AT&T product, ordering it can sometimes present an exercise in
frustration.

But let us see if we can abandon the blanket assertions. All of the
players have products that are useful to someone. Everyone is
marketing aggressively. It is time we take the outdated restrictions
away so that we customers can really reap the benefits.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 04:07:06 GMT


This is a followup to my original post where I bemoaned the fact that
I could not get discounts on calls to both China and NZ on ATT but
could on MCI but was reluctant to switch carriers for a variety of
reasons.  This seemed to have generated much traffic about the
relative merits of the carriers. Those who argue that AT&T's service
is a cut above the competition and cite experiences to support those
experiences, are expressing viewpoints that I have always felt, but
did not have the experiences (expertise?) to backup.

For example, someone from AT&T labs replied to me saying he would get
in touch with a friend in customer service to call me. That person did
call me and expressed her concern that AT&T were not able to meet my
calling needs but that they would keep my name on file, and should
appropriate tariffs appear that would suit my needs, they would call
to let me know.  That is service above and beyond the call of duty I
feel. It's a pity they could not do anything at this time, citing
tariff approval procedures etc.  (As an aside, do the other carriers
have an easier time introducing new tariffs etc?)

Anyway I decided in the end to open an account with MCI but accessed
via 10222, enrolled in their Around the World (?) plan as well as
designating two numbers (one in NZ and one in China) as F&F numbers.
This way I can get up to 35% discount on calls to China (sorely needed
given the high cost of calling that country) and to one number in NZ
(which reduces the rate to about 62c/minute for one number and 79c for
the others) while keeping AT&T my 1+ carrier for the present.
Interestingly, and I don't know if this is a harbinger of things, once
I found out whom to call at MCI, I was on hold for a while (relatively
speaking I suppose), and this was at night time.


Laurence Chiu   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing
Date: 24 Feb 1993 10:09:21 +1100
Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.


[e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) writes:

> Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement"
> "Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region."

This is not surprising when you realise that this number really should
be formatted +61 59 00 xxxx (or if dialed within Australia (059) 00
xxxx).

Thus the exchange prefix is 00, which is not valid for regular phone
numbers.  I only have 4x xxxx through 9x xxxx as being valid numbers
in the 059 area code.

What xxxx did you use?


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

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

Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 24 Feb 93 21:49:37 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are
> now direct dialable.  I have no idea what the country code is.

Hey, there was an article in the Digest on this very topic at the time
they became dialable.  (I remember, because I sent it in.)  They share
the code 672 with other Australian External Territories.  I don't know
what any actual working numbers are.  Perhaps they have directory
assistance down there.

Someone at an Antarctic base was on NPR Talk of the Nation on New
Year's Day, and said that they get a lot of e-mail, being on the net.
Didn't give her e-mail address, though.  Bummer.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 21:38:15 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: [...]  I understand Scott and Casey bases in
> Antarctica are now direct dialable.  I have no idea what the country
> code is.  PAT]

Interestingly enough, McMurdo Base is on the Internet.  (I believe the
connection is even supposed to be a year-round one now, though it was
turned off last (Southern Hemisphere) winter.)

Naturally enough, it's a satellite connection rather than a cable :)


* Christopher Davis * <[e-mail]> * <[e-mail]> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
226 Transfer complete. 17512509 bytes received in 5.2e+02 seconds (33 Kbytes/s)

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:15:49 +1100
From: Liron Lightwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing


> Just some quirks of international dialing:

> Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement"
> "Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region."  In

This number translates to 00-xxxx in the 059 area code, which is an
invalid number.  You shouldn't be getting that recorded message
however, as 059 is certainly dialable.

> I was unable to connect to either Wallis and Futuna (681) or Papua New
> Guinea (675); all attempts got the American intercept, "your
> international call cannot be completed as dialed."

What LD carrier did you use?  It could be that that particular carrier
does not provide direct dialing to those countries (there was
previous discussion in this group on not being able to call Fiji with
AT&T, I think).

> Finally, has anyone successfully called the Australian Antarctic
> Territories?  If so, please supply a working number.

See below for country codes.

> [Moderator's Note: Regarding Antarctica, for some reason a call from
> thirty plus years ago stands out in my memory. The old 'Rate and
> Route' bureau in Morris, IL told the local operator to hand me off to
> the overseas operator in Oakland, CA. That operator in turn looked
> into the matter and reported that contact with Antarctica was made by
> the Sydney, Australia radiotelephone operator, and that " ... they
> allow calls from the USA on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday" at some
> time of day I've long since forgotten. I remember her saying there was
> some time available "a couple days from now if you want me to book
> you for it ..." I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are
> now direct dialable.  I have no idea what the country code is.   PAT]

According to a newspaper article I once read, in the 1950's or
thereabouts, international operators weren't available 24 hours a day
in Australia.  Various countries were only available at certain times
of the day.  Calls to England and the US were available for about
12-16 hours a day (I can't remember the exact times) and the times for
each destination were quite different.  The times didn't have anything
to do with business hours in Australia though, I don't know what they
related to.

According to the article, this was in the days when calls to Europe or
the US from Australia cost a fortune, and required the call to be set
up in several stages along the route, with each operator asking the
next operator to place the call and set up their part of the route.

How things have changed.

And now, here are the details for dialing the Australian Antarctic
Territory.

Country code: 672

Area codes:   Casey 12,  Macquarrie Island 13,  Davis 10,  Mawson 11


[Moderator's Note: What about Scott and McMurdo?  Carl and David, are
you taking notes on this for the next country.codes update in the
Telecom Archives?   PAT]

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

From: Richard Pauls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 12:31:49 -0500


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

> I thought I saw something in the Digest about 813 (Florida) possibly
> being split by using one of the NNX area codes.  It's apparently too
> soon to be announcing a new area code in Florida (which now has 1 +
> NPA + 7D statewide for all toll calls, and I personally saw this
> posted near Pensacola in area 904).

I've just started reading this newsgroup and I've noticed a lot of
postings discussing area codes and exchanges.  It seems there are some
conventions for acceptable combinations of numbers in these codes.
For example requiring an area code to have 0 or 1 as the middle digit.
What other conventions are there regarding area codes, exchanges or
phone numbers in geneal for that matter?


Thanks,

Rich

[Moderator's Note: I'll yeild to Carl Moore, our resident area code
expert and historian for more details to you in mail, but area codes
do not have '1' or '0' as the first digit, nor do they have '11' or
"00' as the second and third digit. Three digit codes ending with '11'
are local telco services (information or repair), and three digit
codes ending '00' are special services (800 toll free, 900 premium)
rather than area codes. Until quite recently, area codes did not have
'0' as the third digit; now where '0' is the third digit, '1' is
always the second digit, as in 810, 910, or our mysterious and beloved
710. These latter-day area codes ending in '10' were formerly 'TWX
area codes' dating back forty years to when AT&T owned a 'telegraph'
network called TWX (<T>ype<W>riter E<X>change -- got it?) which they
had to turn over to Western Union in the 1960's when WUTCO sued them
for invading their territory.

WUTCO bought AT&T's TWX network, but by and large all the equipment
stayed in the Bell central offices where it had always been, using the
'area codes' AT&T had given it. They named it TELEX II (as in
<TEL>egraph <EX>change -- got it?) to differentiate it from TELEX I,
their original product before AT&T went into the business, got sued
and had to get out. In those days, TWX machines and telephones
operated on the same network, like modems and phones do today, but
TELEX had its own network. As telephone area codes became in short
supply, Bellcore reclaimed all the X10 codes from WUTCO or AT&T or
whoever owned/operated TELEX II, nee TWX at the time and now they are
being used in the voice telephony network. With local exchanges or
prefixes, it *used to be* the first and second digit was always two
through nine and the third digit was one through nine. Zeros were not
used in any position in prefixes until a few years ago when otherwise
the supply ran out.  Carl Moore will tell you lots more, I'm sure.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 18:27:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


> In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code format,
> where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the
> middle digit.

> Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get
> the very first interchangable area code?  I imagine that they may find
> themselves hard to call for a while.

Oh lovely -- there can now be area code 666 which many numerologists
will never dial under any circumstances, and will certainly move
before getting stuck with that number.

Perhaps it'll be allocated to only pagers, faxes and modems.

This also opens the opportunity for "vanity" area codes and numbers
where all ten digits spell a name.  ex: 328 533 3739 is "fat jeffrey",
which is certainly not me!


Jeffrey Jonas   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: *Of course* it isn't you, we all know that. The
rules say that 666 will not be assigned to pagers, faxes or modems.
It will be assigned to telemarketers and bill collectors, all a bunch
of Great Satans.  :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven King, Software Archaeologist)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 19:40:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Mark Walsh) publicly declared:

> In article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jamie
> Hanrahan):

>> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
>> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
>> so?

> Do you realize what you are suggesting?  Why, this would cause the
> cellular phone industry to spend several dollars more per phone!  It
> is far, far cheaper for them to continue to buy off our elected
> officials, and make them pass laws which give the cell phone user an
> illusion of security.  I mean, an illusion is as good as the real
> thing, isn't it?  :-(

I'm all for a good dose of healthy cynicism, but I think you've taken
it a little far.  Better reasons for not having phones channel-hop
every five seconds are:

  1) Noise on the circuit.  Under ideal conditions a handoff is barely
     perceptible to the user, but we all know conditions aren't always
     ideal.  Would you like to hear an audible "pop" every five seconds?
     Besides, the mobile can only tune to one frequency at a time.
     This means that to tell the mobile to handoff the cell must blank
     voice momentarily and send a burst of data.  Even if the handoff
     were quite smooth you'd still notice a choppiness in the
     conversation.  (And you thought it was tough to use a modem over
     cellular *now* ...!)

  2) Processing overhead.  Not in the mobile phone, but in the switch.
     Frankly, I suspect that today's phones could handle handoffs this
     frequently without getting too frazzled.  The cell site and the
     switch, on the other hand, would be spending gobs of processor
     time just coordinating all of these little hops.

Let's face it, the only way to get security when you're broadcasting
is to encrypt.  I'd love to see encrypted phones become the industry
standard, but it didn't start out that way and the industry certainly
can't change its entire installed base now.  Hopefully someone will
see the light and add encryption as standard to the next generation of
digital cellphones.

You realize, of course, that I'm just a grunt programmer and I don't
make policy.  Flames about the direction of the industry should be
sent to /dev/null, not to me ...


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 21:13:49 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones

> Or worse yet (better yet for the criminals), what about a cellular
> phone that automatically monitored for valid ID's and then
> automatically used a new one for each fraudulent call?

Already been done I hear.  Phone phreakers are already using heavily
modified phones which use different IDs for every call, to spread
around the damage and make their misuse harder to spot.  They're also
selling them to dubious people for several thousands of dollars.

(I can't vouch for any of this of course, just what I've heard from
some US phreakers.  These idiots *love* to boast.)


G

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #131
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00478;
          26 Feb 93 3:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02164
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:10:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17584
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:09:40 -0600
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:09:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #132

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Feb 93 01:09:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 132

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 (Carl Moore)
    Infocom '93 (Mike Hluchyj)
    White House: A Computer Nerdville (New York Times via Eric De Mund)
    Help Wanted (Hannu Komulainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:37:50 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993


[Moderator's Note: Carl updates this file in the Telecom Archives on a
regular basis (where it is filed as 'history.of.area.splits' and also
as 'areacode.history'), but I only print it here in the Digest once a
year or so after several revisions have been incorporated into it.
This file, and others in the archives are accessible using anonymous
ftp lcs.mit.edu.  PAT]

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

Generalizing prefixes from NNX to NXX (i.e., allowing N0X/N1X) is an
alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this
point.  When an area has NXX (not NNX) prefixes, its long distance
dialing instructions usually are:

  7D or 1 + NPA + 7D within area (can no longer use 1 + 7D);
  1 + NPA + 7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA + 7D);
  for 0+ calls, try 0 + NPA + 7D (some 0 + 7D would require timeout).

In other words, the leading 1 (or 0) means that what follows is an
area code.  These instructions can, without further revision,
accommodate area codes of form NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X, and thus
I believe they will become universal when area codes must generalize
to NXX, for which the deadline is January 1, 1995 (had been July 1,
1995).  But since the first batch of NNX area codes will be of NN0
form, some areas might be able to keep 1 + 7D for intra-NPA long
distance by disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I do not know if this
will be affected by use of 52x codes (x not necessarily 0) for Mexico.
It is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the
policy of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short.

An exception to the above dialing instructions was discovered in
Feb 1992 for 215-267 (Denver) and 215-484 (Adamstown) in Pennsylvania.
These exchanges are served by Denver & Ephrata Telephone & Telegraph,
which also serves a part of the 717 area, and which is keeping the
old instructions (1 + 7D and 0 + 7D within area code), even though
this will necessitate timeout resolution for some calls from the 215
portion of their service area.  This will change only when it is
about time for the NXX area codes.

The suggestion (at least from Bellcore) has been seen that ideally,
all calls should be makeable as 1+NPA+7D (this does not necessarily
forbid shorter forms).

These areas have N0X/N1X prefixes:
213, California, July 1973
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (later 213/818, now 213/310/818)
 (this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for
  within-NPA 0+ calls)
212, New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (later 212/718, now 212/917/718)
312, Illinois, Oct 1982--but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983?
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 312/708)
201, New Jersey
 (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609)
 (now 201/908)
214, Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987)
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817,
  at least in Fort Worth area)
 (now 214/903)
301/202/703, Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (301 now 301/410)
415, California, Feb 1989?
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 415/510)
404, Georgia, Oct 1989?
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 912)
 (now 404/706)
919, North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704)
 (to become 919/910)
416, Ontario, 3 Mar 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (to become 416/905)
602, Arizona, 1 July 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
313, Michigan, 1990?
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (to become 313/810)
512, Texas, 9 Sept 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
 (now 512/210)
205, Alabama, Dec 1990
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
215, Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991
 (7D on all calls within it; exception noted above, but the new
  instructions were also applied to:
  717-354,355 New Holland
  717-656,661 Leola
  717-768 Intercourse)
 (to become 215/610)
206, Washington, 12 Jan 1992
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
813, Florida, 7 Mar 1992
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 305,407,904)
713, Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991)
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)
714, California, 1992?
 (7D on all calls within it)
 (now 714/909)
503, Oregon, 10 July 1993
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

No note about N0X/N1X prefixes, but instructions are being changed
to accommodate the coming of NXX area codes:
207, Maine; 413,508,617, Massachusetts; 603, New Hampshire;
 401, Rhode Island; 802, Vermont (all New England areas
 except Connecticut); 1993-1994
 (7D on all calls within area code)
303,719, Colorado; other U.S. West areas; 1993-1994
 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls)

Areacode splits:

If no date appears, the split may not have been announced publicly due
to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, or may never have
occurred.  Early splits can only be guessed at with the following
guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or
province with more than 1 areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true,
is now obsolete.)  If an areacode is in a state or province with only
1 areacode, it is of form N0X.  (The reverse, if it was ever true, is
now obsolete.)

what?/209 California
what?/707 California
what?/805 California
305/813 Florida
404/912 Georgia, 1953 or 1954
    December 1991 Greater Atlanta call guide, in discussing 404/706
    split, said "It's been 38 years since Georgia added an Area Code."
what?/309 Illinois
502/606 Kentucky
504/318 Louisiana
616/906 Michigan, sometime after Nov 1960
612/507 Minnesota
402/308 Nebraska
what?/607 New York
704/919 North Carolina
405/918 Oklahoma
what?/519 Ontario, 1953
901/615 Tennessee
what?/806 Texas
206/509 Washington
what?/608 Wisconsin
what?/705 Ontario, 1957
201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s
what?/807 Ontario, 1962
415/408 California, 1960
305/904 Florida, July 1965
703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM
714/619 California, Nov 1982
713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later)
213/818 California, Jan 1984
212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984)
    Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718;
    Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212;
    Bronx switched from 212 to 718, 1 July 1992 (full cutover
    15 May 1993; but until then, calls from Bronx to Brooklyn/
    Queens/Staten Island must still be dialed 1+718+7D, and
    effective 25 Sept 1993 must be dialed 7D)
303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988
305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988
617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988
312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990)
202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990
    This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code.
    202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost
    Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper.
    (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.)
    As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon)
    using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located
    in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202.  Prefixes
    in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area
    202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703.  (Local
    calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.)
214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991)
201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991)
415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992)
301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992)
213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 16 May 1992; was
     to be 2 May 1992, but was postponed indefinitely because
     of riots just before then)
    (all GTE plus some PacBell went into 310)
212/718/917 New York, 1 Jan 1992 (917, to be overlaid on
     212 & 718, is to be used for cellular & pagers)
404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 3 Aug 1992)
512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993)
714/909 California, 14 Nov 1992 (full cutover 14 Aug 1993)
    (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909;
     Orange County remains in 714)
416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover 10 Jan 1994)
919/910 North Carolina, 14 Nov 1993 (full cutover 13 Feb 1994)
313/810 Michigan, 10 Aug 1994
215/610 Pennsylvania, 1994

On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the
U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued.  Country code 52,
already available for such calls, was to be used.  706 and 905 thus
became available for use elsewhere, and were later announced for use
in Georgia and Ontario respectively.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Hluchyj)
Subject: Infocom '93
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:40:12 GMT


                   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Announcing . . . .

IEEE INFOCOM '93
The Conference on Computer Communications

March 28 - April 1, 1993

Hotel Nikko, San Francisco, California

Now in its 12th year, IEEE INFOCOM is the premier international
technical conference devoted to computer communications and
networking.  Papers presented at INFOCOM represent the leading edge of
understanding and development in this fast moving field, and are
accepted only after a rigorous review process.  Half-day and full-day
tutorials are given by leading experts and afford the participant an
opportunity to stay current with the latest directions in
communication networks.  IEEE INFOCOM '93 is sponsored by the IEEE
Computer and Communications Societies.

The major themes of INFOCOM are shaped each year by the papers
submitted and the directions set by the Technical Program Committee.
This year, as in recent years, a major theme is multimedia and
integrated networking.  In particular, many aspects of ATM transport
are explored.  Modelling of multimedia traffic (including video),
admission and congestion control, switching, optical networking, and
quality of service guarantees are prominent in this year's program.
There are also sessions on routing, wireless networks, and local and
metropolitan area networks, along with sessions on conformance testing
and interoperability, protocol design and evaluation, protocol
specification and verification, protocol implementation and analysis,
and high speed protocols.

The panels this year cover formal methods and telecommunication system
software, all-optical networking, and the future of network theory.

We are especially fortunate to have Prof. Robert G. Gallager of MIT
deliver the plenary address on "Network and Communication Research in
the Information Age."

The first two days of the conference (March 28 and 29) are devoted to
tutorials, and this year one can select from among the following
outstanding tutorials:

   Quality-of-Service Control and Management for Broadband
   Networks,
   Aurel A. Lazar, Columbia University

   Theoretical Aspects of Multi-Stage Networks for Broadband
   Networks,
   Gaylord W. Richards, AT&T Bell Labs

   Design of Local ATM Networks,
   Jonathan Turner, Washington University

   Multimedia Communications and Services,
   Sid Ahuja, AT&T Bell Labs

   Advanced Topics in Broadband Systems: ATM Switches and Optical
   Networks,
   Anthony S. Acampora, Columbia University

   Wireless Information Networks,
   David Goodman, Rutgers University

                   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

To receive an electronic copy of the INFOCOM '93 Advance Program send
Email to: [e-mail]

To receive a printed copy of the INFOCOM '93 Advance Program call
Gerry Hansen at [phone] or send a FAX to Michael G. Hluchyj,
INFOCOM '93 General Chair at [phone].

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

From: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Subject: White House: A Computer Nerdville
Reply-To: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 21:41:24 GMT


[NYT, Saturday, February 20, 1993]

                White House: A Computer Nerdville
                         By STEVE LOHR

                 Special to The New York Times


  WASHINGTON -- In policy and practice, this is supposed to be a
high-tech Presidency.

  Bill Clinton's vision of America's future is of a nation linked by a
"data superhighway" -- a web of fiberoptics wizardry able to bring
everything from libraries to movies to blueprints into every home,
school and office at the touch of a button.

  On the campaign trail, his people regarded laptop personal computers
as casual tools of everyday life, plugging them into computer bulletin
boards and firing off electronic-mail messages around the country.

                          Big Job for 2 Mavens

  And through electronic town halls and electronic mail, President
Clinton pledges to bring the Government to the people.

  Perhaps, but the White House itself seems trapped in the technological
dark ages. And it is the job of Andrew Aultz and Bill Krause, two
technology mavens, to bring the telephones and computers in the
Executive Offices into the modern world -- no small order, given the
budget squeeze.

  "We'd love to give this place all the latest toys, but we can't," Mr.
Krause said, sitting beneath a freshly framed picture of President
Clinton and leafing through a computer magazine.

  Many phone calls in the White House are still connected manually by
operators plugging cords into a switchboard. Mr. Aultz, a 35-year-old
telecommunications specialist, says its archaic inefficiency is one
reason callers cannot get through to register their views on the
Presidential comments line, generating up to 50,000 busy signals a day.

  Mr. Krause, a 42-year-old computer expert, complains of a chronic
shortage of personal computers and tells of young staff members appalled
to find typewriters on their desks.

  The PC's that are there are a couple of generations old -- four years
or more -- and are arrayed in a hodgepodge of 21 networks that cannot
talk to one another. One result: the President's daily schedule is still
printed on paper and distributed by hand instead of by computer, so some
people get it a couple of hours late.

  In many ways, the challenge at the White House is similar to that
confronted daily in corporate America as companies try to tailor fast-
changing technology to their organizational needs.

  "The White House is like a small holding company -- and a very
important one," said Warren McFarlan, a professor at the Harvard
Business School. "And it is grappling with the same technology issues
that companies must address every day."

  The Clinton staff got used to high-speed technology on the campaign
trail, scouring the news wires constantly by computer and reacting
almost instantly with statements, position papers and rebuttals to
charges or controversies. These messages were distributed through an
elaborate electronic mail system linked to campaign offices in all 50
states.

  "Our motto on the campaign was that speed kills," explained Jeff
Eller, the White House director of media affairs.

  The technological hurdle for the White House is magnified by the
generation gap between the Clinton and Bush Administrations and very
different styles of government.

                       It Worked in the Campaign

  The use of modern technology to speed reaction times and deal with the
public directly, whether in televised town meetings or a program for
electronically distributing White House statements nationally, is a
central tenet of the Clinton Administration. As much as possible, the
President wants his message delivered as he presents it, not filtered,
or analyzed, by the news media. The catch phrase, used by White House
officials, is that Mr. Clinton intends to speak "to people" instead of
speaking "through people."

  It worked in the campaign, they say, and it will be used in the
White House, especially to rally support for ambitious programs like
the Clinton economic policy.

  "Clinton plans to run his Government like a campaign," said Raymond
Strother, a Democratic political consultant, "To do that, you need the
technology to run at that speed."

  The demand for technology by the young White House staff members is
running well ahead of supply. Personal computers are being rationed
and the backlog of PC's ordered but not yet delivered is 50, though
that is down from 100 two weeks ago.

  "Our people are hooked on the flow of information," Mr. Krause said,
"so everybody wants his or her own PC."

                         A Flood of Daily Calls

  The jammed phone lines at the White House are apparently a result of
the higher volume of calls from the public. During the Reagan and Bush
years there would be about 5,500 calls to the White House general
number on a busy day, though the numbers would rise in crisis periods
like the Persian Gulf war.

  By contrast, there are 40,000 to 65,000 calls a day now to the
general number alone, according to Mr. Aultz. The steady flood of
calls, White House officials say, is explained by the new
Administration's more open, informal style.

  "Where people might not have dared call when Reagan or Bush were in
the White House, they will call here now," Mr. Aultz said.

  While the White House phone service how badly needs upgrading, Mr.
Aultz concedes it met the requirements in the past.

                       Working With Phone Company

  "In fairness, we found a telephone system that was suited for the way
they did business," Mr. Aultz said. "But it is terribly inefficient for
the way we do business."

  The White House is working with the local phone company, Chesapeake
& Potomoc, and American Telephone and Telegraph to streamline and
expand the White House phone systems.

  On the computer front, Mr. Krause plans to replace many of the White
House PC's, mostly I.B.M. models dating to 1988 and 1989, with more
powerful machines that run faster and can handle graphics and possibly
even information in both video and audio form, so-called multimedia.

                      No Substitute for Decisions

  The Iran-Contra affair put a dent in the White House computer budget
because all the hard disks had to be removed and replaced after a
Federal panel ruled last month that all E-mail messages from the Bush
Administration had to be saved. The Clintonites insist that the
precedent for opening up E-mail messages to public scrutiny will not
deter them from using the technology freely.

  For the moment, the bigger problem is bringing the White House
computer systems up to speed.

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

From: [e-mail] (Hannu Komulainen)
Subject: Help Wanted With Development Project
Date: 24 Feb 93 08:35:24 GMT
Organization: Telecom Finland


I would appreciate your help on our (Telecom Research Centre, Finland)
new development project concerning "Remote-Line-Activation" or as we
call it "INSTANT-service". Here is short description what it is all
about.

Introduction:

Every now and then people move from one residence to other and of
course want to move their telephone lines there too. Or perhaps the
customer wants to get some new service in his/her telephone line. So,
what happens?  Customer goes to Telecom Finland's public service point
and makes agreement about that previous mentioned service. Personnel
at the service point give customer timescedule when order is ready.
And then custom have just to wait!

What if the customer can get right away new service activated or new
residence telephone line activated instantly, too, and old residence
telefone line deactivated at the same time? Or perhaps these events
can be made timed.

Our goal is to get this process more easy and faster.

The main problem here in Finland is that we have several types of
switches e.g. Nokias DX200, Ericssons AXE and Siemens EWSD.  And every
one of those needs specific MML -commands.

Question:

So, we need to get connection between our customer service host
(ATLAS, Unix) and our switches to put MML commands on switches
automatically.  Moreover we are interested about interface between
customer service host and it's users, in the other words what
information customer servicer put in the system (customer home
address, switch card number, ...).

I would be most grateful if you could give me some or any information
that kind of (commercial or your own developed) software or hardware.

Please sent this request forward if you can't answer it yourself. Or
if you know some person/persons who might can answer, sent his/her
e-mail address or telephone number to me, so I can contact to them.


Yours sincerely,

Hannu Komulainen    Telecom Research Centre, Finland
x.400: g=Hannu s=Komulainen ou1=Tkk o=Tele p=Inet a=Mailnet c=Fi
[e-mail]   Telecom Research Centre, Finland

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #132
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05200;
          26 Feb 93 5:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21938
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:53 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14238
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:15 -0600
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #133

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Feb 93 02:34:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 133

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    TOPS Birthday (Charles Hoequist)
    Beep! The Baby's Coming! (Harold Hallikainen)
    Pregnancy and Pagers (Robert J. Woodhead)
    40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program (Binion Amerson)
    Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Tad Cook)
    Speech Recognition Press Announcement (AT&T Press Release via N Tiedemann)
    Fiber Optics Comes to Cable, Telco Screams Unfair (Dave Niebuhr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 08:34:00 +0000
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: TOPS Birthday


The following birthday announcement made the rounds here in January; I
thought Digest readers might find it interesting.

First, some acronym decipherment:

TOPS = Traffic Operator Position System, a hardware and software
system that supports operators from a toll switch.

MSS = Member of Scientific Staff; a grunt. I believe this is
equivalent to AT&T's MTS (Member of Technical Staff?).

Protel = NT/BNR's switch programming language.

PLS = Product Library System. Source code and document control
system.

BCS = Batch Change Supplement. A system of tracking features from
feature proposal to customer release.

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

TOPS is 20 years old this month, and I thought some of you might like
to know a little about how it came to be.

TOPS started officially in January 1973.  Bell Northern Research was
three years old and had a few hundred employees, most of them located
in Ottawa.  BNR and NT (then called Northern Electric) had recently
installed their first stored program switch, the SP-1.  Bell Canada
had asked BNR to investigate the possibility of using the SP-1 to
replace their manual cordboard operator exchanges.  The official study
concluded that the idea was impractical, but in the middle of 1972 one
of the software design groups decided to do some skunk work
development.  They demonstrated it to senior management, who said very
nice but stop wasting time and get back to doing something useful.

NT marketing, however, knew a good thing when they found a customer
willing to buy it.  The design manager was called from his Christmas
1972 vacation in Mexico to go straight to Alaska, and inspired by the
bracing weather he helped to sell the idea.  When he got back to
Ottawa in January, he was put in charge of the newly approved TOPS
project by the same people who had reprimanded him for the bootleg
work.

He formed an interdisciplinary group of 9 or 10 people drawn from
hardware, software and human factors.  I joined the team as a new hire
in mid 1973 to work on TOPS software.  We also had a couple of people
from Bell Canada Operator Services to advise us.  Our design
methodology was a lot less formal than it is today.  We discussed how
it should work and then coded it.  Design reviews consisted of having
them come and look at it in the lab to see if they liked it.  In two
and a half years, we wrote call processing software and built NT's
first ASCII terminal, the TOPS-1 position.  The SP-1 processor was
capable of about 0.1 MIPS, and the software we wrote, mostly in
assembler, could handle about 100 positions.  The TOPS-1 position used
an Intel 8008 processor and had furniture designed to move telephone
operators into a modern office environment.

The first TOPS office went into service in Alaska in mid 1975.  NT
thought it would take about another year to finish development.  As
far as I know, there's still an SP-1 TOPS software group at NT.  TOPS
was a success on SP-1.  It was installed on about 30 of the 200 SP-1
switches that were eventually sold in Canada, the US and Puerto Rico.
The TOPS-1 terminal was replaced by the TOPS-2 and TOPS-3, which used
8080 microprocessors and more integrated electronics but kept the
original keyboard, screen and furniture.

In 1979, as the first DMS was going into service, the SP-1 TOPS team
moved over to DMS.  There was a fair degree of culture shock.  We had
a whole new system to learn, and Protel enforced a degree of structure
that was quite new to us.  It wasn't the DMS environment we know now,
because PLS and the BCS (among other things) had not been invented.
We persevered, and put the first DMS TOPS into service in Kingston
Ont. about the beginning of 1981.  It used the TOPS-3 position, and
reproduced the feature set and the look and feel of SP-1 TOPS almost
exactly.

DMS TOPS sold well for the next few years in Canada and to the
independent telcos in the US.  Then came the divestiture of the Bell
system in the US, which led to rapid growth of DMS switch sales to the
new Bell Operating Companies to meet requirements for equal access.
Under divestiture, the BOCs were required to provide operator
services, but the necessary equipment was allocated to AT&T.  Most of
the BOCs chose to buy DMS TOPS.  We upgraded our position to the
TOPS-4 which used the Intel 8086 and could be installed in either our
own or customer provided furniture, and we developed equal access
translations, rating and signaling.  During 1986 we almost tripled the
installed base of TOPS positions, which certainly put a strain on our
support organization.

At about the same time, we started to design a new workstation, TOPS
MP.  Certain important design elements such as shared high speed
datalinks were not available at first.  The design concept is being
extended now with the MPX, which will introduce an enhanced switch to
position protocol among other things.

If you're working on TOPS today, perhaps you might like to think back
to 1973 and ask yourself what you were doing while the events that
sealed your fate were taking place.

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

Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Beep! The Baby's Coming!
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:28:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(scott.d.brenner) writes:

> I'd like to get a pager just for a month or so.  Since they've always
> just been given to me at work when my employer wanted me to carry one,
> I've never actually procured one myself.  Is it possible to get one
> for such a short period of time?  Where would I get one; who would I
> contact?  And what should I expect it to cost?  Is this a poor
> solution to my situation; are there any better alternatives?

    Years ago I loaned a pager to a friend whose friend was about
to give birth.  I now hear that it is standard practice for our local
hospitals to give pagers to their maternity patients.  All part of the
package.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Pregnancy and Pagers
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 09:34:35 GMT


[e-mail] (scott.d.brenner) writes:

> Now for my question: Although I used to carry a pager for work, I
> don't anymore (I'm *not* upset by this!).  My wife is due to give
> birth to our first child in June.  As the due date approaches, I'd
> like for her to be able to get in touch with me instantly.

We did this for the birth of James (12/12/92) and it worked well.
Here in Japan you can get a pager over the counter, about $25 a month
plus a refundable deposit.

Some advice:

You need to distinguish between a "call me" page and a "call me
because things are starting to happen" page.  Trust me, the closer you
get, the more your wife will page you to do things on the way home,
etc; you want to be able to know BEFORE you answer the page whether or
not it's baby-related, as this will save you from freaking out
whenever the damn thing goes off.

Solution: Get a display pager, and use a code system.  Here is
(adjusted for America) the one we used:

phone number    non-home number, non-emergency call
0+phone number    non-home number, baby-related, call asap

000        Call home, non-emergency
111        Call home, baby may be on the way.
222        MEET me at home, baby may be on the way.
333        GO home, get baby stuff, meet me at clinic.
444        FORGET the junk, just get to the clinic ASAP!
555        IN delivery room, where are you, you jerk?
666        YOU are now a father, soon to be a DIVORCED one!

Good luck.  When it's all over, you'll understand which of the sexes
is the weaker one.


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    [e-mail]
AnimEigo US Office Email (for general questions): [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Binion Amerson)
Subject: 40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 13:29:17 GMT


40TH STC ANNUAL CONFERENCE: PRELIMINARY PROGRAM SUMMARY
AVAILABLE ON USERGROUPS MISC.WRITING AND NEWS.ANNOUNCE.CONFERENCES

Anyone interested in the communication of technical, scientific, and
medical material -- writers, editors, managers, illustrators,
educators, and students (experienced and entry-level alike)--should
attend the Society for Technical Communication's (STC's) 40th Annual
Conference, Post-Conference Workshops, and Exposition to be held at
the Loews Anatole Hotel, Dallas, Texas, June 6-10, 1993.  For a
summary of the Preliminary Program for this Conference, see the
posting on the usergroup misc.writing under the title "TECHNICAL: 40th
STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program" or the posting on the
usergroup news.announce.conferences under the title "40th STC Annual
Conference -- Preliminary Program."


