Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1995.volume.15/vol15.iss301-350

Text File | 1995-08-21 | 2MB | 36,435 lines

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa23026;
          6 Jul 95 17:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10005 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:35:24 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09997; Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:35:22 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 07:35:22 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #301

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Jul 95 07:35:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 301

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Apple NII Public Band Petition to FCC- NEEDS SUPPORT! (Monty Solomon)
    Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business (Paul Robinson)
    N+I Conference Assessment Team (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    N+I BOFs (Ole J. Jacobsen)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 23:04:37 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apple NII Public Band Petition to FCC- NEEDS SUPPORT!
Reply-To: [e-mail]


FYI

  Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 10:56:00 -0700
  Originator: [e-mail]
  From: [e-mail] (Jim Warren)
  Subject: Apple NII Public Band Petition to FCC- NEEDS SUPPORT!

The following is informal and hastily put together but represents a
serious opportunity for innovative public access to the airwaves.  Please
read and consider submitting comments to the FCC. -al

======================================================================

GovAccess.154-CRUCIAL!!!: Free, high-speed regional telecomm!


This is one of the most important public policy items I have ever posted!

This can be a *real* Declaration of Independence for the 21st Century.

This is one of the most important battles that citizens, community
organizations, educators, local government officials and newspapers
(if they plan to continue to exist beyond newsprint) will fight in
this decade, against government-granted monopolies and
regulation-protected cartels!

I have been trying to find time to write about this ever since Dewayne
Hendricks told me about it about a month ago.  Bill Frezza's done it;
done it well; and Interactive Age has just published it. [below]

Folks, if we, the People, can successfully lobby-the-hell outa
Congress, the White House and the FCC -- *right now*! -- "mere"
American citizens and otherwise-deadmeat consumers can bypass the
upcoming monopolistic regional telecommunications and cable cartels
and their for-certain gouge'em-deep rate increases that will occur as
soon as the current secret-deal Telecommunications Deform Act passes
and next year's elections are safely behind the Washington Beltway's
deal-makers.

IF WE ACT NOW -- and persevere -- we can have the economical,
technological viable option of completely bypassing local-loop
telecomm monopolies of the telcos, cable operators and other big-bucks
telecomm giants.

FREE voice and data communications for residential, educational,
business, community, city, county, rural *and* mobile voice and
data-communications.

ALL OF US can have FREE metropolitan-area voice, data and
compressed-video communications -- point-to-point, and for that matter,
point-to-multipoint (i.e., everyone becomes a broadcaster, but only to
those whom they permit to receive!).

But we *must* act now -- because the TELECOM GIANTS *DON'T* WANT THIS!

ONLY massive public pressure can overcome their massive lobbying megabucks.

The idea is simple:

Have the FCC declare a tiny portion of what was once *understood* to
be the public's broadcast spectrum to be -- in fact -- PUBLIC SPECTRUM
(a range of frequencies available for free public use).  The formal
petition has ALREADY BEEN FILED with the FCC.  The rule-making PROCESS
HAS ALREADY BEGUN; public comments have already been solicited.

Open that public spectrum to FREE use by EVERYONE, subject to NO
restrictions at all except (1) broadcast power that will limit range
to, typically, about 15 to 30 miles, and (2) require use of a given
frequency for only a very brief time -- seconds or even milliseconds
(assumes use of well-developed, nonproprietary "spread spectrum"
techniques, where an ongoing communication takes place on one
frequency for tiny time, then moves to another frequency, then another
and so on; the most efficient use and sharing of broadcast spectrum
that is possible!).

24-megabits per second - that's 3 megabytes per second!

NO phone bills!

NO corporate owners!

NO wires -- just a teeny weeny antenna. At most.

NO fees -- just a one-time purchase of cheap home, office, car or
beltloop transcievers, and whatever you wish to plug into them ...
phones, data modems, video cameras, temperature monitors, etc.

NO operator licensing -- just type-licensed transceivers, exactly the
same as police, cabbie and CB-band radios.

NO eves-droppers -- since the spreading algorithms can be infinately and
dynamically varied (and communications can be further scrambled, to boot).

NO censorship needed -- since content is *inherently* "scrambled".

METROPOLITAN area range (far beyond a single cell-phone site).

REAL content competition -- not the fake "competition" of government-created,
government-licensed, government-protected conduit and content corporate
cartels.

Pollution-free, environmentally-sound, wire-free regional electronic public
parks.


WRITE AND FAX *NOW* - to the FCC *and* to your Congress-critters and the
Clinton White House that has been so busy selling the public's spectrum to
the few who can afford it.  Or ... obediently wait and watch the cartels
raise our rates.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

What Do We Want?  Nonproprietary, Free Bandwidth!  When Do We Want It?  Now!

  Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:47:10 -0700
  To: [e-mail]
  From: Bill Frezza (via RadioMail) <[e-mail]>

If you want to repost it [the following] be my guest. But if you do,
please preface it with a note that it is from the July 3rd issue of
Interactive Age Magazine and at the end add the following:

COPYRIGHT CMP PUBLICATIONS JULY 1995.

 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 14:14:23 -0700
 To: [e-mail] (Jim Warren)

>From "Interactive Age" July 3, 1995

Where the I-way meets the skyway

By Bill Frezza     [via [e-mail] (Dewayne Hendricks)]

The visionaries at Apple Computer Inc. are at it again, pushing the
envelope of technology, regulatory policy and business development.

While Microsoft Corp.'s Bill Gates focuses on the here and now of
elbowing into the online business, Apple has fast-forwarded to a
kinder, gentler future where free spirits wirelessly surf the Web and
the unstructured, self-organizing chaos of the Internet is extended to
the rigid disposition of the airwaves.

Weaving together the politically popular themes of international
competitiveness, enhanced educational opportunities, free market
solutions for the info have-nots, health-care reform, quality leisure
time and hard core mobile computing, Apple's recent petition to the
FCC for an unlicensed "NII band" is this summer's best read. Check it
out at

        http://www.apple.com/documents/fcc.html

        [Better still, use  http://www.warpspeed.com/ , explained below. --jim]
    [Or use http://www.cpsr.org/home -- al]

What they're asking for is simple enough: 300 megahertz of prime real
estate up at 5 gigahertz, enough to accommodate high density
24-megabit-per-second connections in a fluid mix of local and wide
area networking. This amounts to about $40 billion worth of spectrum,
if you go by the size of the checks the phone companies wrote for
Personal Communications Services (PCS) frequencies. And, oh yeah, they
don't want it for themselves. They want it made available free to all
comers, subject only to interference -- reducing technical standards. No
auctions, no license fees, no regulations on what it's used for, and
no airtime charges.

Does this renew your faith in chutzpa or what?

It's certainly a different model than either the newfangled auction
approach or the tired old lobbyist-take-all system. Think of it as
spectrum homesteading, a uniquely American experiment in don't-fence-me-in,
anti-industrial policy.

Before you scoff, remember that Apple has been down this path before. It
first petitioned the FCC for Data-PCS frequencies for nomadic computing
back in 1991. This resulted in the allocation of a juicy 20 MHz slice smack
in the middle of the aforementioned PCS bands. Unfortunately for the PC
industry, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory when the entrenched
telephony interests shanghaied the band in pursuit of a home for cordless
PBXs. (A chagrined FCC later tossed the computer folks some crumbs at 2.4
GHz).

The petition proposes spectrum sharing by fixed and mobile users on a
completely ad-hoc basis. This "spectrum etiquette" is a brilliant blend of
good science and free market ingenuity. Spectrum etiquette imposes no
centralized control and assumes no traffic prioritization.

Rather, it is a low level media access scheme similar to the rules we
follow for private conversations at crowded cocktail parties. You can speak
French, German, or Chinese -- whatever you please -- as long as you exclude
bozos that stand up on chairs and give loud and long-winded speeches.
Beyond that, anything goes.

But beware of the lobbyist-loaded coterie that frustrated Apple's plans
last time. Flying under the WINForum banner, the telephony interests are
angling for the same spectrum with a rival petition. Their technical
approach, however, asserts the primacy of circuit-switched voice,
necessitating a hierarchical architecture with choke points and centralized
control.

Haven't they hogged enough bandwidth? They call their system SUPERNet. I
think SUCKERNet fits a lot better. The Europeans developing HIPERLAN didn't
buy their jive, so now they're trying to peddle it here.

And they may succeed unless the Washington-averse PC industry files
supporting comments before July 25.

        [---IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM!---]

        Drop a letter or postcard referencing petition RM-8653 to:
        Office of the Secretary
        Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
        Washington DC 20554

        or send e-mail to  [e-mail]  and offer your help.

Apple's decision to position this as the NII band is perhaps their best
hope, part of a savvy constituency shopping game. But posturing aside, if
this dream comes true what we'll really get is an entrepreneurs band. Not
the kind of fake entrepreneurs with half a billion dollar war chests, or
some bogus designated entity front organization. But real entrepreneurs
that hock their cars, quit their day jobs and go for the glory. The kind of
people that founded Apple and created the PC industry in the first place.

So good luck intrepid infobahn warriors. May your vision become our
reality. I can barely squirt 8 kilobits per second out of my antenna today.
With 24 mbps to horse around with and no physical connections to trace, who
knows what mischief we can cause?

Bill Frezza is president at Wireless Computing Associates and co-founder of
the online forum DigitaLiberty. You can reach him at [e-mail] .


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


Feedback with Speed that Only the Net Can Provide - COMMENT DEADLINE
IS JULY 10!

[Dewayne Hendricks has been deeply involved in wireless datacomm for years,
and has spent several years trudging around Washington's endless
bureaucratic circles and serving on various industry committees, that
eventually got pre-empted by the telecom giants.  He's walked the walk;
it's time for thousands of us to join him!  --jim]


Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10    AppleLink: D6547
Warp Speed Imagineering   ! Internet: [e-mail]
43730 Vista Del Mar       ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Fremont, CA 94539-3204    ! AOL: HENDRICKS
Fax: [phone]       ! WWW: http://www.warpspeed.com/

Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor ([e-mail])
Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc.
345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request>

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 12:51:19 -0500
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers/ Problems in Business


In the previous issue of TELECOM Digest I mentioned my own idea about
a way to advertise the new 888 area code.  Maybe there already is a
good system there.  Or maybe nobody is going to bother, it's just
going to be treated as another area code and nothing special will be
done.

It doesn't matter to me one way or another, I don't make any money
selling 800 (or 888) numbers (or rather, not yet.) But those companies
who sell these numbers, who have to pay LEC per-minute rates for
misdialed calls should be thinking about how much money that misdialed
and uncompleted long distance numbers are going to cost them when
customers start demanding credit for incoming wrong numbers because
two different companies with the identical seven digit number, one in
888 and the other in 800 get calls for the other.  Makes me wonder how
much of the 888 area code is going to be taken up by companies with
800 numbers buying the identical number in the 888 area code to keep
someone else from piggybacking on their number.

(National Car rental uses 1-800-CAR-RENT.  Maybe one of the tinier car
rental companies decides to buy 1-888-227-7368, which is the same number,
and uses that, saying "After you check National - Or Alamo, Avis, Budget,
Hertz, dial the same number but dial 888 instead of 800, and check our
rates."  So they get identical numbers for all the major car companies,
and start a price war.

The rental car business has been too complacent lately, either they're all
colluding to hold prices at about the same level, or they're all too
comfortable to bother stealing customers by changing prices.  (Offering
incentive tie-ins to airlines and such doesn't cost anything.)

Even Coke and Pepsi do on-and-off price cuts (but not both during the
same week, of course!) to try to woo the cost-consious shoppers that
week away from their favorite brands.  It's also how they keep companies
like RC and Jolt from getting too large, by stealing market share.
Nothing wrong with that, it's part and parcel of fighting in a
competitive market.

Thinking about it, the only thing that differentiates a successful
business from an unsuccessful one is the successful one looks at its
business, thinks up new ideas to make itself more valuable to its
customers, and implements those ideas.  Maybe they don't all work, but as
long as you're right 51% of the time and make more than you lose, you'll
win over the long term.  As long as you keep thinking.  Watch your
competitors, emulate their successes and improve upon them, avoid their
failures, and think up new ideas that they will soon steal from you.

I don't watch football or other sports, but whoever set up the games on
the Fox Network does.  Keeping the clock on screen at all times and always
displaying the score were two long-overdue improvements to the game.  But
they aren't "Great" ideas, just "good" ones.  The change is simply a minor
improvement.  But that minor improvement adds value to the game for the
viewer.  Which leads to increased viewing, more exposure for the
customer's advertisements, and higher ad rates for the network and
stations, a win-win situation for everyone.

My mother watches professional football games all the time.  When I come
by her and see a game is on, I know I'm going to get a running commentary
of who is incompetent, who is good, and why the team is good or bad.  But
the one thing I noticed is she'd ask me to watch for her and tell me the
score.  Always, she'd be complaining because she'd be out making something
to eat, and kept pestering me for the score, which I could not give her
because it wasn't on for minutes and minutes.

CBS ran NFL football for 35 years or so, and got complacent thinking they
would always have it.  FOX came up with more money, because they needed
the viewers.  And when they got the games, they improved over the
tried-and-true formula, and now, if other networks try to get football
back, I'm fairly confident they will have to implement these changes.
Possibly adding them to other sports games.  Or maybe I'm wrong and it
doesn't mean that much to viewers.  But I'll bet if they don't, people
will start complaining "Why aren't you showing the clock and the score
like Fox does on its games?"  Complaints because a known good idea isn't
being used by a competitor.

Think about this: our biggest problem is not foreign (or domestic)
competition, inner cities, overregulation, balance of payments, loss of
industrial jobs or any of that.  It's something much more and much less
than those minor problems.

In fact, let's stop Japan bashing, the Japanese can't touch us in the one
thing that we can do better than anyone else.  Europe, Asia, Mexico,
Korea, will never catch up with us if we exploit our one strength that
will allow us to beat them long before they can figure out what is going
on.  Beat them?  Hell, we can turn them into hollowed-out shells if we
really wanted to!  Use our strengths, let them work on the stuff we're
weak in, and make them try to compete on their weaknesses, which means
they will chronically fail every time.  But we're not doing that.

We -- meaning the United States and the private companies that sell
products and services -- are being crucified by the rest of the world,
because we are failing to use our greatest strength, and trying to use our
weaknesses to fight them, where our weaknesses are their strengths, and as
a result, they're running us into the ground.

Our biggest problem is people not thinking, and the lack of good ideas.
Oh, let's not forget, we also need the will to implement those ideas.
Hell, forget good ideas, companies aren't doing much with ideas at all,
not even at least trying ones that might be bad, so they can see what
doesn't work.  They're not even trying much of anything, mostly coasting
along on past successes.

Ideas and their implementation are what made this country, (who ever heard
of a 'limited government' that's a crazy idea!) And they are what made it
into a great nation.  ("Who in their right mind would have the government
spend $7 million [in the 1800s] to buy Alaska from Russia? it's nothing
but frozen wasteland!  It is and always will be worthless.  That's
[Secretary of State] 'Seward's Folly'") ("It's impossible to fly a
heavier-than air machine, Mr.  Wright, every scientist knows this.")
("What good is a machine that sends pictures by facsimile over the
telephone, the mail is good enough and cheaper!") ("Why would anyone want
to use a photocopier, when carbon paper is already out?") etc.  But these
are (now) great ideas, they don't happen every day.  Great ideas are like
Grand Slam Home Runs in baseball, very rare. Or they are the "good" ideas
that succeeed beyond our wildest dreams.  (Nobody expected {Forrest Gump}
to do ANYTHING like the revenues it did produce.)

Good ideas, which are ordinary stuff, are the grist that the mill of
day-to-day living needs to function.  "Let's cut out sending checks after
a shipment, if we order from a known company, issue the purchase order and
the check at the same time, we can take the 2% discount for prompt
payment, and it might save us some money."  It did; I think Sears saved
millions in unneeded paperwork and clerks to check invoices against
purchase orders; if you pay purchase orders when issued, someone can't
send you a fraudulent invoice against a purchase order that wasn't paid.
IBM would need 40,000 more employees just to handle intra-company mail if
they didn't have their company-wide E-Mail system.

Fax machines and E-Mail are the nails in the coffin that is killing off
the courier business for local delivery, which means companies in that
line of work need to look into new ways to operate, e.g. start looking at
documents like checks that can't be faxed (but then electronic payments
are cheap, too), or packages which require delivery, including
merchandise and things too bulky to tie up a phone line.

But then if the other side needs a copy any way, why not just send the
100 or 200 page contract if it's an untimed call, just send it after 5
to their laser fax machine, all they have to do is send back the last
page, they can fax a notarized copy (thus the notary can testify who
signed it if needed,) and then mail the original with signature.  The
other side also mails a notarized original with their signature, so
each has a copy of the signature page with an affidavit from the
other.  Or maybe not even notarized if they have the original.  All
you need is to show there is an agreement, the papers should show this
if nobody is going to claim forgery, and if I understand correctly,
most contract problems are over disagreements in terms, not over
whether the parties actually agreed to the contract.

Our lack of ideas and inability to implement them in order to do
things, are what causes all the other problems.  When we figure out
ideas, we can use them to fix things.  But we can't fix anything
without ideas and methods to implement them.  Great ideas come along
maybe once in ten years, those are not easy to find.

But it's the plain 'good' idea, like the concept of making popcorn that
could be cooked in a microwave, that not only sold millions of dollars of
popcorn at a mere 50-75c a bag, but sold hundreds of thousands of
microwave ovens, too!  A brand new market in addition to the regular
popcorn market, that doesn't reduce sales of one at the expense of the
other, but actually increased the 'size of the pie'.  (Now the biggest use
of microwave ovens is to boil water, for instant coffee and tea.  How long
before someone figures a way to put a water dispenser inside, to fill a
cup with the exact amount of water, e.g. punch in the number of ounces of
water, press the 'make hot water' key, and out comes water which it then
microwaves to 140 degrees F!

Anyone noticed if companies that make Microwave ovens have started
ordering incoming water-pipe connections for an appliance?  Or maybe they
think it's too mundane.  Well, maybe a company that sells an extra 20,000
units and charges $30 more for the 10c additional parts won't mind the
extra $600K in profit and 20,000 units that sold above and beyond normal
sales.  Or offers it free and sells 50,000 more units, by stealing market
share from a competitor.  Or maybe it doesn't add to sales, but it
actually creates a new niche in the marketplace?

Think about what I've been saying next time some large company like
Smith-Corona goes into Chapter 11 because they didn't think about new
ideas to move into when their market changed, and typewriters were no
longer selling against computers and laser printers, and word processors
were overpriced against computers that did much more and did it better.
They did not think about the change in the market - even places that sell
typewriters saw it more than 5-10 years ago when they started selling
computers as well as typewriters, calculators, and word processors.  I saw
it happening when I lived in California.  If a small store can see the
picture years ago, why can't an otherwise large company do the same,
unless it's the same thing: inertia, fear of change, lack of ideas, and
complacency?

A small store has to make sales, they live from day-to-day on what they
sell.  If you want to know how good your product is, ask your sales force
what their customers (the stores they stock) are buying.  Have them ask
the owners, what are they seeing in sales.  Chances are, your salespeople
know, but the people who run the company are sitting in the dark.

Maybe in this case, the salespeople don't care, they just sell typewriters
along with everything else, *because THEY know that this is a dying
market, and can't expect to live on these commissions alone*.  Have your
sales department even checked on what the salesmen know about the
customers?  (Or if they deal direct with stores, do they know what the
customers know.)

Nobody wants to fix problems, they just want to complain and ignore them
until things fall apart.  The ones that do notice things, clean up in the
marketplace.  When was the last time anyone bought a typewriter new from
IBM?  (Or maybe they still sell the Selectric, but I don't think so.) They
aren't stupid enough to remain with a dying industry.

Even IBM got caught napping with the PC, after they essentially created
the whole market from scratch.  Then they were too little, too late in
exploiting the entire market.  Now, they have to compete on price same as
everyone else, since now, quality differences are known to the public to
be essentially nil between the large PC makers.

Michael Dell was a college student who became a multimillionaire by making
computers for people part time, and eventually creating a large company.
But he's not safe, everyone from Acer to Zeos would love to eat his lunch.

So our biggest problem, "Above all else..." (TM), is the lack of ideas and
the will to implement them.  Those who have ideas and implement them, will
succeed.  The hungry upstart will overtake the complacent big guy in the
market; the small company doesn't have the assets, resources and capital,
but they've got the drive, the guts to take risks, and use brainpower to
compensate for a lack of cash.

In the long run, it's ideas that win, because not everyone is hungry
enough to want to take risks against the chance of huge rewards.  Most
will remain complacent and stay with the status quo, it's 'good enough'.
Those who say that 'good enough' is the enemy of 'great', and thus will
think up ideas to do better, will win in the long term.

Look at telephony.  Where are the new phone service ideas coming from?
Has anyone implemented "take and takeback" for small businesses, where
you receive an incoming 800 call, and want to transfer it to an
associate who is on a car phone, so the called party can hit a code to
have the 800 carrier take back the call, allow the called party to
transfer the call to another number, and then that number is called,
as a conversation between the called party and the new number, or use
the code again to put it on a three-way, or the called party hangs up
to transfer the call, it remains in the carrier's system, billed to
the owner of the 800 number, but the called party's local number is
free.  The called party could "dump" the call, meaning if the third
party doesn't answer or they get a machine, they leave a message and
do not return to the original number, or they can "handoff" the call,
in which case, if the number doesn't answer, it comes back to the
original called party, perhaps staying "on hold" if their line is
busy.  If they use "three way," they are using two outgoing circuits,
so an additional per-minute rate can be imposed on that part of the
call.

Yes, you can get this in your own PBX or pay lots more for centrex
service.  But for a single-line business, is this available, perhaps
for $10 or $15 a month over the regular 800 rate?  (The carrier
shouldn't care, the customer is being billed for the time spent while
the call is being transferred and the distant party answers.) If it
is, you won't get it from AT&T, MCI or Sprint, they probably don't see
enough money in that.  But some smaller company which wants the
business can.  Or make it so that the call can come into a PC which
can send signals (perhaps using the A B C and D keys on a phone) to
activate all sorts of services.

And a large company could still use this service, too.  Just because
you have PBX service doesn't mean you want to tie up your own lines
for both an incoming and outgoing call; the phone company sells
circuits for 16c a minute or less in huge volumes, use theirs and
don't waste your own.  Let them take the extra equipment overhead, and
pay them the ridiculously low rate instead of buying extra local phone
lines.

Since this is all done in software, since you could implement the
concept with a PC with a programmable voice card, putting it on a
switch shouldn't be that much more difficult.  It's all automatic,
with voice prompts, so it doesn't require manual handling, which means
once the software upgrade cost has been paid for, the feature costs
*nothing* to make available.

There's no higher profit rate (infinite) than to sell something that's
free and charge for it!

You don't make money in any business by selling stuff or doing things
for a customer.  You make money by fulfilling the customer's needs and
charging them for it.  You figure out how to fulfil those needs by
figuring out, with what resources you have, what you can acquire, and
from new ideas to use those resources, create a means to serve the
customer, and make money at the same time.

Do it right, and you can not only bleed the customer white by what
you're charging, the poor guy will thank you for the money he's
saving!  (And he is, too!) Another win-win situation.

Making money.  It's all in thinking up new ideas and ways to implement
them.  It always has been, it always will be.  Or fail to have and use
them, mean you start to stagnate and prepare to die or go out of
business.  Failure to think has been, and always will be, the one
crime which nature punishes with the Death Penalty, to a person, or to
a company.  And no amount of legislation will ever repeal that law of
nature.


Copyright 1996, Tansin A. Darcos & Company.   Among other things,
"Above All else...We shall go on..."          we sell and service
"_And continue!"                              ideas.  Dial
                                              1-800-TDARCOS

if you are looking for ideas for something, ideas and implementation,
implementation of other people's ideas, including new products and
services your company might be able to sell, contact us.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:10:40 PDT
From: Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: N+I Conference Assessment Team


Please distribute as widely as possible:

                        Call for Volunteers:
      The NetWorld+Interop Conference Assessment Team (CAT)

Interop Company is seeking student volunteers to serve as quality
control monitors for NetWorld+Interop 95, to be held in Atlanta
September 25-29, 1995. (Conference September 27-29). This is a unique
opportunity for students to attend the industry's premier networking
conference and tradeshow, while helping us improve the quality and
consistency of the conference.

As a CAT member you will receive:

* Complimentary conference registration for all three conference days;

* Complimentary conference notes;

* Complimentary lunch all three conference days;

As a CAT member you will be asked to:

* Monitor preassigned conference sessions by submitting written
  reports and acting as the "eyes and ears" of the conference
  organizers. We will provide you with a basic evaluation form to aid
  the preparation of the reports.

(You will be free to attend any conference session and the
NetWorld+Interop exhibition when you are not assigned CAT duty, but
you will be strongly encouraged to complete evaluation forms for any
session you attend.)

* Provide an accurate count of the number of people attending the
  sessions you are assigned to. ("Clickers" will be provided!)

Successful CAT candidates will be students currently enrolled in a
computer science or electrical engineering course at undergraduate,
graduate or post-graduate level. Applicants should have some
understanding of (and interest in) computer networking issues. All
applications must be received by August 15, 1995, but note that this
program is popular, and operates on a first-come-first-served basis.

Previous CAT members are encouraged to apply again!

Please note that Interop Company cannot cover any travel or accommodation
costs associated with the CAT program, however as a CAT member you
will be eligible for the standard conference discount rate at a
number of Atlanta hotels.

Note also, that the CAT program is *separate from* the network
volunteers program organized by Interop. Participation in both is
possible, but not recommended (you won't get any sleep for a week!)

To apply, send e-mail to: [e-mail] with a *brief* biography and
relevant contact information. Don't forget to send a POSTAL address as
we need to send you a NetWorld+Interop program. Please include your
postal address at the *end of your message* in the following plain
form:

John Applicant
Flymore University
1234 Main Street
Sometown, MN 98765

Only ONE applicant per message please!

****PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS MESSAGE IN YOUR REPLY!!****


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher, ConneXions--The Interoperability Report,
Interop Company, a division of SOFTBANK Expos, 303 Vintage Park Drive,
Foster City, CA 94404-1138, USA. Ph: [phone] Fax: +1 (415)
525-0194.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 12:11:17 PDT
From: Ole J. Jacobsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: N+I BOFs


                 NetWorld+Interop 95 Atlanta: BOFs

Following a long tradition, we will once again offer the opportunity
for interested parties to meet and discuss topics of mutual interest
in Birds of a Feather (BOF) sessions. The venue is NetWorld+Interop 95
Atlanta. This time, BOFs will be held Wednesday and Thursday nights,
September 27th and 28th, from 7:30pm until 9:30pm. All BOFs will take
place at the Georgia World Congress Center.

BOFs provide attendees with an opportunity to discuss networking
issues in an informal, after hours, atmosphere. BOFs have become a
forum for users to meet with other users and with implementation
experts. These sessions are not intended for formal presentations, and
certainly NOT for vendor product presentations, but rather as a forum
for discussions of "unsolved problems." BOFs are open to all
Networld+Interop attendees, including Exhibition attendees, and no
special registration is necessary. Examples of some BOF topics from
previous Interop events include:

o Network Device Performance Testing
o Internet information tools (WWW, Gopher, WAIS, Archie....)
o Internet Firewalls and Hackers
o SNMP Testing
o Fast Ethernet Standards
o Networked multimedia systems
o Resource Reservations Protocols
o Using Facsimile Devices around the World as Remote Printers
o The Internet and K-12 schools

To suggest a topic for a BOF at NetWorld+Interop 95 Atlanta please
send a 50 word abstract along with the name and e-mail of a contact
person (BOF moderator) to Ole Jacobsen ([e-mail]) as soon as
possible. Space is limited, first come, first served.

For your information, the following is a sample BOF description:

Internet Firewalls and Hackers

In the wake of recent well-publicized hacking attacks, interest has
grown in the hacker's methods and the tools used to exclude them. The
use of firewalls and one-time password schemes can foil most common
hacking schemes. This BOF will be an informal interactive discussion
of hacking techniques, and the various tools and approaches commonly
used to implement a denial-of-hacker service. It will undoubtedly
include war stories and firewall designs and philosophy.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher, ConneXions--The Interoperability Report,
Interop Company, a division of SOFTBANK Expos, 303 Vintage Park Drive,
Foster City, CA 94404-1138, USA. Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone].

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #301
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26389;
          6 Jul 95 23:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27137 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 6 Jul 1995 17:13:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27129; Thu, 6 Jul 1995 17:13:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 17:13:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #302

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Jul 95 17:13:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 302

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Using Email Effectively" by Lamb/Peek (Rob Slade)
    DSP and Telecom Speaker Invited ([e-mail])
    Testing Access to +44 7010 From Outside UK (R.N. King)
    Warning! Fake Version of PKZIP Will Delete Your Hard Drive ([e-mail])
    314 Stays in St. Louis; 573 to Outstate MO (Wally Bloss)
    Pager Phone Numbers (Steve Kass)
    Quantum Non-Leap? (Dr. Rich Artym)
    Conference: Computer Telephony, July 24-26, Chicago ([e-mail])

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 14:54:05 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Using Email Effectively" by Lamb/Peek


BKUEMLEF.RVW   950510

"Using Email Effectively", Linda Lamb/Jerry Peek, 1995, 1-56592-103-8, U$14.95
%A   Linda Lamb
%A   Jerry Peek
%C   103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA   95472
%D   1995
%G   1-56592-103-8
%I   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O   U$14.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   146
%T   "Using Email Effectively"

This is about email at its most generic: in-house, Internet or BBS, it
doesn't matter.  Specific examples are given from mail, mush, MH, Elm,
Pine, Z-mail, Endora and cc:Mail, but most of the material is conceptual,
and not keystroke-dependent.

Contents include basic operations, netiquette, productivity tips,
organizing mail, network addressing, mailing lists, customizations,
extra touches (signatures, smileys, etc.) and non-text files.  The
book is short, and therefore easy to read.  While it is difficult to
suggest that they should be added, I did notice that items which might
be helpful (such as the preparation of messages with word processors,
or the injunction against commercial broadcasts) are either missing or
only minimally covered.

An interesting and useful feature is the inclusion of marginal
anecdotes and comments, mostly by other O'Reilly staff.  Since
communication is personal, and email usage even more so, this adds
very important balance to the work.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKUEMLEF.RVW   950510. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]         | "Kill all: God will know his own."
Institute for  [e-mail]      |       - originally spoken by Papal
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z12/ |         Legate Bishop Arnald-Amalric
User                      .fidonet.org  |         of Citeaux, at the siege of
Security       Canada V7K 2G6           |         Beziers, 1209 AD

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

From: [e-mail] (GAO)
Subject: DSP and Telecom Speaker Invited
Date: 6 Jul 1995 12:17:33 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org)


Dear Netters,

We are looking for about two more high profile speakers for:

    "Conference on DSPs in Telecom"
    at Canadian High Technology Show
    Organized By the IEEE
        and
    GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.

Enclosed is a list of planned topics. We have candidate speakers for
topics 1 to 4. We are looking for speakers for the last two topics/
"DSP-Based Telecom Systems (Applications).
One could be an overview or a discussion of several related systems
One could be focused on one system"

The candidate speakers must have extensive experiences in DSPs and
telecom, and must be managers of reputable companies. If you would
like to recommend somebody or yourself, please feel free to contact
us. You are also welcome to suggest speakers for topics 1 to 4. We are
looking for the best ones for the best interests of our audiences.


Best regards,

Frank Gao, Ph.D.
GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.io.org/~gao


    "Conference on DSPs in Telecom"
    at Canadian High Technology Show
    Organized By the IEEE
        and
    GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.

Location: International Centre, Toronto
Date:  September 19, 1995, all day

Planned Topics

Topic 1:  An Overview of DSPs and Support from One Major DSP Vendor

Topic 2:  An Overview of DSPs and Support from Another Major DSP Vendor

Topic 3:  Digital Signal Processing in Digital Telephony and Data Communication
Abstract: The markets for digital telephony and data communication are rapidly
expanding. This talk presents an overview of the digital signal processing
functions required by digital telephony, data communications, discusses
implementation issues, and finally analyzes some commercially available
products for digital signal processors.

Topic 4: Speech Processing and Its Applications in Telecom
Abstract: This talk presents the principles of speech processing
functions such as speech recognition, text to speech conversion,
speech enhancement, speech coding and speech recognition.
Applications in telecom will also be discussed.

Two Topics on DSP-Based Telecom Systems (Applications)
One could be an overview or a discussion of several related systems
One could be focused on one system

This is a tentative agenda. For more or updated info, please contact:

Dr. Frank Gao
GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.
Unit 204, 55 Nugget Avenue
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1S 3L1
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.io.org/~gao

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 08:48:28 +0100
From: [e-mail] (700 Telecommunications)
Subject: Testing Access to +44 7010 From Outside UK


Telecom Readers: We are looking for some assistance. Why not help us?

We want to conduct a test of access to our UK 07- numbers for life
from carriers outside the UK. (We know that access is working from BT,
Mercury and other UK carriers, so UK callers need not participate).

You can join the test by calling [phone] at any time of day
or night after July 5th 1995. Your normal international rates will
apply and your call should take less than a minute, if you are quick.

First of all, call [phone] --- e.g. from the USA you might
dial (10xxx) 011-44-7010-7011-12.

If you succesfully reach a live operator, simply tell him or her that you
want to log a message in the form: "701 OK from <name> at <your telephone
number>." The operator will read back your message. Please use the interna-
tional standard format when quoting your telephone number to the
operator. e.g. [phone] or [phone]).

If you don't wish to leave your name and full number, you don't have to.
Just substitute the letters 'abcd', 'xxxx' or something similar for the last
our digits of your number, but please do let us know the country-code and
area code you are calling from at the very least.

If you are calling from a country where there is more than one carrier,
please also include the name of the carrier you used in your test message.
We are particularly interested in the results you get when using smaller
carriers. When the results are known, we may post a summary of how the
test went, if that would be of interest to readers.

Your test message would go something like:

 "701 OK from [phone] USING MCI 10222" or
 "701 OK from [phone] on Bell Cellular"

NOTE: IF YOUR CALL TO [phone] DOES NOT COMPLETE (AND
PARTICULARLY IF YOU RECEIVE A LOCAL INTERCEPT ASKING YOU TO INSERT A '1'
AFTER THE 44, please do the following.

(1)      Retry the call, but instead use the following number
        [phone].

        If _this_ call completes, then please ask the operator to log a
        message as follows:
           "701 NOGOOD FROM [phone] VIA <carrier>

        (N.B. In the very exceptional circumstance that a call to +44 956
701         112 also does not complete, then please send us email to
[e-mail], giving us as much information as possible
        about the circumstances of your attempt.)

(2)     Report a fault to your LOCAL carrier that calls to [phone]
are not completing, and they should update their routing and fix it.
        Note: 7010 is a new area code in the UK which was introduced on
07/June/1995. It is NOT 01701, no matter what your local carrier
        might think!

[If do you try to dial [phone] or even [phone], it will
not work. If does, tell us immediately!. You should get a message telling
you o omit the '1' after the '44']

Please note that this test will cease on the 10th July 1995. After that time
we will probably route the test number to a non-working number.

R N King ([e-mail])
FleXtel Dept, 700-TEL


For full details on FleXtel telephone numbers for life in the UK see our
World Wide Web pages at http://www.gold.net/users/cw78.
If you link to our pages, tell us! We'll link to yours.

700 Telecommunications.    tel: [phone]-TEL     fax:[phone]-FAX


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I attempted this at 1630 GMT this date
via MCI and ATT -- both failed. In the case of ATT (my one-plus carrier),
the ATT operator tried in a very nice way to help me but kept failing to
get through. MCI likewise failed. We have since talked on the phone in
more details about the test. It appears all the USA carriers are claiming
a '1' is needed after the '44', and once you give them the digit '1' then
they don't like that either!   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:03:53 -0400 (GMT-0400)
From: Jonathan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Warning! Fake Version of PKZIP Will Delete Your Hard Drive


I received the following in the mail.  I do not know whether or not it
is credible.  It could be a false alarm, but I am sending it to you
just in case.

 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 22:06:03 -0230 (NDT)
 From: Jeannie Howse <[e-mail]>
 To: <[e-mail]> et al.
 Subject: NOTICE: Fake version of PKZIP will delete your hard drive. (fwd)

 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:03:41 -0300 (ADT)
 From:[e-mail]
 Subject: NOTICE: Fake version of PKZIP will delete your hard drive.


Greetings everyone,

FYI: The following is from Patrick Weeks, Product Support, PKWARE, Inc.:

"Some joker out there is distributing a file called PKZ300B.EXE and
PKZ300B.ZIP. This is NOT a version of PKZIP and it will try to erase your
hard drive if you use it. The most recent version  of PKZIP is 2.04G. Please
tell all your friends and favorite BBS stops about this hack."

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

Please tell all your friends, family and neighbors about this one.

The isis Staff


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is something. Take a well known piece
of software *and name your virus by the same name*. Then download it to
all your favorite BBSs and other networks as an 'updated version of the
program'. Eager users everywhere download the revision and try to run it
in place of their existing version only to see thier hard drive get wiped
out. I've offered so many people a special place to sit in Hell I do hope
there is still a little room left to create another special place for the
person who thought this one up.  PKZIP is great stuff ... if -- it now
appears -- you can tell the real one from the fake one.  I wonder if other
well known software packages will be messed with in this way?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 314 Stays in St Louis, 573 to Outstate MO
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 08:11:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


The Mo Public Service Commission voted 4 to 0 to divide the 314 area
code and NOT overlay. St Louis and suburbs (how far out was not in
the newspaper article) will retain 314, about 1,000,000 people.  Rural
Eastern Mo will move to 573, permissivly 1/1/96, mandated 7/1/96.
Cities getting 573 would include the State Capital Jefferson City,
Columbia, Mexico, Fulton, Cape Girardeau (Rush's home town :-9) and
Hannibal. Two month of lobbying by SW Bell in favor or of overlays
were to no avail, the idea of dialing an area code to reach a neighbor
was very unpopular. AN interesting point made included the fact that 7
digits numbers are not in danger of running out, but NXX prefixes
are. In other words many small towns only use 700 to 1500 of the
10,000 numbers (or so) in a NXX, and there was some discussion given
to prefix sharing (!).


Wally Bloss   WB0BAV
A Human   St Joe MO

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 13:59:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pager Phone Numbers


I bought a pager a couple of weeks ago, and I have two questions about
the pager's phone numbers.  I have two numbers, 201-905-XXXX and
917-424-XXXX, for the pager, both of which work fine.  But ...

First question: Some phones in Manhattan (NYNEX ones are all I use)
won't complete a call to the 917 number.  I get an almost
incomprehensible message over loud static saying to hang up and
deposit 25c (which I have done), and no matter what I do, the phone
neither takes my money nor connects to the paging service.  These
phones do take coins for calls in the 212 area code.

Is this yet another aspect of the war on drugs, like the phones
that disconnect when too many tones go over the lines?  I can
complete the call using a (non-RBOC) calling card, but I haven't
done all the possible experiments.

Second question: The 201-905 number is, according to the pager
service, "toll-free" within my LATA, though the phone book lists it as
a Newark prefix.  I guess Bell Atlantic can figure this out for
billing purposes, but my business can't.  I get billed 14c per call
when I use my personal authorization code at work.  Since even "local"
calls from business lines cost something, how much is my workplace
being charged for these calls, which they resell to me at 14c a pop?

In fact, if anyone can give an overview of this "LATA-wide" exchange,
I'd be interested.  It seems like it would be a useful kind of phone
number to have, just in general.  Can individuals get them?  What to
they cost to the owner of the number?  How are they billed from
outside the LATA?


Steve Kass/ Drew University/ [e-mail]

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

From: Dr. Rich Artym <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quantum Non-Leap?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 95 22:07:05 GMT
Organization: Galacta Institute for Computer Rights
Reply-To: [e-mail]


When fibre finally made it out of the research labs and became
standard technology for PTTs, it seemed quite clear that the increase
in line capacity of three or four orders of magnitude that it would
bring would mean that the raw cost of bandwidth on fibred links would
fall, and that as more and more of the network went over to fibre,
this change would start to be felt at consumer level.

Nobody ever expected PTTs to reduce their end-user prices by three or
four orders of magnitude of course, as there are many other factors in
the equation to consider.  Indeed, I'd guess that nobody expected any
significant fall in average household telecomms bills at all.  What a
lot of people DID expect, however, was that vastly more bandwidth
would become available to the end consumer at more-or-less unchanging
per-minute price levels.

This hasn't happened.  Why?  Since the customer has not benefited by
orders of magnitude from the change to fibre, neither through quantum
price reductions nor quantum increased bandwidth, who has reaped the
benefits from the quantum leap in carrying capacity?

Some suggest that the PTTs are transfixed with a cost-per-voice-line
mentality, and so can't increase bandwidth delivered to the data end user
without reducing their charges to the voice-line customer, which is a
complete no-no and hence a show-stopper for the data brigade that want
fast digital links.  (ISDN is badly hampered by this pricing philosophy.)
Others suggest that the PTTs see bandwidth availability as a way to get
them into the entertainment market, and fast data as just a red herring,
or bandwidth as a weapon for pressure politics (that's BT for you).

Anyway, that's how it seems from the ground level, very disappointing.
If anyone has any grounds for optimism in this area, I suspect that many
wearily-waiting consumers would be most interested to hear the details.


Dr. Rich Artym  ================  PGP public key available
Internet: [e-mail]     DNS 158.152.156.137
          rich@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org   DNS 44.131.164.1
NTS/BBS : g7exm@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
Fun     : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
NTS   #  More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London

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

From: ICM Conferences <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference: Computer Telephony, July 24-26, Chicago
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 19:04:29 -0700
Organization: DigiLink Network Services


                     COMPUTER TELEPHONY INTEGRATION
                               SOLUTIONS
                           July 24 & 25, 1995
                  Post-Conference Workshop July 26,1995
               The Executive Plaza Hotel Chicago, Illinois

ICM Conferences, Inc. (http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/), in
association with Enterprise Communications, announces an unprecedented event
featuring the companies who successfully implemented a CTI application and
the providers of the technology that made it possible.  The experiences of
these key contributors will serve as the foundation of information presented
at this exclusive executive conference, including:

   *  Designing and Implementing a CTI System

   *  Using CTI to meet and surpass your business objectives

   *  Cutting Costs and Improving Customer Service

   *  Plus...Experience the Latest Products, Services, and Technologies

You should attend this event if you are involved in:

  o  Call center, customer service center, or telemarketing management
  o  Telecom, datacom, and MIS/ DP management
  o  Catalog, mail order and database marketing
  o  Service Bureaus and messaging services
  o  Reservations and operator service centers
  o  Carrier and CO-ACD, centers and product/services
  o  VARS, VADS and systems integration
  o  Software applications development
  o  Computer and switch manufacturing
  o  Voice and call processing systems manufacturing and sales

Content and Theme:

In today's competitive business environment customers are demanding and
getting better customer service than ever before.  That's because businesses
are taking advantage of voice/ data solutions to help create better
relationships with their customers.  Companies with CTI are making themselves
easier to do business with and becoming more competitive as a result. After
extensive research, ICM has prepared a program identifying the pressing
problems facing companies implementing CTI and packed their experiences into
a two-day event:

  o  Focus on which CTI applications can be used to reduce costs and
        improve customer service within your organization.
  o  Examine how to redesign and prepare your organization for your CTI
        application.
  o  Determine the way in which CTI can be used for your existing market
        channels.
  o  Utilize an ACD for centralizing call answering, queing, and
        processing.
  o  Develop an effective outbound CTI system for your business objectives.
  o  Assess the different technologies for integrating IVR with the ACD
        and your database.

Post Conference Workshop, July 26, 1995

This comprehensive workshop will allow you a hands-on oppportunity to work
through actual examples of designing and implementing a CTI system.

It also covers the practical issues associated with CTI system planning,
design and operation, application program creation, software expense,
availability, access, training and maintenance.

The data has been divided into five key sessions including an improved
understanding of basic CTI components, an in-depth examination of CTI on a
business, application and technology level and a case study of an
organization that has implemented its own CTI development.

If you would like more detailed information, including a list of speakers,
sent to you automatically via fax, you can make an Online Inquiry at
http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/oninq.html.  If you do not have WWW
access, or if you have specific questions, you can contact ICM Conferences,
Inc. directly at [e-mail], or [phone].


International Communications for Management Conferences, Inc. (ICM)
 ICM Conference Guide:  http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #302
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa11605;
          7 Jul 95 18:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11096 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:03:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11088; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:03:11 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:03:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #303

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jul 95 11:03:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 303

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    LATA-Wide Numbers (was Re: Pager Phone Numbers) (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Pager Phone Numbers (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: Pager Phone Numbers (Jim Holmes)
    Your Personal Weatherman by Phone (Alex van Es)
    Washington Post Report on 800 Number Shortage (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    International Phone Number Formats? (Karsten Self)
    Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers/ Problems in Business (David Fiedler)
    Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers/ Problems in Business (Steve Bunning)
    Modem Simulators - Do They Exist? (Brian Goetz)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: LATA-Wide Numbers (was Re: Pager Phone Numbers)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:16:39 ELT
Organization: BBN Planet Corp.


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

> In fact, if anyone can give an overview of this "LATA-wide" exchange,
> I'd be interested.  It seems like it would be a useful kind of phone
> number to have, just in general.  Can individuals get them?  What to
> they cost to the owner of the number?  How are they billed from
> outside the LATA?

I can't speak for BA/New Jersey Bell, but I've seen the NYNEX/MA
offering.  They have a service called "Feature Group 2A" which
provides for one-rate calling around the entire LATA.  The basic idea
is that you must get a T1 circuit (at least one) into each of the
NYNEX toll centers in the LATA (we have five in LATA 128, Eastern
Mass.).  A prefix is set up in either NPA (we have two, 508 and 617)
which is not charged to callers.

Usage is charged at about three cents per minute (I don't recall the
exact rate) for both incoming and outgoing calls.  Fairly hefty
minimums apply, since this is a bunch of T1s.  So the owner of the
FG2A can call anywhere in the LATA for about 3c/min, or take calls for
the same price.

While this is generally available, I suspect its primary user is NYNEX
Mobile, for its cellular access.  Cellular One charges wireline usage
on top of its airtime, based on local or toll usage charges to its
POPs, but NYNEX Mobile has flat calling rates to anywhere in the LATA.


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA  USA   [phone]
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 06:27:47 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Re: Pager Phone Numbers


In TD302 [e-mail] (Steve Kass) wrote about his pager numbers.
He mentioned the 'toll free' number he has in the 201-905 exchange.

'Toll Free' by the old 1-800 definition is 'no long distance charges'.
We have several LATA wide 'Toll Free' exchanges here in Michigan, for
pagers and cell phones, where the caller pays 'for a local call'
instead of 'long distance' charges.

If your business pays a metered per call rate on local calls they will
(most likely) pay the SAME local rate on this 'toll free' exchange.
In my small town all business lines pay 10c per local call, metered
home lines pay 4c.  Calls to Michigan's 'toll free' exchanges are
charged the metered rate.

Every time a person borrows a business phone for a 'local' call in
this town it costs the business 10c.  Now you know why we install
payphones and hide the business phones out of reach!

An interesting exception is in Indiana.  GTE Mobilnet and Sprint
Cellular phone numbers are literally free calls from most Telco
payphones.  (I haven't tested any of the other company's prefixes.)
The local cellular numbers can be dialed WITHOUT COIN from phones in
GTE, Ameritech, and United Telephone teritories throughout Indiana.
Roamers access is also available, just in case the number you want is
usually 'long distance'.  This did not work from all the phones I
called from, but did work from MOST.  (I checked phones in Eastern and
Central Indiana.  BTW You can bet no private payphone I tried honored
the 'free' calls, and you'll win.)

I assume that GTE Mobilnet and Sprint Cellular (and any other company
offering these 'LATA wide toll-free numbers') are paying the long
distance portion of the call.  Then they just add it to the rate base
for using your cellular phone / pagers.

There is no such thing as a free call.  You must pay monthly telephone
service, after paying to have the line installed and buying the
instrument.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:47:08 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Jim Holmes)
Subject: Re: Pager Phone Numbers


[e-mail] writes:

> Second question: The 201-905 number is, according to the pager
> service, "toll-free" within my LATA, though the phone book lists it as
> a Newark prefix.  I guess Bell Atlantic can figure this out for
> billing purposes, but my business can't.  I get billed 14c per call
> when I use my personal authorization code at work.  Since even "local"
> calls from business lines cost something, how much is my workplace
> being charged for these calls, which they resell to me at 14c a pop?

> In fact, if anyone can give an overview of this "LATA-wide" exchange,
> I'd be interested.  It seems like it would be a useful kind of phone
> number to have, just in general.  Can individuals get them?  What to
> they cost to the owner of the number?  How are they billed from
> outside the LATA?

This type of service is known as 2A or 3A (Depending on where you are
and how it's tarrifed). This service was designed for Paging companies
when the 800 (SMS) database come online.

The number IS toll-free LATA wide and billed just like a normal number
from that CO.

The service is sold to RCC's (Paging) by the exchange. An individual
cannot "buy" one from telco but a creative RCC can put whatever
enhanced services they want on it as long as the number is tied to a
pager in one way or another.

One of the services I had laid out at my former company, was
time-of-day routing (9-5 voicemail/pager, 5-10 home, 10-9 ansering
service, etc.)

We never did implament this but it is a valid use for 2A/3A numbers.


Jim Holmes

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:33:08 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alex van Es)
Subject: Your Personal Weatherman by Phone


For a long time the number to dial for the weather in the Netherlands
was 06-8003. Dialing this number will give you a recording, updated
every few hours telling you the latest weather. Despite the fact that
the Netherlands is a tiny country, the recording was never really
accurate.

Starting July 6th there is a new service now in the Netherlands,
making it possible to speak to someone at the MET office and he or she
is able to tell you what kind of weather you can expect in your town.
The odd thing about this new service is that it works via the
nationwide SCOPE card access number (06-0101) making this service only
available for the owners of the SCOPE card (a dutch telecom issued
calling card). Costs for calling the weather are almost US $3,00 a
minute. More services like this can soon be expected (e.g. legal aid
en medical aid by phone). Rates can go up to US $6,00 a minute.


[e-mail], Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Phone:[phone]  Pager:[phone] (CT-2 Greenpoint)

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:56:59 -0400
Subject: Washington Post Report on 800 Number Shortage


FYI, a recent report in the {Washington Post} which should be of
interest to Digest readers. Several folks forwarded this to me
over the past couple of days.

PAT

                  =====================

Popularity  Takes Toll on 800 Numbers  As Supply Dwindles, Phone Companies
Turn to New 888 Prefix.

The Washington Post, July 05, 1995, FINAL Edition
By: Mike Mills, Washington Post Staff Writer
Section: A SECTION, p. A01
Story Type: News National


"For more information, just dial toll-free 1-888-...."

Wait a minute. Toll-free 1-888?

   Right now you may not think of 888 as the designation for toll-free
calls, but early next year, you will.

   To cope with a rapidly depleting reserve of available toll-free 800
numbers, caused by increasing demand from businesses, pagers, modems
and faxes, North American phone companies will add the new prefix 888
to designate toll-free calls starting next April.

   The change will cause grief for retailers, who must convince
themselves and their customers that 888 is just as useful a service as
800, which will continue to exist. It also poses a problem for phone
companies, which face the task of upgrading tens of thousands of
switches to accept the 888 area code.  When the 888 numbers are
exhausted, the industry plans to add 877, then 866 and so on.

   "Everybody's going to be affected by this," said Daniel Briere,
president of TeleChoice Inc., a telecommunications consulting firm in
Verona, N.J. "No one goes through the week without placing an 800
call."

   Sensing the end is near for new 800 numbers, a panic of sorts
ensued last month when the nation's largest long-distance and local
phone companies with access to the database of available 800 numbers
began to stockpile unused number combinations. Those companies
together typically reserve roughly 30,000 new 800 numbers every week
from the database, but in one week in early June they requested
113,000 numbers.

   At that rate, the 800-number pool might have dried up by the end of
this month, so the industry called in federal regulators to guard the
cache of roughly 900,000 remaining 800 numbers. The Federal
Communications Commission immediately put tight limits on how many 800
numbers could be requested.  Now, FCC officials say, the dwindling
supply should hold out until next April.

   Few marketing devices have been as successful as the toll-free 800
number, which was introduced by AT&T Corp. in 1967 and adopted by
competitors after the breakup of the Bell System in 1984. Their use
has exploded since May 1993, when the FCC ordered carriers to make 800
numbers "portable," meaning businesses could keep their numbers even
when they switched phone companies.

   Just as people instantly recognize 911 as the digits to dial for
emergencies, so they know that 800 numbers signify freedom from toll
charges.  This year roughly $135 billion in goods and services will be
sold over 800 numbers, according to Briere (whose own toll-free number
is 1-800-DANNYBR).

   Businesses spend nearly $10 billion annually to maintain 800 lines,
according to the FCC.  People use 800 numbers to book reservations,
buy merchandise or call to complain about a product. Politicians use
them to raise funds. Parents acquire 800 numbers so their kids can
call them any time.

   Toll-free numbers are so common in business that it's unusual for a
consumer-reliant company not to have one. Walt Disney Co., for
example, doesn't offer an 800 number for reservations to its theme
parks -- its customers foot the bill when dialing 1-407-WDISNEY.

   The switch to 888 poses the most serious problem for businesses
whose identities are often reflected in their 800 numbers. American
Express, for example, has 1-800-THE-CARD.  Teleway Inc.  of Westbury,
N.Y., operates 1-800-FLOWERS.  Those companies and others next year
might be trumped by competitors who reserve those same numbers with an
888 area code.

   But retailers worry that 888 numbers will lack the instant
recognition of an 800 number.  In a study he plans to release next
week, Briere found that even when consumers are told there is no
difference between an 888 number and an 800 number, they will purchase
Mother's Day flowers from the business with the 800 number even if it
costs them more.

   "Think about people who will be forced to launch services on 888
numbers," Briere said.  "They may have to charge less for their
services simply because they don't have an 800 number."

   Retailers or consumers who want an 800 number typically call their
local or long-distance telephone companies, which are among the 138
so-called responsible organizations that have access to the North
American database of 800 numbers. The database is operated by a unit
of Bellcore, the research group owned by the regional Bell companies,
known as Database Service Management Inc.

   Of the 7.7 million usable combinations of numbers with the 800
prefix, about 6.3 million are being used as working phone numbers,
while another 500,000 are either reserved, assigned, disconnected or
otherwise unavailable. That means roughly 90 percent of the possible
800 numbers are spoken for.

   The database operated on the honor system with no enforceable rules
against hoarding 800 numbers -- that is, until last month's panic when
companies pulled 113,000 numbers from the kitty.

   On July 1, the FCC began limiting each company to a small portion
of numbers every week, based on its share of the 800-services market.
Canadian companies that partake of the 800 reserve are not beholden to
the FCC, and presumably still operate on the honor system.

   "We're going to check the cupboards and the closets to see if there
are 800 numbers tucked away that we can make available for new use,"
said Kathleen Wallman, chief of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau. "If we
didn't get in there, there would be no more numbers to talk about."

   MCI Communications Corp., based in the District, led the raid on
the 800-number treasury by pulling about 75,000 numbers out of
circulation the week of June 5.  MCI officials said they have a
customer for every one of those numbers, and deny allegations by
competitors that they were stockpiling.

   Most of MCI's numbers went to paging companies, MCI officials said.
MCI is offering paging service through PageNet, a company that
promotes personal 800 numbers for paging customers.

   Personal 800 numbers give paging companies a marketing advantage:
Most paging companies put hundreds of customers on a single 800
number, and require their callers to punch in a multi-digit personal
identification number to reach their party.

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jul 95 13:53:03 CST
From: Karsten Self <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Phone Number Formats?


Pat Townsend:

I received your name through the SAS-L mail list.

My company has recently begun international operations, and is facing
the problem of accomodating international phone numbers in our
databases (eg: numbers not fitting the (xxx) xxx-xxxx format).

Do you know of a source listing all (or prevelent) international phone
number formats and/or protocols?


Thank you.

Karsten M. Self   [e-mail]    916.374.3844
Analytic Consulting Dept / HealthCare COMPARE Corp
750 Riverpoint Drive, West Sacramento, CA  USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You might want to take a look at the
'country.codes' files in the Telecom Archives and see if those are
of value for your work. We have a very comprehensive and complete
list of country codes and city codes there. The archives is located
at lcs.mit.edu and is accessible using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.
When connected, login anonymous, using your name@site as password,
then 'cd telecom-archives'.  Carl Moore and David Leibold are the
persons responsible for this collection of files.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 11:51:57 PDT
From: David Fiedler <[e-mail]>
Organization: "InfoPro Systems: Writers, Consultants, and Dragons"
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I expect certain people will take advantage of the consumer confusion
 -- remember the 1-800-OPERATER business? -- and base their telemarketing
operations in the 818 area code so as to deliberately confuse the
public into thinking they're toll-free as well. The confusion would
be, of course, between the new, less familiar 888 and the 818 code,
which sounds similar but is not as widely known.  I believe there's an
808 code, too, which would be even better for this sort of operation.


David Fiedler Internet:[e-mail] Phone:[phone]
FAX:[phone] USMail:InfoPro Systems/Advanced Media Productions, PO
Box 220, Rescue, CA 95672 Music/flying/cool links! Start at
http://spider.lloyd.com/~dragon/david.html Bronx H.S.  of Science
Alumni Mailing List: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is an 808 area code, and it would
be ideal for scams like you suggest. It is located on Midway Island, where
the weather is always pleasant and where, while not totally out of reach
of any angry consumer, few people would bother to push things too hard
because of the relative obscurity of the place.  To add to the confusion
most folks who know *something* about the phone system would assume that
an 808 number had to be in Hawaii (most are, but not all.)    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 15:08:15 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Steve Bunning)
Subject: Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business


Recently Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ... Makes me wonder how much of the 888 area code is going to be
> taken up by companies with 800 numbers buying the identical number in
> the 888 area code to keep someone else from piggybacking on their
> number. ...

I've always assumed that any company with a "good" 800 vanity number such as
1-800-FLOWERS or 1-800-THE CARD would try to be first in line to get the
equivalent 888 number. If you look at the cost, it's insignificant.  Less
than $200 per year over and above what they are already paying for the 800
number.  Carriers may even start offering "2 for 1" deals where they will
carry the 800 and 888 equivalent for a reduced price.

Perhaps we should give anyone with an 800 number a first right of
refusal for the 888 number.  I see two problems.  First, it
immediately would use up a lot of the 888 numbers.  It's anyone's
guess how many, but I would bet almost all companies with a nationally
advertised 800 number would pick up the 888 number if they could.
This somewhat defeats the purpose of the alternate, using up many of
the numbers as mere place holders, not carrying significant traffic.

Second, it would prevent some companies who want a good vanity number
from getting one.  The nudists at 1-888-VIE BARE (a.k.a. THE CARD) or
the telepaths at 1-888-FLOW ESP (a.k.a. FLOWERS) would forever be
grandfathered out of numbers they want.  It's bad enough being
relegated to a second class 888 number or a third class 866 number,
but having one that spells nothing is worse.

If we don't give the current 800 number holders first right of
refusal, there is going to be an incredible stampede for these
numbers.  IXCs could try to grab all of the 888 equivalents on behalf
of their current customers and then try to sell these customers on
purchasing the numbers after the fact.  There is no real cost for an
IXC to reserve an 888 number and then abandon it, so why not?  Less
scrupulous carriers or companies could try to get the 888 equivalents
of popular numbers and then contact the 800 number holders to have
them ransom the numbers.  Handling the reservations for the 888
numbers under first-come first-served rules will likely be a
nightmare.

I know, maybe we should have a lottery or an auction! :-) It's
beginning to sound a lot like spectrum allocation all over again.  In
any case, it should make for an interesting year.


Steve Bunning    | American Computer and Elec. Corp.| 301 258-9850 (voice)
Product Manager  | 209 Perry Parkway                | 301 921-0434 (fax)
TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20877       | [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Goetz)
Subject: Modem Simulators - Do They Exist?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 13:27:40 -0700
Organization: Quiotix Corporation


We are testing our dialup remote access software, so we have several
computers in our lab calling each other up repeatedly via modem.  I
know there exist telephone line simulators which we can use in this
situation, so we don't have to tie up two phone lines.

Is there any device which does this one better, and simulates not only
the phone line, but the modems at either end?  Such a device would
have two serial ports, and would look (to the attached systems) like
modems; e.g., when you sent ATDT xxx into one port, it would establish
the connection (to the other port) and light up the ring indicator
signal on the other side, etc.  Not only would this be more convenient
than a phone line simulator (because we don't need the two modems, and
call setup would be faster) but it should be *cheaper* than a phone
line simulator too, since it doesn't need any of the phone analog
circuitry.

Does anyone know if such a device exists, and if so, who makes them or
sells them?

If not, can anybody tell us who makes the cheapest, bare-bones phone
line simulators that would be adequate for use by modems for in-house
testing purposes?


Thanks,

Brian Goetz      Quiotix Corporation
[e-mail]   Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #303
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12252;
          7 Jul 95 20:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14212 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:52:19 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14204; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:52:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:52:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #304

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jul 95 12:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 304

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ATT FAX/Mail (Darren Alex Griffiths)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Danny Burstein)
    1-888 Advertising (James E. Bellaire)
    ISDN/In-Band Conversion Equipment (Marcelle Kors)
    Re: Running Out of "800" Numbers (Martin Kooij)
    What do Small Consumers Think of Long-Distance Competition? (M. Shames)
    Re: Writing a Network Performance Application (Marthin Laubscher)
    Telegraphy: What is This Phenomena? (Matthew A. Earley)
    Let's Discuss Real Time Conferencing CAD (Clinton S. Gallagher)
    Bell Canada Local Measured Service (Ron Kawchuk)
    Help Identify Mystery Hardware (Motorola Codex 2205?) (Bill Bradford)
    How do Digital Cordless Phones Work? (Gordon Mitchell)
    Last Laugh! When 888 Equals 800 (Will Middelaer)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Subject: ATT FAX/Mail
Date: 5 Jul 1995 22:56:55 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, Inc.


I just called AT&T to get more information on their Fax/Mail service.
Basically this is a service that allows people to send you a fax via a
fax mailbox, they call up a number and send the fax as normal, when
you are ready to receive the fax you call the same number, enter a PIN
and the number of a fax machine and the fax is forwarded to you.  As I
understand it you are charged for this service on a per-page basis,
with perhaps a low (<$10) monthly fee.

Unfortunately AT&T has discontinued the service, and I was hoping
someone out there could point me in the direction of another provider.
I know I could do this with computers and fax modems, and I have
plenty of both, however I'm more interested in purchasing the service
than setting it up myself.


Thanks for any help,

Alex Griffiths    Senior Software Engineer
Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]
408-456-7815  (office, but I'm never there, send email)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think MCI also offers fax mailbox
service. Ameritech offers fax mailbox as well through local distributors
in the Chicago area.    PAT]

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 21:36:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report


Patrick, consumer education *is* on the FCC's 888 Implementation
agenda.  Obviously, consumers will need to understand that 888 is as
toll free as 800.

Beyond that, Paul Robinson's suggestions don't even begin to address
the problem that marketers using existing 800 numbers will have.
American Express has no way at all to insure that it will get
1-888-THE CARD.  If Visa gets it, what is American Express to do?  It
won't be any comfort that the consumer will know that both are free.

And before you tell me you have trouble weeping for the problems of
the Fortune 500, what about the consumer trying to call American
Express, and getting Visa instead?

Nobody knows how much, or even whether, trademark protection will
help, but it won't help at all if the lucky winner of 1-888-THE CARD
uses it to market a somewhat different product.

Actually, Paul's suggestions could promote the confusion.

> "Remember 888 is the same as 800.  And it's coming soon.  It will work the
> same way."

> (Logo below, "888=800.  Remember that...")

Rather than distinguish between 800 and 888, this copy assumes that
800 THE CARD and 888 THE CARD *will* both ring to American Express.
The whole problem is that that assumption is entirely unwarranted.

Finally, participation and solutions from ALL sectors is encouraged,
and I think with some finetuning (including appropriate legal counsel),
Paul may be able to help some advertisers get on the right track.

But, there's not a marketer, major or minor, who doesn't need to put
it's efforts where the real problem is -- obtaining their comparable
888 numbers -- either via FCC rulemaking, "luck" of the draw -- or
secondary market acquisition.

Anything less would be foolish, and negligent, business.


Judith Oppenheimer    Interactive CallBrand(TM)
email:   [e-mail]
phone: [phone], fax: [phone]
Bridging the Gap Between Telecom & Marketing

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 6 Jul 1995 21:39:03 -0400


In <[e-mail]> Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes:

> One of the hosts made the most reasonable solution right off the top
> of his head, he said "Why don't they just have a national advertising
> campaign, like they do for any other new product, something like
> '888=800'."

> I thought that that was a good idea.

<lots of excellent suggestions which had me ROTFL deleted>

Oh, you youngsters. How history repeats itself. Way back when, back
before divestiture, back before the "1 plus" dialing, in fact, back
before the movie Star Wars, there was in fact a major advertising
campaign to promote the (then) new 800 service.

But it wasn't by The Phone Comany <tm>.

Rather, it was a major hotel chain. They made a -very- big deal of their
new nationwide reservations, TOLL FREE, phone number, and incorporated
the number into their advertising slogan.

Thus not only promoting their chain, but also popularizing the idea of
the 800 area code. (Now before our Esteemed Moderator points out that 800
is really a service code, not an area code, permit me to remind him that
the three digits in 800-nnx-**** did, in fact, designate the area where
the phone line ended).

Oh, which phone number? hmm, MElrose five, five-three hundred? Nope. How
about PEnnsylvania six, five thousand? Nope.

Actually it was the Sheraton Hotel Chain with their catchy and rythmic
"8-0-0, 3-2-5, 3-5,3-5" jingle.

Say, whatever happened to Dita Beard anyway?


[e-mail] (or [e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And is anyone here old enough to remember
when 800 began replacing 'Enterprise' and 'Zenith' numbers on a large-
scale basis?  Starting sometime in the early sixties, AT&T began promoting
800 in a serious way telling people in television and print advertising
that 800 'allows you to place your own toll free calls automatically,
without requiring the assistance of an operator ...'    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 06:27:52 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: 1-888 Advertising


Most TV and radio ads I have heard with an 800 number say 'call TOLL
FREE'.  Print ads sometimes have the words 'TOLL FREE' next to the
number.  Some ads say 'this is a free call'.  Even though 1-800 has
been 'toll free' for years MOST advertisers are still making the point
of saying it one more time.

If you assume that it takes one second out of a thirty second ad to
say 'toll free' then businesses are alredy giving 1/30th of their on
air time to telling callers that 1-800 is toll free.

People will learn that 1-888 is toll free as soon as the companies
using it make it abundantly clear in their ads.  As we discused
before, a lot of 1-800 numbers are unadvertised, intended for private
use.  Lots of execs have them so they don't have to carry quarters on
the road.  I have one because it's cheaper than a calling card rate
(and less digits to dial).

I wonder who will advertise the first 1-888 number, or when.  I think
a Shakespearian festival should get 1-888-THE-BARD, just to tick Amex
off. :)

There will have to be a push to get PBX maintainers to set 1-888 as
'free' in their dialing tables as soon as it goes into effect.  But
other than that, a massive advertising campaign seems a little
overblown.  Of course if you want to pay me to run it I'll take your
money.  (I am NOT a fool!)

Maybe we can convince AT&T and MCI to stop running their mudslinging
ads against each other and devote their money to promoting 888.
Especially the ads that have fine print that says 'refers to 1st plan'
when that plan has been obsolete for a year.

An election year is coming in the USA, mabye the LD companies should leave a
little mud for the polititians to sling.  Sprint and WilTel seem to be able
to keep their ads simple and clean.  AT&T and MCI could learn.

Just a thot.

Phone Trivia:
In my NPA-NXX listings I found 82 local exchanges using 888 as NXX.  There
were none using 800 as NXX.  (The listing does not include the 1-800 NPA.)


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 05:01:50 -0400
From: Marcelle Kors <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN/In-Band Conversion Equipment


I am looking for assistance on the following application.  We would
receive voice calls from the carrier with DNIS/ANI on ISDN-PRI D
channel. We would then need to retransmit with DNIS/ANI sent in-band.
Transmission medium would be end-to-end fiber.

Our network consists of the following equipment:
- Sonet
- Newbridge
- DDM Multiplexers
- SLC 2000
- DACS
- QFLC's

Does anyone know of vendors selling equipment that will convert the
DNIS from ISDN-PRI to inband?  Any help would be greatly appreciated!

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 13:03:38 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kooij M.)
Subject: Re: Running Out of "800" Numbers
Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands


Hi,

Following the mentioned discussion it might be interesting to know that
in the Netherlands all phone numbers will become ten digits long(!).

[e-mail] (Martin Kealey) writes:

> We've heard previously the arguments about "7 digits" being a natural
> size number for humans to memorize, and I'm not convinced.  In all
> likelyhood, the true "natural length" is probably about three or four
> digits, and longer numbers are memorized sequences of shorter chunks;
> why else would you need punctuation?  And ask people in say, Tokyo or
> France, whether they regard eight digits as "normal" ...

In the Netherlands phone numbers could vary in length.  (For those
outside the Netherlands these are the phone numbers to be dialed after
country code 31.)

Format: 0 - area code - local number.

Beginning October 10, 1995, all local numbers will be exactly ten
digits long. This includes the first zero (needed to call out of the
area) so nine digits are to be remembered. Area codes will be two or
three digits, so a local number means remembering six or seven digits.
Inside the area one can call the local number without area code.
Outside the area one has to dial the zero and then area code and then
local number.

This scheme does not (yet) incorporate the special tariffed numbers
beginning with 06-xxxx. here the number of digits after 06 cany vary
from four (06-8008, directory info) to eight digits.  Mobile phones
have 06-5x xx xx xx (thus also eight digits after 06).  There is an
intention to move to another numbering space for special tariffed
numbers separating premium rate from freephone (probably 0800/0900).
Of course, we do not have any letters engraved on most of our phones,
so we don't use alpha dialing.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Martin, if we let these telcos get away
> with eight digit numbers, next thing you know they are going to be wanting
> ten digit numbers and trying to tell us those are the 'natural length' to
> remember. <g>   PAT]

So you see, truth is more spectacular that imagination. Of course, we
never claimed that ten (or six, seven, eight or nine) is "natural" to
remember. I personally remember no more than three or four. (We have
five digit internal numbering plan in the company :-)).

Greetings to all reader of comp.dcom.telecom and don't forget to ask
your Dutch friend for their new phone number after 10-10-1995.  (mine
is already ten digits and these will stay the same).


Martin Kooij @ KPN Research, location Neher Laboratories.
mail: P.O. Box 421. 2260 AK  Leidschendam, The Netherlands
tel : [phone]    email:[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Shames)
Subject: What do Small Consumers Think of Long-Distance Competition?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 17:09:47 GMT
Organization: UCAN


Has anyone come across a compelling and credible survey (formal or
informal) about residential and small business consumers' opinion
about long-distance phone service?

Anecdotally, we get lots of complaints by consumers about the
confusion in the marketplace and feelings that "telephone bills have
gotten higher" even though l-d rates are lower.  I'm wondering whether
anyone has seen any surveys that address this question or shed some
light it?

By the way, anecdotal feedback is welcome too.  We know that large
customers can benefit mightily from l-d services and prices
post-deregulation.  But what about the little guy?


Michael Shames    [e-mail]
UCAN   1717 Kettner Blvd.  Suite 105
San Diego, CA  92101
(v)  619-696-6966   (f)   619-696-7477

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

From: [e-mail] (Marthin Laubscher)
Subject: Re: Writing a Network Performance Application
Date: 6 Jul 1995 12:44:06 GMT
Organization: MTN Operations
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Julia
Jackson) says:

> We are two fourth year Electrical Engineering students who need to write
> an application which will communicate with an Ethernet card to obtain
> the following information online:
> size, number and destination addresses of all frames sent on an Ethernet
> LAN, so that we can build an application which measures network
> performance.

> Thus far, a number of approaches have been suggested:

> 1. Write a Windows application, and write the TCP/IP layers ourselves.
> 2. Write a Windows application by interfacing with Winsock.
> 3. Write a DOS application, with assembler code to capture frames and
> place them in a buffer.

We recently looked into sniffer hardware doing much the same thing,
and an interesting comment was mde by one of the techies that's been
involved with sniffers since Noah plans were being drawn. Apparently
the original sniffers needed purpose built hardware but recently the
software can run on most PC platforms provided you select a network
card that supports diagnostic level programming. This comment viewed
together with the fact that under Windows NT, MS provides a network
monitoring function (also given the fact that your network card
supports it) with less capability that what you're talking about, but
still on the right track.

To me this sure sounds like the task you face can be approached at a
fairly high level (relatively speaking) provided you select network
card from the more modern breed and study it carefully. I doubt
whether Winsock will allow all you require, as it is designed to
shield your app from the ethernet internals, and a DOS TSR comes with
more problems of its own than what you will solve by using it.

My suggestion is to pitch your efforts at a specific NIC and determine
how the diagnostic interfaces operate, then look at whether the same
type of access is supported by other card and what common ground you
can find.  When it comes to writing the software, do the same, and go
directly for one specific interface while keeping the more generic
information in mind, get it to work and then only try to build more
generic software if your project still requires it. Remember that the
best assembler is 'C'. By the way, I hope that if you are going to
market this, that you build something that does siginicantly more that
what you are describing. Similar products are already available. (Why
don't you rather concentrate on something new and useful like a
transparent layer between Ethernet and TCP/IP that does better
scheduling and congestion control to enlarge the effective portion of
Ethernet without affecting existing applications?)

Best of luck. You might want to keep me posted.


Marthin Laubscher    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew A Earley)
Subject: Telegraphy: What is This Phenomena?
Date: 7 Jul 1995 15:05:24 GMT
Organization: UB


I've heard mention of the term "telegraphy" more than a few times
recently.  Using the gopher servers I've only managed to come up with
one reference to G.442 from 1988.

The title is "Radio-relay system design objectives for noise at the
far end of a hypothetical reference circuit with reference to
TELEGRAPHY transmission."  This still does not answer my question,
what is telegraphy?

If anybody could fill me in on what is going on today in the area of
telegraphy I would greatly appreciate it.


Matthew A. Earley     University at Buffalo

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

From: [e-mail] (Clinton S. Gallagher)
Subject: Let's Discuss Real Time Conferencing CAD
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 08:06:23 GMT
Organization: inter@ctive Technologies, incorporated


Now here is a challenge ...

It's being called 'interactive data exchange' or white-boarding and I
want to discuss how best to do it with anyone who has tried it with
CAD. The issue is not to convert the CAD files from their vector
format into bitmapped rasters as they then look like ick which you
know if you've tried this.

Remote access has been tried using POTS, Timbuktu and a CAD viewer but
that was molassess as one would expect.


Clinton S. Gallagher, Architectural & Information Systems Consultant
inter@ctive Technologies incorporated, Milwaukee, WI
TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NET [e-mail] URL http://www.execpc.com/~clinton

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron Kawchuk)
Subject: Bell Canada Local Measured Service
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 95 12:29:37 GMT
Organization: HALT


Dear Internet user,

BELL CANADA WANTS TO PUT A METER ON BUSINESS LINES AND CHARGE FOR
LOCAL CALLS.

On June 1, 1995 Bell Canada applied to the Canadian Radio
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for permission to begin charging
businesses for every minute they use local services.  Calls that are
now free will cost from 1.5 to 5.5 cents per minute.  Bell estimates
that the average monthly cost will be $61.69, but heavy users will pay
much more -- actually an unlimited amount by the year 2001!

If you work for, or run a business, every voice, fax and data call
will cost more -- affecting relationships with your customers,
suppliers and employees.  You may have to make considerable changes to
verify and track local telephone use.  And flat predictable prices for
local service will end.

If you are a consumer, it seems reasonable to EXPECT COSTS TO INCREASE
ON EVERY CANADIAN ITEM PRODUCED BY BUSINESSES affected by these
radical changes.  This could seriously erode Canada's ability to
compete in a fiercely hostile global market.

HALT is a non-profit organization made up of a growing number of
businesses large and small who believe that when people become aware
of this application to the CRTC, they will want to fight it.  We're
here to lead the charge.  But WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW SINCE BELL'S
APPLICATION IS ABOUT TO BE REVIEWED.

What can you do about it ?

Bell's application is to be reviewed by the CRTC in the coming days.  By
phoning, faxing or writing  to the CRTC about this issue right now,
you will combine your important voice with those of others who are very
concerned about this issue.

Why should the CRTC listen to you ?

The CRTC, in its mandate, describes its responsibility as follows:

" An important role of the CRTC is to promote universally available,
high-quality and affordable telecommunications services.  It's our
duty to ensure that any increases or decreases in rates are just and
reasonable and that there is no unjust discrimination between users.
As well, we keep track of telephone company expenditures to protect
phone subscribers from excessive costs."

Here's how you can help.

The CRTC values your opinion and concern.  You can affect their
decision.  So fill out, sign and fax , mail or E-mail the attached
letter, but do so right now since this application is to be reviewed
in the coming days.

To E-Mail send your message to [e-mail].  We will get it to the
CRTC.
The CRTC's web site is at http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
The CRTC's fax number: [phone] or [phone] -- CRTC phone
number [phone].

If you would like to know more about HALT or about the impact of
Bell's application may have on your organization, please call us at
[phone] in Toronto or 1 800 626-HALT.


Thank you.


To:      Secretary General, CRTC
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0N2
    Fax [phone] or [phone]

From: _--------------------------------------------------------

I am strongly opposed to Business Measured Local Service as proposed
by Bell Canada Tariff notice No. 5506.  I urge the CRTC to listen to
the views of the people it serves.  Please reject this filing and any
other similar filing by Bell Canada in the future.


Thank you.


Signed:     -----------------------------------------------------


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in the USA most large cities have
had measured service for businesses for many years. I cannot remember
a time in Chicago when businesses did not have metered service.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Bradford)
Subject: Help Identify Mystery Hardware (Motorola Codex 2205?)
Date: 7 Jul 1995 09:43:45 GMT
Organization: Internet Oklahoma


I need help identifying a piece of hardware I picked up at a local
computer junk shop; it looked interesting, and it was REAL cheap:

Labeled "Mystery Modem" on the price tag

Standard modem-size enclosure (about like an old Hayes 300), gray
plastic.

Front:
    In white:  "codex 2205"
    Under that, small print, black: "Motorola" (and logo)
  LEDS: MR/RI, TR, RS, CS, CD, RD, TD, TM
 Rotary Switch: ST, DL, AL, DATA, TALK, TTP, RTP
 POWER LED

Back Panel:  Two (looks like RJ45 jacks, 8-wire modular)
         jacks, one labeled TELSET and one TELCO.
         DTE (looks to be standard RS232)
         1/2 fuse
         Power switch / power cable

Bottom of Unit: (on sticker)

CODEX                MOTOROLA
corporation            Made in U.S.A.
Mansfield, Mass
02048

ASSY NO:  52085088    DATE CODE: 9029
SERIAL NO:  016355    MODEL:  25896 M
FCC REG:  AK396F 15683 DM N
RINGER EQUIV: 0.5B      FCC ID:
THIS UNIT COMPLIES WITH FCC PART 68

Just WHAT have I got here?  Some kind of leased-line modem, or network
hardware?  Looks pretty identical to a regular modem, 'cept for the
extra LEDs, rotary switch, and 8-wire connectors in the back.

Please reply to [e-mail] if possible.

BTW - is this worth anything?  Anybody interested in it?  Or should I
just throw it in the junk pile?

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Mitchell)
Subject: How Do Digital Cordless Phones Work?
Date: 7 Jul 1995 16:22:13 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


How do digital cordless phones do their thing?

Do they transmit raw (stright CVSD) digitized speech using a modem?

Is the digital signal encrypted also for security?

When changing channels is it just a different RF frequency or does the
digital processing change?

How do the two ends stay synchronized, especially when there is a
momentary loss of signal?


Gordon Mitchell   [phone]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Last Laugh! When 888 Equals 800
Date: 7 Jul 1995 17:01:24 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse


    If anyone is listening, I have another idea to add to the list
of potential ads for the new 888 service.

    Scene: A classroom full of 3rd graders.  The teacher is asking
different students to go to the board and add lists of numbers.  We
see one child successfully add 350 to 400 and get 750, then it is
little Billy's turn.

    400
      + 400
-------------

    Under which Billy writes 888.  When called on it by the
teacher, Billy responds with "But 888 equals 800!".

(Sort of a Rolaids spells relief kind of thing.


Will Middelaer    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #304
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22755;
          11 Jul 95 7:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03722 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 23:53:28 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03712; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 23:53:25 -0500
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 23:53:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #305

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jul 95 22:52:02 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 305

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Erez Levav)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Jeremy Rogers)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Dave O'Shea)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Jan Joris Vereijken)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Mark Brader)
    Where *Are* the 800 Numbers?  FCC Auditing Carriers (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: 800=888 (Ron Bean)
    Re: 800/888 = Toll Free (Brian Vita)
    Re: Running out of 800 numbers (Larry Rachman)
    Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers/ Problems in Business (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business (Jeff Karpinski)
    Re: ISDN In Band Conversion Equipment (Chris Gettings)
    Re: ISDN/In-Band Conversion Equipment (Chip Sharp)
    Re: Pager Phone Numbers (Bradley Ward Allen)
    Is 1-800 Still Completely Toll-Free?  (Doug Williams)
    Re: Rural Telephone Coops Make a Difference (Jack Hamilton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Erez Levav <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 10 Jul 1995 13:09:02 GMT
Organization: Cooperative Human Link Center @ Fox-Chase Cancer Center


Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Rather than distinguish between 800 and 888, this copy assumes that
> 800 THE CARD and 888 THE CARD *will* both ring to American Express.
> The whole problem is that that assumption is entirely unwarranted.

> Anything less would be foolish, and negligent, business.

Maybe I'v been misled, but I thought that the 888 prefix was needed
because there are not enough 800 numbers available.  If we now give
<anyone> that has a 800 number the same 888 number, what did we gain?


Erez Levav        Fox Chase Cancer Center
[e-mail]    7701 Burholme Avenue
[phone]        Philadelphia, PA 19111
ATT: 0-700-2xpress    0-700-2101010 (FAX)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We would in effect gain nothing, but the
prima donnas in the American corporate world who are all so much better
than the rest of you peasants will have gotten their way, and that is
what counts, isn't it?  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Rogers)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AEA Technology
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:17:30 GMT


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

> Patrick, consumer education *is* on the FCC's 888 Implementation
> agenda.  Obviously, consumers will need to understand that 888 is as
> toll free as 800.

> Beyond that, Paul Robinson's suggestions don't even begin to address
> the problem that marketers using existing 800 numbers will have.
> American Express has no way at all to insure that it will get
> 1-888-THE CARD.  If Visa gets it, what is American Express to do?  It
> won't be any comfort that the consumer will know that both are free.

This sort of think happens here in the UK where we have two main codes
for free numbers (0800 and 0500) and two codes for "pay only local rates"
(0345 and 0645).

When my bank first offered a local-rate number I just dialed 0345 365 365
without really reading the number properly.  This tuned out to connected
to a different bank -- mine was on 0645 365 365.


Jez Rogers

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:07:35 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report


Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]> writes:

> American Express has no way at all to insure that it will get
> 1-888-THE CARD.  If Visa gets it, what is American Express to do?  It
> won't be any comfort that the consumer will know that both are free.

> And before you tell me you have trouble weeping for the problems of
> the Fortune 500, what about the consumer trying to call American
> Express, and getting Visa instead?

It seems to me that examples like this are getting it exactly
backwards.  The companies that currently have the 800 numbers are the
incumbents, with all the advantages that implies (easier for customers
to remember, no hassles with 888-impaired PBXs, etc.)  It's the guys
who get the corresponding number in the new 888 space that have the
uphill struggle, not the incumbents.  I think it far more likely that
people would mistakenly call 1-800-THE-CARD and get AmEx (when they
really wanted Visa at 1-888-THE-CARD) than make the mistake in the
other direction.  Maybe this means that AmEx will have to pay for a
lot of wrong number calls, but they could also use it to their
advantage by trying to cream off business that was originally intended
for AmEx.  And just think how much money 1-800-FLOWERS would make if
someone were foolish enough to establish a competing flower delivery
business at 1-888-FLOWERS!

At any rate, I still feel that the whole idea of 800 incumbents having
any sort of special veto over the corresponding numbers in 888 is
preposterous.  Walt Disney Co. heavily advertises its 1-407-WDISNEY
number; should Disney be able to prevent 934-7639 from being used in
any other area code?  Of course not, so why should "area code" 800 be
any different?


Bob Goudreau            Data General Corporation
[e-mail]        62 Alexander Drive
[phone]            Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because American Express says so, and
that's all that really matters. It's just like Mike Royko at the {Chicago
Tribune} who feels that since his direct dial centrex number at the
newspaper (312-whatever) has the same last seven digits as one of AT&T's
more commonly used 800-whatever numbers, they should change their number
so he won't have to bother with the calls.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 9 Jul 1995 19:50:35 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And is anyone here old enough to remember
> when 800 began replacing 'Enterprise' and 'Zenith' numbers on a large-
> scale basis?  Starting sometime in the early sixties, AT&T began promoting
> 800 in a serious way telling people in television and print advertising
> that 800 'allows you to place your own toll free calls automatically,
> without requiring the assistance of an operator ...'    PAT]

And on a related note, when did the "ENterprise" number toll-free
syste get phased out? I recall seeing active listings as recently as a
few years ago in the NY metro area.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not "ENterprise" it is "Enterprise"
and I think most telcos quit making them available back in the early
1980's sometime, although subscribers who had them were grandfathered and
can have them still today if desired. I think its one of those things
where when you disconnect your service or move, you lose Enterprise if
you still have it.

Padgett Peterson sent a note questioning 'Zenith'. He said he had never
heard of those. My belief is that Zenith was the GTE version of Enterprise,
which was mostly an AT&T thing. I said that once before and someone wrote
to say they were served by AT&T in the old days and their toll-free number
was Zenith ... so I don't know what the rule was, if indeed any existed.
To answer Padgett's question, Zenith was simply another name for Enterprise
used by some telcos; I believe by and large the GTE companies. The way it
worked was if a company had a toll-free number in those days it would be
listed in the appropriate directory (for the communities from which calls
would be accepted) as 'Enterprise xxxx'. If you wanted to call it, you
dialed the operator and asked for the number. The operator used a flip
chart to get the translation for the more common ones (for example, American
Express had **and still has** an Enterprise number) and for the less
common ones she would consult the Rate and Route Bureau. She then dialed
the (translated) number and did not ask the other end if they would
accept a collect call. It was automatically assumed they would accept
a collect call by virtue of their Enterprise code number.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jan Joris Vereijken)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 8 Jul 1995 14:22:34 +0200
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jan Joris Vereijken)


Judith Oppenheimer  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Rather than distinguish between 800 and 888, this copy assumes that
> 800 THE CARD and 888 THE CARD *will* both ring to American Express.
> The whole problem is that that assumption is entirely unwarranted.

I don't want to suggest in any way that alpha-dailing is a bad idea,
but it amuses me to no end that it gets Coporate America trapped in
such a maze of dialing-plan horrors ...

We here in Europe, in general, have *no* letters on our phones, and
*no* assumptions on the length or format of phone numbers. Therefore,
basically, "any number goes". We seldom need area code splits, and
Coporate Europe doesn't have any vanity-number investment to protect.

Furthermore, we don't spend money to educate the public about which
calls are free, premium, local, long-distance, or whatever. Basically,
the public is utterly clueless on these topics, especially when it
concerns numbers in another county (which, in Europe, is often not
farther than 100 miles away).

I really wouldn't know which system is best, yours or ours. What I do
notice is that both you and we are converging to a system that so
complicated, that the man in the street understands diddly-squad of
the issues involved. They just order a plan they can only pray suits
their calling pattern, and then hope for the best.

For example, in my country, you have to scan the first *SIX* digits of
a phone number to know the tariff; for some prefixes the 6th digit can
mean the difference between a toll-free call or the ugliest premium
call imaginable. Now let's take, for argument's sake, my parents's
knowledge of the tariff structure. They know six digit calls are
local, and don't cost too much. Furthermore, they know that when they
call me they pay such a steep rate that they should watch their
watch. And that sums up all they know. Any other numbers, including
the ones that are actually free, they susspect of ripping them off big
time. And I can't blame them!

I think the USA is going in that direction too. If you don't believe
me, ask your mother what she thinks a call to a 1-500 number costs ...

Just my 2c.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:50:36 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Beyond that, Paul Robinson's suggestions don't even begin to address
> the problem that marketers using existing 800 numbers will have.
> American Express has no way at all to insure that it will get
> 1-888-THE CARD.  If Visa gets it, what is American Express to do?  It
> won't be any comfort that the consumer will know that both are free.

The following seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it said in
either this thread or the one about the coming international toll-free
numbers.  (Our newsfeed's been flaky lately, so maybe I've just missed
it.)

-> If American Express is using 1-800-THE-CARD, then they should be able
   to trademark the use of THE-CARD as part of a toll-free telephone number.
   I expect that existing trademark law would cover this; if not, now is
   the time to change it.

-> This does not give them rights to 1-888-843-2273, but it does mean that
   anyone *else* who has 1-888-843-2273 would *not* be allowed to advertise
   it as 1-888-THE-CARD.  They could use all numbers, or choose an obviously
   unrelated alternative letter interpretation like 1-888-VIE-BASE.

-> The same goes for 011-800-843-2273 or 011-800-1-843-2273 or any other
   similar number, when international toll-free calling is available.

Mark Brader, [e-mail], SoftQuad Inc., Toronto      C unions never strike!

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 10:41:58 -0400
Subject: Where *Are* the 800 Numbers?  FCC Auditing Carriers ...


FCC Common Carrier Bureau Chief Kathleen Wallman confirmed that the
FCC is doing an audit of 800 number assignments to determine whether
carriers had been warehousing numbers.

The Commission recently placed limits on how many 800 numbers each
carrier could obtain per week.  However, there have been rumors that
some carriers were warehousing numbers before FCC imposed limitations.
Bureau Chief Wallman said the audit will be completed "in a few
weeks."


Judith Oppenheimer    Interactive CallBrand(TM)
email:   [e-mail]
phone: [phone], fax: [phone]

(Check out http://www.cortex.net.  Lots of useful marketing
recommendations, including an inspired endorsement of ICB.)

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 19:26 CDT
From: madnix.uucp![e-mail] (Ron Bean)
Subject: Re: 800=888


   Maybe the solution is to reserve the 800 prefix for *Business-Voice
Lines Only*, and move all the toll-free fax lines, pagers, modems,
personal-800 etc to the new 888 prefix.  Businesses would then be able
to take the same number in both prefixes, and actually *use* them,
instead of just tying up the number space, and non-techie consumers
wouldn't have to deal with it at all. Unfortunately, this would
require changing a *lot* of existing phone numbers, so it's probably
too late.

   I've often thought that area code splits should have been handled
this way also. For example, in Chicago 312 would have been for voice
only, and all the fax machines, modems, etc would have been moved to
708. Again, many people could have used the same number in both area
codes (this would be an overlay rather than a split). And again, it's
too late.

  Another problem with this idea is that The Phone Company would try
to charge more for the non-voice lines (just out of habit), whereas
now you don't have to tell them what you want the number for.


madnix![e-mail] (Ron Bean)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why do you feel that private users of
800 numbers should be the subscribers forced to change?  Is it so that
American Express won't have to deal with it?  I do not feel that anyone
who has an 800 number presently should have to give it up or change it.
Let corporate America deal with it the best they can.     PAT]

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

Date: 9 Jul 1995 20:53:38 GMT
From: Brian Vita <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800/888 = Toll Free


> Most TV and radio ads I have heard with an 800 number say 'call TOLL
> FREE'.  Print ads sometimes have the words 'TOLL FREE' next to the
> number.  Some ads say 'this is a free call'.  Even though 1-800 has
> been 'toll free' for years MOST advertisers are still making the point
> of saying it one more time.

Unfortunately just as consumers were just getting the hang of "800"
numbers being free, the whores of the industry started coming out with
the "800" numbers that charged *you* through a back door (usually with
rates up your back door).  Even some supposedly reputable companies
(we won't mention Microwave Communications, Inc. here) go on the
bandwagon and started charging for these calls.

I hope that the rules governing the "888" service code specifically
prevent these abuses.


Brian Vita   CSS, Inc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Integratel will always find a way to
stick those charges to you, regardless of the area code used. Remember
that 800 sex number published here early in June?  Guess how much
Integratel wants for *one minute* of that?  How about *ninety three
dollars, seventy cents* ? Actually, ten seconds was more like it. I
hung up *immediatly* when I heard the very brief mention of $39 per
minute. Only thing is, they lie. They billed me $93.70, despite the
fact that I have billed number screening *from their database* on my
line.

If you are not on the Integratel billed number screening database, by
all means get yourself listed to avoid things like this. You can reach
them at 800-736-7500. And if you, like myself, dialed that number and
hung up immediatly when hearing there would be a charge for it, then
there will probably be a charge on your phone bill also. If you see a
charge on your bill, then do as I did: call Integratel, let them know
what scum they are, and tell them flatly payment is refused. I told
the rep I spoke with that if it appeared again on my bill next month
my next call would be to their corporate attorney. I then called up
Ameritech and told them they are scum also for dealing with a company
like Integratel and how great it will be to see true competition in
the Chicago area.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 09:58:59 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Larry Rachman)
Subject: Re: Running out of 800 numbers


How about migrating residential/personal 800 numbers to 888 and
leaving 800 for the 'public' business numbers? This would reduce the
number of wrong numbers personal users get, eliminate the incentive
for existing businesses to capture the corresponding 888 numbers, and
generally make it easier for people to know what was going on.

Yeah, I realize that this would pose a minor inconvenience for current
personal 800 users (of which I am one), but these users generally
don't have anywhere near the expense of stationary, advertising, etc.
that businesses do. Besides, there is ample precedent for yanking
people's phone numbers out from under them.

Perhaps there is something wrong with this deceptively simple
approach. If there is, I'm sure some other TELECOM readers will
gleefully point it out to me.


LR


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How about moving American Express to
888 so all the toll-free numbers they are hogging can be freed up for
use by other subscribers?  And I fail to see what the 'expense of
stationary and advertising' has to do with anything. And yes, there
is ample precedent for yanking people's phone number so begin by
yanking Amex's 800 numbers.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers/ Problems in Business
Date: 10 Jul 1995 13:19:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


Paul:

The same could be said for the numbers that are the same in a
different area code, but this is paid for by the caller. What do you
want them to do, make different numbers in each area code? That would
be great, just have one area code for the whole world and 4,000 digits
in each phone number.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Karpinski)
Subject: Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 13:07:55 GMT
Organization: ICG/MagNET [phone]


Recently Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ... Makes me wonder how much of the 888 area code is going to be
> taken up by companies with 800 numbers buying the identical number in
> the 888 area code to keep someone else from piggybacking on their
> number. ...

Pardon my ignorance, as I've just been lurking here, but why not do
away with the 800 area code completely? Just transfer all existing 800
numbers to 888, and open up 887, 886, etc for new ones. Everyone's
switches, PBXs, etc. have got to be reprogrammed anyway, and this way
everyone's on the same "new number recognition" playing field. Of
course a company could still buy up 888/123-4567, 887/123-4567, etc.,
but I don't think that's as likely as with 800 in the mix.


JKarp.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:57:20 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Re: ISDN In Band Conversion Equipment


I have used two devices to do exactly what you need.  Both devices are
built on a 486 Intel computer in an industrial rack mount chassis w/48v DC
power supply. They both use circuit boards manufactured by DianaTel and
Dialogic.  They connect to a 23B+D PRI ISDN circuit provided by telco and
convert the out of band D Channel signalling to in band MF/DTMF 4 wire E&M
wink start signalling.  They each have 96 ports. That is where the
similarity ends.

The first is manufactured by Eastern Independant Telecom in Brockville,
Ontario and is called the Bit Boss.  I purchased five or six of them
($49,439) each from EIT and spent six months trying to make them work.
Their engineers were on site for most of the six months and could never get
them to stay up under heavy traffic loads.  They would start dropping
digits, individual ports would lock up, new calls to the Bit Boss would get
hung and never be converted into DTMF, and calls would be dropped.  The EIT
engineers never did figure it out, I replaced them with machines built by
ACCI in Camp Hill Pennsylvania called Convert ITRs.

The Convert ITR is much more sophisticated than the Bit Boss.  It uses
the Unix operating system instead of the Bit Boss's DOS.  I think that
this is the root of the problem with the Bit Boss.  DOS is not a true
multi-tasking O/S, the Bit Boss S/W was using a stack to try to create
a multi-tasking thread.  When the traffic demands became large the O/S
just could not keep up.  This combined with DOS memory constraints to
crash the machine.  It was kind of a joke except for the money I was
loosing.  When the complaints started the official repair procedure
recommended by EIT was a hard reboot of the Bit Boss!  They even
installed some special PC software which allows you to reboot a DOS PC
via a modem!  The Convert ITR has the true multi-tasking UNIX O/S so
it allocates a process to monitor each channel and respond to signals.

I was also dissatisfied with the EIT approach to the problems.  To
this day they deny that the problem is in their equipment. After
buying the equipment and having so many problems I learned about other
customers they had for the systems who were also upset.  These include
some large Canadian carriers, Fonorola, Sprint, and STN. EIT would
always point at the customer, or Bell, or the phase of the moon when
making excuses.

The ACCI Convert ITR ($46,732) had two failures in 8 months of heavy
use.  One was in the initial days of installation, and was resolved by
changing some of the DTMF timing parameters.  The other was many
months down the road, I don't really remember what it turned out to
be, but ACCI fixed it right away.  I am now beginning a new
development project with ACCI on an unrelated system; obviously, I am
endorsing their systems and engineers.  They have some pretty
impressive customers, having installed call centers for Lotus,
SouthWestern Bell and other heavy hitters.

Also, I happen to have four or five of both the Bit Boss and the
Convert ITR systems that I am not using & would sell. You don't want
the Bit Boss but you could save some money on hardware if you wanted
my Convert ITRs.  You would need to pay ACCI some kind of a re-licence
fee for the software if you wanted support.  The manuals are o.k. but
I don't think anyone would be wise trying to implement these kinds of
systems in a production environment without manufacturer's technical
support.  Their own engineers spent a couple of days installing and
configuring them.  E-mail me or call me directly [phone] if you
want to buy my used boxes, ACCI is at 215-540-9377.  The president is
Ted Sak, & Tom Falcone is a really good engineer there.


****Chris Gettings****

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 12:50:26 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Chip Sharp X-6424)
Subject: Re: ISDN/In-Band Conversion Equipment


> From: Marcelle Kors <[e-mail]>

> I am looking for assistance on the following application.  We would
> receive voice calls from the carrier with DNIS/ANI on ISDN-PRI D
> channel. We would then need to retransmit with DNIS/ANI sent in-band.
> Transmission medium would be end-to-end fiber.

 ....stuff deleted...

> Does anyone know of vendors selling equipment that will convert the
> DNIS from ISDN-PRI to inband?  Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Teleos Communications, Inc. provides equipment that converts from ISDN
D-channel Called Party Number to DTMF over T1 w/Robbed Bit Signaling.
If you wish to deliver ANI in-band using Robbed Bit Signaling you
would need to support MF signaling on your equipment.

What type of "in-band signaling" are you looking for (e.g., MF, DTMF,
A/B bit)?  What framing format do you need (e.g., T1/ESF)?


Hascall H. ("Chip") Sharp    Teleos Communications, Inc.
Sr. Systems Engineer        2 Meridian Road
                Eatontown, NJ  07724  USA
voice:  [phone]        fax:    [phone]
email:   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: Pager Phone Numbers
Date: 10 Jul 1995 22:47:32 -0400
Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key)


Some prefixes have different billing properties than others.

I've gotten 917 beeper numbers that are long distance calls from
Chelsea (near Midtown Manhattan, 212 area code), and requested a
non-long distance # from the same pager company and gotten it.  Also
sometimes calls from parts of NYC to other parts of NYC are long
distance on a payphone.  I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but I
know that different prefixes do evaluate to different areas, even with
917, and do bill differently.  I think my Cellular One number is
someplace in Brooklyn (where I'm almost never at).

In Pacific Bell, it is up to the "owner" of a prefix how it behaves;
there is an option to have all calls in the service area (in
California these can be quite large, covering hours upon hours of
driving distance) local to the prefix; many cellular and beeper
companies subscribe to this (without even telling their clients;
apparently the cost-benefit for this feature must be good enough
without even advertising it!).  I had it with both my LA Cellular and
Page Time pager in Los Angeles.  However, the actual phone number
evaluates to a certain area, once again, and the payphones use a
*different database* for billing which is calculated purely on milage
charts (the same system the operators use); plans were under way to
integrate it so that operator quotes and payphone charging were in
line with tarrifs, but it was a way off; all this from Bob Duff at
Pacific Bell in March of 1994.

In effect, calls made from a Pacific Bell residential or business
phone line would bill properly.  Asking the operator or using a
payphone would be equal to each other but not what you would otherwise
be billed.

Calling my cellular phone from any payphone in my neighborhood cost
fifty cents.  Somehow the pager company realized the benefit of making
the "location" of its prefix closer to my area.  Remember that fire
that burned in Downtown LA Pac Bell switching office?  Lucky me!  Both
my cellular and pager are in that downtown office and I couldn't
complete *any* calls in or out that day!  What the heck, because the
*location* of the cellular was in the database as something way, way,
way south of me or downtown, thus the strange payphone behavoir.

Anybody besides me notice the fact that there are more trunk busies in
Southern California than Northern California?

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Williams)
Subject: Is 1-800 Still Completely Toll-Free
Date: 10 Jul 1995 18:28:06 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James E.
Bellaire) writes:

> Most TV and radio ads I have heard with an 800 number say 'call TOLL
> FREE'.  Print ads sometimes have the words 'TOLL FREE' next to the
> number.  Some ads say 'this is a free call'.  Even though 1-800 has
> been 'toll free' for years MOST advertisers are still making the point
> of saying it one more time.

I hate to bring up what was a large discussion from a few years back,
but what was the final disposition of the TeleSlime that advertised
1-800 numbers that immediately transfered you to a 1-900 number,
effectively defeating any blocking that may have been in place on the
phone.  I remember there being a long discussion about 1-800 having
always been toll free on one side, but the right of the number owners
being able to charge for the service that was rendered after the call
was completed (I think this started with a TelePsychic whom Digest
readers called often from payphones, but I may be wrong).

The above quote points out how advertisers have been careful in the
past to state the toll-freeness of the calls. If there is a large
advertising campaign, will this detail be glossed over?


doug


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my note earlier in this issue. The
Integratel people are at it again, with $93 per minute charges billed
through your friendly local telco, even if you hang up as soon as they
announce there will be a charge.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Rural Telephone Coops Make a Difference
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:21:20 GMT
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


[e-mail] (Dean Hughson) wrote:

> Here I am living 12 miles from a town of 886 and I
> have a dialup -- all I can say is thanks to telephone coops.

There have been rumors that Pacific Telephone plans to go into the ISP
business.  I called to ask when the service might be available in
Sacramento, and was told that it would be a while -- they want to start
with the larger areas.

According to <http://www.census.gov/stat_abstract/freq/94s0042.txt>,
the Sacramento PMSA (not including Yolo county) had a 1990 population
of 1,340,000.

Different phone companies obviously have different philosophies.


Jack Hamilton  [e-mail]  Sacramento, California   USA
kd6ttl    1992 BMW K75RTA     co-moderator, sci.med.aids
PGP Fingerprint: B90D 0207 6A05 ADAF 12C1 ECF4 7C4A 39E1

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #305
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29108;
          11 Jul 95 17:38 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08008 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:52:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08000; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:52:21 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:52:21 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #306

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Jul 95 07:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 306

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    California Cry Babies (Greg Monti)
    AeRie - New Applied Rural Telecom Web Site (Brian Geoghegan)
    Re: Quantum Non-Leap? (Dave O'Shea)
    Questions About the Internet/Telephone Companies Link (Andrew L. Soodek)
    Short Course on Image Compression: 9/13-9/15 Portland, Oregon (Fu Li)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 23:44:01 PDT
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: California Cry Babies


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:

             California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5301            San Francisco, CA 94102
CONTACT: Dianne Dienstein                 June 7, 1995  CPUC - 50
         415-703-2423

              CPUC APPEALS FCC CALLER ID DECISION

    The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today appealed
the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Caller ID decision
in the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco claiming it puts the
privacy of millions of Californians at risk.

A phone customer who purchases Caller ID service is able to see the
phone number of whoever is calling on a small screen attached or built
in to the phone -- unless the caller blocks disclosure of the number.

    The CPUC's existing Caller ID rules satisfy the state constitutional
right of privacy by protecting Californians who pay an extra monthly
charge for unlisted phone numbers to ensure their privacy and safety.
They include police agencies and undercover police officers, victims
of domestic violence and operators of shelters for such victims,
single women, the elderly and children, people who wish to keep their
names, addresses and telephone numbers from the mailing lists and
databases of telemarketers and direct mail marketers, people who are
fearful of technology, the developmentally disabled, people who wish
to choose those to whom they give their private phone numbers and
people who simply wish to be left alone.

    California has the highest number of unlisted subscribers in the
U.S.  In the state's ten largest cities, more than 60 percent of phone
subscribers have chosen to have unlisted numbers.

    The CPUC authorized and encouraged California phone companies to
offer the service in 1992, but with blocking options to protect all
Californians.  The phone companies, however, withheld the service and
instead urged the FCC to reduce CPUC-established privacy protections.
While the recent FCC decision upheld most CPUC protections, it
overruled one the CPUC deems extremely important for Caller ID -- the
automatic blocking default for unlisted subscribers.

    The CPUC rules required any company with the capability of
offering Caller ID to allow customers with unlisted phone numbers to
automatically have disclosure of their number blocked unless they
requested otherwise.  Customers could override the blocking to reveal
their number for a call by dialing *82 before the number they call.
The CPUC rules also required phone companies to allow any customers
dissatisfied with their initial blocking option one free change of
blocking option.

    The phone companies argued to the FCC that the CPUC requirement of
automatic number blocking for unlisted subscribers who don't contact
the phone company to request blocking would make offering Caller ID
not profitable.  CPUC staff estimates that once Caller ID is offered,
Pacific Bell -- California's largest local phone company -- stands to
make tens of millions of dollars per year initially from the service,
with its profits increasing over time.

    The FCC ruled that customers with unlisted numbers who do not
contact the phone company to request that their number be blocked on
all calls must dial *67 before each call they make to block
disclosure.  The CPUC is appealing the FCC decision because the CPUC
believes no matter how comprehensive a consumer education program,
many Californians with unlisted phone numbers will not find out how to
protect their privacy under Caller ID, and their number will be
disclosed without their knowledge or consent each time they make a
phone call.  The privacy of as many as three million Californians with
unlisted numbers could be jeopardized.

    CPUC studies suggest that even with the CPUC's customer education
requirements, more than 30 percent of California telephone subscribers
won't receive notice about Caller ID or know their number is being
disclosed or what they must do to prevent disclosure.  Worse, some
California phone companies are arguing that these customer notice and
education requirements should be reduced.  Customers with unlisted
numbers who fail to receive notice will continue to pay extra for an
unlisted number not realizing that with Caller ID, it no longer
protects their privacy.

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

This is not my opinion, just posted by:
Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Geoghegan <[e-mail]>
Subject: AeRie - New Applied Rural Telecom Web Site
Date: 10 Jul 1995 16:24:03 GMT
Organization: SuperNet Inc. (303)-296-8202 Denver Colorado


The Colorado Advanced Technology Institute (CATI) is proud to announce
the creation of AeRie, the Applied Rural Telecommunications online
clearinghouse.  AeRie contains resources and case studies designed to
assist rural communities world-wide harness the potential uses of
telecommunications for economic development.

AeRie features the following:

* Homepages for 12 economic development telecom projects in rural Colorado,
  including mission statements, project descriptions, and progress reports.

* A Resource Guide containing examples of how rural communities throughout the
  world are using telecom, as well as listings of online resources relating to
  various rural economic development sectors, including distance learning,
  telemedicine, regional marketing, agriculture, and many more.

* Case Studies for exemplary rural telecom projects throughout the United
  States (under development)

* Project Evaluation guide (also under development) to help guide the design
  and implementation of rural telecom efforts.

We welcome your visit to the AeRie homepage at the following URL:

    http://www.yampa.com/aerie

The AeRie Resource Guide can be pointed to directly at URL:

    http://www.yampa.com/aerie/resource/resource.html

You are invited to contact us regarding information about your efforts
or rural telecom resources that we can list in AeRie.  Please help us
get the word out by asking that your favorite rural/economic
development web page(s) add a link to AeRie.

Please repost this announcement as appropriate.

Thanks for your help!


Brian Geoghegan
AeRie Resource Guide - Consultant to CATI
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: Quantum Non-Leap?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 22:55:29 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Dr. Rich Artym ([e-mail]) wrote:

> When fibre finally made it out of the research labs and became
> standard technology for PTTs, it seemed quite clear that the increase
> in line capacity of three or four orders of magnitude that it would
> bring would mean that the raw cost of bandwidth on fibred links would
> fall, and that as more and more of the network went over to fibre,
> this change would start to be felt at consumer level.

> This hasn't happened.  Why?  Since the customer has not benefited by
> orders of magnitude from the change to fibre, neither through quantum
> price reductions nor quantum increased bandwidth, who has reaped the
> benefits from the quantum leap in carrying capacity?

That's a good question. A quick look at the balance sheets of the
major carriers show that, while profitable, they're not simply
shoveling gobs of money under the matresses, and with the exception of
AT&T, few are engaged in serious research. [Market studies don't count
as research].

The answers may be different over on the other side of the Atlantic,
but I think here in the US, a few things have happened:

1. Increasing overhead (labor, regulatory waste)
2. Reduced revenues from some services (equipment rental, Centrex, etc.)

Another item is that there simply is little demand for bandwidth. I've
been a major thorn in the sides of both LDDS and Southwestern Bell
because I can't make a decent connection with a modem -- and neither
company is willing to support any speed that can't be run on an
acoustic coupler!

Until the last year or so, the maximum speed tha even a modem user was
interested in was limited by how fast he can read -- and for most
people, 2400 is a comfortable pace. With the advent of easy-to-use
SLIP connections and "Internet in a box"-type kits, and bandwidth-gobbling
packages like Netscape, that's changing.

Looking at another model, the average houshold has had several hundred
gigabits of data flowing into it -- in the form of broadcast and cable
TV, and radio. My little RCA DSS box can handle several hundred
channels of high-quality video, each overlaid with CD-quality stereo.

Up until now, there has been no desire on the part of the average
comsumer to make any of that bandwidth available for two-way use.

I'm going to put my money on the Cable TV companies to be the ones to
bring massive two-way bandwith to the residential doorstep. Why?

Local Bell companies simply have no interest in providing better
service; they are guaranteed a profit in most states, and cutting into
their pricey leased-circuit business doesn't interest them.

Long-distance carriers are too busy duking it out with each other,
desparately hoping to snag a couple extra percent of AT&T's business.

AT&T? MCI and SPRINT could offer per-minute rates at 50% off AT&T's,
and lots of people still wouldn't switch. Those who do often seem to
find that the small-to-nonexistent savings aren't worth the Burger
King mentailty that pervades the second-tier carriers.

The cable companies, on the other hand, have had an epiphany over the
last 18 months, when they realized that they don't have a lock on
residential service, and will have to compete with alternative
broadcast and satellite services. You can bet that the repesctive CEOs
of Time Warner, Cox, and TCI have gone through a tanker of Maalox
while watching RCA sell a million dishes in the blink of an eye. (That
time-warner has auched Primestar in such short order indicates at
least a bit of interest)

Your average residential-grade coax cable can handle several hundred
megabits of BIDIRECTIONAL data using commonplace technologies. A cheap
equivalent of a data switch or router at the curb, and you've got one
hellacious network running up to that stupid-looking box on top of
your TV. Providing dial tone, at a minimum, is a trivial accomplishment
compared to the local RBOC running even ISDN over glorified doorbell wire.