Binion Amerson, Senior Technical Writer, OpenConnect Systems, 2711 LBJ Frwy,
Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75234; 214/888-0447; 214/484-6100 (fax); [e-mail]
General Manager: 40th STC Annual Conference, June 6-10, 1993, Dallas, TX

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

Subject: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:19:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)


(I am posting this for my pal Becky, who does not read Usenet. Folks
who have any ideas or want to help should respond to her at bbullock@
u.washington.edu, or I will forward anything that gets posted on
TELECOM Digest.

I understand AT&T's position ... it looks like the call was dialed
from her line.  But what does one DO when they are reasonably certain
that their line and equipment are secure, they haven't called 900
numbers, and one of these charges shows up?

Her letter follows.

([e-mail])

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

Can you help us with a phone company problem?  We got charged for a
$15 900 call on our January bill that my S.O. and I are 99% sure we
didn't make.  It's to a sports line in Florida, and we show no faxes
sent that day or even similar phone numbers in our address books.  No
one was visiting and the cats don't like sports.

The call was made at 11:22 a.m. on Saturday, January 9, 1993.  The
number was 900-884-8048.  The 900 line is called SPORTS and is run by
ICN in Florida.  The charge was $15 for one minute!  If I was going to
pay that much, I'd at least want something titillating, not a stupid
sports line!

I called AT&T and they gave us the spiel about 900's being direct dial
only and that their equipment is '100% accurate"!  The company this is
charged for doesn't give AT&T a forwarding address or phone. Apparent-
ly, even if AT&T takes the charge off our bill, the 900 company (ICN)
can send us to collections, and we have no recourse with them until
they do, according to AT&T's 900 Specialist.

As I said before, we show no fax or modem calls to any number at that
time, and no errored transmissions either.  We do not keep a computer
telephone log unfortunately.  Seems like there should be some sort of
mechanism to protest this sort of charge, but AT&T doesn't seem
anxious to tell me about it.  Any suggestions from the telecom world
would be helpful.

Do you have any insight?  Could someone have gotten thru our computer
when it was in modem/fax mode?  Is AT&T ever wrong (ha, ha)?  Is it
worth $15? Should we just accept it and move on?  Thank you very much.


Becky Bullock   Office of Risk Management, AD-76
University of Washington  Seattle  [phone]  [e-mail]

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

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


[Moderator's Note: One possibility is that some third party unknown to
you did camp onto your line outside your premises at some multiple on
the cable and placed the call. There are also instances when for some
reason or another the equipment fails to capture the calling number
and an operator will come on the line to ask 'may I have the number
you are calling from please ...' and the information at that point was
entered inaccurately, either because of operator error or by the
deliberate design of the calling party. (This does not happen just
with 900, it can be on any long distance call and is rare, but it does
happen.) The call won't be released until the operator punches in the
calling number quoted to her.  There is also the possibility of an 800
to 900 conversion, but you say you did not make any calls at the time
in question. I would suggest you ask telco to remove the charge, which
most will do *one time* for any subscriber. Telco may suggest or insist
you have premium (900/976) blocking put on the line to prevent further
occurences of this sort. I've never heard of an instance where telco
insisted that credit for a call *had* to be tied with blocking, but
that may be the case.

If the Information Provider chooses to place you with a collection
agency (which is doubtful in my opinion, but it has been done), only a
feeble attempt at collection will be made. There is a bottom line to
be considered after all. Despite threats which may be made, this will
not reflect on your credit in any way.  And finally, before you give
either telco or the IP too much lip or back-talk and sass, bear in
mind that *nearly always* (note how I cover myself! :) ) the billing
records are correct in this sort of situation. Have you any children
who may have made this call and will not admit it? Was anyone else in
your home who might have made the call? Are you certain you did not
misdial and abandon the call after a recording answered? Telco has no
legal obligation to remove the charge (they can wait until the IP
issues credit back through the system, which would likely be the same
day that Hell freezes over), but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so
one time to maintain customer goodwill. But if credit is issued and
the IP winds up eating the charge, which is likely, then you later
discovered a child had seen the number on the television and called it
or your neighbor in your home doing it again, you'd feel kind of silly
with egg on your face, wouldn't you ...    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 18:33:39 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Speech Recognition Press Announcement
Organization: AT&T


A couple of weeks ago I responded to a question about speech
recognition in the public switched network. Here (finally) is a press
release which directly addresses that. (I had to wait until the
marketing people said it was OK, before I could talk about it.) This
also follows the thread that has been going on about the "dial one"
prompt at the beginning of the 1-800-CALLATT interaction to handle
dial pulse callers. Now you can say the number you want (if the end
customer subscribes to "AT&T 800 Speech 4RD0l Recognition") and be
routed like DTMF.

If there are any questions about this (technical ones), feel free to
e-mail them to me. I will compile a list of questions (if there are
any) and answers (if they're not propriatary) and submit that to the
Digest sometime in the future.


Norm Tiedemann     AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]

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

Thursday, February 25, 1993 -- 11:15 a.m. EST

AT&T today announced an innovative 800 Service feature that makes it
easier for all callers, including those with rotary and non-touch-tone
telephones, to obtain information from businesses by simply
"speaking."  Called AT&T 800 Speech Recognition, this new capability
enables callers to respond verbally to that allow them to select
automatically the information or assistance they want.  AT&T is the
first long- distance company to provide voice-activated call routing
in an 800 service network.  Past technology only enabled callers using
touch-tone telephones to direct their calls after responding to menu
prompts with their keypads.

AT&T Speech Recognition is a network-based, advanced 800 Service
innovation that prompts callers to speak a number -- from "one" to
"nine" -- corresponding to a menu of options that identifies the
department or location they wish to reach within the company they're
calling.  Supported by state-of-the-art technology from AT&T Bell
Laboratories, AT&T Speech Recognition is able to recognize the spoken
number, process the information and route the call through the AT&T
network to the appropriate destination.  During field tests, AT&T
Speech Recognition correctly identified the spoken number 97.8% of the
time.  This high completion rate is achieved even taking into account
the many dialects and accents that exist across the U.S.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:10:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Fiber Optics Comes to Cable, Telco Screams Unfair


This is mostly about a cable company but I'm keeping it legit by
bringing in NYTel - Dave

Today's {Newsday, Feb. 25, 1993} has as it's head article the use by
Cablevision of Long Island (a large regional cable company) of fiber
optics to connect to its subscribers.

It will be fully deployed on Long Island by late 1994 and by 1995
subscribers in Brooklyn and Queens will also be hooked up (I'm not
affected since I have TCI and at much cheaper rates).  The initial
point of entry of this service will be near the border of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties (in and around Levittown in Nassau).  The system will
grow from there to connect all of it's current hubs and subscribers.

Services that could be offered are: Medical Imaging, Telecommuting,
Video-Conferencing, Distance Learning, Video-on-Demand and Personal
Communications Networks (using pocket telephones bypassing NYTel (I
knew I could stick a telecom related item in this article somehow).

Cablevision of Long Island caused a big uproar recently in Huntington
Township (one of the over 660 taxing entities on Long Island) when it
attempted to upgrade it's system; when it arrived, it infuriated many
customers who found they could no longer use their remote controls or
VCRs to record cable shows.

The system will cost $300 million and it is hoped that it will pay for
itself through per-service pricing, rather than through higher
subscription rates and program package deals.  Charles Donlan,
chairman of Cablevision said: "In fact, rates for some basic-service
subscribers could actually decrease;" -- a key consideration since
average Cablevision bills are considered to be the highest cable bills
in the country.

My cable company, TCI, currently has seven miles of fiber installed
and it, too, is going to upgrade during 1994.

NYTel, as expected, is squealing like a stuck pig over this since they
can be cut out of the equation somewhere along the line.

Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable
companies, largely unregulated, enjoy an unfair advantage over telcos.
Federal statues say telcos can only own cable companies outside their
operating regions; ain't that a shame.

The fun starts on tax-happy, high-utility-rate (you name it and it's
overpriced with one exception, my public water company) Long Island.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #133
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05449;
          26 Feb 93 19:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10416
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:19:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00835
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:18:40 -0600
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:18:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #134

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:18:40 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 134

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    History of TWX Area Codes (Bob Clements)
    China's Largest Cellular Order Ever (Terence Cross)
    A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement (NYT via Eric De Mund)
    ISDN Info (ISDN Mailing List via James Gorak)
    Switching LD Carriers (Phydeaux)
    Rochester Tel's Open Market Plan: Similar Proposal Rejected (L. Lightwood)
    Australian Phone Numbers Online? ([e-mail])
    Multimedia/Multicast Using ATM (George Smiley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:17:53 EST
From: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of TWX Area Codes


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

> Until quite recently, area codes did not have '0' as the third
> digit; now where '0' is the third digit, '1' is always the second
> digit, as in 810, 910, or our mysterious and beloved 710. These
> latter-day area codes ending in '10' were formerly 'TWX area codes'
> dating back forty years to when AT&T owned a 'telegraph' network
> called TWX [...]

Let me add a bit of history on these things.  First, it wasn't as long
ago as forty years that the x10 area codes were put in use as TWX
numbers.  I'm not THAT old.  In fact, the anecdote I'm about to relate
happened only about twenty-six years ago.

There was an earlier TWX network already in existence.  Machines on
that network had ordinary telephone numbers, from the regular number
pool, just like FAX machines do today, though they were typically
assigned a restricted class of service if they were served from a
central office which could do that, so people couldn't call between
ordinary phones and TWX lines in most cases.

These TWX machines were the old clunkers that used 5-bit codes
(generally known as Baudot codes, though many strongly claim that that
name is incorrect).  They ran at a blazing six characters per second.
The most rugged of these machines were the old Model 15 and the newer
Model 28 teletypewriters.  ["Teletype" is a trademark of Teletype
Corp.] They were known as "3-row machines" because the keyboards had
three rows of keys.  The digits 1 through 0 were the "shifted"
versions of "QWERTYUIOP".

Newer, faster machines came into existence: The Model 33, made out of
plastic and old beer cans, and the Model 35, which was pretty rugged.
They ran at ten characters per second and used the seven-bit code
ASCII, though without any lower case letters.  These became known as
"4-row" machines.  They had four rows of keys on the keyboard.

To allow the 4-row machines to be deployed and interoperate with the
3-row machines, there had to be translation of codes, speed conversion
and flow control.  This was accomplished by assigning the 4-row
machines to new area codes which were handled specially.  The area
codes assigned were x10.  My notes are at home, but I think x ran from
3 through 7.  I know the entire northeast part of the country was in
710.  And office codes 710-3xx were the Boston area.  [The xx was only
used for billing.  You could call a "farther away" 710-3xx by dialing
your local 710-3yy with the distant machine's last four digits and it
would go through but be billed as a local call.]

So this should roughly pin down the date of the first creation of the
x10 area codes.  It would have been about the time the model 33 and 35
machines came out, roughly 1963-1964?

When a TWX call was made between two 3-row machines, or between two
4-row machines, the call went through directly. But whenever a 3-row
machine called a 4-row machine or vice-versa, the call was routed to a
translator in [Kansas City or St Louis - the grey cells are fading].
This translator did the necessary conversions.  In particular, when
the call was destined for an x10-nnn-nnnn number, it re-placed the
translated call to area code 01x-nnn-nnnn.  I.e., the area code was
flipped around.  So, e.g., area code 017 was the same as area code 710
except that it never was shipped to the translator.

The translator converted between Baudot and ASCII, and also generated
an additional tone called "restraint", for flow control, in addition
to the normal modem tones.  When a 4-row machine received "restraint",
it turned on a yellow light (in case you were typing too fast) and
paused the paper tape reader.

All the above machines ran in half-duplex, by the way.

You could also rent from telco a Model 35 TTY with a built-in modem.
And you could rent a type 103 modem for the TTY to call, and hook up
the modem to your computer.  Both of these would be given ordinary
phone numbers (not x10) and ordinary class of service.  They were
basically the same machines as the new TWX machines.  But you couldn't
call between the two universes, e.g., between new model 35's in area
code 710 and those in area 617, because you would be routed through
the translator and the call would fail.

We proved that the units would interoperate by browbeating a poor
long-distance operator one time.  We had a modem/TTY on a 617 number,
located near a TWX machine, say 710-321-9999.  We called the operator
and asked for assistance in dialing to 017-321-9999.  The operator
naturally told us there was no such area code as 017.  The argument
went on for a while and she finally put the call through, mainly to
get us off her case.  Sure enough, it worked fine.

This was later verified by use of blue-boxes, but of course I know
nothing about that sort of thing.

We also eventually got a computer connection to a TWX machine on the
710-3xx-xxxx exchange.  That was a major hassle that I won't go into
here.

All this occured at a then-small computer company that will remain
nameless, (but it was in Maynard MA).


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: To the best of my recollection, Bob's details are
all correct, but what he describes was in existence prior to 1967. I
recall using a 'four row machine' (they were the TWXs; the 'three row
machines' were the Telexes) when I was employed in the University of
Chicago phone room about 1959-60. It was not new then; that would put
it back 33 years at least. I do not remember the entire layout of area
codes, but 910 covered Chicago and everything west of here. 610 was
(and still is) all of Canada, 810 was Mexico. 310/410/510/710 covered
the eastern half of the USA. AT&T published a TWX directory.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 10:20:29 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Terence Cross)
Subject: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever


Ericsson has been awarded a contract worth over USD 150 million for a
large expansion of the mobile telephone network in the Guangdong
province, China.

The equipment, to be delivered in the third quarter of 1993, will give
the network capacity to serve 240,000 additional subscribers. This
will more than double the capacity of today's network.

The contract, which is the largest ever from China for a cellular
telephone system, includes radio channels, mobile switching centers,
data bases and radio link equipment. The network is operated by
Guangdong Mobile Communications Corporation.

Ericsson is the sole supplier of cellular telephone systems to
Guangdong, which is the province in China with the highest penetration
of mobile telephony and the strongest economic growth.  Other regions
in China have also recently awarded several contracts for cellular
systems to Ericsson. For example, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangxi and Hebei
as well as Shanghai which in the first half of 1993 will increase its
capacity by about 28,000 subscribers. The total value of these orders
is USD 45 million. With this new order Ericsson's mobile telephone
systems in China will have a total capacity to serve about 500,000
subscribers.


Terence Cross

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 19:44:30 -0800
From: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Subject: A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement
Reply-To: Eric De Mund <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services


[NYT, Thursday, February 25, 1993]

       A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement

  TAIPEI, Taiwan, Feb 24 (AP) -- The American Telephone and Telegraph
Company and Taiwan's Economic Ministry signed a letter of intent today
to set up joint ventures that would improve telecommunications in
Taiwan.

  Under the agreement, Taiwan investors and the United States company
would form two ventures to manage technology transfers, product
contracts and financing. Officials said they expected the ventures to
earn about $100 million from helping other countries modernize their
telecommunications systems.

  The two sides expect to work out details of the business plans by the
end of this year, the officials said.

                       Called `Crucial' to Taiwan

  "The joint ventures are crucial to Taiwan's plans to become a major
Asian center of finance, transportation and high-technology
manufacturing," the Vice Economics Minister, Yang Shih-chien, said.

  "Complementary strengths are the key to this international
alliance," said Randall Tobias, vice chairman of A.T.&T.

  Taiwan would gain advanced technology and global market access from
A.T.&T. while supporting the United States company with engineering
and financial resources, he said.

  Mr. Tobias said the joint ventures would cost millions of dollars,
but he declined to elaborate.

                    Follows Partnership with China

  On Tuesday, A.T.&T. entered into a broad partnership with the
mainland Chinese Government when Mr. Tobias signed a memorandum with
the State Planning Commission.

  Although no details were included in the memorandum, the first joint
project was expected to open factories to manufacture advanced
telephone switches in China, the two sides said. The two sides also
plan to make telephones and microelectronic parts in China and set up
a research operation run by A.T.&T.'s Bell Laboratories.

  A.T.&T. reported total revenues of $64.9 billion in 1992. The
company's Taiwan branch, which produces telephone switching systems
and transmission equipment, had revenues of $300 million.

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

Subject: ISDN Information
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 23:56:53 CST
From: James Gorak <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I received this via the ISDN mailing list and I think it will be of
interest to some TELECOM Digest readers.

Jim Gorak [e-mail]

Forwarded message:

 From: maryl (Mary G. LaRoche)
 Subject: Re: Is ISDN Offered in this area?
 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:12:56 EST

Is Bell Atlantic offering ISDN in this area (Matawan/Aberdeen or Red
Bank)?

    Yes.  Without your area code and exchange, can't say anything more
specific.

If so, what is the rate?

    Call either Patrick D'Innocenzo, 301-236-1885, or Robert Buehler,
201-649-6167, of Bell Atlantic.  Note that people in other regions
would need other contact numbers:

Ameritech:  1-800-432-ISDN (4736)
BellSouth:  1-800-428-ISDN
NYNEX: 1-914-644-5152 (Roy Ray)
Pacific Bell:  1-510-823-5118 (Wayne Purves)
Southwestern Bell: 1-314-235-1567 (Basic Rate; Cyd McInnery)
                   1-314-235-1952 (Primary Rate; Jim Brooks)
US West:  1-303-896-0793 (Louise Walsh)

Do I get an equivalent of two phone lines?

   You get two phone lines, plus another that can be used for
slow-speed data.

What kind of equipment do I need to connect?

   An ISDN-capable PC card and/or ISDN telephone set.

Is there an IBM PC card (comercially available) to handle to data or
maybe even voice?

   Yes.

Is there an ISDN phone (commercially available)?

   Yes.

Can I dial and speak as I can do now with the rest of the world?

   Yes.

Is there a flat rate (unlimited local) service the same as for POTS?
How do I get charged?

   Depends on the state's tariff.

Are there published answers to the questions above?

   Sort of.  You can call COS or Bellcore at the numbers listed below for
prices of some materials, although you could probably get some info free
from the contacts listed above.

There are also 1-800 numbers for general information:

COS:  1-800-759-COSI (2674)
Bellcore: 1-800-992-ISDN (4736)

See, I am a potential customer willing to try new technology.  If this
service IS available and the provider cannot reach me, I wonder how
they can do with it the other customers!

   Very good point!

Mary La Roche, Corporation for Open Systems Intl (COS)
X400: /G=Mary/S=LaRoche/O=COS/PRMD=COS/ADMD= /C=US/
Internet: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:45:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Switching LD Carriers


The following appeared in misc.consumers and I thought it would be of
interest here ...
            reb


 From: [e-mail] (David G. Schwartz)
 Newsgroups: misc.consumers
 Subject: Switching Long Distance Companies
 Date: 24 Feb 1993 16:36:48 GMT

So I get this offer in the mail -
    "Switch to Sprint and get $35 credit on your next phone bill"

I figure, "Why not?  $35 is good money for a phone call."
So I call Sprint and make the switch.

Two weeks later I get an offer from AT&T -

    "We want you back - switch and get $25 credit"
Thinking, "Sure, why not", I put the offer aside, but forget to follow up.

A week later a $75 check arrives from AT&T -

    "Endorse and cash this check, and we switch you back" Can't
argue with that. So I cash it and we're back with AT&T.

Another two weeks pass and I get a call from Sprint -

    Sprint Lady: "We want you back at Sprint"
    Me: "What incentive are you offering"
    Sprint Lady: "Better service and prices than AT&T"
    Me: "But AT&T just paid me $75"
    Sprint Lady: "I can't give you any money, but listen,

    SWITCH BACK TO SPRINT NOW AND THEN AT&T WILL SEND YOU
    ANOTHER $75 - THEN GO BACK TO AT&T!   WE'RE HAPPY TO
    HAVE AT&T SPEND THEIR MONEY ON YOU."

Really, that's what she said.  I gave her full points for creative
marketing and agreed to go back to Sprint.

Sure enough, yesterday a check arrives from AT&T - but only for $25.
Then that night I get a "please switch back" call from AT&T.

    Me: "I got your $25 check today - what's the best you can offer me?"
    AT&T Guy: "The screen says I can offer $75"
    Me: "Make it a hundred and you've got a deal"
    AT$T Guy: "I can't go over $75, but I'll tell you what -

    GO AHEAD AND CASH THE $25 CHECK ANYWAY AND I'LL ALSO
    SEND YOU $75 IN CREDIT CERTIFICATES"

Really, that's what he said.  So, you guessed it, we're back with
AT&T.

So I'm thinking, this is a great business.  Why not install a few
dozen phone lines and earn a living just swapping long distance
carriers?  On average I could probably net $50 per line per month.

But why stop there?  How about starting a company that handles long
distance company switching for the public?  I could sign people up
giving me discretion of which LD company to use, and take 20% of the
incentive fee, passing 80% back to the consumer.  Of course, then some
enterprising soul will start a competing company and offer my
switchers an incentive to switch to his switching company ...

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 17:55:09 +1100
From: Liron Lightwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Tel's Open Market Plan: Similar Proposal Rejected


> ** New Opportunities for Telephone Customers **

> :: Rochester Telephone's "Open Market Plan" is Important to Everyone

> Our plan calls for creating two distinct companies.  One company,
> temporarily referred to as R-Net, will be regulated by the New York
> State Public Service Commission and act as a wholesale "network"
> company.  It will let competitors use our network services.  These
> competitors will resell these telephone services to area customers.

> The second company, temporarily referred to as R-Com, will be a real
> competitive company.  It will offer a complete package of telephone
> products and services to the general public -- directly competing with
> all other companies which enter the market.  Our competitive company
> will buy from the wholesale network company at the same prices paid by
> all competitors.

A similar proposal was considered in 1990 as a model for competition
in telecommunications in Australia.  Under the Australian proposal,
the network, and those parts of the then monopoly telecommunications
carrier, Telecom Australia, which operated the network, would remain a
monopoly.  Competition would be in the form of other companies
(including Telecom Australia) competing to resell these network
services to customers.

However, the proposal was rejected in favour of across-the-board
competiton (actually a duopoly) in all areas of telecommunications,
from long distance to the local loop, with other companies allowed to
resell network services from the two carriers.

 From memory, it was felt that under such a proposal, the monopoly
network operator would be forced to reduce prices to the absolute
lowest possible, resulting in little or no incentive (or money) for it
to properly invest in network infrastructure, e.g. to modernize the
network, expand the network, meet increasing demand, maintain network
performance, etc.  the result would be an ageing and second rate
network infrastructure, which would have a negative impact on
everyone.

It would lead to a situation analogous to, as one politician put it,
"Turbo charged carrier pigeons".

Whether the above would apply to Rochester Tel's proposals depends on
whether Rochester Tel will have a monopoly on the local network.  Does
anyone know if this is so?

Just my $0.02 worth.


Liron Lightwood                     Internet : [e-mail]
Telecom Research Laboratories       Phone : [phone]
770 Blackburn Road                  Snail : P.O. Box 249 Clayton 3168 Australia
Clayton  Vic. 3168 Australia        Disclaimer : My views are not my company's

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Australian Phone Numbers Online?
Date: 26 Feb 93 11:18:15 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales


Hi,

   I just wondered if there is an ftp site with the Australian
telephone directory archived.  I have seen that there is a CD-rom
available with all the Australian phone numbers, is this available
online?


Best Wishes,

Henry

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

From: [e-mail] (George Smiley)
Subject: Multimedia/Multicast Using ATM
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:19:53 GMT


Does anyone know the current status on mulitcasting in an ATM network?
What about synchronisingdifferent multimedia strands?  Say I have
voice and data from one source but want reliable Xfer for data and not
for voice,is there a way of doing this?

Could anyone recommend any articles on this stuff?


Thanks a lot.


email: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #134
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21875;
          27 Feb 93 3:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16746
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18928
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:04 -0600
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #135

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Feb 93 00:29:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 135

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Things Really Went BOOM! (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier (Stephen Friedl)
    Free Long Distance? (Richard Osterberg)
    GTE, Almost a Real Phone Company (Todd Lesser)
    Gotta Love GTE (Justin Leavens)
    Cellular + Cancer = Lawsuit? (Arun Baheti)
    Mini PBX on PC Card? (Simon Townsend)
    "Aggregater" Experience Sought (Eric Pearce)
    Gene Green: A CWA Member in Congress (Nigel Allen)
    Caller ID in Portland, Oregon (Kevin Fowler)
    Correction to Post About Cable Company Going Fiber (Dave Niebuhr)
    Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Stan Krieger)
    800 Number Flooded (Carl Moore)
    Using Videoconferencing in the U.S. (Denise Hsiung)
    Fax Mail Equipment/Software (Mark Whitton)
    Phone Company Writes to a Public Telephone (Warren Burstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 19:23:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Things Really Went BOOM!


At about noon today (Friday February 26), there was an explosion at
the NY World trade Center.  The entire complex was evacutated.  Power
and gas was shut off (so all TV broadcasting went to alternate sites).
One fatality and 200 injured were reported about 4PM.  Several
exchanges and markets were shut down.

The TELECOM repercussions will be felt soon enough.

The only thing that annoys me is that I take the PATH trains via the
WTC (World Trade Center) station, and that suffered extensive damage.
The PATH train system suffered considerably from the east coast
hurricane (Hoboken was hardest hit) and today's snow was causing
switching problems.  This run of bad luck isn't ending.

PATH has an 800 number for information.  Of course, it's always busy
during a crisis like this.  This is the TELECOM issue that steams me.
It takes several seconds for my call to get to the busy.  It's 800
234-PATH, so you can figure the carrier.  Why can't PATH get a decent
carrier with the necessary bridging announcement so they don't block
so many calls?  I don't care how much money they're saving -- in
situations like this the system isn't worth a dime if it isn't getting
the announcements out and is blocking too much.


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The fatality count was up to five on this evening's
news. Apparently this was a deliberate arson; authorities are claiming
a bomb was in the underground garage. Regards traffic jams on the 800
number, it has been suggested the City of Chicago is considering a 900
number with no charge attached to calling it to be used for announcements
to the citizens on a mass-calling basis. That night be a very good
idea for the public transit system also.  PAT]

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

From: mtndew![e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:54:54 PST


I had a phone installed in my parents place in Ohio so I can use it
when I am in town, so now am getting bills from Ohio Bell every month.
This time (2/93) they have an insert that offers "Expertise to
Homeworkers".

    "Forget rush hour.  Many people are setting up an office
    at home and avoiding the commute.

    "Now Ohio Bell's new Work-At-Home Center makes life easier
    for full- or part-time homeworkers.  The center is staffed
    by a team of eight service representatives who have been
    specially trained to understand the unique communications
    needs of the work-at-home professional.

    [ looks good so far, but not sure what's in it for them ]

    "These home office specialists can answer questions about
    installing a business line in your home or setting up a
    computer modem or fax machine."

Aha, now we see it.  Not only do these trained specialists try to get
people to sign up for business rates, but this insert starts *every*
customer thinking that you need a business line for these above
things.

Glad they're here to help.


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     [phone]
3b2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl


[Moderator's Note: You *do* need a business line if you conduct
*business* on the telephone, as I suppose a home worker would be
doing. And I don't read anything in the above message which indicates
OBT expects people to have a business line because they have a modem
or fax machine ... only if they conduct *business* using the modem or
fax machine. I play chess with a friend across town by using our fax
machines to transmit a picture of the board and our moves, etc. This
is hardly a business application.   PAT]

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

Subject: Free long distance?
From: [e-mail] (Richard Osterberg)
Date: 27 Feb 93 00:01:37 GMT


Once ... a friend of mine discovered a neat little trick. I think we
were in Alabama. It involves third-party charging. We placed a call
from a payphone, and selected third-party billing. Well, it happened
to be one of those automated services, so we selected the payphone
next to us. Well, the next phone rang, said "If you would like to pay
for this call, push 1 on your touchtone phone"... we did, and the call
went through. I found it hard to believe. Most places I've been to
either have a restriction on billing to payphone numbers, or payphones
simply can't accept calls.


Rick Osterberg   [e-mail]  617-493-7784  617-493-3892
   2032 Harvard Yard Mail Center   Cambridge, MA   02138-7510   USA

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:37 PST
From: [e-mail] (Todd Lesser)
Reply-To: Todd Lesser <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE, Almost a Real Phone Company


Just when THEY think they are a real phone company ...

I called GTE Northwest today at 3:30 and TRIED to order two lines in
hunting.  I called the same number I called last time I ordered phone
lines.  This time I was referred to another office.  I called them,
the rep started to take the order.  She asked me what I was using the
phone lines for.  I told her they were going to be incoming fax lines.
She told me that fax machines won't work with lines that have hunting
on them.  The hunting somehow (I tried not to laugh) screws up the
data connections.  (For fun) I asked her if I was going to use the
lines for modems would that be a problem.  She said it wouldn't.  I
told her I wanted to order them anyway.  She referred me back to the
first office/number that I called.  Feeling dizzy, I hung up the phone
and called the first office again.  This person tried to refer me back
again.  I convinced her to take the order.

The service rep is going to call me on Monday to give me the phone
numbers and due date.  I told her I want the lines installed next
week.  She said she will TRY to get them installed by Friday. She
didn't sound hopeful.

Times like this I am so greatful that my house is in a Pacific Bell
territory and I know I can call them up at 4:50 on Friday and they
would give me a due date of Monday if I asked.


Todd Lesser     Info Connections
[phone] Voice    [phone] Fax
<[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!todd>

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

From: [e-mail] (Justin Leavens)
Subject: Gotta Love GTE
Date: 26 Feb 1993 14:08:58 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Although I've been lucky enough to move out of GTEland, my girlfriend
has not, and once again they've proven their lack of customer service,
maybe even bordered on fraud.

She called GTE and explained to them that there was a credit due from
her LD carrier (MCI) and that she was going to pay all of the bill,
minus about $7 because of the credit. The GTE Op said her account was
noted as such.  For whatever reason, the credit didn't come through in
time. So GTE cashed her check for the FULL AMOUNT of the bill, despite
the fact that the check was written for the bill minus the $7. GTE
claimed that when the credit came through from MCI, the $7 would then
be applied to her account.

What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your check
for whatever amount they deem necessary? And why should GTE get to
keep her money, money that they essentially stole from her (they
certainly took it without her authorization) without any compensation
for her? Granted, it's only $7, but if they do this to enough
customers, it's a nice little sum of money.

Nice scam, GTE, very nice.


Justin Leavens   Microcomputer Specialist   University of Southern California

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

Date: 26 Feb 1993 14:32:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular + Cancer = Lawsuit?


{New York Magazine} reports that friends and relatives of Lee Atwater,
the Republican National Committee chair who died in 1991 from a brain
tumor, are looking into whether or not the tumor could have been
caused by his use of cellular phones.  "He practically lived on the
phone," the magazine quotes a friend.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 15:57:33 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Simon Townsend)
Subject: Mini PBX on PC Card?


Dear All:

I've searched the FAQ, the archive index and my press clippings to no
avail.

I'm looking for a PC (ISA) based card that would provide a mini PBX -
say 1/2 external and four internal lines, preferably with some added
functionality / programmability via the PC.

Either references to specific equipment or likely manufacturers would
be appreciated.

If you email, I'll summarise to the list.


Simon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:01:07 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
Subject: "Aggregater" Experience Sought


I'm supposed to meet with a salesperson from First Federated
Communications later this week.  Does anybody have any good/bad
experience with them?  They claim they will lower our long distance
costs by turning over billing to them.  They claim to be the first to
sign up with PacBell and one of their biggest customers.

My concern is adding another party to the "soup".  Right now, if I
have a problem, I have to deal with PacBell, Sprint, AT&T, NET,
Fujitsu and my CPE vendor.  They all blame each other and it takes
eight hours of yelling on the phone to find the guilty party.  Our
primary cost is 800 service over a T1, but we also have dedicated 56k
and SW56k in addition to outgoing long distance.


Thanks,

Eric Pearce | [e-mail] | O'Reilly & Associates
Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides
103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472  1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: Gene Green: A CWA Member in Congress
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Gene Green, a newly-elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives
 from Texas, is a member of the Communications Workers of America. His
membership card is issued by CWA Local 14632, formerly local 87 of the
International Typographical Union.  He didn't work for a telecommunica-
tions company; ITU local 87 represented employees at the {Daily Court
Review} in Houston. (The ITU merged with the CWA a few years ago. U.S.
Senator Paul Simon, a Democrat from Illinois, also once belonged to
the ITU.)

I suppose there must be some U.S. politicians who were management
employees of telecommunications companies, but I don't know of any.

I can only think of one Canadian politician who was a manaager at Bell
Canada, and her name escapes me.


Nigel Allen      [e-mail]
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Fowler)
Subject: Caller ID in Portland, Oregon
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 1:57:41 PST


U.S. West communications has announced that it will start offering
Caller ID services from Vancouver WA, to Salem OR on April 1, 1993.
Here's a quick list of the services:

    Caller ID
    Last Call Return
    Call Rejection
    Priority Call
    Continuous Redial

    Per Call Blocking (*67)
    Per Line Blocking (Service must be ordered)
    Call Trace (*57)

I assume that the first set will all require the Caller ID box.

The Call Trace function is used to forward the forward the ID of
harassing calls to US West (whether the number was blocked or not).
After three successful traces, "deterrent action may be taken."
Namely, the number may be forwarded to the police, or US West can send
a letter to the caller.


Kevin Fowler / [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The only feature in the above list which requires
a Caller-ID display unit is Caller-ID itself. All the other features
listed are independent. The central office switch will be able to
redial busies and make call-backs without you having knowledge of the
number being called.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 10:41:05 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Correction to Post About Cable Company Going Fiber


The following paragraph in one of my posts about Cablevision of Long
Island entering the fiber field must be corrected.  I apologize for
passing incorrect and/or misleading information.  Dave

I said:

> Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable
> companies largely unregulated, enjoy an unfair advantage over telcos
> pointing out that federal statues can only own cable companies,
> outside their operating regions;  ain't that a shame.

I should have said:

Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable
companies largely unregulated, enhoy an unfair advantage over telcos
pointing out that federal statues say phone companies can only own
cable companes outside their operating regions; ain't that a shame.


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


[Moderator's Note: I caught this error and edited it to the best of my
understanding of what Dave meant ... but it should have been as he
wrote it above.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 12:08:27 EST
Subject: Another AOS Sleaze Trick
Organization: Summit NJ


This is only speculation and second-hand info, but it looks like the
AOS's have figured out a new way to separate us from our money.