> Some suggest that the PTTs are transfixed with a cost-per-voice-line
> mentality, and so can't increase bandwidth delivered to the data end user
> without reducing their charges to the voice-line customer, which is a
> complete no-no and hence a show-stopper for the data brigade that want
> fast digital links.  (ISDN is badly hampered by this pricing philosophy.)

I think this is pretty close. Your average RBOC is raking in some
serious dough with all those T1's (Well, E1 for you) and offering the
same capacity for a fraction of the price is not something that Joe in
marketing wants to suggest to The Boss.

> Others suggest that the PTTs see bandwidth availability as a way to get
> them into the entertainment market, and fast data as just a red herring,
> or bandwidth as a weapon for pressure politics (that's BT for you).

I think that most of the local carriers are simply praying that
governments will mandate profits for them as an "essential service", thus
saving them the drudgery of competing head-to-head.

> Anyway, that's how it seems from the ground level, very disappointing.
> If anyone has any grounds for optimism in this area, I suspect that many
> wearily-waiting consumers would be most interested to hear the details.

The bandwidth is out there. It's just that nobody has figured out a
way to create enough demand for it to justify the capital expenditures
that the new infrastructure would require. Someone will change that.
As much as I loathe the cable operators, I think it's going to be
them.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew L. Soodek)
Subject: Questions About the Internet/Telephone Companies Link
Date: 10 Jul 1995 17:38:23 GMT
Organization: The VenCom Group


I am performing research on the future development of the Internet, and I
am perplexed by a few things.

The telephone companies contribute to the 'net by supplying the lines over
which the information is transferred.  In the past, the telephone
companies have been able to determine how much they can charge for long
distance, or even local service, based on per minute usage.  Now, I pay my
service provider a flat fee, and I could potentially communicate with
someone overseaes for hours, without incurring the high costs associated
with standard telecommunications.  What are the incentives for the
telephone companies to offer up their transmission lines, when they could
alternately charge for the link via long distance service?

As a related question, I'm interested in finding out exactly how routing
on the Internet is handled.  Are there currently, or have there been in
the past, incentives for the phone companies to offer up their lines for
Internet transmission?  If so, how is it determined that this posting will
reach its destination by travelling via Ameritech, AT&T or MCI's wires?
It seems that the telephone companies would want to keep their phone lines
free for their per minute, paying cutomers, and yet, they supply the lines
for full scale multimedia file transmission.  Therefore, it seems that
Internet users and access providers depend on the telephone companies.
(Is there a source on the Internet that can supply me with information
regarding what happens to a file when it sent out over the Internet? i.e.
Digitalization, encryption, transmission, routing, receiving, decryption,
etc.)

Lastly, I am trying to understand why MCI is offering the varied types of
services they do (online mall, etc.), while other telephone companies may
offer detailed information aabout their executives (Ameritech), while
still others offer a telephone directory.  I know that each company
controls its own content, but is there any organization attempting to
standardize the types of information  broadcasted over the net?  What does
the future hold?  As a Research Analyst (Librarian), I can tell you that
its nice to be able to get free press releases from the phone companies,
but I can't expect for that to continue forever.  Eventually, Internet
content providers will realize that they are giving away the store, or at
least, they will realize that they are giving away valuable information
that people would be willing to pay good money for.  (The headhunters love
it when the phone companies tell you about their upper level management.)

I realize that until now, the government has played an integral role
developing the infrastructure to build the Internet, but they
certainly had help from the phone companies.  In addition, as the
impending privatisation occurs, the phone companies will be called
upon to step up their contributions to the existing infrastructures.

I'm somewhat of a novice with the technicalities of the Internet, so I
would appreciate any help that anyone could offer me.

Thanks in advance.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fu Li)
Subject: Short Course on Image Compression: 9/13-9/15 Portland, Oregon
Date: 10 Jul 1995 16:31:30 -0700
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR


     Digital Image and Multimedia Compression:
     Fundamentals and International Standards
Wednesday, September 13 - Friday, September 15, 1995

For more information, please see our WWW homepage at
http://www.ee.pdx.edu/short_courses/image_compression/

    Seats are very limited, early registration is encouraged!

About the Course:

Digital cameras and Photo CD digital negatives, digital television
broadcast and movies stored on CDROM that can be played back on
reasonably priced multimedia PCs, are already a reality.  Due to the
huge amounts of data associated with digital images and video, their
efficient storage and transmission poses a challenging problem.
Consequently, image and video compression plays an enabling role for
almost all consumer, commercial and scientific applications.

Digital image and video compression is a current focus of both
research and international standardization.  The recently developed
standards such as JPEG, JBIG, H.261, MPEG-1, and MPEG-2 reflect the
state of the art algorithms and are important in facilitating
interoperability among various imaging systems as well as wide-spread,
cost-effective deployment of the technology.

This course provides the audience with the necessary foundation: the
principles of information theory, motion estimation, and motion
compensated preprocessing.  A detailed discussion of compression
algorithms for both still images and video is presented on the basis
of this foundation, enabling a solid understanding of the state of the
art, standards and future directions.  Upon completion of the course,
the students will be equipped with the necessary background in
information theory, motion estimation and compensation, and a solid
understanding of the basic principles and standards of digital image
and video compression.

Presenters:

Majid Rabbani      and      M. Ibrahim Sezan

Image Processing Laboratory  Eastman Kodak Company

Organizers:

Fu Li              and      Rolf Schaumann

Portland State University

With Cooperation by Oregon Center for Advanced Technology Education

The course starts with a broad set of product and application examples
that establish the need for image compression in various digital
imaging systems.  This is followed by a brief description of the
existing and emerging standards in the field of digital image and
video compression and their scopes and functionalities. Next, the
three main components of compression schemes, namely, transformation
or decomposition, quantization, and symbol modeling and encoding are
presented. The topic of symbol encoding is next studied in greater
detail. In particular, the concept of a Markov source model and its
entropy are presented, and the various coding strategies such as
Huffman coding, arithmetic coding, and LZW coding are studied and
their relative merits and shortcomings are compared. The first day is
concluded with a detailed study of lossless image compression schemes
which include bit- plane encoding, lossless DPCM used in the JPEG
lossless standard, and the Rice algorithm. Finally, a description of
the current ITU-T (formerly CCITT) facsimile standards and the
emerging JBIG standard is provided.

The second day contains a detailed description of lossy compression
techniques for still-images which also form the basis for video
compression schemes such as MPEG and H.261. First a brief description
of various quantization strategies such as the uniform scalar
quantizer, the Lloyd-Max nonuniform scalar quantizer, the
entropy-constrained scalar quantizer, vector quantization (VQ), and
the emerging technique of trellis-coded quantization (TCQ) is provided
and their relative performances are compared. This is followed by an
analysis of transform image coding schemes with a particular emphasis
on the discrete cosine transform (DCT). The baseline, extended, and
enhanced modes of the JPEG international standard for the compression
of continuous-tone still color images are studied in detail. This is
followed by a study of wavelet and subband coding schemes and their
performance merits compared to DCT. The basic notions of fractal image
compression are also reviewed. Finally, progressive image transmission
techniques and various strategies for constructing image hierarchies
are discussed. Topics include the S-transform, Knowlton's technique,
the Laplacian pyramid and the Kodak Photo-CD image pyramid. This
concludes the second day.

The third day is devoted to video compression. Interframe motion
information is a fundamental component of video compression since it
facilitates the utilization of temporal redundancies that naturally
exist in video sequences.  Further, it plays an important role in
designing efficient pre-compression algorithms, such as noise
filtering. Noise suppression via pre-filtering greatly increases the
efficiency of subsequent compression and is often one of the
differentiating factors used in evaluating a complete compression
system. We develop a unifying framework for fundamentals of motion
estimation and present an overview of motion estimation algorithms
within this framework. Next, we discuss motion-adaptive algorithms for
preprocessing of video. Following a brief overview of different
approaches to filtering of image sequences, we describe two recently
developed spatiotemporal filters for motion-adaptive noise
suppression. We next provide a detailed discussion of both the
fundamental and working principles of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 video
compression standards. We also present a brief overview of H.261
standard and point out its similarities and differences with MPEG-1.
An overview of available silicon, software, and hardware
implementations of the standards is also furnished. A summary of
emerging MPEG-4 activities, aimed at developing compression standards
that are amenable to content-based access and manipulation of
audiovisual information, is followed by an overview of standardization
efforts for digital standard television and high-definition television
(HDTV) in US.

Bulletized Course Outline

           Introduction

Product examples
Statistical redundancy and perceptual irrelevancy
Lossless vs. lossy compression
Standards: JPEG, MPEG, H.261, etc.
Compression basics: transformation, quantization, symbol coding

          Symbol Encoding

Markov modeling and entropy
Huffman coding
Arithmetic coding
LZW coding

          Lossless Compression Techniques

Bit-plane coding
DPCM
Rice algorithm
Facsimile standards (ITU-T Group III and IV, JBIG)

          Quantization Strategies
Uniform scalar
Nonuniform scalar (Lloyd-Max)
Entropy-constrained
Vector quantization (VQ)
Trellis-coded quantization (TCQ)

          Lossy Compression Schemes

Predictive coding (DPCM)
Discrete cosine Transform (JPEG Baseline, extended, and enhanced modes)
Wavelet and subband coding
Fractals

          Image Hierarchies and Progressive Transmission

Variable-amplitude hierarchies (bit-plane encoding, etc.)
Variable-resolution hierarchies (Knowlton's technique, S-transform, etc.)
Photo-CD compression

          Introduction to Video Compression

Motivation for video compression
Interframe and Intraframe approaches to video compression

          Motion estimation

Fundamental principles of motion estimation
Overview of algorithms (block matching, hierarchical block matching, etc.)

          Noise Suppression

Motion-detection based approaches
Motion-compensated approaches
Adaptive, motion-compensated spatiotemporal filters
Scratch detection and removal

          Video Compression Standards

The MPEG-1 Standard
Summary of the H.261 Standard
The MPEG-2 Standard
The future: MPEG-4 activities
Examples of silicon, hardware board and software implementations

          Overview of Advanced Television

Advanced TV and HDTV
Brief history of HDTV standardization in US
Outline of The Grand Alliance System



Instructors' bios:

   Majid Rabbani received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the University of Wisconsin in Madison in 1980 and
1983, respectively. He joined the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories
in 1983, where he is currently a research associate and the head of
the image compression Technology Area within the Imaging Science
Division.  He is also involved in many educational activities among
which are teaching graduate courses at the RIT (Rochester Institute of
Technology) EE department, satellite courses for NTU (National
Technological University), and short courses for MIT, RIT and various
technical Societies.

Dr. Rabbani is the recipient of the 1988 Kodak C. E. K. Mees Award and
the co-recipient of the 1990 Emmy Engineering Award (for image
compression research) in recognition of the Still-Video Tranceiver
System. He directed the efforts of the Los Alamos team in charge of
the digital enhancement of the Rodney King beating video tape and
subsequently testified as an expert witness for the case in 1993. His
current research interests span the various aspects of digital signal
and image processing where he has published over 40 technical articles
and holds 10 patents. From 1990-1994 he was the Editor of the Journal
of Electronic Imaging.  He is a Fellow of SPIE, and a senior member of
IEEE. He is the coauthor of the book Digital Image Compression
Techniques published by SPIE Press in 1991 and the editor of the SPIE
Milestone Series on Image Coding and Compression , published in 1992.

   M. Ibrahim Sezan received the B.S degrees in Electrical Engineering
and Mathematics from Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey in 1980,
with the highest honors. He received the M.S degree in Physics from
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, and the M.S and
Ph.D degrees in Electrical Computer and Systems Engineering from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York in 1982, 1983 and
1984, respectively.  Since 1984, he is with Eastman Kodak Company,
Rochester, New York. Presently, he leads the Motion and Video
Technology Area in the Imaging Research and Advanced Development
Laboratories. He also holds an adjunct faculty position at the
Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Rochester.

Dr. Sezan was the co-recipient of the A. B. Du Mont award at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1984. During 1988-1992, he served
as an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.
From 1992 to 1994 he was an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions
on Image Processing. He contributed to the books Image Recovery:
Theory and Application (Academic Press, 1987), Mathematics in Signal
Processing (Oxford 1987), Handbook of Signal Processing (Marcell
Dekker, 1988), Digital Image Restoration (Springer Verlag, 1991),
Real-Time Optical Information Processing (Academic Press, 1994) and
edited Selected Papers in Digital Image Restoration (SPIE Milestone
Series, 1992). He is the co-editor of the book Motion Analysis and
Image Sequence Processing (Kluwer, 1993). His research interests
include video analysis, processing and compression, image restoration
and enhancement, and digital image and video libraries.  Dr. Sezan is
an active participant in the MPEG standards; he actively publishes and
teaches in the area of image and video processing.

            *************************************************

Registration Information

   Dates: Wednesday, September 13 - Friday, September 15, 1995

   Times: Regular sessions will begin at 8:30 AM and end at 5:00 PM.
Refreshments will be served at 8:00 AM daily and at breaks.  Lunch
periods are from 12:00 to 1:30.

   Location: Classes will be held at Portland State University (PSU),
located in downtown Portland.  Detailed information will be sent to
registrants.

Fees:

   Early Registration: $895.  Registration form and payment must be
postmarked BY August 17.

   Late Registration: $995.  Registration form and payment postmarked
AFTER August 17.

All registration materials must be received BY August 31.  Fees
include lecture, course materials, refreshments and a Certificate of
Completion.

A 15% discount will be granted when six or more people from the same
company register for the course.

   Refund: A full refund will be given for cancellations received by
phone at PSU, [phone], prior to August 31.  No refund will be
made for a cancellation notice received after August 31, or for
non-attendance.  A substitute may attend in place of the registered
participant.

   Accomodations: For reservations made before 8/27/95, special rates
for participants are arranged with:

   Airlines-Carlson Travel   :[phone]
  \  \  5% Airline Discount (Credit Card Only)
  \  \  Ask for Renee
   Days Inn City Center   :[phone]
  \  \  $59 Single, $64 Double, $69 Double-Double
   Red Lion, Portland Center   :[phone]
  \  \  $95 Single, $110. Double

Mention Digital Imaging when making reservations.  Both hotels are a
pleasant ten minute walk to PSU.  Buses and MAX trains in the downtown
area are free, so it should not be necessary to rent a car.  Other
nearby hotels:

The Benson: [phone]
Heathman Hotel: [phone]
Hilton Hotel: [phone]
Mallory Hotel: [phone]
Marriott Hotel: [phone]

   Excursions: Spousal/Companion activities will be arranged depending
on interest.

           *****************************************************

WORKSHOP REGISTRATION

Digital Image and Multimedia Compression:
Fundamentals and International Standards

September 13 - 15, 1995

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

Name: _____________________________________________________

Company: __________________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________

City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________

Email address:  _________________ Work Phone: ____________________

Payment  Options:

      $895 if postmarked BY  August 17, 1995
           $760 per person for six or more registrations from one company
      $995 if postmarked AFTER August 17, 1995
           $845 per person for six or more registrations from one company

      Enclosed is a check made payable to
           Portland State University - E.E. Dept.

     Please charge the registration fee to my credit card:

              Visa           MC
                  ---------    ---------

Account # ________________________________________ Exp. Date _________

Signature: ____________________________________________________________

      I would like to receive information on the Spousal/Companion activities.

     MAIL OR FAX FORM to:

Portland State University
Department of Electrical Engineering
Digital Image and Multimedia Compression
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR  97207-0751

FAX: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]

All registration materials must be received by August 31, 1995

For more information, please see our WWW homepage at:

http://www.ee.pdx.edu/short_courses/image_compression/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #306
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12922;
          12 Jul 95 10:35 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27573 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:38:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27565; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:38:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 00:38:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #307

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Jul 95 00:38:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 307

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bomb Explosion in North Carolina Telco Offices! (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Atlanta Area Code Split (Toby Nixon)
    Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888) (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Urgent Situation at OTR (William Pfieffer via Sander J. Rabinowitz)
    The Net and The Telco (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: Running Out of 800 Numbers (Larry Rachman)
    Opinions Sought: Busy vs Dialtone (Susan Spence)
    Sprint/Call-Net 1Q Results (Dave Leibold)
    Harrassment Calls (Fred Atkinson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bomb Explosion in North Carolina Telco Offices!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 22:00:00  CDT


A bomb sent in a brown paper package exploded at the headquarters of
a long distance company in Raleigh, NC on Monday, seriously injuring
the woman who opened the package and causing injuries to workers around
here and damage to the company's office.

The package, addressed to BTI, a long distance company with about thirty
offices throughout the southern and southeastern United States, arrived
by US Mail shortly before noon on Monday. Tracy Bullis, a BTI employee,
opened the package which caused it to explode. The blast was sufficiently
strong to be felt throughout the nine-story building that is headquarters
for BTI in Raleigh. In the immediate panic following the explosion, the
building was evacuated and other minor injuries occurred as hundreds of
people in the building tried to run down the stairs, pushing past each
other to escape.

BTI officials said they had no idea why anyone would send them a bomb.
Executive vice president Kim Chapman, spokesperson for the firm said,
"I cannot understand why anyone would want to do harm or damage to our
company and our employees." Ms. Bullis, 35, a seven-year employee of
BTI and the manager of a department which coordinates the lease and
purchase of transmission lines and facilities from other telcos is in
serious medical condition as a result of the explosion.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation responded by opening an investigation
into the incident on Monday afternoon. The first thought of everyone
was that this was the work of the Unabomber, a serial bomber blamed for
three deaths and 23 injuries since 1978. His targets are usually high-
tech companies and universities. FBI officials said however this was
not Unabomber's work.  FBI spokesperson George Grotz said, "this is not
the Unabomber. Our investigation is continuing however; we are working
with local authorities in Raleigh." He indicated that at this time, the
FBI had no leads in the case; no suspects in mind.

BTI does not solicit residential customers as such; almost all their
customers are business accounts.

Other injured employees, including Judith Collins Harrison, 38, of
Wake Forest, NC were treated in local area hospitals according to Fire
Department personnel and other emergency workers on the scene Monday
afternoon. Physical damage to the building appears to have been
limited to the immediate area of the explosion although the blast was
felt for some distance around.

With Unabomber still running loose and apparently at least one copycat
inspired to try his 'skills' in the same way, this is a good time to
remind EVERYONE -- especially persons employed in 'high tech' companies --
to be very, very careful about packages which arrive in the mail or show
up on your doorstep or at your desk unsolicited.


PAT

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 13:46:51 PDT
Subject: Atlanta area code split


The following info appears in Bellcore Letter IL-95/06-008:

Title: NANP-Split of 404 (Georgia) Numbering Plan Area (NPA)

Distribution: Unrestricted

Abstract: This IL provides industry notification of the impending split
of the 404 NPA.

Content:

We have been advised by BellSouth Telecommunications that increased
demand for telephone numbers and other telecommunications needs in the
Atlanta area of Georgia necessitates the splitting of the existing 404
NPA and the simultaneous introduction of a new 770 NPA.

The Atlanta exchange area, which includes most of the area inside the
Interstate 285 beltway, will retain the 404 NPA. With a few
exceptions, the remaining part of the current 404 NPA will change to
the new 770 area code.

The split of the 404 NPA, and the beginning of the permissive dialing
period, is scheduled for 12:01 AM EDT on Tuesday, August 1, 1995.
During the permissive dialing period, either 404 or 770 will be
acceptable in a dialed number terminating in the new 770 NPA. The
permissive dialing period will end at 12:01 AM EST on Friday, December
1, 1995. After the permissive period, calls dialed with incorrect NPA
codes, as defined in the NPA split information published in the Local
Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), will be routed to intercept. Changes to
the local exchange routing information will be incorporated into the
LERG and the NPA NXX Activity Guide (NNAG).

Central offices in the area to be served by the 770 NPA will be
modified on a progressive basis to transmit "770" in the calling number
Automatic Number Identification (ANI) between August 1, 1995 and
November 1, 1995. BellSouth will convert all pertinent records to 770
the weekend of July 28, 1995. This includes customer service records
and associated NPA information in other systems. After July 30, 1995,
all inquiries must refer to the correct NPA code.

The attached map illustrates the 440 and 770 NPA configuration after
the split. A listing of the communities and exchange prefixes to be
included in each area code after the split is also attached.

Test calls to verify routing to the new 770 NPA can be made by calling
1-770-666-9999, effective July 1, 1995. A recorded announcement will
ndicate that the test call has been successfully completed.

The following dialing procedures will exist for the 404 and 770 NPAs in
Georgia:

*  All intra-NPA "local" calls (generally calls that do not incur a
charge) will be dialed on a seven digit basis with no prefix; i.e.,
NXX+XXXX (seven digits). Permissive ten digit dialing will be allowed
for these calls, i.e., NPA + NNX + XXXX (ten digits).

* All inter-NPA "local" calls will be dialed on a ten digit basis and
no prefix; i.e., NPA + NXX + XXXX (ten digits).

* All inter-NPA direct dialed "toll" calls (generally calls that incur
an additional charge) will be dialed with a prefix "1" and then ten
digits; i.e., 1 + NPA + NXX + XXXX (1 + ten digits). Note: there is no
toll calling within or between the 404 and 770 NPAs.

* All operator assisted calls (both intra and inter NPA) including
credit card, collect, and third party calls will be dialed with either
a "0" or a "10XXX + 0" prefix and ten digits; i.e., 0 + NPA + NXX +
XXXX, or 10XXX + 0 + NPA + NXX + XXXX.

Questions concerning NPA relief project coordination should be directed
to Jay Murphy, BellSouth Telecommunications, on [phone]. General
questions concerning the split and dialing procedures may be directed
to Stan Washer, BellSouth Telecommunications, on [phone].

Copies of this letter are being forwarded to achieve the widest
possible industry distribution and may be reproduced for further
distribution as needed. Questions concerning the contents of this
letter may be referred to Jim Deak, Bellcore, at [phone], or by
fax on [phone].

(signed)
J. N. Deak
North American Numbering Plan Administration

(Map appears, showing COs in 404 and 770)

(Table appears, showing wire centers in 404 and in 770).

Wiring Centers remaining in 404 are:

Adamsville - 505, 691, 696, 699

Ben Hill - 344, 346, 349, 629

Buckhead - 201, 202, 210, 213, 216, 217, 218, 219, 226, 231, 233, 234,
237, 238, 239, 240, 261, 262, 264, 266, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277,
281, 285, 290, 291, 293, 295, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317,
364, 365, 372, 374, 375, 376, 401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 408, 444, 488,
520, 550, 556, 557, 558, 561, 580, 617, 625, 626, 630, 660, 680, 683,
694, 695, 697, 731, 754, 771, 788, 789, 790, 791, 797, 805, 812, 814,
816, 826, 831, 841, 842, 846, 848, 861, 862, 863, 902

Buckhead Remote - 398

Columbia Drive - 284, 286, 288, 289

Courtland St - 215, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 230, 265, 302, 330,
331, 332, 335, 380, 420, 506, 515, 517, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526,
527, 529, 581, 582, 572, 577, 581, 584, 586, 588, 589, 614, 616, 651,
652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 681, 688, 727, 730, 818, 827, 865, 880

Courtland St Olympics - 547, 548

East Lake - 341, 360, 370, 371, 373, 377, 378, 383, 566, 687, 999

East Point - 209, 305, 530, 559, 669, 714, 715, 761, 762, 763, 765,
766, 767, 768, 910

East Point Olympics - 543

Forest Park - 361, 362, 363, 366, 608

Gresham - 212, 241, 243, 244

Hollywood Road - 792, 794, 799

Indian Creek - 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 501, 508

Lakewood - 622, 524, 627, 635

Peachtree Place - 206, 249, 280, 282, 283, 342, 347, 415, 533, 560,
570, 571, 598, 607, 619, 650, 676, 686, 690, 703, 712, 716, 724, 726,
733, 810, 815, 817, 833, 837, 853, 864, 866, 870, 871, 872, 870, 871,
872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 881, 885, 888, 892, 894, 896, 897, 898, 899

Peachtree Pl Olympics - 542, 546

Sandy Springs - 250, 252, 255, 256, 257, 303, 705, 843, 845, 847, 851

SS-Abernathy Remote - 573

Toco Hills - 235, 248, 315, 320, 321, 325, 329, 633, 634, 636, 638,
679, 728, 778, 982

Woodland - 350, 351, 352, 355, 605, 609

West End - 752, 753, 755, 756, 758

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 17:02:35 -0400
Subject: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888)


Erez Levav <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Maybe I'v been misled, but I thought that the 888 prefix was >needed
> because there are not enough 800 numbers available.

Yes, Erez, you've been mislead.  888 was borne out of a shortsighted,
non-malicious but negligent nonetheless, carrier-created facade of a
shortage.  That the bulk of numbers are coded unavailable in the SMS
database *does not* mean that they are "unavailable."  It only means
they are unavailable for assignment to marketers for applicable 800
service.

Where many of them reside is in the carrier stables awaiting birth of
new carrier products and line extensions, or misapplied to existing
non-800-brand applications as pagers (used for toll-free utility),
and, according to savvy engineers and certain-high-level-primary-carrier-
execs-in-the-know, 500 service (used for portable routing utility.)

Beyond the false shortage assumptions, no one's rantings and ravings,
including my good friend Patrick's,  alter the fact that neither
residential nor pager toll-free use require the marketing utility of the
*800* brand of toll-free, and hense could be moved -- with little cost or
disruption to caller or recipient --  to other toll-free NPA's.

To ignore these facts, or dismiss the value of marketing and brand utility
of *800* toll-free, is just silly, and absurd.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We would in effect gain nothing, but the
> prima donnas in the American corporate world who are all so much better
> than the rest of you peasants will have gotten their way, and that is
> what counts, isn't it?  PAT]

Patrick, speak for yourself.  On the other side of every marketing
campaign, small or large, is a slew of satisfied customers.

As consumers -- not peasants, thank you -- we are all entitled to find
Coke in our bottles of Coke -- and American Express behind THE CARD.
If that makes us "prima donnas", then hand me my toe shoes and let's
dance!


Judith Oppenheimer, Interactive CallBrand(TM)
email:   [e-mail]
phone: [phone], fax: [phone]

Bridging the Gap Between Telecom & Marketing:  Strategic Leadership,
Competitive Intelligence


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> we are all entitled to find Coke in our bottles of Coke -- and American
> Express being THE CARD ...

Assuredly. However if you send someone to the store to get you a bottle
of Coke, and through their own carelessness and failure to pay attention
to what they were doing they came back with a bottle containing the juice
of prunes, by your reasoning you would blame the Prune Juice Company for
having a bottle shaped the same as Coke bottles, and a liquid of the
same general color. You'd say the Prune Juice Company should be
required to change the size and shape of their bottles and perhaps add
some coloring to the liquid to make it look different so there would
not be this sort of consumer confusion in the future. You'd say -- I
think -- that consumers ought to be able to get by with just a casual
glance at the product or service; that no two ought to look 'enough
alike' that any confusion would result when an unsophisticated person
'aimed' in the general direction of what they wanted but came up
with something else instead.  Unsophisticated persons -- and Lord
knows there are enough of them in the world -- may assume that
888-THE-CARD is the same as 800-THE-CARD or (any area code)-THE-CARD
or (use no area code at all)-THE-CARD, but you know better and I know
better and I hope quite a few other people know better or will learn
quickly once a campaign gets under way to educate people. How far do
you think others should be imposed upon in order to assure that the
common denominator here -- the American public; by and large I'll
grant you an ignorant bunch -- doesn't get home with a bottle of
prune juice instead of Coke just because they 'always assumed' that
something in a glass bottle with a cap on the top and a dark colored
liquid inside was always going to be Coke?

You say this would never happen; people know that you have to read
the label on the container -- at least the key words or phrases -- if
you don't want to come home with whipped cream instead of Gillette
Shaving Lather or Folger's Coffee Crystals instead of Nestle's Ice
Tea Crystals or Purina Dog Chow instead of Post's Grape Nuts cereal.
You can't go exclusively by what the product looks like or how it
is packaged. Why do you assume the public won't figure out that 888
does not get you the same thing as 800 or 011-800, especially when
you can trademark the pertinent part of it all. i.e. 'FLOWERS' or
'THE CARD'.  McDonald's does not worry about other fast food chains
selling hamburgers, they simply concern themselves with any food chain
selling a food product known as "Mc(anything)" or "Mac (anything)."

Now if someone puts their liquid product in a red container with the
'Coke' logo on the side of the can, then Goddess help them when the
lawyers get finished chewing them up and spitting them out. If someone
tries to operate a flower service by phone called FLOWERS, then by
by golly get after them also. But how far in this 'identity crisis' do
you want to take things ... all the way through sizes and shapes and
phone numbers that 'sort of' look like other numbers, etc?    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 21:26 EST
From: Sander J. Rabinowitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urgent Situation at OTR


FYI.  /Sandy/

  Date:     Tue Jul 11, 1995  7:02 pm  EST
  From:     AIRWAVES MEDIA PUBLISHING
            EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
            MBX: [e-mail]

  TO:       Sander J. Rabinowitz / MCI ID: 382-9147
  Subject:  Urgent Situation at OTR

Greetings Readers:

A situation has presented itsself that requires me to post this
specific request to this list, something I do not like to do, but the
situation is such that it is required.

As many of you know, OTR is funded by my personal funds, and the
occasional donation by the readership.  I operate OTR via connectivity
that I pay for, and do not charge for the service.

Well the fact is that those funds have been running very close to the
bone, but none-the-less, everything gets paid, somehow.

Well last week I had to replace the clutch in my pickup truck, which
cost nearly $300 and put my bank account near zero.  That would still
be OK, except that last night, my main hard drive also bit the dust,
for which I have no funds till the beginning of the month to pay to
repair it (I would just replace it, but can't afford to lose the data
on it, whatever cash I make is dependant upon that data (I make web
pages for people and I have 2 projects near completion.

Anyway, to make a long story short, the repair cost for this drive is
$200 and without it I cannot even boot up my home PC (I am posting
this on a terminal at the public library).

My point being if any of you out there were considering a donation to
the OTR, this is the time to do so.  If you cannot do so, not to
worry, things will eventually work out, but if you can afford to send
anything, please do.

Make any check out to:

William Pfeiffer

and send to PO Box 8746 Springfield Mo 65801.

I appreciate the few people who have already send assistance in the
past and I would not send this if the crash had not happened right
after the darned clutch.


               ============================

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor Bill ... I knew him for years when
he lived here in Chicago; it was I who got him started in the 'life' ...
I started him out with an old terminal he used to call BBS lines; I
taught him the basic elements of operating a computer; I taught him the
basics on how to publish a newsletter -- and he publishes a damn good
one. He and I differ in some ways; for one, I am a little more bald-faced
than Bill. I just sit here and ask for money; Usenet customs of how it
is all supposed to be free and the Moderator is just expected to put out
and shut up and all that be damned!  But Bill is still embarassed to ask
for help.  At this time of crisis for him, do what you can. If you are
getting his e-journal, you know it is good and worthwhile. In fact if
you were going to send a donation here this month and you can't afford
both of us, then send it to him this time instead at the address shown
above. I'll survive; I always have until now. Thanks.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:34:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: The Net and The Telco


In TD306 [e-mail] (Andrew L. Soodek) asked "Questions
About the Internet/Telephone Companies Link"

The telephone companies _in general_ have nothing to do with the net
except leasing lines to organizations who wish to link their computers
together.  This network grew from a few research facilities into the
national network.

Its too complicated to get into here in detail, I don't really want to
suffer the wrath of a million corrections, but I'll try.

Your mail and posts sent to your local provider is forwarded through a
higher level provider until it finds a system that can send it to a
provider who serves the destination of your message.

For example, your post to TELECOM Digest went from interaccess.com in
Chicago to the University of Chicago then to either Northwestern
University, where The Digest is published from IF there is a direct
connection or via Argonne National Laboratories, which is your local
backbone site.

The actual path that a message takes depends on how many options there
are available.  Obviously if there is only one path, that's the path
your message will take.  If there is more than one path, then your
message is sent out on whichever channel is available at the
microsecond the system receives it.  There are a whole bunch of
routing rules and priority levels that are best left to the techies.

Once again, the short answer is that your message is sent on lines leased
from telephone companies.  They get a dollar per month figure that makes
them care less about your usage.  They get paid even if all the computers
are turned off!

The future of course is changing this as local phone companies and the
long distance carriers get into the delivery markets.  Even cable
companies want to get into the internet business.  That is a subject
that you will find a lot of talk about here.

As for the basics of the internet, try reading a book (those paper
things that research was done from before the net was available from
home).  A good pair is 'The Internet for Dummies' Volumes 1 and 2.
Its a good read, once you get past the title.

Or browse over to http://ds.internic.net/ds/rfc-index.html for a lot of
technical articles explaining the rules of how to make a computer work on
the net.  I've read most of them and am glad that I don't have to worry
about a single one.  My software takes care of it all for me.

Happy netting!


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think sometime soon we should get
into a discussion of the difference between the 'Internet' (with an upper
case 'I') and the 'internet' (with a lower case 'i')?  They are two
different things, you know.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 14:00:56 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Larry Rachman)
Subject: Re: Running out of 800 numbers


Not to continue flogging a dead horse, but in response to our Esteemed
Moderator's comment of:

> ...so begin by yanking Amex's 800 numbers.   PAT]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in giving tacit approval to the telco goon
squads breaking down our doors and ripping our 800 numbers out of our
phones. Clearly, if anyone can be construed to have a *right* to a
particular phone number, the most likely candidate would be the
individual or corporation currently paying the bill for it.

 ... But, there may be advantages to all parties involved to segregate
personal toll-free numbers from public ones. IMHO, it has the
potential to reduce (although admittedly not eliminate) wrong numbers,
and there may be other advantages as well (TELECOM readers, please
help me out here!)

Suppose we declare it customary (but not mandatory) for personal
toll-frees to be 888, not 800. Anyone with an existing 800 is welcome
to keep it.  Personally, I'd be glad to swap my 800 for an 888,
especially if my carrier makes it a freebie, but if you (global) don't
want to, no problem. Keep it, maybe some business will offer to *buy*
it from you. Carriers could offer 888s first to new private users, but
they could get on the 800 waiting list (there's bound to be one sooner
or later) if they'd like. Businesses could go whichever way they think
is better for marketing.

Exceptions could run in both directions. My friend with the 800 number
that spells out his name would surely want to keep it, and hotels
offering direct toll free calls to guest suites would probably buy a
block of 888s, not 800s.  Just about everyone would be happy.

(One thing I'm assuming here is that there are/will be far more
private toll- free numbers than public ones. Can anyone confirm that
the trend is going in that direction).

While I realize that it is historically traditional for Area Codes to
specify *areas*, the creation of 800 and 900 numbers has placed a few
cracks in that structure. If we can inplicitely pass the user some
additional information through those first three digits, why not
encouage it?


LR


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After we turn off Amex's 800 numbers, then
I think we should turn off all of Ameritech's internal 800 numbers (for
the business office, etc) until they shape up and fly right. Despite the
fact that their business office hours are 7 am to 7 pm five days per week
and have been for some time, all their literature including the monthly
phone bill continues to claim they can be reached 24 hours daily. And
about half the time when you call them at 800-244-4444, your first dialing
attempt results in a recording that 'due to telephone company facilities
trouble, your call cannot be completed at this time ... try again later.'
About half the time you get a fast busy reorder. When you do get through,
you wade through a LONG voicemail menu of options -- doesn't everyone have
touch tone these days for an extra fee? -- only to be told by the computer
after it considers the number of calls ahead of you that 'estimated time
on hold is ... (here it pauses and thinks about it) ... greater than ten
minutes."  I waited on hold twenty minutes for them today.

Then Integratel can have their 800 numbers pulled also. Calls to 800-736-
7500 often result in a voicemail message saying 'we are overloaded with
calls right now (and unspoken) with calls from people like you complaining
about our sleaze clients' so please hang up and call us another time. This,
followed by a disconnect. Period. End of discussion.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Susan Spence)
Subject: Opinions Sought: Busy vs Dialtone
Date: 11 Jul 1995 23:37:28 GMT
Organization: The Direct Connection


The company I work for sells ISDN products, and we have a BRI device
which can connect up to four analogue telephones + X.25/pad over a serial
port.  Currently, when both B channels are in use, any attempt to make
a phone call results in a busy indication.

The device provides the usual 999 emergency override (it drops one
call to provide a line if both channels are busy when someone dials
999).

I believe that this is correct behavior.  However, a (big) potential
customer has expressed a desire for the device to provide a dialtone
in the situation described above.  Their reasoning is that customers
may be confused by the busy signal and not understand that a 999 call
will complete.  On the other hand, I can't see that giving users a
dialing tone when no line is available to them is anything like the
right thing to do.

Has anyone else out there been faced with this question?  I'd welcome
any interesting ideas.  It would be very difficult to alter the
operation of our kit to accomodate this request, which seems very
ill-advised at best.  My feeling is that a sticker or plaque above the
phone explaining that 999 calls always work would be a nice cheap
solution.


Thanks in advance,

sue   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 01:52:10 -0400
Subject: Sprint/Call-Net 1Q Results


[This is somewhat old news, but the following press release contains
material that should remain of interest - content is Call-Net's (Sprint's)
via CNW]

CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC. REPORTS FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER, MARCH 31, 1995

TORONTO, May 23 /CNW/ - Call-Net Enterprises Inc., today reported
revenues of $86.0 million, a 142% increase over the same period last
year and a 36% increase over the previous quarter.

Commenting on these results, Juri Koor, Chairman and CEO of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc. stated: "The company is continuing its rapid but
orderly growth plan".

Total minutes billed to customers in the first quarter of 1995
increased by 125% to 310 million compared to the same period last year
and by 26% versus the previous quarter. The first quarter gross margin
was 29.1%, an increase of 2% over the previous quarter.

Cash used in operations during the quarter (defined as income before
depreciation, amortization, interest and taxes) decreased to $11.7
million from $23.7 million used in the previous quarter, while $2
million was generated in the same period last year. The net loss in
the current quarter decreased to $20.9 million, or $0.53 per share,
compared with $32.6 million or $0.92 per share for the previous
quarter.

The company continues to maintain a strong balance sheet, with $120
million of cash on hand, and over $116 million of working capital. At
the end of the quarter, shareholders' equity was $183 million, and
long term debt was $146 million, resulting in a debt to equity ratio
of 0.80:1.

Sprint Canada announced its Hybrid Carrier Strategy in the fall of
last year.  In the first quarter of 1995, the company successfully
completed its Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto fibre build on time and on
budget. The decommissioning of leased circuits took place early in the
second quarter, allowing for the capture of significant leased line
savings.

Two other significant projects also commenced during the first
quarter.  The Business Service group, as well as our national network
and computer centers relocated to our new offices at 2550 Victoria
Park, providing the company with the latest in technological support
for our sales and customer service groups. The company has also
completed installation of new switching equipment in Vancouver.

In early January, David Parkes was appointed President and Chief
Executive Officer of Sprint Canada Inc. Mr. Parkes has over ten years
experience in senior executive positions in the telecommunications
industry in Canada, plus substantial experience in other service and
retail companies. Under his guidance, Sprint Canada Inc. is looking
forward to continued market share growth, the result of the expansion
of our addressable market through geographic expansion and new product
roll-out over the next 12 months.

Sprint Canada Inc., the wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc. is one of Canada's leading long distance
telecommunications companies, offering voice and data services
nationwide. With headquarters in Toronto, Sprint Canada operates 12
regional sales offices and employs more than 800 Canadians across the
country.

The Common Shares and Class B Non-Voting Shares of Call-Net
Enterprises Inc.  trade on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges
under the symbols CN and CN.B respectively. The Class B Non-Voting
shares trade in NASDAQ under the symbol CNEBF.

For further information: please contact Patrick Pichette, [phone]
of Call-Net Enterprises Inc. Other Contacts: Juri Koor, [phone];
David Parkes, [phone].


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 12:03:58 EST
From: Atkinson, Fred <[e-mail]>
Subject: Harrassment Calls


Since I established my new phone number (at my new residence) early
this year, I have had a well-known long distance carrier call me three
times wanting to sell me service.  Because my experiences with this
carrier has been very poor, I explained why I would not subscribe and
politely asked them not to call again.

Last night, I received the third call from that carrier.  I expressed
my outrage that my instruction for them not to call me again had not
been obeyed.  Additionally, I called their customer service, demanded
a supervisor and read her the riot act about it.

She said she was putting my numbers (home and cellular) on a 'no call'
list claiming that once this was done, they would no longer annoy me
with their calls.  Additionally, she offered to give me information on
how I could keep the other carriers from calling me (do away with the
competition, I guess) but I declined as the others have respected my
wishes on that matter (so far).

Can anyone advise me as to what formal action I can take against them
if they continue to harrass me with their telemarketers?  I have heard
some rumors about getting financial compensation.  While I have no
desire for the money, making them shell it out could be incentive to
make them stop calling me.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.


Fred


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a national group headquartered
here in northern Illinois called 'Private Citizen' run by a fellow who
used to work for some lawyers. His group sends out warning notices to
telemarketers with lists of names of people who do not wish to be
disturbed with calls. Those that persist get sued. I understand they
have been somewhat successful in collecting damages from offending
telemarketers. Unfortunatly I cannot remember their address/phone.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #307
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14037;
          12 Jul 95 11:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02961 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 01:47:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02915; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 01:47:06 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 01:47:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #308

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Jul 95 01:47:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 308

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New Calling Card at 17.9 Cents per Minute (Scott Gordon)
    Portable Dialing Directory Design (Frank da Cruz)
    Book Review: "Everybody's Guide to the Internet" by Gaffin (Rob Slade)
    Private Line Number 6 Online (Tom Farley)
    Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business (Eric Bennett)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Barry F Margolius)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (Garrett A. Wollman)
    Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report (David Breneman)
    Misdialing 1-888 or 1-800 (Seth B. Rothenberg)
    Re: 800=888 (Linc Madison)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Calling Card at 17.9 Cents per Minute
Date: 11 Jul 1995 08:10:13 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My main reason for sending this message
out was to call your attention to the 17.9 cent per minute rate with
six second billing, no surcharge, etc. If all that is true, this seems
like it might be a good calling card. Plus which, the guy who sent this
in is in Winnetka, the village just north of me. I recognized the
'Alpine-6' exchange immediatly! <g> See what you think.    PAT]


     SBBS Software & Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter "SBBS") has recently
     announced a non-debit calling card, "VoiceNet" with a per minute rate o
     $0.179 per minute.  This card includes the following features:

     *    The Card Is FREE!
     *    $0.179 Per Minute - Both Interstate and Intrastate
     *    No Surcharges, Pre-payment, Membership Fees, Monthly Fees, or
               Minimum Monthly Billing
     *    Six (6) Second Incremental Billing With A Six (6) Minimum
     *    Personal Cards Conveniently Billed To Credit Cards
     *    Corporate Accounts Have Option Of Being Billed Monthly Or
               Charging To Credit Card
     *    Fully Itemized Billing, Sub-Divided By Card Holder
     *    No Need To Hang Up To Make Multiple Calls

     Agent Features:

     *    No Charge To Become An Agent Or To Sign Up/Sub-contract Other
               Agencies.
     *    8% Residual
     *    Monthly Commissions Directly Deposited Into Authorized Bank
               Account For Easy & Accurate Receipt Of Payments.
     *    Ability To Setup Unlimited Sub-Agents (Commissions Paid Directly
               To Sub-Agents From Carrier)
     *    Fully Detailed Commission Reports Of Activate Commissionable
               Accounts & Sub-Agents Accounts On A Monthly Basis.
     *    No Membership Or Accounting Fees.
     *    Full Central-Office Support & Ability To Purchase Color, Postage
               Paid Brochures At Below Wholesale Rates. (1000 Postage Paid
               Brochures For $50)


     SBBS is currently accepting Agent Applications.  If you are interested
     participating in the "VoiceNet" program, please contact Scott Gordon at
     [phone] or via e-mail at [e-mail].

                                (Revised July 11, 1995 * 179card)


Scott Gordon - Internet ID: [e-mail]
*** E-Mail [e-mail] For Current SBBS Wireless Promotions ***

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

From: [e-mail] (Frank da Cruz)
Subject: Portable Dialing Directory Design
Date: 11 Jul 1995 01:10:42 GMT
Organization: Columbia University


Let me begin by explaining that I'm the principle author of C-Kermit
communications software; I am working on improving its modem and
dialing support and need some guidance and opinions from people who
know more about telephony than I do.

For a dialing directory to be "portable", it should work no matter
where you are calling from: the local calling area (a local call), a
different calling area (a long-distance call), another country (an
international call), etc, and from a phone that is directly on the
telephone system as well as from a hotel room or office where you must
dial a special code to get an "outside line", and also irrespective of
your long-distance carrier (in countries like the USA, where you have
a choice), and also whether or not you are billing the call to the
calling phone or to a calling-card or credit-card number, all this
independently of any particular features or limitations of the modem
(e.g. maximum command or phone-number length) or the telephone system
(e.g. availability of Touch Tone (tm) dialing).

It seems to me that given the diverse formats for telephone numbers
all over the world, the diversity of calling procedures (e.g. when
using different long-distance dialing methods in the USA, such as "1"
vs "10-xxx" vs "1-800-xxx-yyyy" and then answering a bunch of
questions), that there is no way to have a dialing directory feature
that is simple enough for most people to understand, at least not
without building a gigantic knowledge base into the software that is
guaranteed to be obsolete the moment the software is released due to
the constantly changing telephony landscape, or else without launching
a lengthy inquisition of the user each time a number is to be dialed.

Here is what we have so far in the working copy of C-Kermit:

1. The DIAL command, e.g. "dial foo".  If "foo" is found in the dialing
   directory, it is replaced by the associated number; otherwise it is
   dialed literally (a feature that allows the user to totally bypass
   the dialing directory).

2. The DIAL METHOD, Tone, pulse, or unspecified.  Kermit uses its knowledge
   of the particular modem to dial using the specified method.  Perfectly
   straightforward.

3. The DIAL PREFIX.  This is used for specifying a code to be dialed in
   order to get an outside line, e.g. when dialing from a PBX or hotel room.
   In other words, this is a prefix to be ADDED to the beginning of the
   phone number that is extracted from the dialing directory.

4. The DIAL LOCAL-AREA-CODE.  This is a prefix to be REMOVED from the
   beginning of a phone number from the dialing directory, if the number
   begins with this prefix.  This lets you include area codes in all
   numbers and have them stripped automatically when it is a local call,
   but kept on when you are travelling and it is a long-distance call.
   (The DIAL PREFIX is added after this step, unconditionally.)

Rationale: In the USA, at least, one normally may not dial a local
call as if it were a long-distance call (doing so results in an error
tone or message).  Thus, the "country" and area codes (e.g. "1-212")
must be stripped before dialing a number in the same area code, but
must be included when dialing the same number from a different area
code.

But ... in some area codes, such as Westchester Country in New York
State, one may (must) use a short number (no "1" or area code) for
calls in one's own town, but a long-distance form (1 914 xxx-xxxx) for
calls in the same area code but outside of one's own town.

Another difficulty we face is that to dial a long-distance number in
the USA, we start with "1", but to dial the same number from outside
the USA, we might have to dial (say) "001".  Similarly, area codes in
countries like Germany and England might start with "0", but when
dialing them from the USA, leading zeroes must be omitted.  (Perhaps
this is just a different way of saying that the long-distance dialing
prefix in Germany or England is "0").

Now, without redesigning Kermit's dialing directory to be some kind of
WIN.INI- or NET.CFG-style monstrosity, or invent a programming
language for writing dialing directories (since dialing is no longer
simply the entry of a number, but a procedure that varies with the
context), and without imbedding within the Kermit code any knowledge
about any particular dialing system or telephone-number format (which,
if it were done, would wind up favoring some countries or carriers
over others), the question is: how much can we accomplish using
Kermit's current dialing-directory format and dialing facilities?

If a person always dials from the same place, then each number can be
entered in the dialing directory in exactly the way the person dials
it: local, long-distance, tie-line, internal PBX number, etc.  That is
what we had before, and it works for most people.

But to meet the needs of those who travel around with their dialing
directories, or for that matter to construct dialing directories which
themselves are portable, e.g. to be shipped to people in diverse
locations throughout the world, what is the least amount of complexity
and "knowledge" we can get away with?

Let's assume (and, in fact, recommend) that all entries in a portable
dialing directory be in a uniform format:

 1. Numbers within the country where one normally dials from are entered
    in the long-distance-dialing format for one's own country, and this
    applies also to numbers that are normally dialed locally, for example
    1-212-765-4321 for a USA number dialed from within the USA.

 2. Numbers outside the country from which one normally dials are entered
    prefixed by the code for international dialing, e.g. 011 in the USA, and
    then the country code, e.g. 49 for Germany.

Now let's assume (this is entirely fictitious):

 1. I work in Manhattan, New York City (USA), area "212".

 2. I live in White Plains, New York State (USA), area "914".

 3. I sometimes travel to Hannover, Germany, bringing a laptop.

The object of the game is to have only one dialing directory that works in
all situations.

Let's assume my dialing directory is as follows.  Please bear in mind
that I don't understand non-North-American phone numbers very well,
since as far as I can tell, and unlike North American phone numbers,
most of them seem to have variable-length fields -- for example, in
Germany, the area code for Frankfurt seems to be 69, for Hannover 511,
and for Marburg 6421, and then length of the part after the area code
seems to vary also.  So here is the text of a short sample dialing
directory (ignoring the other items a dialing directory might contain,
because we are concentrating only on the phone numbers, and bearing in
mind that a real dialing directory might be much longer, and might
contain entries from many countries and areas within countries):

    OFFICE     1-212-765-4321
    INTERNET   1-212-555-1234
    HOME       1-914-987-6543
    NYACK      1-914-876-5432
    HANNOVER   011-49-511-54-32-1
    HANNOVER2  011-49-511-65-43-2
    MARBUG     011-49-6431-76-54-3
    FRANKFURT  011-49-69-87-65-4

Given all this, then:

 1. At work I "set dial local-area-code 1-212".

    This will strip "1-212" from any numbers in my dialing directory
    before dialing the phone.  All other numbers are dialed exactly as
    they are recorded.  Thus if I "dial internet" from my office,
    it is dialed as "555-1234", but if I "dial nyack", it is dialed as
    "1-914-876-5432", and if I "dial hannover" it is dialed as
    "011-49-511-54-32-1".
 2. At home I "set dial local-area-code 1-914".

    This will strip "1-914" from any numbers in my dialing directory
    before dialing the phone.  Thus if I "dial nyack", it is dialed as
    "876-5432", which, unfortunately, won't work, because Nyack is outside
    of the White Plains local calling area, EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN THE SAME
    AREA CODE ( which means we need to incorporate the notion of a
    "local-area-code-stripping-override mechanism" of some sort on a
    per-call basis )-:

 3. When in Hannover with my laptop, I "set dial local-area-code 011-49-511".

    This allows me to make local calls in Hannover; for example, to HANNOVER2.
    But now if I want to make a long-distance call within Germany, I must
    change to "set dial local-area-code 011-49" and I must also (I think) "set
    dial prefix 0", because when dialing long distance WITHIN Germany, the
    area code needs a single "0" on the front (right?).  Now I can "dial
    marburg" or "dial frankfurt".  But, if I want to "dial office" from
    Germany, then I must "set dial prefix 00" so that "1 212" will become "001
    212" (assuming that is the way one dials the USA from Germany).

 4. Paragraph (3) assumes I am in the branch office in Hannover, which is
    connected directly to the Bundesfernsprechersystem (???).  But in the
    evening I go to my hotel, and from there I must dial "77" to get an
    outside line.  In this case, all of paragraph (3) applies, except I must
    also "set dial prefix 77" for local calls, "set dial prefix 770" for
    long-distance calls within Germany, and "set  dial prefix 7700" for
    international calls.

Now all of this is quite complex already.  Is there a chance in the world
that anybody will remember these points or use these features?  Is there any
way to make them simpler?  If so, it is not obvious to me.

One idea that suggests itself is to separate the notions of:

 1. Prefix for long distance calls within the country I am in.
 2. Prefix for calling outside the country I am in.
 3. The area code of the area I am in.
 4. Country code of the country I am in.
 5. Country code for dialing in to each country from outside.
 6. Area codes within any given country.

Each entry in a portable dialing directory would contain items 5 and
6, whereas the user would have to "set" items 1 through 4 in order to
dial at all.  Which does not strike me as a simplification.

Now let's add to all this the complication arising when one has a
choice among several long-distance carriers and/or billing methods.
It seems to me that the entire notion of a dialing directory begins to
break down, since there is no longer a standard format for a telephone
number, nor a standard procedure for dialing it.  In some cases, the
procedure strains the capabilities of most modems and software -- for
example, by engaging in a voice dialog in which one waits for a spoken
question and then, only after the question has been asked, one enter a
DTMF or other response.

Unless I am mistaken (which is quite possible) there is no simple and
portable abstraction for a complete calling sequence, which may consist
of:

 . prefix to get an outside line (maybe)
 . dialing prefix (local, long-distance, international, tie-line, etc)
 . long-distance-carrier access code (or not)
 . credit- or calling-card account number (or not)
 . country code (or not)
 . area code (or not)
 . the phone number itself
 . who knows what else -- an extension, a call-processing dialog, etc.

The order of these items might vary, the procedure for making the
transition from one to the next might vary, and so on.  And,
obviously, sensitive items such as calling-card numbers must NOT be
entered in the dialing directory, but must be indicated by
placeholders to substituted (or not!) at dial-time.

So ... given all the above, what can reasonably be expected of a dialing
directory, and what kinds of simplifying assumptions or techniques can we
use not only to implement it, but to make it easy to understand and
therefore to use?

I'm looking for ideas, opinions, and detailed information about
dialing methods used in all parts of the world.  Any information you
send will be much appreciated and, hopefully, will end up making life
easier (or harder) for modem users everywhere (or nowhere).


Thanks!

Frank

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:06:49 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Everybody's Guide to the Internet" by Gaffin


BKEVBINT.RVW   950509

%A   Adam Gaffin [e-mail]
%C   55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA   02142-1399
%D   1994
%G   0-262-57105-6
%I   The MIT Press/Electronic Frontier Foundation
%O   U$14.95 [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   211
%T   "Everybody's Guide to the Internet"
"Everybody's Guide to the Internet", Adam Gaffin, 1994, 0-262-57105-6, U$14.95

Along with "Zen and the Art of the Internet" (cf. BKZENINT.RVW),
Gaffin's "Big Dummie's Guide to the Internet" is a major online
resource and net introduction.  Because of trademark restrictions, the
printed version does not use the "Dummie" name.  In print, it shares
with "Zen" small size and a "fast track" style.

The original "Dummie's" appellation is ironically appropriate.  Gaffin
does not address the concepts of the Internet, but concentrates on the
specific tools and applications, almost at a keystroke level.  This
makes it particularly appropriate for field-independent types who have
no interest in the background, and just want to know which button to
press.  Unfortunately, this also presents a problem if the user is not
on a UNIX shell system, as is used for many examples.

The introductory chapters run over the basics of modems and providers
without too much detail.  Again, this restricts certain discussions.
Gaffin, for example, states that a familiarity with the production of
text files is essential, but doesn't say why, and doesn't talk about
the related problem of text uploads.

A quick and basic introduction, particularly suited to those who want
to know how and *not* why.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKEVBINT.RVW   950509. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/
User                      .fidonet.org
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

From: Tom Farley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private Line Number 6 Online
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 95 13:56:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


The text of _private line_ number 6 (Vol. 2, no. 3) is now on line at
the ETEXT archive at Michigan. This issue features three pieces of
legislation that affect telephony. They are:

   1) the text of the Digital Telephony Bill;
   2) the text of 18 U.S.C. 1029, the statute prohibiting cloning; and
   3) the text of 47 CFR 22.919 , the regulation prohibiting cloning,
as supplied by Robert Keller. (The text of 47 CFR 22.919 is
 exclusive to the e-zine version of _private line_.)