On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used
their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted
to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT).  In any
event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a
collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes
any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill
the receiving phone number).

I'll warn again, this is just speculation, but it's the most logical
explanation of what happened.


Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:08:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Flooded


This may have appeared in the New York area media; I saw it in
Wilmington, Delaware a little less than a week ago today (message
written Feb. 25).  The owner of a vacation-home-rental business in
Hackensack, NJ has filed suit against Howard(?) Stern over a skit he
did regarding Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the "suicide doctor" in Michigan.

Apparently Mr. Stern used a make-believe 800 number not on the 555
prefix; the number he chose was 800-M D DEATH, which turned out to be
the number of the above-mentioned business, which then got flooded
with calls, many of them obscene.  PLEASE DO NOT CALL THAT NUMBER
UNLESS DOING BUSINESS WITH THAT FIRM.  (After seeing the story, I
thought 800-555-I-DIE might have been a better choice.)

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

From: Denise Hsiung <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Videoconferencing in the U.S.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:41:12 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


I want to do a report on the development of videoconferencing in the
U.S. The purpose of this report is to introduce the U.S.'s experience
of using videoconferencing to my country Taiwan as a reference for
developing Taiwan's telecommunication networks.

I need information about:

1) The latest survey of videoconferencing users in the States.
  --Who or what kind of corporations use videoconferencing most?
  --How the frequent videoconferencing users comment on the
    videoconferencing they used or are using?

2) The development of videoconferencing technology.
  --What are the most popular videoconferencing tech, their features and
    costs?
  --What are the new technology which will be available in the near
    future, their features and costs?

3) The status quo of the development of international videoconferenc-
ing, and the U.S.'s plan for the future development of international
videoconferencing.

I'll appreciate your help very much for providing me with the
information I need or related information.

My e-mail address:  [e-mail]


Denise Hsiung

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Whitton)
Subject: Fax Mail Equipment/Software
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:42:39 GMT


Can anyone suggest sources for fax mail equipment and software?

I am looking for something that can answer multiple fax lines, store
the faxes, then send them out on command (like AT&T's advertised fax
mail).


Mark Whitton, BNR, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7, CANADA
Dept 5S01    613-763-2137    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 4:30:02 EST
From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Phone Company Writes to a Public Telephone


The August 14 edition of Yerushalaim (a Jerusalem local newspaper)
contains a copy of a letter that Bezeq, the Israeli telco, mailed to a
phone booth which it owns.

The form letter is addressed to "Bezeq, Inc." at the address at which
the phone booth is located (155 Costa Rica Street), and informs the
subscriber that while in the past, its bill was computed by reading a
meter, which made it impossible to obtain a listing of calls made,
this will now be possible (at a fee, of course, something that Bezeq
did not mention to the phone booth).

The letter-carrier delivered the letter by placing it inside the phone
booth.

Bezeq responded that the program that sends out mailings will be
corrected.  The phone booth was unavailable for comment.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #135
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26756;
          27 Feb 93 5:05 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05569
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:46:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12604
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:45:24 -0600
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:45:24 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #136

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Feb 93 02:45:20 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 136

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks (Deepinder Sidhu)
    Inquiry Regarding Teleconference Bridges (Jeannette Lanier, NRC)
    Telnet Dialout Wanted (Anthony Beecher)
    Question About IXC and LEC ([e-mail])
    Looking for Distinctive Ring Discriminator (Greg Trotter)
    Information Wanted Regards 800 --> 900 Scams (Frank Carey)
    1-800 Collect Callbacks Scam (Richard B. Dervan)
    Need Information on Telecom in China (Jian Huang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 01:14:24 -0500
From: "Dr. Deepinder Sidhu (CMSC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks


            Agenda for the
    4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
                March 15-17, 1993
    --------------------------------------------------

Monday, March 15, 1993

7:30 - 9:00    Registration and Coffee

9:00 - 9:15    Introduction

                 Dr. Freeman Hrabowski
                   Interim President, UMBC

                 Dr. Deepinder Sidhu
                   Director, Center for Telecommunications Research (CTR)

                 Dr. Larry Davis
                   Director, University of Maryland Institute for Advanced
                             Studies (UMIACS)

9:15 - 10:00    David Sincoskie (Keynote Speaker) - Bellcore
         Ruminations on the Future of the Internet as it Incorporates
         both Broadband Technology and Commercialization

10:00 - 10:30    Tom vonDeak - NASA Lewis Reseach Center
         NASA ACTS Program and Broadband ISDN Developments

10:30 - 11:00    Coffee Break

11:00 - 11:30    Paul R. Rupert - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
             Current Status of LLNL's Gigabit/Sec Fibre Channel Circuit
                    Switched LAN

11:30 - 12:00     Robert J. Aiken - US, Dept of Energy
              The IINREN

12:00 - 12:30     Bill Edwards - Sprint
                 The MAGIC Testbed

12:30 -  2:00   Lunch Break

 2:00 -  2:30    Tom Rodeheffer - Digital Equipment Corporation
             A Self Configuring Local ATM Network

 2:30 -  3:00      Mark Karol, Kai Eng, and Richard Gitlin - AT&T Bell Labs
             Resource Sharing Techniques in ATM Networks

 3:00 -  3:30     Joseph Hui - Rutgers University
             Methods for Traffic in High Speed Networks

 3:30 -  4:00      Coffee Break

 4:00 -  4:30     Baruch Awerbuch -  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                 The Cost/Benefit Framework for Competitive Allocation of

 4:30 -  5:00     Robert Olsen - University of Wisconsin, Madison
              Experiments with the XUNET Switch

 5:00 -  5:30    Jim Hughes and Bill Franta - Network Systems Corporation
             Extending HIPPI Using STS12c over OC12 SONET

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

Tuesday, March 16, 1993

8:30 - 9:00    Coffee

9:00 - 9:30    Lee Hammarstrom - DDR&E
             Global Grid - A Communication Network

9:30 - 10:00    Henry Dardy - Naval Research Laboratory
             High Speed Optical Network

10:00 - 10:30    Nick Kowalchuk - Rome Laboratory
             Secure Survivable Communications Network

10:30 - 11:00    Coffee Break

11:00 - 11:30    Fred Goeringer - US Army
             Medical Diagnostic Imagery Support

11:30 - 12:00     Peter Sjoedin - Swedish Institute of Computer Science
               The DTM Gigabit Network

12:00 - 12:30     Andre Danthine - Systemes et Automatique
              A New Transport Service for the High Speed Environment

12:30 - 2:00   Lunch Break

 2:00 - 2:30    Abhay K. Parekh - IBM Corporation - Watson Laboratory
             A Generalized Processor Sharing Approach to Flow
         Control in Integrated Services Networks

 2:30 - 3:00     Jim Kurose - University of Massachusetts
             Providing Performance Guarantees to Real-Time Traffic
         in High-Speed Networks

 3:00 - 3:30    Rene L. Cruz and Hai Ning Liu - Uni California, San Diego
                 Non-recursive Identities for Tandem Queueing Networks

 3:30 - 4:00      Coffee Break

 4:00 - 4:30    Brad Makrucki - Bell South Telecommunication
             Pricing as a Traffic Management Mechanism in Public
             B-ISDN/ATM Network

 4:30 - 5:00    Raj Jain - Digital Equipment Corporation
             ATM and FDDI

 5:00 - 5:30    Raymond Miller and Zafar Choudhry - Uni Maryland, Collge Park
                 Bounding the Performance of FDDI

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

Wednesday, March 17, 1993

8:30 - 9:00    Coffee

9:00 - 9:30    Zygmunt Haas - AT&T Bell Labs
             Gigabit Connectivity with the "Staggering Switch":
                An Electronically - Controlled Optical Packet Switch

9:30 - 10:00    David W. Butler - Fore Systems
             The Design of a Practical ATM Network

10:00 - 10:30   Bob Felderman - USC/Information Science Institute
         Mapping and Routing in Atomic LAN

10:30 - 11:00    Coffee Break

11:00 - 11:30    Sudhir Ahuja - AT&T Bell Labs
                Multimedia Communication for Collaboration

11:30 - 12:00    Dhadesugoor R Vaman - Stevens Institute of Technology
             Source Rate Adaption Based on a Unified Optimal
         Control Parameter for Flow Control in High Speed
         Multimedia Networks

12:00 - 12:30    Hemant Kanakia - AT&T Bell Labs
             A Performance Comparison of various Congestion
         Control Schemes

12:30 -  2:00    Lunch Break


 2:00 -  2:30    Bharat Doshi - AT&T Bell Labs
             Deterministic Rule Based Traffic Descriptors for
         Connection Acceptance Control in Broadband Networks

 2:30 -  3:00    Allison Mankin - Mitre Corporation
              Testbed Measurement Experiments: NRL HSON and CNRI BLANCA

 3:00 -  3:30    Amarnath Mukherji - University Of Pennsylvania
             On the Dynamics and Significance of Low Frequency
             Components of Internet Load

            <<<< END OF WORKSHOP >>>

          4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
                           March 15-17, 1993

The Center for Telecommunications Research (CTR) at the University of
Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) campus and the University of Maryland
Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS), in cooperation with
Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences (CESDIS),
ACM SIGCOMM and the Internet Society and in participation with IEEE
Communication Society, Gigabit Networking Technical Committee will
hold the 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks on March
15-17, 1993 at the Campus of the University of Maryland Baltimore
County. The Workshop will be held in the Lecture Hall 5 of the new
EE/ECS Building on the UMBC Campus.

The goal of the workshop is to bring together experts in related areas
to discuss progress and research issues in the design and
implementation of very high speed (gigabit rates) communication
networks.  Each of previous workshops attracted approximately 165
researchers representing academia, industry and government.  The three
day meeting will include invited speakers and some contributed
presentations.  Selected papers will appear in a special issue of the
"Journal of High Speed Networks."

A $135.00 registration fee will include three lunches, a proceedings
and conference materials.

Please return the attached pre-registration form as soon as possible
to reserve space. If additional information is needed, please contact
the workshop organizer, Prof. Deepinder Sidhu, at [e-mail],
410-455-3028 (voice), 410-455-3969 (fax).


        4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
                     Registration Form

Name:           __________________________________________________

Affiliation:    __________________________________________________

Address:        __________________________________________________

                __________________________________________________

Phone:          ____________  Fax:  ___________ E-mail ___________

Dietary Restriction:    Vegetarian  ___________ Kosher ___________


Make checks payable to the VHSN 4.  Mail check and registration form by
February 28, 1993 to:  Raghu Vallurupalli, Dept. of Computer Science, UMBC,
Baltimore MD  21228

PLEASE NOTE: Do NOT include hotel accommodation expenses in your
payment for the Workshop Registration.  Room payment should be made
directly to the hotel you selected for stay.

Here are some hotels which are 10 - 20 minutes from the UMBC campus.
These hotels have agreed to provide limited number of rooms at a
discount rate for workshop attendees.  Be sure to identify yourself as
an attendee of the UMBC Workshop on Very High Speed Networks.

1) Sheraton International Hotel - BWI Airport. Closest to Airport and
UMBC Campus. Rate $75/night. Tel: [phone] or 800-638-5858.

2) Holiday Inn BWI Airport. Close to Airport and UMBC Campus. Rate
$69/night.  Tel: Inn-BWI at 410-859-8400.

3) Omni Inner Harbor Hotel. Close to downtown Baltimore/Inner Harbor.
About 20 min. drive to UMBC Campus.  Rate $79/night.  Tel: [phone]
or 800-843-6664.

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

From: wu/O=NUCLEAR_REGULATORY_COMMISSION/DD.ELN=[e-mail]
Date: 26 Feb 93 21:01:40 GMT
Subject: Inquiry For Teleconference Bridges


This is in the nature of a preliminary inquiry by me personally for
information relating to telephone systems.  This is not -- at this
time -- an official inquiry by this agency and I am not acting as their
official spokesperson.

As stated in an earlier message, The United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission operates a main switchboard that never closes, and in
approximately two years the U.S. NRC will be consolidating its
remaining national capital area offices into the Two White Flint
Building, which will include the Telephone Operator service.

One of the features we provide is "meet me" conferences on AT&T Quorum
conference bridges.  These bridges allow up to seven telephones (any
of which could be a speakerphone) to share the same dial-in trunk and
talk to each other.  (When people ask for a conference line assignment
and don't know how it works, the operator will ask them if they've
heard of those 900 numbers you can call into; then they tell them it
works the same way.)  If eight people call into a trunk, the eighth
person gets a busy signal.

Each bridge has four trunks coming into it, and two, three or four
trunks can be linked together, so that one, two, three or four
different conferences can simultaneously operate without interference
with each other on the same bridge.  We could, by issuing four
numbers, link up to 28 different telephones on a single conference.

We want to find out if there is any newer or better equipment to
handle lines.  We have three of these bridges and as a result we can
have 75 incoming trunks used for conferences if needed.  Our Centrex
system permits standard three-way conference by adding an additional
caller, and if someone is authorized they can dial the code and set up
a five-party conference from their desk, so using the centrex to
handle large conferences isn't an answer.

What we'd like is either (1) a bridge that can be assigned a certain
number of lines to a trunk number dynamically so that if one
conference has to have 12 lines we can give it 12 or whatever the next
multiple of whatever the bridge uses, and not have to assign them two
or more telephone numbers, or (2) if two lines are marked as linked
together, if someone dials the first trunk line number, it will roll
over to the next linked line, or the third or fourth.

We're also interested in bridges having ten trunks (or more) instead
of just seven due to the amount of overloading.  (On one particular
day of the week, if you want a conference during the middle of the
day, if you haven't booked it at least a week early, forget it; ALL of
our lines are in use.  We'd like to try to partially alleviate this
congestion.)

Again, my superiors have expressed interest in discovering if there is
any form of "upgrade" or anything better than what we are using.

I would like anyone who has information about this to respond to me
either in the Digest, or by an E-Mail reply to this message.  If you
do respond directly to this message, please place

   TO:  Jeannette Lanier

In the text of the reply, or change the
"O=nuclear_regulatory_commission" field at the top to read
"G=jeannette_lanier".  If that fails, try: [e-mail]. If
*that* fails, try: [e-mail] (You should see what it
takes to *send* a message to Internet from a telex number!)

You may also respond to this message by facsimile to +1 (301)
492-7371.  If you have color brochures or items which don't facsimile
well, you may mail them instead to:

     U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission
     Jeannette Lanier, P-612
     Washington, DC 20555

This is not a contract proposal or official request but is a
preliminary inquiry to determine exactly what, if anything, is out
there which may enable us to process telephone communications better.


Thank you for your cooperation,

Jeannette Lanier

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:06:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telnet Dialout Wanted


Does anyone know how to find and use sites that offer dial-out, so
that one could call BBSs in that site's area code w/o long distance
fees. (Probable FAQ but I couldn't find it).


Anthony Beecher


[Moderator's Note:  No, actually it is not an FAQ. This has come up in
the past and I don't think anyone keeps a specific list of sites which
welcome outsiders passing through to use their phone lines. Some do; I
just don't think there is a directory for it.  You'll get some reply
mail, I'm sure.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question About IXC and LEC
Date: 26 Feb 93 01:25:10 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College


Could someone explain the purpose/function of IXC (interexchange
carriers) and LEC (local exchange carriers) in relation to RBOCs?

An e-mail reply would be great.


Thanks,

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: An interexchange carrier is a long distance company
such as Sprint, AT&T or MCI. They carry traffic between exchanges such
as between Chicago and New York. A local exchange carrier is just
that: a telephone company which operates in a local area. By the
requirements of divestiture, a Regional Bell Operating Company is a
local carrier, but not all local exchange carriers are Bells. There
was at last count about a thousand small independent telcos in the
USA. They are all local exchange carriers. You can count the number of
RBOCS on one hand, yet they have what? about 80 percent of the local
telco business in the USA. The other thousand-odd telcos between them
share the other 20 percent.

The largest of the independents is GTE and its various telco
subsidiaries, and it has the lion's share of the part Bell doesn't
have.  Then come Centel and United, which a few years ago was the
fourth largest telco in the USA after (what was then) the Bell System,
GTE and Centel.  Contel (Continental Telephone) -- not to be confused
with Centel -- has a good piece of the action as far as indepedents
go, and that leaves around a thousand others sharing a tiny portion of
the business between themselves, each in their own little community
for the most part. They are all LECs. In years past before the
divestiture of AT&T, AT&T (aka Bell System) handled almost all the
inter-exchange traffic between these independent telcos and GTE
handled the rest.  As the majority player in the industry, AT&T handed
out the area codes, the numerical prefix assignments, and ran the
directory assistance bureaus (555-1212) for any telcos which wanted to
participate and in some cases, even the operator services for the
independents.

Only the RBOCs (Bells) and GTE (because of its size, the government
indicated it would commence divestiture action against GTE as it did
AT&T; it was not necessary) are oligated to hand off their IXC (long
distance) traffic in a non-discriminatory, arms-length way. The other
indeoendents are free to funnel their IXC traffic however they please;
many continue to give it exclusively to AT&T as they have done since
they went into business 90-100 years ago.   PAT]

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

Subject: Looking for Distinctive Ring Discriminator
From: [e-mail] (Greg Trotter)
Date: 26 Feb 93 11:10:21 -0600
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords


I subscribe to the distinctive ring service from my telco. Does anyone
know of a device that can identify these different rings and separate
the calls? I'd like to have a separate line for incoming calls to my
computer; the traffic doesn't warrant another line. Any help is
appreciated.


Greg Trotter   Norman, Oklahoma
Internet: [e-mail]
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:36:13 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I spoke to the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) in
Washington this morning.  They have been trying to interest the FCC in
the problem of consumers getting billed for calling 800 numbers that
somehow turn into 900 numbers or, by some other means, cause a charge
to the caller.  CFCA now has the attention of the Deputy Chief of the
Enforcement Division and is working to help them fully understand the
problem.

CFCA apparently has some victims and some phone bills but they would
like to have some scenarios -- both of how this might happen but --
especially -- how it actually did happened.  (It shouldn't surprise
anybody that most victims don't know.)  I know this subject was
discussed here not too long ago but I wasn't really following the
discussion at the time and our news server doesn't keep stuff long
enough for me to retrieve them.

If you know how any of these scams are being run I'd like to hear from
you.  And even if you have no knowledge of actual schemes used, I'd
like to hear any theories or scenarios describing ways that such scams
might be run.  I'll compile this info and get it to the CFCA for their
use in supporting the FCC.


Frank Carey at Bell Labs    [e-mail]   908/949-8049


[Moderator's Note: Hi Frank! We haven't seen you around these parts
since the Randy Borow scandal. You may need to question your own
employer about some of this scamming since the deal with {USA Today}
and their phone information service (dial an 800 number, get billed
for a 900 call to the same number was obviously an inside job at AT&T.
Both the 800 prefix and the 900 prefix involved were assigned to AT&T
for toll free and premium service, respectively. I imagine you'll get
email from readers here real soon, and in quantity. You might also
want to check out the next message in this issue from Richard Dervan
on 'collect callbacks'.  BTW, is Randy still fighting his discharge
from the company? We haven't heard from him in ages.  NvPAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard B Dervan)
Subject: 1-800 Collect Callbacks
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 13:52:54 GMTI


I read in yesterday's {Atlanta Journal-Constitution} that there was
new federal legislation pending against the 1-800 'sex lines' that use
a collect callback and bill you at outrageous prices.  Seems that some
services begin billing as soon as the phone is picked up.  One lady
interviewed said she had been billed for over $400 by Integratel for
collect calls she never accepted.  Some of them were billed while the
family was out of town!  Her answering maching is the prime suspect.
Although law requiers an affirmative action by a called party to
accept a collect call (press # or something like that), some still
begin billing as soon as the phone is answered.

Also mentioned were unsolicited calls.  Somehow her number got on a
computer calling list and she would get calls every three or four days
asking if she wanted to have phone sex and to press '1' if she did.
The GA PSC is having a field day, but can't really do a whole lot
since the calls cross state lines.

Has anyone else heard about this latest 'scam'?


Richard B Dervan                       [e-mail]
System Support Programmer/Analyst      [e-mail]
Information America, Inc


[Moderator's Note: Oh, sure.  All the gay and other sexually oriented
adult papers run ads for those things, giving an 800 number and empha-
sizing 'no credit cards needed; not a 900 number'. So how do they
bill you?  They call you back collect then send the charges through
Integretel on a billing tape to your local telco. Integretel keeps its
own database of payphone numbers and cranky customers; they don't
bother to consult the same one AT&T/Sprint/MCI/local telcos use for
'billednumber screening' but they will add you to their own database
for this purpose on request.  Sign up today!  800-736-7500.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jian Huang)
Subject: Need Information on Telecom in China
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jian Huang)
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 05:22:57 GMT


Hi,

   Does anyone know the status of digital telecommunication in China
(e.g. the availability of ISDN or swith 56)?

   Thanks for any information.


JIAN HUANG      [e-mail]
[e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There have been some exciting developments in China
this past week with the new AT&T contract over there. See earlier
issues of the Digest this past week for details.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #136
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09648;
          27 Feb 93 22:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20509
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12108
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #137

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Feb 93 19:26:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 137

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Ken Becker)
    Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (William H. Sohl)
    Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel ([e-mail])
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Eli Mantel)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Graham Toal)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 20:51:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(albert lopez) writes:

> I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it
> eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't
> understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using
> extended super frame (ESF).  Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24
> for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent
> clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames
> for clear channel transmission.

You do understand the problem!  Indeed there are two reasons why the
common switched data speed in the US is 56 kbps and not 64 kbps. One
is fixed by B8ZS, but if you use in-band bit robbed signaling, you're
still stuck.

End users can't tell ahead of time which frames will be bit-robbed,
because you may pass through various intermediate multiplexers etc.
So you're stuck.  BUT if common-channel signaling is in use (i.e.,
Signaling System No. 7, or for that matter European out-of-band bit-
oriented signaling), then you can get "64 clear".  Thus SS7 is
specified for ISDN, though not yet deployed in some areas (like
Boston).


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:14:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel
Organization: AT&T


 From article <[e-mail]>, by albert.lopez@Corp.
Sun.COM (albert lopez):

> I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it
> eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't
> understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using
> extended super frame (ESF).  Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24
> for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent
> clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames
> for clear channel transmission.

O,K, Let's get started. First of all, let's hit up with the "thou
shalt not."

On a domestic T1 line, thou shalt not send more than 15 zeroes in a
row -- it mucks up the receiving phase locked loop, which drifts off
frequency, resulting in bit errors and other such nasties. So, how do
you prevent such things from happening in a T1 line?

Case #1: It's your T1 line, you do what you wanna do. You don't
care about signalling.

    In this case, you're given a pipe. All you do is put 1.544
    Mb/s data into it - it's your look-out on making sure that
    you meet the 15-zero limit. This is (usually) called clear
    DS1. It doesn't typically have nifty stuff like channels or
    framing, although you can put 'em in there if you like. Ma
    Bell only checks for bipolar violations and too many slips,
    since that's all that can be checked for.

Case #2: It's your T1 line, and you don't want to fuss with zero
limits. You still don't care about signalling.

    In this case, you do Case #1 - only, you ask for B8ZS, a
    method of taking 8 zeroes in a row and sticking in a pair
    of back-to-back BiPolar Violations. The encoding hardware
    at your end puts in the back-to-back BPVs and downstream
    equipment knows what to do with the line coding. Result: at
    the final B8ZS-to-normal conversion at the terminating end
    of your 1.544 Mb/s line, you get back what you put in. Even
    if it has 1000 zeroes in a row.

Case #3: A full T1 line costs too darn much, or you need channels.
Zeroes are your problem. You still don't care about signalling.

    In this case, you channelize your data, but you make sure
    that you don't put 15 zeroes in a row. Kinda hard to do,
    unless one channel knoweth what the other is doing. D4 or
    ESF formatting gets you there. You get 64 kb/s in each
    channel, but you have to watch your zeroes. (Not to mention
    false framing patterns, but we'll leave that for another
    day.)

Case #4: You want channelized data, you still don't want
signalling, and Ma Bell is giving you the evil eye about too many
zeroes - it keeps their techs up at night chasing Red CGAs. They
tie your arm back and you get Zero Code Supression (ZCS).

    In this case, you don't have to worry about 15 zeroes - all
    you have to worry about is 8 zeroes in any one channel. If
    you do happen to do this, the equipment sticks a "1" in bit
    D7, the next-to-least significant data bit. Note that this
    gives you an effective data rate of around 48 kB/s, since
    the next-to-least as well as the least significant bits are
    out of your purview.

Case #5: You fight back, ask for (and get) B8ZS. Ma Bell calms
down. You still don't want signalling.

    This is Case #4, but B8ZS keeps too many zeroes from
    appearing on the line. You can have ZCS if you want it, but
    why?

Case #6: You want signalling. Oops.

You have two options: RBS or DMI/BOS.  With RBS, the least significant
bit in every sixth frame is blasted to make way for a signalling bit.
In D4 mode, the "superframe" (i.e., the length of the framing sequence
in the framing bit) is 12 frames long; this allows you to get either 2
or 4 state signalling. This is because you can send one signalling bit
during the 6th frame and a different (or the same, if so inclined)
during the 12th. Two bits gives you four states. In ESF mode, the
superframe is 24 frames long; you can then have (optionally) 2, 4, or
16 state signalling.

    Note, however, that superframe integrity is not carried over
between different pieces of equipment. This means that the bit that
got robbed on frame 6 coming out of one piece of equipment is going to
be "not customer data" on, say, frame 3 coming out of the next piece
of equipment. Since you can't trust the least significant bit, you end
up with 56 kB/s per channel.

    Note that ZCS and/or B8ZS may or may not be operative in this
case. Typically, you would either guarantee at least one "1" in the
first 7 bits of each channel (since you can't depend upon that
signalling bit) and avoid the penalty of ZCS, or opt for B8ZS and not
worry.

Now we talk about DMI/BOS. This nifty scheme takes all the signalling
for time slots 1-23 and dumps them into time slot 24. So, if you look
at total data rates, this is a winner for those owners of computers
renting a whole T1 line: 23 * 64 Kb/s > 24 * 56 Kb/s. If you use B8ZS,
you get 64 Kb/s clear channel with signalling. Note that DMI/BOS is
useable with both D4 and ESF mode and it supports 2, 4, and 16-state
signalling. (Your mileage may vary with different vendors.) The
disadvantage is you end up with one less channel, since it's now
reserved for signalling.

So, as to answer your question: ESF can be formatted for 2, 4, 16, or
>>no<< signalling on a per-time-slot basis. You can use either RBS or
DMI/BOS if you want signalling, and DMI/BOS gives you signalling
without mucking about with the data in time slots 1-23. B8ZS and AMI
(Alternate Mark Inversion) are the line formats; if you want clear
channel, you need B8ZS to take care of your zeroes. If you can
restrict the number of zeroes to less than 8 (some HDLC protocols do
this anyway), you don't need B8ZS or ZCS.


Good luck!


Ken Becker    DACS II Hardware Design

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

From: [e-mail] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:43:29 GMT


B8ZS is only part of the solution to obtaining 64 clear channel.  The
other element as you note is eliminating the robbed bit signaling"
where it is used.  Thus to obtain 64 clear, one must implement "out-
of-band" signaling using clear channel signaling (CCS) such as
Signaling System 7 in network trunking or ISDN D channel signaling on
an access configuration.


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]
Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:37:20 CST


The ones density problem is the only real impediment to clear channel
transmission.  This problem is (as you stated) solved by B8ZS, which
allows as many consecutive 00000000 octets to be send as needed
without violating ones density for the repeaters.

In D4 (or SF) framing, if signalling is needed, it is obtained by
robbing bits in certain frames.  Thus, the low bit can get clobbered.
If signalling is not needed (and in many cases it is not), then no
bits are clobbered. Thus, you can get clear channel (a full 1.536
MBPS, or a Full 64 KBPs per DS0) with only SF/D4 framing.  (Assuming
you had B8ZS or some other way of ensuring that there would be no
problems with large amounts of 0's in the data).

In ESF framing, if signalling is needed, it is obtained by using some
of the framing bits (the extra bit inserted after every 192 data
bits).  Thus, the 'extra bit' gets some additional usage for things
such as signalling, and checksums, 'yellow alarms', etc. in addition
to being used for framing/ synchronization.  Thus, in ESF, no bits are
ever robbed, so you could get a full 1536/64 KBps even if there were
signalling.  (Again, assuming B8ZS...)  (Its been a while since I read
the ESF specs, but I believe the 6/12/18/24 that you are referring to
has to do with the framing bit following those frames, as opposed to
bits within the normal data stream).


Brett    ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 03:11:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

(details regarding charge for a 900 call presumably never made omitted) ...

> [Moderator's Note: Telco has no legal obligation to remove the
> charge (they can wait until the IP issues credit back through the
> system, which would likely be the same day that Hell freezes over),
> but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so one time to maintain customer
> goodwill.

I am under the impression that your telephone cannot be disconnected
for failure to pay for a 900 call.  I have been told by the local
phone company that if I dispute the charge, it will be removed (though
it may take a while for this to happen).

For what it's worth, the *theory* that payment is due for a 900 call
is, I presume, based on an offer by the information provider, which
one accepts by dialing the number (this is distinguished from a
tarrifed service), thereby creating a contract.

If you accept this theory, then several defenses are available, to
wit, you did not accept the offer (somebody else did), the person
accepting the offer was not of legal age, there was no acceptance
because the number was dialed by accident, or the information provider
failed to provide what was promised.


   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


[Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Like Yellow Pages advertising,
phone service cannot be disconnected for unpaid 900/976 charges. But
it can remain on your bill as an unpaid item until the IP issues credit.
Most of the time after a minor squabble, the credit is issued, or else
telco just goes ahead and removes it anyway.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 09:|=hE58 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


Becky writes:

> I called AT&T and they gave us the spiel about 900's being direct dial
> only and that their equipment is '100% accurate"!

Yes, that is the spiel. AT&T is completely inflexible on this point.
Recall that I had month after month of bogus calls to the UK on my bill
not long ago. AT&T would not even consider the possiblity that I did
not dial the calls, even though I DO maintain a 100% complete computer
log of every single incoming and out going call on every one of sixteen
lines in the house. And I might add that AT&T was somewhat arrogant
about it.

Pac*Bell's position was that it was unable to remove ANY AT&T charge,
PERIOD. The first month this happened, AT&T very begrudgingly removed
the charge, constantly reminding me that I "really did make the calls"
but in the interest of customer relations blah, blah, blah. After that,
there was no credit given.

Eventually Pac*Bell discovered the reason for the problem and reported
both to me and to AT&T. In the meantime, I had been withholding the
amounts charged for the calls from my payments to Pac*Bell. When AT&T
FINALLY removed the charges (a couple of months after Pac*Bell's
discovery), Pac*Bell cancelled the late charges as well.

This is an incident that I will long remember. AT&T's attitude was
really bad. I personally felt very betrayed and slapped in the face
for my loyal patronage over the years. Frankly, if an OCC had treated
me in any way approaching this, they would never see my business
again, ever!

> Apparently, even if AT&T takes the charge off our bill, the 900
> company (ICN) can send us to collections, and we have no recourse with
> them until they do, according to AT&T's 900 Specialist.

I would not worry too much about this. The 900 IP is not going to
spend any money to collect $15.

> Should we just accept it and move on?  Thank you very much.

Absolutely not. AT&T does not have a divine mandate to make mistakes
and then become arrogant and enriched as a result. If you did not make
the call, DO NOT PAY FOR IT!

On Feb 26 at  2:34, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> There are also instances when for some reason or another the
> equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will
> come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from
> please ...'

I do not think this has been done for decades. If there is an ANI
failure, then the call is not completed. Maintaining operator
positions for CAMA-style purposes in this day and age would be most
silly.

> I would suggest you ask telco to remove the charge, which most will
> do *one time* for any subscriber.

AT&T's agreements with the LECs forbid LEC adjustments to calls. AT&T
will have to remove the charge. Which it may or may not do. As mentioned,
AT&T is "NEVER wrong" (which is baloney).

> but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so one time to maintain
> customer goodwill.

AT&T will probably grumble and credit you ONE TIME. You could have a
telco problem and it will be interesting to see if it happens again.
And then you will get to see how cooperative your telco is. Pac*Bell
dogged the problem through for months until it was found. I was always
given the impression by Pac*Bell that my case was just and that some
problem or another needed to be solved. AT&T treated me like a scum
that was simply trying to avoid paying for calls, I kid you not.

After the problem was corrected, a couple of people called me and gave
some weak apologies for my being treated like dirt by front line reps
and supervisors (after seeing my story in the Digest). But be prepared
for NO cooperation from AT&T.


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


[Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 19:20:17 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE


If it is as you describe, and they actually tampered with the amount
written on the cheque, it is criminal fraud and the person who did it
can go to prison for it.  Their supervisors could also be charged with
conspiracy.

I suggest you report it to the FBI.  Seriously.

If they *didn't* tamper with the cheque, find out what the hell your
bank is playing at and insist that the bank replaces the sum, and
while you're at it, try to get some compensation out of them for the
time wasted chasing them up ...


G


[Moderator's Note: Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have
said intent was very unlikely when the payment was handled through a
remittance center getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What
do you think they do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at
the check, the coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get
his lousy seven dollars?  Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy,
criminal or otherwise is a bit much to swallow.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:47:40 CST


> What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your check
> for whatever amount they deem necessary? And why should GTE get to
> keep her money, money that they essentially stole from her (they
> certainly took it without her authorization) without any compensation
> for her? Granted, it's only $7, but if they do this to enough
> customers, it's a nice little sum of money.

Well, the bottom line is a check went through for $7 more than it was
written for.  This is incorrect, and your girlfriend is entitled to $7
from the bank.  (It is unlikely that the bank would even dispute
this).  Your girlfriend was a victim of the way check clearing works.
Have you ever written a check and forgotten to sign it, or written a
check and accidentally differing amounts in the numeric (100.00) and
write-out (one hundred and 00/100) sections?  I have done both before,
and in both cases, the check went through (in the second case, for the
numeric amount).  It is simply cheaper for the bank to allow errors
like this to happen and then pay the consequences, than to pay the
costs associated with preventing them.