Other articles include Cellular Phone Basics, Part 2, An Interview
With Damien Thorn as well as the index to the first volume of _private
line_. The hardcopy version of number 6 is now a back issue and costs
$5.00. It is much, much easier to follow than the ASCII version since
it contains some twenty spot illustrations, charts and diagrams.

_private line_ is a hardcopy, alternative publication about the
telephone system. Text of all back issues are on line. Gopher or FTP
to:

    etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Zines/PrivateLine.

A sample of the current issue is $4.00. That is number 7.  It has an
article on outside plant basics with over 30 photographs. It also
includes a long discussion of debit cards, a step by step switch
illustration and some interesting letters.

Subscriptions are $27.00 for six issues per year. My address is:

        private line
        5150 Fair Oaks Blvd. #101-348
        Carmichael, CA 95608 CA USA

Corrections and comments are always welcome. Submissions are also
encouraged. My fax number is [phone] and my e-mail address
is [e-mail]   Thank you!

Let me know if you are interested in getting the electronic version of
_private line_ via e-mail. I'm not set up to do this but I will make
it happen if there's enough interest. Let me know, too, the size of
file you are permitted to get through your service provider.


Tom Farley


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I get this magazine and it is good
reading. Tom puts a lot of work into it.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 05:22:03 -0400
From: Eric Bennett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using 888 to 'Steal' Customers / Problems in Business
Organization: Horn Point Env. Lab, Cambridge MD, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, Steve Bunning
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Perhaps we should give anyone with an 800 number a first right of
> refusal for the 888 number.

Perhaps we should ignore requests for specific 800 numbers and
allocate them AT RANDOM.  If someone wants a specific number, they can
wait until it's allocated then try to convince the number holder to
give it up.

The numbers should not have an inherent value.  Are companies going to
start demanding an address on "888 Elm Rd." because they invested
advertising bucks in "888 Elm St."  ?!?

If random assignment seems too wasteful, assign them IN SERIES.

> It's anyone's guess how many, but I would bet almost all companies
> with a nationally advertised 800 number would pick up the 888 number
> if they could.

Let them pick it up from whoever eventually gets it.  Allow a limited
form of trade where two parties who agree to trade numbers can do so
(subject to technical limitations).  If one party pays the other to
get them to agree, fine.  Since AmEx thinks 1-888-THE-CARD is so
valuable, they will probably be willing to do a lot to convince
whoever gets it to give it up.

> Second, it would prevent some companies who want a good vanity number
> from getting one.  The nudists at 1-888-VIE BARE (a.k.a. THE CARD) or
> the telepaths at 1-888-FLOW ESP (a.k.a. FLOWERS) would forever be
> grandfathered out of numbers they want.  It's bad enough being
> relegated to a second class 888 number or a third class 866 number,
> but having one that spells nothing is worse.

Tough.  Spelling out the numbers is a perversion of what the numbers
are for, namely routing telephone calls.  If you want to call by name,
try 1-800-555-1212- speak_name- listen_for_number- hang_up-dial_number

The "value of a number" in a given context is not inherent but created
solely by the people who have the number and those who want it.
Allowing holders to trade numbers fairly (irrespective of provider or
of pending requests for the number) allows free market forces to
determine that value without broadening a number assignment into a
property right.

> If we don't give the current 800 number holders first right of
> refusal, there is going to be an incredible stampede for these
> numbers.

No stampede if you can't get the numbers you want right away.  Less
effort than first-come first-served too, since 800 number holders will
first need to deal with the 888 number holder, who can then contact
their IXC.

> IXCs could try to grab all of the 888 equivalents on behalf
> of their current customers and then try to sell these customers on
> purchasing the numbers after the fact.  There is no real cost for an
> IXC to reserve an 888 number and then abandon it, so why not?

Change the reservation procedure so an IXC reserves a certain number
of numbers, but doesn't get the number itself until they have a party
pending assignment.

> Less scrupulous carriers or companies could try to get the 888
> equivalents of popular numbers and then contact the 800 number holders
> to have them ransom the numbers.

Random assignment makes it a combination of luck and cash.  Maybe the
holders of 1-888-843-2273 don't want to pay for long distance calls
from ten bazilion people who want credit cards.  Maybe the American
Shakespere Society loves having 1-888-THE-BARD and would never give it
up.  Let them decide.


Eric B.

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

From: [e-mail] (Barry F Margolius)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:03:34 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Erez Levav <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Rather than distinguish between 800 and 888, this copy assumes that
>> 800 THE CARD and 888 THE CARD *will* both ring to American Express.
>> The whole problem is that that assumption is entirely unwarranted.

>> Anything less would be foolish, and negligent, business.

> Maybe I'v been misled, but I thought that the 888 prefix was needed
> because there are not enough 800 numbers available.  If we now give
> <anyone> that has a 800 number the same 888 number, what did we gain?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We would in effect gain nothing, but the
> prima donnas in the American corporate world who are all so much better
> than the rest of you peasants will have gotten their way, and that is
> what counts, isn't it?  PAT]

Pat, I see you're anxious to get your digs in against corporate
America, and perhaps deservedly so, but we would gain considerably,
even if the corporate big shots get their way.  Surely a huge
percentage of the 800 number owners will not want to duplicate their
number on the 888 side.  In fact, a great many 800 numbers don't even
spell anything useful, so why duplicate them.  Additionally, much has
been made of the increasing popularity of personal 800 numbers, and I
don't think many individuals would want to pay for having their number
duplicated across the 800-888 barrier.  Seems fair to me to allow
owners of existing 800 numbers to reserve the same number in 888-space
if they want.  Perhaps the tarriffs should be designed to discourage
doing this frivolously.


barry

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett A. Wollman)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 11 Jul 1995 15:56:48 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave O'Shea <[e-mail]> wrote:

> And on a related note, when did the "ENterprise" number toll-free
> syste get phased out? I recall seeing active listings as recently as a
> few years ago in the NY metro area.

To this day, the Boston phone book lists:

W M U R T V 1819 Elm Manchester NH
  From Telephones Served By The Boston Central
  Exchange
    No Charge To Calling Party
    Ask Operator For..................Enterprise-1555

I don't know how many calls WMUR (not even a Boston station!) actually
gets on this number.  I suspect they may keep it just to be the last
people with an "Enterprise" number in Boston.


Garrett A. Wollman      [e-mail]
Opinions not those of MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA

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

From: [e-mail] (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-888 For Toll-Free - First Report
Date: 11 Jul 1995 19:46:05 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave O'Shea) writes:

> And on a related note, when did the "ENterprise" number toll-free
> syste get phased out? I recall seeing active listings as recently as a
> few years ago in the NY metro area.

And the Editor said (with deletions...)

> Padgett Peterson sent a note questioning 'Zenith'. He said he had never
> heard of those. My belief is that Zenith was the GTE version of Enterprise,
> which was mostly an AT&T thing. I said that once before and someone wrote
> to say they were served by AT&T in the old days and their toll-free number
> was Zenith ... so I don't know what the rule was, if indeed any existed.
> To answer Padgett's question, Zenith was simply another name for Enterprise
> used by some telcos; I believe by and large the GTE companies. -

Well, *I* for one had *never* heard of Enterprise until I read about
it here about a year or so ago.  Alhough my phone company at the time
was Island Empire (now PTI), we were surrounded on all sides by
Pacific Northwest Bell, and everyone used Zenith numbers for toll-free
calls.  I would suggest that the difference is probably based more on
geographic area than service provider.  Of course, people east of the
Rockies tend to think that *their* experience is the norm for the US
as a whole, and people east of the Mississippi tend to think they
*are* the US as a whole.  :-)



David Breneman    Unix System Administrator  Mail: [e-mail]
IS - Operations   (soon to be ~@attws.com)
McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.  Phone: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Seth B Rothenberg)
Subject: Misdialing 1-888 or 1-800
Date: 11 Jul 1995 19:03:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


And then there's the story about the man working the night desk at the
FBI office.  They got a low of wrong numbers, because it was similar
to the pizza joint.

One night he answered "FBI."  When the caller hesitated, he said "You
meant to call Dominoes ..."  The caller exclaimed "Wow, you guys really
DO know everything!"

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 800=888
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 06:23:24 GMT


Ron Bean (madnix.uucp![e-mail]) wrote:

>    Maybe the solution is to reserve the 800 prefix for *Business-Voice
> Lines Only*, and move all the toll-free fax lines, pagers, modems,
> personal-800 etc to the new 888 prefix. ...

>    I've often thought that area code splits should have been handled
> this way also. For example, in Chicago 312 would have been for voice
> only, and all the fax machines, modems, etc would have been moved to
> 708. Again, many people could have used the same number in both area
> codes (this would be an overlay rather than a split). And again, it's
> too late.

There is a fundamental flaw with this plan: what is a "voice" line and
what is a "fax" line?  What about a home office, where the same number
and the same line are used for both voice and fax?  Then you have
situations like my recent move.  I got a single phone line installed,
but then decided to take the plunge and get a dedicated modem line.
However, the second number they assigned was much more "catchy" than
the first one, so I wound up making the new number my "voice" line and
the original number the "modem" line, except that, of course, I have a
two-line phone now, so I give out the "modem" number to people like
credit card companies so that I can turn off the ringer on that line
and not be bothered.

Are you confused yet?  Even in a traditional office building, you
often have situations where you may move a fax machine to a different
location and plug it into a different phone jack.  Also, what about
Centrex/PBX situations?  In my office, I dial 3-9208 to send a fax to
a certain department in a different building.  I can't do that if that
number is in a different area code, unless the entire range of our
reserved DID block is reserved in both area codes, which defeats the
entire purpose.

This scheme is very much reminiscent of OfTel's original plans for the
U.K. renumbering -- all of the 01XXX area codes were to be for voice
lines only; various other things like modems and faxes were to be on
some other branch of the numbering tree.  I haven't heard anything about
this part of the scheme lately, though; have they finally dropped it?
(The U.K. doesn't have the problem of cellphones being "discriminatorily"
placed in overlay area codes, since all cellphones are in a set of about
ten special area codes just for cellphones, plus another ten or so for
"premium" services (i.e., recorded sex messages), all randomly scattered
through the numbering space.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well there was a brief discussion about
ten years ago or so which called for putting all computers nationally
in an 'area code' similar to 300 or 400 ... something like that. The
'area code' would be national in scope like 800, and the prefix or
exchange would designate the community or local geographic area. Those
numbers could all connect to each other, but would be unable to connect
to any voice lines. Likewise, the rest of the area codes -- the 'regular'
ones -- would be able to call each other just like now, but would be
restricted from reaching 'area code 300' or whatever number it was that
the computers would be assigned. When you ordered phone service, you
could ask for a regular line or a 'computer line'; if you wanted to
communicate with other computers of course, you'd need one of that type
of line.

It would have worked out similar to Western Union's TWX 'area codes' of
610, 710, 810 and 910 from the old days. 'Regular phones' could not dial
those area codes. There were two ideas in mind: one, voice subscribers
were getting a large number of 'wrong number' calls where it was a computer
or fax on the other end squeaking/hissing at them -- or dead silence if
the modem on the caller's end was waiting for your (non-existent) modem
to respond; and two, there were special pricing considerations with telco
making a bundle on the essence of a national computer network. The one
time I saw proposed rates for this, I thought they were pretty good, at
a few cents per minute. It would have operated a lot like Sprint/Telenet's
nationwide switched network with just a lot of computers talking to each
other. Computer owners would simply dial seven digit numbers for anywhere
in the USA when they were calling a BBS, public access site, whatever.
Only seven digits because after all, they would all be in the same 'area
code'. One or two of the prefixes within that special area code would be
used for automatic reverse charge calls (i.e. 800 service, but as a sub-
set within the area code for the computer network) and a couple of the
prefixes would be used for premium extra charge services (possibly 976
would be used for that purpose within the special area code.)

The interesting part was the proposal that no one inside that special
area code be allowed to call out of it, and no one outside of it be
allowed to call into it. There would even be 555-1212 capability, via
modem of course, just as Western Union offered 'manual operator position'
services to TWX subscribers who dialed zero and directory assistance
services via 555-1212 from their TWX machines. After reading about it a
couple times back in 1985-86 or so, that was the last I saw of it. I
thought it sounded like a good idea at the time, and I still do. I guess
it went nowhere since the telcos could never get together on it regards
the cut for their piece of the action, etc.   Comments?        PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #308
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26053;
          14 Jul 95 18:59 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21455 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:58:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21447; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:58:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:58:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #309

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Jul 95 07:58:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 309

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint, DoJ Enter Consent Decree (Steve Geimann)
    Expansion of International Telephone Numbers (Ben Heckscher)
    Atlanta Automated 411 (Andrew B. Hawthorn)
    Book Review: "Best of the Net" by Godin (Rob Slade)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:04:32 -0400
Subject: Sprint, DoJ Enter Consent Decree


DECREE SETS RESTRICTIONS FOR SPRINT VENTURE

By STEVE GEIMANN
Senior Editor, Communications Daily

    WASHINGTON -- Sprint and Justice Dept. entered 2-stage consent
decree Thurs. sharply limiting services offered by Deutsche Telekom
(DT)-France Telecom (FT) joint venture from France and Germany until
competition begins in both nations.  Sprint said decree won't hinder
venture, known as Phoenix and awaiting FCC and European Commission
approval.  DoJ said agreement protects consumers from monopolistic
actions by French and German companies and encourages acceleration of
competition in both countries.  "Customers can expect to see a
continued steep decline in the cost of international correspondent
services," said Steven Sunshine, asst. attorney gen., Antitrust Div.

     Decree "in many ways" followed MCI-British Telecom agreement for
their Concert joint venture, Sunshine said, with exception that U.K
market is considerably more open than France and Germany. Sprint
agreement subjects joint venture to 2 sets of restrictions, first
through competition in French and German markets and 2nd continuing
for 5 years after competition in basic services is introduced in both
countries.  It doesn't cover services provided to other nations, even
with existing monopolies.  "Sprint and the joint venture can't provide
services that are legally restricted to FT and DT," he said.

     DoJ said that under decree, Sprint and joint venture: (1) Can't
own, control or provide services until competitors enter German and
French markets.  (2) Must publish rates, terms and conditions by which
they gain access to FT and DT networks, and other generally
unpublished information.  (3) Are barred from obtaining more favorable
access to FT and DT networks.  (4) Are prohibited from gaining
confidential information provided by other carriers to FT and DT in
normal course of business.  In complaint, DoJ said DT and FT "have an
increased incentive" to discriminate in favor of Sprint and deny
operating agreements to other U.S. carriers.

     Sprint called decree "fair and reasonable" and "entirely
consistent with the planned operational arrangements of the global
venture."  Richard Devlin, exec. vp-law and external affairs, said
consent decree should facilitate FCC and other approvals.  John
Hoffman, senior vp-external affairs, who attended DoJ briefing, told
us: "We did not form the joint venture for the purpose of
discriminating."  Company signed definitive agreement with European
partners June 22 and deal will close when approvals are complete.

     Sunshine didn't comment on current concerns of European
Competition Comr. Karel van Miert, who has said FT-DT alliance called
Atlas is anticompetitive.  He also said Jan. 1, 1998, date for
liberalizing European markets won't trigger start of Phase 2, which
requires competition, not simply liberalized laws.  He said talk with
Sprint and its partners was "fruitful, professional and productive"
and only difficulties occurred in Phase 1 portion in trying to work
out antimonopoly protections while giving joint venture access to
global markets.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 13:22 EST
From: Ben Heckscher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expansion of International Telephone Numbers


Sent FYI to the Digest:
Source: ITU Operational Bulletin No. 596 - 15.V.1995, pages 5-8
Title : Expanded International Dialing Time "T"*

Purpose:

     We are concerned that the world community may be insufficiently
aware and prepared for Time "T".  To this end, the following
information is provided.

     The purpose of this information bulletin is to increase the
awareness of the world community of ITU-T Recommendations E.164 and
E.165 that describe the expansion of international telephone numbers
from twelve (12) to a maximum of fifteen (15) digits in length.  In
order to retain existing International Direct Distance Dialing (IDDD),
capability to accommodate these longer numbers is required in all
switches, networks and customer provided equipment by Time "T", that
has been designated as "31 December 1996 at 23 hours 59 minutes,
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)".

     This change in the he international numbering plan Recommendation
may impact switching equipment, operational support systems, customer
premise equipment, correspondence material, billing systems, etc.
This change may require financial considerations for hardware and/or
software modifications required to accommodate this change at Time
"T".  It should be noted that the Time "T" Recommendation places no
obligation to expand or modify the national numbering plan beyond its
current digit format.

     Administrations, users, providers and manufacturers need to
be aware of the information in this bulletin if:

     -    they provide or users require international direct
          distance dialing;

     -    they perform screening, routing, or billing function
          for international calls;

     -    they use a telephone number for correspondence,
          referencing customers, etc. to or from a country which
          is considering the expansion of their national
          numbering plan beyond twelve (12) digits.

Discussion

     ITU-T Recommendation E.164 was developed to facilitate the
introduction and expansion of new public services and to expand the
capacity of the Public Switched Network Numbering Plan.  The new
maximum number length is fifteen (15) digits.  ITU-T Recommendation
E.165 stipulates that the new format will become effective at Time
"T".  After Time "T", countries will have the option of expanding
their numbering plans to the full fifteen (15) digits.  [Note -
Expansion beyond fourteen (14) digits will restrict interworking from
Public Switched Packet Data Networks that have not implemented the
Numbering Plan Identifier (NPI)].  Any interconnection planned with
countries who have expanded their numbering plans will require the
expanded capabilities.

     It should be noted that although a country may have no intention
of expanding its national numbering plan any time in the foreseeable
future, this fact does not mean that the recommendation to recognize a
new maximum number length of fifteen (15) digits can be ignored.
Especially, if any country indicates its intention to expand beyond
the current twelve (12) digit limitation including country code, the
ability to process internationally direct dialed calls could be
impacted.  In October 1993 German representatives announced the
intention to expand the German numbering plan beyond the current E.164
maximum length of twelve (12) digits.

     While the fifteen (15) digit number plan alone may not, at first
sight, impact the ability to receive and forward calls
internationally, when coupled with the existing national dialing plan
prefixes and carrier selection, switching equipment and Customer
Premises Equipment (CPE) addressing thresholds may be exceeded.

     Additionally, at Time "T" the number of digits, of the E.164
number, to be analyzed by the originating country, as specified in
ITU-T Recommendation E.164, will change.  The national destination
code (NDC) increases the potential requirement for digit analysis
because it provides for a combination of either a trunk code (TC)
and/or a network identification function.  Careful consideration
should be given to the preparation of national destination code (NDC)
assignments.  On international calls the digit analysis performed at
the originating country need not be more than the country code and:

     -    four digits of the national (significant) number N(S)N
          in the case of a country with a three-digit code;

     -    five digits of the N(S)N in the case of a country with
          a two-digit country code;

     -    six digits of the N(S)N in the case of a country with a
          one-digit country code.

     Although the potential for seven-digit analysis exists, it is not
required for every call.  The terminating country will inform the
originating country which of the seven dialed digits of the E.164
number will indicate when seven-digit analysis is required.

     Some administrations will be able to implement the charging
arrangements with seven-digit analysis at the same time as the
associated routing.  Others may not be able to implement the charging
arrangements at the same time, bilateral arrangements should be
established between these administrations, if needed.

     Time "T" also impacts numbering plan interworking solutions
between public networks using different numbering plans (e.g.  calls
routed between the public telephone network using an E.164 numbering
plan and a public data network using the X.121 numbering plan).
Specifically, the numbering plan interworking solutions documented in
ITU-T Recommendation E.166, "Numbering Plan interworking in the ISDN
Era", are separated into short-term (prior to Time "T") and long-term
(post Time "T") solutions.  Prior to Time "T" escape codes1) are
considered the short-term method for interworking between public
networks using different numbering plans.  With the advent of Time "T"
it is stated that Numbering Plan Identifier/Type of Number (NPI/TON)
feature as defined in ITU-T Recommendation Q.931 be used for
interworking between different numbering plans in public networks, and
that the short-term escape code method be deleted when interworking
from the public telephone networks/ISDNs.  Based on individual
evolution plans, some administrations may have already implemented
NPI/TON interworking solutions.


Summary

     As Time "T" approaches, administrations, users, network providers
and manufacturers need to be aware of the options and steps that may
be taken.  The following issues should be clearly understood in
determining the appropriate action to be taken to accommodate the
changes that may occur at Time "T":

     -    Time "T" is when the capability to handle fifteen (15)
          digit numbering plans should be implemented.  This
          capability refers to the E.164 networks.

     -    Time "T" is designated as 31 December 1996, 23 hours
          59 minutes, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

     -    The existing national numbering plan may continue to
          use the current format it uses today.  Check with the
          national plan administrator to determine the impacts of
          Time "T" on the national numbering plan, if any.

     -    Full dialing plan capabilities must be considered when
          determining the impacts.

     -    On international calls the digit analysis, of the E.164
          number, performed at the originating country has
          increased to a maximum of seven digits (including the
          country code).  Some administrations will be able to
          implement the charging arrangements with seven-digit
          analysis at the same time as the associated routing.
          Others may not be able to implement the charging
          arrangements at the same time, bilateral arrangements
          should be established between those administrations, if
          needed.

     -    Modifications required to accommodate the use of
          NPI/TON (Numbering Plan Identifier/Type of Number
          feature as defined in ITU-T Recommendation (Q.931) for
          interworking between different numbering plans in
          public networks.

          Note - Based on individual evolution plans, some
          administrations may have already implemented NPI/TON
          interworking solutions.

     -    Modifications to software and hardware which allows
          International Direct Distance Dialing (IDDD) must be
          considered.  This includes but is not restricted to
          Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) and customer support
          systems.

     -    Administrations and operators should be aware of the
          necessary expansion of national support systems.


1)   Escape code:  "An escape code is an indicator consisting of
     one ore more digits which is defined in a given numbering
     plan and is used to indicate that the digits that follow are
     from a specific numbering plan which is different from the
     given numbering plan.

     For example, escape codes are currently used with the X.121
     numbering plan to interwork with E.164 (ISDN) and F.69
     (Telex) numbering plans.

     An escape code can be carried forward through the
     originating network and can be carried across internetwork
     and international boundaries.  Therefore, the digits used
     for escape codes should be standardized."

     Reference: ITU-T Recommendation E.160 "Definitions Relating
     to National and International Numbering plans".


References

     Note 1 - The Recommendations below, as well as those
     referred to in the Bulletin above, are shown as "ITU-T"
     Recommendations.

     Note 2 - Recommendations referenced in this information
     Bulletin are available from the ITU Sales Section
     (Fax: [phone]).

[1]  ITU-T Recommendation F.69 - "Plan for Telex Destination
     Codes".

[2]  Draft ITU-T Recommendation E.162 - "Capability for
     Seven-Digit Analysis of International E.164 Numbers at Time
     "T" (see Annex 2).

[3]  ITU-T Recommendation E.164 - "Numbering Plan for the ISDN
     Era".

[4]  ITU-T Recommendation E.165 - "Timetable for Coordinated
     Implementation of the he Full Capability of the Numbering
     Plan for the ISDN Era" (see Annex 1).

[5]  ITU-T Recommendation E.166 - "Numbering Plan for
     interworking in the ISDN Era".

[6]  ITU-T Recommendation Q.931 - "ISDN User-Network Interface
     Layer 3 Specification for Basic Call Control".

[7]  ITU-T Recommendation X.121 - "International Numbering Plan
     for Public Data Networks.


Information

     For further information on this subject, in the first instance
contact the national or integrated numbering plan administrators.

     Alternately, the X.5/2 - Numbering Rapporteur Group (of ITU-T
Study Group 2) has a number of Time "T" awareness coordinators.  At
present they are:

A. Gaechter    Bellcore, United States    Fax: [phone]
S. Isaksen     Televerket, Norway         Fax: [phone]
A. Holmes      BT, United Kingdom         Fax: [phone]
C. Handley     US WEST, United States     Fax: [phone]
P. Reptis      Telstra, Australia         Fax: [phone]
A. Sekiguchi   MPT, Japan                 Fax: [phone]
R. Hurek       Deutsche Telekom, Germany  Fax: [phone]
Z. Tar         Conseiller, TSB            Fax: [phone]


* See TSB circular 128 of 28 February 1995

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:18:42 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Andrew B. Hawthorn)
Subject: Atlanta Automated 411


Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system
and I was curious if anyone knew how it works.  When a person dials
411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What
city please?"  The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?"
The caller replies.

Sometimes when I have called after giving the listing information
there is a ring, and I am connected with a live operator who says
"hold for the number" or "hold for ABC Company."  Sometimes there is
no ring and I can hear someone typing on the computer then I am
connected with the voice which reads the number.  Recently I a friend
told me that he gave the automated voice his information, there was
one ring, a live operator said "how do you spell that, sir?" and then
connected him with the voice which reads the number.

Does the directory information system attempt to locate the
information and then make as many matches as possible followed by a
transfer to an operator who finds the exact match?  Does the system
play back the recorded voice to the live operator?  How did the live
operator know that my friend calling was male before she was connected
with him?

I'm curious as to how this system works and where the telephone
company is going with it.  Do they plan to eliminate directory
assistance operators and put audio recognition computer to work
instead?


Thanks,

Andrew Hawthorn

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 13:54:28 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Best of the Net" by Godin


BKBSTNET.RVW   950504

"Best of the Net", Seth Godin, 1995, 1-56884-313-5, U$22.99/C$32.99/UK#21.99
%A   Seth Godin [e-mail]
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1995
%G   1-56884-313-5
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$22.99/C$32.99/UK#21.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   430
%T   "Best of the Net"

Gee, it's rather gratifying to find your name in the acknowledgements
section, even if you had nothing to do with the book, can't find any
contribution you made, and can't, in fact, find your name mentioned
thereafter.  (Judging by my friends in the list, I think our names
were copied from the VIRUS-L FAQ.)

The book is supposedly made up of recommendations from "a group of
Internet experts" and "numbers of motivated, involved, smart people".
But, as they say in the academic papers, the study was flawed.  Godin
sent out a request for people to send him stuff, so the study sample
"self selected" for people who had nothing better to do.  Quick
reality check.  Do we have RISKS?  No.  Oak?  No.  Net-happenings?
No.  alt.best.of.internet or usenet?  No.  RTFM?  Yes (once).  The
Vatican exhibit?  No.  rec.humor.funny?  No (well, maybe fair
comment).  News of the Weird?  Yes.  This Is True?  No.

What we do have, here, are two hundred "topics", all two pages long.
Each has a few (very few) net references, mostly newsgroups.  (A lot
of the other "references" are "veronica".)  Some references are long
out of date (and the computer virus citations are awful).  There are
random pieces of information-- extracts from newsgroup postings or FAQ
listings, and often a picture from somewhere.  These have no proper
citations at all.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKBSTNET.RVW   950504. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]         | Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
Institute for  [e-mail]      |  - Anything little known
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/  |    is assumed to be
User                      .fidonet.org  |    wonderful.
Security       Canada V7K 2G6           |               - Tacitus

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #309
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa13656;
          19 Jul 95 3:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29348 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 23:03:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29340; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 23:02:56 -0500
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 23:02:56 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest Subject/Author Index, July, 1995

This file is the author/subject index for the first six months (approximatly,
up to issue 300) of Volume 15 of the Digest for 1995.

You use this by grepping for the subject or author name, as per the
instructions in the lines below marked HELP-: which themselves can be
grepped as desired using that keyword.  Earlier indexes covering the
period April, 1989 through December, 1994 are available in the Telecom
Archives.

This file is *not* intended to be read in its entirity, unless you sit
down, for example and normally 'read' the dictionary or 'read' large
indexes in the back of books, etc. The subjects are arranged in alpha
order, with 'Re:' ignored. Where two or more subjects are identical,
then the sort continues by author's *first* name followed by last name.

If you want to dump this to a printer for permanent reference, please
note there are 3857 lines including this introduction. Earlier indexes,
in clusters of three years each, contain upwards of 20,000 + lines each.