I imagine that many companies that handle lots of checks (utilities,
telcos, etc.) get reduced rates from their banks if they handle the
printing on the checks (in magnetic ink) of the amount, which is one
of the first steps in processing a check.  The clerk processing the
bill at GTE was very likely used to processing payments in full (most
of the checks they process are), and probably didn't notice your check
was for less, and just pressed the "payment in full" button resulting
in the full amount being printed at the bottom of the check, and the
check then cleared for that amount.

Of course, if you dispute this, you will get $7, but them your account
will be re-charged for that $7, and you will end up paying the same
amount anyway.  If you just let it go, then you will get a $7 discount
when the MCI credit goes through, so it comes out the same anyway.

I doubt this is really a GTE scam -- just an error that accidentally
occurred.  Like I said, if your girl friend pushes this, she will get
the $7 back, and GTE will lose the $7.


Brett    ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: People who say errors like this are 'scams' simply
do not know the workings of bank/credit card/utility remittance back
office operations. The volume of paper handled is such that no attention
whatsoever is given to seeming irregularities. It is far more effecient
to bang out the work assembly-line fashion and let customer service
deal with problems. Rubber stamps for every occasion: no date or stale
date on the check -- "Date Guarenteed".  Check not signed? "Signature
Guarenteed". Written amount differs from numerical amount? "Amount
Guarenteed, We Take $___". You'll note many large remittance centers
now do not even bother to endorse the check, or they do it in a very
ambiguous way, "Pay to the order of the payee named within". Did you
ever get the check for Telco in the envelope for the Water Works by
accident, or the check for American Express in the envelope going to
Diner's Club? Chances are it got cashed anyway. All those places each
hire hundreds of minimum wage clerks to stack checks in one pile and
remittance coupons in another. They do not pay them to *read* or
*think* about what they are doing, which I guess some people here
would say is GTE's whole problem in many departments.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #137
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14765;
          28 Feb 93 0:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00119
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:40:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22006
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:39:32 -0600
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:39:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #138

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Feb 93 21:39:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 138

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan ([e-mail])
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (David Esan)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Charles Mattair)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mike Seebeck)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (John R. Levine)
    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Doug Granzow)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Carl Moore)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Clive Feather)
    Re: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 (Eli Mantel)
    Re: History of TWX Area Codes (Daniel Burstein)
    Re: History of TWX Area Codes (Bob Frankston)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Richard Nash)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (sameer@atlas)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (H Hallikainen)
    Re: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? (Steven Leikeim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:53:15 +0100


Not being a North American and reading lots of articles concerning
North America soon running out of telephone numbers, I ask with a
slight smile:

Why can't you just add another digit to the phone number? Why has it
to be fixed length? Here in Europe, most countries have variable
length numbers. In my town, we ran out of numbers about five years
ago. So they just introduced a seventh digit. Now we have even
six-digit and seven-digit numbers mixed in one city. Why isn't that
possible for North America?

Since I don't believe that we are so much smarter, there must be a
real reason. I'd like to know it.


Stefan

Internet: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
UUCP-net: ...gator!ixgch!stefan!stefan  Voicenet: +41 61 - 261 28 90
Papernet: Stefan Zingg, St.Johanns-Vorstadt 19, 4056 Basel, Switzerland


[Moderator's Note: It is just a matter of convention; the way it has
always been done here (to have seven digits, or ten counting area code.)
It would take some software changes to go with eight digits, but that
has been suggested as per an article appearing here a few days ago
entitled "Let's Do a Figure-8". There are some 'Figure-8' replies
later in this issue you might want to read.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Esan)
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
Date: 27 Feb 93 13:53:50 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get
> the very first interchangable area code?  I imagine that they may find
> themselves hard to call for a while.

Well, as I noted the top twenty area codes in terms of numbers of
exchanges are:

301: 751 *          416: 678 *          206: 642            604: 582
512: 703 *          919: 672 *          708: 634            216: 579
212: 700 *          215: 660 *          713: 627            503: 574
313: 680 *          714: 656 *          703: 610            803: 564
205: 680            602: 644            403: 605            303: 563

Now, of these top 20 we can eliminate the following because they are
splitting, have split and the reduction has not caught up with me yet,
or are scheduled to split: 301, 512, 212, 313, 416, 919, 215, 714.  I
have noted these in the list above with an asterisk.

So of the top ten NPAs the prime candidates for a split are 205
(Alabama), and 602 (Arizona).  We should also not ignore that 206
(Eastern Washington), 708 (suburban Chicago), and 713 (Houston) are
nearly the same size.

If I had to pick the first area code to go to a non-NPA format I would
try to choose one with a population that is generally technically
sophisticated, and has a high level of education.  This would suggest
206 or 708 as the first choices in my mind.  708 is a prime choice for
an overlay area code, since it is a small area compared to 206.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 10:05:46 CST
From: [e-mail] (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeffrey Jonas) writes:

> Oh lovely -- there can now be area code 666 which many numerologists
> will never dial under any circumstances, and will certainly move
> before getting stuck with that number.

> [Moderator's Note: *Of course* it isn't you, we all know that. The
> rules say that 666 will not be assigned to pagers, faxes or modems.
> It will be assigned to telemarketers and bill collectors, all a bunch
> of Great Satans.  :)  PAT]

Totally off the subject but whatever.

When Ronnie Rayguns left office, a group of his friends bought a house
for him in California.  The address?  666 something or another.  The
number was changed before they moved in.


Charles Mattair        [e-mail]
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 11:05:04 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


200,300,400,500 are available for area codes if the need arises before
Jan. 1995.  The frequently.asked.questions file in the archives
mentions Canadian TWX being moved from 610 to 600 so that 610 could be
used for an area code (coming to PA).

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

Date: 27 Feb 93 13:50:14 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest V13 #127:

> Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all
> toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes?  If so, please
> provide specific area codes if available.  There was a recent blurb
> about a change (to be done for the same reason) in the New England
> states except Connecticut; however, those areas will use 7D for all
> calls within an area code.

It is my understanding that SWBT policy right now is that all toll
calls, both intraNPA and interNPA will be 1 + 10D (i.e. 1 + NPA + 7D).
The adjustment dialing period would begin about July, 1994 and end
January, 1995. This policy is still being discussed, however, and is
subject to change until an official statement is made. Do not consider
this message as the final say in any way, shape, or form.

Personally, I hope this is the way we go. From a network viewpoint,
simplicity is better. Tell the customer to dial 10D for all calls,
translate it that way in each switch and be done with it. I realize
the uproar this is going to cause with large numbers of customers. It
is, however, going to have to happen someday. It makes little sense to
me to try and postpone it a few years when nothing much is going to
happen in the CPE environment to make it any easier. If it is going to
be a bitch now or a bitch later, may as well do it now in conjunction
with the INPA project and get it over with.

I would be happy to entertain any opposing views. :->


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 08:29:18 -0700
From: Mike Seebeck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan


The first line (moot) was in response to an article discussing CO
intercept of calls where the area code was dialed and was not needed.
I mistakenly deleted the original text in total when I should have
left that bit.

Yes, with the new dialing plan as instituted in the US West area all
toll calls will now be dialed 1-NPA-7D that was 1-NPA-7D.  In the form
1-(NXX) NXX-XXX "N" is equal to any digit 2-9 and "X" is equal to any
digit 0-9.  This allows for ambiguity between area codes and exchanges
since thay now may be the same.

US West has adopted a plan where now the area code must be dialed.
The alternative was to use a time out.  If 1-7D were dialed the switch
would wait to see if there were more digits.  If not it could assume
the first three digits after "1" was an exchange number.

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

Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 27 Feb 93 14:22:42 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> To deal with this the RBOC will require that area codes be dialed
> with all toll calls.  Numbers that are presently dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil
> now be dialed 1-(NXX) NXX-XXXX.

> This will have an economic impact on many owners of phone
> systems.  The routing tables of many PBXs will require an update to
> available memory if the PBX is using least cost or automatic routing.

As has been mentioned in telecom many times before, there is no
relation between inter-area-code calls and toll calls.  In Princeton,
NJ, for example, in the 609 area, a call to 609-799 in Plainsboro is a
local call, to 609-396 in Trenton is an intra-LATA toll call, to
609-344 in Atlantic City is an inter-LATA toll call, and to 908-297 in
South Brunwick is an inter-LATA free local call.

NJ Bell has never made a connection between 1+ and toll: for a long
time a leading 1 was ignored, then they went directly to 1+ means area
code follows.  You can dial all calls as 1+ NPA + number, even local
calls, and all local calls can be dialed with seven digits, even
across 609/908 and 908/201, which makes life much simpler.  There is
no requirement that you dial 1 + area code on an in-area toll call,
nor will there be in the future.  Philadelphia has recently switched
to this scheme, too.

Lest this seem like an exotic case, in New York City, all calls that
start with 1-212, 1-718, and 1-917 are local.  In areas at the edge of
the city, some calls to 914 or 516 may also be local.

The point of this is that any PBX that attempts to route calls solely
based on whether a number starts with a 1 has been broken for many
years, so I'd pay no attention to whining that interchangable area
codes will be hard for the PBX to handle.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan
Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 09:19:04 EST


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all
> toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes?  If so, please
> provide specific area codes if available.

> In MD and VA, other cases of local calls to another area code are
> still seven digits.  Long distance within 301,410, 703 -- not yet 804,
> which still has 1 + 7D -- is 1 + NPA + 7D.)

I live in MD, in AC 410.  A local call to a nearby town on 301
requires that I dial 301 + 7D.  Any toll call, in 410 or not, requires
1 + AC + 7D.


Doug Granzow         [e-mail]  or  ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig
Call: Cynosure BBS (Part of The Harold Network) at 410-549-2584 (it's free!)

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:07:03 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8


[e-mail] writes:

> Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for
> three digits + seven digits.  They would have to remain on a seven
> digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to
> do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation.

This does remind me of making a call from an airplane phone while
flying, in May 1991, from Philadelphia to Los Angeles; in that case, I
only dialed (or punched in) area code plus seven digits, because it's
known in advance that I MUST use an area code.  But getting back to
the excerpt above: I am not sure what it means!

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

From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: IXI Limited
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 14:34:48 GMT


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

> In effect, the North American rather unique concept of NPAs will
> gradually be altered to a ten-digit number whose first three digits
> has a geographic association -- but a geographic location won't have a
> unique NPA.

What's unique about it? Most countries work the same way.

On a related topic: does anyone know the current plans for the order
of allocation of the new area codes? I have seen reports that the NN0
numbers will be allocated first (in essentially random order), and
also reports that the order will be N2N, N3N, ... for geographical
codes and N9N, N8N, ... for non-geographical codes.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Ltd (an SCO company)
[e-mail]          | Vision Park
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB4 4RZ
Fax:   [phone] | United Kingdom

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

From: [e-mail] (Eli Mantel)
Subject: Re: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 02:43:48 GMT


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the
> U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued.  Country code 52,
> already available for such calls, was to be used.  706 and 905 thus
> became available for use elsewhere, and were later announced for use
> in Georgia and Ontario respectively.

I am sitting here with the just-published February 1993 Southern Bell
directory for Raleigh, NC.  The area code map shows (obviously
incorrectly) that 903 is the area code for both northern Mexico and
Tyler, TX.

Was 903 ever an area code for Mexico?


Eli Mantel ([e-mail])

   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


[Moderator's Note: Yes it was. 903 was 'Northwest Mexico' and 905 was
the area around Mexico City. But they were not called 'area codes';
the term was 'access code'. The parsing was actually 90 + 3 + and 90 +
5 +. These remained in use during the time when not all of the USA
had IDDD.  As soon as everyone in the USA could dial 011 + 52, then
903 and 905 were released for service elsewhere.  By coincidence, 903
wound up almost where it started out.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Re: History of TWX Area Codes
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 14:34:17 GMT


Bob Clements put together and posted a bit of history regarding TWX
machines.

Just a small additional anecdote:

In the NYC area , at least, it was possible to hook into the standard
phone network with a 110 baud terminal, and dial a local area exchange
which translated to a TWX number.

I don't recall the exact prefix, but if you dialed it, then the last
four digits of the TWX number, you'd hook up.

This was quite helpful when trying to impress the folk you were
calling, especially since this was the days (<1975) when only big
businesses would have such things.

It also let you dial into such services as an early version of
services which provided news summaries, although I was never able to
get the weather digest to work properly.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My recollection was the 'three-row' machines always
were on the regular (voice) network as far as I recall. It was only
the 'four-row' machines that were ever in the X10 'area codes'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: History of TWX Area Codes
Date: Sat 27 Feb 1993 19:31 -0400


My memories of the TWX system date back to the mid 60's with some
experience from the 70's after the great agreement in which ATT sold
off the TWX network and agreed to suppress interoperation (1965,
though not implemented immediately at that time).  The TWX lines
corresponded to actual local phone numbers so that one could call
between the networks by discovering the translations from x10-nnn
exchanges to the local 212-mmm exchange or other mappings. The
machines on the networks were the same but, I'm not sure whether I
remember this right, the Ans/Org frequencies were reversed. When
calling between the networks.  I don't remember running into
translators since I was staying within the four-row world.

The machines themselves were full duplex with jumpers among the
circuit boards (well documented in the appropriate manuals) that could
be used to set local echo.

TWX itself eventually transformed into Western Union's Easylink
service retaining arcane control codes.  Now that Easylink is part of
ATT Mail, I don't know if those interfaces remain.

The "early TWX Network" was probably the Telex network.  It was only
later, I think, that the designations TWX I and TWX II were applied.

Again, this is from memory of my experience using the network.


[Moderator's Note: One vestige still remaining of the old system is
the use of 910 as the 'area code' for EasyLink mailboxes which have
telex numbers assigned to them. And I don't think the nomenclature was
TWX I and II, I think it was Telex I and Telex II, with Telex II being
the TWX system WUTCO picked up from Bell. 'Area code' 410 found its
way into service with WUTCO's 'InfoMaster' system, and I think all the
various (TWX A/C) 555-1212's eventually were merged into 410-555-1212
for the USA and 610-555-1212 for Canada.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:08:23 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones


What is the frequencies that a scanner would require in order to
receive Cellphones? (What scanner do I need to buy before they can't
be bought anymore?)   :) :)


Richard Nash  Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
UUCP:      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't know about Canada, if it is the same as
here in the USA or not. Here, you want a scanner with 800 megs in it,
and specifically the 860-890 megs range. Do you have Radio Shack
stores up there? If so, I'm sure those old pirates are in tune with
things ... they certainly are down here.  Be sure and ask for your
copy of the mods before you leave the store. :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 13:54:45 GMT


Since this discussion suggests that the best way to be secure is to
have digital switches for cellphones, what I want to know is:

 - How can one find out if the carrier in a city has digital switches
 - At what rate are the switches being turned digital across the US.


Thanks for the info.

Sameer

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:57:32 GMT


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

> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security
> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*?  Say, every five seconds or
> so?

    How would the channel-hop sequence be determined?  Since both
the cell site and the mobile unit would need to agree on the hop
sequence, possibly transmitting the hop sequence during call setup
would work.  Someone listening in could also get this hop sequence and
follow right along.  Significant improvements in cellular telephone
security will probably have to wait for the conversion to digital and
the use of some encryption algorithm.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Re: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign?
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 21:11:14 GMT
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elana
Beach) writes:

> Could the # sign be used in any permutation to help alleviate the
> number shortage ... i.e. have it replace the leading "1" for
> long-distance phone calls or whatever?

However, there is one factor that you appear to have forgetten.

What about rotary dial phones? There are still many of them in use
and I am not aware of any with # or * positions. :-)


Steven Leikeim      University of Calgary
Department of Electrical Engineering
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: For that matter, the original touch-tone phones
only had ten buttons, with no * or #. The * is commonly translated as
'11' (I think pronounced 'eleven' rather than 'one one'), but # was
never known as 'twelve', although I guess if they run out of numbers
for the *NN feature codes one of these days they could start using #NN
for more. Older readers will probably remember the 80-column punch
cards of years past with rows zero through nine, and the two bottom
rows which were called X and R, which could be punched to allow up to
three meanings for each of the numbers in the column: the number only
punched were letters A-J; the number punched along with X were the
letters K-T; the number punched along with R (sometimes called the
high punch) were the letters U-Z and a few miscellaneous things.

Some voicemail systems where you are allowed to search the 'company
directory' use * and # to give unique letter assignments to each
button on the phone, ie 2=A *2=B #2=C, 1=Q *1=Z #1=What Follows is a
phone extension number, 0=Call Operator, *0=Cancel search and start
again, #0 quit and return to main menu.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #138
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01828;
          28 Feb 93 19:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14767
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11373
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:09 -0600
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #139

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:31:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 139

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Graham Toal)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Graham Toal)
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial ([e-mail])
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Nick Sayer)
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Vance Shipley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 07:42:36 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


Right now, area code 516 (Long Island) uses NPA + 7D for all
inter-area code calls with 7D used for those that are intra-area code.
the 1+ is optional and I can't see why NYTel couldn't start making 1+
mandatory for all non-516 calls as a prelude to the changeover in
1994/1995.

As of this time, not that many exchanges have been created to justify
moving to 1+.  The latest major addition was around 1989/1990 when two
communities received five between them.

However, in the interests of uniformity, something is going to have to
be done out here and I'm wondering how well NYTel is going to bungle
the job.


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:26:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


Stefan Zingg <[e-mail]> writes:

> Why can't you just add another digit to the phone number? Why has it
> to be fixed length?  Here in Europe, most countries have variable
> length numbers.  In my town, we ran out of numbers about five years
> ago. So they just introduced a seventh digit. Now we have even
> six-digit and seven-digit numbers mixed in one city. Why isn't that
> possible for North America?

Chances are, in your country as in all of Europe except for Great
Britain, the telephone company is owned by a branch of the Postal
Service or a corporate entity which used to be owned by it.  As such,
all telephone equipment is owned by one organization.  (At the
switching end, that is.)

When a place runs out of numbers, there are but two choices: add more
digits or split the system into additional areas.  Depending on
whether splitting a system requires using additional equipment or not
is really whether something happens.

In the United States, private companies and even individuals can own
their own switching equipment.  All this equipment has been programmed
by private companies to handle the current dialing system which has
been in use for more than 25 years.  Adding extra digits or making the
system uneven would probably break a lot of software which could not
handle the change.

Why did Europe convert to the Metric system?  Because it was easier
for people to use than the older English system of feet, pounds,
miles, etc.  Converting to a new class of area code (where the area
code and the prefix is indistinguishable) is the _easiest_ way to fix
a problem currently without having to do much in the way of changes.

Telling a system to simply accept any number from 200 to 999 as an
area code (as had to be done when prefixes became NXX) is easier than
saying "for area code 202 it's eight digits, for 301 it's seven, for
702 it's six ..."  Or easier than changing all the equipment to handle
an additional digit.  Our phone numbers already are ten digits in
length; changing that would require a lot of work for which few places
are ready for.  (Many places haven't even taken six digit dates out of
service; a lot of mainframe software is going to break on Saturday,
January 1, 2000, or Monday, January 3, 2000, when the date turns from
12/31/99 to 01/01/00 and the systems think the first date is later
than the second.)

Also, the # and * are no good for telephone numbers as other countries
could not call some numbers in the U.S. since there would be no way to
code an * or #.

Possibly, if all subscriber calls in the future are required to be
dialed as ten digits, the next step could be to allow an exchange
number to start with 0 or 1.  Then someone could get a phone number
like "800-000-0000" and then say something like "The 8 Motel where you
pay next to nothing; dial 8 then keep pressing 0.  That's for the
extra Z's you can take because you saved money!"


[Moderator's Note: You say 'the present system has been in use more
than 25 years ..."; how about 40 years where ten digits is concerned
and since before any of us can remember where seven digit local
calling is concerned.  There were exceptions, of course.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:18:03 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE


I said:

> If it is as you describe, and they actually tampered with the amount
> written on the cheque, it is criminal fraud and the person who did it
> can go to prison for it.  Their supervisors could also be charged with
> conspiracy.

Moderator Noted:

> Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have said intent was
> very unlikely when the payment was handled through a remittance center
> getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What do you think they
> do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at the check, the
> coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get his lousy seven
> dollars?  Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy, criminal or
> otherwise is a bit much to swallow.  PAT]

First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque, there
is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent to defraud.
Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that is not written on a
cheque.  They go by what is written on the cheque, not on the pay-in
slip.

If you are suggesting that the cheque wasn't tampered with, then the
person clearly can expect their bank to refund the money that was paid
out by the bank in error.

Secondly, I was using conspiracy in the legal sense of two or more
people working together to perform a criminal act -- not in the
layman's sense of some great secret plan to defraud millions.  If a
low-level worker deliberately tampered with a cheque, it's very
unlikely they did it entirely off their own bat.  Their supervisor
must have known and given approval.  In which case, if the employee
who did the actual tampering was proven to have committed fraud, then
the supervisor would almost certainly be guilty of conspiracy.
Possibly also of 'aiding and abetting the commission of a crime',
though conspiracy is usually easier to prove.


G

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:31:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE


> Although I've been lucky enough to move out of GTEland, my girlfriend
> has not...[] She called GTE and explained to them that there was a
> credit due from her LD carrier (MCI) and that she was going to pay
> all of the bill, minus about $7 because of the credit. The GTE Op
> said her account was noted as such.  For whatever reason, the credit
> didn't come through in time. So GTE cashed her check for the FULL
> AMOUNT of the bill, despite the fact that the check was written
> for the bill minus the $7. GTE claimed that when the credit came
> through from MCI, the $7 would then be applied to her account.

Wait a minute?  Did she write the check for the lower amount and GTE
changed it, or did GTE have its bank accept the check at the higher
amount?  When she gets the check, look at the Magnettic code on the
bottom right corner of the check, which is the actual amount the check
was charged for.  I have a story about why I spent four hours tracing
a 1c error because we weren't sure if it was a computer error or not,
and that's why I check the number the check was negotiated at, (which
I'll relate privately if anyone wants it).

Does she have the check back yet?  If the amount written in words is
different from the amount written in numbers, and the bank cashed it
for an amount different from the amount written in words, have her
take it back and demand it be charged as the amount written in words,
and make the bank eat the difference, which they may try to get from
GTE.  Banks don't check the amounts of checks because they handle so
many of them, but they are liable if they accept a check for more than
the amount written on the check in words.  The bank acts only as the
agent of the account holder in accepting a check for payment; it does
not have the right to issue more than the amount of the check.  It may
refuse a check if there is reason to question it, but it does not have
authority in the absence of a court order or other government paper,
to accept a check for more than the written amount without consent of
the account holder.

Or, she could go to the police station and file a CRIMINAL complaint
charging the company with check fraud if the change is obvious.  This
might be better since she might be able to then sue the phone company
for damages, since this would be outside the province of the tariffs,
since they do immunize the company for common errors, they do not
cover wilful negligence and/or fraud.  She might be able to get them
to waive the service charges for several years!

> What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your
> check for whatever amount they deem necessary?

While I have heard rumors that the Gestapo Internal Revenue Service
has done this, I've never seen it in action. :)


Paul Robinson -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 01:01 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
> the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

Well, then, I guess the system out here is damn near perfect. I have
not been asked for my number one single time in over thirty-five
years.  And I certainly make my share of long distance calls. Also, if
this were EVER done anymore, it would certainly take a lot of steam
out of AT&T's remarkably arrogant attitude about never making
mistakes. If the accounting is EVER based upon what a caller tells an
operator, all bets are off for dependable accuracy in billing.


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


[Moderator's Note: But that was the point behind the massive changes
in how the system operates which have been made in the past couple
decades. It got to the point *everyone* knew how the old system (x-bar
and other aspects) worked. By the 1960's, it got to where everyone
knew they could tell the operator whatever they pleased as long as
they got a few trivial details correct (such as the prefix they were
calling from) and the operator had to accept it since between the time
the caller dialed for a long distance operator and the operator came
on to handle the call, the calling number got lost in the matrix. Bell
was *not happy* with the general public knowing as much about the
system as they knew.

Consider the simple-minded calling cards of the 1950-70 era; your phone
number, a 'key letter' and a regional accounting code.  Every January,
all the phreaks would get together, promise not to abuse each other's
personal (legitimate) calling cards, then compare their calling cards.
There'd usually be enough variety in numbers the 'key letters' for the
year and the digit they were based on could be figured out in two
minutes after each person showed his (legitimate card) to the rest of
the group. Toll fraud against AT&T reached absolutely epidemic
proportions in the 1960-70 period ... much worse than it is now, or at
least as bad. I remember a hearing where IBT was applying for a rate
increase; this would have been about 1965-1970. One of the
commissioners asked the IBT man how much did IBT write off the year
before due to toll fraud ... seven million dollars ... IBT alone.

Since it had reached the point where everyone knew 'how the system
worked' the decision to build the system over from scratch was an easy
one to make. You surely don't think ESS was designed and implemented
just so telco could market all those nice custom calling features, do
you?  Those are just icing on the cake ... the real reason for ESS was
to enable telco to regain control of a phone network they were rapidly
losing control of due to fraud and other mischief. People knew calls
could not be traced in any timely way under the old system; they knew
they could steal service via their neighbor's wire pair with almost
impunity; make up any calling card number on the fly, etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 14:24:26 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


John Higdon:

> Eventually Pac*Bell discovered the reason for the problem and reported
> both to me and to AT&T. In the meantime, I had been withholding the

Don't leave us in suspense like this!  What was it?


G

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 08:48:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
ca.us (Nick Sayer):

> What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them
> an analog leased line? How much does this cost the telco relative to
> the situation in the first paragraph? Why is it that the price charged
> by the telco for this situation is so much higher than in the first
> paragraph?

> [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the
> expense of having certain common equipment in the central office
> unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling
> you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you
> will be.

I thought one of the big reasons why leased lines were so expensive is
because they are "special service" circuits and require special
procedures to install and maintain. Leased lines cannot be
automatically tested with the ever present Mechanized Loop Testing
system, or Automatic Line Insulation Test system since leased lines
are not accessible because they are not switched circuits. Almost
everything associated with special circuits is manual. Although the
Switched Access Remote Test System (SARTS) tests specials, the circuit
must be routed through the (expensive) test system at installation
which is something you don't have to do with POTS (Plain Old Telephone
Service).  Leased lines also don't have phone numbers so they need
special billing procedures.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:16:34 -0800
From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial


TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the
> expense of having certain common equipment in the central office
> unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling
> you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you
> will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would
> lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep
> the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if
> the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call,
> you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a
> leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it
> becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call
> basis on demand.

I am losing you here. If the line is unmeasured, then it doesn't
matter how many minutes of traffic each month there is, the cost is
the same, and is an order of magnitude lower than the equivalent
leased line.

By the way, the line in question would have 30*24*60 minutes of
traffic and one call in a typical month.

> If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need quite as much
> traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty.

43200 minutes are probably enough, though on a per-call UNtimed basis
it would still work since there'd be only one call per month (or even
zero calls if you only count the moment of dialing and a call lasts
into the next month).

Hmm. The telco may not be quite so bad off. They'll never have to
generate ring on the line, almost never make dialtone or use a dial
register. Just burn one circuit, which a leased line would have to do
anyway ... They might go so far as to someday have hueristics in the
switch that let it make resource decisions based on the pattern of use
of the line (I see that as the next big thing in computer technology.
If a computer runs the transmission in your car, what would be more
natural than for it to learn how YOU drive and taylor its actions to
your driving patterns).


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>  N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
[phone], log in as 'guest'    PGP 2.1 public key on request

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:31:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Nick Sayer) writes:

> [two residential subscribers set up modems to keep line dialed up]
> Thus, they effectively have an analog leased line for about $20/mo
> (unmeasured service presumed).

> [Moderator's Note:
> If the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call,
> you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a
> leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it
> becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call
> basis on demand. If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need
> quite as much traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty.

As part of the planning for our NetHopper product, we have looked at
lots of call pricing. In short, there are very few places where flat
rate local calling is available to businesses anymore. It is an
attractive option for residences, and I certainly would not keep the
line from my home to the office up for hours every evening, if I had
to pay by the minute.

Where there is billing by the minute, the crossover point that can
justify a leased line is generally at six to eight hours per day. This
holds true over a wide variety of distance bands, from within our
local business park to cost-to-coast voice-grade connections.

This is why a dial-up IP router makes sense, even as the old
constituents of the Internet are moving up from leased 56Kbps lines to
T-1 lines.

[For more information about the NetHopper, please send mail to
[e-mail] rather than me.]


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]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Organization: Xenitec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:22:29 GMT


I have been wrestling with this problem for quite some time now.  Here
in Waterloo, Ontario, under the realm of Bell Canada, residential
unmeasured service is $9.25/month (Touch Tone extra).  Many folks I
know have "leased" lines which amount to a pair of dial-up modems
connected 24hrs/day.  When you compare the price of this (<$20/month)
to the cost of leasing copper it is amazing.

I work within a block of the CO serving my home, another 5.6km away
(about four miles).  To lease a dry copper pair from home to work
would cost about $50/month.  So what is the cost to the telco?  For
$9.25 I get 5.6km of copper connected to a million dollar switch.  For
$50 I get the same 5.6km of copper connected to another .4km of
copper.  Go figure.

Now if wanted to lease copper to my friends house across the street I
would only have to pay about $4.  The copper used would be two times
5.6km as the circuit would always run to the CO and back.  I guess
this makes sense to the average consumer because they don't know about
the underlying topology.  It also keeps Bell from changing real estate
values by moving CO equipment :).

Another interesting tariff is that for OPL (Off Premise Line).  This
tariff is meant for answering services.  You have your line bridged at
the CO to another loop which terminates at another location.  This is
really just an extension the same as the one in the bedroom except it
is somewhere else in the city.  When a call comes in it rings at both
locations and either (or both) can answer it.  The cost of this
addition to your residential or business service is about $4 if the
other location is close to the CO.  So in this case the topology IS
important.  Now going back to my original example I can get the 5.6km
copper loop from my house connected to the CO switch and carried on
out to my office for about $13/mo.  Do you think I could convince them
to skip connecting me to the switch?  What if I order this service and
then not pay my bill, will they disconnect me from the switch and
leave the copper in place?  (Just kidding Pat :))

It makes you anxious to see what comes of PCN, etc.  I believe
wireless is for mobile not residential and business service but if it
allows me to get connected for a more reasonable cost I'll jump on the
band wagon.


Vance Shipley   [e-mail]
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #139
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05490;
          28 Feb 93 21:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19651
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07093
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #140

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:55:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 140

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Feature It (John Higdon)
    Update to: Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Stan Krieger)
    Re: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges (Barry Mishkind)
    Re: Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey? (Carl Moore)
    Hotel Phone Call Home Winds up in Malaysia! (Glen Ecklund)
    Re: "Aggregater" Experience Sought (John Higdon)
    Re: The Moderator's New Employer (Matt Healy)
    A Debit Card Program For Long Distance Calls (Meg Arnold)
    Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( (Rob Knauerhase)
    Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( (Elana Beach)
    Orange Card Update (Patrick Townson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 00:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Feature It


After decades of Calling Card numbers based upon the customer's
telephone number, AT&T a few years ago finally introduced the
long-awaited "AT&T-only" card that is COCOT and AOS proof.

But what goes around comes around. Not long ago, Sprint began touting
its "new" Calling Card numbering scheme: the one that AT&T used right
on through divestiture. And now MCI has its "new" number. The
advantage of these "new" calling cards? The number is easier to
remember.

The disadvantage? None other than the same one that prompted AT&T to
discontinue the scheme: any slimeball AOS can bill you for calls using
that number because all the needed information is contained therein.

Unlike many, I have no problem remembering numbers. But even if that
were not the case, it would be worth the effort memorizing the
arbitrarily assigned AT&T card number to prevent bogus billing. If
someone cannot be without a number that is easily billed by ripoff AOS
scum, then the LEC would be happy to provide him with one (which works
just fine on AT&T AND Sprint AND MCI).

The OCCs are going to a great deal of trouble and expense to convince
you that their service is identical to AT&T's but that there is a big
difference in the billing methods and, most importantly, the price.
The reverse, of course, is true. The price differences between the
carriers is now far less significant than the service differences.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 23:38:16 EST
Subject: Update to: Another AOS Sleaze Trick
Organization: Summit NJ


> On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used
> their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted
> to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT).  In any
> event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a
> collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes
> any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill
> the receiving phone number).

The person who posted this story provided a followup.  He called the
AOS, and what he discovered was this:

When the AOS discovered the card number was a "scrambled" number
(their term), the call was routed to a live operator who asked for the
phone number of the calling card holder.  The person using the card (a
relative of the cardholder, who was calling the cardholder) provided
that info.  The AOS then billed that number as a "billed to a third
party" call.

The AOS rep also claimed that it was "standard" in the industry to do
it that way.


Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Standard in the industry?  Yeah, you bet.  My
answer to the question 'phone number of the calling card holder' would
have been 'There is none. It is a miscellaneous non-subscriber account
set up by AT&T.' There is such a category ... let them prove me wrong.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (barry mishkind)
Subject: Re: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:59:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed
Greenberg) writes:

> Of course, hotel charges of all kinds are outrageous.  $18.75 for an
> average steak dinner?  Seven-fifty for a plate of eggs and bacon?
> When you want it in the room, the dining room prices are inflated by
> 20-30 percent, and then a service charge is added on top of that.

I heard the other day about a hospital in Atlanta that charged
patients *$3.00 per FAX* when friends sent get well greetings to them.
I don't currently know the name of the hospital, but it was "policy."

> place it squarely on American business, especially at the CEO and
> Vice President level.  American executives consume most of the
> business travel dollars in this country, and they sign the expense
> reports of  ...

And are among the most pampered people in the world, with special
emphasis on government stupervisors (sic).


Barry Mishkind   coyote.datalog.com   Tucson, Arizona

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 13:14:13 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey?


Comfort Inn and Days Inn are separate chains.  It is possible for a
hotel to be switched from one chain to another, and I've even seen
cases where a hotel is (at least temporarily) not part of a chain;
when it leaves a chain, it must cover or remove that chain's insignia.
I did see a listing for Days Inn at 646 W. Diversey Parkway in
Chicago.

(in the following paragraph: the area code was permissive 301/410,
and has since been fully cut over to 410).