HELP-:
HELP-: TELECOM Digest Accelerated Index: Volume 15, Issues 1-300,  7-95
HELP-: ----------------------------------------------------------------
HELP-:
HELP-: Effecient use of this file depends heavily on your understanding
HELP-: of the Unix 'grep' command. It is suggested you use 'grep -i'
HELP-: since the '-i' argument ignores upper/lower case distinctions.
HELP-:
HELP-: This file contains the subject headers for 1995 - Volume 15 (up to
HELP-: issue 300). See other indexes in the Archives for 1989-1994 issues.
HELP-: It is gradually being expanded to include digests prior to
HELP-: volume 9, but the technical problems are pervasive, to say the
HELP-: least. Reliability is NOT guarenteed prior to April, 1989, or
HELP-: about issue 400 of volume 9, due to a change in the way the
HELP-: Digest was produced.
HELP-:
HELP-: The file can be searched in several ways, always using 'grep -i'
HELP-: as the command followed by the search string in quotes and the
HELP-: desired file name for the output (or to the screen or your printer
HELP-: if desired. The index file is sorted alphabetically by subject,
HELP-: with 'Re' ignored in the sorting where it appears. Where two or
HELP-: identical subject strings appear (for example, the original
HELP-: message followed by one or more REplies) then the sort continues
HELP-: by the *full name* of the author. For example, if two identical
HELP-: messages appear with one from John Higdon and the other from Adam
HELP-: Jones, then the one from Adam Jones will appear first since 'Adam'
HELP-: sorts prior to 'John'. Since there were some discrepancies in
HELP-: how names were listed, it is suggested you 'grep -i [lastname]
HELP-: rather than [first last] since occassionally the first name was
HELP-: only an initial. If you want to see all the subject headers in
HELP-: a given group of files, then 'grep -i [vol/from-to]'. Issues of
HELP-: TELECOM Digest are packed in the archives usually in groups of
HELP-: fifty, with the breaks occurring at the start of the first and
HELP-: fifty-first issues; i.e. 101-150, 151-200 ... 801-850, etc. To
HELP-: see all the subject headers in Volume 15, Issues 101-150 for
HELP-: example, you would 'grep -i "15/101-150"'. Check out the man
HELP-: page for grep (man grep) on your site to learn many sophisticated
HELP-: techniques for searching the entries below.
HELP-:
HELP-: After finding the desired subjects or authors, you would note
HELP-: the archives file location (the numbers on the left are the volume
HELP-: and issue numbers, packaged in groups of fifty issues). Then using
HELP-: anonymous ftp or an email/ftp server you would go to the Telecom
HELP-: Archives at lcs.mit.edu and pull the desired file. With that file
HELP-: at hand, you would then grep -i [results from here] to find the
HELP-: specific issue and location within the issue.
HELP-:
HELP-: Remember this important point: The more specific your search,
HELP-: the less likely you are to get a 'hit' ... yet the more liberal
HELP-: your search parameters, the more likely you are to get a flood
HELP-: of lines on your screen or printer. As you get aquainted with
HELP-: this index, you'll learn how to best approach it and/or configure
HELP-: your search keys. Should you wish to dump this index to your
HELP-: printer, it is 3836 lines long.
HELP-:
HELP-: Index updated July 17, 1995 by Patrick Townson. Notes about
HELP-: corrections, omissions and inconsistencies should be directed
HELP-: to my attention at [e-mail].
HELP-:
15/151-200: 100VG AnyLAN (Phil Ho)
15/001-050: 101xxxx: Not Yet (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Re: 101xxxx: Not Yet (Wally Ritchie)
15/201-250: 10224 - Thanks MCI!! (Les Reeves)
15/251-300: Re: 10224 - Thanks MCI!! (Les Reeves)
15/001-050: 10-XXX Codes (Eric Paulak)
15/001-050: Re: 10-XXX Codes (Lizanne Hurst)
15/001-050: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Evan Gamblin)
15/001-050: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Mike Morris)
15/001-050: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Robert Hazen)
15/001-050: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Scott Falke)
15/001-050: 1-900 = $100,000 Fraud (James Bellaire)
15/201-250: 1-900-555-1212 (Jeff Smyth)
15/201-250: Re: 1-900-555-1212 (Lou Jahn)
15/151-200: 1995 Area Code Update (Steve Grandi)
15/151-200: Re: 203/860 Line Determined (Gerry Belanger)
15/151-200: 203/860 Line Determined (Scott D. Fybush)
15/151-200: Re: 203/860 Line Determined (Scott D. Fybush)
15/051-100: 205/334 Area Code Split (Jerry Pruett)
15/001-050: Re: 206 to 360 Experience (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: 206 to 360 Experience (Ron Parker)
15/001-050: 21 LEC's Violate Comm Act, Ordered To Pay Damages (Alan Boritz)
15/051-100: 256Kbps Overseas Circuits at 56Kpbs Costs ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: 256Kbps Overseas Circuits at 56Kpbs Costs (Tom Coradeschi)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Alan Shen)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (David Hayes)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (David Sacerdote)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Eric Nelson)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (James Carlson)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (John Combs)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (John Dearing)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Juan C. Amaya)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Ken Culbert)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Marc A. Randolph)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Scott Lorditch)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Stephen Palm)
15/051-100: Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Steve Midgley)
15/051-100: 28.8k bps Modem (Victor Hu)
15/101-150: 3 School Teachers Charged in Net Child Porn Ring (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: 334 Prefix Next Door to 334 Area Code (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: 360 Degrees of Jumping the Gun (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Re: 360 NPA in Partial Service (Don Skidmore)
15/201-250: Re: 404 Area Code Split; New Code 770 (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: 404 Area Code Split; New Code 770 (Linc Madison)
15/201-250: 404 Area Code Split; New Code 770 (Rick Dennis)
15/201-250: Re: 404 Area Code Split; New Code 770 (Stan Brown)
15/101-150: 500 NPA Expansion? (Jeff Spidle)
15/001-050: Re: 500 Number Assignments ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: 500 Number Assignments (Carter Thomasson)
15/151-200: 500 Number Not Working (Chris Michael)
15/151-200: Re: 500 Number Not Working (Chris Michael)
15/051-100: 500 Numbers - Where to Find Information ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: 500 Numbers and CID (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: 500 Numbers and CID (Mark Stieger)
15/001-050: Re: '500' Numbers Finally Available (Dave Levenson)
15/151-200: 500 Numbers Will Remain Blocked (Robert A. Voss)
15/101-150: 500 Place-A-Call Working (David L. Oehring)
15/101-150: Re: 500 Place-A-Call Working (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Re: 500 Place-A-Call Working (Stan Schwartz)
15/151-200: 500 Prefixes Currently Assigned (Allan J. Langfield)
15/151-200: 500 Service and Federal Telecom System ([e-mail])
15/051-100: 500 Service Comments (Jeff Buckingham)
15/101-150: 500 Service in Canada (Evan Champion)
15/151-200: 500-FINGERS (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: 503 NPA Split? (Dan McDonald)
15/201-250: Re: 555 Goes Public (Greg Monti)
15/201-250: 555 Prefix Goes Public (Greg Monti)
15/151-200: 602 / 520 Area Code Problems (John Shaver)
15/001-050: 630 Area Code and New Dialing Patterns (Mitch Weiss)
15/101-150: 64 Kbps HDLC PCMCIA Interface (Milo S. Medin)
15/051-100: 700 Problems = 500 Problems (Doug Reuben)
15/051-100: Re: 700 Problems = 500 Problems (Phil Ritter)
15/101-150: 708/630/815 Split (was Re: New NPA in Colorado) (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Re: 7/8ths Heliax Sources Needed (Jack Daniel)
15/051-100: Re: 7/8ths Heliax Sources Needed (Mark Fletcher)
15/051-100: 7/8ths Heliax Sources Needed (Michael P. Deignan)
15/251-300: Re: 800 1 and 800 0 - Why Not? (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: 800 and Caller ID (Comments) (Glenn Foote)
15/251-300: 800 Article in July 3 Business Week (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Re: 800 Directory Listings Wanted (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Re: 800 Directory Listings Wanted (Fred Goodwin)
15/101-150: Re: 800 Directory Listings Wanted (Gerry Brown)
15/101-150: 800 Directory Listings Wanted ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: 800 Directory Listings Wanted ([e-mail])
15/251-300: 800 FCC Order, and 888 Implementation (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: 800 Numbers - Media and Real Estate Rebuttal (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/001-050: 800 Numbers and Caller ID? (Glenn Foote)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers and Caller ID (Glenn Foote)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers and Caller ID (Jonathan Bradshaw)
15/151-200: 800 Numbers, and FLOWERS Again (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/151-200: 800 Numbers, and FLOWERS Again (Mel Beckman)
15/251-300: 800 Numbers and Smaller Carriers (Jeff Buckingham)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Ari Wuolle)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Clive Feather)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Colum Mylod)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Joe J. Harrison)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (John R. Covert)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Julian Thornhill)
15/051-100: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Marko Ruokonen)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Mitch Greer)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Paul Havinden)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers from Overseas (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Peter Campbell Smith)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Phil Ritter)
15/001-050: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Robert Hall)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Robert Hall)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Tony Harminc)
15/001-050: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
15/001-050: 800 Numbers, How Important? (Paul Harts)
15/101-150: 800 Numbers: Media, and Real Estate (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/001-050: 800 Numbers/Letters Overseas (Richard Jay Solomon)
15/251-300: 800 Service - Out of Numbers? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: 800 Service and FLOWERS (John Rice)
15/151-200: Re: 800 Service and FLOWERS (Mel Beckman)
15/151-200: Re: 800 Service and ISDN Costs (Tom D. Fellrath)
15/151-200: Re: 800 Service Costs and ISDN Rates ([e-mail])
15/151-200: 800 Service Costs and ISDN Rates (Arthur Greenwald)
15/151-200: Re: 800 Service Costs and ISDN Rates (Joe Scotti)
15/151-200: 800 "Trademark" Rights (Jerry Leichter)
15/151-200: Re: 800 "Trademark" Rights (Jim Wenzel)
15/051-100: 800 Vanity Number Lists (Graeme W. Smith)
15/251-300: Re: 800-1XX, 800-0XX (Mark Cuccia)
15/051-100: 800-MY-ANI-IS and Car Phone Redialers (Tom Ward)
15/101-150: Re: 900 Providing Advice Sought ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: 900 Providing Advice Sought (Joe Sulmar)
15/001-050: 900 Providing Advice Sought ([e-mail])
15/051-100: 911 Access in Jeopardy (Jim Conran)
15/251-300: Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA (Andrew C. Green)
15/251-300: 911 From Cellphones in CA (Marty Brenneis)
15/251-300: Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA (Robert Levandowski)
15/001-050: 911 Providers: Watch For 912 Calls (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
15/201-250: 911 Tariff in Illinois (Brian Krupicka)
15/001-050: 91x (was: 911 Providers: Watch For 912 Calls) (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: 976 Look-Alike Exchanges (Henry Becker)
15/001-050: A Call From Guess Where (David Farber via Stanton McCandlish)
15/101-150: A Fortune 500 Network Services VP Speaks re 800 (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/151-200: A New Rock Around the World Web Site (Marcus Downing)
15/051-100: A Problem With 205/334 DA (Scott D. Fybush)
15/201-250: Re: A Question About Hunting and Call Waiting (Kevin Prichard)
15/201-250: Re: A Question About Priorities (Chris Hardaker)
15/251-300: Re: A Question About Priorities (Matt Barton)
15/201-250: Re: A Question About Priorities (Scot Desort)
15/201-250: A Question About Priorities (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Bob Niland)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Elizabeth Cashman)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Gary Novoseilski)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Louis Judice)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Mike Pollock)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (Mitch Weiss)
15/051-100: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Re: A Strange Man Calls Me Ahout 500 ([e-mail])
15/101-150: A Tip When Working With Electricity (Bob Mueller)
15/101-150: Re: A Tip When Working With Electricity (Paul Houle)
15/251-300: Re: A Tour of Your Phone (Mike Parker)
15/251-300: A Tour of Your Phone (Netsurfer Digest via Arthur P. Bebak)
15/101-150: About 36XX Numbers in France (Romain Fournols)
15/001-050: Re: About the GIF Incident and Substitutes (Dik T. Winter)
15/001-050: About the GIF Incident and Substitutes (Paul Robinson)
15/251-300: AC 303: What Number Should I Use to Get Number of This Phone? (Dawn Adler)
15/051-100: ACC Reports Increase in Billable Minutes (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Access to "500" Numbers (Richard Cox)
15/151-200: ACD, IVR, CTI Using TAPI (George Porter)
15/051-100: ACD/Call Router Information Needed (T.J. Oconnell)
15/101-150: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert: Axe the Exon Bill! (ACLU Information)
15/151-200: ACM's Intn'l Conf. on Mobile Computing and Networking '95 (Victor Bahl)
15/001-050: Acronym for "Information Superhighway" (Humor Listserv via Bill Edwards)
15/001-050: Re: Acronym for "Information Superhighway" (Mark Brader)
15/151-200: Re: ADCPM and CO's (Les Reeves)
15/101-150: ADCPM and CO's (Steven Bergman)
15/001-050: Address Wanted For French Telecom (Stephen Warner)
15/001-050: Re: Address Wanted For KPN (Hendrik Rood)
15/001-050: Re: Address Wanted For KPN (Jean B. Sarrazin)
15/001-050: Address Wanted For KPN (Stephen Warner)
15/151-200: Administrivia: Getting Back on Track (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: Administrivia: Hickory Dickory Dock and Other Notes (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Administrivia: Issue Number Correction (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/051-100: Re: Adoption of New Technologies (J.P. Wollersheim)
15/051-100: Adoption of New Technologies (Seth Baum)
15/051-100: Adoption of Technology Products ([e-mail])
15/051-100: ADSI Terminals (was How I Fooled Caller ID) (Tony Harminc)
15/201-250: Advice Needed About Answering Service (Brian D. Petro)
15/201-250: Re: Advice Needed About Answering Service (Gary Breuckman)
15/201-250: Re: Advice Needed About Answering Service (Greg Habstritt)
15/201-250: Advice Wanted on VoiceFX Voice Board (Alex van Es)
15/201-250: Alabama 334 Backup Plan (Greg Monti)
15/151-200: Alarm Reporting Black Box (D.E. Jennings)
15/001-050: Alert! USWest Cellular in 360/206 (Alan Shen)
15/251-300: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers? (Kate Weber Brown)
15/251-300: Re: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers (Linc Madison)
15/251-300: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Mike Wilcox)
15/251-300: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Paul Cook)
15/251-300: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Tom Steegmann)
15/251-300: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Tom Steegmann)
15/201-250: All Those Questions From Belgian Students (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/151-200: Allnet Financial Stability (Bill Engel)
15/051-100: Alpha Paging via PC (Kevin Kadow)
15/251-300: Alphanumeric Paging Software (David R. Coelho)
15/051-100: Re: Always Busy 800 Number? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Always Busy 800 Number? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (Peter M. Weiss)
15/051-100: American Literature on Multimedia (Toyoaki Kondo)
15/151-200: American Roaming Network (Ching-Cheng Chai)
15/201-250: Ameritech and 10XXX (Mustafa Soysal)
15/101-150: Ameritech Announces TT Charge Reduction in Confusing Way (Bradley Bittorf)
15/201-250: Ameritech: Bloodthirsty Bandits (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Ameritech Rant (Kevin A. Mitchell)
15/201-250: Re: Ameritech Rant ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Aministrivia: Sendmail Let's Me Down (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: An Open Letter to PageAmerica (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Analog Interface Parameters (Eli Cohen)
15/101-150: Analog Interface Parameters (Eli Cohen)
15/101-150: Re: Analog Interface Parameters (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: Ancient Party Lines (David Breneman)
15/001-050: Ancient Party Lines (Scott Falke)
15/001-050: Re: Ancient Party Lines (Scott Falke)
15/101-150: Re: And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ... (Bob Wilkins)
15/101-150: And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ... (Scott D. Fybush)
15/001-050: Re: ANI Information in Realtime (Dave Levenson)
15/001-050: Re: ANI Information in Realtime (Doug Reuben)
15/001-050: ANI Information in Realtime (Eric Essman)
15/001-050: ANI on an Airphone and More (Ry Jones)
15/251-300: ANI vs CALLER ID (Greg Tompkins)
15/251-300: Re: ANI vs Caller-ID (Jeffrey Rhodes)
15/001-050: Annoucement of Citizen Service Forum (Pete Goss)
15/201-250: Announcement: Nautilus 0.9.0 Now Available (Bill Dorsey)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Bruce Roberts)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Bruce Roberts)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Heath Roberts)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (James E. Bellaire)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (James H. Haynes)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (John David Galt)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (John Lundgren)
15/201-250: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Randall Rathbun)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Steve Cogorno)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here (Jens von der Heide)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here (John Nagle)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here (Steve Cogorno)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Annoying Feature on Payphones Here (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Re: Annoying Feature on Payphones (Rob Hjort)
15/101-150: Anon Servers, Child Porn and Scientologists (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/101-150: Anon Servers, Child Porn and Scientologists (Johan Helsingius)
15/051-100: Another A&T 500 Service Mixup (Matthew Spaethe)
15/151-200: Another Fraud Question (Andrew C. Green)
15/051-100: Another Look at the 'Old Days' (Dale Neiburg)
15/051-100: Re: Another Look at the 'Old Days' (Steve Cogorno)
15/001-050: ANSI Terminal Communications (David O. Laney)
15/051-100: Re: ANSI Terminal Communications (Timothy D. Shoppa)
15/051-100: ANSI,ITU Information Needed (Edgar Murillo Montero)
15/101-150: Answering Machine Calls For You! (James E. Bellaire)
15/251-300: Answers to Your 800 Warehousing Questions (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: Re: Antenna For Cellular Phone in Bangkok (Alan Shen)
15/001-050: Antenna For Cellular Phone in Bangkok (Roland Peter Sauermann)
15/251-300: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? (John Palmer)
15/251-300: Re: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? (Peter J. Kerrigan)
15/251-300: Any Payphone Trend Experts Out There? (John D. Smith)
15/201-250: Re: Any Way to Have Parents' Phone Calls Billed to *My* Phone? (HiHoSteveo)
15/201-250: Re: Any Way to Have Parents' Phone Calls Billed to *My* Phone? (M. Smith)
15/201-250: Re: Any Way to Have Parents' Phone Calls Billed to *My* Phone? (S. Cogorno)
15/201-250: Any Way to Have Parents' Phone Calls Billed to *My* Phone? (Scott Brenner)
15/001-050: Anyone from Globalstar, Inmarsat, Iridium or Odyssey? (Eric Tholome)
15/001-050: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Chuck Lukaszewski)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Dave Rand)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Jack Pestaner)
15/051-100: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Justin T. Leavens)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Kyle Sloan)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Michael Henry)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Paul Beker)
15/001-050: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Anyone Heard of Cable and Wireless Inc.? (Randy L. Magstadt)
15/201-250: Anyone Heard of LSI, Carrier or Resp Org? (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Re: Anyone Heard of SMR - Specialized Mobile Radio? (David S. Taylor)
15/101-150: Re: Anyone Heard of SMR - Specialized Mobile Radio? (Dr. R. Levine)
15/101-150: Re: Anyone Heard of SMR - Specialized Mobile Radio? (Glenn Blanc)
15/101-150: Anyone Heard of SMR - Specialized Mobile Radio? (Scott Murray)
15/101-150: Re: Anyone Heard of SMR - Specialized Mobile Radio? (Travis Russell)
15/051-100: Anyone Know High Speed Serial Interface (Chuc Do)
15/101-150: Anything Cheaper Than LCI? (Andrew Lewis Tepper)
15/151-200: Re: Anything Cheaper Than LCI? (Barton Fisher)
15/151-200: Re: Anything Cheaper Than LCI? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: AP Reporter in Berlin Needs Help With Report (Frank Bajak)
15/201-250: AP Story on NPA: 'Black Holes' (James E. Bellaire)
15/151-200: Apartment Entry System (Charles Gimon)
15/101-150: Re: Apple, Data-PCS, Canadian PCS Services (Elizabeth Bonkink)
15/051-100: Apple Hails FCC Frequency Allocation for Data-PCS (Monty Solomon)
15/201-250: April 1995 NPA/NXX report (David Esan)
15/101-150: Arcade Advice Needed (Van R. Hutchinson)
15/251-300: Are 1-800-0xx-xxxx and 1-800-1xx-xxxx Numbers Possible? (Robert Casey)
15/151-200: Are You in Need of a Webmaster? (Jim A. Fetters)
15/001-050: Are You Working in Televirtuality/Networked Virtual Worlds? (Robt Jacobson)
15/051-100: Area Code 500: It Doesn't and Does Work - or Both (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: Area Code 503 Split in Oregon (Leonard Erickson)
15/101-150: Area Code, Country Code Lists (Rich Greenberg)
15/151-200: Re: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (David G. Cantor)
15/151-200: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (Lauren Weinstein)
15/151-200: Re: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (Lee Winson)
15/151-200: Re: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (Philip V. Hull)
15/151-200: Re: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (Steven H. Lichter)
15/151-200: Re: Area Code Overlays vs. Splits (Toby Nixon)
15/201-250: Area Code Update (Steve Grandi)
15/101-150: Re: Area Code/Prefix Trivia (David O'Heare)
15/101-150: Re: Area Code/Prefix Trivia (David W. Tamkin)
15/101-150: Area Code/Prefix Trivia ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Area Code/Prefix Trivia (Philip V. Hull)
15/001-050: Areas Covered by Phone Book? (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/001-050: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? (John Levine)
15/051-100: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book (Wes Leatherock)
15/251-300: Arizona Telecom Heads for the 20th Century! (Kevin Fleming)
15/001-050: Arthur C. Clarke Gets Degree by Satellite (Matt Healy)
15/151-200: Asia's Largest Private Township Wants to Get Wired (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/151-200: Re: Asia's Largest Private Township Wants to Get Wired (Venkat Thirumalai)
15/151-200: Assistance Wanted With Call Blocking (Robohn Scott)
15/051-100: Assistance Wanted With Microwave Communication Network (John Hong)
15/251-300: Asynchronous Dial Access Study Participants Wanted (Dennis Shen)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (A Laurence)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (B Thompson)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (G Hlavenka)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (Jan Mandel)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (John Rice)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (K Gooding)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (Paul Beker)
15/001-050: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (Robert Casey)
15/001-050: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (T Kennedy)
15/101-150: Atlanta Install Help Needed (Les Reeves)
15/051-100: Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? (Ed Goldgehn)
15/051-100: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? (Paul Beker)
15/251-300: ATLAS alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom (Yves Blondeel)
15/001-050: ATM Based PBX (Alex Zacharov)
15/201-250: ATM Locators at NXX NPAs (John Mayson)
15/251-300: ATM over T3: RFI (John Amenyo)
15/101-150: Re: ATM UNI 3.0 & 3.1 (Howard M. Weiner)
15/101-150: ATM UNI 3.0 & 3.1 (Lionel Jaquet)
15/201-250: ATM/SONET VLSI Designers Wanted (Sramana Mitra)
15/201-250: Re: AT&T $5 Minimum Monthly Charge ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: AT&T $5 Minimum Monthly Charge ([e-mail])
15/151-200: AT&T $5 Minimum Monthly Charge (National Electric Telephone)
15/201-250: Re: AT&T $5 Minimum Monthly Charge ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: AT&T $5 Minimum Monthly Charge ([e-mail])
15/051-100: AT&T 500 Number Problems (Matthew Spaethe)
15/051-100: Re: AT&T 500 Number Problems (Philip Gladstone)
15/051-100: Re: AT&T 500 Number Problems (Stan Schwartz)
15/051-100: ATT 500 Number Working in PacBell-land Today (John Landwehr)
15/051-100: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry (Darryl Kipps)
15/051-100: Re: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry (Dave Ptasnik)
15/051-100: Re: AT&T 500 Service (Marc A. Randolph)
15/151-200: AT&T 500 Service Outside the USA ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: AT&T 500 Service Outside the USA (Richard Cox)
15/151-200: Re: AT&T 500 Service Outside the USA (Tom Limoncelli)
15/151-200: AT&T $5/Month Minimum and Equal Access (Benjamin L. Combee)
15/151-200: AT&T $5/Month Minimum (Stan Brown)
15/201-250: Re: AT&T $5/Month Minimum (Wayne Huffman)
15/151-200: AT&T 6650 Cellular Phone Question (Dave Levenson)
15/201-250: Re: AT&T 6650 Cellular Phone Question (Mike Borsetti)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Calling Card Mixup (Kareem Hinedi)
15/101-150: AT&T Calling Card Mixup (Robert Scott)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Calling Card Mixup (Robert Scott)
15/151-200: AT&T Consent Decree Information Wanted (K. Camel)
15/001-050: Re: ATT Entering Rochester Market (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Re: AT&T Enters Rochester NY Local Telephone Market (Bob Thompson)
15/001-050: AT&T Enters Rochester NY Local Telephone Market ([e-mail])
15/201-250: AT&T Files With State PUCs for Local Service (James E. Bellaire)
15/001-050: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (Alan Toscano)
15/001-050: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (J Costello)
15/051-100: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (jamiec102)
15/001-050: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (M. Weiss)
15/001-050: Re: AT&T First to Deliver Long-Awaited "Follow-Me" 500 Numbers (S. Donelan)
15/051-100: AT&T LD Carrier CID Question (Terrence McArdle)
15/001-050: AT&T MCI and Sprint E-mail Addresses Wanted (Piotr Roman Jarzynka)
15/151-200: ATT Merlin 2 vs Toshiba DK Systems (Michael Sendrowicz)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (Al Varney)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (Axel Schmidt)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (Kareem Hinedi)
15/101-150: Re: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (Steve Brack)
15/101-150: AT&T Offers 'International Redial' (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: ATT Phone Compatibles Wanted (Randy Fine)
15/251-300: AT&T Reaches Labor Agreement (Steve Geimann)
15/001-050: AT&T Settles CALL-INFO Dispute With MCI (AT&T News via A. Alan Toscano)
15/201-250: ATT System 25 Music on Hold Help Please (Michael Cummings)
15/251-300: AT&T 'True(?) Messages' (Mark Cuccia)
15/251-300: Re: AT&T 'True(?) Messages' (Steve Cogorno)
15/101-150: AT&T True Rewards Program - Help Me Out (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/051-100: ATT "True Voice" Patent to be Reexamined (Monty Solomon)
15/051-100: ATT True Voice Patents (Monty Solomon)
15/151-200: AT&T TrueConnections 500 Beeper Notification Working (John Shelton)
15/151-200: AT&T Unable to Turn Off True Messages (Mustafa Soysal)
15/101-150: AT&T Wants to be Your On-Ramp (John Shaw)
15/001-050: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Bob Goudreau)
15/051-100: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Bob Goudreau)
15/001-050: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Colum Mylod)
15/001-050: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Dik Winter)
15/001-050: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/001-050: Re: Attention: 800 Number Subscribers (News Alert) (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Ed Mitchell)
15/251-300: Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Michael J. Kuras)
15/251-300: Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Pat Martin)
15/251-300: Auction All the Spectrum (Peter Huber via [e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Scott Townley)
15/251-300: AUDIO-NETWORKS and AUDIOTEX Mailing Lists (Lauren Weinstein)
15/051-100: AudioText Applications (Richard Cayne)
15/101-150: Australian Government Multimedia Forum March 1995 (Tom Worthington)
15/051-100: Autodialing PIC Codes on NOrthern Telcom Option 71 (Mark Fletcher)
15/101-150: Automated Bridge Wanted (Stephen J. Mahler)
15/101-150: Automatic Message Accounting Standard Wanted (Gerry Goldman)
15/101-150: Re: Automatic Message Accounting Standard Wanted (Howard M. Weiner)
15/101-150: Re: Automatic Message Accounting Standard Wanted (Travis Russell)
15/051-100: Automatic Page Application Off of NT-SL1 ? (Ken Stone)
15/051-100: Re: Automatic Page Application Off of NT-SL1? (Rob Lockhart)
15/251-300: Avon Park, Florida Area Code Question (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: B8ZS, AMI, Bipolar Line Coding? (Phillip Schuman)
15/001-050: Re: B8ZS, AMI, Bipolar Line Coding? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: B8ZS, AMI, Bipolar Line Coding (William Wood)
15/051-100: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (Eric C. Carlson)
15/101-150: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (Fred Goodwin)
15/101-150: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (John Levine)
15/101-150: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (Lars Poulsen)
15/151-200: Backlighted Caller ID Box Wanted (Bill Halvorsen)
15/151-200: Re: Backlit Caller ID Box Wanted (Mike Pollock)
15/101-150: Bandwidth capacity available to and from:  government (all levels),
15/151-200: Bandwidth Question (Martha Marin)
15/151-200: Re: Bandwidth Question ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Baseball All-Star Ballot Available on the Internet (Stephen Goodman)
15/051-100: Basic LAN/WAN Internetworking Cliff Notes Needed (guest machine)
15/001-050: BA-VA Drops Touch-Tone Charge (Phillip Dampier)
15/151-200: Re: Bay Area Rapid Trans and MFS Fiber Install ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Bay Area Rapid Transit and MFS Fiber Installation ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Elliot Schwartz)
15/001-050: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Mark Fraser)
15/001-050: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Sarah Holland)
15/001-050: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Tim Curry)
15/251-300: BC to Wisconsin Data Line Type? (Andrew Tuline)
15/101-150: BCE Involvement in Satellite Phone Services (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Belgacom and Greek Panaphone (Juha Veijalainen)
15/001-050: Belgacom and Panaphone Greece (Viviane Engels)
15/001-050: Bell Atlanta-PA Insert Disclaimer (Peter M. Weiss)
15/101-150: Bell Atlantic Asks: How About Us as a LD Service? (Charles McGuinness)
15/051-100: Re: Bell Atlantic ISDN, Part II (Dan Brown)
15/051-100: Bell Atlantic ISDN, Part II (Hersh Jeff)
15/051-100: Re: Bell Atlantic ISDN, Part II (Shuang Deng)
15/001-050: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Dave Levenson)
15/001-050: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Mark Robert Smith)
15/001-050: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Joins the PIN Crowd (Steve Cogorno)
15/101-150: Bell Canada 500 Service? (John S. Nelson)
15/251-300: Bell Canada Announces Internet Access (Terry Flanagan)
15/251-300: Bell Canada Applied For Information Service Trial (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Bell Canada Files Rates For Business Local Measured Service (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Bell Canada Multi-Language Operator Support Trial (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Re: Bell Canada Pulse vs. Tone (Scott Sarty)
15/101-150: Re: Bell Canada Stumped on 500 Service (David L. Oehring)
15/101-150: Bell Canada Stumped on 500 Service (Scott A. Montague)
15/201-250: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Re: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates (Jeff Bamford)
15/051-100: Bellcore ISDN Spec Phone Number? (Bob Izenberg)
15/001-050: Re: Bellcore Standards Question (Bill Mayhew)
15/001-050: Re: Bellcore Standards Question (Chip Sharp)
15/001-050: Bellcore Standards Question (Craig Harris)
15/001-050: Re: Bellcore Standards Question (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: Bellcore Standards Question (Wally Ritchie)
15/101-150: Bellcore Telecomm Overview Video Series (Robohn Scott)
15/051-100: BellSouth ISDN Rates (Was ISDN in Florida) (Ed Goldgehn)
15/051-100: BellSouth Joins World Wide Web (Nigel Allen)
15/101-150: Benchmarking Internet Providers (Marc Shafroth)
15/101-150: Benchmarking Internet Providers (Marc Shafroth)
15/151-200: Re: Benchmarking Internet Providers (Mike Rehmus)
15/151-200: Beware! Telecom "Reform" Now Under Way (GovAccess.113 via Monty Solomon)
15/251-300: BICOM Two Port Voice Processing Board Not Needed (Mike Buffa)
15/251-300: Re: Big Brother Busy at Work Watching YOU (Andrew C. Green)
15/251-300: Big Brother Busy at Work Watching YOU (Sean Murphy)
15/251-300: Billed Party Preference (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/051-100: Billing Data Formats LD Carriers <-> RBOCs (Antony Upward)
15/001-050: Biographies on Line (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Biographies/Sketches of Our Participants (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: Black Holes and Radio Contests (Steve Bunning)
15/251-300: Re: Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff (Allen Greenwalt)
15/251-300: Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff (Joseph Norton)
15/151-200: BLV Flaw ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: BLV Flaw (Alexis Kasperavicius)
15/251-300: BOCA Research Multi-Port Box (Sean Burbidge)
15/101-150: Book on ISDN Wanted (Charles Mingus)
15/201-250: Book Review: "51 Reasons" by Stone-Martin/Breeden (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Being Digital" by Nicholas Negroponte (Laasri Hassan)
15/201-250: Book Review: Canadian Business Guide to Using Internet (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Complete Idiot's Guide to Modem and Online Services (Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: Complete Idiot's Guide to Usenet Newsgroups (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Computer and Communications Security" by Cooper (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Computer Networks" by Black (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Computer Privacy Handbook" (Andre Bacard)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Data Link Protocols" by Black (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "DNS and BIND" by Albitz/Liu (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Dvorak's Guide to Desktop Telecommunications" (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Education on the Internet" by Ellsworth (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "E-Mail Security" by Schneier (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Fundamentals of Telecommunication Networks" (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Gale Guide to Internet Databases" by Zakalik (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Get on the Internet in Five Minutes" (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Global Network Operations" by Malamud et al (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Handbook of LAN Technology" by Fortier (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Hotlinks" by Eppley/Hakala (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "How to Manage Your Network Using SNMP" (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "HTML Sourcebook" by Graham (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "International Callback Book" by Retske (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Internet Access Essentials" by Tittel/Robbins (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Internet Anywhere" by MKS/Gardner (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Internet Explorer's Kit for Macintosh" (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Internet Fireways and Network Security" (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Internet Gizmos for Windows" (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Internet Passport" by NorthWestNet (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Internet Roadside Attractions" by Branwyn et al (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Internet Slick Tricks" by Glossbrenner (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Internet Yellow Pages" by Hahn/Stout (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Interuppt" by Toni Dwiggins (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "LANtastic Quick Reference" by Talbot (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Living at Light Speed" by Goodman (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Local Area Network Reference" by Chorafas (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Love Online" by Phlegar (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Managing Internet Information Services" by Liu (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Mastering the Internet" by Cady/McGregor (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Minding Your Cybermanners on the Internet" by Rose (R Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Mobile IP Networking" by Malamud et al (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Re: Book Review: "Modems Made Easy" by Hakala (Rich Brown)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Modems Made Easy" by Hakala (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "Mosaic Quick Tour for Windows" by Branwyn (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "NetGuide" by Rutten/Bayers/Maloni (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "NetPages" by Aldea Communications (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "net.sex" by Rose/Thomas (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "New Riders' Official Internet Yellow Pages" (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Novell's Guide to Integrating UNIX and NetWares" (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Online with Procomm Plus for Windows 2" by Wolfe (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Protect Your Privacy" by Stallings (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Running a Perfect Web Site" by Chandler (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Student's Guide to the Internet" by Clark (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Teach Yourself Web Publishing With HTML" (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: Telecommunications Directory, 1995-96, 7th Edition (N. Allen)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Ten Minute Guide to the Internet" (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Mosaic" by Kraynak (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World Wide Web" (R. Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "The Downloader's Companion for Windows" (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "The Information Superhighway: Beyond the Internet" (R Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "The Internet" by Hoffman (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "The Internet Navigator" by Gilster (2nd Ed.) (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Review: "The Little Online Book" by Glossbrenner (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "The Mosaic Navigator" by Gilster (Rob Slade)
15/051-100: Book Review: "The Z-Mail Handbook" by Nelson (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Trail Guide to Prodigy" by Halliday (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: Unix Communications and the Internet by Anderson (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Re: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" (Pat Fogarty)
15/101-150: Book Review: "USENIX Conference Keynote Address" by Barlow (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Review: "Using E-Mail" by Gibbons et al. (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "Using Netscape" by Ernst (Rob Slade)
15/201-250: Book Review: "Using Unix Newsgroups" by Gregory et al (Rob Slade)
15/251-300: Book Review: "World Wide Web Unleashed" by December/Randall (Rob Slade)
15/151-200: Book Rwview: "Internet Insider" by Prevost (Rob Slade)
15/101-150: Book Wanted: "Number Please - Early London Telephone Exchanges" (N. Allen)
15/051-100: Books About Telecom Standards Wanted (Roman Rumian)
15/051-100: Books on SNMP Wanted (Elin Sundin)
15/201-250: Re: Boom! (Oklahoma City/Waco/World Trade Center) (Mike Frere)
15/201-250: Boom! (Oklahoma City/Waco/World Trade Center) (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: Re: Boom! (Second Report) (Carl Moore)
15/201-250: Boom! (Second Report) (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: Re: Boom! (Second Report) (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: BRI to Bipolar T1 (Joseph Hagan)
15/001-050: Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/001-050: Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable (Wally Ritchie)
15/201-250: British Editor/Tech Writer Needed Immediately (Eric Johnson)
15/001-050: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: British Telecom Cuts Rates to Canada and U.S. (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: British Telecom Information Superhighway (Yves Blondeel)
15/251-300: Broadband Networking News (Electronic Newsstand)
15/251-300: Broadband Radio For the Local Loop (P.A.Williamson)
15/251-300: BT to Takeover Cable & Wireless? (Adam Ashby)
15/101-150: Bulk Call Generators ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Business Telephone Sales Expected Salary/Commission Ranges? (Neil W. Giles)
15/101-150: Business vs. Residential Rates (Richard Palmer)
15/051-100: Business/Residential Long-Distance/800 at 12.9 Cents/Minute (Tom Fellrath)
15/151-200: Re: Busying Out a Line ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Busying Out a Line ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Cable Cost-of-Service Regulation (Prakash Hariramani)
15/001-050: CAI Preferences by Service Providers (Alex Cena)
15/201-250: CAIS: Chicago Area Internet Society (John FX Berns)
15/101-150: California Local Prefixes Database Wanted (John J. Henderson)
15/251-300: California's New Area Code: 760 (Greg Monti)
15/251-300: Re: California's New Area Code: 760 (Scott D. Fybush)
15/051-100: Call Accounting/Telemanagement Software (Steve Morrow)
15/201-250: Call Back Telecom Software Wanted (Ahmad S. Aziz)
15/051-100: Call Blocking: by State? (Robert Perkins)
15/201-250: Call for Papers: 1995 European Simulation Symposium (Alexander Verbraeck)
15/001-050: Call For Papers: JMLICS (Mehmet Orgun)
15/101-150: Call for Presentations - Summit '95 ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Call For Tender ISDN Project Support (Marcel W.J. van Ruijven)
15/001-050: Re: Call Overflow Question (Chris Hardaker)
15/001-050: Call Overflow Question (Mark Kelly)
15/151-200: Call Screen, aka *60 (Chris Farrar)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Butch Lcroan)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Carl Moore)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Donald R. Newcomb)
15/201-250: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (John W. Pan)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (John Woods)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Richard M. Weil)
15/201-250: Re: Call Trace Foulup Followed OK Bomb (Steve Dyer)
15/001-050: Call Unblocking Now Available From US West (Seattle) (Chris Osburn)
15/001-050: Call Waiting and Caller-ID (Keith Knipschild)
15/001-050: Re: Call Waiting and Caller-ID Question (Navneet Patel)
15/001-050: Call Waiting and Caller-ID Question (Repeat) (Keith Knipschild)
15/001-050: Call Waiting and Comm Software (Mansoor Chishtie)
15/151-200: Re: Call Waiting Purgatory (Ken Stox)
15/101-150: Call Waiting Purgatory (Robohn Scott)
15/151-200: Call-Back Companies Information Request (Rogier van Kreveld)
15/151-200: Callback Overcharging by PASSPORT (David Forder)
15/151-200: Re: Callback Providers (Paul Jonathan E. Go)
15/151-200: Callback Service: Sell It For What You Want (Al Niven)
15/151-200: Re: Callback System Hardware and Software? (Douglas Frank)
15/151-200: Re: Callback System Hardware and Software? ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Callback System Hardware and Software Wanted (Bernardo Lam)
15/051-100: Caller ID and Call Waiting (Evan Champion)
15/051-100: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Caller ID Answering Machines (Bob Izenberg)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? (Curt Nelson)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? (Lynne Gregg)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? (Scott B. Campbell)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? (Steve Cogorno)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID Answering Machines? (Warren Leach)
15/201-250: Caller ID Approved in Anchorage (Ed Bennett)
15/051-100: Caller ID Block Fails (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
15/001-050: Caller ID Deluxe in N.J. (Phillip Dampier)
15/201-250: Caller ID Format Varies? (Charles Copeland)
15/201-250: Re: Caller ID Format Varies? (Les Reeves)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID in CA ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID in CA (John Navas)
15/151-200: Re: Caller ID in CA (Lynne Gregg)
15/201-250: Caller ID Nationally and FCC Order (Lynne Gregg)
15/201-250: Caller ID Nationally and FCC Order (Matt Simpson)
15/051-100: Caller ID on Call Waiting/ADSI (John Combs)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (Benjamin Carter)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (Craig Steinberger)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns) (John R. Levine)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) (Rob Levandowski)
15/101-150: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) (Robert Levandowski)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID Question ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Caller ID Question ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID Question (Stan Schwartz)
15/051-100: Caller ID Questions (Mike Harris)
15/101-150: Caller Id Service For Equivalency Lines - First Line Only? (Paul Chehowski)
15/101-150: Re: Caller ID Service For Equivalency Lines (Paul Chehowski)
15/151-200: Caller ID Signaling in Europe (John W. Pan)
15/001-050: Caller ID Software (and Hardware) (Alex McPhail)
15/151-200: Caller ID Specs Wanted (Gordon Jacobson)
15/051-100: Re: Caller ID to TouchTones (Donald L. Moore)
15/051-100: Caller ID to TouchTones Help Needed (Lars Nohling)
15/051-100: Re: Caller ID to TouchTones (Steve Friedlander)
15/051-100: Re: CallerID and ANI (Glenn Foote)
15/001-050: CallerID and ANI (John W. Barrus)
15/051-100: Re: CallerID and ANI (Scott Falke)
15/101-150: CallerID and Dialogic Board (Brian Tatro)
15/101-150: Re: CallerID and Dialogic Board (Donald L. Moore)
15/201-250: Caller-ID and NT-Specific Caller-ID? (Chris Pirazzi)
15/101-150: Re: Caller-ID Questions (Seymour Dupa)
15/201-250: Caller-ID Service in Europe? (Yong Kuck Jong)
15/151-200: Re: Caller-ID Specs (David Goessling)
15/251-300: Caller-ID With Name From Centrex (Mark Cuccia)
15/001-050: Re: Calling 500 Numbers From Overseas (Eric Paulak)
15/251-300: Re: Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers? Addition (James E. Bellaire)
15/251-300: Re: Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers? Addition ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers? (Linc Madison)
15/251-300: Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Calls From Australia to US 800 Not Delivering DTMF (John Combs)
15/201-250: Calls From Australia to US 800 Not Delivering DTMF (Serge Burjak)
15/201-250: Re: Calls From Australia to US 800 Not Delivering DTMF (Serge Burjak)
15/201-250: Re: Calls From Australia to US 800 Not Delivering DTMF (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Campus Wiring Innovations ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Campus Wiring/Connectivity Innovation ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Can Anyone Recommend a Good T1 Text (Brian Brown)
15/151-200: Can Anyone Recommend a Good T1 Text (David M. Meyer)
15/151-200: Re: Can Anyone Recommend a Good T1 Text (Gerald Serviss)
15/051-100: Re: Can Anyone Recommend Excell LD Phone Service? (Christopher H. Snider)
15/051-100: Can Anyone Recoomend Excell LD Phone Service? (Chris Telesca)
15/001-050: Can Caller ID Information Be Faked? (Chris Telesca)
15/051-100: Re: Can Caller ID Information Be Faked? (Chris Telesca)
15/251-300: Can I Bring Legal Action to Force NYNEX to Do Its Job (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/151-200: Re: Can my Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Henry Wertz)
15/151-200: Re: Can my Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Karen Nakamura)
15/201-250: Re: Can my Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Karen Nakamura)
15/201-250: Re: Can my Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Linc Madison)
15/151-200: Can My Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Maximilien N. Turner)
15/201-250: Re: Can my Modem Talk to TTY Machines For the Deaf? (Tad Cook)
15/201-250: Can Someone Explain DID in English? (Brian D. Petro)
15/201-250: Re: Can Someone Explain DID in English? (Eric A. Carr)
15/201-250: Re: Can Someone Explain DID in English? (J. Herraghty)
15/201-250: Re: Can Someone Explain DID in English? (Mark E. Daniel)
15/201-250: Re: Can Someone Explain DID in English? (Marshall Leathers)
15/201-250: Re: Can Someone Help Me With Sidetone? (D. Ptasnik)
15/201-250: Can Someone Help Me With Sidetone (Steven Hellman)
15/101-150: Can You Tell Me About MCK Communications? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Canada and Chile Sign Telecom Research Agreement (Nigel Allen)
15/001-050: Canada Direct Access Numbers (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Canadian Area Code Information Now on a WWW Page (Dave Leibold)
15/101-150: Canadian Carrier Fonorola Gets TelRoute's Customers (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Canadian Carrier TelRoute in Receivership (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Canadian CIC Codes: (Chris Farrar)
15/101-150: Canadian "Framework" Proceeding (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Re: Canadian (Northern Tel) in India? (John S. Nelson)
15/051-100: Canadian (Northern Tel) in India? (Rohit Sharma)
15/101-150: Canadian Publisher Southam Links With U.S.-Based Prodigy (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Canadian Telephone/Cable Competition Policy Announced (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Canadian Universal Internet Access (Sarah Holland)
15/001-050: Canadian Yellow Pages Companies Face Anti-Monopoly Challenge (Nigel Allen)
15/251-300: Cantel and the New Area Codes (Jeff Bamford)
15/151-200: Caribbean Phone via Private Link (Jennings)
15/051-100: Cash For Telecom Experts Who Want to be Published (David Bezar)
15/001-050: Re: Cattle Call (Andrew C. Green)
15/051-100: Re: Cattle Call (Andrew Laurence)
15/051-100: Re: Cattle Call (Dale Neiburg)
15/051-100: Re: Cattle Call (David K. Bryant)
15/001-050: Re: Cattle Call (John Dearing)
15/001-050: Re: Cattle Call (John Rice)
15/001-050: Cattle Call (Randy Gellens)
15/051-100: Re: Cattle Call (Ray Normandeau)
15/101-150: CATV Based WAN (Dominique Gabioud)
15/101-150: Caveat on Tech Training (William Wood)
15/151-200: CCIT G.711 PCM Format (also Dialogic 8khz, 8 bit PCM Format) (P. Chehowski)
15/051-100: CCITT Class A (Jesus Ruelas)
15/051-100: Re: CCITT Class A (Lars Poulsen)
15/051-100: CCITT TCAP Message Format (Hari Kalva)
15/251-300: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Brian Smith)
15/251-300: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (D. Ptasnik)
15/251-300: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Dave Levenson)
15/251-300: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Gary Feld)
15/251-300: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Jerry Aguirre)
15/151-200: Re: CDMA Update - Bad News :-( (Bill Walker)
15/151-200: CDMA Update - Bad News :-( (Simon J. Wallace)
15/151-200: Re: CDPD vs Ckt Cell Data UPDATE (Alan Larson)
15/151-200: Re: CDPD vs Ckt Cell Data UPDATE (Richard Kenshalo)
15/151-200: Re: CDPD vs Ckt Cell Data UPDATE (Sam Spens Clason)
15/151-200: Re: CDPD vs Ckt Cell Data UPDATE (Terrence McArdle)
15/251-300: CD-ROM of Residental and Business Phone Listings Wanted ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Celebrity 900 Numbers (Brian Redman)
15/151-200: Cell Fraud Hotline Established (Greg Monti)
15/001-050: Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Alan M. Gallatin)
15/001-050: Re: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Jeffrey Rhodes)
15/001-050: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Stan Schwartz)
15/201-250: Cell One/Boston (Brian Vita)
15/251-300: Re: Cell One/Boston (Christopher C. Stacy)
15/251-300: Re: Cell One/Boston (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/251-300: Re: Cell One/Boston (John R. Covert)
15/101-150: Cell One/NY STOPS Billing Incompletes (Doug Reuben)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (A. Padgett Peterson)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Alan Boritz)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Carl Oppedahl)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Henry Baker)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Jay Hennigan)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Jeffrey Mattox)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (John R. Covert)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Matthew P. Downs)
15/001-050: Re: Cell Phone PINs (Steve Seydell)
15/001-050: Cell Phone Programming - Follow-up (Alex McPhail)
15/051-100: Re: Cell Phone Programming - Follow-Up (Glenn Shirley)
15/051-100: Re: Cell Phone Programming - Follow-Up (John Levine)
15/001-050: Cell Phone Programming (Alex McPhail)
15/201-250: Cell Phones and Monthly Charges (Jonathan Thatcher)
15/201-250: Cell Phones vs Pacemakers (Michael J. Kuras)
15/151-200: Cell Programming For Motorola 7200 (Jurgen Morhofer)
15/101-150: Cell Service in NY Metro Area Notes (Stan Schwartz)
15/001-050: Cellphone ANI Now Being Given? (Keith Knipschild)
15/051-100: Cellphone Car Antennas - Passive Repeaters Any Good? (Charles Beatty)
15/001-050: Re: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? (Jeffrey Rhodes)
15/001-050: Re: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? (Mr. James Holland)
15/001-050: Re: Cellphone Now Giving ANI? (Steve Brack)
15/001-050: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Alan Shen)
15/001-050: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Steven King)
15/051-100: Cellphones on Your TV (Timothy D. Shoppa)
15/101-150: Cellular Airtime Resellers (Bill Engel)
15/201-250: Cellular and Health (Stewart Fist)
15/101-150: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (Eric A. Carr)
15/101-150: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (George Wang)
15/101-150: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (Gerald Serviss)
15/101-150: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/101-150: Cellular "Auto-Registration (Rick Edwards)
15/001-050: Cellular Billing Services (Raymond S. VanderBok)
15/151-200: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (Bill Engel)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (David Forder)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (Gene Retske)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (Georg Oehl)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (Jeff Bamford)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Callback Information Wanted (Robert Levandowski)
15/001-050: Cellular Direct Number (Sanjay Hiranandani)
15/051-100: Cellular Exchanges Wanted (Tom Ward)
15/151-200: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Lester Hiraki)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Mike Frere)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Nick Sayer)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Robert Levandowski)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Tony Harminc)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Features Incur DOUBLE Airtime Charge (Willie Smith)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Barry Margolin)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Bruce Albrecht)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Dan J. Declerck)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (David Buerger)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Eric Nelson)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Gary Novosielski)
15/101-150: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (John S. Maddaus)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Larry Schwarcz)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Matthew P. Downs)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Michael P. Deignan)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Nick Sayer)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Paul Houle)
15/001-050: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Peter Knoppers)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Rob Boudrie)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Robert Levandowski)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Toby Nixon)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Bob Compiano)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Ed Ellers)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Jason Edmiston)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (K. L. Sajini)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Michael P. Deignan)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Mike Frere)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Phil Ritter)
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (Robert Virzi)
15/151-200: Cellular Fraud in the News Again (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular in Israel (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Alan Shen)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Alan Shen)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Eric Tholome)
15/001-050: Cellular NAM and ESN (Greg Segallis)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Jeff Box)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (John R. Covert)
15/251-300: Cellular One of NYC Credit (Keith Knipschild)
15/051-100: Cellular Phone Information (Lokesh Kalpa)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Phone Information Wanted (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular Phone Pricing Question (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Cellular Phone Pricing Question (John McGing)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular Phone Pricing Question (Ken Weaverling)
15/151-200: Cellular Phone Receiver ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Cellular Phone Receiver (Jurgen Morhofer)
15/001-050: Cellular Phone Technology (Stan Brown)
15/001-050: Re: Cellular Phone Technology (Wally Ritchie)
15/051-100: Cellular Provider in Israel (Isaiah W. Cox)
15/251-300: Cellular Service in Hungary (George F. Levar)
15/251-300: Re: Cellular Service in Hungary (Jalil Latiff)
15/051-100: Cellular Service in Palo Alto (Javier Henderson)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Service in the Lincoln Tunnel (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Cellular Service in the Lincoln Tunnel (Doug Reuben)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Service in the Lincoln Tunnel (Stan Schwartz)
15/001-050: Cellular Telecommunications - GAO Report (Keith Bonney)
15/051-100: Re: Cellular Telephones Built Into Watches (Ray Normandeau)
15/051-100: Cellular Telephones Built Into Watches (Timothy Benson)
15/201-250: Cellular-Cancer Suit Dismissed (Steve Geimann)
15/151-200: Central List of Upcoming Tenders? (Kathleen Towler)
15/251-300: Centrex Research Project (Charles P. Whaley)
15/251-300: Centrex Voice Mail Notifier (John Zambito)
15/051-100: CFP: 3rd International Workshop on Feature Interactions (Nancy Griffeth)
15/101-150: CFP: ACM's Wireless Conference '95 (Change of Date/Location) (Victor Bahl)
15/151-200: CFP: Call for Abstracts for IS&N 95 - Deadline April 10 (Pat McLaughlin)
15/001-050: CFP: Feature Interactions in Communications Systems (Nancy Griffeth)
15/051-100: CFP: IN Conference in Copenhagen (J|rgen N|rgaard)
15/201-250: CFP: Special Issue of Journal of Symbolic Computation (Mehmet Orgun)
15/201-250: Challenging Phone Bill (Grady Ward)
15/201-250: Re: Challenging Phone Bill (Steven H. Lichter)
15/001-050: Changes in Hong Kong Dial Plan (Paul A. Lee)
15/001-050: Re: Changes in Hong Kong Telephone Numbers (Jeffrey Bhavnanie)
15/001-050: Re: Changes in Hong Kong Telephone Numbers (Robert Hall)
15/051-100: Changes to 411 Directory Assistance Service in Atlanta (Nigel Allen)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bennett Z. Kobb)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Mayhew)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bill Sohl)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Bruce Roberts)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Christopher Zguris)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Christopher Zguris)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Clifton T. Sharp)
15/051-100: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (David Hough)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (David Moon)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Gary Novo)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Gary Sanders)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Joel B. Levin)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John David Galt)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John Higdon)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Michael Deignan)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Michael J Graven)
15/001-050: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Paul Gloger)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (P.B. Emerton)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Peter Dibble)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Peter Laws)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Richard Solomon)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Steve Brack)
15/001-050: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (Tony Pelliccio)
15/051-100: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? (David Hayes)
15/051-100: Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Greg Monti)
15/051-100: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Greg Monti)
15/051-100: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Kevin Kadow)
15/051-100: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Mark Peacock)
15/201-250: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (John Meissen)
15/251-300: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Kadow)
15/251-300: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Martin)
15/051-100: Chip Sets For 150 Mbps DPSK (Rohit Sharma)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Alan Boritz)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Ari Wuolle)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Donald J. Zanolla)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Jim Hupf)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Sam Spens Clason)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Scott A. Montague)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Steve Cogorno)
15/001-050: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Wolf Paul)
15/051-100: Re: CID Question (Dave Levenson)
15/051-100: Re: CID Question (Mike Pollock)
15/001-050: CID Question (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Citizens in Support of Public Broadcasting ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Citizens in Support of Public Broadcasting (Matt Noah)
15/201-250: CIUG Conference (Bob Larribeau)
15/251-300: Clarifications to Oregon PUC Ruling on Area Code Split (Robert Hansen)
15/151-200: CLI - and Calls to the Coast Guard (Richard Cox)
15/251-300: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Barry Loveridge)
15/201-250: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Ben Liberman)
15/251-300: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Chris Garrigues)
15/201-250: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Mike Sandman)
15/201-250: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Richard A. Victor)
15/201-250: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Scot M. Desort)
15/151-200: Re: Client/Server Mobile Computing ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Client/Server Mobile Computing (Peter Chandler)
15/201-250: Clipper Paper Available via Anonymous FTP (Michael Froomkin)
15/051-100: Re: Clock Slips Again ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Clock Slips Again (Harold Hechinger)
15/051-100: Clock Slips Again (Martin McCormick)
15/051-100: Re: Clock Slips Again (Martin McCormick)
15/051-100: Re: Clock Slips Again (Steve Daggett)
15/251-300: Closing Down For a Few Days (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: CO/Boston Added to NACN (Doug Reuben)
15/051-100: Re: CO/Boston Added to NACN (John R. Covert)
15/201-250: CO/Boston Goes to AT&T Autoplex (Doug Reuben)
15/251-300: CO/Boston New Hampshire Billing Errors (Doug Reuben)
15/251-300: COCOT Commissions (Lee Winson)
15/001-050: COCOTS in Jail (Wm. Randolph U. Franklin)
15/201-250: Com Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Thor Stromsnes)
15/051-100: Combinet ISDN Routers (Robert Seltzer)
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Doug Snyder)
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Jerry Eckler)
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Todd Koenig)
15/151-200: Committee Suggests Break-up of India's Dept. of Telecom (Rishab A. Ghosh)
15/101-150: Communications Books For Sale (Tuan T. Ho)
15/051-100: Communications Decency Act of 1995 (Ben Heckscher)
15/251-300: Communications Decency Act Part II (Joel Upchurch)
15/001-050: Communications FTP Server in Australia (Iaen Cordell)
15/151-200: Communications Software Help Needed (Arthur Anderson)
15/201-250: Company Contact Information Needed ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Frank Atkinson)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and all That (John Levine)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (John R. Levine)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Lars Poulsen)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Lars Poulsen)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Linc Madison)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Richard Cox)
15/151-200: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Tim Gorman)
15/151-200: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Tim Gorman)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Tim Gorman)
15/201-250: Re: Competition, RBOCs and All That (Tim Gorman)
15/251-300: CompuServe Announces PNG-Based Graphics Specification (Wendell Baker)
15/001-050: Re: Computer Caller-ID (Maurice Dykes)
15/001-050: Re: Computer Caller-ID (Pete Kruckenberg)
15/001-050: Re: Computer Caller-ID (Seymour Dupa)
15/001-050: Computer Caller-ID (Thomas Fitzurka)
15/101-150: Computer Communications Books For Sale (Tuan T. Ho)
15/101-150: Computer Modeling Software for AM Tower/Antenna Studies? (Zuhair Moin)
15/001-050: Computer Telephony Convention ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Computer Viruses Banned from Finnish Internet (David H. Close)
15/251-300: Computer Viruses Banned from Finnish Internet (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/001-050: Computers and VCR's (Anthony Hologounis)
15/201-250: Concentric Research Obtains Investment Capital (Kristine Loosley)
15/151-200: Conduit - To Use or Not to Use (David Thaggard)
15/151-200: Re: Conduit - To Use or Not to Use (Mark Peacock)
15/151-200: Re: Conduit - To Use or Not to Use ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Conference - "Business Opportunities in Asia-Pacific" (Spencer Hu)
15/151-200: Conference Announcement/Call for Participation ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Conference: Commerce and Banking on the Information Highway (D. St. John)
15/101-150: Conference: "Local Number Portability" April 25-26, 1995 (Kevin Shea)
15/151-200: Conference: Managing Internet For The Enterprise (Eric Paulak)
15/251-300: Conference on VLSI and Mobile Communications (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/001-050: Conference/Class/Training on Switching Technology? ([e-mail])
15/201-250: conferencing etc)
15/151-200: Conformance Testing of IS-54 IS-41 (Liqun Yang)
15/001-050: Congresspersons Interested in Telemarketing Policy? (Anthony E. Siegman)
15/201-250: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma (Martin McCormick)
15/251-300: Re: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
15/001-050: Considering Purchasing an IVR System From InterVoice (Steve Samler)
15/051-100: Consultant Wanted in Denver, Colorado USA (Richard Bourassa)
15/151-200: Re: Consuming Ourselves Into Oblivion (Chris Hardaker)
15/151-200: Consuming Ourselves Into Oblivion (Kevin Martin)
15/151-200: Re: Consuming Ourselves Into Oblivion (Subroto Mukerjea)
15/151-200: Contact Your Provider on the Communications Decency Act (ACLU Information)
15/151-200: Continuing Education in DSP and Speech Coding (Andreas Spanias)
15/251-300: Convergence Research Request (TWarren519)
15/101-150: CONY Baltimnore (Doug Reuben)
15/101-150: Re: CONY Baltimnore (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Copy of Memo to AT&T Re: 500/True Connections (John Shelton)
15/251-300: Cord Board Still in Use (Lou Jahn)
15/251-300: Cord Board Toll and Assistance (Lee Winson)
15/051-100: Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much? (Danny Burstein)
15/051-100: Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much is Real? (C. Jones)
15/201-250: Correction: Re: 500 Prefixes Currently Assigned (Allan J. Langfield)
15/001-050: Correction: Communications FTP Server in Australia (Iaen Cordell)
15/101-150: Correction on AT&T True Rewards Posting (Alan Kelman)
15/201-250: Correction: PCS Comparative MTA Ranking (Bob Keller)
15/201-250: Re: Country Codes (Andreas Pavlik)
15/201-250: Country Codes (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/201-250: Re: Country Codes (Toby Nixon)
15/151-200: Country Dialing Rules (Toby Nixon)
15/201-250: Courier v34 Modems (Scott Williamson)
15/251-300: Cox Amendment to Limit Universal Service to Voice Telephone (M. Solomon)
15/101-150: CPE Outsourcing - Anecdotes Wanted (Mark Peacock)
15/151-200: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Alan Dahl)
15/101-150: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Doug Fields)
15/101-150: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Javier Henderson)
15/151-200: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Jeff Wolfe)
15/101-150: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Robert Levandowski)
15/151-200: Re: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Robert Levandowski)
15/101-150: Credit Checking on Cellular Customers (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Re: Cross Keys (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: Cross Keys (Richard D.G. Cox)
15/201-250: Cross-Border Local Calls (Dale Crouse)
15/201-250: Re: Cross-Border Local Calls (Dave Leibold)
15/201-250: Re: Cross-Border Local Calls (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/251-300: Crossed Wires and ANI (Chris J. Cartwright)
15/251-300: Re: Crossed Wires and ANI (Roger Atkinson)
15/251-300: Re: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection (Joe Sulmar)
15/251-300: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection (William Boswell)
15/001-050: CTI on NEC 2000 Switch (Chaz Holmes)
15/101-150: Cubix Remote Access Server (Daryl Morey)
15/101-150: Cubix Remote Access Server (Scott Gordon)
15/251-300: Current Issue of Federal Communications Law Journal (Chris Roth)
15/151-200: Re: Current Status of Caller-ID in CA ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Custom IVR (Jack Pestaner)
15/251-300: CWA Board Approves Strike Authorization at AT&T (CWA News via Nigel Allen)
15/201-250: Cyber-Liberties Alert #4: State Bills Regulating Online Content (ACLU Info)
15/201-250: Cyberspace Event in New York City ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Data Communication With GSM ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Data Engineer Position in Houston ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Data Over CB? (Bill Mayhew)
15/001-050: Re: Data Over CB? (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Data Over CB? (Michael Libes)
15/201-250: Data Pagers w/PCMCIA Interface (Douglas Neubert)
15/051-100: Data Wanted Measuring Internet Performance (Jeff Grau)
15/101-150: David Noble on the Information Highway (D. Shniad)
15/051-100: DAX Software - RAM Research (Barton Fisher)
15/101-150: Debit Cards for LD Calling (Glenn Foote)
15/151-200: Debit-Cellular Service (Len Jackson)
15/151-200: Re: Defective Caller ID (Howard M. Weiner)
15/151-200: Defective Caller ID (Roberta Kay Splieth)
15/151-200: Re: Defective Caller ID (Ronell Elkayam)
15/151-200: Delrina Primes Communications Software Market With Free Products (J Bzoza)
15/151-200: Re: Denver International Airport (Buchanan Natalia)
15/151-200: Re: Denver International Airport (Emerson Schwartzkopf)
15/101-150: Denver International Airport (Greg Monti)
15/251-300: Design Project: Telephone Cost Meter (Jim Reynolds)
15/201-250: Desperately Seeking 7200's (Jeffrey Reed)
15/151-200: Detailed GTE Local Call Logs Needed (Jeff Lindstrom)
15/251-300: Details About FBI.COM (James E. Bellaire)
15/101-150: Details on NPA 888 Selection (Jeff Buckingham)
15/251-300: Detection of DTMFs in PCM Sounds (Aaron Putnam)
15/201-250: Detect/Prevent 3rd-Party Calls? (Alex Madarasz)
15/201-250: Re: Detect/Prevent Third-Party Calls (Alex Madarasz)
15/201-250: Re: Detect/Prevent Third-Party Calls (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: Detect/Prevent Third-Party Calls (Steven White)
15/201-250: Detroit, MI, USA to Winsor, ON, CA Calls (James E. Bellaire)
15/001-050: Re: "Dial & Save" Long Distance Service (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: Dial 888 for Toll Free - Commentary: That's a Good Idea! (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Chuck Poole)
15/001-050: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Daniel Winkowski)
15/101-150: Dialing the Falkland Islands (Richard Cox)
15/051-100: Dial-N-Save (Jeff Hersh)
15/251-300: Dialogic For Sale / Trade /  Needed ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Dialogic H/W For Sale (Neil L. Kleeman)
15/251-300: Dianatel EA24 and SS96 Wanted (Vance Shipley)
15/051-100: Dick Tracy Tackles Hackers! (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: DID: Same as Early SxS Centrex? (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: DID: Same as Early SxS Centrex? (Richard Kevin)
15/201-250: Re: DID: Same as Early SxS Centrex? (Wes Leatherock)
15/151-200: Re: Difference Between 56K and 56K Restricted? (Chip Sharp)
15/151-200: Difference Between 56K and 56K Restricted? ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Bob Wilkins)
15/251-300: Difference Between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Greg Tompkins)
15/251-300: Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Phil Brown)
15/201-250: Re: Difference Between Secure and Insecure http Links? (John Engstrom)
15/051-100: Difficulty With Atlantic Bell ISDN (Jeff Hersh)
15/051-100: Digital Announces Unix Intelligent Delivery Platform (Philippe Ravix)
15/151-200: Re: Digital Cellular and Encryption / Fraud ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Digital Cellular and Encryption / Fraud Prevention (John Diamant)
15/151-200: Re: Digital Cellular Encryption and Fraud  (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/151-200: Re: Digital Cellular Encryption and Fraud (John Diamant)
15/151-200: Re: Digital Cellular Encryption and Fraud (Klaus Schniedergers)
15/151-200: Re: Digital Cellular Encryption and Fraud (P.K. Carroll)
15/001-050: Digital Cellular in the USA ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Digital Cellular Phones (Mark Stieger)
15/001-050: Digital Exchange Location Problem (Roni Levkovitz)
15/051-100: Digital PBX Transmission Standards, Devices (Peter J. Kerrigan)
15/051-100: Digital USR Total Control HUB and AT&T System 85/Definity? (David M. Meyer)
15/251-300: Re: Dime Line Anyone? (David Kammeyer)
15/201-250: Dime Line Anyone? (Paul Celestin)
15/001-050: Direct Rate Negotiation (VN) (Glenn Foote)
15/051-100: Directory Assistance Call Completer (Dave Leibold)
15/101-150: Re: Directory Assistance Call Completer (Jeffrey William McKeough)
15/101-150: Directory Assistance Direct Connections (Kevin Bluml)
15/051-100: Directory Assistance in Tokyo (Javier Henderson)
15/051-100: Re: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted (Ed Goldgehn)
15/051-100: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted (Steve Bauer)
15/201-250: Disney, Three Bells In Venture (Steve Geimann)
15/251-300: Disrupted Calls and NO Call Waiting (Glenn Foote)
15/001-050: Distinctive Ringing Specifications (Vincent Lai)
15/001-050: Re: Distinctive Ringing Specifications (Wayne Huffman)
15/251-300: Re: DMS 10 and Special Calling Features  (Gary McClure)
15/251-300: DMS 10 and Special Calling Features (Greg Tompkins)
15/251-300: Re: DMS 10 and Special Calling Features (Mark Leier)
15/201-250: Do You Really Want the World in Your Living Room? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/251-300: Do You Use DPN-100 Switching Equipment? (Pat Coghlan)
15/051-100: Does a High Speed Serial Interface for the VME-Bus Exist? (M. Rautenberg)
15/051-100: Does Anybody Need an ATM PBX? (Alex Zacharov)
15/101-150: Re: Does AT&T 7506 TAD 03A Pass CID to RS232 of Original Caller? (A Varney)
15/051-100: Does AT&T 7506 TAD 03A Pass CID to RS232 of Orignating Caller? (ulmo@panix)
15/101-150: Re: Does Bridge Affect Modem? (John Dearing)
15/101-150: Does Bridge Affect Modem? (Ted Shapin)
15/251-300: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (Ed Ellers)
15/251-300: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (James Bellaire)
15/251-300: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (Joel Upchurch)
15/251-300: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (John Murray)
15/151-200: Does Privacy Lose Out in Cellular Fraud Prevention Plans? (Jim Wenzel)
15/051-100: DOJ Computer Siezure Guide (Dave Banisar)
15/151-200: Re: Downloading Mac Software With a PC (Brad Hicks)
15/151-200: Re: Downloading Mac Software With a PC (Lars Poulsen)
15/151-200: Re: Downloading Mac Software With a PC (Peter Campbell Smith)
15/151-200: Downloading Mac Software With a PC (Reid Goldsborough)
15/151-200: Re: Downloading Mac Software With a PC (Robert Levandowski)
15/001-050: Re: DQDB and SMDS (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/001-050: DQDB and SMDS (Kristoff Bonne)
15/001-050: Re: DQDB and SMDS (Kristoff Bonne)
15/151-200: Drivers for Dialogic D41/ESC Wanted (Brad Hale)
15/151-200: DS-3 Inverse Mux (Chris Radicke)
15/251-300: DSP Speakers Wanted and Conference Announcement (Frank Gao)
15/151-200: DTMF/Pulse Converters Wanted (Matt Noah)
15/201-250: Re: DTMF/Pulse Converters Wanted ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Duplex Speaker Phone For Around $300 Available? (David Kovar)
15/151-200: Dytel Company and Equipment (Ry Jones)
15/151-200: E1/T1 Tutorial (Nobutaka Okuyama)
15/251-300: E3 interface needed (Gian Enrico Paglia)
15/151-200: Early Benefits of Local Competition (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/001-050: EARN Gopher Server ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Earthquake in Area 206 (Ry Jones)
15/251-300: East Coast Reseller News: Unitel (Henry Li)
15/201-250: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool? (David W. Rowlands)
15/251-300: Re: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool? (Kevin Kadow)
15/001-050: Economics of the Telecommucations Industry (Victor Prochnik)
15/151-200: Economies of Scale in Telecommunications (Andy Matters)
15/151-200: EDI Sources Please (Paul Hutmacher)
15/101-150: Edwards Research Institute Virtual Mall (C. Boyle)
15/201-250: EIA-232 Specifications - Where Can They be Located? (Chad Ira Hanneman)
15/251-300: E-Journal Editor/Publisher Conference in Budapest ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Electret, Carbon Microphones ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Electro 95 Electronics Conference, June 21-23, Boston (Paul R. Baudisch)
15/051-100: Eleven-Digit Dialing For Local Calls (Benjamin L. Combee)
15/151-200: Eliminating Unmeasured Service, a How-to Guide (Nick Sayer)
15/101-150: E-Mail Privacy Bill Information Available (James Bass via Stephen Goodman)
15/051-100: Re: Emergency Cellular Phone (Berton Corson)
15/101-150: Re: Emergency Cellular Phone (Brad Hicks)
15/051-100: Re: Emergency Cellular Phone (Matthew Dukleth)
15/051-100: Re: Emergency Cellular Phone (Matthew J. Zukowski)
15/051-100: Emergency Cellular Phone (Testmark Laboratories)
15/001-050: Re: Emergency Numbers in Various Countries (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: Re: EMI Issues With GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
15/251-300: EMI Issues With GSM (source compilation by Nathan D. Meehan)
15/251-300: Employment Opportunity: Network Supervisor (TransQuest Technologies)
15/101-150: Enhanced Telecommunications Services for New Hampshire (Monty Solomon)
15/051-100: Ericsson GH337 Codes (Michael Holstein)
15/051-100: Ericsson GH337/EH237 Cellular Modem I/F (Alfredo E. Cotroneo)
15/101-150: Erlang B Tables (Stephen Morrisby)
15/001-050: Erlang Capacit ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Erlang Capacity (Phil Ritter)
15/001-050: Re: Erlang Capacity (Tim Gorman)
15/101-150: ESF and Clear Channel (was: What is ESF (Fred Bauer)
15/151-200: ESS'95 1st Call for Papers (Philippe Geril)
15/101-150: E(TACS) and GSM (Alexander Cerna)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (Dr. R. Levine)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (John Leske)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (John Scourias)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (Samir Soliman)
15/101-150: Re: Re: E(TACS) and GSM (Sergei Anfilofiev)
15/101-150: Re: E(TACS) and GSM ([e-mail])
15/001-050: EtherFRAD for T1? (Pete Kruckenberg)
15/001-050: Re: ETSI Standards - Where? (Boris Naydichev)
15/001-050: ETSI Standards - Where? (Gabor Lajos)
15/001-050: Re: ETSI Standards - Where? (John Combs)
15/101-150: Re: Europe Postal Services and Datacom (Axel Schmidt)
15/101-150: Europe Postal Services and Datacom (Elizabeth Gardner)
15/101-150: Re: Europe Postal Services and Datacom (Francisco van Jole)
15/251-300: European Payphone Survey; Help Please (John D. Smith)
15/151-200: Re: European WAN - How?? (Bob Elliot)
15/151-200: Re: European WAN - How?? (John Combs)
15/151-200: European WAN - How?? (Steve Alburty)
15/201-250: Evaluation Criteria For Commercial TMN Platforms (Carmen G. Lopez)
15/151-200: Exact Time of Day (Jeff Shinn)
15/101-150: Example of MIB Needed (Bob McLaughlin)
15/101-150: Ex-Chairman Telecom Commission Suggests Deregulating Indian Datacom (Ghosh)
15/151-200: Exchange Names Aid Memory, Especially With NPA Splits (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: Exchange Names Aid Memory, Especially With NPA Splits (Robert Casey)
15/201-250: Execs Issue Declaration (Steve Geimann)
15/151-200: Existing Telecom Systems for Record Exchange (Joy Oberholtzer)
15/251-300: Experience Switching Canadian Cellular Service? (Andy VanGils)
15/151-200: Re: Experiences Wanted With InternetMCI by News Reporter ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Experiences Wanted With internetMCI By News Reporter (Enrique Gonzales)
15/151-200: Re: Experiences Wanted With InternetMCI by News Reporter (J. Sinclare)
15/151-200: Experiencesw With Unregisterd Cell Phone ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Explanation of Erlang B Formula (Steve Samler)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Benjamin L. Combee)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Ed Ellers)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Ed Mitchell)
15/201-250: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Greg Smith)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Joe Carey)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (John Radisch)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Lionel C. Ancelet)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range (Mike Curtis)
15/201-250: Re: Extending Cordless Telephone Range ([e-mail])
15/201-250: External Antenna For DPC550 (Ken Levitt)
15/051-100: Facsimile Protocol Analyzer Demo Program Available On-Line (Mike Rehmus)
15/001-050: FAQ or File on LD Providers Wanted (Ron Parker)
15/051-100: FAQ'S Re: Connectivity Options ([e-mail])
15/001-050: FAQs on Campus Connectivity ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Farmstead Telephone Opens WWW Home Page (Alex Capo)
15/101-150: FATMA - What Does This Term Mean / Stand For? (Harry P. Haas)
15/151-200: Fax, 1895 Style (Jim Haynes)
15/201-250: Fax Card Query (John Radisch)
15/151-200: Fax Evaluation Criteria ([e-mail])
15/051-100: FAX Group 3 and Group 4 Standard Information Wanted (Elron Adar)
15/251-300: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Doug Sewell)
15/251-300: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Jack Bzoza)
15/251-300: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (James Dollar)
15/251-300: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Patrick M. Mirucki)
15/251-300: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Ronald Reiner)
15/101-150: Re: Fax Modems and Voice Lines (K. M. Peterson)
15/051-100: Fax Modems and Voice Lines (Randall C. Poe)
15/101-150: Re: Fax Modems and Voice Lines (Tony Zuccarino)
15/151-200: Fax/Answering Machine Selection Advice Wanted (Henrik Sievers)
15/051-100: Faxing Through a PABX (Doug Pickering)
15/101-150: Faxmodem Problem Solved! (Randall Poe)
15/251-300: Fax/Voice Switches (Gary Breuckman)
15/251-300: Faxworks Voice Import (Amnon Sadan)
15/251-300: FCC 800 Number Statistics (James E. Bellaire)
15/251-300: Re: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Bob Schwartz)
15/251-300: Re: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Bob Schwartz)
15/251-300: Re: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: Re: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: Re: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Stuart Zimmerman)
15/051-100: FCC Allocates Data-PCS Spectrum (Bennett Z. Kobb)
15/001-050: FCC BBS Invites Calls (Shaun Maher)
15/151-200: FCC Delays CLID Availability (Andrew Robson)
15/151-200: Re: FCC Delays CLID Availability (Ed Ellers)
15/101-150: FCC Fines Commercial Realty $390,000 (FCC Daily Digest via Gary Bouwkamp)
15/151-200: FCC Information On-Line (Bob Keller)
15/251-300: Re: FCC ISDN SLCs Ruling (Steve J. Slavin)
15/251-300: FCC Part 90/88 Refarming June 15 Open Meeting ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller)
15/051-100: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: FCC PCS Auction Information (Darryl Kipps)
15/201-250: FCC Press Release on Caller ID (Andrew Robson)
15/201-250: FCC Proposes Changes in Cellular 911 Service (Edupage via Michael Kuras)
15/001-050: FCC Proposes To Fine AT&T $1,000,000 For Comm Act Violations (Alan Boritz)
15/001-050: FCC Proposes to Restrict Access to Cellular 911 (Doug Reuben)
15/101-150: FCC Raises Line Charges for ISDN (David St. Pierre)
15/251-300: FCC Regulations For Cellular E911 (Robert A. Voss)
15/051-100: FCC/PCS Market Numbers (Alan Petry)
15/101-150: Re: FCC/PCS Market Numbers (Bob Keller)
15/051-100: Federal Charges in Internet Rape 'Fantasy' (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/051-100: Federal Judge Rules Against FCC - Historical Precedent (Bill Sohl)
15/201-250: Fiber Loops and Coax Converters (Theodore F. Vaida)
15/051-100: Fiber Optics Information Wanted (Ronald Whisenand)
15/101-150: Fiber-Optic Network To Be Installed In High School (David Brouda)
15/051-100: Final CFP: ISLIP'95 (Mehmet Orgun)
15/201-250: Final U.S. Coast Guard CW Broadcast (Ben Heckscher)
15/251-300: Finding Out Whether a Canadian Phone Number is Unlisted ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Finland Data Transmission (Jack Pestaner)
15/001-050: Re: Finland Data Transmission (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/001-050: Re: Finland Data Transmission (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: Re: First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? (John Mayson)
15/051-100: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/051-100: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Linc Madison)
15/051-100: Re: Five Digit Phone Numbers (Wes Leatherock)
15/051-100: Fixed Price Embedded, Network Development (John Stockenberg)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Danny Burstein)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Phil Dampier)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Pieter Jacques)
15/251-300: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (root@henry)
15/201-250: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for NY; New England (J. Covert)
15/001-050: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (Jim Hupf)
15/001-050: Flat Rate LD? (John McDermott)
15/051-100: Re: Flat Rate Long Distance (Edwin Chen)
15/101-150: FLeetwood Exchange in Seattle Area (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: FleXtel Telephone Numbers for Life ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Florida 305/954 Split - Still Happening? (Greg Monti)
15/201-250: Florida AC Splits (Paul Knupke)
15/101-150: FM Radio Stock Data ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Gene Retske)
15/001-050: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
15/201-250: For Sale: Combinet 56K Bridges and Shiva NetModems (Cheryl Van Winkle)
15/151-200: For Sale: Combinet Bridges & Shiva NetModem (Cheryl Van Winkle)
15/051-100: For Sale: Motorola Codex 6525 (Benoit Maneckjee)
15/151-200: For Sale: Multiline Analog Phone System (Joe Konecny)
15/251-300: For Sale: Walker Marathon KSU and Phones (Brian M. Monroe)
15/151-200: Forcing CCITT V25 1300Hz Tone (Martin Golding)
15/251-300: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon (Greg Tompkins)
15/251-300: Re: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon (Jay Hennigan)
15/051-100: Re: Format of Telephone Number/Fax Numbers in Germany, France (L. Madison)
15/001-050: Format of Telephone Number/Fax Numbers in Germany, France, UK (Tom Barrett)
15/151-200: Frame Relay Throughput (Doug DeVlieger)
15/201-250: Frame-Relay to ISDN and ARA - Impossible? (James M. Haar)
15/201-250: Re: Frame-Relay to ISDN and ARA - Impossible? (Shuang Deng)
15/201-250: France Numbering Plan Change Set For October 1996 (Erik Mueller)
15/051-100: France Telecom as a Real Caller ID Provider (JeanBernard Condat)
15/151-200: Fraud Question (Amit Jain)
15/051-100: Re: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Robert S. Helfman)
15/101-150: Re: Free Expression and the Information Highway (Kevin J. Shea)
15/051-100: Re: Freephone Forum vs. ITU Question (David Leibold)
15/001-050: Freephone Forum vs. ITU Question (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: Re: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls (Christophe Marcant)
15/251-300: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls (Nigel Allen)
15/151-200: French "MCI Friends and Family" System (Romain Fournols)
15/201-250: Frequncies of a Data Display (Friedrich Kaufmann)
15/251-300: From a Byte to Yottabyte (Ben Heckscher)
15/201-250: Frustrations With AT&T Long Distance Billing (Lathika Pai)
15/201-250: FTC Report on LD Competition (Michael Ward)
15/101-150: FTP Transfer Rate Using PPP ([e-mail])
15/101-150: G7 Meeting Notes Wanted (Lars Kalsen)
15/001-050: Gain Hits (Steven Hoga)
15/051-100: GAO's Information Superhighway Report (Mike Dolak)
15/251-300: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (David Baird)
15/251-300: Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (Mike Morris)
15/251-300: Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (Steve Cogorno)
15/101-150: Gateways, Routers and Network Design (Karl Finkemeyer)
15/151-200: GE Phone + SWBT = No Caller ID? (William E. Hope)
15/151-200: Gegaphone by Siemens ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: General Datacom ATM Switches Sign Deal With Siemens (brenner@mars)
15/001-050: General Datacom ATM Switches Sign Deal With Siemens (Peter Granic)
15/051-100: GEnie Services Offers Free Japan Access Until Further Notice (Finkenstadt)
15/201-250: Re: German Telekoms "KIT": Specs/Document Now Available (Frank Naehring)
15/201-250: German Telekoms "KIT": Specs/Document Now Available (Werner J. Lilie)
15/101-150: Re: GETS - Government Emergency Telecommunications Service? (Mark Ganzer)
15/051-100: GETS - The Government Emergency Telecommunications Service? (Rich Boswell)
15/001-050: GIF Tax Rumors - Threat or Menace (Brad Hicks)
15/001-050: GIF Unisys Response (Stephen Goodman)
15/051-100: Gigabit Networking Workshop GBN'95 - Call for Participation (J. Sterbenz)
15/151-200: Gilder's Reply to Postman (Sandy Kyrish)
15/201-250: Global Access Goes to Battle (Alex Van Es)
15/201-250: Global Electronic Library Project via Internet (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Global Network Being Built; Information Requested (Felipe Barousse)
15/151-200: Re: Globalstar, Odyssey, Aries (John Bachmann)
15/151-200: Re: Globalstar, Odyssey, Aries (Zhihui Huang)
15/051-100: Glossary Wanted (S. Cantor)
15/001-050: GLU System Now Available (R. Jagannathan)
15/051-100: GO Communications (Steve Samler)
15/151-200: Good Book Wanted on ATM ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Good Grief - Caller ID is Back! ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Good Grief - Caller ID is Back! ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Gouging at Pay Phones; a War Story (Jim Gooch)
15/101-150: Gouging at Pay Phones; a War Story (John W. Pan)
15/151-200: Re: Gouging at Pay Phones ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Gouging at Pay Phones ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Gray Associates Demo Software Download Now Working (Mike Rehmus)
15/151-200: Gray Associates WEB Site Up and Running (Mike Rehmus)
15/101-150: Re: Grim Changes for Net (A. Padgett Peterson)
15/151-200: GSM - Revised Operator List (Robert Lindh)
15/201-250: Re: GSM - Revised Operator List (Sam Spens Clason)
15/001-050: GSM Book [Moulet &...] (Rupert Baines)
15/101-150: GSM Business: An Invitation for Expressions of Interest (D. Gerald Forrest)
15/101-150: GSM Cellular Operators - Revised List (Robert Lindh)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Ben Wright)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Jonathan Mosen)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Jonathan Mosen)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/051-100: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Lim Kong Hong)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Marcus Lee)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Matthew Richardson)
15/001-050: GSM Cellular Operators List (Robert Lindh)
15/051-100: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Taavi Talvik)
15/001-050: GSM in Canada? (Dan Matte)
15/001-050: Re: GSM in Canada? (John Leske)
15/001-050: Re: GSM in Canada? (John Scourias)
15/001-050: Re: GSM in Canada? (Rupert Baines)
15/001-050: Re: GSM in U.S. (Lynne Gregg)
15/151-200: GSM Information on the Web etc (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/001-050: Re: GSM Information Wanted (Eric Tholome)
15/001-050: GSM Information Wanted (Vincent Erwig)
15/251-300: GSM Management (Lubos Elias)
15/001-050: GSM Mobile Telefone ERICSSON GH337 (Joachim Oschek)
15/251-300: GSM Networks of the World, June 1995 (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/051-100: GSM Operators - List (Robert Lindh)
15/201-250: GSM Overview on Web (John Scourias)
15/151-200: GSM Program Director Opportunity (Jack Hurst)
15/101-150: Re: GSM Rental in Germany (Axel Schmidt)
15/101-150: GSM Rental in Germany (John R. Covert)
15/101-150: GSM Roaming (was E(TACS) and GSM) (Mark J. Elkins)
15/051-100: GSM SIM Format - One Solution (Robert Lindh)
15/051-100: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (David Mclauchlan)
15/001-050: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Eric Tholome)
15/001-050: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Harri Kinnunen)
15/001-050: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (John Leske)
15/001-050: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Robohn Scott)
15/051-100: Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Sam Spens Clason)
15/051-100: Re: GSM SIM Implementation ([e-mail])
15/051-100: GSM SIM Simulator Suppliers Wanted (Gurj Bahia)
15/051-100: GSM-PCN Chipset, Radio, Baseband (Urban Nilsson)
15/151-200: GTE (GTD-5) ISDN is Coming (Lauren Weinstein)
15/151-200: Re: GTE (GTD-5) ISDN is Coming (Matt Holdrege)
15/251-300: GTE Mobilenet Battle Rages On (Dave Rand)
15/051-100: GTE PCS/Global Roam (Bernard Cerier)
15/051-100: Re: GTE PCS/Global Roam (John Mark)
15/101-150: Re: GTE PCS/Global Roam (Sam Spens Clason)
15/151-200: GTE Seeks End to '84 Decree (Steve Geimann)
15/101-150: Guernsey Bulletin Boards ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Guilty Plea in Computer Pornography Case (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Re: Handshaking: Computer-Computer or Modem-Computer? (Al Fontaine)
15/101-150: Happy Haleyville, Alabama 911 Emergency Call Day! (Steve Brack)
15/001-050: Happy New Year! Administrivia, et al ... (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Hardware Wanted For Forward-on Busy, No Answer (Chris Lee)
15/151-200: Re: Has There Been *Any* Digital Cellular Fraud Yet in the US? (marc_k)
15/151-200: Re: Has There Been *Any* Digital Cellular Fraud Yet in the US? (P Carroll)
15/151-200: Re: Has There Been *Any* Digital Cellular Fraud Yet in the US? (R. Voss)
15/151-200: Has There Been *Any* Digital Cellular Fraud Yet in US? (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/001-050: Hayes Optima VS DEC SERVER 200 Revised (John Stewart Pinnow)
15/101-150: Hello Direct on the WWW (Bill Seward)
15/051-100: Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (Eduardo Kaftanski)
15/001-050: Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (Jim Cebula)
15/001-050: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (John Leong)
15/001-050: Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (Mark Brader)
15/001-050: Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (Raymond Mereniuk)
15/101-150: Help! - Vertex, DID or ISDN For my Phone Services (Jian Yuan Peng)
15/101-150: Help: Do You Know This Chip? Manufacturer? (D. Emilio Grimaldo)
15/151-200: Re: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Bob Dunscomb)
15/101-150: Re: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (John Lundgren)
15/101-150: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Nadia Smyrniw)
15/151-200: Re: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Patton M. Turner)
15/151-200: Re: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Richard Kevin)
15/251-300: Help Finding Daily Rental of Beepers/Cell Phones (Arnette Schultz)
15/251-300: Help Identify Netcom Research (Michael K. Makuch)
15/101-150: Help Information Needed (Deepak Bapna)
15/101-150: Help! Information Needed on Kerberos (Alex Fan)
15/051-100: Re: Help Locating Telephone/PC Interface Board (Christian van der Ree)
15/001-050: Help Locating Telephone/PC Interface Board (Tony Kwong)
15/201-250: Help Me Bring the Internet to Kyrgyzstan (Jonathan Korn)
15/151-200: Help Me With Technophone PC215 ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Help Needed Extending a Call via Modem Re: Centrex (Dave Sieg)
15/051-100: Help Needed Locating Retailer For MicroTac Ultralite (Steve Chinatti)
15/151-200: Help Needed on Toll-Fraud/Hacking (Rick J. Dosky)
15/051-100: Re: Help Needed With Displaying X Windows (Daniel R. Oelke)
15/001-050: Help Needed With Displaying X Windows on the PC (Ken Stack)
15/051-100: Re: Help Needed With Displaying X Windows on the PC (Mike MacFaden)
15/201-250: Help Needed With DS2153 Interface (Yaon Ram)
15/101-150: Re: Help Needed With Modems for Telephony API (Joe Sulmar)
15/101-150: Help Needed With Modems for Telephony API (John Michael Okeefe)
15/101-150: Re: Help Needed With Modems for Telephony API (Tony Zuccarino)
15/151-200: Help Needed With PBX at Remote Location (Carol Garbacik)
15/151-200: Re: Help Needed With PBX at Remote Location ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Help Needed With Procomm ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Help Needed With US Robotics Sportster (Randy Hoes)
15/151-200: Help on T1 and Leasing Line Needed (Min Wang)
15/151-200: Help on Wireless LAN Products (Robert Mark Prudhomme)
15/201-250: Help Request - PC Autodialer vs. Phone System (Bill Breckinridge)
15/151-200: Help! Sim. of Burst Transmission (Pubate Satienpoch)
15/101-150: Help! Telecommuting Options ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Help! Telephony Programming (John Michael Okeefe)
15/001-050: Help Wanted; PBX Admin, Texas  (Thomas Hughes)
15/201-250: Help Wanted With AMARYS "210" French Telephone (Alan Nicolson)
15/251-300: Help Wanted With BigMouth (Guido DeMarchi)
15/201-250: Help Wanted With DTMF (Andrew R. Mark)
15/051-100: Help Wanted With Nokia 6050 GSM Car Phone (Jurgen Morhofer)
15/101-150: Help Wanted With Nokia 6050 GSM Car Phone (Jurgen Morhofer)
15/251-300: Help Wanted With Paging Protocol For Alphanumeric Motorolas (Kalmin)
15/151-200: Help Wanted With Qmodem Version 4.2F (Gary Michael Brinkman)
15/101-150: Help Wanted Wtih ISDN Service (Gregory Hicks)
15/251-300: Help With Accessing X.25 Network to UK (Doug Reuben)
15/151-200: Help with inverted phone book cd-rom (Carmen Oveissi)
15/001-050: Help With Number Plan (Robert Smith)
15/101-150: Herbert Hoover (was Re: Humor at the FCC (Bob Keller)
15/101-150: Here's the Story on GETS ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Hidden Features in Panasonic Telephones (Douglas Pokorny)
15/051-100: Re: Hidden Features of Panasonic Phones (Steve Samler)
15/201-250: High Speed RS422 I/F For PC (Russell George)
15/001-050: Re: "High-end" Phone Products (Michael N. Marcus)
15/001-050: Re: "High-end" Phone Products (Paul Crick)
15/251-300: History of TSPS/TOPS/OSPS (Mark Cuccia)
15/051-100: Hollings Bill Available (Jeff Richards)
15/251-300: Home ISDN in Canada (Carsten Schafer)
15/101-150: Home PBX Wanted (Tom Blog)
15/201-250: Home Premises Distribution Systems (Bob Cas)
15/201-250: Re: Horizontal Frequency of Television (Ed Ellers)
15/201-250: Horizontal Frequency of Television (Friedrich Kaufmann)
15/201-250: Re: Horizontal Frequency of Television ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan - Correction (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Jeremy Schertzinger)
15/001-050: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (Ramesh Pillutla)
15/001-050: Horrible Earthquake in Japan (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Re: Horrible Eartquake in Japan (Peter Leif Rasmussen)
15/001-050: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Barton F. Bruce)
15/001-050: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Daniel R. Oelke)
15/001-050: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Jeff Box)
15/001-050: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Quinn Lanus)
15/001-050: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Ted Hadley)
15/051-100: How Can I Get Employment in Telecom Industry? (Mark A. Bentley)
15/151-200: How Do I Create a TelCo ? (Chris Mentzel)
15/151-200: Re: How Do I Create a TelCo? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: How Does a Pager Work? (Mark Huang)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Anthony Chor)
15/101-150: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Anthony Chor)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Clifton T. Sharp)
15/051-100: How I Fooled Caller ID (John Combs)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Linc Madison)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/051-100: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Testmark Laboratories)
15/201-250: How Many GSM Users/Networks/Countries in the World? (John Scourias)
15/251-300: How Many Novell TSAPI Servers Exist? (Lucky Green)
15/001-050: How Many SONET/SDH Network Terminations? (Roger Atkinson)
15/001-050: Re: How to Find Your Number (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: Re: How to Find Your Number (Greg Tompkins)
15/001-050: How to Improve Line Quality? ([e-mail])
15/101-150: How To Keep Business Phone Calls Short? (Alan Boritz)
15/101-150: Re: How To Keep Business Phone Calls Short? (Chris Mork)
15/001-050: How to Keep Track of Calls on Busy (Caller ID on Busy)? (Pete Kruckenberg)
15/001-050: Re: How to Keep Track of Calls on Busy (Caller ID on Busy)? (Seymour Dupa)
15/001-050: Re: How to Keep Track of Calls on Busy (Caller ID on Busy)? (Steve Cogorno)
15/251-300: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Andrew C. Green)
15/251-300: Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Pete Farmer)
15/251-300: Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Scot Desort)
15/101-150: Re: How to Revive Nicad Batteries (B.Z. Lederman)
15/101-150: Re: How to revive NiCad Batteries (Mark Fletcher)
15/051-100: How to Revive Nicad Batteries (Richard White)
15/101-150: Re: How to Revive Nicad Batteries (Steve Forrette)
15/251-300: Re: How Will Local Competition Infrastructure be Done? (Barry Margolin)
15/251-300: How Will Local Competition Infrastructure Be Done? (Eric Hunt)
15/251-300: Re: How Will Local Competition Infrastructure be Done? (Frank Atkinson)
15/251-300: How Will RBOCs Carry Long Distance: as Resellers? (Bob Stone)
15/051-100: Human Intrusion (Dale Neiburg)
15/251-300: HumanNets and WorldNet - Are Earliest Posts Archived Anywhere? (R. Hauben)
15/101-150: Humor at the FCC (was Re: How to Revive Nicad Batteries) (B.Z. Lederman)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Alex van Es)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Andrew C. Green)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Dave Johnson)
15/251-300: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love it (Eric Tholome)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Eric Tholome)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (James Dollar)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Jan Joris Vereijken)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/251-300: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Lim Hui Lin)
15/151-200: I Keep My Key *Where*? (Bob Izenberg)
15/251-300: I May Have Good News to Report on Thursday (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: I Need Ideas For "Quiet" Inter-Canoe-Communications (John Prichard)
15/201-250: IBM Direct Talk (Diane Clune)
15/201-250: IBM Twinaxial Cable Disposal (Shereef Moustafa)
15/051-100: ICA Annual Conference/Supercomm '95 - Mar 19-23 - Anaheim, CA (Bob Harper)
15/151-200: ICA Summer Program - Building the Corporate Internet (Bob Harper)
15/151-200: ICCC '95 Advance Program  (Nas Mosaic)
15/201-250: Icom R-71 Receiver Wanted (Gordon Mitchell)
15/251-300: Idiot AT&T Promotion (Steve Kass)
15/101-150: IEEE 802.14 Progress and Contacts Wanted (Phil Potter)
15/151-200: IEEE Benelux Workshop 1995 (Thierry Pollet)
15/201-250: IEEE Tour (John Gulbenkian)
15/051-100: II ISDN Interface Code Now in FreeBSD-Current (Roy A. Mccrory)
15/151-200: Impact of Satellite on Indonesian Society (Olivier Vandeloo)
15/201-250: Impact of Satellite on Indonesian Society (Olivier Vandeloo)
15/201-250: Imperial College Short Course on "Multimedia Data Compression" (W. Goodin)
15/051-100: Implementations of the German SISA Specs? (Finn Andresen)
15/251-300: In a Land With No Infrastructure, How to Connect to Internet (S. Schubert)
15/051-100: In Support of anon.penet.fi (Jonathan D. Loo)
15/051-100: In the Matter of Callback Services (Paul Robinson)
15/151-200: Re: Inability to Use LEC Calling Card From Office Phone (Andrew Mark)
15/151-200: Inability to Use LEC Calling Card From Office Phone (Ed Gehringer)
15/151-200: Re: Inability to Use LEC Calling Card From Office Phone (Michael Henry)
15/151-200: Re: Inability to Use LEC Calling Card From Office Phone (Steve Cogorno)
15/251-300: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Brian Starlin)
15/251-300: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (John R. Covert)
15/251-300: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Mark Smith)
15/251-300: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Philippe Ravix)
15/251-300: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
15/101-150: Incoming Call Alert Needed (Robert Perlberg)
15/101-150: Increased Taxes on ISDN by FCC? (Ed Goldgehn)
15/251-300: Independent Category 5 Cable Evaluations (Jean McGillivray)
15/251-300: India May End Absurd Datacom Licence Fees (Rishab A. Ghosh)
15/001-050: India Opens Doors to Foreign Telco's (Nikhil)
15/251-300: India Worries About National Security and Private Telecom Nets (R. Ghosh)
15/201-250: Indian Minister Calls For Computers in Rural Schools (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/051-100: Indian Supreme Court Ends State Control of the Airwaves (Rishab Ghosh)
15/201-250: India's Anti-Terrorist Legislation to Expire on May 23rd (Rishab Ghosh)
15/101-150: India's Telecom Costs; Need Global Information (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/251-300: India's Telecom Regulator May Really Be Autonomous (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/251-300: India's Telecom Strike Ends; 80 Bids For Basic Services (Rishab A. Ghosh)
15/251-300: India's Telecom Workers Go on Strike (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/201-250: India's VSNL to Offer Internet Access for $16 (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/151-200: Re: Inexpensive 56k+ Connectivity Between U.S. and Europe (Bob Elliot)
15/151-200: Re: Inexpensive 56k+ Connectivity Between U.S. and Europe (C. Whittenburg)
15/151-200: Re: Inexpensive 56k+ Connectivity Between U.S. and Europe (John Faubion)
15/151-200: Inexpensive 56k+ Connectivity Between U.S. and Europe (Mike O'Connor)
15/101-150: Inexpensive Caller ID Boxes by Mail-Order? (Darrin Smith)
15/151-200: Re: Info Wanted About Comstar (Kenneth E. Gray)
15/001-050: Info Wanted: Competitors For Intra-state Leased Lines? (Lance Ware)
15/201-250: Info Wanted on Communications Fraud Control Association (Steve Collins)
15/001-050: Information Needed on Cebit (Mat Watkins)
15/251-300: Information Needed on GST or GST Net (John Royce)
15/101-150: Information on O. J. Simpson Case (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Information Requested on Video Conferencing (Andy Humberston)
15/051-100: Information Sought on RF Data-Comm Chips (1/4 Mile Range) (Rob Mitchell)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About Analog Interface Parameters (Eli Cohen)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About Comstar (Steve Sanders)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About DMS Switches (David Vardy)
15/101-150: Re: Information Wanted About DMS Switches (Scott Miller)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About Geotek Communications Inc. (David Brown)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About MFS Intelenet (Timothy D. Hunt)
15/151-200: Re: Information Wanted About Telecommunications in China (Kevin Gilford)
15/101-150: Information Wanted About Tone Decoder SC11270 Chip (S. Ramanan)
15/251-300: Information Wanted on ADSI Standard (Alex Zacharov)
15/251-300: Information Wanted on American Communication Services (Vince Wolodkin)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on Datacom Technologies Inc. (John Dearing)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Directory Assistance System (Shanavas H. Nyakhar)
15/201-250: Re: Information Wanted on DSP Chip Modems (Lars Poulsen)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on DSP Chip Modems (Padma Uppalapati)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Ericsson Switch (Steve Bauer)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Excell Telecommunications (Ian Eisenberg)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Fiber Market in NYC ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Information Wanted on FSL (Gary Mason)
15/051-100: Information Wanted on Galaxy Worldwide Communications (Richard Baillie)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Globalstar, Odyssey, Aries (Asghar Motaabbed)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on Hacking PSN (Steve Wegman)
15/101-150: Information Wanted on Hotel Telephone Billing (Stephen Cacclin)
15/101-150: Re: Information Wanted on Hotel Telephone Billing (Travis Russell)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on ITI/Oncor ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Information Wanted on MagNet Communications (Christopher H. Snider)
15/051-100: Information Wanted on MagNet Communications ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Information Wanted on Munich32 Chip (Matthew P. Downs)
15/001-050: Re: Information Wanted on NEC 2000 Switch ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Information Wanted on Northern Telecom Phone (Keith Knipschild)
15/001-050: Re: Information Wanted on Northern Telecom Phone (Michael N. Marcus)
15/001-050: Information Wanted on Novatel 825 (Greg Segallis)
15/201-250: Information Wanted on Orbcomm (Donald R. Newcomb)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on Raynet/RIDES ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Information Wanted on RS-485 (Mutaf Pars)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on Sites For Technical Help (Timothy Brown)
15/251-300: Information Wanted on Smart Cards (David Payne)
15/151-200: Information Wanted on SuiteTalker Voicemail ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Information Wanted On V.SAVD, Cable Modems (Matthew A. Earley)
15/151-200: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (Chris Hardaker)
15/151-200: Re: Informing Ourselves to Death (George Gilder)
15/051-100: Infrared Network Devices (Tim Lee)
15/251-300: Infrastructure Conference in Atlanta (Barbara F. Hanes)
15/051-100: Infrastructure for Internet Service Provider (Rustom Vachha)
15/251-300: INMARSAT Modems and Crypto Gear (Everett F. Batey)
15/001-050: INMARSAT Standard Wanted (Glenn Shirley)
15/101-150: Inquiry on CDMA and QUALCOMM ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Inquiry on CDMA and QUALCOMM (Sergei Anfilofiev)
15/001-050: Inslaw and the United States Justice Department (Paul Robinson)
15/151-200: Integrated POPs (James H. Cloos Jr.)
15/101-150: Interactive Television Infractructure Development ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Interesting New Information Service and Prefix (Linc Madison)
15/151-200: Interesting Telemarketing, Sad Actually (Perry Engle)
15/151-200: Re: Interesting Telemarketing, Sad Actually (William Wood)
15/001-050: Interim Results of FCC Auctions (Brian Miner)
15/001-050: Re: Interim Results of FCC Auctions (Raj Gajwani)
15/051-100: Re: Inter-Lata Rates in California (Ed Smith)
15/001-050: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Eric Paulak)
15/001-050: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Michael Henry)
15/001-050: Re: Inter-LATA Rates in California (Steven H. Lichter)
15/051-100: International Alliance Service Liability (David Ujimoto)
15/001-050: International Callback Co-Locating With Telco (Subroto Mukerjea)
15/201-250: International Caller-ID (Marko Ruokonen)
15/151-200: International Country Codes Wanted (Henry Valentino)
15/251-300: International Dialing to Alternate Local Company (Timothy D. Hunt)
15/001-050: International Freephone Numbers and European Phone Dials (J. Oppenheimer)
15/251-300: International Jobs for Telecom Specialists Up to $500/day (Dave Herndon)
15/201-250: International Rates to Russia (Van Hefner)
15/201-250: International Switching Symposium (Frank Naehring)
15/051-100: Re: International Tariff d (Allyson Anthonisz)
15/051-100: International Tariff Database Providers (Mitchell Weiss)
15/251-300: International Telephone Codes (Chris Hendriks)
15/201-250: International Telephone Number Length - Maximum Allowed (David E A Wilson)
15/201-250: Re: International Telephone Number Length - Maximum Allowed (E. Rohwedder)
15/201-250: Re: International Telephone Number Length - Maximum Allowed (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: International Telephone Number Length - Maximum Allowed (Richard Cox)
15/201-250: Re: International Telephone Number Length - Maximum Allowed (T. Jarnbjo)
15/201-250: Internet 1996 World Exposition (Alex Pavlovic)
15/001-050: Internet '95 Conference (Leona Nichols)
15/101-150: Internet Conference Call Tonight (Mark Kelly)
15/151-200: Internet GURU Needed! ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Internet in Dubai? (Sandy Kyrish)
15/051-100: Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Jane McMahon)
15/051-100: Re: Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Larry Drebes)
15/051-100: Re: Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Ted Timar)
15/051-100: Re: Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Ted Timar)
15/101-150: Internet Society, DC Chapter _kick-off_ Event (Bruce Thompson)
15/001-050: Internet Software Wanted (L.C. Clower)
15/201-250: Internet Virus is April Fools' Day Joke (Paul Robinson)
15/151-200: InternetMCI in Operation? Where? Speed? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: internetMCI Now in Operation (Stephen Goodman)
15/151-200: Internship Wanted (Michael Erichardi)
15/101-150: Intralata Database Wanted ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Invalid AT&T Prepaid Cards (Jan Mandel)
15/101-150: Invitation to Long Distance Domestic Re-Sellers and Reps (Kevin Lipsitz)
15/001-050: Irish/USA Phone Ring Signals vs UK (Conor O'Neill)
15/151-200: Re: Is Caller ID to be Mandantory Nationally, April 1995? (Lynne Gregg)
15/151-200: Re: Is Caller ID to be Mandatory Nationally? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Is Caller ID to be Mandatory Nationally? (Gordon Wilson)
15/101-150: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Bob Larribeau)
15/151-200: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Chip Sharp)
15/101-150: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Ed Goldgehn)
15/101-150: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Howard M. Weiner)
15/101-150: Re: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Michael Berlant)
15/101-150: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Steve Cogorno)
15/201-250: Is it Just Me? (John Mayson)
15/251-300: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Allan Bourque)
15/251-300: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Holly Fenn)
15/251-300: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Richard Parkinson)
15/251-300: Is LDDS Pulling my Leg? (Dave O'Shea)
15/101-150: Is Origin Cell of Cellular Call Logged? (Chuck Cairns)
15/101-150: Re: Is Origin Cell on a Cellular Call Logged? (Kris Trimmer)
15/101-150: Re: Is Origin Cell on a Cellular Call Logged? (Sam Spens Clason)
15/001-050: Re: Is TeleScript Already Available? (Michael Libes)
15/001-050: Is TeleScript Already Available? (Paul Boots)
15/051-100: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Alan Shen)
15/001-050: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Andrew Laurence)
15/051-100: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Anthony D'Auria)
15/001-050: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Clifton T. Sharp)
15/051-100: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Wally Ritchie)
15/051-100: Is There a Newsgroup For SONET? (Geno Rice)
15/201-250: Re: Is There a Telecom Glossary On-Line Somewhere? (John Teague)
15/201-250: Is There a Telecom Glossary On-Line Somewhere? (Nicol C. So)
15/001-050: Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? (Bernard Cerier)
15/001-050: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Is There a Telecom Group in Chicago? (Randall Hayes)
15/251-300: Is This Message, and its Author, For Real? (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? (James Baker)
15/001-050: Re: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? (John R. Covert)
15/001-050: Re: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? (Steve Forrette)
15/001-050: Re: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? (Wally Ritchie)
15/151-200: Re: ISDN, ADPCM and COs (Eric Paulak)
15/201-250: Re: ISDN, BellSouth and OCN (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/201-250: Re: ISDN, BellSouth and OCN (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/201-250: ISDN, BellSouth and OCN ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: ISDN, BellSouth and OCN (Willard F. Dawson)
15/201-250: Re: ISDN, BellSouth and OCN (Willard F. Dawson)
15/001-050: Re: ISDN BRI Lines (Ed Goldgehn)
15/001-050: ISDN BRI Lines (John Combs)
15/051-100: Re: ISDN in Florida ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: ISDN in Florida (Bruce W. Glassford)
15/001-050: ISDN in Florida (Evon Bent)
15/051-100: Re: ISDN in Florida (pp000413@.interramp.com)
15/101-150: ISDN on CNN's Science and Technology Week Show (Ed Goldgehn)
15/001-050: ISDN Over Wireless (Jared Enzler)
15/001-050: Re: ISDN Over Wireless (Jeff Hersh)
15/001-050: Re: ISDN Over Wireless (John Leske)
15/001-050: Re: ISDN Over Wireless (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Re: ISDN Over Wireless (John Lundgren)
15/151-200: ISDN Showcase at USC (Cherie Shore)
15/001-050: ISDN Wish List (Syd Weinstein)
15/251-300: ISLIP'95 a Success (Bill Wadge via R. Jagannathan)
15/151-200: ISO Keynote Speaker on Internet (David Kirsch)
15/001-050: Re: Israel Rate Information (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: It is Legal to Modify Receivers (Ed Mitchell)
15/251-300: ITCA Convention (Jim Herbert)
15/051-100: Re: IT-Consumption in USA (Lynne Gregg)
15/001-050: Re: Its Here Again! FCC/Modem Tax (Jerry Whelan)
15/001-050: It's Not Tenex Anymore ... (Chris Cappuccio)
15/151-200: ITU Document Formatting (Steve Bunning)
15/251-300: ITU World Wide Web Server (Robert Shaw)
15/101-150: IVR Application, Northern Telecom SL1 PBX (Chris Daniels)
15/051-100: IVR Software Information Wanted (Robert Geradts)
15/051-100: IVR Systems Information Wanted (Jason Middleton)
15/151-200: IVRS and F-on-D Service ([e-mail],)
15/151-200: Re: Jake Baker Released on Bond Pending Trial (Atri Indiresan)
15/101-150: Jake Baker Released on Bond Pending Trial (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Japan Earthquakes (Gerald Serviss)
15/001-050: Japanese Quake News (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Re: "Jitter" as a Quantity (Moritz Farbstein)
15/201-250: Job Opening - Camarillo, California (Matt Noah)
15/201-250: Job Opening at BellSouth (Chendong Zou)
15/201-250: Job Openings at BellSouth (Chendong Zou)
15/251-300: Job Opportunity: 8086 Assembly Programmer; Comm Project (Moshe Kreisman)
15/051-100: Job Posting: Aspect Telecom, CTI Product Marketing Manager (James McDonald)
15/101-150: Job Posting: Cellular Engineer (Scott Townley)
15/201-250: Job Posting: Telephone Network Design Engineer (Jorge D. Salinger)
15/251-300: Jobs at AT&T Bell Labs (Jiming Liu)
15/101-150: Jobs Available at MCI (Van R. Hutchinson)
15/051-100: Jobs Available in San Diego: ATM/SONET/OC48 (Shaun Maki)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Bryan J. Welch)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Drew Smith)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Hovig Heghinian)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Joel Kolstad)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (John Egan)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Matt Ackeret)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Michael Hejtmanek)
15/251-300: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Nic Wolff)
15/251-300: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: June COOK Report Announcement (Gordon Cook via Monty Solomon)
15/201-250: Kermit News #6 Available on the Web (Frank da Cruz)
15/101-150: Kevin Mitnick - Advertising (James Bellaire)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Brendan Dowling)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Charles Manson)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Charlie Mingo)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Clarence Dold)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (John Lundgren)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Michael D. Maxfield)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Mike Simos)
15/101-150: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Re: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (Tony Pelliccio)
15/151-200: Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Benjamin Carter)
15/151-200: Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Benjamin Carter)
15/151-200: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (John Combs)
15/151-200: Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Mark Brader)
15/151-200: Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Robert Virzi)
15/101-150: LAPD and Variants Implementation (Bhaktha Keshavachar)
15/151-200: Re: LAPD and Variants Implementation (Matthew P. Downs)
15/101-150: Last Call: IJCAI'95 Workshop on Executable Temporal Logics (Mehmet Orgun)
15/101-150: Last Laugh - Technology Notes (James Bellaire)
15/251-300: Last Laugh! Are You Perverted? (Matthew Iuculano)
15/251-300: Last Laugh! Big Brother is Watching You (Special Agent Mike Long, FBI)
15/101-150: Last Laugh! Burned Out Newspapercreatures (Daryl Gibson)
15/051-100: Last Laugh! Career Opportunities With the RBOCs (David McCord)
15/151-200: Last Laugh! Great Moments in Radio History (Nigel Allen)
15/101-150: Last Laugh! Re: How I Fooled Caller-ID (Gordon L. Burditt)
15/001-050: Last Laugh! IBM Buys Episcopal Church (John Shaver)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Anton Sherwood)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (B.Z. Lederman)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Dave Johnson)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (David Breneman)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (David K. Bryant)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Heidi Serverian)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Larry Kollar)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Patton M Turner)
15/251-300: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Robert Virzi)
15/201-250: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Last Laugh! Nick Cheats on His Wife (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/001-050: Last Laugh: Speaking About Who is Boss (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: Last Laugh! Techie SOs Unite! (Shirley Clawson via John Shaver)
15/151-200: Re: Last Laugh! Technology Notes (John J. Butz)
15/151-200: Re: Last Laugh! Technology Notes (Tom Blog)
15/051-100: Last Laugh! Telecom and Pasta (Paul A. Migliorelli)
15/101-150: Last Laugh! The Unintentional Date/Chat Line (David Leibold)
15/101-150: LATA Maps Wanted (Phillip Schuman)
15/101-150: Latencies on T-1, 56kb, etc. (Kevin Wang)
15/251-300: Latest ITU-T (CCITT) Country Code List (Mark Cuccia)
15/051-100: Laws For Cell Phone Sales in CA (B_Phlat)
15/001-050: Re: LD ISDN Service (Ed Goldgehn)
15/001-050: LD ISDN Service (John Schmerold)
15/051-100: Re: LD ISDN Service (Martin Carroll)
15/151-200: LD Marketers Association (Sharon Ziebert)
15/051-100: Re: LD Provider Juggling (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: LD Provider Juggling (Justin T. Leavens)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees Charges (Jerry Harder)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Ed Goldgehn)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Ed Goldgehn)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (G. Straughn)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (John Combs)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (John Levine)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Lars Poulsen)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Mike Boyd)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Patton M. Turner)
15/051-100: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Pete Norloff)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Roger Atkinson)
15/051-100: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (rta)
15/251-300: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query (Steve Fram)
15/151-200: Leap Year (was Re: That Time Again) (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Leased Line Options Outside U.S.A (Hemant Shah)
15/251-300: Least Cost Routing Question (Masoud Loghmani)
15/251-300: Lecturer in Information Engineering - Massey Univ, New Zealand (J.Y. Khan)
15/101-150: Re: Legal Notice: MCI Class Action Settlement (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Alan Boritz)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Alan Boritz)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Ben Burch)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bill Garfield)
15/051-100: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bill Tighe)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Clifton T. Sharp)
15/001-050: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (David A. Webb)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Michael P. Deignan)
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem due to modified radio ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Legal Problem Due to Modified Radio (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
15/251-300: Libel Liability Limits? (Mike Wengler)
15/151-200: Library Technology and Telecommunications (Theresa Arenholz via FAX)
15/251-300: Line Charges in Alberta (Todd Reashore)
15/101-150: List of Carrior Access Codes (Scott Mehosky)
15/201-250: Live Internet Phone Software (Eric Hunt)
15/251-300: Local Call From Norfolk to Hampton VA? (Guy Cox)
15/101-150: Re: Local Calling Areas (Linc Madison)
15/051-100: Local Calling Areas (Mark Rudholm)
15/151-200: Local Competition Bill Passes NC Senate (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/201-250: Local Competition Epiphany (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/201-250: Re: Local Competition Epiphany (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/151-200: Re: Local Competition (Frank Atkinson)
15/151-200: Re: Local Competition (G.M. Nassar)
15/101-150: Local Competition in North Carolina (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/151-200: Local Competition (Patrick Martin)
15/151-200: Local Internets (was Re: PacBell and Internet) (Ed Goldgehn)
15/201-250: Local Phone Competition (Mike McKinney)
15/201-250: Re: Location of EIA-232 Specs (Neal McLain)
15/001-050: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question (D. Burstein)
15/051-100: Re: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question (J. Galt)
15/001-050: Re: Long Distance Blocking, was Re: Old Rotary Service Question (W Huffman)
15/051-100: Re: Long Distance Caller ID (David Lemson)
15/001-050: Re: Long Distance Caller ID (Glen L. Roberts)
15/051-100: Re: Long Distance Caller ID ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Long Distance Caller ID (Paul J. Zawada)
15/051-100: Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? (Daniel Cayouette)
15/051-100: Re: Long Distance Caller ID/Cellphones? (Don Skidmore)
15/251-300: Long Distance Cordless Phone Needed! (Josh Assing)
15/251-300: Long Distance Rate History Question (Dawn Adler)
15/151-200: Re: Long Distance Rate Tables (Eric Paulak)
15/201-250: Long Distance Rates in Southern California ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Long Distance Re-Billers Wanted (Richard W. Kreutzer)
15/051-100: Long Lost Reporter Checks in (Adam M. Gaffin)
15/201-250: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters (Friedrich Kaufmann)
15/251-300: Re: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters (Lars Poulsen)
15/251-300: Long-Distance Carriers and LEC's (Joseph Norton)
15/151-200: Looking at Data Gate (Gateway) Software ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Looking at Service Requirements (Eric Smokler)
15/001-050: Looking for 900-MHz Cordless Hands Free Headset (Martin Soques)
15/051-100: Re: Looking For 900-MHz Cordless Handsfree Headset (Roger Snyder)
15/051-100: Re: Looking For 900-MHz Cordless Handsfree Headset (Wayne Huffman)
15/201-250: Looking For a Black Box (Andrew Bevan)
15/201-250: Re: Looking For a Black Box (William Englander)
15/001-050: Looking For a CE3 Interface (34 MB/s Euro Std) (Gianni Paglia)
15/001-050: Looking For a CHILL Compiler (Andreas Junklewitz)
15/001-050: Re: Looking For a CHILL Compiler (Per Bothner)
15/151-200: Looking For a Fax Service Bureau (Steve Samler)
15/201-250: Looking For a Home For Listserver (Christopher Zguris)
15/151-200: Re: Looking For a ISP in Interlaken, Switzerland (Jack Hamilton)
15/001-050: Looking For ADPCM Test Vector Set (Mark Indovina)
15/201-250: Looking For Alternatives to Cyberlink (Ted Koppel)
15/151-200: Looking For an ISP in Interlaken, Switzerland (Kelly Breit)
15/001-050: Looking For Areacode Program (Al Cohan)
15/051-100: Looking for Autodialers For Callback (Hadi Fakhoury)
15/151-200: Looking For Ben Huey or Abhay Kejwiral (John Watlington)
15/151-200: Looking for BX.25 Solutions (Lee Smith)
15/001-050: Looking for C7 Information ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Looking For Chip Modem V22 (Cedric Perret)
15/051-100: Looking For Chip Modem V22 ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Looking For Directory CD ROMs (Sven Echternach)
15/251-300: Looking For ETSI Documentation Online? (George E. Cabanas)
15/151-200: Re: Looking for Excel Corp (Gerry Gollwitzer)
15/151-200: Re: Looking for Excel Corp (Mike Rehmus)
15/151-200: Looking For Excel Corp (Phil Kehr)
15/001-050: Looking for Fax-Related URLs (George Pajari)
15/051-100: Looking for Hands on Networking Experience (Al Gharakhanian)
15/151-200: Re: Looking For "Help Desk" System (Jim Wenzel)
15/151-200: Re: Looking For "Help Desk" System (Joe Sulmar)
15/151-200: Looking For "Help Desk" System (Mark J. Sullivan)
15/251-300: Looking For Help Starting a Help Desk (Mandy E. Kinne)
15/051-100: Looking For High-Speed Wireless Tech (Roger Bergstrom)
15/201-250: Looking For Information on a Mux/De-Mux Device (Russell Ochocki)
15/151-200: Looking For Information on Automated Teller Machines (wwarshowsk1@vaxa)
15/201-250: Looking For Integrated E1/V.34/PPP - TCP/IP/Ethernet Solution (P. Nikander)
15/101-150: Looking for Interactive Voice Response Provider (Dean Lennox)
15/051-100: Looking For ISDN in Burlington, Mass (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories (G. Robert Arrabito)
15/001-050: Re: Looking For Mail Order Cellular Accessories (Michael Schuster)
15/151-200: Looking For mux and Switch-Frame Relay Solution (Martha Marin)
15/201-250: Looking For Nationwide Data/Voice Providers (Jeff Tyler)
15/201-250: Looking For Online ROLM Users Conference (Chris Boone)
15/001-050: Looking for Pager Operators for Tampa/Ft. Myers Area (Mark Huang)
15/051-100: Looking For Papers on LD Competition (Elizabeth Wasserman)
15/101-150: Looking For RACE Project CFS (John Scourias)
15/101-150: Looking for Remote Control Solution (Mark Breman)
15/251-300: Looking For Research on ATM Networks (Jose Manuel Barrutia)
15/251-300: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam)
15/251-300: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam)
15/151-200: Looking For Small, Used, CHEAP, PBX/Key System (Seng-Poh Lee)
15/051-100: Looking for SS7 / CCS7 Spec Information (George E. Cabanas)
15/001-050: Looking for TDM Box (Andrew P. Dinsdale)
15/051-100: Re: Looking For TDM Box (Paul A. Lee)
15/051-100: Re: Looking For TDM Box (Roger Atkinson)
15/001-050: Looking For Used Phones (Steve Harris)
15/051-100: Re: Looking For Voice Mail For Panasonic Key Switch (Greg Habstritt)
15/051-100: Looking For Voice Mail For Panasonic Key Switch (Rebecca Brooke)
15/151-200: Looking For X.25 Cards (Cedric Perret)
15/151-200: Re: Looking For X.25 Cards ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Looking For X.25 Cards (Patrick Linstruth)
15/001-050: Looking for X.25 Concentrator (Paul D. Guthrie)
15/001-050: Re: Looking up Addresses and Numbers From Just Names (Wes Leatherock)
15/001-050: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Ben Carter)
15/051-100: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Tim Bach)
15/001-050: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Tony Waddell)
15/001-050: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Names ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Low Cost Router Alternatives? ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives? (John R. Winans)
15/251-300: Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives? (Kevin Kadow)
15/151-200: Lower Calling Card Than Flat 17.5 Cents/Min + No Surcharge? (George Wang)
15/201-250: Lowest $ Monthly Cellular Rate With No Free Minutes? (Keith Jarett)
15/051-100: Low-Tech Question About Outdoor Terminator Boxes (Jon Tara)
15/001-050: M2 Presswire Note (News Digest Reader Account)
15/151-200: Magnet in Cell Phone Dangerous to Laptop? (Jeffrey A. Porten)
15/151-200: Re: Magnet in Cell Phone Dangerous to Laptop? (Michael Berlant)
15/001-050: Re: Mail Order Outlet For Cellular Batteries (Doug Reuben)
15/101-150: Major UK Network Failure (Richard Cox)
15/101-150: Management Software Wanted (Rick J. Dosky)
15/251-300: Manipulative Long Distance Marketing (Richard Layman)
15/001-050: Re: MANs in the US (Edward W. Bennett)
15/001-050: Re: MANs in USA (Chuck Poole)
15/001-050: Re: MANs in USA (David Goessling)
15/001-050: Re: MANs in USA (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/001-050: Re: MANs in USA (Roger Fajman)
15/001-050: MANs in USA (Roman Rumian)
15/251-300: Re: Manual Exchanges - Historical Question (Jim Haynes)
15/251-300: Manual Exchanges - Historical Question (Lee Winson)
15/251-300: Re: Manual Exchanges - Historical Question (Lee Winson)
15/251-300: Re: Manual Exchanges (Mark Cuccia)
15/251-300: Manual Toll Cord-Boards in the DDD Era (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Manuals for ISOTEC System 96/S (Steve Tanner)
15/251-300: Manufacturing Opportunity in India (RCPeel)
15/151-200: Re: March 1995 NYNEX Bill Insert - PulseNet Service (Carl Oppedahl)
15/151-200: Re: March 1995 NYNEX Bill Insert - PulseNet Service (John Levine)
15/151-200: March 1995 NYNEX Bill Insert - PulseNet Service (Jonathan Welch)
15/151-200: Re: March 1995 NYNEX Bill Insert - PulseNet Service (Mike McKinney)
15/151-200: Re: March 1995 NYNEX Bill Insert - PulseNet Service (Tim Gorman)
15/101-150: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Re: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Re: March 7 Bellcore Meeting in DC ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Marine Communications (Carter Thomasson)
15/051-100: Marine Telecom Installation (Demosthenes Panagopoulos)
15/201-250: Market Trial For Bell Canada Free-Call Service (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Marketing Strategies Information Request (Angelo Raffaele Fernicola)
15/051-100: Markets for 220 vs. 800 vs. 900 MHz Communications? (Will Estes)
15/251-300: Maryland Will Add Two New Area Codes (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: Massachusetts Institute of Technology  (413)-545-3179 (work)
15/251-300: Re: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Mark Crispin)
15/251-300: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Nigel Allen)
15/001-050: McCaw/NACN Call Delivery Toll Charges (Doug Reuben)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Chris Hardaker)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Masoner)
15/051-100: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Wildman)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Wildman)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Wildman)
15/051-100: MCI California Postcard Goof (Gary D. Shapiro)
15/101-150: MCI Cashes AT&T Checks (Scott Lorditch)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Cashes AT&T Checks (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Cashes AT&T Checks (Steve Friedlander)
15/151-200: MCI Commercial in Bad Taste (Christopher Wolf)
15/201-250: Re: MCI Commercial is in Bad Taste ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: MCI Commercial is in Bad Taste (Jim McTiernan)
15/201-250: Re: MCI Commercial is in Bad Taste (Wally Ritchie)
15/051-100: MCI Digital 800 Information ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Christopher Harwood Snider)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Daniel J. McDonald)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Darryl Kipps)
15/051-100: MCI Gave me a Deal (Glen Ecklund)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (John Gutman)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (John Marquette)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Lindsay L. Meeks)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Michael P. Deignan)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Ron Schnell)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Gave me a Deal (Tony Pelliccio)
15/201-250: MCI Invests in News Corp. (Steve Geimann)
15/251-300: MCI Jobs Available (MCI Metro)
15/151-200: MCI Now Using 1-900-GET-INFO (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: MCI or Sprint Rate to Asia (Norman Lo)
15/001-050: MCI Paging Announcement ([e-mail])
15/251-300: MCI Purchases Darome Teleconferencing (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: MCI Reenters Wireless (Steve Geimann)
15/201-250: MCI Response to Oklahoma City Residents (Van R. Hutchinson)
15/051-100: MCI Selects Nextstep to Support Friends & Family Customers (M. Solomon)
15/101-150: MCI Slams Again (Alan Boritz)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Slams Again (Jeff Jelinek)
15/101-150: Re: MCI Slams Again (John Higdon)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Strikes Again (Christopher Harwood Snider)
15/051-100: MCI Strikes Again (Mike Jenkins)
15/051-100: Re: MCI Strikes Again (Steven H. Lichter)
15/051-100: MCI to Launch First Nationwide Sonet/ATM Network (Jim Collins)
15/101-150: MCI To Use Pirelli ([e-mail])
15/051-100: MCI Won't Bill For Calls Already Made to 1-800-CALL-INFO (bkron.netcom.com)
15/201-250: MCI/NSF High Speed Backbone Network (Stephen Goodman)
15/201-250: MCI's Intra-LATA Call Director Problems (Scot M. Desort)
15/151-200: Re: MCI's New Thing (Robert Levandowski)
15/151-200: MCI's New Thing (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: Re: MCI's New Thing (Tim Dillman)
15/251-300: MCI's Success in Business (John David Galt)
15/251-300: Re: MCI's Success in Business (Lynn Betts)
15/251-300: Re: MCI's Success in Business (Michael Henry)
15/201-250: MCI/Telecom USA's Smart Minutes Program (Richard Layman)
15/251-300: Meeting on Toll Free 888 Database Set (Bob Keller)
15/201-250: Meeting the Challenge (John Higdon)
15/251-300: Re: Meeting the Challenge (John Higdon)
15/251-300: Re: Meeting the Challenge (Mike McKinney)
15/051-100: Re: Memorex PBX Help Needed (John Combs)
15/051-100: Memorex PBX Help Needed (Sergei Fishel)
15/001-050: Re: Memorized Area Codes (Rob Boudrie)
15/001-050: Memorized Area Codes (Stephen Denny)
15/001-050: Mercury Computer Products Now on the WWW (dspnet![e-mail])
15/251-300: Merging Phone Company Test Boards ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Meridian Phone System Help Needed (Adam Furman)
15/251-300: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Allan Bourque)
15/251-300: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Dave Johnson)
15/251-300: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Gary Feld)
15/251-300: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Holly Fenn)
15/251-300: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Thomas P. Brisco)
15/251-300: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Vidya Gopaul)
15/051-100: Messaging Software for Windows (Bob Baxter)
15/101-150: Re: Messaging Software for Windows (Rudy Rawlins)
15/051-100: Metro Mobile (CT/RI/MA) Added to the NACN (Doug Reuben)
15/251-300: Mexican Telecom Wiring (John Schmidt)
15/251-300: Re: Mexican Telecom Wiring (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/101-150: Mexican Union Lodges Complaint Against Sprint (D Shniad)
15/201-250: Re: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (David Gay)
15/201-250: Re: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (J. Hinnerk Haul)
15/201-250: Re: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (John Brissenden)
15/201-250: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (John E. Brissenden)
15/201-250: Re: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (Lars Poulsen)
15/201-250: Re: Mexico Billing Method: Digit Analysis or Meter Pulse? (Richard Cox)
15/201-250: Mexico: Buying Modems and Muxes ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Mexico's AT&T USADirect No Longer Connected ([e-mail])
15/201-250: MFS Advertising Irony (Dave Levenson)
15/251-300: MFS Intelnet Slow to Install; Blame on NYNEX? (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/151-200: Re: Microsoft Techs and Phone Calls (Brandon Allbery)
15/151-200: Re: Microsoft Techs and Phone Calls (Gordon Burditt)
15/151-200: Microsoft Techs and Phone Calls (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: MicroUnity Contact Wanted (Stewart Fist)
15/151-200: Microwave Repeater Suppliers in US/Canada? (Jason A. Cooke)
15/001-050: Microwave-Data Problem (Doug H. Kerr)
15/001-050: Re: Microwave-Data Problem (Wally Ritchie)
15/051-100: Miffed at SWB (Jim Wenzel)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder (J. Brad Hicks)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder (Larry Riedel)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (David K. Leikam)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (David Ofsevit)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (George Gilder)
15/251-300: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (Mark Fraser)
15/201-250: Minitel and European Infohighways (Romina Keller)
15/101-150: Minority Scholarships in Telecommunications (Heather Hudson)
15/151-200: Re: Minors With Pagers in Tennessee (Frank Atkinson)
15/151-200: Re: Minors With Pagers in Tennessee (Mark Robert Smith)
15/151-200: Minors With Pagers in Tennessee (Sander J. Rabinowitz)
15/001-050: Missed Listing - and Lawyers, Not Lawnmowers (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: Re: Mitel (200sx) Phone Number Request (Darryl Kipps)
15/151-200: Mitel(200sx) Phone number request (John E. Brissenden)
15/101-150: Mitnick Chain of Events (Steve Cogorno)
15/001-050: Mobile Comms Questionnaire (Simon J. Wallace)
15/051-100: Mobility Canada Views on 2 GHz Spectrum (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Re: Modem Connection via Cordless Telephone? Feasable? (Brian Cole)
15/251-300: Modem Connection via Cordless Telephone? Feasable? (Georg Schwarz)
15/251-300: Modem Function Challenge! Guru Help Needed (David Weiss)
15/101-150: Modem Line Tap (David O. Laney)
15/101-150: Modem Monitor Wanted ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Modem or PC Card With Touch-Tone/Voice Send/Recieve Wanted (Paul Cook)
15/001-050: Re: Modem-Voice Incoming Call Switching (Harold Buehl)
15/001-050: Modem-Voice Incoming Call Switching (Jan Mandel)
15/001-050: More Administrivia, Errors, etc (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: More, By George! Coming Your Way This Weekend (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: More CellOne/NY Frolics (Stan Schwartz)
15/001-050: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? (David Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? (Ry Jones)
15/001-050: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos to Take Advantage? (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: More CO Codes for Each NPA; Any Telcos Take Advantage? (L.Westermeyer)
15/051-100: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA; Any Telcos Take Advantage? (W. Leatherock)
15/251-300: More FCC Airwave Auctioning (Investor's Business Daily via Michael Kuras)
15/251-300: More Laughs and Not the Lawnmower Man (A. Padgett Peterson)
15/151-200: Re: More on Hong Kong (Henry Leininger)
15/101-150: More on Hong Kong (Rich Greenberg)
15/151-200: Re: More on Hong Kong's Internet Debacle ([e-mail])
15/101-150: More on Hong Kong's Internet Debacle (Rob Hall)
15/201-250: More on Telco and Gulf-Coast Area Flooding (Mark Cuccia)
15/001-050: More on Teleport (Steve Samler)
15/251-300: More on the FCC 800 Order - June 21 Update From FCC (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: More on Universal International Freephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: More on Universal International Freephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: More Places You Cannot Place 500 Calls From (John Shelton)
15/051-100: More Tidbits on AT&T True-Connections (NPA 500) (John Shelton)
15/051-100: More True 500 Frolics (Stan Schwartz)
15/251-300: More TSPS Stories (Scot M. Desort)
15/051-100: Most Pressing Problems Facing Network Managers and Planners? (R. Jacobson)
15/151-200: Motorola Cell Programming Help Needed (Jim Knoll)
15/051-100: Motorola Envoy Commercial Availability (Burch Ben)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Alan Larson)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (David Chessler)
15/051-100: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Erik P. Larson)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (George Wang)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (George Wang)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Greg Abbott)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Marcus Lee)
15/051-100: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Matthew P. Downs)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Michael Berlant)
15/051-100: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Patrick Wolfe)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Ry Jones)
15/101-150: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/001-050: Motorola Flip Technical Manual (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/051-100: Motorola Fones (Antonio Veloso)
15/251-300: Motorola Three Time Program Limit (Ken Levitt)
15/101-150: MPR Teltech Ltd Announces Home Page (Ross Parker)
15/151-200: MTP; Ericsson, Northern, or Other (Steve Bunning)
15/101-150: Re: mu-law to a-law PCM (Finn Stafsnes)
15/101-150: mu-law to a-law PCM (John Combs)
15/151-200: Multiple Audio Channels Over One Phone Line (Rich Osman)
15/001-050: Multiple ESN's per NAM (Chris J. Cartwright)
15/001-050: Re: Multiple ESN's per NAM (John R. Covert)
15/051-100: Multiple ESN's per NAM (Update) (Chris J. Cartwright)
15/251-300: Multiplexer software control (Albert Helberg)
15/051-100: MVIP Interface? (K.S. Lee)
15/101-150: Re: MVIP? What Are We Talking About Here? (Greg Habstritt)
15/101-150: MVIP? What Are We Talking About Here? (Peter T. Overaas)
15/151-200: My Computer Made Me Sick - Positive Ions ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: My Computer Made Me Sick - Positive Ions ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: My Computer Made Me Sick - Positive Ions (John DeHoog)
15/201-250: Re: My Computer Made Me Sick - Positive Ions (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
15/201-250: Re: My Computer Made Me Sick - Positive Ions (Tad Cook)
15/251-300: My Experiences With GTE's Tele-Go Service (Mark E. Daniel)
15/051-100: NACN Problems With Cell One/Utah (Brianhead) (Doug Reuben)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Ari Wuolle)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Dik Winter)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (James Sterbenz)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Jan Joris Vereijken)
15/001-050: Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/001-050: Re: NANP Changes (Fran S. Menzel)
15/251-300: National Information Infrastructure Course at MIT (Gillian Cable-Murphy)
15/101-150: National Strategies for Telecom Education? (Mikko Usvalehto)
15/251-300: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Harold Buehl)
15/251-300: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Mike K. Tyler)
15/201-250: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (NMS) (Evan Harris)
15/151-200: NC Solons Complete Local Competition Bill (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/201-250: NE Ohio - New Area Code 330? (Doug Sewell)
15/001-050: NEC 2000IVS Wanted: Highend (Out-of-Band) Voice Mail Integration (Neubert)
15/051-100: NEC NEAX 2400 IMG PBX For Sale (kchodrow)
15/001-050: Re: NEC Neax 2400 (John Stewart)
15/101-150: Need 500 Service Information (Bhaktha Keshavachar)
15/201-250: Need a Baby PBX For Modem Testing, Modem Class (Phillip Remaker)
15/051-100: Need a Contact for Teradyne RFTS 4SIGHT System 2000 (Usager hqtel)
15/201-250: Need a PCMCIA ISDN Card (Everett C. Stonebraker)
15/001-050: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] (Brent E. Boyko)
15/001-050: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] (John O'Keefe)
15/001-050: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq (Tom R. Valdez)
15/001-050: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Need ANSI X3.28 Code - x328.rq (Tom R. Valdez)
15/051-100: Need Help Finding 500 Exchange (Mike B. Fisher)
15/151-200: Need Help Finding a Company (Tom D. Fellrath)
15/101-150: Need Help Getting AT&T 1050 Phone Fixed (David Sheafer)
15/201-250: Re: Need Help on 50-POTS-Line Setup (J. Herraghty)
15/201-250: Need Help on 50-POTS-Line Setup (Trevor Fiatal)
15/101-150: Need Help on Panasonic Fax KX-F90 (Marko Ruokonen)
15/251-300: Need Help With Codaphone 4250 (Larry Rachman)
15/101-150: Re: Need Help With Digital Phone Line (John Lundgren)
15/201-250: Need Help With Wiring RJ-11 Telephone Jack (Robert Swan)
15/001-050: Re: Need Info on LD Marketing to College Students (Benjamin Combee)
15/001-050: Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices (Richard Jay Solomon)
15/001-050: Re: Need Info on Two-Line, Digital Answering Devices With ANI (S Schwartz)
15/151-200: Need Information on ATM and Telemedicine (Philip W. King)
15/251-300: Need Information on BT Datelmux 7200 (Brian McGinty)
15/151-200: Need Information on BTI, Southeast USA (David Pilgrim)
15/001-050: Need Information on EXCEL (Bill Dankert)
15/001-050: Re: Need Information on EXCEL (Gerry Gollwitzer)
15/001-050: Need Information on IS-54 (Dharshana P. Jayasuriya)
15/001-050: Re: Need Information on IS-54 (Glenn Shirley)
15/151-200: Need Information on Network Management Software (James E. Diskin)
15/201-250: Need Information on T1/E1 Rates in Asia ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Need Information on Telecom Networks in China (Frederic Van Dessel)
15/151-200: Re: Need Information on Wiltel's Dedicated Internet Access (C.Whittenburg)
15/151-200: Need Information on Wiltel's Dedicated Internet Access (Scott Hayes)
15/201-250: Need New Voice Board or Lines Amps! ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (David Kammeyer)
15/251-300: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (Greg Tompkins)
15/251-300: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Need One Mile PC Communications (Randy Constan)
15/251-300: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (Vince Muehe)
15/001-050: Need Phone Numbers for Consumer Tel. Equipment Companies (norbert@primenet)
15/001-050: Re: Need Profile of Teleport Communications Group (Dave Levenson)
15/001-050: Need Profile of Teleport Communications Group (Linli Zhao)
15/001-050: Need Recommendation For Long Range Cordless Phone (John Akapo)
15/001-050: Need Some Basic Leased Line Information (William E. White)
15/051-100: Needed: Network Solutions Manager (Lambert Schuyler Jr.)
15/051-100: Re: Neighborhood Phone Books (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
15/001-050: Netcom in Boston Brea (Vidur Kapoor)
15/101-150: NetCom13, Pizzas and Me (Anthony Spierings)
15/001-050: Network Access Wanted in Kenosha, WI - 414 (Erick Bergquist)
15/201-250: Network Level Performance Modelling (Herb Calhoun)
15/201-250: Networking Research Project (David Goessling)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Andrew Laurence)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Ben Burch)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Coast Guard Communications)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Gerald Serviss)
15/001-050: New Alert - 911 Access (Jim Conran)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Mike J. Sutter)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Seymour Dupa)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Stephen O. Pace)
15/001-050: Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Wayne Huffman)
15/051-100: New Archives Email Service Feature (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: Re: New Area Code Assignments (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: Re: New Area Code Assignments (Jeffrey William McKeough)
15/151-200: New Area Code Assignments (Neal McLain)
15/051-100: New Area Code For Oregon (Paul Buder)
15/001-050: New Area Codes and PBX (Jan Mandel)
15/001-050: Re: New Area Codes and PBX (Paul A. Lee)
15/251-300: New Area Codes Announced (Steve Grandi)
15/001-050: Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Carl Moore)
15/001-050: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: New Area Codes Working From Toronto (Michael King)
15/151-200: Re: New Bell Atlantic Service (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/151-200: Re: New Bell Atlantic Service (Sam Drake)
15/151-200: New Bell Atlantic Service (Washington Post via Chris J. Cartwright)
15/201-250: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Bob Goudreau)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Bob Goudreau)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Clive D.W. Feather)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Dik Winter)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Sam Spens Clason)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Shalom Septimus)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Toby Nixon)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
15/201-250: Re: New Country Code 380 For Ukraine (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
15/201-250: New Date For National CID Announced? (Michael G. Godwin)
15/101-150: New Delphi Forum (Scott Gordon)
15/051-100: New Educational Telecom List Started (Todd Graham)
15/201-250: New House Telecom Bills (Jeff Richards)
15/201-250: Re: New Improved Regulations For Cordless Phones (Mike Pollock)
15/201-250: New Improved Regulations For Cordless Phones (Paul Gloger)
15/051-100: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Andrew Knox)
15/101-150: Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Marcus Lee)
15/051-100: Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Michael Berlant)
15/051-100: Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Steven King)
15/201-250: New Multi-Natl European Telco Consortium? (Dennis Shen)
15/251-300: New Name For LDDS (Greg Monti)
15/251-300: Re: New Name For LDDS (Nigel Allen)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA for Houston TX (Kyle Rhorer)
15/101-150: Re: New NPA for Houston TX(Jeff Brielmaier)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Bob Compiano)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Bob Goudreau)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Re: New NPA in Colorado (David C. Bray)
15/101-150: Re: New NPA in Colorado (David W. Tamkin)
15/101-150: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Mike King)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Peter Laws)
15/101-150: New NPA in Colorado ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Robert Geradts)
15/101-150: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Stan Schwartz)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Stan Schwartz)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in Colorado (Tony Harminc)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in SC Scheduled For December (Arthur L. Shapiro)
15/151-200: Re: New NPA in SC Scheduled For December (Lee Winson)
15/151-200: New NPA in SC Scheduled For December (Mike King)
15/101-150: New NPA's Starting to Confuse/NPA 281 Activated (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: New RITIM Working Papers (Leslie Smith)
15/051-100: New RJ-48 Jack Used in Nynex Service Area For T-1? (Steve Pinkston)
15/001-050: New: Telecom Policy On-line (Jeff Richards)
15/001-050: New Telecom Resource on the Internet ([e-mail])
15/001-050: New Tennex Codes in 516 (Stan Schwartz)
15/251-300: New Training Locator (Travis Russell)
15/051-100: New York A-Carrier Roaming Ban Lifted (Greg Monti)
15/001-050: Re: Newbridge Channel Bank (Ethan Henry)
15/051-100: Re: Newsgroup For SONET? (Jim Millar)
15/151-200: Newstream Pager Information Wanted (Huang Zhengqian)
15/151-200: Re: Ni-Cad Batteries (Charles Marks)
15/151-200: Re: Ni-Cad Batteries (David Chessler)
15/101-150: NII 2000 Call for White Papers (John Godfrey)
15/151-200: Nine-Pin Null Modem Cables (Gary Breuckman)
15/051-100: NIST Workshop on Synchronization in Telecom (Marc A. Weiss)
15/251-300: NMS VOX File Format (Dana Lashway)
15/051-100: No Activity in This Newsgroup? (Glenn Foote)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Andy Spitzer)
15/001-050: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Christian Weisgerber)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Jeffrey Rhodes)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Matthew P. Downs)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Rick Duggan)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Scott Darling)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Tim Gorman)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (William H. Sohl)
15/001-050: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (William H. Sohl)
15/101-150: Nokia 121 Programming Help Needed (Alexander Cerna)
15/201-250: Re: Nokia 2110 vs Motorola 8200 (John Nice)
15/201-250: Nokia 2110 vs Motorola 8200 (Nick Pitfield)
15/101-150: Nokia 2112 NAM Programming (Alexander Cerna)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act  (Tony LiCausi)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Atri Indiresan)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Glenn Foote)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Ron Higgins)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Tim Allman)
15/101-150: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Tony Harminc)
15/101-150: Norstar DR5.1 and $$ (John W. Warne)
15/251-300: North American Bell (Dave Levenson)
15/201-250: Re: North American Modems in Britain (Dave Mathews)
15/201-250: Re: North American Modems in Britain ([e-mail])
15/151-200: North American Modems in Britain (John Bowler)
15/201-250: North American Modems in Britain (John Bowler)
15/051-100: North America's New Toll Free Code: 888 (Greg Monti)
15/101-150: North America's New Toll Free Code: 888 (Norman R. Tiedemann)
15/101-150: North Carolina Competition Bill Passes Lower House (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/051-100: Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Alan Shen)
15/051-100: Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Ben Combee)
15/051-100: Re: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Dan Kahn)
15/001-050: North Korea Holds US Representative Over $10K Phone Bill (Paul Robinson)
15/051-100: Re: North Pacific Cable Cut? (Floyd Davidson)
15/051-100: North Pacific Cable Cut? (Stephen Palm)
15/101-150: North Pacific Fiber Now Repaired (Edward W. Bennett)
15/051-100: Northern Bidding on European Network (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Northern Telecom Meridian: How Much? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Northern Telecom Meridian: How Much? (Jean Tkacik)
15/001-050: Northern TeleCom Norstar Key System (Daniel Aharonoff)
15/051-100: Re: Northern TeleCom Norstar Key System ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Northern Telecom POTS Phones (Stuart Brainerd)
15/101-150: Northern/BT Agreement Continues (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Notice From FCC Regards ISDN - SLC Charges Today ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Now Five Million Sites on the Net! (Chris Garrigues)
15/051-100: Now Five Million Sites on the Net! (Internet Society via Stephen Goodman)
15/251-300: Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago (Dan Crimmins)
15/251-300: Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago (Dave Bernardi)
15/251-300: Now Four Local Players in Chicago (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: NPA 604 to Split: New Code 250 For Parts of British Columbia (Nigel Allen)
15/201-250: Re: NPA Arrangmenets (John Mayson)
15/201-250: Re: NPA Black Holes (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: NPA Commentary (James E. Bellaire)
15/151-200: NPA Cross Reference (James E. Bellaire)
15/151-200: Re: NPA Splits and Bell System Ideals (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: NPA Splits and Bell System Ideals (Mark C. Baker)
15/001-050: NPA/NXX Report for January 1995 (David Esan)
15/101-150: N.T. M9516 Phone Wanted (Keith Knipschild)
15/101-150: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Dcott B. Campbell)
15/101-150: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Jean Tkacik)
15/101-150: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Steve Copeland)
15/251-300: NTI and Peer to Peer Connection (Allan Bourque)
15/251-300: NTI Remote Assistant (Allan Bourque)
15/151-200: Number Assigned to New Illinois NPA (David W. Tamkin)
15/101-150: Number Assignment Psychology ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Number Assignment Psychology (Stan Schwartz)
15/051-100: Numbers Numbers Numbers ... (Jim Derdzinski)
15/101-150: Re: Numbers Numbers Numbers ... (Steve Coleman)
15/101-150: NUtmeg (Gary D. Shapiro)
15/101-150: NYNEX and PIN's (Doug Fields)
15/251-300: NYNEX CallerID Bug (Barry F. Margolius)
15/051-100: NYNEX Does it Again ... Not! (Tony Pelliccio)
15/101-150: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Chris Labatt-Simon)
15/151-200: Re: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/151-200: Re: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Joe Scotti)
15/151-200: Re: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Russell Blau)
15/151-200: Re: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Russell Blau)
15/151-200: Re: NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Terry Kennedy)
15/051-100: NYNEX Offers Unlimited Weekends (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: NYNEX Pay Phones and the '#' Key (Thomas Hinders)
15/051-100: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? (Doug Reuben)
15/051-100: Re: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? (Ken Weaverling)