In March 1992, I found a 30-cent charge for local calls in effect at
the Comfort Inn at Edgewood, Maryland; BUT the local calling area was
different from that of the nearby C&P pay phone, which was on 676 and
which charged 25 cents for a local call.  The hotel rooms were using
679, so my advice was to use the room phone for calls to Baltimore
city or any suburb beyond Towson.

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

From: [e-mail] (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Hotel Phone Call Home Winds in Malaysia!
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 16:52:30 GMT


I once tried to call home (Area 608) from a phone in my hotel room.  I
used the instructions on the phone, and got a wrong number.  Then I
found a different set of instructions on a sheet of paper.  I called
my carrier (AT&T) to credit the wrong number, but I got a bill anyway,
for a call to Malaysia (country code 60).  I called AT&T again and
they credited me.


Glen Ecklund     [e-mail]   [phone] Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 02:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: "Aggregater" Experience Sought


[e-mail] (Eric Pearce) writes:

> I'm supposed to meet with a salesperson from First Federated
> Communications later this week.

> My concern is adding another party to the "soup".

A very real concern, indeed. What you lose is the ability to deal
directly with the entity providing your service. You are no longer the
customer of a long distance carrier, but that of a third party who has
no technical knowledge of or other interest in the quality of your
service. The aggregator's sole purpose is to literally get between you
and the carrier and collect money.

It sounds as though you are much too big a deal to fool around with
aggregators. I would suggest that you simply negotiate harder with the
REAL carrier of your choice. I have discovered that beating on a
carrier really pays off, since right now they are very hungry. Much
better to get a savings that way than pay middleman scum. (Ah, c'mon
Higdon, say what you really think!)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: The Moderator's New Employer
Organization: Yale U. - Genetics
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:01:33 GMT


[rest of Pat's remarks cut...]

> use their 1+ service, and they do not 'slam' or play games. At the
> present time, their 800 number is *not* well known to hotels, thus it

Might I suggest they change their 800 number from time to time, with
advance notification to their customers.  That would _really_ make it
difficult for hotels to rip me off!


Matt Healy    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Meg Arnold)
Subject: Re: My New Venture: The Orange Calling Card
Date: 28 Feb 93 19:06:10 GMT
Organization: SRI International


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Patrick
Townson) wrote:

> I recently resigned my employment of several years and have begun a
> business of my own as an independent sales agent or contractor for
> Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a small but
> growing long distance carrier. They offer 1+ dialing and a telephone
> calling card which has *no surcharge* associated with its use.

> To use it, you dial an 800 number, then the number you are calling,
> the ten digit card number and your PIN. [more stuff deleted]

> Orange Card charges a flat rate of 25 cents per minute, and they bill
> in six-second increments rather than whole minutes. [again]

On a related topic, I recently did some work for a company called
World Telecom Group, which is based in Mountain View, CA.  They market
a calling card product similar to those in Europe and elsewhere -- a
debit calling card.  However, their card, unlike those abroad, is
software-based, rather than hardware-based (i.e. no card-reader on the
phone).

This is the deal: you sign up for a card in whatever increment you
want ($20, $100, etc.) and use it till it's almost gone (you're
informed by a recording when that is).  Then you can renew via a
credit card each time, or set it up to renew automatically as you use
up the money on your card.  Because it's debit rather than credit, you
never get a separate billing for your use of; it appears as a one-time
renewal charge on your credit card (although itemized monthly billings
are available).

To use the card, dial an 800-number from any telephone, punch in your
PIN at the tone, and dial from there.  There is no per-use surcharge.
Rates start at $.139/minute nationwide, and as you accumulate usage on
an *ongoing* (not monthly) basis, your rate drops -- permanently.  So
assume one threshold is at $1000 -- if you reach that after 2.5 months
use, your rate drops permanently to $.129/minute.  At the next
threshold, it goes to $.119.  There IS a minimum, obviously, at $.089
or something (the actual numbers may vary, my memory for them is
weak).

The software they have developed to run this thing and track
everyone's usage is, naturally, proprietary, and more interestingly,
it uses real-time timing of calls.

Well, I'm not going to sell you anything, since I'm no longer
affiliated with the company, but it's a bit of information people out
there may be interested in.


Meg Arnold, Business Intelligence Center, SRI International.
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA  94025.
phone: [phone]    internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Obviously, if you are willing to let them hold on
to your money, the program you tell about is the best deal of all.
You can get extremely inexpensive long distance calling. But if you
are not willing to let a company hold on to your unused money, then
there is a problem with the plan. :) For those of us who do not have
any spare money to let someone hold -- those of us who live from one
payday to the next (or from one trip to the post office box to the
next perhaps) -- then these Trying Times in which we live don't allow
the luxury of buying cheap in large quantities. Granted, the program
does sound good.  PAT]

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive  :(
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:53:31 CST
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois @ Urbana


In <[e-mail]>, Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
writes:

> I am sitting here kicking myself in the butt. For no reason other than
> my own clumsiness, ALL the Orange Card requests you sent me were wiped
> out .... :(

> Of course, a fraction of a second after I hit the return key I
> realized I had just wiped out the file and replaced it with the
> one entry .... :(

Pat, I'd forget this Orange alliance if I were you -- it sounds as
though you have real potential for a sterling career at GTE!  :-)

Sorry, couldn't resist :)


Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science

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

From: [e-mail] (Elana Beach)
Subject: Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :(
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 00:10:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Patrick Townson) writes:

> Now I would like to go out and shoot myself or something.

To paraphrase a line from the "Addams Family" movie ...

Aw, Pat!  Don't shoot yourself ...  That's OUR job!  =8)

With positive thoughts from another expert on ballistic podiatry,


QLLD


[Moderator's Note: Listen you! Compared to my family, the Addams
Family is functional, as the shrinks would say.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 16:19:26 -0600
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orange Card Update


A few hundred Orange Card brochure/applications were mailed out this
week.  The ones of you who responded first may have already received
them in your mail Friday or Saturday. Others will receive them
Monday/Tuesday. Still another batch of email which arrived since
Friday is going in the mail on Monday, so those people will get them
this week ahead sometime. You will receive a plain envelope with an
orange colored brochure inside. I saw no reason to send along lots of
other promotional stuff as most TELECOM Digest readers are too smart
to be swayed by that. No need to include some of the promotional stuff
since you all know the scoop anyway. Either it will work for you or it
won't, and the key is short calls from phones that have surcharges,
with the calls mostly made during daytime peak-traffic hours, etc.

I am *very interested* in finding out any problems which develop with
this card, i.e it takes a long time to get your card from Minneapolis
once your application goes in, card is wrong, etc.  Also, once you
start getting billings, let me know if there are hassles. I'll make a
final decision on this once I see how well they deal with the business
you are giving them at this time.  Are calls going through in a timely
way without a lot of hassles or misconnections, etc?

If this works out well, that is if they turn out to be a very reputable
organization as I have been told, then I may start dealing with another
product of theirs called the "Orange Phone". This is a COCOT which will
permit calling all over the USA at the rate of 25 cents per minute; you
insert the quarters in the slot and dial wherever.

For those of you who missed the original message last week, the Orange
Calling Card is a product of Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis.
I am handing out applications in the hopes a little money will be
generated to offset the increasing costs of publishing TELECOM Digest.
This is a no surchange, flat rate 25 cents per minute calling card which
works from anywhere in the USA by calling an 800 number, inserting your
card number and PIN, and the number you want to call. Obviously, the
savings to callers come when SHORT (one to five) minute calls are made
during the daytime from phones which otherwise would have a surcharge
attached to the call, such as from a hotel, etc.  There is a $10 fee
to establish the account on the computer and mail out the plastic card,
etc.  If this sort of calling card would have any benefit for you, you
can request a brochure/application from my personal email address:

                 [e-mail].

Consider it like an 'affinity calling card' for the telecom family on
the net.

But mainly, I want to hear experiences, good and bad so I can decide
where I am going with this. Thanks.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #140
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16512;
          1 Mar 93 1:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20136
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:14:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24410
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:13:16 -0600
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:13:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #141

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:13:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 141

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    National Data Superhighways -- Public and Private Roles (NYT via A. Blau)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Peter Bachman)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Richard Nash)
    Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees (Roy McCrory)
    Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Ang Peng Hwa)
    Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments ([e-mail])
    Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Bill Garfield)
    Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Carl Moore)
    Re: Switching LD Carriers (Jim Graham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 09:39:57 -0500
From: Andrew Blau <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Data Superhighways -- Public and Private Roles


 From the {New York Times}, February 24, 1993:

Clinton's Technology Plan Would Redirect Billions From Military Research

by Edmund Andrews

  Washington, Feb. 23 -- President Clinton's newly introduced plan to
bolster industrial technology involves almost no increase in total
government spending on research, but it would redirect billions of
dollars from military programs to projects involving private industry.

                               [*  *  *]

  Over all, the Government would play a supporting role rather than
taking center stage in technology development.  The biggest single
effort outlined thus far is the $2 billion plan to build a nationwide
communications "superhighway," a program that was championed by Vice
President Gore while he was in the Senate and which Congress has
already funded in large measure.

  As the project is outlined, however, the Administration would spend
money primarily on developing advanced supercomputers and software
that would link them over a high-speed fiber optic network, and on
demonstration projects at hospitals, schools and libraries.  For the
most part, the actual construction of a network that is widely
available to the public would be left to private companies.

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

From: [e-mail] (peter bachman)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 02:53:57 GMT


I think it is clear that the access problem will get cleared up. The
question then becomes what do you do with all the information and get
it into a usable form; what will be your community of interest? If
everyone that wants to get involved in doing multi-media over the net
in fact does so I am wondering where all this media is going to come
from?


Peter Bachman - usual disclaimers

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 19:01:16 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Richard Nash)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


Andrew Blau <[e-mail]> writes:

>[...Info about EDS v. AT&T "dark fiber" controversy deleted...]

>> Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can
>> produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable
>> nylons for the secretaries.  That is the approach we need to take with
>> digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread
>> their benefits widely.  All we need is the capital and the vision to
>> apply it.

> Three cheers, then, for Robert McMillin.  I could not have said it
> better myself.  Affordable digital service for residential users so
> that the benefits of this system can be widely shared is one of the
> most critical public policy issues in this area, and one that is often
> overlooked.  Moreover, much of the financial capital that Mr. McMillin
> refers to has already been sunk over the last eight years, if we are
> talking about the first level of digital services for the home.  The
> real capital that needs to get spent is likely to be political
> capital, and, following Mr. McMillin, the vision to apply it.

Well, perhaps it was better that I waited before responding to the
remarks countered to those I had made, that "the telcos are not
interested in monopoly services."  Have we gone full circle yet?
Affordable digital service for residential users is something that I
have long wished for.  Will the private sector have me, the lowly
residential data highway user, interests, as a fundamental concern?
Is competitive undercutting going to ultimately resolve data transport
costs to absolute marginal profits and then as perhaps we see in the
airline industry, consistant uncertianty to their solvency/dependancy
to deliver?

What I would be interested in hearing about from {telecom digest}
readers, is how they foresee the deployment?  Who is gonna do it cheap
for all of us to enjoy?  National (government funded) programs to
develop this network, or AT&T and such interested parties, running
high profile interference to prevent their overpriced technology, from
being easily overcome by the technology revolution that perhaps even
they cannot ultimately stonewall?


 Richard Nash              Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8
 UUCP:                     [e-mail]
 Amateur Radio Packet:     [e-mail]
                           VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA
                           ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca [192.75.200.15]

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

Date: 28 Feb 93 16:27:00 MDT
From: MCCRORY, ROY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees


Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy, preferably from the net,
of the "printed' technology policy referred to in the address?


Roy A. McCrory [phone] FCDNA/FCTP, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5669

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 07:29:16 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees


Mark Boolootian published a transcript of President Clinton's visit to
Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Without flogging the entire transcript to
death, here's why Mr. Clinton is rather dangerous for the whole
telecom business:

First, Jobs Are Sacred:

> Ed said that you plan your new products knowing they'll be
> obsolete within 12 to 18 months, and you want to be able to replace
> them.  We live in an era of constant change.  And America's biggest
> problem, if you look at it through that lens, is that for too many
> people change is an enemy, not a friend.  I mean, one reason you're
> all so happy is you found a way to make change your friend, right?
> Diversity is a strength, not a source of division, right?  (Applause.)
> Change is a way to make money, not throw people out of work, right?

Uh huh.  With thinking like this, AT&T should throw out all its
digital switches and hire back millions of operators.  And as Mr.
Higdon would point out, there are certainly people who would relish a
return to the days of the Ellie the cordbord operator.

That, however, is pure nostalgia.  Many times, it's not only desirable
but *essential* to get rid of positions.  That's not to say that the
process should be done stupidly with the intent of eliminating
employees as the only goal.  But, if a company streamlines in an
intelligent way, it will be able to turn out a product or service at a
lower cost and make happier customers.

Second, Symbolism Over Substance:

> Example: We cut the White House staff by 25 percent to set a
> standard for cutting inessential spending in the government.

Does *anybody* expect Mr. Clinton to be able to cut the rest of the
government by this much?  I certainly don't.  For starters, he has as
much control over Congress as either of his predecessors did, which is
to say, none.  Whatever new taxes the Federal maw sucks in will have
been spent last year; next year, Congress will spend 150% of that.

By failing to axe superpork projects like the superconducting
supercollider, Mr. Clinton has displayed less backbone than a
jellyfish.  Congressional Democrats by now have to figure that they've
got the upper hand, and will use it.

Third, What's Wrong With California?

> California has to participate in the recovery in order for
> America to have a recovery that is worth the name recovery.

Mr. Clinton doesn't understand the basic reasons why California is
having so many problems, and why businesses are leaving the state.

First and foremost, the state legislature is controlled by the
plaintiffs' attorneys' lobby.  These vultures have staved off reform
of workers' compensation insurance.  The result: innumerable ads with
happy leeches exclaiming "Steele, Cheatem and Robb got me
$1,000,000!", and ambulance-chasing hustlers knocking around every
construction site for even the tiniest (and frequently, nonexistant)
injuries.

But this government of, by, and for the lawyers is not the only
problem.  The attitude of anti-democratic government structures at all
levels can only be described as autocratic: the various Air Quality
Management Districts, for instance, are unelected, but pass
regulations that have the force of law.  Add to this the jumble of
jurisdictions and incoherence of the laws, and it should come as no
surprise to anyone who has had a real job (i.e., one outside of
government) that plenty of people now leave California for states like
Arizona, Nevada, and even Alabama.  Mr.  Clinton's insistence that
"government should do more" will just intensify these problems, both
within California and throughout the nation.

Fourth, The Motivation:

> We also have to pay attention to the financial environment in
> which companies like this have to exist.  In order for this company to
> attract investors for the kind of products that you are building here,
> you have got to be able to tell them that the interest rates are not
> going to be too high if they're borrowing money to invest;

Excuse me, but even with the huge Federal debt we've got now, we have
historically low interest rates.  What gives?  Could it be a
politically motivated excuse to grab even more in taxes?  This is a
ruse to let Democrats be Democrats.  Future 1040:

    1. What did you make last year?        ____
    2. Send it in.

Fifth, Let's Grab Your Digital Civil Rights:

> And one of the things that this plan calls for is the rapid
> completion of a nationwide network of information super highways.
> (Applause.)

If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have
held their applause.  I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace.
We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption
of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a
"information super highway".


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent rebuttal message.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:02:48 GMT


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

>Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably
>install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in
>the country for a lot less.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that cellular switches
are less expensive than regular wireline switches for the same traffic
capacity. In fact, isn't there a DMS-100 on the side of most cellular
installations?

I am also hesitant to believe that there aren't export controls on the
cellular technology. Recently, it has been discovered that the GSM
system has "too much privacy" and the British governement does not
want it exported to the Arab Gulf countries.

> [if] one tower can reach an area of 7.5 miles in each direction,
> [then you need] 50,000 cellular switches.

40% of 1.2 billion people is 500 million subscribers. At 10K lines per
switch, that's 50K switches. Gee, the numbers seem to be in the same
range.

> If, in these large quantities and the well-educated prison labor
> (courtesy of Tianamen Square) they can bring the price down to say
> $100,000 per cellular switch, the total cost to provide cellular
> phone service -- which would give the entire country telephone
> service at once -- would cost in the neighborhood of $5 billion
> dollars.  Based on the figures that are talked about, the service
> could be installed in four years.

I think ten dollars per subscriber is an unrealistically low figure.
Probably low by at least a factor of ten.

> than it would be to just instruct a local switch to record the
> incoming and outgoing numbers of all calls going in and out of a
> particular dissident's phone, often without the dissident even being
> aware of the monitoring until they come for him, or her.

There is no monitoring that an ESS can do, that would not apply
equally to a network with wireless local loops.


 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]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:07:02 SST
From: Ang Peng Hwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's China's Deal, and Comments


It does not surprise me in the least that AT&T will be manufacturing
in China. I was at the press conference when they announced that they
would be making cordless phones in Singapore. That was 1985 if my
memory serves me.

One question I asked was whether they had plans for China. And the
country manager said yes. But no details.

I suppose the Singapore experience can't hurt: they came in August and
shipped the first million phones by December, a few days ahead of
schedule.

Some of us looking at China telecom speculate that China will try to
model its telephone system after the USA -- (no, not the 900 bit) with
RBOCs and IXCs. The idea is to have competition among the companies.
(Lines can still be monitored for politically incorrect speech, as is
done in some unmentionable countries.)

Getting AT&T in would be consistent with the above hypothesis.

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Sun 28 Feb 1993 00:34:09 GMT


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

>AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches
>to that country.

I find this interesting.  I seem to recall that one of the Canadian
government's reasons for not implementing strong sanctions against
China after Tienanmen Square was admitted to be that Northern had a
large contract with China to do many of the things which apparently
AT&T is going to do.  Does anybody remember what happened with this?


Garrett A. Wollman   [e-mail]
uvm-gen!wollman      UVM disagrees.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 09:00:34 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.


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

> Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably
> install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in
> the country for a lot less.

> AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches
> to that country.

Everything I have read internally at AT&T indicates the PRC is going
cellular in a /very/ big way; the reason is that the country is so
vast it would be too expensive and time consuming to build an
almost-all wireline system.

The 5ESS switch is already installed in some parts of the PRC.  Also,
AT&Ts MFOS [Multi-Function Operations System -- it's an "international
ized" conglomeration of OS products] has been there for three or four
years, maybe longer.

One thing I recall hearing about MFOS in the PRC was it is staffed by
their army, as if ordinary people could not be trusted ...

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

Subject: Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears
From: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 21:37:00 -0600
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Garfield)


Dave Niebuhr <[e-mail]> in article telecom13.128.5 writes:

> NYTel has announced that full cutover to area code 718 in the Bronx is
> getting closer to full implementation.

> "On May 15, 1993, the adjustment period ends and the dialing changes
> become permanent.

Since 95% of the inbound hacker activity on my DISA port ani's back to
Bronx and Queens, does this change mean what I think it does?
Previously SPRINT offered to block npa 212 from inbound access to my
800 DISA service. My execs nixed that plan because it would have been
blocking all of metro NYC. (God forbid blocking the Big Apple) If I
interpret the above correctly, I can now say "yes" to blocking of npa
718 and finally succeed in segregating my DISA port from most of those
who continually attempt to steal service from me.

I say "attempt" because since I was hacked for nearly $20-G in phraud
to npa 809 in Oct.91, it's been an ongoing game of 'cat and mouse.'
My execs insist that we need to keep our absurd four-digit pin codes,
insist on returning NA Precise DT immediately upon incoming seize, and
are absolutely adamant about keeping it open 24 hours a day via an 800
number that even spells D-I-S-A!!  Why don't we just hang a neon sign
like the bath houses in SF?  Needless to say, the system gets banged
on regularly.

My counter efforts have included locking down the system barring 809
outbound, blocking IXC-to-FGB/D loop throughs, blocking all
IXC-inbound to both IXC and LEC outbound, and in general making the
system nearly impossible to use even for the rightful owners.
Surgically blocking Bronx and Queens _at the source_ would be welcomed
relief. We might even save one tree a month in the reduced smdr logs. ;^)

Is there a down side to this blocking?


Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)
  Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 14:43:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears


I am assuming that calls from Manhattan to the Bronx can currently be
made as 7D or as 1 + 718 + 7D, with the 7D going away in May.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 09:59:08 CST
From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switching LD Carriers


> The following appeared in misc.consumers and I thought it would be of
> interest here ...

>  From: [e-mail] (David G. Schwartz)

[text about switching back and forth for long distance credits deleted
for space purposes.]

> So I'm thinking, this is a great business.  Why not install a few
> dozen phone lines and earn a living just swapping long distance
> carriers?  On average I could probably net $50 per line per month.

I know someone who did something like this ... but only with the one
telephone line.  he told me that he basically switches long distance
companies every month, depending on who has the best "incentives" at
the time.  I gather he didn't ever really spend anything at all on
long distance.

Oddly enough, this person works for a carrier (name and company
withheld for obvious reasons).

You'd think that the long distance companies would catch on, but I
guess in the end, most people probably don't think to do this.  :-) I
might do this myself, except I stick with AT&T to avoid causing
problems with my AT&T EasyReach number.

Just thought y'all might find that interesting.


jim
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                                 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]     ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)          AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #141
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20960;
          1 Mar 93 15:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31461
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:33:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23077
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:32:31 -0600
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:32:31 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #142

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Mar 93 12:32:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 142

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NY World Trade Center - Some Telecom News (David G. Lewis)
    How do You Connect a Four-Wire Leased Line to Telebit T3000? (Jack Stewart)
    Voice Recognition and Text-to-Speech from AT&T (Justin Leavens)
    Proofreading Volunteers Requested (Eduardo Salom)
    Outdial Survey (Steve Wegert)
    Multiple Terminals to Host Miles Away - How? (James Deibele)
    Room Monitor Wanted (George Thurman)
    Local Exchange Database Wanted (Karl Waldman)
    PBX Tech Information Wanted (Michael Pigg)
    Gas Recombination Batteries (Delavar K. Khomarlou)
    Ownership of 800 Numbers (Will Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: NY World Trade Center - Some Telecom News
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 16:30:57 GMT


I just got off the phone with one of my friends at Teleport
Communications, who gave me some info on how they were affected by the
WTC explosion.

Teleport Communications (TCG), as you may or may not know, has their
main network hub in the B6 level of 2 World Trade Center.  B6 is about
75 feet below street level, and holds (in addition to TCG) generators,
pumps, ventilation equipment, and other physical plant.  (B5 has more
of the same; B4 and B3 are public parking; B2 is parking, the PATH
tracks, and some offices; B1 is Port Authority offices primarily for
building operations and the PATH concourse, if memory serves.)  The
bomb was located on the B2 level; from what I've seen in the press,
the structural damage (holes in walls and floors) reached down to the
B4 level.  In other words, it blew holes through three 12-inch thick
reinforced concrete floors.

TCG was not directly affected by the blast, aside from undoubtedly
scaring the people working in B6 half to death.  (The comment I heard
was "people felt the blast and were up to B2 before they even realized
it ...")  The thought of being under 110 stories of glass and steel on
top of 7 stories of basement is intimidating enough in the most benign
of circumstances; the thought of it all falling on top of you is,
shall we say, not a pleasant one.

The major impacts on TCG were power and water.  Of eight Consolidated
Edison power feeders coming into WTC, five were cut by the blast
itself.  The remaining three were shut down on order of the NYFD
shortly thereafter, because of fears of further explosions (before it
was known that it was a bomb blast, when it was thought that it could
have been an accidental explosion.)  TCG has battery backup, but its
lifespan is limited; the Port Authority backup generators are to
provide backup power in the event of a loss of commercial power.
Unfortunately, the Port Authority and NYFD did not permit the backup
generators to be started up for some time, again due to the fear of a
second explosion, and until there was some confidence that the
building wasn't going to fall in on top of them ...

 From what I can recall of the news coverage, the Port Authority
backup generators started coming online at around 7:00 PM.  The first
priorities were to re-establish ventilation and lighting in the
towers.  I suspect TCG started getting power just as its batteries
were at the ragged end of their charge, as my sources tell me that
some circuits went down.  Fortunately, this was after the close of
business Friday.

The second concern was water, as the blast severed a significant
number of water pipes and the water from firefighting was making its
way down into the subbasements.  Again fortunately, the water level
did not climb to the level of the raised floor on which the equipment
was mounted before pumps could be brought in to bail it out.  My
impression is that, while some underfloor cable may have gotten
soaked, no equipment was damaged.

The current situation is that TCG is running at 99% or better capacity
in B6; power is back online from a combination of the PA generators,
some massive ConEd generator trucks that came in over the weekend, and
some mobile generators brought in by Brooklyn Union Gas.  The water
level has subsided, and there are probably half a dozen TCG employees
crawling around on the floor with hairdryers drying out cables ...

The WTC complex is open on a limited basis.  7 World Trade Center,
which is across Vesey Street from the rest of the complex, is open.
3WTC, 4WTC, 5WTC, and the US Customshouse, which are in the same
complex as the towers, are open on a limited basis, with maybe 20% -
30% of the employees allowed in for what are viewed as critical
activities (like running the Commodity Exchanges).  1 and 2 WTC (the
towers) and the Vista International hotel are closed indefinitely.
The mezzanine (shopping level) and PATH concourse are also closed; the
command post is set up on the mezzanine level, and PATH trains, while
running, are discharging passengers to the Vesey Street exit.

The Port Authority has made available office space in the Teleport
complex on Staten Island to WTC tenants.  Additionally, there is a
flurry of activity as tenants relocate temporarily to other locations
they occupy in Manhattan, across the river in NJ, or in the other
Boroughs.  I'm certain that NYTel, TCG, MFS, and Locate are all doing
a land-office business setting up new lines for the companies which
have been forced elsewhere by the blast.

On a more general level, the people I know who've seen the site say
that what's most amazing is that so *few* people were killed.  The
magnitude of a blast that basically tore a 100-foot long hole in a
foot of reinforced concrete, and continued downward through two more
levels of concrete, is something scary.

The reaction, from what I've seen and heard, has been nothing short of
tremendous, from the emergency services people -- Port Authority PD,
City of New York PD, FD, and EMS, even firefighters from across the
river in NJ -- who were first on the scene (the NY Fire Commissioner
described the response as approximately equal to a 16-alarm callout),
to the NYC public works, transportation, sanitation, and other
departments and Port Authority people who are working to restore some
semblance of normality, to the ConEd, NYTel, and all other utility
people who have contributed to the efforts.  The event was shocking to
everyone in the area, but the response has been amazing.


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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for this virtual first hand report. As I
gave much thought over the weekend to this ugly event which has now
been definitly attributed to arson -- or a deliberate act -- it
occurred to me we can probably expect a lot more of this in the months
and years to come. I strongly believe the decade of the nineties is
going to be a decade of bombings and terrorist acts in the USA. We
have a lot of enemies around the world and I think we have seen just
the first of a long string of these events. There will be imitators
and there will be genuine terrorists; bombings and killings will
become a fad. The sad part is there is no way to stop it short of
imposition of martial law, which no one here will tolerate *now*. I
think our middle east nemisis SH was responsible this time. We blew up
his hotel, he blows up our World Trade Center. I think he is testing
Clinton. As conditions worsen here, watch for previously unthinkable
changes in our laws and the way we are governed to gradually become quite
thinkable, in the name of national security. For example, the Second
Amendment is almost completely decimated already. Regards imitators,
the first thing Monday morning, Chicago's City Hall and Daley Center
was closed and evacuated due to a bomb threat according to news on the
television as I write this. Goodbye, America.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Stewart)
Subject: How do You Connect a Four-Wire Leased Line to Telebit T3000?
Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:36:16 GMT
Organization: CCSF Caltech, Pasadena, CA


I need to establish a SLIP connection using a pair of T3000 and a four-
wire leased line.

Another way of asking this question is can you just use two of the
wires from a four-wire leased line and safely ignore the other pair?

I know that the T3000's should be hooked into a two-wire leased line.
Unfortunately the person that I am doing this for goofed up and
ordered the wrong thing (a four-wire line).  PacBell wants to charge
far too much to get the equipment swapped.  So I need to try to make
it work as is (even though the operating cost is higher).

I know that the lines work in pairs.  I presume that I can just use
one of the pairs (like DR/DTR/R1 and DT/DTT/T1) and ignore the other
(DRR/R-DRT/T).  Is this correct?  Are there any special gotchas?  Are
there any voltage problems that I should watch out for?

The only other question I have is does anyone know of a good book on
leased lines?  Most of the books that I have seen are very general in
nature.

Please send me responses via e-mail.  News postings often take their
time in getting here.  If there is enough interest I will summarize
response and my sucesses and failures ...


Jack Stewart                                     E-Mail: [e-mail]
Caltech Concurrent Supercomputing Facilities,     Phone: [phone]
Mail Code # 158-79, 391 S. Holliston,
Pasadena, CA 91125.                            #include  <std.disclaimer>

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

From: [e-mail] (Justin Leavens)
Subject: Voice Recognition and Text-to-Speech from AT&T
Date: 28 Feb 1993 14:43:46 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


An AT&T rep demonstrated a pretty impressive voice recognition system
the other day, which supposedly is going to be an add-on to their call
processing systems sometime in the near future. Their mock "AT&T
On-line Phone Store" took an entire order with no touchtone input,
sorting out the numerous "uh's" and "uhm's" and such from the
important digits, the "yeah's" and "yup's" from the "nah's" and "uh,
no's". In fact, the whole transaction was conducted by speakerphone.
Very impressive.

I was also demonstrated a text-to-speech system that wasn't as flashy,
but it certainly did the job. It was generally right on target with
pronunciation or at least very close to being correct. Again, this is
supposed to be an add-on soon to their call-processing systems in the
near future.


Justin Leavens     Microcomputer Specialist  University of Southern California

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

From: [e-mail] (Eduardo Salom)
Subject: Proofreading Volunteers Requested
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:25:23 GMT

I'm involved in a project: a database of countries/cities with a
companion program to get the dialing codes.

In my database there are about 9200 cities around the world, I would need
some volunteers, to do the following tasks:

a) check the spelling, adding the special characters needed if they are
   supported by the IBM-8 charset,

b) check the codes assigned to each city, as my sources may be outdated and
   might be typing errors.

c) Add any missed city you may know or even, if the impression is good enough
   to produce a readable fax, send me the directory pages with the access
   codes. Sometimes a sligthly enlarged photocopy can be faxed succesfully.

e) It  isn't a must but it would be desirable to append the province/state
   the the city name (i.e. Houston, TX) to avoid confusions between cities
   with the same o very close names.

f) For each country add the instructions to access the international and
   long distance services (direct dialing and operator)

g) Denomination of the country and main cities in other languages as
   Holland / Holanda / Pais Bas / Netherland
   Germany / ALemania / Alemagne / Deutschland
   Norway / Norge / Noruega
   London / Londra / Londres
   Wien / Vienna / Viena

Each volunteer ideally should check the country where (s)he reside.

Each volunteer who accomplish its task will receive a copy of the package
once it's ready.

Any volunteers?


Eduardo J. Salom    | [e-mail]      ..!uunet!m2xenix!eduardo
Larrea 1218 - 2.A   | BIX: swp     CIS: [73000,74]     DELPHI: swp
(1117) Buenos Aires | FidoNet: Eduardo_Salom@4:900/112.7
Argentina           | VMS-Mail: PSI%0311061703053::SWP


[Moderator's Note: I already advised Eduardo through email that he
should check out the 'country.codes' directory in the Telecom Archives
for a comprehensive list of country and city codes. To see this data
base, use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives' and
'cd country.codes'.  PAT]

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

From: Steve Wegert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Outdial Survey
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 13:33:29 CST


Please help me research the viability of "outdial" services in light
of today's use of high speed modems and lower long distance rates.

I am in the final stages of setting up a company who's charter will be
to provide it's customers with "outdial" capabilities to over 600
cities in the United States. Access charges will be significantly
lower than those of the traditional long distance carriers, and
competitive with other services offering similar capabilities.

If you feel "outdial" services still have a place, your opinions are
important.  Please take just a few moments and fill out the brief
survey which follows.

1)  What type of computer equipment do you currently use? ____

    a) PC/Clone        b) Atari    c) Apple/Mac    d) Commodore/Amiga
    d) other

2)    In making use of an "outdial" service, rate on a scale of 1-5 (1 being
      of least importance), the following features :

            ___ data throughput
            ___ cost per hour
            ___ timely billing
            ___ knowledgable customer/technical service

3)    What bps rate would you use most often? ___

    a) 300bps    b) 1200bps    c) 2400bps    d) 9600 and above

3a)    Which of the above rates would you consider to be the slowest acceptable
       rate for your "outdial" needs? ____

4)    How would you most often make use of "outdial" services? ___

    a) BBS messaging    b) online chatting   c) file transfers

5)    What time of day would you most often use this service?

    a) 6am - 6pm    b) 6pm - 11pm    c) 11pm - 6am

6)    What hours would would you appreciate customer/technical support? ___

    a) day    b) evening    c) weekend

7)    If other types of services could be bundled with the "outdial" package,
      which of the following would be of interest? (check all that apply)

            ___ Email
            ___ Usenet/Internet
            ___ News/Weather/Sports
            ___ Other (please specify) _________________________________
            ____________________________________________________________

8)    What method of payment would be the most convenient? ___

    a) MC/VISA    b) Discover        c) AE    d) CheckFree    e) direct bill

9)    What dollar range (per hour) would you consider reasonable for the use of
      an "outdial" service? ____

    a) $6.00    b) $5.00    c) $4.00    d) $3.00

Thank you for your input! Please feel free to attach any additional comments
to the end of the survey and mail to:


Steve Wegert -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Deibele)
Subject: Multiple Terminals to Host Miles Away - How?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- [phone]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:32:25 GMT


I need to have some ASCII terminals in a room about ten miles away
from the host computer.  Purpose is to let people without computers
come to a spot and be able to access job postings and other
miscellanous computerized information.  Goal is to keep costs as low
as possible.  Say four to six terminals at a maximum, representing
roughly 9600 to 14400 bps.

I know it would be possible to give each terminal its own phone line
and modem, but this would be fairly expensive.  We'd prefer to keep
the number of lines down to two -- one voice line and one data line
(either a standard line or a leased line).  From what I understand of
multiplexers, they would probably do the job.  But I don't understand
much about muxes.  Can somebody give me an idea of what I might be
looking at in terms of cost and complexity?  Are used muxes readily
obtainable, or have prices dropped here the way modem prices have, so
that it makes more sense to buy new?  Do muxes include modem-like
capabilities, or would we still have to buy modems?

We'd like to duplicate this, or give instructions to other people on
how they could duplicate it.  It would be best if the hardware wasn't
too rare, therefore.

One solution that I know would work be to run UNIX on a cheap 386,
ethernet to a PC or AT, which would connect via modem and SLIP/PPP to
the host.  This should be possible for around $1000, depending on what
I can find in my toy box.  Problem with this is that we don't really
want to support multiple copies of UNIX at remote locations, plus PCs
are a little more susceptible to "walking off" than strange equipment.


Thanks!

[e-mail]
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. [phone] - 1200/2400, N81
Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (George Thurman)
Subject: Room Monitor Wanted
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 13:02:51 GMT


A friend of mine would like a room monitor for his business.
Something that you can dial into, and listen to what is going on in
the office while he is not there.  An answering machine will not do
because these will time out after a certain amount of time.

Any suggestions?

Please email.


GEORGE THURMAN    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Karl Waldman)
Subject: Local Exchange Database Wanted
Date: 28 Feb 1993 20:20:17 GMT


Does a database exist that allows you to look up and see if a local
call can be made from a particular place to another place?  That is,
if my phone exchange is 266, I know I can call 873 without charge by
looking it up in my phone book, in the begining under local calls.
What I want is something online, that will allow me to do this for the
whole country? Does this exist?  Even a hard copy version?

Also is there anyplace I can get LATA maps? (almost the same info as
above but in map form).


Thanks,

Karl     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:36:17 EST
From: Michael=[e-mail]
Subject: PBX Tech Information Requested


Hello,

As a senior design project at Purdue University, I am part of a group
that is attempting to build a small PBX-type system for use in our
labs.  This system will not actually have lines going to GTE's switch,
so I guess it's not really a PBX.  Anyway, we have a few questions
that members of the TELECOM group might be able to help us with.  If
there is a better newsgroup or mailing list to ask these questions in,
please let me know.  Any replies to this message should be sent
directly to me at the address below.  I will then summarize in a post
if appropriate.  So, here goes:

1)  How does one go about detecting ring-trip?  Originally, we
were planning to use a SLIC chip that would do this for us.
However, we found that chip was not available.  While I have found
a couple of books that talk about ring-trip, nothing talks about
how to actually do it.

2) What is the best way to get supervisory tones and DTMF decoders on
a subscriber line?  This is an all analog system, and we currently
plan to just switch the appropriate tone generator or decoder chip
onto the line needing such services.  Is there a better way?

3)  Are there any documents available that discuss these types of
issues in a fairly practical way?


Thank You,

Michael Pigg   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Delavar K. Khomarlou)
Subject: Gas Recombination Batteries
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ontario Hydro
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:11:41 -0500


I am looking for some information on the safety of the gas
recombination sealed 48 VDC batteries similar to those used in Central
offices. We are thinking of changing our present lead-acid wet
batteries over.  I don't check this group often enough so email
would be best.


Delavar Khomamarlou  Email [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:55:12 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ownership of 800 Numbers


Under the new 800-number scheme where the prefixes will no longer
belong to specific carriers, but instead any carrier will be able to
provide 800 service under any 800 number, who will "own" the 800
numbers? Does the subscriber who has had a certain 800 number (such as
one that spells their company name) for some period of time now have a
property right to that number? Does the length of time they've used it
make a difference? Can someone pay to "register" or "reserve"
unassigned 800 numbers and then sell them to the highest bidder? With
whom would they do this "reservation"? Who runs the whole thing --
Bellcore?

If I check a specific 800 number and find it is currently unused, as a
potential subscriber who wants that number, do I call my carrier and
tell them? What do they do then to find out if I can get it? Or do I
have to check with some other organization and lay claim to that 800
number first, and then tell my carrier to give me service using it?
Some 800 numbers are assigned but usable in only certain geographic
areas. Can I get that same number for use in different region(s)? (I
don't claim this would be wise! :-)


Regards, Will

If header address doesn't work, try:
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #142
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23147;
          1 Mar 93 16:13 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08751
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:04:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24499
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:03:46 -0600
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:03:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #143

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:03:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 143

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GPO Access - WINDO Update (Taxpayer Assets Project via Mark Boolootian)
    Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan (Mark Boolootian)
    Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams (Todd Lesser)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Tony Harminc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: GPO Access - WINDO Update
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:40:59 -0800 (PST)


Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
February 28, 1993

               UPDATE ON WINDO/GATEWAY LEGISLATION

 From:    James Love <[e-mail]>
 Re:      GPO Access (Proposed legislation to replace GPO
          WINDO/Gateway bills)

          Note: the WINDO/GATEWAY bills from last Congress (HR
          2772; S. 2813) would have provided one-stop-shopping
          online access to federal databases and information
          systems through the Government Printing Office (GPO),
          priced at the incremental cost of dissemination for use
          in homes and offices, and free to 1,400 federal
          depository libraries).

Both the House and Senate are soon expected to introduce legislation
that would replace the GPO WINDO/GATEWAY bills that were considered in
the last Congress.  According to Congressional staff members, the bill
will be called "GPO Access."  The new name (which may change again)
was only one of many substantive and symbolic changes to the
legislation.

Since the bill is still undergoing revisions, may be possible (in the
next day or so) to provide comments to members of Congress before the
legislation is introduced.

The most important changes to the legislation concern the scope and
ambition of the program.  While we had expected Congressional
democrats to ask for an even broader public access bill than were
represented by the WINDO (HR 2772) and Gateway (S. 2813) bills, the
opposite has happened.  Despite the fact that the legislation is no
longer facing the threat of a Bush veto or an end of session
filibuster (which killed the bills last year), key supporters have
decided to opt for a decidedly scaled down bill, based upon last
year's HR 5983, which was largely written by the House republican
minority (with considerable input from the commercial data vendors,
through the Information Industry Association (IIA)).

The politics of the bill are complex and surprising.  The decision to
go with the scaled down version of the bill was cemented early this
year when representatives of the Washington Office of the American
Library Association (including ALA lobbyist Tom Sussman) meet with
Senator Ford and Representative Rose's staff to express their support
for a strategy based upon last year's HR 5983, the republican
minority's version of the bill that passed the House (but died in the
Senate) at the end of last year's session.  ALA's actions, which were
taken without consultation with other citizen groups supporting the
WINDO/GATEWAY legislation, immediately set a low standard for the
scope of this year's bill.

We were totally surprised by ALA's actions, as were many other groups,
since ALA had been a vigorous and effective proponent of the original
WINDO/GATEWAY bills.  ALA representatives are privately telling people
that while they still hope for broader access legislation, they are
backing the "compromise bill," which was publicly backed (but
privately opposed) last year by IIA, as necessary, to avoid a more
lengthy fight over the legislation.  If the negotiations with the
House and Senate republicans hold up, the new bill will be backed by
ranking Republicans on the Senate Rules and House Administration
Committees, and passed by Congress on fast track consent calendars.

We only obtained a draft of the legislation last week, and it is still
a "work in progress."  All changes must be approved by key Republican
members of Senate Rules and House Administration.

Gone from the WINDO/GATEWAY versions of the bill were any funding (S.
2813 would have provided $13 million over two years) to implement the
legislation, and any findings which set out the Congressional intent
regarding the need to provide citizens with broad access to most
federal information systems.  Also missing are any references to
making the online system available through the Internet or the NREN.


     WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL WILL DO (subject to further
     changes)

1.   Require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide
     public online access to:

     -    the Federal Register
     -    the Congressional Record
     -    an electronic directory of Federal public information
               stored electronically,
     -    other appropriate publications distributed by the
               Superintendent of Documents, and
     -    information under the control of other federal
               departments or agencies, when requested by the
               department or agency.

2.   Most users will pay user fees equal to the "incremental cost
     of dissemination of the information."  This is a very
     important feature that was included in the WINDO/GATEWAY
     legislation.  At present many federal agencies, including
     the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), make
     profits on electronic information products and services.
     Given the current federal government fiscal crisis, this
     strong limit on online prices is very welcome.

3.   The 1,400 member federal Depository Library Program will
     have free access to the system, just as they presently have
     free access to thousands of federal publications in paper
     and microfiche formats.  Issues to be resolved later are who
     will pay for Depository Library Program telecommunications
     costs, and whether or not GPO will use the online system to
     replace information products now provided in paper or
     microfiche formats.


     WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL DOESN'T DO

-    Provide any start-up or operational funding

-    Require GPO to provide online access through the Internet

-    The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority
     to publish federal information online, but the new bill
     would restrict such authority to documents published by the
     Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal
     information stored electronically), or situations where the
     agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in
     electronic formats.  This change gives agencies more
     discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to
     provide online access to their databases, including those
     cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases
     for financial reasons (to make profits).

-    Language that would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse
     agencies for their costs in providing public access was
     eliminated in the new bill.  This is a potentially important
     issue, since many federal agencies will not work with GPO to
     provide public access to their own information systems,
     unless they are reimbursed for costs that they incur.

-    S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an
     annual report on the operation of  the Gateway/WINDO and
     accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide
     range of issues.  The new bill only makes a general
     requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors.
     The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was
     designed to give citizens more say in how the service
     evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen
     views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards
     and the quality of the service.  Given the poor record of
     many federal agencies in dealing with rapidly changing
     technologies and addressing user concerns, this is an
     important omission.

-    The WINDO/GATEWAY bills would have required GPO to address
     standards issues, in order to simplify public access.  The
     new bill doesn't raise the issue of standards.

     OTHER POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Supporters of a quick passage of the scaled down GPO Access
legislation are concerned about a number of budget, turf and
organizational issues.  Examples are:

-    Congress is considering the elimination of the Joint
     Committee on Printing, which now has oversight of GPO.

-    There are proposals to break-up GPO or to transfer the
     entire agency to the Executive Branch, which would slow down
     action on the online program, and may reduce the federal
     support for the Federal Depository Library Program, or lead
     to a different (and higher) pricing policy.

-    The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) opposes an
     important role by GPO in the delivery of online services,
     since NTIS wants to provide these services at unconstrained
     prices.

It does not appear as though the Clinton/Gore Administration has had
much input on the GPO Access legislation, which is surprising since
Vice President Gore was the prime sponsor of the GPO Gateway to
Government (S. 2813) bill last year.  (Michael Nelson will reportedly
be moving from the Senate Commerce Committee to the White House to be
working on these and related information policy issues.)

Even the scaled down GPO Access bill will face opposition.  According
to House republicans, despite IIA's low key public pronouncements, the
vendor trade group "hates" the bill.  Opposition from NTIS is also
anticipated.

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT VIEW

We were baffled and disappointed the decision of ALA and Congress to
proceed with a scaled down version of last year's bills.  We had hoped
that the election of the Clinton/Gore administration and the growing
grass roots awareness of public access issues would lead to a
stronger, rather than a weaker, bill.  In our view, public
expectations are rapidly rising, and the burden is now on Congress and
the Administration to break with the past and take public access
seriously.  The GPO Access legislation provides incremental benefits
over the status quo, but less than might seem.

-    The statutory mandate to provide online services is useful,
     but public access proponents have always argued that GPO
     already has the authority to create the WINDO/GATEWAY under
     the current statutes.   In fact, GPO now offers hundreds of
     CD-ROM titles and the online GPO Federal Bulletin Board, a
     service that could (and should) be greatly expanded.

-    The three products that the GPO Access bill refers to are
     already online or under development GPO.  GPO is now working
     on the development of a locator system and an online version
     of the Federal Register, and the Congressional Record is
     already online in the Congressional LEGIS system -- a system
     that is presently closed to the public, and which is not
     mentioned in the GPO Access bill.

-    The "incremental cost of dissemination" provision of the new
     bill is welcome, but GPO is already limited to prices that
     are 150 percent of dissemination costs.


Several suggestions to strengthen last year's bills were ignored.
Among them:

-    Expand the initial core products to include other online
     information systems that are already under the control of
     congress, such as the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)
     online database of campaign contributions, the House LEGIS
     system which provides online access to the full text of all
     bills before Congress, or the Library of Congress Scorpio
     system.

-    Create a special office of electronic dissemination in GPO.
     At present, GPO's electronic products and services are
     managed by Judy Russell, who is capable, but who is also
     responsible for managing the primarily paper and microfiche
     based federal Depository Library Program, a time consuming
     and complicated job.  We believe that GPO's electronic
     dissemination program is important enough to warrant its own
     director, whose career would depend upon the success of the
     electronic dissemination program.


The GPO Access bills will be considered by the following Congressional
Committees:

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration  202/224-6352
     Chair, Senator Wendell Ford
     Ranking Minority, Senator Ted Stevens

House Committee on House Administration 202/225-225-2061
     Chair, Representative Charlie Rose
     Ranking Minority, Representative Bill Thomas


James Love                 v.   215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project    f.   215/649-4066
12 Church Road       internet  [e-mail]
Ardmore, PA  19003

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Boolootian)
Subject: Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:36:32 -0800 (PST)


> Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy, preferably from the net,
> of the "printed' technology policy referred to in the address?

The technology policy referred to by Clinton and Gore when speaking
with employees of SGI is available via anonymous ftp from
wiretap.spies.com as file /Clinton/prez/tech.22feb93.2.  This site
apparently provides an archive of much of what the White House Press
Service releases.

While I don't feel compelled to air my political leanings in this
forum, I would like to make a single comment in response to Robert
McMillin's following statement:

> If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have
> held their applause.  I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace.
> We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption
> of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a
> "information super highway".

When you consider the success of the Internet and the fact that the
government was (and still is, to a degree) responsible for a part of
its funding, I can't see any reason for wanting to keep the U.S. out
of cyberspace.  The cost to the govt (i.e. the taxpayers) is dwarfed
by the benefit to the country (i.e. the taxpayers).


Mark Boolootian        [e-mail]        [phone]
Disclaimer:  booloo speaks for booloo and no other.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (Todd Lesser)
Reply-To: Todd Lesser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams


Frank Carey of Bell Labs wrote:

> I spoke to the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) in
> Washington this morning.  They have been trying to interest the FCC in
> the problem of consumers getting billed for calling 800 numbers that
> somehow turn into 900 numbers or, by some other means, cause a charge

I think it is time to stop all the rumors and accusations.  First, it
is the legislators and telephone companies fault that there is this
type of billing going on. Interactive 900 numbers came to be in 1987
when Telesphere set up 900 numbers in Chicago.  At that time, even
though there had been 976 numbers for years and problems associated
with them, the telephone companies refused to offer blocking to people
who requested it. I personally feel that sex lines or any other type
of communication that don't violate the constitution should be
allowed.

At the same time, I feel that the telephone companies, being a
monopoly and a public utility, should be required to offer blocking to
people who don't want to have their children or anyone else dial
certain numbers from their phone.  Not until there was a widespread
outcry did blocking and other consumer safeguards come into place.
Close to that same time, the Helms amendment passed which basically
killed 900 phone sex.  Instead of just enforcing the safeguards, the
legislators decided to restrict people's access to information.  The
information providers just tried new ways to bill their callers.
Granted there were and are plenty of scams with 900 numbers, but you
don't get rid of the baby with the bath water.  Remember, not too long
ago, T.V. stations stopped accepting 800 numbers in advertisements
because they felt that, "ALL" companies that had 800 numbers ran mail
order scams.

Second, 800 numbers don't mysteriously turn into 900 numbers.  Patrick
mentioned it in the last post.  Companies who run some audiotex
services have an 800 number.  People call it -- the company gets their
ANI. Sometimes they call you back collect; other times they just
process the call. They then take that ANI and make a billing record.
They then submit the record to the telephone company directly or to a
third party company like Integretel who has agreements with the
telephone companies.

When these companies create a billing record with the ANI, they can
create it anyway they want. For example: a collect call, a direct
dialed call to a 900 number, an operator assisted call from
619-626-1234 to 202-321-5555 (Even if you are calling from Chicago
instead of San Diego and have never heard of either of these numbers
and all you did was call an 800 number.)

Third, a lot of these examples of people getting 400 dollar bills when
they are not home could be a computer/human error. *But* just as many
of the human errors I have seen, I have seen a hundred times as many
people who did make the call and don't want to admit it to their wife
girlfriend, or mother.  The example of calls from a previous post
could have been the neighbor who used the phone while feeding the cat
while the homeowners were out of town.  Everytime somebody does a
charge back for a 900 telephone call, the excuse 99% of the time is
either I didn't know there was a charge for the call, even though by
law you a required to say it at the being of the recording and allow
people to hang up and not be charged, or they deny all knowledge and
say they didn't make the call even though they called every single day
for a month at all times of day and night.

Instead of giving people a free ride who call the services and don't
pay, why doesn't the legislators just crack down on the 1% of the
information providers who don't give people what they thought they
were paying for, enforce the consumer safeguards, and stop worrying
about content and let people do what they want on the phone in the
privacy of their own homes.

I am off the soap box.

TELECOM Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Oh, sure.  All the gay and other sexually oriented
> adult papers run ads for those things, giving an 800 number and empha-
> sizing 'no credit cards needed; not a 900 number'. So how do they
> bill you?  They call you back collect then send the charges through
> Integretel on a billing tape to your local telco. Integretel keeps its
> own database of payphone numbers and cranky customers; they don't
> bother to consult the same one AT&T/Sprint/MCI/local telcos use for
> 'billed number screening' but they will add you to their own database
> for this purpose on request.  Sign up today!  800-736-7500.   PAT]

The database they subscribe to is call LIDB.


Todd Lesser     Info Connections
[phone] Voice    [phone] Fax
<[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!todd>

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 22:20:42 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


[e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

>> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
>> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
>> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
>> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
>> the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

> Well, then, I guess the system out here is damn near perfect. I have
> not been asked for my number one single time in over thirty-five
> years.  And I certainly make my share of long distance calls. Also, if
> this were EVER done anymore, it would certainly take a lot of steam
> out of AT&T's remarkably arrogant attitude about never making
> mistakes. If the accounting is EVER based upon what a caller tells an
> operator, all bets are off for dependable accuracy in billing.

You just weren't trying, John!  One of my earliest "playing with the
phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an
ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after
finishing dialing.  Actually something slightly longer than a flash
but shorter than a hangup was needed -- just about one second of
on-hook.  The call would then go to ONI, and it was possible to have
interesting chats with the operator (who at that time *was* on a
dedicated ONI board).  I got pretty good at forcing ANI failures -- I
could do it about nine times out of ten, and the clicks (or rather
absence of clicks) would indicate failure (that is success).

I was about to add a sentence with a :-) saying that of course I never
used ANI failure to the financial disadvantage of Bell, but I realize
that the smilie is not necessary -- I really never did allow a call to
complete using a false number given to the ONI operator.


Tony Harminc

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #143
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22574;
          2 Mar 93 4:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18305
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:31:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25438
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:30:25 -0600
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:30:25 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #144

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Mar 93 02:30:15 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 144

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    OSPS and ANI Failures (Andy Sherman)
    Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (John Higdon)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Joseph P. Cain)
    Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Eric Pearce)
    Comment About Terrorism (Paul Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 23:23:29 EST
Subject: OSPS and ANI Failures
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)

On Feb 26 at  2:34, TELECOM Moderator noted:

> There are also instances when for some reason or another the
> equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will
> come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from
> please ...'

On 28 Feb 93, [e-mail] (John Higdon) replied:

> I do not think this has been done for decades. If there is an ANI
> failure, then the call is not completed. Maintaining operator
> positions for CAMA-style purposes in this day and age would be most
> silly.

To which PAT replied:

> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
> the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

Well, John, for once we got you.  :^)

The Operator Services Position System (OSPS) is a one size fits all
position that does just about anything imaginable that an operator
would need to do (other than directory assistance).  Your center
handles calls for the LEC?  No problem. OSPS tells you what company
name to brand the call with.  Need to count coins?  No problem, OSPS
will do that, too.  Etc. Etc.

As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call
were the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you
hand to ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

The training materials also indicated that there were a few offices
(probably in ICO land) where the calling number had to be collected
for every toll call.  Since AT&T operator services centers cover a
much wider geographic are than those little end offices, nobody gets a
majority of such calls, but we were all trained to handle them.

The only kicker is that I don't remember off-hand whether ONI or ANI
hit our consoles only for 0+ calls or also for 1+ calls.  The only
thing that would argue against Pat's scenario is if ANI failure
bounced the call on a 1+.  I just don't remember.  Certainly nothing
in the features of the OSPS console would preclude collecting the
billing number from a customer-dialed call in the event of ANI
failure.

A digression:

This baby is *very* flexible and *very* well designed.  After the
"two-phase commit" model of collect calls was adopted (operator A
hears you say collect, releases the call, your party answers and
operator B does the name game) these things keep operators very busy,
too.  What used to be holding time for an operator is now holding time
for a switch.


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."


[Moderator's Note: In my employment over the years, granted I've been
on the phone more than many people. If I had to guess, maybe I've
encountered an ANI failure a dozen times in 30+ years of heavy calling
for my employers, etc ... like 80-100 calls per day on occassion. The
ANI failures I experienced were always on 1+ calls to the best of my
memory.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 20:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures


On Mar 1 at 23:23, Andy Sherman writes:

> As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
> OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
> the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were
> the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you hand to
> ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax
modem that is making the call? Even though the Trailblazer and the
Brooktrout are very fine modems indeed, I do not believe they can
answer a "Your number, please" inquiry. Obviously, the call fails at
that point, since the operator just dumps it--probably thinking there
are some kids or a crank at the other end of the wire.

Now, given that the number of calls generated on the network by
automatic devices is increasing exponentially, feeble attempts to
"rescue" a call via operator intervention would seem to be a complete
waste of time and resources.

I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call
die; why take up more time?


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


[Moderator's Note: *All types of calls* are increasing in volume. Fax
and voice calls are the way business operates these days: no one
writes letters, at least not in any quantity as they did 30 years ago.
Calls from automated devices (modems, etc) are still just a small minority
of the total. Yes, there are lots more such calls, but the ratio is still
the same. Offices all over the USA have thousands of clerks sitting in
cubicles banging away on the phone all day.  So yes, calls from automated
devices fail to complete and are aborted when the operator can't get a
response she understands from the 'caller'.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:13 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

> You just weren't trying, John!  One of my earliest "playing with the
> phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an
> ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after
> finishing dialing.

You have just discovered one of the great, gaping holes in my telecom
experience. I have NEVER had service provided from a SXS office. Yes,
it is true, I have had no service in my name provided from anything
more vintage than crossbar. Now that is not to say that I have not
beat on the telephones of friends and associates that have been served
out of SXS, but it is not the same thing. (Even when growing up, it
was panel, then crossbar.)

I lived in North Carolina for a time in an area served by Southern
Bell step. There was a phone in the house that we all used and it was
interesting to note that most of the time long distance calls went
through without operator intervention, but occasionally an operator
would come on the line and ask for the number of the calling phone.
Your comments explain this little mystery.

Except for some SXS on the peninsula (Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Redwood City, and San Mateo), the Bay Area has been served by crossbar
and panel before the electronic stuff came along. San Jose's first
dial equipment was crossbar; San Fransisco's was panel. In fact, the
only SXS convenient to play with anywhere near me was Los Gatos.
Before GTE swallowed it up, the Western California Telephone Company
had the most rickety SXS the ear has ever heard. It was so stupid that
to call San Jose (a local call), it was necessary to dial '9', wait
for second (tandem) dial tone, and then dial the San Jose number.

When GTE moved in, it became the usual vile directorized SXS that GTE
is infamous for.

But back to the present. Nowadays, I would be willing to bet that ANI
failures (if they occur) would simply cause the call to fail. In an
age of fax machines, modems, and other automatic dialing equipment, an
operator coming on the line to ask, "Your number, please", seems
rather pointless. Gee, I wonder how many times any of my Trailblazers
has been asked for ITS number?

And, of course, it is all moot now. The face of ANI has forever
changed with SS7. There can no longer be any "ANI failure".


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course there can still be a failure to capture
the number and pass it along. As noted above, when that (rarely)
happens -- given the huge amount of network traffic -- an operator
picks up the call, punches in the quoted data and releases the call
back to the equipment which then adopts the operator's forced input as
its own. But I am talking about an infintesimally small fraction of
one percent of all calls having this happen, which is as good as
saying it does not happen, lest the average customer clutch on it as a
way to resolve all billing disputes. It is like the old cliche about
computers 'never making mistakes'. Of course they don't. Of course
they do. Which response would you make to the average (not telecom/
computer-saavy) customer?

One response recieved here when using my SS-7 features (call screening
[add number of last call received], return last call, and Caller-ID)
is 'I am sorry, the number is not available now' (on the ID box, the
message is 'Error' or 'E') as opposed to 'I am sorry, the feature you
are requesting is not available with that number' (on the ID box the
message is 'Outside').  Other times when you try to add a 'last call
received' number to your blocked list, the robot goes away silently
for the longest time (20-30 seconds) and comes back to report "That
number cannot be added *right now* ... try again in a few minutes."
I assume the CO was doing something like trying to 'finger' the number
in the other CO but getting no response to the finger-request.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:13:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


Richard Nash <[e-mail]> writes:

> [stuff I originally posted, along with embarrassingly nice things said
> about same by Andre Blau <[e-mail]>, deleted]

> Well, perhaps it was better that I waited before responding to the
> remarks countered to those I had made, that "the telcos are not
> interested in monopoly services."  Have we gone full circle yet?
> Affordable digital service for residential users is something that I
> have long wished for.  Will the private sector have me, the lowly
> residential data highway user, interests, as a fundamental concern?

They had better have your interests as a fundamental concern.
Granted, huge corporations tend to be rather impersonal.  On the other
hand, they don't reach into your paycheck BEFORE you get it and grab
33%, either.  The only one with enough balls to take bread off your
table before you can eat it is Uncle Sam.

> Is competitive undercutting going to ultimately resolve data transport
> costs to absolute marginal profits and then as perhaps we see in the
> airline industry, consistant uncertianty to their solvency/dependancy
> to deliver?

Look, if what you want is stability, go ahead and nationalize the
network.  Be prepared for zero customer service, high prices, and
outright hostility toward installing new equipment that might
eliminate paying positions.  As Mr. Clinton himself pointed out, the
government isn't interested in change as a way to get rid of
high-paying jobs -- jobs which, if dropped, could also result in the
customer getting the same service at a lower cost.

We all know the two answers the Feds have about reducing the price of
anything: either it gets subsidized, or they install price controls.
For the former, the Feds fondle your money for a while before handing
less of it back to you.  For the latter, you will wait three months to
get service.  Almost certainly, you will get the worst of both worlds:
lousy service AND high prices.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote that the government is a blunt instrument
and its uses should be restricted to those things blunt instruments
can do well.  The last time I checked, a fiber optic pipe was not
blunt.

> What I would be interested in hearing about from {telecom digest}
> readers, is how they foresee the deployment?  Who is gonna do it cheap
> for all of us to enjoy?  National (government funded) programs to
> develop this network, or AT&T and such interested parties, running
> high profile interference to prevent their overpriced technology, from
> being easily overcome by the technology revolution that perhaps even
> they cannot ultimately stonewall?

The telcos do not have much of a choice in the matter if they want to
stay alive.  In the 1950's, the railroads forgot they were in the
transportation business.  The Interstate Highway system created the
long-haul trucking industry, relegating railroads to stale markets and
old technology.  If the telcos now make a similar mistake with the
"data superhighway," they will almost certainly face the same doom.
Gore's proposal should serve as a cattle prod for telephony.

So if the telcos want to keep what they have, they'd better start
laying plans to lay fiber, everywhere and soon.  The payoff is that
they can push video through their newly laid pipes, thanks to a
fortuitous court ruling.  I'm not exactly happy with the telcos
providing content, but the fact is that the cable companies do exactly
that now.  With the world going digital at picosecond speed, cable
operators and telcos look increasingly like the same thing.  The ones
with the best capitalization, customer service, and price will win.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]
                         After June 25 : [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 11:21:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


> I think it is clear that the access problem will get cleared up. The
> question then becomes what do you do with all the information and get
> it into a usable form;

Why, Mr and Mrs. John Q. Public will use their wide screen digital
HDTV surround sound Sear's/IBM TV connected to Prodigy! (Remember
AT&T Sceptre, the TV terminal?)

Jeesh -- just what I needed -- a combination Sega/Nintendo/Mac/PC
compatible color high resolution surround sound stereophonic
multimedia system with CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, joysticks and power
pad!


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 05:12:23 GMT


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for
>> three digits + seven digits.  They would have to remain on a seven
>> digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to
>> do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation.

> known in advance that I MUST use an area code.  But getting back to
> the excerpt above: I am not sure what it means!

Okay, I also got some mail on this. To elaborate, this is regarding
the AMPS cellular standard (used for North America).  Every phone has
a MIN (Mobile Identification Number) composed of MIN2 (the area code)
and MIN1 (the seven digit phone number).  If you want to send a
message to a phone, such as "There's a call for you!" you identify the
phone by its MIN.  The mobile watches for messages that contain its
MIN and should respond to those.  In addition, the MIN (along with the
ESN) is how the mobile identifies itself to the system.

Now here's where the fun begins.  MIN1 and MIN2 are actually special
representations of the digits in their numberical forms.  In other
words, 619-555-1212 isn't stored as a MIN2 value of 619 and a MIN1
value of 5551212.  They each go through a "massage" of the digits that
is totally dependent on the form of the data (i.e., three digits in
one, seven digits in another).  This is a standard, and it is not
flexible.

If, suddenly, MIN1 goes to eight digits, none of these phones will
work.  They would have no idea how to decode the numbers.  If you used
a somewhat compatible scheme they might be able to get the seven
digits they are used to, but that's about it.  And, of course, all the
switches and cells that are out there are probably wired for
seven-digit AMPS as well.  It's not like a regular phone system where
the phone company figures out which line to ring, then rings it -- in
this case it's up to the phone itself to decide when to ring.

The only thing I can think of on short notice that would be minimal
pain would be for the switches (MTSOs) to be modified to convert from
eight digit format (external world) to MIN1/MIN2 format (mobile world),
and then to use an extended data field so that those mobiles that did
know about eight digit format could use it.

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

Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy
From: oldman![e-mail] (Joseph P. Cain)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 17:07:56 -0500
Organization: Joseph P. Cain


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in
> Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in
> English.  Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not
> allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller
> indicates that they want to speak English.  And, (perhaps in the
> "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call
> businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these
> regulations.

I can see that if you give those separatists an inch they will take a
mile. Let them get their foot in the door with a stupid sign law and
they will do everything else possible to try and ruin english business
in Quebec. The government rule is not to protect the French but to
ruin the English language. I am no longer proud of my Quebec heritage.

In the name "Office de la Langue Francaise" why is it Office and not
Bureau?  They might as well use every nail in the English Language
coffin.


Joe Cain VE3ANJ    UUCP: joe@oldman   Tel:  [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 20:19:25 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed


I recently bought an Adtran DSU 2AR for this purpose.  I was pleased
when the PacBell "Special Services" guy showed up to install the SW56k
line and his "test equipment" turned out to be the same Adtran box.


Eric Pearce | [e-mail] | O'Reilly & Associates
Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides
103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472  1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993  19:50:01 EST
Subject: Comment About Terrorism


Pat Townson's comments about the future of America were something that
hit home.  I was once asked by a bus driver about things to come:

  Count on it; the violence in the cities will not get
  better and will get worse.  The recent incident will
  be just a taste of the kind of thing that will happen
  so often that the papers won't even report them until
  the body count goes above 100 or more.  Count on
  random acts of violence without purpose or reason.
  And expect the imposition of Martial Law in major
  cities.  Making a prediction like this is about as
  difficult as predicting an egg will crack while it's
  on the way to the floor.

When I said it, it was *1980* and I was referring to the
*Miami Riots*.

The real question I wanted to ask, if you knew it, was the name of the
Made for TV movie written by either Woodward or Bernstein, about a
group of major terrorist attacks upon the United States, when they
finally begin to take place.


[Moderator's Note: I forget the name of that movie, but another one
which comes to mind is 'Escape From Manhattan' which came out several
years ago. As the movie starts, we are informed the year is 1993, that
'violent crime in the USA has increased 400 percent in the past two
years', and that because the government had run out of prison space,
the island of Manhattan had been evacuated and was now used exclusively
as a penal colony, with the prisoners left to their own devices about
how to survive, what to eat, etc. All bridges or other exits leaving
Manhattan had been sealed or were heavily guarded. An airplane flew
overhead once a week and dropped out food supplies.

America changed last Friday. The land where the only battles on our
own soil were those we fought amongst ourselves is gone. Expect the
nineties to be the decade of random killing and violence for its own
sake.  And wait until next month when The Jury finds the police officers
innocent ... social order in urban America will erode completely. I
rather suspect we may be living under martial law by this summer.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #144
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09888;
          3 Mar 93 2:33 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21414
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:52:03 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09845
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:51:30 -0600
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:51:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #145

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Mar 93 23:51:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 145

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Sean Malloy)
    RE: Gotta Love GTE (Charlie Mingo)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Ed Greenberg)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Justin Leavens)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Gene LeDuc)
    Re: Gotta Love GTE (Tony Harminc)
    Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (Mike Berger)
    Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (John Gilbert)
    Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Eric Weaver)
    Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Hank Nussbacher)
    Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Don E. Kimberlin)
    Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (Roy Smith)
    Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (H. Hallikainen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE
Date: 2 Mar 1993 09:00:48 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX


[e-mail] (Paul Robinson) writes:

>> What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your
>> check for whatever amount they deem necessary?

> While I have heard rumors that the Gestapo Internal Revenue Service
> has done this, I've never seen it in action. :)

Well, I'll jump on this tangent.  My uncle is a collection agent for
the IRS and has told me some rather interesting stories about what the
IRS can do to you if they think you owe them money ...

I've heard of them seizing bank accounts, garnishing paychecks (child
support payments, etc) and convincing your local banker to let you
have a third mortgage on your home, but I've never heard of them
changing the amount on a check.

They do, however, have some questionable tactics that they use
regularly.  One that springs to mind is that they need no court
document (warrant, or whatever) to seize private property "as long as
the agent doesn't have to cross a roofline to take possession".

And the roofline provision is a recent (circa 1990) addition.  Agents
used to grab a member of the local constabulary (presumably to prevent
harm to the IRS agent from the delinquent taxpayer), enter a person's
home or business and cart out valuables until they had taken the
equivalent of the money owed.  All without having to convince a court
that you do indeed owe what the IRS says you do.  Is due process dead?
Looks that way.

And if you're wondering what due process has to do with telecommunications,
talk to Steve Jackson of Austin, TX, or read some of the documents on
ftp.eff.org.

Sidenote: My uncle is not a nice guy.  IRS work suits him.... ;-)


Sean C. Malloy  -  Texas A&M University  -  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you will find most bill collectors are
quite curteous and follow the law closely when compared to the IRS.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 18:11:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE


[e-mail] (Graham Toal) writes:

>  Moderator Noted:

>> Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have said intent was
>> very unlikely when the payment was handled through a remittance center
>> getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What do you think they
>> do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at the check, the
>> coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get his lousy seven
>> dollars?  Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy, criminal or
>> otherwise is a bit much to swallow.  PAT]

>  First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque,
> there is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent
> to defraud. Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that
> is not written on a cheque. They go by what is written on the
> cheque, not on the pay-in slip.

If a check has the amount to be paid encoded on the bottom in magnetic
ink, the bank will go by that, usually without checking what is
written above.  (If they bothered to verify the accuracy of the
magnetic encoding, it would be just as fast to enter the amount
manually.)

The GTE clerk did not "change" the amount written on the check; she
just encoded a value on the bottom which was different from the amount
written above.  Yes, this is a mistake, and _if you could prove they
were doing this deliberately and with intent to defraud_, it could
even amount to a crime.

> If a low-level worker deliberately tampered with a cheque, it's very
> unlikely they did it entirely off their own bat.  Their supervisor
> must have known and given approval.

That is just speculation.  The burden of proof is on the person
alleging fraud, and in criminal cases, the proof must be beyond a
reasonable doubt.  Simply saying "very unlikely" or "must have known"
is not proof of anything.

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

From: [e-mail] (Ed Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 17:50:37 GMT


Sorry,

Banks most certainly go by what is written on the check, but with
large depositors they go by what is INSCRIBED in magnetic ink, BY THE
DEPOSITOR on the check.  Thus, the depositor is supposed to read what
is on the check and inscribe that number in magnetic ink on the
bottom, under the signature.

When we processed payments at a bank where I worked, we split the
checks and payment tickets.  We then inscribed the checks from the
check amounts, and generated a tape and total.  The date entry clerk
then entered payments from the payment tickets, and created another
total.  When the two totals balanced the batch was in balance.  IF
they did not balance, the amount on the check was taken, not the
amount on the payment ticket, and we did not even have access to the
amount owing.

We also would occasionally find a check that was mis-inscribed.  This
would send the batch back for correction.  The only way to get an
error past us, (well, one way) would be for the inscriber to make an
error in the same amount as the payor had written in on his check.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Justin Leavens)
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE
Date: 2 Mar 1993 09:59:28 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Thanks to everyone who responded to my story about GTE cashing my
girlfriend's payment check for more than the check was actually
written for.

Comments were pretty much in two varieties:

1. Contact the DA, PUC, and bank authorities and see if legal action is
   possible/necessary, and

2. GTE processes its own checks and it was probably a clerical error
   (although most everyone seemed to wonder whether it really was an
   error) and the bank should eat the error (let them try to collect
   from GTE).

A follow-up call to the bank (after consultation with my attorney)
resulted this time in a credit to her account for the overcharge.
Again, the amount was small, but as many responses pointed out: What
if it resulted in a rent or mortgage payment bouncing?

Legal action seems impossible since it's almost impossible to prove
intent to defraud, but I think that a report to the PUC might be a
good idea just in case they get enough of these to establish a
pattern. Otherwise, it's just gotta be chalked up as a clerical error.

Also worth mentioning, a number of responses pointed out that the IRS
is the biggest perpetrator of altering checks, actually physically
altering names and amounts ...


Justin Leavens   Microcomputer Specialist   University of Southern California

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 00:54:24 PST
From: [e-mail] (LCDR Gene LeDuc)
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego


In article <[e-mail]> Pat wrote:

> Did you ever get the check for Telco in the envelope for the Water
> Works by accident, or the check for American Express in the envelope
> going to Diner's Club? Chances are it got cashed anyway.

Reminds me of one day when I was particularly rebellious.  The time
was sometime before The Breakup, when Ma Bell was still Queen.  I was
a freshman at USC and had gotten a higher phone bill than I had
expected (it was legit, I just hadn't kept track of my calls).
Expecting to sabotage The System, I wrote my phone bill check out to
"The Monopoly" and waited for the system to come crashing down.  Not
even a burp.  So ended my rebel days ...


Gene LeDuc ([e-mail])  Navy Personnel R & D Center
San Diego, CA 92152-6800


[Moderator's Note: As you found out, they do not bother to read who
the check is made payable to, nor do they pay attention to dates or
signatures. They *barely* watch the amount, and as writers have
pointed out, not all that closely.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 21:52:34 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE


Graham Toal <[e-mail]> wrote:

> First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque, there
> is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent to defraud.
> Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that is not written on a
> cheque.  They go by what is written on the cheque, not on the pay-in
> slip.

I had an odd one a few years ago: I saw an ad in a Canadian magazine
from a company with a US address.  The book that interested me was
$40.  I sent a cheque for this amount (in Canadian dollars,
naturally), and soon after received the book.  Some time later I
noticed a cheque had cleared my account for an amount I didn't
recognize.  Investigation showed that someone (presumably the payee)
had neatly typed "US" in front of the dollar sign on my cheque.  My
bank paid them the US dollar amount, and charged me the (larger)
Canadian dollar equivalent plus a service charge of $10 or so).

I complained that this was no clerical error, but was outright fraud --
no different than if they had erased the amount I had written and put
in an amount of their choosing.  My bank agreed, and bounced the
cheque back to the California bank marked "altered".  That bank sent
it back again, saying there was nothing wrong with it!  My bank looked
into things a bit harder, and told me that there was no happy medium:
either I could refuse payment on the cheque entirely (which I had no
wish to do since I had bought the book), or they could charge me the
larger amount, though they graciously offered to waive the service
charge.  I told them I considered they were assisting in a fraud and
that I would be in touch with the police.  They changed their tune
very quickly, and sent the cheque back for one last trip through the
clearing system, marked in large friendly letters "PAYABLE IN CANADIAN
DOLLARS".  It did clear for the right amount.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?]
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 18:39:51 GMT
Organization: U of Il. School of Life Sciences


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul
Robinson) wrote:

> I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for
> paging people without having to pay monthly service charges.  Any
> device available commercially would have to have some kind of
> selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms.

Uniden had a small system for use in buildings that could page several
individual codes.  I'm sure there are others.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?]
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 15:22:09 GMT


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

> I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for
> paging people without having to pay monthly service charges.  Any
> device available commercially would have to have some kind of
> selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms. >

Yes.  There are low cost systems available that use CB frequencies.
Range would be short and interference might be a problem.  I think
Radio Shack offered one of these systems at one time.

Motorola offers a product called "People Finder."  This is a low power
desktop transmitter/paging encoder that can be used to set off
tone/numeric/voice pagers on UHF business band frequencies.  You must
be licensed. Reliablility would be much better, and cost would be
higher than the RS system. Motorola sales can be reached at 800-247-2346.

Motorola also offers a product through the "Radius" distributor
channel that signals voice pagers and has a lower cost than the
"People Finder."


John Gilbert    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications?
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 17:47:13 GMT


Paul Robinson writes [Questions about "who is IDB"?]:

I know IDB as a satellite broadcast service company which can send
uplink trucks out to events; I had them give a quote for a concert we
are thinking of doing.

My rolodex lists them in Culver City.


Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022

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

Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 08:41:36 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications?


We in Israel have been using IDB for the past two years as out
satellite vendor for the USA side of our link to the NSFnet (via PSI).
We started at 64kb and now have the link running at 128kb.  IDB's
prices have been consistently cheaper than the prices quoted to us by
places like MCI, AT&T or Sprint.

I am on their quarterly brochure mailing list.  It would appear that
IDB started out as a supplier of satellite communications for rock
concerts and other one time affairs where an earth station had to be
set up for a few hours of broadcast such as the Superbowl, the
Olympics, etc.  They are almost non-existant in the fiber area and
haveso far only been in satellite communications.  They appear to be
aggresive and this latest deal just shows it.


Hank Nussbacher    Israel

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

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 02:54 GMT
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications?


In article <Digest v13, iss130>, Paul Robinson asks:

> So, has anyone heard of IDB before?

Yup.

Preceding that, he posted:

> The office I work out of gets telex service from a company called TRT,
> which had, a few years ago, bought the FTCC telex company and merged
> with it.  We recently received a press release from them dated 2/9,
> which said:

> On January 25, 1993, IDB Communications announced that it had
> entered into an agreement for the acquisition of all of the stock of
> TRT communications.

And, he quoted a lot of the press hype for IDB, including:

> - IDB has been in this business since 1985;
> - IDB bought World Communications (Worldcom) which gives it a
> satelite broadcast operation;

and:

> - France Telecom owns almost 15% of TRT, this deal doesn't affect
> that part;

Phew!  Now, let's sort all that out.  What IDB has done is to buy into
significant chunks of some very old companies that most Americans
never heard of ... companies that had once been called the
International Record Carriers.  These firms had all been international
telegraph companies, some dating back to even before the turn of the
century.  Here's a rundown on those names:

FTCC Communications had for years been the French Telegraph Cable
Company, with submarine telegraph cables running between France and
the U.S., the earliest routes actually running up to the Welsh coast
of England, and getting repeaters in them to reach back to the U.S.,
dating from the late 1890's.  Named for its original company manager,
one Monsieur Pouyer-Quartier, French Cable was identified by the
routing code "PQ" in submarine telegraphy, a moniker that stuck with
it for decades after the name change to FTCC.  The ultimate ownership
was the French PTT's telegraph department, which ownership remains
today.  TRT bought what was available of FTCC, and IDB ultimately
bought the resultant combination.

TRT Telecommunications was originally the Tropical Radiotelegraph
Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Fruit of Boston.
Tropical innovated the placement of radio on ships before WW I, and
used it to direct and divert loads of bananas to the U.S. port with
the best prices.  Over the years, Tropical grew with and into the
Central American nations, first putting radiotelegraph operations to
the plantations, then becoming the operators of the international
public telegraph service, and in many of the Central American nations,
the operators of the international public telephone service.  Tropical
operated its U.S. radio plants at Pearl River, LA (still there for
ship radio, which is now fading rapidly from the scene) and Ft.
Lauderdale, FL (which is today solely a wireline operation, using
international satellite and cable channels).  Tropical had a number of
early tie-ins with RCA, due to early developments it had made in radio
communications, too.

World Communications is a portion of the former ITT World
Communications, which had been ITT's merger of its holdings in All
American Cable and Radio, Mackay Marine's ship radio operations, Press
Wireless, Globe Wireless, and the Federal Radiotelegraph Company ...
all historic names in early commercial radio communications.  ITT had
sold its ITT Worldcom to Western Union for a few years, which stripped
off Worldcom's international telegraph operations, and sold the
private line and special services operations to a group of Swiss
investors.  IDB got into Worldcom through a later investment door.

Which leaves the question: Who then is IDB?  Generally, it's a
Houston-based group of investors who first started up with mobile
satellite uplink rentals to U.S. television broadcasters ...
essentially a "remote truck" for a ball game or other sports event, or
some news gathering.  IDB spread out into the various bits it found
available, a lot of which was in the hands of the firms previously
described.  But, as your report indicates, IDB itself is a relative
newcomer to the field.

There are three other names of the "old days" of International Record
Carriers (IRC's) still around, but buried:

RCA Globecomm (earlier named RCA Communications, or RCAC, and
originally the core of the Radio Corporation of America that was
founded in 1919 to purchase the assets of American Marconi and assume
control of the expropriated properties of Telefunken in the U.S.
during WW I), was purchased by MCI and forms a core part of MCI
International.

WUI, Inc., (originally the Cable Division of Western Union and, in
1963 becoming Western Union International when WUTCo finally sold its
Cable Division to the public as ordered by the FCC in 1940) has a
history in submarine telegraph cables that dates clear back to the
original 1858 telegraph cable across the Atlantic, laid by the former
Anglo-American Cable Company, founded by Cyrus Field with British
capital when Western Union would not invest in it, but bought it up as
soon as it proved commercially successful.  (Western Union had a grand
project underway to reach Europe overland by going up through Alaska,
laying a short cable across the Bering Strait, and then an overland
route across the entire expanse of Siberia to Moscow, then Finland,
and around the Baltic Sea to Denmark, to interface to European
telegraph networks.  The WUTCo plan was abandoned when Anglo-American
proved it worked.)

By 1940, WUTCo had a network of thousands and thousands of miles of
submarine telegraph cables reaching all around the globe, as had
England's Eastern Telegraph and related companies, the Siemens
Brothers of Germany with Deutsche Atlantik Telegraphgesellschaft, the
Great Northern Telegraph Company of Denmark, and a host of other
nations and companies.  WUI was also purchased by MCI to form a
significant part of MCI International.

The Trans-Liberia Radiotelegraph Company, a unique and wholly owned
subsidiary of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company at Akron, Ohio,
was formed in the days of HF radio to provide communications between
Firestone and its plantations in Liberia, as well as to handle public
telegrams between the U.S. and Liberia.  Trans-Liberian was rumored to
have had some very interesting WW II missions carried out for the U.S.
government between the U.S. and an American outpost in a prt of the
world that Germany had obvious designs on.  As nearly as I know,
Trans-Liberian still operates from an office in the Firestone HQ
building in Akron, unless it has died in the past few years.  It had
devolved down to largely a room with a few PC's for terminals and a
rented satellite channel to Liberia.

Few people seem to know it, but by the final heyday of the submarine
telegraph cables, there was something in the neighborhood of 400,000
miles of submarine telegraph cable criss-crossing all the oceans of
the world ... enough to reach to the moon and almost back again ...
paralleled by competitive radiotelegraph to most everywhere and a few
landlocked nations that had no ocean shoreline.

So, the endpoint of this story is: Yes, Virginia, There were Heroes of
Communications Who Stalked the Earth before Bell Labs and the
telephone.  However, none of them suited Ma Bell's purposes, so they
were only known to international businesses that had need for their
services.  Today, many of their roots still lie deep in other nations,
and they have established relations that a modern investor like an IDB
or an MCI can use to build modern networks on ... and are doing so.
If you got deep down inside "how it's done" so that a Sprint or an MCI
can get telephone circuits into places like the former Soviet Union,
you'd find a lot of those old International Record Carrier
relationships being made use of.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 10:04:05 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There
Organization: New York University, School of Medicine


> [Moderator's Note: When Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian
> Science passed away (they prefer not to say 'died') in the early years
> of this century, a telephone (live and operating) was buried with her
> in her casket

Where was the demarc?  Hopefully in someplace easier for telco field
service folks to reach in case of trouble ...


Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:01:45 GMT


    So, is there a confessions by email address?  Fax seems so
inefficient for text ...


Harold


[Moderator's Note: No, but there is a 900 service you can use, and the
prescribed penance comes when you pay your phone bill.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #145
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10977;
          3 Mar 93 3:01 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08156
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:41 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22262
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:15 -0600
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #146

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Mar 93 00:27:15 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 146

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: TOPS Birthday (Brent Capps)
    Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (Andy Sherman)
    Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Richard Paiement)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore)
    Re: Help Wanted With Development Project (Wayne King)
    Re: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 (Todd Inch)
    Re: Feature It (Laurence Chiu)
    Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Tim Mangan)
    Re: 1-800 Collect Callbacks (James Olsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: TOPS Birthday
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 22:02:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Charles (C.A.) Hoequist
<[e-mail]> writes:

> If you're working on TOPS today, perhaps you might like to think back
> to 1973 and ask yourself what you were doing while the events that
> sealed your fate were taking place.

Oh wow -- TOPS. <shudder> What a truly frightening creature.

When I worked on SL-100/AUTOVON we had a *single* TOPS position at an
Air Force Base in Alaska, I forget where.  We kept telling the USAF
that this solitary TOPS position was costing them a truly colossal
support bill.  If you think that $5000 hammers were expensive.

Anyway, once of the BCS releases broke this TOPS position once.  It
took a dozen BNR engineers pouring over 100K of spaghetti code to
figure out how in the hell it was supposed to work, let alone what had
broken it.  We couldn't even get our own in-house TOPS to work for
long enough to recreate the problem.  Finally we just quietly pushed
it over into the corner hoping it would go away.

The BNR motto: if we can't fix it, it's not broken.


Brent Capps   [e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:39:03 GMT


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

> On Mar 1 at 23:23, Andy Sherman writes:

>> As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
>> OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
>> the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were
>> the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you hand to
>> ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

> So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax
 ...
> automatic devices is increasing exponentially, feeble attempts to
> "rescue" a call via operator intervention would seem to be a complete
> waste of time and resources.

> I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call
> die; why take up more time?

Routing ANI failures to an operator doesn't just result in a call
completion, it also generates 1) better customer relations, and 2)
trouble tickets which should lead to corrective action.

And, in fact there are ONI only exchanges still out there.  We
(the Fairbanks Toll Center) had a trouble ticket opened by an upset
customer last week because he kept getting an operator ... and in
our most pleasant manner someone (NOT me) explained that in Clear,
Alaska you get an operator every time because it is the last known
place in the world where the telephone company won't put in modern
equipment, and we expect it to always be that way ...


[e-mail]   A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska         system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 09:49:34 EST
Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)


I wrote, responding to John Higdon:

> As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
> OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
> the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were
> the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you hand to
> ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

On Mon, 1 Mar 93 20:46 PST, [e-mail] (John Higdon) said:

> So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax
> modem that is making the call. Even though the Trailblazer and the
> Brooktrout are very fine modems indeed, I do not believe they can
> answer a "Your number, please" inquiry. Obviously, the call fails at
> that point, since the operator just dumps it--probably thinking there
> are some kids or a crank at the other end of the wire.

> I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call
> die; why take up more time?

As you guessed, if the operator hears no voice or tell-tale fax beeps,
s/he dumps the call.  As I said in my original post, I don't recall if
it is just 0+ calls that get intercepted by OSPS or whether it tries
to recover failed 1+ calls as well.  In any event, the flux is
sufficiently small that the instructor said "You may never see this if
the strike is short, but ...", so not much operator time is wasted.

My best guess is that the feature is a) an anachronism from times when
the call setup failure rate was much higher, and/or b) a last ditch
attempt to keep call completion rates as high as possible, since call
completion is a quality metric.  But those are just GUESSES.  I never
heard anything about "why" only "how to".


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] (Richard Paiement)
Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date:  2 Mar 93 22:08:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

>> I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in
>> Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in
>> English.  Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not
>> allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller
>> indicates that they want to speak English.  And, (perhaps in the
>> "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call
>> businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these
>> regulations.

and oldman![e-mail] (Joseph P. Cain) replies:

> I can see that if you give those separatists an inch they will take a
> mile. Let them get their foot in the door with a stupid sign law and
> they will do everything else possible to try and ruin English business
> in Quebec. The government rule is not to protect the French but to
> ruin the English language. I am no longer proud of my Quebec heritage.

First off, Steve, I'll excuse you for believing such crap since you
don't live in Canada.

That anobody could believe such a rumour is hysterically funny. Quebec
has never been and will never be an Orwellian society. One can walk in
any city or town in the province of Quebec and will see many bilingual
as well as English-only signs defying the language law, and nobody has
been killed yet.

P.S. I am not a Quebecois.


Richard Paiement

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:33:27 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan


The question was who would likely get the first NNX area code, and
David Esan ([e-mail]) showed that of the areas not yet announced
for a split, 205 and 602 have the most prefixes, with 206,708,713 not
far behind 602.  He suggests that 708 is a candidate for overlay
because of its relative smallness; I will add that 708 was only formed
back in 1989 (by splitting 312, which kept only the Chicago prefixes);
and of the splits from 1965 (or earlier?) onward, no place has had its
area code changed twice.

My comment about 703 in Virginia being a candidate for NNX area code
should be qualified with "of the areas near me" (I work in Maryland);
note that 703 does have N0X/N1X prefixes, but these arrived as a
result of the DC area shortage, not (yet) because of shortage in 703
(which as far as I know still has no N0X/N1X outside the DC area).

How far down the list are the Florida area codes?  (currently 305,407,
813,904) They weren't in David Esan's top 20, although I wrote that
813 is getting N0X/N1X prefixes.  Perhaps I should write instead "no
indication of N0X/N1X prefixes, but change dialing instructions to
prepare for the NNX area codes" in the history file w/r to Florida?

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

From: [e-mail] (Wayne King)
Subject: Re: Help Wanted With Development Project
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 22:34:36 GMT


[e-mail] (Hannu Komulainen) writes:

> Question:

> So, we need to get connection between our customer service host
> (ATLAS, Unix) and our switches to put MML commands on switches
> automatically.  Moreover we are interested about interface between
> customer service host and it's users, in the other words what
> information customer servicer put in the system (customer home
> address, switch card number, ...).

> I would be most grateful if you could give me some or any information
> that kind of (commercial or your own developed) software or hardware.

We have developed and deployed an Operational Support System for a
major Telecommunications Service Provider in Canada which may be
applicable to your development project.  This systems' primary purpose
is to provision circuits and facilities over several different types
of Network Elements using languages like MML, TL/1, PDS Snyder, as
well as proprietary Network Element languages.  The time it takes to
get customers into service has been drastically reduced through the
use of this system.

In this particular system, a relationship is not maintained between
customer information and the facilities and circuits configured, as
this information is maintained in a higher level system.  However,
correlation of such information with circuit and facility data would
represent a straightforward extension of the system's relational
database.

A brief description of the system is now presented.

The NEC is a Network Management System that allows operating company
staff to conveniently monitor, test, provision and query network
facilities and circuits from central locations.  The NEC is built
around proven technology, providing functionality which cannot be
achieved by users working with the Network Elements in an isolated
environment.

The NEC can receive its provisioning information automatically from
customersU service definition systems and from provisioning staff
specifying provisioning information using the NEC User Interface.  Any
changes that are made to the provisioning information by the
provisioning staff are returned to the service definition system by
the NEC.

The NEC provides Configuration Management, Security Management, Fault
Management, Performance Management and Internal System Management.

Any intelligent Network Element may be accessed via the user interface
to the NEC as long as the user has permission to access that Network
Element.  The underlying design of the NEC permits it to control any
type of Network Element.  The only requirement is that the NEC can
communicate with the element.

The NEC also provides Mediation functions between Network Elements and
other Operational Support Systems.

Should this information be applicable to you, please contact the
following for additional information.


Edwin Morton              Tel: [phone]
Kylain Inc.               FAX: [phone]
Ottawa, Canada


Wayne King

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 20:47:41 GMT


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

> We were ushered in via the employee entrance, through a slick
> ultra-modern security checkpoint

I don't suppose it scanned your PCS for a serial number and figured
out who you were?

> (When you're at home, you switch the PCS over to Private mode and use
> your base unit anyway, plugged into your home phone line.)

Seems like it should do this automatically whenever it's within range
of the base unit, possibly with an override function in case the home
phone line is busy or otherwise undesired.

Thanks for the update!  (Oops, you're getting paid for use and doing
free advertising to a target market as well.  I take it back. :)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Feature It
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 01:44:51 GMT


In a article to comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] had the
following to say:

> After decades of Calling Card numbers based upon the customer's
> telephone number, AT&T a few years ago finally introduced the
> long-awaited "AT&T-only" card that is COCOT and AOS proof.

> But what goes around comes around. Not long ago, Sprint began touting
> its "new" Calling Card numbering scheme: the one that AT&T used right
> on through divestiture. And now MCI has its "new" number. The
> advantage of these "new" calling cards? The number is easier to
> remember.

> The disadvantage? None other than the same one that prompted AT&T to
> discontinue the scheme: any slimeball AOS can bill you for calls using
> that number because all the needed information is contained therein.

> Unlike many, I have no problem remembering numbers. But even if that
> were not the case, it would be worth the effort memorizing the
> arbitrarily assigned AT&T card number to prevent bogus billing. If
> someone cannot be without a number that is easily billed by ripoff AOS
> scum, then the LEC would be happy to provide him with one (which works
> just fine on AT&T AND Sprint AND MCI).

> The OCCs are going to a great deal of trouble and expense to convince
> you that their service is identical to AT&T's but that there is a big
> difference in the billing methods and, most importantly, the price.
> The reverse, of course, is true. The price differences between the
> carriers is now far less significant than the service differences.

Well I just received my AT&T Universal card. No forms to fill out --
all done over the phone (as it should be for a phone company). It
features 15.9% (not that much of an attraction since I can get 10.5%
on my bank line of credit and anyway, I don't leaves balances on
credit cards) plus fee-free for life if you can transfer over $1000 of
debt from other cards.  This may not be easy for me since I can't
think what I want to buy in the next two months for $1000 (or for that
matter can afford!).

But it's also a calling card and has a non phone number account number
on it. The advantage over a regular calling card, even AT&T's, is that
the PIN is not printed on the card. I got to choose my own so
remembering it is not a problem. This is all good for security
purposes although I guess someone could look at your credit card
voucher which would have your calling card number on it, and try out
10000 combinations of PIN to crack it.


Laurence Chiu

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

From: Tim Mangan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed
Organization: TyLink Corporation
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 15:27:00 GMT


Ronals Thompson writes:

> I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU
> products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process
> and require information of current vendors.

TyLink also had a line of DSU/CSUs that support Private line, Switched56,
and ISDN PRI access.

You should keep in mind, however, that *IF* you intend to place
multiple SW56 calls and want the signals synchronized for possible
different network delays, you need the additional capability of
Inverse Multiplexing.

An inverse mux takes a sychronous stream, breaks it into multiple
smaller channels, and puts it back together at the other side,
accounting for any diffenence in signal delay.  Even though you dial
both calls from the same CSU/DSU to a similar CSU/DSU on the other
side, you can't be sure that the signal delay will be the same for
each call!

There are a number inverse mux's on the market.  Most of the key
players are part of a group called BONDING (Bandwidth ON Demand
INteroperability Group) which has come up with a vendor independent
interface.  Interoperability testing to the BONDING spec for "MODE 1"
is currently under way.

TyLink is located in Norton, MA and may be reached at 508-285-0033.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:31:27 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James Olsen)
Subject: Re: 1-800 Collect Callbacks
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


[e-mail] writes:

> I read in yesterday's {Atlanta Journal-Constitution} that there was
> new federal legislation pending against the 1-800 'sex lines' that use
> a collect callback and bill you at outrageous prices.

I agree that such services are extremely slimy, and I wouldn't mind it
a bit if they were outlawed, but I hope people realize that the FCC
regulations on 900 numbers also apply to such collect calls as well.
In particular, telcos are prohibited from disconnecting your service
for non-payment of interstate information-provider bills, whether via
collect calls, 900 numbers, or any other number.

Here are some excerpts from the FCC's "Interstate 900 Telecommunications
Services" rulemaking (56 FR 56160):

  ...Collect information calls, to the extent they are permitted by
  these rules, are included in the definition of "pay-per-call"
  services.  When a consumer takes affirmative action clearly
  indicating that it accepts the charges for such a collect call, the
  consumer's action changes him or her from the called party to the
  calling party for the purposes of this rule. ... The 900 exchange
  has all the attributes necessary for the provision of information
  services to the public, and the record shows no valid technical or
  legal reason why the public would better served by allowing
  interstate pay-per-call services to be free of regulation simply
  because they are on an exchange other than 900.

  ...Part 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows:

  Sec. 64.714  No Disconnection for Failure to Remit pay-per-call Service
  Charges.

    No common carrier shall disconnect, or order the disconnection of, a
  telephone subscriber's basic communications service as a result of that
  subscriber's failure to pay interstate pay-per-call service charges.

  Sec. 64.715  Automated Collect Telephone Calls.

    No common carrier shall provide transmission services for pay-per-call
  services originated by an information provider and charged to the consumer,
  unless the called party has taken affirmative action clearly indicating that
  it accepts the charges for the collect pay-per-call service.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #146
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14661;
          3 Mar 93 4:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26527
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:36 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16928
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:00 -0600
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:00 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #147

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Mar 93 02:11:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 147

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: OSPS and ANI Failure (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem (Brent Capps)
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Paul Ebersman)
    Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Dave Gellerman)
    Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever (Daniel E. Ganek)
    Re: Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Scott D. Brenner)
    Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan (Robert L. McMillin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Mar 93 12:15:40 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failure


Several messages have been written concerning operators and ANI
failures. In SWBT, and I assume most everywhere else, the use of a
CAMA operator on direct dialed toll traffic is slowly disappearing.

For those of you to which this is old info, pardon the following but
it may be useful info to some:

1. For regular direct dialed calls there are two types of AMA
recording offices, Local Automatic Message Accounting (LAMA) and
Centralized Automatic Message Accounting (CAMA). CAMA offices, as the
name denotes, provide billing for a number of subtending offices. It
does this by having the subtending offices forward ANI as well as the
called number.  Please note that this type of operation is not
compatible with SS7. ANI offices can be provided equal access by
maintaining a lookup table in the CAMA office with everyone's PIC. We
tried this for a while and it worked well for providing equal access
to a limited customer base. The effort and cost for a large customer
base would have been extremely expensive.

When the CAMA office thinks the ANI is bad or missing, it will attach
to an operator system via a set of specialized trunks. The operator
will request the calling number and key it back into the CAMA office.

These subtending ANI offices were generally the older switch types,
primarily SXS. It just wasn't economically feasible to install LAMA in
these offices. As these offices disappear, the use of the CAMA
operator to resolve ANI problems on direct dialed toll calls will
gradually disappear.

It should probably also be noted that for these cases, it is
economical to try and save the call. The trunk has already been tied
up between the ANI office and the CAMA office and CAMA operator work
time is minimal, usually between six and nine seconds.

The other case where these CAMA operators are used is in providing
toll service for four-party and eight-party customers. We, in Kansas,
still have some four-party customers even out of some of our digital
offices. There are CAMA Operator Number Identification (ONI) trunks
from these four or eight party serving offices to our CAMA toll
offices. These are translated to access the specialized CAMA operator
trunks and have an operator request the calling number. This service
is scheduled to disappear out of SWBT offices by 12-31-94.

As far as I know, there will still be some Independent Company offices
retaining both CAMA and multi-party service for some time so we plan
on keeping the CAMA operator trunks in service for the foreseeable
future. The load, however, will become extremely small. I suspect the
PUC will continue pushing for multi-party service to disappear. I know
that our CAMA billing services will get more expensive as the base
gets smaller so that will push the replacement of the ANI offices. My
guess is that by 1996, we will no longer need to provide this service.

2. Operator dialed calls work much like CAMA calls in that ANI must be
passed to the operator services system using MF signaling on a per
call, per trunk basis. The operator system then makes the AMA record
for the call. The ANI transmission can get garbled between the end
office and the operator system. When this happens the operator will
interrupt on the call to ask for the originating telephone number. As
was noted in an earlier message the operator gets a different
indication on screen in this case than on an ANI failure on a CAMA
call. This is primarily used to trigger different operator challange
routines.

It is rare when this happens so it would not suprise me that people
can go through their entire life and never have it happen. I've only
had it happen once.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 17:52:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Tim Mangan <wk01889@worldlink.
com> writes:

> More strange phone setups --

> I had a phone in college that was set up to not have a dial tone.
> This prevented anyone from making an outside call from the phone; you
> could only receive calls.  So far so good ...

> If someone left the phone off the hook when the caller hung up, the
> next caller would get connected without the phone ringing.  As there
> were several extensions to this phone it would happen quite often.
> When you gave anyone your phone number, you had to add the
> instructions that after dialing if they hear hall noises instead of a
> ring, yell like crazy until someone notices that you are on the line.

It sounds like the lines in your dorm used ground start instead of
loop start supervision.  In this case a loop start set will be able to
receive calls but not originate or trigger dial tone, and if left off
hook the next caller will be immediately connected instead of
receiving a busy signal.  This is the lazy man's way of setting up an
inbound-only line, but it's far from foolproof.  I've used it myself
in certain situations where guaranteeing a forward disconnect signal
was more important than the ability to originate a call.


Brent Capps   [e-mail] (gay stuff)
[e-mail] (telecom stuff)

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Ebersman)
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Date: 2 Mar 1993 00:07:51 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA, USA


> [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the
> expense of having certain common equipment in the central office
> unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling
> you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you
> will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would
> lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep
> the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if
> the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call,
> you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a
> leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it
> becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call
> basis on demand.

In several areas of the country where toll calls (or even local
business calls) are charged per minute, 50 hours a month is about the
break even point for getting a leased line. If you do more than 50
hours, you're better off with a leased line. For folks doing dialup
IP, like SLIP or PPP, this is easy to do. (Actually, a good news feed
and UUCP would do it B^) PacBell and NET are two telcos for whom this
is a pretty good rule of thumb.


Paul A. Ebersman @ UUNET Technologies, Inc.
uunet!ebersman or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Gellerman)
Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial
Date: 2 Mar 1993 10:18:08 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


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

> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
> ca.us (Nick Sayer):

>> What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them

> I thought one of the big reasons why leased lines were so expensive is
> because they are "special service" circuits and require special
> procedures to install and maintain. Leased lines cannot be
> automatically tested with the ever present Mechanized Loop Testing
> system, or Automatic Line Insulation Test system since leased lines
> are not accessible because they are not switched circuits. Almost
> everything associated with special circuits is manual. Although the
> Switched Access Remote Test System (SARTS) tests specials, the circuit
> must be routed through the (expensive) test system at installation
> which is something you don't have to do with POTS (Plain Old Telephone
> Service).  Leased lines also don't have phone numbers so they need
> special billing procedures.

Actually, what you mean is full-period data circuits must be routed to
dedicated test systems ... most specials are actually switched
services like FX or PBX trunks, and these are often tested by MLT
(though this is BOC dependent).

I can also argue that the routing to the test system (actually the
access, system ala SMAS) is almost free, since channel banks have been
shipped with unitized SMAS for years.  Also, almost all new specials
are routed through DCSes for bandwidth management etc, and test
capability exists at most DCSes these days (RMS-D, HLI etc ...)

I think PAT is right, specials cost more because they tie up network
bandwidth on a full time basis, rather than relying on the TDM nature
of switched service.

Also, the political structure of the BOCs often resulted in duplicate
networks, one for switched/POTS service and one for full time
specials.  Since the circuit count is significantly lower for
specials, the cost per circuit will be higher.  Also, let's be
reasonable, the VALUE of a full time connection is far higher than a
switched service, so the customer will pay more :).


David R. Gellerman               [phone]
Hekimian Laboratories, Inc.  [e-mail]
15200 Omega Drive        Rockville MD 20850 USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  2 Mar 93 16:19:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier
Organization: AT&T


> [Moderator's Note: You *do* need a business line if you conduct
> *business* on the telephone, as I suppose a home worker would be
> doing. And I don't read anything in the above message which indicates
> OBT expects people to have a business line because they have a modem
> or fax machine ... only if they conduct *business* using the modem or
> fax machine. I play chess with a friend across town by using our fax
> machines to transmit a picture of the board and our moves, etc. This
> is hardly a business application.   PAT]

Mr Moderator,

Where do you draw the line as to business use?  If I am a salesman and
work out of an office, but some west coast clients call me at home to
place an order is that a business call?  What if I just need to fax an
order for the office into a supplier but forget to do it at work and
do it from home, is that a business call?  What if my boss calls me to
work over a few details of tomorrows meeting is that business, should
I have a business line? What if I run a business out of my home but
only make/receive a couple calls a month related to business. Do I
need a business line?


Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)    [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs   614-860-5965


[Moderator's Note: Everything has to be taken in context. If you
normally use a business line to conduct business and there is some
spillover to a residential line, I don't see where there is any
problem. When I was working for the attornies, I frequently had to
contact their international clients from home during the night because
of the difference in time. If you conduct business from your home
phone but do not solicit business calls there (i.e. yellow pages
advertising or business name listed in directory) then there is no big
deal, and very few telcos will make an issue of it. They certainly
will not listen in on the line to detirmine the nature of the calls,
so they have no way of proving it either way. But if you list the
phone under a business-like phrase or name and use the phone
exclusively (or most of the time) for business calls, then you should
pay business rates. Some people who work exclusively from home have a
'business line' and a 'residential line' both installed, and they make
all their outgoing calls on the line with the most advantageous rates
which is usually the residential one. Telco isn't going to squawk as
long as you pay at least some kind of lip service to the tariffs.  PAT]

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

From: Daniel E. Ganek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 15:37:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Terence Cross) writes:

> Ericsson has been awarded a contract worth over USD 150 million for a
> large expansion of the mobile telephone network in the Guangdong
> province, China.

Can a US cellular phone be used in China? If so, how difficult is it
to setup an account or set-up some sort of roaming aggreement?


dan ganek     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Another AOS Sleaze Trick
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 20:55:12 GMT


[e-mail] (scott.d.brenner) writes:

> This is only speculation and second-hand info, but it looks like the
> AOS's have figured out a new way to separate us from our money.

> On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used
> their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted
> to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT).  In any
> event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a
> collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes
> any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill
> the receiving phone number).

> I'll warn again, this is just speculation, but it's the most logical
> explanation of what happened.

Hi.  I'm that "someone" who reported the AOS sleaziness on the
internal AT&T newsgroup.  Stan is more or less correct in his
speculation.  The AOS is ONCOR Communications.  I spoke to one of
their customer service reps.  Here's what happened:

My father-in-law called my home number using my Universal Card
number.  Although he's been trained to hang up if he doesn't hear
the AT&T jingle after the 'boing,' he was in a hurry and let the
call go through.  The AOS took the Universal Card number, but sent
the call to an operator because they classified the card number
"scrambled." (This was the term the rep used.  He said any number
NOT beginning with a valid NPA is considered scrambled.)

Since the AOS knows it can't bill to this card number, they duped my
f-i-l into providing the area code and number of "the owner of the
card."  That happened to be the number he was calling, but it didn't
have to be.  Somehow, the AOS obtained billing info based on my home
number, and was able to get NJ Bell to put the call on my LEC bill.
(Although it showed up on its own page, just like AT&T charges.)

I asked the rep if this procedure wasn't illegal or at least
unethical, since they're essentially putting through a third number
call without authorization from the third number.  He mumbled
something about "that's the same thing that AT&T does ..."  I didn't
tell him I work for AT&T, and I'm not sure about this, but I *thought*
that AT&T eliminated the practice of putting through third number
calls without authorization a while ago.

I disputed the call with him (it was $8.98 for a three-minute call
from Staten Island, NY to Bedminster, NJ) and he agreed to issue a
credit.  NJ Bell also agreed to take it off my bill and make sure the
credit comes through.

If anyone else can shed some light on the legalities and ethical
issues here, I'd be interested.  In the meantime, I believe there
*are* some AT&T network fraud and security people looking into this
matter.


Scott D. Brenner          AT&T Consumer Communications Services
[e-mail]                  Basking Ridge, New Jersey


[Moderator's Note: You are correct that the matter is under review by
security representatives of AT&T. Just a few days ago, Frank Carey
<[e-mail]> wrote the Digest asking for responses from people
who had knowledge of or ideas about the problem of calls to 800
numbers being converted into 900 numbers; calls to 800 numbers being
converted into collect callbacks and similar. I think they are looking
into all the various ways these AOS people are still trying to leech a
free ride at the expense of AT&T and other legitimate telcos. Apparently
Integretel has worked things around in such a way the local telcos
cannot refuse to do business with them; Integretel would run screaming
to the court about violations of the MFJ. I think AT&T figured that
once they scrambled the card number, that would be the end of the
parasites, since it is assumed they would never go to the expense and
trouble of building a legitimate calling card database of their own
like Orange Communications is doing or AT&T and the telcos have done.
Maybe they should think again.

Bear in mind it is perfectly legal for any carrier to charge whatever
amount it wants (tariffs however, should be on file) for a call;
collect, third party or otherwise. But -- big BUT -- no deliberate
choosing of names which sound like 'AT&T' when announced over the
phone; no submission of unauthorized third party or collect calls to
the billing offices; no misuse of historical 800 billing arrangements;
no use of AT&T's data base without permission; no collect calls where
the calling party was the 'telco' itself; no refusal to interconnect
with AT&T when the AOS is the sole gateway available at a given phone
(i.e. phone cannot reach 10xxx). Readers with factual information
about schemes like this should probably write Frank Carey to discuss
it; he invited such email at fec.arch2.att.com.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:45:35 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan


Mark Boolootian <[e-mail]> writes:

>> If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have
>> held their applause.  I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace.
>> We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption
>> of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a
>> "information super highway".

> When you consider the success of the Internet and the fact that the
> government was (and still is, to a degree) responsible for a part of
> its funding, I can't see any reason for wanting to keep the U.S. out
> of cyberspace.

Yes, yes, I've heard this before.  First and foremost, I have never
liked the Internet as a governmentally run operation, in no small part
because the NSF among others restricted freedom of commercial speech
with their use policies.  As a governmentally funded operation,
perhaps this was a reasonable approach.  However, it has no place in a
network for a free society where people make transactions based on the
desire for profit.  Granted, the NSF's no-commercial-messages policy
should disappear soon, but that's not the point: the idea is that the
government can stifle some kinds of speech because it wants to.

Furthermore, digital links into commercial sites and universities are
one thing; digital links into peoples' homes are quite another.  It
would be quite easy to move telephony onto the "data superhighway."
Once there, the Feds would have a far easier time attacking the civil
rights of average Americans than they presently enjoy.  Imagine: if
Uncle Sam owned the network, would the FBI and the DoJ have even
bothered to ask for customer-paid digital wiretaps?  I rather doubt
it.  Likely, they would have barged right in, created the software
under some black budget, and installed it.  And we, the taxpayers,
would have gotten stuck with the bill.

By allowing the State to create the digital environment, we silently
cede our constitutional rights.  No amount of gee-whiz technology is
worth that price.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]
                         After June 25 : [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #147
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19101;
          3 Mar 93 7:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30018
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30621
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:01 -0600
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #149

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Mar 93 04:22:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 149

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Little More TWX History (Jim Haynes)
    Tell Me About Your Pager (Molly Geiger)
    Telecom Advice For the Lovelorn (Jeff Hibbard)
    NYNEX Voicedialing (Boston Globe via Monty Solomon)
    Remembering the Old Punch Cards (Gordon Burditt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Haynes)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 14:26:39 -0800
Subject: A Little More TWX History


Well of course the original TWX goes back to about 1930, used 3-row
machines, and manual switchboards.  In fact the introduction of TWX
was what caused AT&T to buy the Morkrum-Kleinschmidt Corp. and rename
it Teletype.  At the time the service was provided using
telegraph-grade circuits.  You'll occasionally see a picture of an old
TWX switchboard, maybe in an old encyclopedia.  The switchboard
operators used tape-strip printers to communicate with the customers.
Telex was in use in Europe in about the same time frame, and used SXS
switching technology and telegraph-grade circuits.

Western Union introduced Telex to the U.S. in the early 60s.  This was
probably a bad mistake for them.

   1) They had to buy a lot of electromechanical switching equipment
      which was soon to be obsoleted by electronic switching.

   2) AT&T was about to move TWX to the voice switched network, where the
      enormous volume of voice service had driven the cost of connections
      and bandwidth way down.  The telegraph-grade lines were no longer
      cheaper than voice circuits; they were in fact more costly to AT&T.

   3) It put W.U. into practically head-to-head competition with an AT&T
      service; and AT&T was a much stronger company financially.

   4) W.U. was usually dependent on the telephone companies for local loops
      between customers' offices and the nearest W.U. office.  Thus W.U.
      was at the mercy of its competitors rates for these private lines.

As an aside, European Baudot machines tended to have four-row
keyboards.  The digits were on the fourth row, like a typewriter.
There were blocking bars such that if the machine was in FIGS case the
digit keys were unblocked and the corresponding letters keys were
blocked.  So the user still had to send FIGS and LTRS as in the U.S.;
it was just that the European machine design took a slightly different
direction from that in the U.S.

The European machines also tended to have built-in paper tape
facilities of the limited sort that Teletype introduced into the Model
32 and 33 machines.  In previous Teletype designs the paper tape
equipment was mechanically independent of the keyboard and printer.
You could, for instance, be punching a tape from the keyboard at the
same time you were receiving a message on the printer; and you could
be sending from tape at the same time you were punching another tape
from the keyboard.  In the European machines, and later in the
Teletype 32 and 33, the tape punch had some parts in common with the
printer and the tape reader shared some parts with the keyboard.
Hence you couldn't use the keyboard while sending from tape; you
couldn't punch a tape from the keyboard while printing something else,
etc.

The Teletype Model 15 has been mentioned as a heavy-duty machine
dating from 1930.  In the late 1930s some of the Bell companies asked
for a less expensive machine for TWX service, recognizing that a lot
of offices could use TWX but didn't need the heavy-duty machine.  (The
Model 15 is what was used for AP and UP news wires through the 1950s.
It could stand up to the around-the-clock printing that occurs in that
service.)  The answer to this request was the Model 26.  The 26 used a
rotating type cylinder holding individual slugs of type.  The cylinder
stayed in one place and the paper platen moved from side to side as in
a typewriter.  (In the Model 15 and the later machines the paper
platen is stationary and the printing element moves across the page.)

The Bell System phased out the Model 26 machines in, oh, the late 40s
and 50s.  The machine didn't save enough in first cost to be worth
supporting both it and the Model 15 in terms of parts and maintenance
training.  Lots of Model 26 machines wound up in amateur radio
service.  The hams formed organizations to plead with the Bell
companies to sell their used machines to hams rather than breaking
them up (to prevent their falling into the hands of those who would
use them in competition with Bell services).  Hams had to sign a legal
form to the effect that they would not use the machine outside the
hobby, and would not sell it to anyone without requiring a similar
promise.

In the late 50s and early 60s came all the work that resulted in ASCII
 -- first the upper-case-only 1961 ASCII and then the up/low 1968
ASCII.  Prior to ASCII there were lots of codes floating around.
Teletype made the Model 29, which was an eight-level four-row machine
working on one of the IBM BCD codes.  I believe this was used only
internally in Western Electric; AT&T was scared to put an IBM coded
machine out to the public lest non-IBM computer makers complain that
the AT&T giant was favoring the IBM giant at their expense.  The Model
35 was based on the 29; in fact I'm aware of some people converting 29
printers to ASCII by changing just a few parts.  Many parts were
common between the five-level Model 28 and the eight-level Model 35.

The Model 32 and 33 machines actually started as a project to develop
a light-weight machine for the military.  The light-weight project
didn't get very far; but a lot of the ideas wound up being used in the
low-cost printer project.  Again the Bell companies and Western Union
saw a need for a machine that would cost a lot less than the
heavy-duty machines, for use in offices that didn't have a lot of
traffic.  I might mention that Western Union dabbled in making its own
teleprinters from time to time; occasionally one will see a sample of
their Model 100 family.  I believe W.U. was the main customer for the
32, for Telex service and the Bell companies were seen to be the main
customers for the 33 for the new four-row dial TWX service.  These
machines had most of the parts in common.  They were available with
and without paper tape; where paper tape was present it followed the
European style, so you couldn't do all the things with these machines
that you could with a 28 or 35.

The design objective for the 32 and 33 was that they would be used on
an average two hours per day.  Cost was held down by not heat treating
and hardening and nickel plating the parts; some adjustments were made
by bending parts rather than by moving parts on elongated holes and
that sort of thing; assembly was designed for high volume with a die
cast base and self-tapping screws and parts that snapped together
without bolting.  Meanwhile along came the minicomputer companies who
adopted the 33 as a console device, where it often ran around the
clock (and generated a lot of cursing about the frequent need for
maintenance).

For manual TWX Teletype supplied a basic machine to the phone company,
which added some kind of Western Electric box on the wall for line
interface.  This might be a carrier channel terminal or some relays
for a D.C. line; and there were schemes where ringing was used to
control the motor on the Teletype machine, and schemes for cutting off
current in the line when it was not in use.  Telex and dial TWX
required additional components for setting up and controlling the
call.  The Model 32 for Telex had a built-in Call Control Unit with a
dial and line relays, all ready to connect to the D.C. local loop.
For dial TWX there was a Western Electric modem stashed in the
Teletype stand and a variety of call control units (pulse dial, tone
dial, card dialer, loudspeaker vs. earphone, etc.)  made by Teletype
and connecting to the modem.  This was a source of considerable
annoyance to Teletype, as the interface involved 99 wires, each of
which was negotiated between the modem designers at Bell Labs and the
call control unit designers at Teletype.  A little later some of the
Bell companies would save money by furnishing a Bell modem with
built-in telephone connecting over a few-wire cable to a Teletype
private-line-version machine having no call control unit.

There is a lot of weird and interesting (perhaps) lore connected with
the modems.  Since dial TWX used a voice-bandwidth connection they
could afford the luxury of full duplex modems using two different
frequency pairs for the two directions of transmission.  This
introduced the complexity that a modem had to know whether it was
originating or answering a call to know which pair of frequencies to
use for which purpose.  Even after Bell began supplying modems for
connection of customer-provided data equpment (just before Carterfone)
these modems could function in either originating or answering roles.
After Carterfone the suppliers of modems for computer time sharing
could take advantage of the fact that the terminal always originated
and the computer always answered; so we got reduced cost
originate-only and answer-only modems.

It always seemed to me that the TWX section of Bell Labs was
controlled by old geezers who had been around since 1930 and couldn't
imagine that a TWX machine would ever want to talk to anything except
another TWX machine.  If you wanted to use the same kind of Teletype
machine to talk to a computer, well that was another matter entirely.
The modems had separate originate and answer frequency pairs, each
binary FSK.  This permitted two options for which frequency pair would
be originate and which would be answer, and four possiblities (two for
each pair) of which frequency would be mark and which would be space.
Thus it was possible by wiring options to set modems up for as many as
eight mutually-incompatible services, all using the same voice
switched network without any restrictions on area codes and numbers.
I remember hearing about TWX, and TWX-prime, and WADS (wide area data
service) and WADS-prime, all of which were to use the same modems and
switched network without any of these being able to communicate
outside its own service.  I guess they had in mind different tariffs
for TWX machines talking to TWX machines versus terminals talking to
computers, versus some other things.  Practically all of this was
swept away by Carterfone.

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

From: Molly Geiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tell Me About Your Pager
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 05:00:45 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> Molly Geiger, geigermk@
uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

> I am looking for information on radio pagers.

I've read about wristwatch pagers and pen-sized pagers, but I'd like
to hear from someone who uses them.

Have you used pagers before and experienced the technological changes?
Tell me.

Would you rather use another form of communication than the pager?
Would cellular phones be better?

Any information would be appreciated.


Thanks!

Molly Geiger   University of Illinois  Champaign-Urbana
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Telecom Advice For the Lovelorn
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 08:21:48 GMT


I live in Peoria IL, and this June I'm planning to marry a woman who
now lives in Decatur IL.  Although making the 95-minute (one way)
drive between our homes a couple of times per week for the last 1.5
years hasn't been that bad, that's a bit far for a daily commute to
work.  I don't particularly want to leave the job in Peoria I've had
for 21 years, nor do I want to move that far away from my adorable
five-year-old son whom I see practically every day (he lives in Peoria
with his mother).  My friend in Decatur has equally strong reasons for
wanting to remain near Decatur.  She suggested that we both move to
Normal IL (about half way between Peoria and Decatur).

This sounded like a fine idea until I discovered that Normal is in GTE
territory!  Both Peoria and Decatur are served by Illinois Bell, and I
have never lived in an area that wasn't served by Illinois Bell.

I only have one friend who lives in Normal, and talking to him hasn't
been encouraging.  His stories of dealing with GTE repair service
(something he's had to do fairly often) bear an amazing resemblance to
those of John Higdon.  It also took him years to get a second line in
his home due to lack of cable pairs in his neighborhood.  The only
other cities I can find that would appear to be geographically
acceptable are also "served" by GTE.

Please tell me, O great omniscient Telecom readers: what should I do?
Can I afford FX service from Peoria (roughly 40 miles), or would GTE
screw up their end of that anyway?  Would having to drive 3+ hours per
day be less annoying than having GTE as my phone company?  Is it
better to remain single the rest of my life, if getting married
requires a move into GTE territory?  :-)

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

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:21:21 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Voicedialing


 From the 2/11/93 {Boston Globe}:

Let your voice do the dialing.

That's what a new service from New England Telephone will soon let
callers do for an additional monthly fee.

Called Voicedialing, the service enables subscribers to dial a number
by simply speaking a name into the receiver.

Nynex Corp., parent of New England Telephone and New York Telephone,
plans to offer the service in the Boston area by the end of this year.

Nynex is the first Bell phone company to offer Voicedialing, the
latest service made possible by new computer technology.  Others
include call waiting, call forwarding and phone-company provided
answering services.

"We feel that Voicedialing is as revolutionary to the telephone
network as remote control was to the television industry," said Wayne
Zuckerman, view president of marketing at the White Plains, NY-based
telecommunications company.

But consultants said VoiceDialing's success isn't assured.  The
advantages it provides over voice-activated and single-button dialing,
already available on phones, are unclear.  And local phone companies
are not known as savvy marketers.

Peter Hampton, director of consumer communications for The Yankee
Group, a Boston consulting firm, said voicedialing [sic] will be
useful for car phones, which present difficulty in dialing while
driving.  But many customers will be put off by the prospect of having
to program their phones for the service.

"These are the same kinds of people who haven't programmed their VCRs
 - it's the same issue," Zuckerman said.

Voice-activated computers are already used in a variety of
applications, and their popularity as a telephone service has been
"unmatched" in markets where Nynex has tested it, he said.

Other regions of the country may have Voicedialing soon: US West has
signed a contract to use Nynex's computer software and Bell Atlantic
has tested the service on its own employees.

Here's how it works: To store a number, the caller dials *99, says a
name -- for example, "Fred" -- into the phone, dials Fred's number and
hangs up.  Each caller -- or "voice" -- in a household can store up to
30 voice-activated numbers in the phone company's central computers.

To place the call, the caller picks up the receiver, waits for a beep
after the dial tone and repeats "Fred" into the mouthpiece.  The
central computer, matching the voice and the name to the previously
stored speech pattern, dials the number.

Any number can be stored, and the computer recognizes accents and
foreign languages -- even a dog's bark, as one boy found when his
family tested the service.

Nynex plans to introduce the service in some New York markets by May
and in some New England states by 1995.  A trial program in Salem is
scheduled for April.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Remembering the Old Punch Cards
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:11:23 GMT


> for more. Older readers will probably remember the 80-column punch
> cards of years past with rows zero through nine, and the two bottom
> rows which were called X and R, which could be punched to allow up to
> three meanings for each of the numbers in the column: the number only
> punched were letters A-J; the number punched along with X were the
> letters K-T; the number punched along with R (sometimes called the
> high punch) were the letters U-Z and a few miscellaneous things.

The way I remember it, the rows were, from top down, numbered 12, 11,
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.  I've still got some cards which
clearly show 0-9 as being the bottom 10 rows.  From my handy "IBM
System/360 Reference Data" Card of about 1970 vintage:

Character    Hex    Punches
0-9        F0-F9    0-9       Numbers were, of course, the most used.
A-I        C1-C9    12 + 1-9
J-R        D1-D9    11 + 1-9
S-Z        E2-E9    0 + 2-9
a-i        81-89    12 + 0 + 1-9    Lower case was rarely used.
j-r        91-99    12 + 11 + 1-9
s-z        A2-A9    11 + 0 + 2-9

They got 256 combinations out of a maximum of 6 punches (250 of them
with 5 or less).  Many combinations used 8 + 2-7 or 9 + 2-7 or 8 + 9 +
2-7 in conjunction with various combinations of 12, 11, and 0.  The
character 0xFF was represented by 12 + 11 + 0 + 7 + 8 + 9.
"Ventilator cards" (with all 12 x 80 holes punched out) were supposed
to cause a "validity check" going through the card reader, but usually
they just jammed.

At one point I could actually take IBM 360 object deck cards,
disassemble the code if it stuck to the more common instructions, and
patch it without using reference cards, manuals, or scratch paper (The
computer center was stingy with CPU time and the assembler was slow.
Also, if you were lucky, turnaround time was a few hours).


Gordon L. Burditt     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: So you remember when programmers used to write
their programs via punch cards. They'd then turn these cards in to the
computer room, the cards would be run through the computer, and as you
point out, a few hours or a couple days later the programmer would get
the cards back with a print out of what took place so he could fix the
bugs. Then the erroneous (bug causing) cards would be repunched and
sent back to the computer room, the process would be repeated and he
would get the work back eventually with a print out so he could fix
the bugs he failed to fix or catch before. Programming was a long,
very tedious process in the 1950's. When I was with Amoco/Diners back
in the late 1960's we did all our accounting and customer service work
on punch cards. We got our first video display terminals in, I think,
1968.  What time-savers they were! Even though our input in the
terminals was held for 'batching' each day, it was still quicker than
before, and eventually we went directly 'on line'. I remember it very
well!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #149
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20769;
          3 Mar 93 8:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28995
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:44:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11995
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:43:35 -0600
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:43:35 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #148

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Mar 93 03:43:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 148

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Future of Videophones (Paul Robinson)
    Internet Radio Program, "Geek of the Week" (Brian Erwin & Carl Malamud)
    Quick Cellular TIA Spec Summary (Greg Boop)
    Residential Phone Problem (Robert Smith)
    Call Waiting / Three Way Call Ring Back (Randy Gellens)
    Toll Stations in California (David Esan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 13:24:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Future of Videophones


I responded to a question in alt.dcom.telecom about the future of
Videophones and I thought I'd pass on my response:

Stefanie D. Horwitz ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am working on a research project concerning the future of videophones
> and videoconferencing.  Is there a future at all?

I'll give you a future: Vice President Ozone Boy gets his "didn't
inhale" associate and their Junketeers on Capital Hill to pass an
energy tax so stiff that the fares on plane trips have to rise
substantially.  This would give an incentive for people in smaller
companies that can't afford the higher prices to install video phones
if they normally do some traveling.

> Will these technologies ever become obsolete in the business or home
> environment?

I think the term you want is "available" not "obsolete".  They can't
become obsolete until the technology becomes available or some
substitute does.  Right now, telephone service from coast to coast is
25c a minute or less; that is badly damaging first-class delivery of
letters because at 29c or higher, it's getting cheaper to fax
something across country and get 30 second response than it is to mail
a letter over three or four days, or even Federal Express / Express
mail in one day.

A large percentage of travel is done face-to-face because we negotiate
in this manner and we examine the person's body language and gestures.
And some of it is done in order to take a junket at company expense.
But you can't negotiate a contract without visual contact (generally
because you need proof of signatures.)  You can get around this by
facsimile, notarization and authentication, but the software to
provide real-time authentication just really isn't out there yet.
I've heard enough requests for it that it makes me think I should
write one.

What the issue right now amounts to is cost.  I don't know what a 56KB
line across the country leases for, but I'm certain it's considerably
more than the $15.00 per hour that a cross-country telephone call
costs (AT&T at 25c per minute).  Plus you need the compression
equipment to do compressed video which is probably a few thousand
dollars.  But if you (or several groups) use it for several hours a
month, it's a lot cheaper than plane travel.

> What new uses for these technologies are being/will be created?  If you
> have any information regarding this subject and the related topics, or
> you know where I can find some, please post it or send it to me via
> e-mail.  Thank you very much.

 - People calling to check on loved ones;
 - People calling to see an item they are interested in purchasing;
 - Deaf people being able to use sign language directly;
 - Being able to see the person who is talking to you, and making it much
   harder for someone to simulate the caller;
 - An ad agency can show clips of a commercial to the client directly without
   him having to come down to the viewing room, or having to risk transporting
   videotapes by courier;
 - An architect can show drawings (which they can fax now) or they can do a
   model of the building and show it by TV and do a 360 degree slow scan
   around the model;
 - If you create computer generated images, you can run them on the visual
   at the other side to show what they look like;
 - Running X and MS-Window applications on a distant terminal, including
   "Carbon Copy" or "PC-Anywhere" type applications on GUI terminals
 - Remote diagnostic and remote help desk operation of GUI terminals to
   show the user what he should be doing;
 - Virtual Reality simulations for training;
 - Games.

And then there's the sleaze applications which currently can be left
to the imagination. :) The 900 Area Code and 976 dial-up telephone
services are a $1 billion a year business, of which I'm sure that a
nice chunk of this is in the "X Rated" class (and I don't mean stuff
running under X-Windows!)  Anyone want to guess how much this stuff is
worth with full video and sound?


Paul Robinson     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Interesting you should mention it. There is an
adult service in Pompano Beach, FL which makes extensive use of the
little slow-scan (is that what they are called?) video things you can
buy from Sharper Image -- the one where you need two such units, one
for your phone and one for grandma or whoever. These have the little
screens where it takes about two minutes to get an image. Someone help
me with the exact name and technical specs here ...

Anyway, this guy in Pompano Beach rents them by the month to his good
customers (or maybe he sells them outright, I dunno) and the customer
gets to call in on a POTS line to speak with and view the creature of
his choice doing certain things I cannot mention in a family-oriented
Digest such as this. Admittedly, the pictures are slow and clunky, and
I am not sure how much success he has had at marketing this. I'd think
to some extent videophones would NOT be a very good idea where the sex
lines are concerned because heretofore, as 'they' say, one did not have
to look one's best regardless of which end of the sexphone line you were
connected on. (Ain't it the truth! You should *see* some of the slobs
working in the phone rooms of a million fantasy trips. They'd have to
change their shirt, shower and shave before going to work ... what a
quaint custom!)  The flip side of this is imagining the obscene calls of
the next century. Instead of picking up a phone and hearing heavy
breathing, you'd flip on the viewing device and see -- well, I'll let
you think about it! :)  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 16:45:26 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Radio Program, "Geek of the Week"


I got this message in the mail today, and find it quite exciting.

PAT

 From: Brian Erwin <[e-mail]>
 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:08:18 PST
 To: [e-mail]
 Subject: Internet Radio


Patrick:

     I'd like to alert you to a potentially important new application
of the Internet.  Internet Talk Radio will begin airing a weekly
half-hour interview program, "Geek of the Week," over the Internet in
late March.  Taking advantage of sound support offered by Sun
Microsystems, Apple, NeXT, IBM, Silicon Graphics, DEC, and many other
vendors, and of the Internet's electronic mail protocols' support for
multiple data types, Internet Talk Radio will use encoding formats and
conversion programs to support audio playback of the interviews on all
major environments.

     Journalist and author Carl Malamud is the program's executive
producer and it is sponsored by Sun Microsystems and by us, O'Reilly &
Associates. Its first program, "Geek of the Week," will feature
interviews with notable members of the Internet community, such as
author and programmer Dr. Marshall T. Rose, NASA Science Internet
manager Milo Media, and Interop Company founder Daniel Lynch. Later
programs will air more frequently and feature book reviews, short
features, and even non-technical features, such as restaurant reviews
from exotic locations.

     The interviews are mastered onto Digital Audio Tape.  A typical
30-minute program occupies 15 Mbytes of disk space.  UUNET
Communications in Virginia serves as the initial spool area with
several gigabytes.  From there, the data moves to the IIJ network in
Japan and EUnet in Europe.  These three sites -- UUNET, EUnet, and IIJ
 -- serve as the primary distribution points for the world.  From
there, regional and national networks move the data closer to the
users.  Eventually, a network manager takes the files and broadcasts
them on a local area network or stores them on a file server.

     We have a further involvement in that listeners wanting the
interviews on audiocassettes or audio CDs will able to purchase them
by contacting us at "[e-mail]."

     If you'd like more detailed information, contact Carl Malamud at
703/548-1126 or [e-mail].


Brian Erwin, [e-mail]
Public Relations, O'Reilly & Associates
103A Morris Street, Sebastopol CA 95472
707-829-0515, Fax [phone]


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

 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:41:15 EST
 From: [e-mail] (Carl Malamud)
 To: [e-mail]
 Subject: Re: Internet Radio
 Cc: [e-mail]
 Org: Internet Talk Radio


Please put [e-mail] down as the 'for more information' address.

To be a distributor, there are no terms.  The data is not copy
protected in any sense (although we prohibit resale and derivative
works).  We are trying to get the regional networks to grab the files
from UUNET so we don't kill the net with large file distribution.  If
you want to get involved with distribution, what I would do is contact
my regional network and say "I want my geeks!"  Have them send me a
request, and we'll add that regional to the UUNET access control list.
They, in turn, will distribute to their own customers.


Carl   [e-mail]


[Geek's Note: Thanks for sharing this news with telecom. I think you
will have a lot of listeners to your 'radio program'.  Best wishes for
success ... I wish I'd thought of it first!   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 09:23:18 -0500
From: aurs01!aurxcf![e-mail] (Greg Boop)
Subject: Quick Cellular TIA Spec Summary


Thank you for your responses to my cellular standards inquiry.  I have
received a number of responses indicating which EIA/TIA documents to
take a look at. I am now getting my hands on a number of these
documents including:

EIA/TIA IS-19-B Recommended Min Standards for 800MHZ Cellular Subscriber Units.
EIA/TIA IS-20-A Recommended Min Standards for 800MHZ Cellular Land Stations.
EIA/TIA IS-41-B Cellular Radiocommunications Intersystem Operations - 5 Volumes
EIA/TIA IS-52   Uniform Dialing Procedures ... in Cellular Radio Telecom.
EIA/TIA IS-53   Cellular Features Description.
EIA/TIA IS-54-B Cellular Dual-Mode Mobile/Base Station Compatibility Standard.
EIA/TIA IS-55   Recommended Min Performance Standards for Dual-Mode Mobile Stat
EIA/TIA IS-56   Recommended Min Performance Standards for Dual-Mode Base Stat.
EIA/TIA IS-85   Cellular Standards for Full-Rate Speech Codes.
EIA/TIA IS-553  Cellular System Mobile Station-Land Station Compatibility Std.
EIA/TIA IS 88/89/90 NAMPS Standards.

The IS-553 spec and the IS-41 set covers the AMPS (Advanced Mobile
Phone Service) standard. The IS54-IS56 documents cover the operation
of dual-mode analog AMPS and Digital (TDMA) cellular phones. The
IS88-IS90 specifications cover NAMPS (Narrow Band AMPS).

The standards (as always) are a very good place to start. However I
still hope to find some books or papers that provide a technical
in-depth look at the processing of cellular calls and any references
to cellular network management.  I already have a number of references
to RF related material (site planning etc.), but my focus is not on
this type of information (even though it brought back fond memories of
Smith Charts). Customer documentation (Command Summary Manuals)
regarding the user interfaces to Cellular Switches sold by major
manufacturers will probably help me out. Any references to books,
articles, or manuals will be greatly appreciated.

I am trying to obtain a broader view of the technical side of the
cellular US market. I already have a strong background in mobile
communications. My former employer, Spectrum Communications and
Electronics (now Spectrum Ericsson), manufactured paging terminals.
In the past, I have also have been involved in field trials of CT2
technology (borrowed from England) up in Rochester, New York. My role
involved writing and evaluating PCS Network Management Software.

A small fraction of my recent activity has involved evaluating and
providing input on the GSM speech coding used in Europe. As the
wireless trend in telecommunications continues to explode, I want to
be properly informed in order to correctly represent the American
viewpoint on any cellular issues (even though the US and EC cellular
standards are quite different) within my firm.


Thank you and best regards,

Phone #   [phone]    Fax #  [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP      ...!mcnc!aurgate!aurfs1!boop
Greg Boop, Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, N.C.

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

From: ROBERT SMITH <[e-mail]>
Subject: Residential Phone Problem
Date: 2 Mar 93 16:21:30 GMT
Reply-To: ROBERT SMITH <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stakeholder Relations, NCR Corp in Dayton,OH