15/001-050: Re: NYNEX Ringmate and Modems (Steve Cogorno)
15/101-150: NYNEX Special Contracts Proprietary Treatment (Joe Scotti)
15/201-250: Re: NYNEX Strikes Again (James Carlson)
15/201-250: NYNEX Strikes Again (Michael J Kuras)
15/201-250: Re: NYNEX Strikes Again (Paul Houle)
15/201-250: Re: NYNEX Voluntarily Agrees to Competition (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/201-250: NYNEX Voluntarily Agrees to Competition (Jonathan Welch)
15/201-250: Re: NYNEX Voluntarily Agrees to Competition ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Nynex-Prodigy News Conference (Barry M. Brooks)
15/051-100: NYNEX's Competition in the NY Metro LATA (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Obituary: Dave Neibuhr, Long-Time Internet Citizen (Carl Moore)
15/251-300: Observations on The 800 Situation (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: Odd Phone Calls (Alan Guisewite)
15/101-150: Re: Odd Phone Calls (Jeff Box)
15/251-300: OFMC'95 (Frederic Vecoven)
15/101-150: Oh Yeah? (Cole Cooper)
15/251-300: Ohio Telephone Competition (Frank Atkinson)
15/051-100: OKI 1150 Cell Phone Help Wanted (Timothy F. Cooper)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Al Varney)
15/051-100: Old Phone Number Format Question (Andrew C. Green)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Charles Shukis)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Michael Dillon)
15/201-250: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Robert Bonomi)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Tony Harminc)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Tony Harminc)
15/051-100: Re: Old Phone Number Format (Wes Leatherock)
15/001-050: Old Rotary Service Question (Bill Parrish)
15/201-250: On Choosing a Long Distance Carrier (Van R. Hutchinson)
15/201-250: One Disaster After Another, it Seems (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Antoin O Lachtnain)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Art Walker)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Bob Izenberg)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Marc Schaefer)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Markus Gloede)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Patrick Phalen)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (Robbie Honerkamp)
15/201-250: Re: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (S. Rathinam)
15/201-250: Open NNTP Servers Wanted by Reader (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Opera: "The Telephone" (Jim Haynes)
15/251-300: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (Anthony Wallis)
15/251-300: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (D. O'Heare)
15/251-300: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (David Hough)
15/251-300: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (Jean Airey)
15/151-200: Optical Wave Analyzer (Bruce Roberts)
15/151-200: Re: Optical Wave Analyzer (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Optus Cision in Australia (Iaen Cordell)
15/101-150: Oradell, NJ Finally Gets 911 Service (Robert Casey)
15/201-250: Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Randal L. Schwartz)
15/201-250: Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Robert Hansen)
15/201-250: Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Stuart Friedberg)
15/101-150: OSI NetExpert Users Wanted (Chris Hardaker)
15/201-250: Out of the New Abyss (Jim Haynes)
15/251-300: Out of Town Dial Tones (John Mayson)
15/201-250: Re: Outgoing Only Phone Line Without Phone Number (John David Galt)
15/201-250: Re: Outgoing Only Phone Line Without Phone Number (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Outgoing Only Phone Line Without Phone Number (Robert Casey)
15/151-200: Outrageous ISDN Overcharges - They Aren't FCC's Doing (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/151-200: Re: Outrageous ISDN Overcharges - They Aren't FCC's Doing (Michel Cole)
15/151-200: Re: Outrageous ISDN Overcharges - They Aren't FCC's Doing (Sean Donelan)
15/151-200: Outsourcing of International Telecom Services (Victor Prochnik)
15/201-250: Overhead Paging Advice Wanted (Tammy Fischbach)
15/101-150: Overseas Bandwidth Optimizers (Jim Williams)
15/001-050: OZLIP Reminder (Mehmet Orgun)
15/151-200: PABX Signalling Protocols (Ronald A. Smit)
15/001-050: PABX/IVR/Computer Integration Help Wanted (Alan Meier)
15/151-200: Re: Pac Bell, Cal. PUC, and etc. (Peter Lamasney)
15/151-200: Re: Pac Bell, Cal. PUC, and "Reasonable Level of Service" (John Higdon)
15/101-150: Pac Bell, California PUC and "Reasonable Level of Service" (Jon Tara)
15/201-250: Pac Bell Fixed it - and Fast! (Bob Yazz)
15/251-300: Re: Pac Bell Fixed it -- and Fast! (John Higdon)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Bob Michael)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Bob Michael)
15/201-250: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Bob Yazz)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Bob Yazz)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Dave Harrison)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Henry Choy)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (James E. Bellaire)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped? (Michael McCalpin)
15/151-200: Re: PacBell and Internet (Bill Schultz)
15/101-150: PacBell Offers a "Taste of Interop" in LA, March 28 (Cherie Shore)
15/201-250: Re: PacBell to Offer CID (Lauren Weinstein)
15/201-250: PacBell to Offer CID (Steve Cogorno)
15/201-250: Re: PacBell to Offer CID (Steven H. Lichter)
15/251-300: Pacific Territories in NANP? (John Mayson)
15/051-100: Pac-Tel New Standard Plus Phones (Dan Srebnick)
15/151-200: Pager Schematic Wanted (Thilo Graupner)
15/151-200: Pagers FAQ (Danny Burstein)
15/101-150: Re: Paging Interface With Computer (David S. Rose)
15/101-150: Paging Interface With Computer (Huang Zhengqian)
15/101-150: Re: Paging Interface With Computer (Michael Berlant)
15/101-150: Re: Paging Interface With Computer (Raymond Abbitt)
15/101-150: Re: Paging Interface With Computer (Ricardo Cardoso)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (Gordon D. Woods)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem, Help! (Bennett Wong)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem, Help! (Mike Sandman)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (John Combs)
15/151-200: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (Patton M. Turner)
15/101-150: Pair Gain Line Problem, Please Help (Matt Lennig)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (Steve Satchell)
15/101-150: Re: Pair Gain Line Problem (William Bigelis)
15/101-150: Pakistan Shuts Down Cellular Network (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/101-150: Re: Palm Size Message Recorder on a Chip (Kevin Stiles)
15/101-150: Palm Size Message Recorder on a Chip (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/051-100: Panasonic Cellular Phone (James L. Wiley)
15/201-250: Panasonic KXT-9500 Comments Wanted (Dick Rhoads)
15/201-250: PayPhone (COCOT and RBOC) Newsgroup ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Payphone Contract (David Payne)
15/001-050: Payphones Rejecting AT&T LD (Chris Labatt-Simon)
15/101-150: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Charles McGuinness)
15/151-200: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (David Ofsevit)
15/101-150: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Jerry McCollom)
15/151-200: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Jim Vishoot)
15/101-150: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Richard F. Masoner)
15/101-150: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (RRE/Russ Sadler via Peter Dorman)
15/101-150: Re: PBS Rumors and Innuendo: Any Truth? (Steve Cogorno)
15/151-200: PBX E911 Database (Stephen J. Mahler)
15/001-050: PBX Information Needed ([e-mail])
15/151-200: PBX Managers in NANP Denial (Greg Monti)
15/051-100: PC Board For Terminal Emulation (SNA, BSC, VIP) (Massimo Fusaro)
15/051-100: PC Telcom Equipment Wanted (Tom Lempicke)
15/001-050: Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Campbell)
15/001-050: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Reeve)
15/001-050: Re: PCN Auction Info (Steve Samler)
15/101-150: PCN Engineer Needed (Recruiter) (Media Management Resources)
15/151-200: Re: PCS Auction Results and Analysis (Bob Keller)
15/001-050: PCS Auction Results (M.J. Sutter)
15/101-150: PCS Survey; Please Participate (Prakash Hariramani)
15/101-150: Re: Peculiar Callbacks Received (Danny Burstein)
15/101-150: Re: Peculiar Callbacks Received (Jeff Regan)
15/101-150: Re: Peculiar Callbacks Received (John C. Fowler)
15/101-150: Re: Peculiar Callbacks Received (Kenneth Rentz)
15/101-150: Re: Peculiar Callbacks Received (Paul Wallich)
15/101-150: Peculiar Callbacks Received (Philip D. Martin)
15/051-100: Pending ATT Videoconferencing Patent With C++ Source Code (Greg Aharonian)
15/151-200: Per Line Blocking Device is Inexpensive, Easy to Use (Mel Beckman)
15/001-050: Personal Communcications (Arndt Ritterbecks)
15/101-150: Phantom Circuits (was 'Do Bridges Affect Modems?') (Danny Burstein)
15/101-150: Re: Phantom Circuits, (was 'Do Bridges Affect Modems?') (Michael Dawson)
15/001-050: Phillipines Service Downtime (Al Niven)
15/001-050: Phone Bill Has Wrong Area Code and City (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: Re: Phone Books No Longer Free (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/151-200: Re: Phone Books no Longer Free (Ed Ellers)
15/151-200: Phone Books no Longer Free (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted (Adam Dingle)
15/001-050: Phone Card Reader Wanted (Keith Jason Uber)
15/001-050: Re: Phone Card Reader Wanted (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/151-200: Phone Day Coming April 16 (Robert Reijmerink)
15/201-250: Phone Encryption Devices (Benjamin Fried)
15/001-050: Phone Fraud - PBXs (Paul Murray)
15/251-300: Phone Line Voltage (Keith Knipschild)
15/101-150: Phone Lines Aren't Transitive! (Randy Gellens)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Mail Jail (Brian Brown)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Mail Jail (Ed Ellers)
15/251-300: Phone Mail Jail (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Phone Monopolies (Eric Florack)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe (A. Veller)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe (Eric Tholome)
15/251-300: Phone Monopolies in Europe (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe (Yves Blondeel)
15/251-300: Re: Phone Monopolies (Lee Winson)
15/051-100: Re: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs (Joe Sulmar)
15/051-100: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs (Paul Kendall)
15/201-250: Re: Phone Question Regards Transmission Problems (Anthony W Collins)
15/151-200: Phone Question Regards Transmission Problems (Jack Mott)
15/201-250: Re: Phone Question Regards Transmission Problems (John Combs)
15/001-050: Re: Phone Rates From Israel (Jay Kaplowitz)
15/001-050: Phone Rates From Israel (Jean B. Sarrazin)
15/001-050: Re: Phone Rates From Israel (SM Communications And Marketing)
15/001-050: Phone Rates (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: Phones Fight Fraud (Steve Geimann)
15/051-100: Phones in Jail (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
15/201-250: Photo Caption Contest on Web (Eileen Lin)
15/151-200: Photonics and Fiber Optics Conference (N. N. Raju)
15/151-200: Phreaks Get Prison Time in Phone Fraud Case (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: Re: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station - Still There? (Elana Beach)
15/201-250: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station ... Still There? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: PHS Doesn't Work in Moving Vehicles? (Jack Quinn)
15/101-150: PHS Doesn't Work in Moving Vehicles? (Steve Samler)
15/001-050: Pinouts on RS232 and Echoed Back Characters (Dave Thompson)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hunt Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Chris Hudel)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hunt Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Eric Canale)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hunt Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Scott Montague)
15/101-150: Pizza Hut Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Dave Sellers)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hut Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Ian Angus)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hut Consolidated Phone Number - All Locations (Tony Harminc)
15/101-150: Re: Pizza Hut in Atlanta (Steve Friedlander)
15/101-150: Pizza Hut in Atlanta (Ted Koppel)
15/051-100: Place-a-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service (Gary Novosielski)
15/051-100: Place-A-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service (Ted Trost)
15/251-300: Plan to Abolish FCC (Bennett Z. Kobb)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Bennett Z. Kobb)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Bill Seward)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Curtis Wheeler)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Dave Levenson)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Lloyd S. Wilkerson)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Mike Curtis)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Paul J. Zawada)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Russell Blau)
15/251-300: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Planning Cellular and PCS Systems (Mario Castano)
15/001-050: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Al Niven)
15/051-100: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Bill Garfield)
15/051-100: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Greg Habstritt)
15/001-050: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Paul Hebert)
15/001-050: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Steve Samler)
15/051-100: Planning to Start a Pager Network (Thu Ra Tin)
15/251-300: Please, Help Me If You Can! (Yoshi Mizumo)
15/151-200: Please HELP With LD Caller ID Experiment (Ronell Elkayam)
15/201-250: Re: Please Help With Weird Telco Problem (Bill Garfield)
15/201-250: Re: Please Help With Weird Telco Problem (Chris J. Cartwright)
15/201-250: Please Help With Weird Telco Problem (Cliff Yamamoto)
15/101-150: Plug Pulled in Hong Kong (Rob Hall)
15/051-100: Plumber Arrested: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Dave Levenson)
15/051-100: Re: Plumber Arrested: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Jim Ancona)
15/051-100: Re: Plumber Arrested: Fraudulent Call Forwarding (Tad Cook)
15/201-250: POCSAG Standard For Paging Systems? (Thomas Diessel)
15/051-100: POCSAG to Be Upgraded to APOC (John Bell)
15/051-100: Re: POCSAG to be Upgraded to APOC (Matthew Cheng)
15/051-100: Pointers to Telecom Resource Server Sites on the Net (Robert Shaw)
15/001-050: Re: Portability of 800 Number When Bill Not Paid (J. Oppenheimer)
15/101-150: Portable Computer and Wireless Exposition and Conference (Lawrence Grant)
15/151-200: Portugal Telecom ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Position For a Research Associate at King's College London (udee059@bay)
15/201-250: Possible Tax Break For Voice Networks (Ken Anders)
15/051-100: Post Local Transport Restructure Strategies for Carriers (Jerry Harder)
15/101-150: POTs Wanted! (Jay W. Shoup)
15/101-150: Precision Delay Line Application (Wade Viland)
15/251-300: Pre-Paid Phone Card Questions (Barry Caplan)
15/101-150: Re: Pre-Paid Phone Cards - Evening Rates? (Cliff Lam)
15/101-150: Re: Pre-Paid Phone Cards - Evening Rates? (Jeffrey Kagan)
15/051-100: Pre-Paid Phone Cards - Evening Rates? (Philip Winston)
15/101-150: Re: Pre-Paid Phone Cards - Evening Rates? (Shawn Gordhamer)
15/001-050: Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards (Gerry Gollwitzer)
15/001-050: Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards (P1854)
15/151-200: PRI Card For PC Supporting V.120? (Charles Enslin)
15/201-250: PRI-ISDN Deployment (Adam Hersh)
15/201-250: Re: PRI-ISDN Deployment (Jack Warner)
15/151-200: Primer Required on Cell Phones and Radio Paging (Akhila Ganapathy)
15/001-050: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Greg Straughn)
15/101-150: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Jack Pestaner)
15/051-100: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Mark Fletcher)
15/001-050: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Mark Fletcher)
15/051-100: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Mark Fletcher)
15/051-100: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Mark Fletcher)
15/051-100: Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Patton M. Turner)
15/101-150: Problems Accessing '500' With "Other" Carriers (Danny Burstein)
15/001-050: Problems Calling Zaire (Jonathan V. Bland)
15/101-150: Problems With Fax Switch (Georg Oehl)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Barton F. Bruce)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Daniel Fandrich)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Heath Chandler)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (James J. Sowa)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Joe George)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Mark Fraser)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Rahul Dhesi)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Sander J. Rabinowitz)
15/001-050: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Wayne Huffman)
15/251-300: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Dave Banisar)
15/251-300: Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Steve Lichter)
15/251-300: Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Steve Satchell)
15/151-200: Product Availability: Fax/Data/Voice Cards (Hiro Daryanani)
15/201-250: Product to Improve Telephone Quality ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Product to Prevent PBX Phone Fraud (Paul Murray)
15/051-100: Professional Voice Prompts For IVR etc. (Evan Berle)
15/151-200: Re: Profit From ISDN (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/151-200: Re: Profitting From ISDN (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/151-200: Profitting From ISDN (was Re: Outrageous ISDN Overcharges) (Ed Goldgehn)
15/001-050: Programmable Touch-Tone Interpreter Needed (Jeffrey A. Porten)
15/001-050: Re: Programmable Touch-Tone Interpreter Needed (Paul A. Lee)
15/051-100: Programmable Touch-Tone Interpreter Needed (Paul Robinson)
15/101-150: Projected Area Code Splits Through 2003 (David E. Sorkin)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Brad Hicks)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Jack Hamilton)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (John Murray)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Marc Collins-Rector)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Monty Solomon)
15/001-050: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Pat Clawson)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Pat Clawson)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Rahul Dhesi)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Tony Waddell)
15/001-050: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Wolf)
15/051-100: Puerto Rican Telecom Research Help Wanted (William Smith)
15/051-100: QUALCOMM Gone Wrong? (Simon J. Wallace)
15/201-250: Quebec-Telephone Opens WWW Server (Nigel Allen)
15/201-250: Re: Question - Rotary vs Tone Dialing (John Lundgren)
15/201-250: Re: Question About Calling Cards (Andrew Starte)
15/201-250: Question About Calling Cards (Thomas Feiner)
15/051-100: Question About CT2 / Cellular Service (Aries Hackerman)
15/201-250: Question About Hunting and Call Waiting (Kevin Prichard)
15/251-300: Question For Analog Mobile Guru (Glenn Shirley)
15/201-250: Question From Brussels About Telecom in Latin America (Aurora Ferlin)
15/251-300: Question on ATT Pub 41450 (Brian Gilmore)
15/001-050: Re: Question on Call-Back Operators (Eric Tholome)
15/051-100: Re: Question on Call-Back Operators (Eric Tholome)
15/051-100: Re: Question on Call-Back Operators (Georg Oehl)
15/001-050: Question on Call-Back Operators (John Hacking)
15/101-150: Question on ISDN (Stuart Brainerd)
15/201-250: Question on Level One Gateways (Dan Leifker)
15/101-150: Question on Setting up Internet Users Group (James E. Law)
15/251-300: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (Charles Buckley)
15/251-300: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (Mike Curtis)
15/251-300: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (S. Forrette)
15/251-300: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (S. Satchell)
15/251-300: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Questionnaire Reposting - Datacom Over Mobile Phones (Simon J. Wallace)
15/051-100: Questions About ADSL and HDSL (Olivier Andrieu)
15/101-150: Questions About Format of Printed Telephone Numbers (Jeff Wolfe)
15/101-150: Questions About Format of Printed Telephone Numbers (Rob Hall)
15/001-050: Questions About WAN Compression For Data Networks (Peter Granic)
15/251-300: Queueing Theory Book Wanted (Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen)
15/051-100: Radio Amateur Telecommunications Society WWW Page (Andrew Funk)
15/101-150: Radio Commentator Gets a Caller ID Callback (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Radio Modems For the European License-Free Bands? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Alan Boritz)
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Alan Boritz)
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Alan Sterger)
15/051-100: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Daniel Ritsma)
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Patton M. Turner)
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines (Ron Kritzman)
15/051-100: Re: Radio Station Transmission Lines ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Rate of Allocation / Assignment of Area Codes (NPAs) (Ram Chamarthy)
15/151-200: Rate Tables and NXX's for Bell Atlantic (NJ) ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Rates, Rates, Rates .... (Stephen Croce)
15/051-100: RBOC Aids Motorola's ISDN Push (Chris J. Cartwright)
15/201-250: RBOC IP legislation scaring local ISPs? (Bob Izenberg)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs? (Chris Garrigues)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Chris Gettings)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs? (Ed Ellers)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs? (Frank Atkinson)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Fred Goodwin)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Jack Decker)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs? (Jason T. Adams)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (John Higdon)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Thomas Peters)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Tim Gorman)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Tim Gorman)
15/201-250: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs? (Tim Gorman)
15/251-300: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Tim Gorman)
15/251-300: Re: RBOC's Long Distance - as Resellers? (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Reach Out and Defibrillate Someone (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Recent GSM Usage Statistics (John Scourias)
15/001-050: Recent Movie with Telecom Theme (Benjamin L. Combee)
15/151-200: Re: Recommendations For Good Primer on Telecom Technologies (D.F. Anderson)
15/151-200: Recommendations For Good Primer on Telecom Technologies (Jim Renzas)
15/151-200: Recommendations on Voice Mail Systems Wanted (Mark P. Braee)
15/101-150: Recommendations Wanted For Caller-ID Capable Modem (Tim Petlock)
15/151-200: Re: Recommendations Wanted on Voice Mail Systems (Paul Hanson)
15/051-100: Recommended Least-Cost Network Design Programs? (Jon L. Gauthier)
15/201-250: Recording Digital (Stephen Guthrie)
15/251-300: Recycling Telephone Poles in British Columbia (Nigel Allen)
15/201-250: Re-Engineering The Telephone Industry (Comm Week Intl via D. Shniad)
15/101-150: References Wanted on Benefits of Networking (Alice Weng)
15/151-200: Regulated Cash Cows (John Levine)
15/151-200: Re: Regulated Cash Cows (Lee Winson)
15/151-200: Regulation and The Resellers (Jerry A. Okoko)
15/151-200: Re: Regulation and The Resellers (John Levine)
15/201-250: Regulation of PA Cable and Carriers (Theodore F. Vaida)
15/151-200: Re: Reinvention Team Dials in on U.S. Federal Phone Improvements (Levenson)
15/101-150: Reinvention Team Dials in on U.S. Federal Phone Improvements (Nigel Allen)
15/101-150: Reliability Analysis Programs Wanted (Phil McMillan)
15/051-100: Reminder: Send in Those Biographical Sketches (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: Remodeling the FCC (David G. Cantor)
15/001-050: Remote Monitoring With Pagers (Cliff Scheller)
15/151-200: Rent Mobile Phones in San Jose? (Andrew Nielsen)
15/001-050: Reports on Internet Communication Links (Christopher Dyke)
15/101-150: Reprogramming a Cellular Phone (Wayne Linville)
15/251-300: Request for Async Simplex Mux (Peter A. Smith)
15/151-200: Request For Bandwidth/Apps Info For Research Report (Hank H. Lim)
15/101-150: Request For Information About SDH (Willy Gan)
15/201-250: Request for Information: Combat Theater Comm (Michael R. Brown)
15/151-200: Request For Information on ADSI Standard (Grant D. Cooper)
15/001-050: Request For Information on Local Rates (Erik Naggum)
15/051-100: Request for Video On Demand Information (Ulrich Seldeslachts)
15/201-250: Re: Request U.S. Carrier or Integrator Response re - VTC (Al Niven)
15/201-250: Request U.S. Carrier or Integrator Response re - VTC (Brian Caldwell)
15/101-150: Re: Requesting Information About SDH (Bill Brasuell)
15/101-150: Re: Requesting Information About SDH (Claes Gussing)
15/101-150: Re: Requesting Information About SDH (Hendrik Rood)
15/101-150: Re: Requesting Information About SDH (John DeHoog)
15/201-250: Resale of Telecommunications Service (Wei N. Deng)
15/201-250: Re: Resale of Telecommunications Services (Rick Dennis)
15/151-200: Research on Dual Mode Terminals (Joerg Kuehne)
15/101-150: Residential Pre-Pay Service (Keith Laaks)
15/001-050: Returning Blocked Local Calls to b e Discontinued in Canada (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: Returning Blocked Local Calls to be Discontinued (Robert Schwartz)
15/251-300: Review -- FCC Docket # 91-281: Caller ID ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Revised Exon Amendment: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Analysis (ACLU Information)
15/201-250: RFI - U.S. FAA Vocoder Testing (Rob Morgenstern)
15/151-200: RFP for Telephone Switch Maintenance (Paul Sharp)
15/101-150: Re: Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted (Matt Noah)
15/101-150: Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted (Sing Li)
15/201-250: Roaming in NYC (Tony Harminc)
15/001-050: Re: Roll Over/Hunt Group (Tim Gorman)
15/051-100: Rolm 6200/b CBX Information Wanted (Christopher L. Browne)
15/251-300: Rolm Upgrade From 9004 to Rolm 9751 (Geof Hawkeswood)
15/151-200: Router Connection via T1 (Frank M. Koerber)
15/251-300: Routers With Builtin Firewalls? (James McGovern)
15/151-200: Re: Routing Inbound FAX Using DID (David H. Close)
15/151-200: Routing Inbound FAX Using DID (Don Wegeng)
15/151-200: Re: Routing Inbound FAX Using DID (Steve Elias)
15/051-100: RS-422 - How Far at 1KHz? (Dave Dolomond)
15/051-100: Re: RS449 - Help Please! (Peter T. Overaas)
15/051-100: RS449 - Help Please! (Vadim P. Kikin)
15/151-200: Running Out of 800 Numbers ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Running Out of "800" Numbers (Martin Kealey)
15/201-250: Rural Internet via Coops (Dean Hughson)
15/201-250: Re: Rural Phone Companies (Bill Leidy)
15/201-250: Rural Phone Companies (Jack Mott)
15/201-250: Re: Rural Phone Companies (Lee Winson)
15/201-250: Re: Rural Phone Companies (Paul J. Lustgraaf)
15/251-300: Rural Telephone Coops Make a Difference (Dean Hughson)
15/101-150: SaskTel Videogame Service (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Satellite / DECNet Problems (Edward B. Toupin)
15/251-300: Satellite Channels to England, France and Canada (Emin R. Gabrielian)
15/101-150: Satellite Information Request (Eduardo Kaftanski)
15/101-150: Save Money by Proper Use of Tariffs (Leo Berz)
15/101-150: Re: Saying Hello in Other Languages - Summary (Gene Retske)
15/101-150: Re: Saying Hello in Other Languages - Summary (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Saying Hello in Other Languages (James F. Foerster)
15/251-300: SB/SG on Bantam Patch Panel (Peter A. Smith)
15/151-200: SC Internet Real Estate Guide (Brian Moura)
15/101-150: Re: Scam at UC Berkeley (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Re: Scam at UC Berkeley (Jeff Box)
15/051-100: Scam at UC Berkeley (John Sullivan)
15/001-050: Script Translation for TDD/TTY Use ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Searching For BISYNC Products (Pete Caccio)
15/151-200: Re: Second GSM Network in Belgium (Jurgen Lison)
15/151-200: Second GSM Network in Belgium ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Clarence Dold)
15/101-150: Security of Cordless Phones? (Jeffrey A. Porten)
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (John Lundgren)
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Mark R. Wilkins)
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Paul Robertson)
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Stephen Denny)
15/101-150: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Travis Russell)
15/001-050: Re: Seeking Canadian Telco WWW Addresses (David Devereaux-Weber)
15/001-050: Seeking Canadian Telco WWW Addresses (Helen Vanderheide)
15/101-150: Seeking GSM Contacts (Jack Hurst)
15/151-200: Seeking Inexpensive 800 Services (Clara Mass)
15/051-100: Seeking Telecom Library (Dermot Wall)
15/001-050: Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk (Andrew C. Green)
15/001-050: Re: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Seeking White Pages on CD or Disk (Scott Warbritton)
15/201-250: Self Service Fax Machines (Christopher Freitag)
15/201-250: Send-a-Call (Not Done Yet) (Mark Kelly)
15/201-250: Send-A-Call (was Annoying Feature on Payphones Here) (Jonathan D. Loo)
15/151-200: Serial Comm to Unix (Christos Patrinos)
15/101-150: Re: Serial Communications Controller for V.35 (Bud Couch)
15/101-150: Serial Communications Controller for V.35 ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Serial Communications Controller for V.35 (Steve Bunning)
15/051-100: Service Outage ND and MN (Kevin Bluml)
15/051-100: Service Quality (Robert Patrician)
15/151-200: Sesquuicentennial of Digital Communications? (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/151-200: Re: Sesquuicentennial of Digital Communications? (Jack Hamilton)
15/201-250: Setting up as an LD Reseller? (Michael K. Heney)
15/101-150: Shiva LanRover/E Problem (Richard Bradley)
15/151-200: Shortwave Broadcasts of NPR Programs (Mary J Leugers)
15/201-250: Siemens Rolm and Newbridge: Integrated WAN Solutions (Aleksandar Pavlovic)
15/101-150: Singapore's Strange Info-Police (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/101-150: SL-100 Administration (Jay Borden)
15/151-200: SLIP Hangs up Mac (Steve Klarer)
15/001-050: Small Business PBX/Fax Back Server Needed (Jon Zeeff)
15/001-050: Re: Small Business PBX/Fax Back Server Needed (Jon Zeeff)
15/001-050: Re: Small Business PBX/Fax Back Server Needed (Paul A. Lee)
15/101-150: Smoking is Very Glamorous (Robert S. Helfman)
15/201-250: SMR Frequencies (Manuel Maese)
15/101-150: SMS/800 Batch Tapes? (Clarence Dold)
15/001-050: Re: SNA Over Token Ring (James Dollar)
15/001-050: Re: SNA Over Token Ring (K. M. Peterson)
15/001-050: Re: SNA Over Token Ring (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: SNA Over Token Ring (Timothy S. Chaffee)
15/051-100: SNET/CT to Purchase NYNEX/RI, MA Properties (Doug Reuben)
15/151-200: Software Product Marketing Course in S5Cwan Francisco ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Software Request For HF Radio Modems (Gerasimos Michalitsis)
15/101-150: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net' (John Steele)
15/101-150: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the Net (Robert Levandowski)
15/101-150: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Proposed For the Net (Tom Ellis)
15/001-050: Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card (Rob Boudrie)
15/001-050: Re: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Some Questions About the LDDS Calling Card (Yeechang Lee)
15/001-050: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Daniel R. Oelke)
15/001-050: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Jim Burkit)
15/001-050: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Tom Engbersen)
15/051-100: SONET Telephony Engineer Needed ASAP ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Song: The Day the Bell System Died (Lauren Weinstein/Telecom Archives)
15/001-050: Source Code For Audio-Voice Modem Programming? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Source Code For Audio-Voice Modem Programming? (Russell Nelson)
15/101-150: Source Inc. Opens Telephony WWW Site (Todd Bruning)
15/101-150: Source Inc Web Page Correction (Todd Bruning)
15/151-200: Source of International Telecom Distributors (E.M. Sullivan)
15/151-200: Re: Source of International Telecom Distributors (Neil Peretz)
15/151-200: Sources For Telecom Law ([e-mail])
15/251-300: South American TE (Modem) Approvals ([e-mail])
15/051-100: South American Telecom News Wanted (Steve Samler)
15/201-250: Southeast Louisiana and Gulf Coast Flooding (Mark Cuccia)
15/051-100: Special Alert! Unreasonable Network Policing Proposed (Carlos Amezaga)
15/051-100: Speculations Regarding AT&T True Connections (John Shelton)
15/151-200: SPIE Conference Call For PCS Papers (James Madsen)
15/051-100: Spokane Service Outage (Ry Jones)
15/201-250: Sprint: All Else Being Equal (John Marquette)
15/001-050: Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Al Cohan)
15/001-050: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Javier Henderson)
15/001-050: Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Javier Henderson)
15/101-150: Sprint Fiber Cut; Any Information Available ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Sprint Fiber Cut; Any Information Available? (Kevin T. Smith)
15/051-100: Sprint For IntraLATA Calls in California (Javier Henderson)
15/051-100: Sprintnet Question (Berton Corson)
15/251-300: Re: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? (Gene Delancey)
15/251-300: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? (Ronald Reiner)
15/001-050: SS7 ISUP to SS7 TCAP Conversion (Fernando Vicuna)
15/151-200: SS7 References Wanted ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: SS7 References Wanted ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: SS7 References Wanted (David Newman)
15/151-200: Re: SS7 References Wanted (Ram Chamarthy)
15/151-200: Re: SS7 References Wanted (Travis Russell)
15/201-250: St. Maarten Phone Connection for Modem? (John Irza)
15/051-100: Re: Stand-alone Fax Box For PC (Kyle Cordes)
15/051-100: Re: Stand-Alone Fax Box For PC (Steve Cogorno)
15/051-100: Stand-Alone Fax Box for PC (Yongtao Chen)
15/001-050: Re: Standard 19 Inches Network Relay Rack (Paul A. Lee)
15/001-050: Standard Voice Recording/Sheila Andersen? ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Standards-Based Video MCU - VideoRouter (TM) (Chip Sharp)
15/001-050: Starting a Ratepayers Association (Aryeh M. Friedman)
15/151-200: Re: Statistics Wanted on Phone and Feature Use ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Statistics Wanted on Phone and Feature Use (Peter Capek)
15/201-250: Stats For Obtainable Bitrates For Data Transfer on PSTN Lines (Jan Nielsen)
15/151-200: STD Coding Changes in United Kingdom ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: STD Coding Changes in United Kingdom (Richard Cox)
15/051-100: Still Waiting For Caller ID Spec From Bellcore (Charles Copeland)
15/051-100: Re: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" (Reid Goldsborough)
15/251-300: Strange "Crosstalk" Event on the Phone Sunday Night (Robert Casey)
15/051-100: Strange Stuff (Stan Schwartz)
15/101-150: Studio Quality NTSC Digital Video Realtime Transmission (Jim Chen)
15/101-150: Study of Universal Service (or Lack Thereof) (Rutgers via Jerry Leichter)
15/251-300: Subject: Re: 10224 (fwd)
15/051-100: Sub-Lease 900 Number Possible? (Clint Scott)
15/201-250: Subscription Details Wanted For "Telephony" (Nirad Sharma)
15/051-100: Substitute for BellSouth's Simon (Bob Baxter)
15/201-250: Re: Suggestions For Two or Three Line PC Based Phone System (Gary Valmain)
15/201-250: Suggestions For Two or Three Line PC Based Phone System? (karlca@delphi)
15/151-200: Summary: Interface Computer Audio to Phone Line (Jeff C. Glover)
15/001-050: Summary: Looking For a CHILL Compiler (Andreas Junklewitz)
15/001-050: Summary: Telecom Texts (David P. Wiltzius)
15/101-150: Summit Roundtable (Summit '94)
15/251-300: Sunday's OTR on WTIX (Mark Cuccia)
15/251-300: Support for SNPP (RFC 1645) protocol
15/201-250: Survey: Long Term Telecommunication Needs For Software (Ted Davis)
15/051-100: Survey of IT-Consumption in USA (Morgan Widung)
15/051-100: SVNet Meeting February 15: Cellular Digital Packet Data (Paul Fronberg)
15/051-100: SW Bell Urged to Cut Phelps' Phone Lines (Capital-Journal via Kevyn Jacobs)
15/101-150: Re: Switch Architectures Literature ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Switch Architectures Literature (Jack Warner)
15/051-100: Switch Architectures Literature (Walter Zielinski)
15/001-050: Switch Features Information Wanted (Glenn Shirley)
15/201-250: Switched 56, and Switched 56 Frame (Sarah Sorenson)
15/101-150: Switched 56 CSU/DSU Vendor Information Wanted (Bruce Parks)
15/251-300: Switched DS3 (D.J. Jones)
15/101-150: Switched Network Planner Needed (Recruiter) (Media Management Resources)
15/251-300: Switchview and Meridian Admin Tool ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Syllabus WWW Online!!! ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Syncronous and Asyncronous Differences (Wayne Kosten)
15/251-300: Synergy Semiconductor Attacks Speed Barriers w/High Speed FIFOs (Gelphman)
15/101-150: Re: T1 -> Modems (Bill Grenoble)
15/151-200: Re: T1 -> Modems (Dale Dhillon)
15/101-150: Re: T1 -> Modems (Doug Fields)
15/101-150: Re: T1 -> Modems (John Lundgren)
15/151-200: Re: T1 -> Modems (Mike Stump)
15/151-200: Re: T1 -> Modems (Rich Greenberg)
15/101-150: T1 -> Modems ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: T1 -> Modems ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: T1 -> Modems (Steve Cogorno)
15/051-100: T1 and E1 Specs Wanted (Steve Rothkin)
15/251-300: T1 Data Transfer Rate (Nancy Hoft)
15/251-300: Re: T1 Data Transfer Rate ([e-mail])
15/101-150: T1 Interface For PC (Jeremy Sam Sewall)
15/151-200: T-1 Link (Ryan Khoo)
15/151-200: Re: T1 on a PCMCIA Card? (David A. Howard)
15/151-200: T1 on a PCMCIA card? (John Combs)
15/201-250: T1 Pricing Equation Wanted (Bill Barnard)
15/201-250: Re: T1 Pricing Equation Wanted (Steve)
15/201-250: Re: T1 Pricing Equation Wanted (Vince Muehe)
15/151-200: T1 Test Equipment Available (Michael Glaser)
15/101-150: T1 Test Equipment Wanted (E.M. Sullivan)
15/051-100: T1 vs. T3: What's the Difference (Alan Jackson)
15/051-100: Re: T1 vs. T3: What's the Difference? (John Dearing)
15/051-100: Re: T1 vs. T3: What's the Difference? (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: T1 vs. T3: What's the Difference? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: T1 vs. T3: What's the Difference? ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: T1->10BaseT: How? (Doug Fields)
15/101-150: Re: T1->10BaseT: How? (John Combs)
15/101-150: Re: T1->10BaseT: How? (John Dearing)
15/101-150: T1->10BaseT: How? ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: T1->10BaseT: How? (Mike Harpe)
15/251-300: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (Al Varney)
15/251-300: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (David C. Pratt)
15/201-250: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (Jim Beasley)
15/001-050: Re: T1BBS Gone? (Jim Burkitt)
15/001-050: T1BBS Gone? (Mark Fraser)
15/001-050: Re: T1BBS Gone? (Mark Fraser)
15/251-300: T1/FT1 Provider in LA Area (Philip Kim)
15/101-150: T1's, NewBridge Banks, and High End Modems (Mark Hittinger)
15/151-200: T3 Framing and Connection (Phillip Schuman)
15/151-200: Re: T3 Framing and Connection (Richard M. Kenshalo)
15/151-200: Re: T3 Framing and Connection ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: T3 Framing and Connection (Wally Ritchie)
15/101-150: Tables of Long Distance Rates (Joubert Berger)
15/201-250: Taking my Laptop to the UK (Charles Ogilvie)
15/201-250: Re: Taking my Laptop to the UK (John Nice)
15/151-200: Re: Taxing Your Telco Service (Bob Compiano)
15/101-150: Taxing Your Telco Service (Michael Johnson)
15/151-200: TCI Selects SAVANT Scheduling System (Tom Porter)
15/251-300: TCOM Assistant Professor (One Year, Ph.D.) (Bruce Klopfenstein)
15/151-200: Tech Information Wanted on Old Brick Cell Phone (Michael Umansky)
15/151-200: Re: Tech Information Wanted on Old Brick Cell Phone (Richard L. Barnaby)
15/051-100: Technical Help Needed With Pending Litigation (John Marinelli)
15/051-100: Re: Technical Help Needed With Pending Litigation (Mark Fraser)
15/051-100: Technology Preferences for PCS (Alex Cena)
15/101-150: Technopolitics: New Pre-Airdate PBS Transcript of Debate (Jeff Richards)
15/251-300: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/251-300: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Ian Gamble)
15/251-300: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Mike Sandman)
15/101-150: Re: Telco Signaling Requirements (Gene Delancey)
15/051-100: Telco Signaling Requirements (Richard Brehove)
15/201-250: Telcos, Film Scripts, Vertical Integration (Chris Roth)
15/251-300: Telebit and Sprint Team Up (Eileen Lin)
15/051-100: Telebit Introduces Two V.34 Modems (Eileen Lin)
15/051-100: Telebit Introduces Two V.34 Modems (Eileen Lin)
15/101-150: Telebit-InternetBlazer Press Release (Eileen Lin)
15/151-200: Telecom Analyst/Administrator Job Description (Robert Bleiler)
15/151-200: Telecom Archives Email Information Service (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Telecom Business Judgment (Jack Mott)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom Decency Act Passes Senate 84-16 (Joel Upchurch)
15/251-300: Telecom Decency Act Passes Senate 84-16 (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/201-250: Telecom Engineering Grad Programs (Steve Granata)
15/001-050: Telecom FAQ - Time to Update It (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Telecom FAQ Wanted (Andrew Harmelink)
15/251-300: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Kimmo Ketolainen)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Yves Blondeel)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Yves Blondeel)
15/001-050: Re: Telecom Group in Chicago (Maurice Givens)
15/101-150: Telecom Hardware Newsgroup (Wade Viland)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom History (Dave Levenson)
15/251-300: Telecom history (Greg Schumacher)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom History (James H. Haynes)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom History (Mark J. Cuccia)
15/251-300: Re: Telecom History (Robert B Muderick)
15/201-250: Telecom in China (Tom Dedecker)
15/101-150: Telecom in Vancouver? (Hien Quan)
15/251-300: Telecom Managers Listserver (Paul Cook)
15/001-050: Telecom Market Reports on Web (Joseph Flicek)
15/201-250: Telecom New Zealand and GB (Marianne Stevens)
15/251-300: Telecom News in the Netherlands From the Past Week (Alex van Es)
15/251-300: Telecom (NON)-Privacy at Ameritech (Lauren Weinstein)
15/251-300: Telecom Privacy at Americtech (Van Hefner)
15/151-200: Telecom Professional Organizations and Magazines (Brian Smith)
15/151-200: Re: Telecom Professional Organizations and Magazines (Mike Patterson)
15/151-200: Re: Telecom Professional Organizations (Jack Warner)
15/051-100: Telecom Sales Rep Firms Wanted (Daniel A. Ash)
15/001-050: Re: Telecom Texts (Mark Peacock)
15/201-250: Telecomics (Dave Leibold)
15/001-050: Telecomix (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Telecomm Industry in Japan (Edmund T. Baumgartner)
15/151-200: Telecommunication in China (Tom Dedecker)
15/251-300: Re: Telecommunication on Power Lines ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Re: Telecommunication on Power Lines (Bill Grenoble)
15/251-300: Re: Telecommunication on Power Lines (Eric Roellig)
15/251-300: Re: Telecommunication on Power Lines (Nigel Allen)
15/251-300: Telecommunication on Power Lines (Reddy Urimindi)
15/151-200: Telecommunications on Demand Reseller Package (Sharon Ziebert)
15/251-300: Telecoms Newsline - an E-zine About UK Telecoms (Peter Judge)
15/201-250: Tele-Go Description (Allan J. Langfield)
15/201-250: Re: Tele-Go Description (Andrew C. Green)
15/251-300: Telekom Cheating Local Internet Users (Dalibor Cerar)
15/151-200: Re: Telemarketers Ethics Statement (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/151-200: Telemarketers Ethics Statement (David K. Bryant)
15/151-200: Re: Telemarketers Ethics Statement (Nick Sayer)
15/251-300: Telematic Sculptur 4 ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Telephone Answering Gizmo Wanted (Donald McLachlan)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone 'Call Back' Services (Bert Kooi)
15/201-250: Telephone 'Call Back' Services (Steven Knopoff)
15/151-200: Re: Telephone Cost Research ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Telephone Cost Research (Rafael Rivera)
15/151-200: Telephone Equipment Survey (Dave Peters)
15/151-200: Telephone Line Conditioner (Jim Previti)
15/201-250: Re: Telephone Line Conditioner (Lars Poulsen)
15/101-150: Telephone Solicitations and the FCC (Stan Brown)
15/001-050: Re: Telephone Tariffs for 1995 California (John Covell)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Gary Feld)
15/201-250: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Harold Hallikainen)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone voice "Broadcast" Software? (Michael D. Sullivan)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Mike Sandman)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Peter Duthie )
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Robert Virzi)
15/251-300: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Steve Cogorno)
15/001-050: Telephone Vs. Cable TV as Data Carriers ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed (Christian van der Ree)
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed (Dale Wooden)
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed (Harold Buehl)
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed (Joe Sulmar)
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Re: Telephony Card/Software Needed ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Telephony Card/Software Needed (Paul Garfield)
15/151-200: Re: Telephony Demand Estimates - Any Clues? (Bick Truet)
15/151-200: Telephony Demand Estimates - Any Clues? (John Bachmann)
15/051-100: Teletel Micro: How to Win 402.36 FF Pro Connection Hour? (Jean B. Condat)
15/051-100: Teleworking Stories (Marc Schaefer)
15/201-250: Telling It Like It Was - Howard Cosell (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/251-300: Telnet to Dialout Modem? (Harold Hallikainen)
15/001-050: Telplus 1648 Phone System Peripherals, Phones (James Deibele)
15/101-150: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Anthony Spierings)
15/101-150: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Antoineta D. Peneva)
15/051-100: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Jeremy Grigg)
15/101-150: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Peter Brace)
15/051-100: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Sam Spens Clason)
15/151-200: Telwhere.zip U.S., Canada, PR Telephone Number Location Database (J Welch)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Bob Goudreau)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Bob Goudreau)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Brian Klippel)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Carl Moore)
15/051-100: Ten Digit Dialing (Evan Champion)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Evan Champion)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Finn Stafsnes)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Jill Arnson)
15/201-250: Ten Digit Dialing Not Onerous (Christopher Osburn)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Robert Lindh)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Scott Montague)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Stephen Denny)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Tad Cook)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Terrence McArdle)
15/051-100: Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Wes Leatherock)
15/101-150: Tender For Global ISDN Project (Marcel W.J. van.Ruijven)
15/051-100: Test Line Directory (Steve Coleman)
15/151-200: Testing Computer Telephony Applications (Tim Burchell)
15/101-150: Thailand's Internet Information Requested (Krairut Phanich)
15/251-300: Thanks For Your Feedback on Microsoft (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/151-200: That Time Again (Joseph Singer)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Anthony Campbell)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Bob Schwartz)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/151-200: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Lauren Weinstein)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Mark E. Daniel)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Michael Ward)
15/201-250: Re: The AT&T "Minimum Usage Charge" Rumor (Tom Horsley)
15/151-200: The Complete Answering Machine Voicemail Card ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: The Complete Answering Machine Voicemail Card (Ralph Landry)
15/051-100: The Cost of Technology (James Bellaire)
15/001-050: The Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is a 32 bit binary
15/051-100: The Four Minute Battle For 800-555 (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: The ITU in Gopherspace (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/251-300: The Latest On 800 Allocation (Jeff Buckingham)
15/151-200: Re: The MATHLINE Project (Bradley J. Bittorf)
15/151-200: Re: The MATHLINE Project (Bruce Wynn via Bradley J. Bittorf)
15/151-200: The MATHLINE Project (Kevin Jessup)
15/251-300: Re: The PBX Owner's Lament (Eric Hunt)
15/251-300: The PBX Owner's Lament (Kevin Fleming)
15/051-100: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Charles R. Azer)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Darryl Kipps)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Dave Levenson)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Hugh Pritchard)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Jeremy Schertzinger)
15/101-150: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: The Philosophy of CallerID (Malcolm Slaney)
15/201-250: The Quality of TELECOM Digest (James E. Bellaire)
15/251-300: The Trouble With Those Cable and Phone Companies (Judith Lemon)
15/101-150: Re: The Unintentional Date/Chat Line (Steven H. Lichter)
15/201-250: Re: The Way Sprint Does Business (Douglas Kaspar)
15/201-250: The Way Sprint Does Business (Lionel C. Ancelet)
15/201-250: Re: ThinkPad Modem in India (Martin Kealey)
15/201-250: Re: ThinkPad Modem in India (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/201-250: ThinkPad Modem in India (S. Arora)
15/151-200: Re: This Newsgroup Demo'ed on PBS's "Internet Show" (Bruce McGuffin)
15/101-150: Re: This Newsgroup Demo'ed on PBS's "Internet Show" (Chris Hiner)
15/101-150: This Newsgroup Demo'ed on PBS's "Internet Show" (Robert Casey)
15/051-100: TI "Voice Print" Cellular Anti-Fraud System (Jason Hillyard)
15/201-250: Time Warner/Internet Access (Adam H. Hersh)
15/051-100: Time-Outs Arising From Published Instructions (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: Tired of S.314 Hysteria (Brad Hicks)
15/101-150: Re: Tired of S.314 Hysteria (Tony Zuccarino)
15/001-050: TNPP Standard Wanted (Marty Lawlor)
15/051-100: Tonetalk / TTS (Erwin Lubbers)
15/201-250: Top Ten Excuses For Getting Your Own T-1 Connection (Peter M. Weiss)
15/151-200: Tower Sites in Poland (Jennings)
15/251-300: Re: "Transfer" to Voice Mail With POTS (Tad Cook)
15/201-250: Transmedia Calling Card: 1-800-DEAD-SILENCE (Andrew Kass)
15/101-150: Transport Training Advisory Group Wanted (George B. Ford)
15/251-300: Trillium Telephone Systems - TalkTo 616 (Renny Koshy)
15/251-300: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/251-300: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Steve Kass)
15/251-300: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Sven Dietrich)
15/251-300: Re: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Scot M. Desort)
15/251-300: Re: Troubles with NYNEX Voice Mail? (Stan Schwartz)
15/251-300: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Steve Samler)
15/201-250: TRT Consultant Needed in Atlanta (Howard Fore)
15/101-150: Re: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (Al Varney)
15/101-150: Re: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (Bob Goudreau)
15/101-150: Re: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (Carl Moore)
15/101-150: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (John Shelton)
15/151-200: Trying to Locate Recommendation E.123 (Christopher Wolf)
15/151-200: Re: Trying to Locate Recommendation E.123 (Christopher Wolf)
15/151-200: Re: Trying to Locate Recommendation E.123 (Peter M. Weiss)
15/151-200: Re: Trying to Locate Recommendation E.123 (Roy A. Mccrory)
15/151-200: Re: Trying to Locate Recommendation E.123 (Wally Ritchie)
15/251-300: TSPS Operator Boards (Lee Winson)
15/251-300: TSPS (was "How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942") (Paul Cook)
15/201-250: Tunneling TCP/IP Over TCP/IP? (Garry P. Adkins)
15/151-200: Re: Turkish Area Codes (Alp Uysal)
15/151-200: Turkish Area Codes (Michael Heissmeier)
15/101-150: Turnkey Telephone Based Classified System Required (Richard Burry)
15/101-150: Typical Rates for Campus Phone Systems (Anthony E. Siegman)
15/101-150: Re: Typical Rates for Campus Phone Systems (David G. Cantor)
15/101-150: Re: Typical Rates for Campus Phone Systems (John Lundgren)
15/201-250: UC Berkeley Short Course in Video Compression and Video Comm (H. Stern)
15/051-100: UC Berkeley Short Courses on Communication (Harvey Stern)
15/101-150: UC Berkeley Short Courses on SONET/ATM and Wireless Comm (Harvey Stern)
15/001-050: UC Berkely Short Courses on Broadband and Wireless Comm (H. Stern)
15/151-200: UCLA Short Course: "Fuzzy Logic, Chaos, and Neural Networks" (W. R. Goodin)
15/051-100: UCLA Short Course on Advanced Communication Systems Using DSP (W. Goodin)
15/051-100: UCLA Short Course on Fuzzy Logic, Chaos, Neural Networks (William Goodin)
15/201-250: UCLA Short Course on Multimedia Compression Principles (William R. Goodin)
15/051-100: UCLA Short Course on Telecommunications Networking (William Goodin)
15/201-250: UCLA Short Course on Transmission of Multimedia Information (W.R. Goodin)
15/251-300: UCLA Short Course "Optical Fiber Communications" (William R. Goodin)
15/251-300: UCLA Short Course: Wavelet Transform Applications (William Goodin)
15/001-050: U.K. Cellular Band? (Jabulani Dhliwayo)
15/101-150: Ukraine Telecom Company Looking For Foreign Investors (Nigel Allen)
15/151-200: Ultrasonic Fox and Hound (Gordon Mitchell)
15/051-100: Underwriters Lab (UL) Information Wanted (David Weissman)
15/051-100: Unit to "Speak" CLID (John and DonaLeigh Engstrom)
15/051-100: Re: Unit to "Speak" CLID (Mike Roche)
15/251-300: Unitel of New Jersey? (Mike Wengler)
15/101-150: Unitel Operators Connected (Dave Leibold)
15/251-300: Universal Freephone Update (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: Universal International Freephone Numbers (John Carl Brown)
15/251-300: Unknown 800 Number (Scott Bobo)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (A. Padgett Peterson)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Carl Moore)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Ed Ellers)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Ed Ellers)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Eric Florack)
15/201-250: Unusual RF Stories (John Dearing)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (John Nelson)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (John Woods)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (K.M. Peterson)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Martin McCormick)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Richard Jennings)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Samir Soliman)
15/251-300: Re: Unusual RF Stories (Scott D. Fybush)
15/201-250: Re: Unusual RF Stories ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Update on FCC ISDN "Tax" (Ed Goldgehn)
15/201-250: Update on ISDN (ISDN Mailing List via Monty Solomon)
15/001-050: Updated Earthquake Report - Friday Morning (Stephen Anderson/Ando Eiichi)
15/251-300: UPT Around the World (Sam Spens Clason)
15/001-050: Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone System (Wolf Paul)
15/001-050: Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone Systems (Christian Weisgerber)
15/001-050: Re: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone Systems (Harri Kinnunen)
15/001-050: Urgent Help Needed With European Phone Systems (Petar Nikic)
15/101-150: URLs for CATV in Europe (Ed Cox)
15/001-050: US <> Puerto Rico: Options? (James Dollar)
15/051-100: Re: US <> Purto Rico: Options? (Julio Frondeur)
15/051-100: U.S. 800 Subscribers and Freephone Issue (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/051-100: Re: U.S. 800 Subscribers and Freephone Issue (Linc Madison)
15/151-200: U.S. 800 Users Alert  (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/151-200: Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert (Colin Smale)
15/151-200: Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert (Judith Oppenheimer)
15/151-200: Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert (Stuart McRae)
15/251-300: US Area Code Changes - Test Numbers (Ben Heckscher)
15/001-050: US Contact: American Management System, Systemetic Inc. (Mr. Wah Chan)
15/201-250: Re: U.S. Federal Suggestion Box in Cyberspace (Bradley Ward Allen)
15/201-250: U.S. Federal Suggestion Box in Cyberspace (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/201-250: Re: U.S. Federal Suggestion Box in Cyberspace (Wally Ritchie)
15/201-250: US Leased Line Tariff Studies and Information? (Reinhard Seidel)
15/251-300: U.S. Postal Service Warns Against Telemarketing Fraud (Nigel Allen)
15/151-200: US Robotics and Xylogics (Graeme Lowry)
15/251-300: U.S. Schools and Libraries Ask For Affordable Telecom Access (Nigel Allen)
15/251-300: USA Payphone Survey; Help Please (John D. Smith)
15/151-200: USA Telecom Consultant Needed (David Crane)
15/201-250: Use of 1-900-555-1212 (Mark Cuccia)
15/201-250: Re: Use of CDPD For Redundancy in Cellular Networks (John Agosta)
15/201-250: Use of CDPD For Redundancy in Cellular Networks (Seth B. Rothenberg)
15/001-050: Used Phone Systems and Parts - Want to Buy (David M. Russell)
15/151-200: Useful Community Service (Jerry Leichter)
15/051-100: Using a Laptop Modem With ATT Public Phones (Thomas Hinders)
15/101-150: Using a Laptop Modem With ATT Public Phones (Thomas Hinders)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automa ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Brian Smith)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (David K. Leikam)
15/101-150: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Fritz Whittington)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Gary Breuckman)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Gerald Serviss)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Jacques Vidrine)
15/101-150: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (John Combs)
15/101-150: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (John J. Butz)
15/101-150: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Michael Berlant)
15/151-200: Re: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Patton M Turner)
15/101-150: Using Live Radio With Automated Attendant (Ward Larkin)
15/001-050: Using U.S. Modem in Israel (Jeremie Kass)
15/051-100: Re: Using U.S. Modem in Israel (Rich Galen)
15/051-100: Re: Using U.S. Modem in Israel (Supak Lailert)
15/251-300: Using USR Sportster in UK (Jeremie Kass)
15/101-150: US-MA-Boston Principal Technology Consultant, Recruiter (Beverly Kahn)
15/201-250: USR V34 Sportster RS232 Cable (Ouajid Younes)
15/251-300: USRobotics's FTP Site? Where? (Bradley Yi)
15/201-250: USWorst / ISDN (Bill Halverson)
15/151-200: Utilities Climb on the Telecom Bandwagon (Cybernautics Digest via J. Shaw)
15/101-150: v.35 BERT Test Sets (John Dearing)
15/101-150: Re: V.35 Interface (Edward Keating)
15/101-150: Re: V.35 Interface (John Combs)
15/101-150: V.35 Interface (Steve Bunning)
15/251-300: V5.2 Question (Masoud Loghmani)
15/101-150: Value ($) of Teltone TLS3 Telephone Line Simulator? (Jim Aust)
15/151-200: Value Added Network ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Value of Motorola Flip Phone (Microtac 950) (Brian Klaas)
15/001-050: Value-Added Services in the States and Elsewhere (Lo Kwan Poon Ken)
15/201-250: VBR Video Over an ATM-Network (Hugo Nordkamp)
15/251-300: Versit Initiative Issues Specs; Launches WWW Site (Monty Solomon)
15/051-100: Very High Speed Wireless Communication Wanted (Yoji Hasegawa)
15/201-250: Very Unhappy Customer Writes to MCI (Philip L. Dubois)
15/001-050: Vice President Al Gore to Speak on Telecom at Summit Jan. 9 (Nigel Allen)
15/201-250: Video Conferencing Help (Naresh Sabhnani)
15/051-100: Re: Video Dial Tone Information Wanted (Drew Smith)
15/051-100: Video Dial Tone Information Wanted ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Video Dialtone, HFC, HDSL, or ADSL (John Lundgren)
15/151-200: Re: Video Dialtone, HFC, HDSL, or ADSL (Matthew P. Downs)
15/151-200: Re: Video Dialtone, HFC, HDSL, or ADSL (Sam Churchill)
15/101-150: Video Dialtone, HFC, HDSL, or ADSL (Timothy Kreps)
15/001-050: Video Servers (Alwin Mulder)
15/001-050: Re: Video Servers (Wayne Huffman)
15/201-250: Video Teleconferencing - CLI Problems? (Vince Muehe)
15/201-250: Videoconferencing (Cindy Goovaerts)
15/251-300: Videoconferencing Experiences (Evan Rosen)
15/251-300: Re: Videoconferencing Experiences (J. Brad Hicks)
15/251-300: Re: Videoconferencing Experiences (Wilson Cheng)
15/001-050: Videoconferencing Seminar in Rochester, NY (David C. Weber)
15/201-250: Video-on-Demand (Herman Vandeven)
15/101-150: Views and Comments of the Future (Terrell L. Adams)
15/201-250: Virtual Amateur Radio on the NET (Arthur Chandler)
15/201-250: Re: Virtual Amateur Radio on the NET (Arthur Chandler)
15/201-250: Re: Virtual Amateur Radio on the NET ([e-mail])
15/151-200: VITAsat Gateway Licensed in South Africa (Nigel D. Allen)
15/251-300: VLSI Circuits For GSM Hand-Held Terminal (Riccardo Mariani)
15/051-100: VocalTec and Camelot (Steve Samler)
15/051-100: VocalTec Internet Telephone (Jeffrey Friedman)
15/201-250: Voice and Data on the Same Communication Channel? (Craig Bogli)
15/051-100: Voice Delay Standards Information Wanted (Alex Zacharov)
15/201-250: Voice Dial (was Re: Pac Bell Screwing the Handicapped)(Mark Cuccia)
15/001-050: Voice File Formats ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Voice File Formats (Les Reeves)
15/051-100: Re: Voice File Formats (Steve Rothkin)
15/151-200: Voice Mail Abuse in Election Campaign ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Voice Mail Prompts (Alexis Kasperavicius)
15/151-200: Voice Mail Research Project (Gary Smith)
15/201-250: Voice Mail SMDI Specs (Kevin Fleming)
15/101-150: Voice Mail/Office Premise Forwarding/Conference? (Sam Seidman)
15/051-100: Voice Over Frame Relay and ISDN (Dino Sims)
15/201-250: Re: Voice Pagers; Where Are They? (Bob Spargo)
15/201-250: Voice Pagers; Where Are They? ([e-mail])
15/251-300: Voice Recognition in Security Application ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Voice Response Unit Question (Christian van der Ree)
15/001-050: Voice Response Unit Question (Jim McCormack)
15/051-100: Re: Voice Response Unit Question (Joe Sulmar)
15/051-100: Voice Teleconferencing (TNTPKT)
15/051-100: Voice Traffic For ATM Switch (Arvinder Pal Singh Malhotra)
15/201-250: Re: Voice/Data Multiplexer for 64kb Leased Line? (Dan Matte)
15/201-250: Re: Voice/Data Multiplexer For 64kb Leased Line? (Hiro Daryanani)
15/201-250: Re: Voice/Data Multiplexer For 64kb Leased Line? (J. Giles)
15/201-250: Voice/Data Multiplexer for 64kb Leased Line? (Magnus Harlander)
15/201-250: Re: Voice/Data Multiplexer For 64kb Leased Line? (Wally Ritchie)
15/101-150: VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-On-Demand Systems in European Market (I. Masood)
15/151-200: Re: Voicemail System Wanted (D.F. Anderson)
15/101-150: Voicemail System Wanted ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: Voicemail System Wanted (Skot Magnum)
15/151-200: Re: VSAT Options (Frank Piepiorra)
15/151-200: VSAT Options (Padraig Ryan)
15/051-100: WAN Compression For Data Networks (Jim Williams)
15/051-100: WAN Employment Opportunities (Bobby Lowe)
15/051-100: Want Information on Wireless Short WAN Links (Eduardo Kaftanski)
15/201-250: Want Location of RS-232C Standard (Scott Ehrlich)
15/201-250: Want Phone Numbers of the PCS Narrowband License Winners (Steve Samler)
15/251-300: Want to Start Phone/CATV Installation Business. Any Advice? (Brent Young)
15/201-250: Wanted:  Quality Residential LD Program (Bill Egel)
15/101-150: Re: Wanted: Cellular Channel Measurements (Dr. R. Levine)
15/101-150: Wanted: Cellular Channel Measurements (Mark Douglas)
15/101-150: Wanted: Cellular Channel Measurements (Mark Douglas)
15/101-150: Wanted: Help Setting up Automated 900 Service (Michael Diehr)
15/001-050: Re: Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell (J Lundgren)
15/001-050: Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell Phone (M Chapman)
15/151-200: Wanted: Information About PACSNET (Sjaak Kaandorp)
15/101-150: Wanted: International Phone Directories ([e-mail])
15/151-200: Re: Wanted: International Phone Directories (Ray Normandeau)
15/251-300: Wanted: Low-Cost Multiplexers (Diamantis Papazoglou)
15/001-050: Wanted: NEC SMDR Software (Daniel Land)
15/251-300: Wanted: Research Students for Mobile Comms/Scattering (J.J.K. O'Ruanaidh)
15/101-150: Wanted: RS232-Controlled Dialer/Phone Patch (Jeff C. Glover)
15/101-150: Wanted: Software to link Caller-ID With ProPhone Database (Paul Cascio)
15/101-150: Wanted: Sources for Network Reliability Statistics (Glenn Russell)
15/251-300: Wanted: Telex Modem (Richard Clark)
15/201-250: Wanted to Buy: D/121-A Boards (Joan Summa)
15/001-050: Wanted to Buy: Tekalek 221-C  E-1 Test Set ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Wanted to Buy: Used PBX and Telephones (Ray Siegel)
15/101-150: Wanted: Used AT&T Business Telephone Systems (Alex Capo)
15/051-100: Wanted: Used Business Telephone Systems and T1 (David M. Russell)
15/151-200: Wanted: Used Business Telephone Systems (Integrity Telecommunications)
15/251-300: Wanted: USRobotics V.34 28,800 V.Everything Dual Standard Modem (Brad Yi)
15/001-050: Wanted: We Buy and SellL Used Telephone Systems and Parts (David Russell)
15/201-250: Warning About 500 Number Charges (Eric Wagner)
15/201-250: Warning Lights Available? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Washington Telecom News ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Washington UTC Postpones Switch to Area Code 360 (Glenn Blackmon)
15/001-050: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (David Leibold)
15/001-050: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Mark Brader)
15/001-050: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Mike Morris)
15/001-050: Re: Watching The Area Codes Split (Revised List) (Steve Grandi)
15/001-050: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Sean E. Williams)
15/001-050: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Tim Gorman)
15/101-150: Wavelet Software (Hemant Singh)
15/101-150: We Need a TDM; What Will Work For an Internet Provider? (Bruce M. Hahne)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (Adam Ashby)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (Bill Hensley)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (Eric Florack)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (James E. Bellaire)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (Ken Stox)
15/201-250: Re: We Will Find the People Who Did This (Steve McKinty)
15/201-250: We Will Find the People Who Did This (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/101-150: Weird "Prime Number" and Other Messages 800 Number (Douglas Reuben)
15/101-150: Re: Weird "Prime Number" and Other Messages 800 Number (Mark Brader)
15/101-150: Re: Weird "Prime Number" and Other Messages 800 Number (Moritz Farbstein)
15/101-150: Re: Weird "Prime Number" and Other Messages 800 Number (Stanley Ulbrych)
15/201-250: What are Secure and Insecure http Links? (Jan-Adriaan de Lijster)
15/101-150: What Are You Doing in the Falkland Islands? (Paul Robinson)
15/201-250: What Does F.A.T. Stand For? and PCS-A Winners (Steve Samler)
15/251-300: What Does Mike Harris Election in Ontario Mean For Telecom? (Nigel Allen)
15/051-100: What is a Channel Bank? (William Wood)
15/101-150: Re: What is a Digital PBX? (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/101-150: What is a Digital PBX? (Matt Noah)
15/101-150: Re: What is a Digital PBX? (Richard Parkinson)
15/101-150: Re: What is a Digital PBX? (Travis Russell)
15/051-100: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Al Varney)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Butch Lcroan)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Ed Goldgehn)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (James Carlson)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Joseph H Allen)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Matthew P. Downs)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line? (Wally Ritchie)
15/001-050: Re: What is a T1 Line (William Wood)
15/201-250: What is an R-Modem? (Bob Collins)
15/051-100: What is an STD Coupler? (Richard Palmer)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Bill Brasuell)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Brian Bebeau)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Greg Habstritt)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (John Brandte)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Mike Boyd)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Sharon Prey)
15/101-150: What is DMS-100? (Stanley Tahara)
15/101-150: Re: What is DMS-100? (Steve Bauer)
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (Al Varney)
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (Chip Sharp)
15/101-150: What is ESF and D4? ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (Dr. R. Levine)
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (Michael Jennings)
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (Mike Schomburg)
15/101-150: Re: What is ESF and D4? (William Wood)
15/151-200: What is Future of Fiber/Coax in the Home? ([e-mail])
15/251-300: What is: Infotron Supermux 632 (Scott A. McMullan)
15/151-200: Re: What is Loop Start? (Fran S. Menzel)
15/151-200: Re: What is Loop Start? (Jay Davis III)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (John Nagle)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Martin McCormick)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Matt Noah)
15/101-150: What is Loop Start? (Paul Garfield)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (R.J. Welsh)
15/151-200: Re: What is Loop Start? (Scot M. Desort)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Sharon Prey)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Tony Zuccarino)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Travis Russell)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (Wally Ritchie)
15/101-150: Re: What is Loop Start? (William Wood)
15/151-200: What is "Steller III"? (scooby@.ibm.net)
15/151-200: Re: What is TELEGO Service? (Anthony Campbell)
15/151-200: Re: What is TELEGO Service? (Linc Madison)
15/201-250: Re: What is TELEGO Service? (Scott Townley)
15/151-200: What is TELEGO Service? (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
15/201-250: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Eric Tholome)
15/251-300: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gareth J. Evans)
15/251-300: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gerald Serviss)
15/251-300: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Jamie Mason)
15/251-300: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Raymond Charles Jender)
15/251-300: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Tony Waddell)
15/151-200: What is the Status on Video Telephones? (Joe Konecny)
15/001-050: What Magazines do You Read? (Patrick Sukhu)
15/151-200: What Telecom Degrees Are Best Today? (Msgt. Paul Berens)
15/051-100: What to Look For in Choosing an LD Carrier? (Steve Chinatti)
15/151-200: What to Use to Connect Home Network Doing X? (Johannes Sayre)
15/251-300: What Would You Like to See on a WWW Site? (Paul Beit)
15/251-300: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (Byung Wan Suh)
15/251-300: Re: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (James Carlson)
15/201-250: Re: What's R2 Signalling on Switch? (Glenn Shirley)
15/201-250: Re: What's R2 Signalling on Switch? (Wally Ritchie)
15/201-250: What's R2 Signalling on Switch? (Yee-Lee Shyong)
15/051-100: What's the Current Status of LEOS? (Donald R. Newcomb)
15/201-250: What's Wrong With Telecom Books? (Tom Farley)
15/151-200: Re: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (Bruce McGuffin)
15/151-200: Re: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (Carl Moore)
15/151-200: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (Donald E. Kimberlin)
15/151-200: Re: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (Gary D. Shapiro)
15/151-200: Re: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (John J. Butz)
15/151-200: Re: When Handed a Lemon, Make Lemonade! (Walter Lee Davidson)
15/051-100: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Brent Laminack)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Fred R. Goldstein)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Jack Pestaner)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Jeff Box)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Lars Poulsen)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Mat Watkins)
15/051-100: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (pp000413@.interramp.com)
15/051-100: Where are the CTI Environments? (Scott Sanbeg)
15/001-050: Where Can I Buy Telephones ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Where Can I Find a Telecom Group in Chicago? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Where Does ISDN Fit In? (Daniel Ritsma)
15/001-050: Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? (John Dearing)
15/001-050: Re: Where Does ISDN Fit In? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Where is PicturePhone II Now? (David Gingold)
15/051-100: Re: Where is PicturePhone II Now? (Ed Ellers)
15/001-050: Re: Where is PicturePhone II Now? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Re: Where is PicturePhone II Now? (Wally Ritchie)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Complain About Unsolicited Fax Ad? (Mel Beckman)
15/151-200: Where to Complain About Unsolicited Fax Ad? (Nick Sayer)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Complain About Unsolicited Fax Ad? (Nick Sayer)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Complain About Unsolicited Fax Ad? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? (Alan Boritz)
15/051-100: Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? (Bill Garfield)
15/001-050: Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? ([e-mail])
15/001-050: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? (Philip Borenstein)
15/051-100: Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? (Wes Leatherock)
15/051-100: Re: Where to Find tpage? (John R. MacLeod)
15/051-100: Where to Find tpage? (Rob Etzel)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Get Area Code Map? (Charles Sauls)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Get Area Code Map? (Clifton T. Sharp)
15/151-200: Where to Get Area Code Map? (Dawn Adler)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Get Area Code Map? (Mark Fletcher)
15/151-200: Re: Where to Get Area Code Map? (Zachary Schrag)
15/001-050: Re: Where to Get Text of the ECPA? (John A. Thomas)
15/001-050: Where to Get Text of the ECPA? (Wilson Mohr)
15/051-100: Re: Where to Get Text of the ECPA? (Wilson Mohr)
15/051-100: WheRe: T1 Information/FAQ? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: WheRe: T1 Information/FAQ? (John Lundgren)
15/051-100: Which Countries Have Competition (For FAQ Update)? (Dave Leibold)
15/051-100: Re: Which Countries Have Competition (for FAQ Update)? (Eric Tholome)
15/151-200: White Pages on the Internet? (Karen Brady)
15/101-150: White Pages on the Internet (Karen M. Brady)
15/051-100: Re: Who Are the Telephone Pioneers of America? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Who Are the Telephone Pioneers of America? (John Skalko)
15/051-100: Who Are the Telephone Pioneers of America? (Jonathan Prince)
15/101-150: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (David Breneman)
15/051-100: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (Peter M. Weiss)
15/051-100: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (Thomas Grant Edwards)
15/101-150: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (Walter Turberville)
15/151-200: Who is SS7? (Bill Engel)
15/151-200: Re: Who is SS7? (Clifford Baldwin)
15/101-150: Who Makes T-Coder or Other 2 to 1 T1 mux? (David Friedman)
15/151-200: Who Owns Bahama Telephone Network? ([e-mail])
15/051-100: Wholesale Debit Card Providers (Bill Vanvliet)
15/101-150: Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? (John Levine)
15/101-150: Re: Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? (John Levine)
15/151-200: Re: Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? (Peter A. Morenus, Jr.)
15/151-200: Re: Who's the B Cell Carrier in Ithaca NY? (Robert Levandowski)
15/101-150: Why Does AT&T Immediatly Supervise on 0-500? (Doug Reuben)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Z-MODEM Work? (Antonio Sousa)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Z-MODEM Work? (Christian Weisgerber)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Zmodem Work? (Chuck A. Forsberg)
15/151-200: Why Doesn't Zmodem Work? (David Burns)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Z-MODEM Work? (John Rice)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Z-MODEM Work? (Jon Firor)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Z-MODEM Work? (Lorence Mlodzinski)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Zmodem Work? (Melvin Klassen)
15/151-200: Re: Why Doesn't Zmodem Work? (Robert Levandowski)
15/201-250: Why SNMP? or Why Not? (Suresh Kalkunte)
15/201-250: Re: Will a T1 Improve the Quality of our Modem Lines? (Jeff Box)
15/151-200: Will a T1 Improve the Quality of Our Modem Lines? (Ken Mayer)
15/201-250: Re: Will a T1 Improve the Quality of our Modem Lines? ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Re: Will a T1 Improve the Quality of our Modem Lines? (Wally Ritchie)
15/251-300: Will Cable Commpanies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Michael Wilshire)
15/251-300: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Clifton Sharp)
15/251-300: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Joel Upchurch)
15/251-300: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (John Higdon)
15/251-300: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Mike McKinney)
15/251-300: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Tom Horsley)
15/051-100: WilTel's New Telecom Atlas (Leslie Smith)
15/051-100: Windows TAPI/TSPI Sources Wanted (M. G. Petersen)
15/101-150: Winsock Problem (Greg Polimis)
15/051-100: Wireless and Mobile Computing Presentation (David Scott Lewis)
15/001-050: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Bob Goudreau)
15/051-100: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (David E.A. Wilson)
15/001-050: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (James M. Roden)
15/001-050: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (John Nagle)
15/001-050: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Linc Madison)
15/001-050: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Liron Lightwood)
15/001-050: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Phil Ritter)
15/151-200: Wireless, Extra Phone Outlets (Morten Haugen)
15/051-100: Wireless Lan FAQ For Campus Networks (Jim Williams)
15/101-150: Wireless LAN's (A.D. Brinkerink)
15/101-150: Wireless Modems (Mukesh Sharma)
15/151-200: Re: Wireless Modems? (now FreeWave Tech Modems) (John Foust)
15/051-100: Wireless Networks (Marie-Louise Kok)
15/101-150: Re: Wireless RF Manufacturers (Eric Nelson)
15/051-100: Wireless RF Manufacturers ([e-mail])
15/101-150: Wireless Telephone Seminar ([e-mail])
15/201-250: Wireless Telephone Seminar (Alexander Resources)
15/101-150: Wireless Telephone Seminar (Jerome Kaufman)
15/151-200: Wireless Telephone Systems Seminar (Alexander Resources)
15/251-300: Workshop on Digital Image/Video/Audio Coding (Michael Fuller)
15/201-250: World Cellular Report (Steve Geimann)
15/051-100: Worldwide Area Code Listing Available via ftp (Paul Robinson)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Aryeh M. Friedman)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Bruce Roberts)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Clarence Dold)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (John Lundgren)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Mark Nichols)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Olcay Cirit)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Rich Greenberg)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Stephen P. Sorkin)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Steven H. Lichter)
15/001-050: Re: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (Ted Hadley)
15/001-050: Would You Believe More Rain on the Way? (TELECOM Digest Editor)
15/251-300: Writing a Network Performance Application (Julia Jackson)
15/151-200: Re: X25 and TCP/IP (Ed Goldgehn)
15/151-200: Re: X25 and TCP/IP (James Knowles)
15/151-200: Re: X25 and TCP/IP (Lars Poulsen)
15/151-200: X25 and TCP/IP (Marios Scottis)
15/251-300: X.25 Equipment Help Wanted (Michael Vakulenko)
15/151-200: X.25 Level 2 Information Wanted (Popa Madalin)
15/101-150: X.25 over ISDN - Addressing (Azriel Heuman)
15/101-150: Re: X.25 Over ISDN - Addressing (Bob Stone)
15/151-200: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Again) (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Again) (Steve Cogorno)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices: Global Information Wanted (Andy Lochridge)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (John Combs)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Matthew P. Downs)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Michael Shields)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Sam Spens Clason)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Steve Cogorno)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Steve McKinty)
15/151-200: Re: X.25/ISDN Prices; Global Information Wanted (Tony Harminc)
15/151-200: Xylogics Annex 4000 Cabling (Bob Izenberg)
15/101-150: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/101-150: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Benjamin P. Carter)
15/151-200: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO. (Carl B. Page)
15/101-150: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Danny Burstein)
15/101-150: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Fred Goodwin)
15/101-150: Re: yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Gary Novosielski)
15/151-200: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Gary Novosielski)
15/101-150: Re: Yes, Yung'uns. CNID -is- Logged at Your Local CO (Linc Madison)
15/101-150: You Can't Dial City Hall? (Dave Leibold)
15/151-200: Your 500 Number and International Access (Serge Burjak)
15/151-200: Re: Your 500 Number and International Access (Tony Harminc)
15/001-050: Zombie Voice on COCOTS (Carl Moore)



Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa27718;
          19 Jul 95 17:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27538 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:46:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27530; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:46:34 -0500
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:46:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #310

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Jul 95 07:46:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 310

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    VITAsat Used in Ebola Crisis in Zaire (Nigel Allen)
    New York Workshop on Communications Decency Act (Shabbir J. Safdar)
    Zenith vs. Enterprise (Paul Robinson)
    Industry Groups Oppose Multiple ISDN Line Charges (Robert Deward)
    Turkish Switching Causing Trouble in Holland (Alex van Es)
    Deception by Telco Marketing Department (Daryl Frame)
    LEC to LEC DA Charges (Lou Jahn)
    Finland Dialing Changes (Toby Nixon)
    More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (TELECOM Digest Editor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 08:02:48 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: VITAsat Used in Ebola Crisis in Zaire


Here is a press release from Volunteers in Technical Assistance.
I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in
Maryland at [phone].  I do not work for or belong to VITA.

 VITAsat Used in Ebola Crisis in Zaire

 Contact: Joe Sedlak of Volunteers in Technical Assistance,
          703-276-1800

   ARLINGTON, Va., July 13 -- A VITAsat ground station used for normal
administrative communications by the Baptist Missionary Society in
Kinshasa was loaned to the American hospital at Vanga, Zaire for the
recent Ebola outbreak.

   Because of the crisis, the government of Zaire gave almost
immediate permission for the satellite ground station and waived all
fees.  VITAsat is a low earth orbiting satellite system Volunteers in
Technical Assistance (VITA) has designed for development and
humanitarian communications.

   Dr. Daniel E. Fountain, M.D., said "By means of this e-mail link we
were able to get extensive reports of the local situation to our
supporting bodies in the U.S. and also to the media.  We were able to
communicate our needs and get almost immediate replies.  This cut down
drastically on the time to get funds and supplies on their way to us.
This is in contrast to the usual turnaround time for mail of four to
six weeks."

   Fountain continued, "We are now receiving Promed updates on viral
epidemic diseases and control measures.  This is providing us with the
latest information and experience from all parts of the world. Not
only do our health colleagues crowd around the computer screen to
watch the movements of the satellite, but so do our church leaders and
also government officials.  All are impressed by the technology and
also by the fact that we are now linked in with a worldwide support
network that promises great benefits for the future of our work."

   Henry Norman, president of VITA, said that "We're very happy
that VITAsat is helpful in this crisis, but the most significant
fact is that the capability was already in place in this remote
area of Zaire when the crisis struck.  The low cost and simplicity
of use of VITAsat makes it possible for areas without other means
of communications or even electricity to have access to reliable
communications at all times and not just during a crisis."

   The e-mail was carried by the satellite to VITA's headquarters in
Arlington, Va., where it connected with VITA's Internet host (VITAnet)
for instant transmission to the proper address in the U.S.

   Fountain said, "Our satellite ground station and VITAnet connection
are crucial for carrying out emergency measures in our very isolated
situation in central Zaire.  Furthermore, this efficient communication
network will greatly improve the logistical support for our on-going
programs."

   Norman said, "Our VITAsat system will carry messages even faster
when the new satellite is launched.  VITA is installing special
gateways to Internet in strategic locations.  VITA has already
received special gateway licenses for South Africa and Norway.  The
new VITAsat satellite is scheduled for launch by the end of July,
1995."

forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by:

Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 23:46:08 -0400
From: Shabbir J. Safdar <[e-mail]>
Subject: New York Workshop on Communications Decency Act


    Campaign to stop the 1995 Communications Decency Act
              FREE NEW YORK WORKSHOP
        We encourage you to forward this to friends
         DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER July 22, 1995

WORKSHOP DETAILS

What:     A free workshop on current online censorship legislation and
          the viable alternatives.
When:     Saturday July 22nd, 1-4pm
Where:     ACLU offices at Times Sq (132 West 43rd St at 6th Ave)
Who:    Everyone (teachers, librarians, businesses, everyone!)
Agenda:
  Crash Course on the First Amendment and the New Censorship Legislation
  Questions and Answers About How the CDA Affects You and Your Business
  How to Lobby Your Representative
  Plans for the New York Lobby Day Against the CDA:  Wednesday, July 26th

WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND THE WORKSHOP

Are you interested in seeing our government become less intrusive, not
larger, and less involved in personal decisions about what you read?

Do you believe that Constitutionally-protected speech should not be
regulated by the FCC (or any other Federal agency)?

Do you believe that computer networks are a tremendously powerful tool
for giving many more people in our society a voice, bypassing traditional
forms of media?

If you find the above three questions compelling, you should be
concerned about the 1995 Communications Decency Act (CDA).  Having
already passed the Senate, the CDA is headed for the House and has
favorable odds of passing there as well if nothing is done.

The CDA was passed by the Senate 84-16.  It was voted on by many
legislators who not only never use a computer, but have never read
email, logged onto a BBS, read Usenet news, or seen a Web page.  They
were simply voting with their gut reaction, unaware that they were
disastrously affecting the future of American expression and the
most explosive industry seen in the last ten years.

It *doesn't* have to be that way.  We as New Yorkers can't expect our
elected officials to vote out of a vacuum.  We need to tell our
Representatives that online systems are a new medium, not the same as a
telephone, nor the same as television.  They need to understand that
the Internet and bulletin boards aren't simply Dial-A-Porn lines, or
adult cable channels.

However they won't come to these conclusions themselves; they need your
help.  Come to this free workshop and learn what you can do to help
ensure that online communication isn't restricted unreasonably.

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

American Civil Liberties Union, College Art Association, Creative
Coalition, Feminists for Free Expression, and the Voters
Telecommunications Watch

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information about the CDA Workshop on July 22nd, contact:

  Shabbir Safdar, Voters Telecomm Watch
      Email: [e-mail]
      [phone]
  Ann Beeson, American Civil Liberties Union
      Email: [e-mail]
      [phone] x788

For more information about the CDA, see:

Web Sites
        URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/

Gopher Archives:
        URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon

Email:
        [e-mail] (put "send cdafaq" in the subject line)

LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act.


American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Californians
Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology *
Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation
* Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Computer Communicators Association *
Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer
Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * Electronic Frontier Canada
* Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation -
Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston
* Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information
Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In *
Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising
Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off!
The Net * Human Rights Watch * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle
Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet
On-Ramp, Inc. * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action
Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project *
Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * National Bicycle Greenway *
National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition
Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National
Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast
RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way *
Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing
International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch

(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
 not EFF chapters or divisions.)

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 23:34:17 -0500
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Zenith vs. Enterprise


Dave O'Shea <[e-mail]>, writes:

> And on a related note, when did the "ENterprise" number toll-free
> syste get phased out? I recall seeing active listings as recently
> as a few years ago in the NY metro area.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Enterprise...I think most telcos
> quit making them ... in the early 1980's ... [prior subscribers]
> were grandfathered and can have them still today if desired.
> I think [if you drop] service or move, you lose Enterprise if
> you still have it.

> Padgett Peterson sent a note questioning 'Zenith'. He said he had
> never heard of those. My belief is that Zenith was the GTE version
> of Enterprise, which was mostly an AT&T thing. I said that once
> before and someone wrote to say they were served by AT&T in the old
> days and their toll-free number was Zenith ... so I don't know what
> the rule was, if indeed any existed.

It depends on where it was.  When I lived in the town of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin where I was born, a TV station in a small town nearby had a
number which was long distance, and it was probably in 1968 I noticed it,
and tried calling it, and was surprised to find out it didn't cost
anything to call it.  It was a Zenith number, and I think that was still
Wisconsin (Bell) Telephone on both ends.

Later, around 1980 or so, I lived in Long Beach, California which is
located in the south-east corner of Los Angeles County.  This city of
300,000+ people also had about 5 or 6 bus lines from Orange County Transit
terminating here, mostly at the largest drive in in the world on Ximeno
Blvd near the city's Traffic Circle, called the Circle Drive In, later
closed down to be replaced by an office building.

In that area, you had towns served by GTE and some by Pacific Telephone
(later Pacific Bell).  OCTD's direct dial number was 714-287-7433
(287-RIDE), and I don't know which company their line was with, I think it
was Pacbell.  So, as it happened, that is a long distance number from
GTE-serviced Long Beach, so OCTD had a number that matched theirs, Zenith
7-7433.  I think that it wasn't very popular until a couple of years after
I noticed it, because it was about that long before the local operator was
putting through calls without calling the routing operator for the
translated number.  Sometimes I'd get impatient and tell the operator what
the number was!

A while later OCTD got a foreign exchange line in some town near Long
Beach which was the most-distant local prefix from the Long Beach area
and vicinity, and dropped their Zenith number.

I can tell you why nobody would be buying Enterprise or Zenith now, the
charge for the service (I called the business office once to ask) was $6
per month per community you allowed the Zenith number to be called, plus
the regular operator assisted rate for the call.  (With my 800 numbers
costing me $5 a month plus usage, and the usage is under 30c a minute
mainly because I don't do enough volume to worry about the per-minute
rate), it's far less expensive than that system.

Some places still run them.  Throughout California, there still is an
alternate emergency number to 911.  Enterprise 12000, which is the
statewide number for the California Highway Patrol, or at least I have
been told it's still in operation.

> The operator used a flip chart to get the translation.
> She then dialed the (translated) number and did not ask the other
> end if they would accept a collect call. It was automatically
> assumed they would accept a collect call by virtue of
> their Enterprise code number.    PAT]

Correct.  An Enterprise / Zenith number is(was) the same thing as an 800
number or 500 number with pin code is now: a called-party-pays number,
only at the 'operator assisted' rate, of course.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Deward)
Subject: Industry Groups Oppose Multiple ISDN Line Charges
Date: 18 Jul 1995 16:29:07 GMT
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


An ad hoc multi-industry group is urging the FCC to adopt a policy on
subscriber line charges for integrated services digital network (ISDN)
that encourages the spread of the technology.

The group opposes the FCC's present policy of charging a separate
subscriber line charge for each ISDN channel, saying it deters broad
use of ISDN by making it unaffordable.

Making joint reply comments to the FCC in CC Docket 95-72 were the
Information Technology Industry Council, the United States Telephone
Association, the California ISDN Users Group, the Center for Democracy
and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, the Independent
Data Communications Manufacturers Association, the Information
Industry Association, the Information Technology Association of
America, the California Bankers Clearing House Association, the
Telecommunications Industry Association, and the U.S.  Chamber of
Commerce.

The ad hoc group told the FCC that rapid ISDN deployment will increase
network use and result in more overall minutes of network use.

Communications supporting reduced ISDN line charges can be e-mailed to
the FCC at [e-mail].

Free copies of the joint filing by the ad hoc group and its news
release can be ordered by e-mailing to [e-mail] and
[e-mail] respectively.  A filing on the SLC by the U.S.
Telephone Association can be had by e-mailing to [e-mail].  No
subject or message needed.


Bob Deward, Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F.  voice: 415-542-3196

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:41:18 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alex van Es)
Subject: Turkish Switching Causing Trouble in Holland


TURKISH SWITCHING CAUSING TROUBLE IN HOLLAND

Due to a error in the phone switching in Turkey, the Dutch police in
the town of Utrecht has been swamped with phonecalls from Turkey
during the past weekend.  Turkish people trying to call their friends
and relatives in Berlin (Germany) somehow got connected to Utrecht
(The Netherlands). Berlin and Utrecht have the same areacode, 030, but
the countrycode for Holland is 31, while Germany has 49.

It appears that numbers in Germany starting with 030-39XXXXXX lead to high
density area in Berlin, while 030-39XXXXXX is the exchange of the Utrecht
Police.

Luckily the problem has been resolved.


Alex van Es
[e-mail], Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Phone:[phone]   Pager:[phone] (CT-2 Greenpoint)

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:21:44 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Daryl Frame )
Subject: Deception by Telco Marketing Department


Here's a good one: My company recently received a pamphlet from the
local exchange carrier (PacBell) regarding intralata calls being made
via a Long Distance Carrier by way of access numbers.  We happen to be
doing that.  In the pamphlet they were trying to persuade customers to
avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous carriers who charge up to "six
times" the rate that Pac Bell charges when dialing direct.

That's OK, we simply threw the pamphlet away and went on dialing around
Pac Bell and saving money.

Yesterday, I received a phone call from Pac Bell.  Initially I was
told by Barbara that she was calling from the Customer Service
department.  After reviewing the contents of the pamphlet with me over
the phone, she asked "So can we count on you to stop using access
codes?"  I find this rather disturbing so I pressed her for more
information about the source of the call.  To make a long story short,
I found out that Barbara was calling from the Marketing department.
Doesn't this sound a bit underhanded to you?

Pac Bell knows who my LD carrier is.  They can compare my current
intralata calling to prior usage and they know it has gone down since
the introduction of IRD in January.  It seems to me that they
intentionally misrepresented the nature of the call to deceive.

I'd like to hear comments from those knowlegable in this area.  Is this
right?

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

Date: 18 Jul 95 17:37:47 EDT
From: Lou Jahn <[e-mail]>
Subject: LEC to LEC DA Charges


As local competition opens up, I have a question (actually lots of
Qs), but the one for today is:

   NJ Bell is asking our PUC to allow them to charge $0.35/DA Call
(after two free calls), thus I take it NJ Bell is stating "they can
cover their costs of service and make a profit on 35 cents per call".
I have alsways heard true DA costs are higher than that, but let's
assume they can. Now if NJ BEll provides a DA call when an IXC sends a
609-555-1212 call into a NJ DA center.

The IXC charges me $0.75 for that DA call. My LD rate per minute is
12.5 cents -- the DA Call takes about 25 seconds, but even so if I say
the IXC makes $0.125 and NJ Bell makes $0.35 cents -- who makes the
extra $0.275 for these calls? Can anyone share with me the true cost
arangements on a typical DA call into NPA-555-1212? (or even 411)?

I've heard ATT and MCI are paying their DA providers around $0.25 per
DA call, so they must be pocketing the extra monies for their DA calls
into NPA-555-1212 or their 800-Get-info and/or 900-555-1212.

You might want to try the latter two; I experienced very poor service
with long times on using them.

COMMENTS? FEEDBACK?

Can we expect this typical "overcharaging" when Local Competition
arrives?  Obviously the DA costs are far higher than what it cost a
TELCO to provide them -- love to hear some reasoning on the above
costs.


Lou


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Even though about a month ago Ameritech
sent out the new 1995 edition of their directory for Skokie and nearby
villages with a page devoted to directory assistance saying dial 411 and
that calls from payphones to DA 'are always free', I notice that for
about the past month or so calls from payphones to 411 *do not* complete.
We get an intercept saying to dial 555-1212 if local directory is desired
or AC-555-1212 if long distance directory is desired. This is *only* from
payphones. From other phones, calls to 411 still go through.

When dialing 555-1212 from a payphone -- the only way to reach directory
assistance, which MUST be used since Ameritech never bothers to put phone
directories at their payphones (gee, I wonder why?) we get a recorded
message saying 'please deposit thirty five cents for this call'. When I
called to ask why this change had occurred, especially since the new
phone book says calls to local DA from payphones is free, I got some
nonsensical answer from the service rep about how 'since we now have
competition, dialing only 411 -- and giving it for free from payphones --
gives our customers an unfair advantage so we had to stop doing it.'

Does that make as little sense to you as it does to me? We do not have
any real competition here to speak of (although I surely will be glad to
see it arrive, and will drop Ameritech in a minute when there is some
way to do so), and we certainly do not have competitors lining up to
provide 'genuine' payphone service (as opposed, for example to COCOT
style ripoffs).

But get this: whoever programmed this latest atrocity *got it wrong*.
If you do NOT deposit the thirty-five cents, but just stand there and
wait, after the recording repeats itself two or three times demanding
the money then it cuts through to DA anyway for free. And they are still
cutting in on payphone calls after two rings to announce that 'the party
you have called is not answering' with a spiel about using their store-
and-forward message service while the ringing continues in the background.
We have a large number of immigrant Jews here from Russia and elsewhere
in the Ukraine who speak only their own native language and very poor
English who get very confused by this. I am watching with interest as
'847' gets cut in here starting next year to see the confusion that will
cause. So having the payphones at the transportation center here (where
the bus station and train station are located) all demanding money for
directory assistance, advertising their store-and-foreward, and having
their 'coinbox full' sensors out of order most of the time creates a
lot of hassle. Yeah, it will be good to see some real alternatives to
Ameritech. The old, traditional Bell System they surely are not!   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 10:33:29 PDT
Subject: Finland Dialing Changes


It has been brought to my attention that the telecom administration in
Finland intends to change dialing procedures as of 12 October 1995.
Specifically, the long distance (intercity within the country) dialing
prefix will change from "9" to "0". Can anyone confirm this?
Interestingly, since the city code for Helsinki and environs is
currently "0", this would mean people outside Helsinki would dial "00"
instead of "90" to reach Helsinki.  This would be strange, because
"00" is the EC standard prefix for international calls, and would be
expected to be followed by a country code.  The international prefix
in Finland has been "990"; is there any plan to change that?  Is there
any plan to change the Helsinki city code from "0" to something else?

Thanks for any help from our friends in Finland.


Toby

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995  07:00:00 CDT


Readers will recall the comments here back in June about the 800 number
which connected with the sex service. I have a followup on that and a
request for assistance from readers in the New York City area.

It seems dialing that 800 number gets you a charge of anywhere between
$46 and $93 per minute on your phone bill. I dialed it and immediatly
hung up when I realized what it was. Calls to Integratel were useless.
Integratel claims the only way one can get charged by that particular
client is by dialing the 800 number, *giving your name and number to
the operator at that end, and getting a call back to which you respond
by accepting the collect charges*.  I told the Integratel rep that that
was absolutely false. Merely dialing the number, accidentally or however
immediatly causes it to connect into the women talking nasty, with a
five second -- at most! -- blurb after you have been on line a half minute
or so saying 'calls to this number cost thirty nine dollars per minute'.
There is no screening, no callback, nothing; just the commencement of
charges, and not even accurately stated charges at that.

Integratel refused to remove any of the charges, and instead said I
could write the client direct to ask for an adjustment. They refused to
give me any phone number to reach the scumbags direct. Well, that's okay,
I was able to track down a few things.

The company providing that service is Absolute Teleconferencing in New
York City. They are also listed as Absolute Telecom a couple of places.
They use what I suppose is a mail drop (have not confirmed this yet) at
the address 393 Fifth Avenue, Suite 702, NYC, NY 10016. I was able to
locate a phone at that address with two numbers terminating apparently
on the same line:  800-808-6332 and 212-683-6332. On both of those
numbers -- and I don't have to tell you which one to call -- you get
a message-less answering machine which answers with a few seconds of
blank tape followed by a beep and a chance to leave your message. You
never get a real, actual person there.

What I'd like someone in New York to do for me is this:

1. The New York Public Library Information Service claims they are no
longer allowed to read the Coles directory over the telephone; that it
violates their contract with Coles.  I would like to have the name and
phone number of the managing agents or owners of the 393 Fifth Avenue
Building.  If you have time, go by and check out Suite 702 at that
address; provide me with any names found on the door or in the building
directory, etc.

2. The New York Secretary of State's office in Albany also has gotten
a little cheap. They no longer give corporate record information over
the telephone for free; they want you to dial a 900 number for it. Perhaps
while checking the Coles directory for the above address, someone might
be so kind as to go by the Business/Technology Department at the library
and review the copy of 'Corporations Doing Business in New York State'
on file there. Check for corporations named 'Absolute Telecom' and
'Absolute Teleconferencing' in New York State. Also check those names
in the DBA (Doing Business As) records.  I would like the names and
addresses of the officers of the corporation. Naturally, the name and
address of the corporation's registered agent -- most likely an attorney --
will be useful also. The registered agent is the person upon whom legal
service is made when a suit is started.

3. It would also be a good idea to check the records of the PUC in New
York for 'Absolute Tel(xxx)' and see who they show as the principals
of this firm.

If any of you who dialed the 800 number given here last month also got
stuck with outrageous charges as a result, then you may want to try and
reach someone at the company to complain since complaining to Integratel
does absolutely no good where this particular client of theirs is concerned.
You may have some trouble getting someone to answer at 800-808-6332 but
perhaps after enough phone calls a live person will respond. Regardless
of whether (to date) I dial the 800 or the 212 version of their number
all I have gotten is that answering machine with no outgoing message on
it. But these pholks will regret the day they stiffed me out of $93,
believe me you ...

If you get charges on your phone bill from Absolute Teleconferencing as
a result of dialing that 800 number, you should also send registered
mail two places:  One, to the firm at the Fifth Avenue address shown
above (unless I can hopefully soon provide a better address) and two, to
your local telco. Demand that Absolute issue a credit for the amount in
question, and in your letter to telco you should state that payment is
refused on that portion of the bill. Also in your letter to telco you
might want to note that legal action against Absolute is pending along
with complaints to the state PUC in New York (and your state) and that
you believe it is in their (telco's) best interest to remove the charges
which appear on your bill rather than have to become involved in pending
litigation against Absolute Teleconferencing.

If you can reach a live person at 800-808-6332 (Absolute's 'corporate'
offices in New York, har har!) then by all means ... <grin> ... let them
know your opinion of their sleazy operation. Of coruse you may also want
to make certain you are on the negative database at Integratel as well.
You can reach them at 800-736-7500. Come to think of it, perhaps I should
get the names, home addresses and other details about the officers of
that company as well and print them here.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #310
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa28707;
          21 Jul 95 11:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26259 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 01:37:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26251; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 01:37:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 01:37:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #312

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Jul 95 01:37:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 312

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Final Program For IFIP IN '95, August, in Copenhagen (J|rgen N|rgaard)
    Transmitting Video (Seth B. Rothenberg)
    MCI Operator Services (Scot Desort)
    Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications (Eric Smith)
    'Special Area Codes' (was Re: 800/888) (Mark Cuccia)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (J|rgen N|rgaard)
Subject: Final Program For IFIP IN '95, August, in Copenhagen
Date: 19 Jul 1995 12:13:26 GMT
Organization: Tele Danmark Research, Denmark


Call for participation in the IFIP IN '95 Conference in Copenhagen
in August.

Attached: participation information and registration form


Kind Regards,

/jrgen nrgaard         |  e-mail: [e-mail]
Tele Danmark Research    |  Phone: [phone]
Lyngs Alle 2            |  Fax:   [phone]
DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark|URL: http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/

Also available on the World Wide Web as:
        http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/ifipin.html

     ---- participation information ----------------------------

       IFIP IN '95 Conference Program
      *******************************

IFIP International Working Conference on Intelligent Networks
=============================================================

Copenhagen August 28-31, 1995
==============================

The Center for Tele-Information at DTU (Technical University of
Denmark) and Tele Danmark Research are organising the International
Working Conference on Intelligent Networks in Copenhagen, August 30-31
1995. The conference is sponsored by IFIP-TC6 and will be hosted by
the Center for Tele-Information at DTU located in Lyngby just north of
Copenhagen. Associated pre-conference tutorials are organised by Tele
Danmark Research and Center for Tele-Information.

The coming of the Information Super Highway may dramatically change
our lives in the future.  On-line shopping and information search &
retrieval from the home or office at the click of a button and
publishing just as easily. Distance learning and distance working are
other possibilities just to mention a few. But common for all of these
visions is that they require powerful networks and powerful services
in order to meet the goals. The common denominator for the tutorials
and the conference is the technological means to pursue new, advanced
services.

This call for participation is also available on the WWW as
http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/ifipin.html. The original call for papers is
also available via this link.

Go directly top the Registration Form.

Tutorials program overview
==========================

In conjunction with the conference a series of tutorial session are
being organised on Monday 28th and Tuesday 29th of August. The purpose
of the tutorials will be to introduce a number of themes that are
related to IN, not to give very detailed knowledge about the
individual topics. Instead the selected topics will give an
understanding of developments in related but still diverse fields of
modern telecommunication. Components from all these fields must be
brought together in a tight integration in order to support
Information Super Highways, but without sacrificing the reliability of
today's telecommunication networks.

               Monday                  Tuesday

900-1030       Introduction to IN      IN and Mobility

1030-1100      Coffee & Tea            Coffee & Tea

1100-1230      B-ISDN and IN           OMG CORBA

1230-1330      Lunch                   Lunch

1330-1500      Advanced Concepts in    TINA Introduction
               an IN platform          & and the DPE

1500-1530      Coffee & Tea            Coffee & Tea

1530-1700      The P103 Service        TINA Service &
               Creation Environment    Connection Management
               Model                   Architecture

Evening                                Welcome reception



Monday

Introduction to IN
Olli Martikainen, Telecom Finland

A thorough introduction to the Intelligent Network and related
concepts. Forms the background for the rest of the presentations.

B-ISDN
Jrn Johansen and Jens Fischer, Tele Danmark Research

Presentation on B-ISDN, signalling and aspects of IN in B-ISDN.

Advanced Concepts in an IN platform
Jrgen Dyst, LM Ericsson Denmark

An IN platform based on ETSI INAP and implementing CS-1 and parts of
CS-2 will be presented.  This is an example of the use of open
standards in a commercial product.

The P103 Service Creation Environment Model
Carla Capellmann, Deutsche Telekom

A comprehensive and general model for a service creation environment
is described. The general model can be mapped onto any specific
environment and helps focus attention on tasks to be performed or
considered during service creation.

Tuesday

IN and Mobility
Terje Jensen, Telenor Research

Aspects of IN, UPT and wireless will be treated as well as a
discussion about functionality and implementation in the network.

OMG CORBA
Richard Soley, OMG

An introduction to object oriented distributed computing and the
Object Management Group Common Object Request Broker Architecture.
CORBA is a particular interest as it is the technological base for the
TINA Distributed Processing Environment (DPE).

TINA Introduction & and the DPE
Nicolas Mercouroff, TINA-C

Introduction of the TINA consortium and its purpose. The Computing
Architecture and the TINA Distributed Processing Environment, commonly
referred to as the TINA DPE.

The DPE is basis on which services will execute. Together the service
architecture, connection management and management systems describe
how to build for example services and management applications to run
on top of this DPE.

TINA-C Service & Connection Management Architecture
Mike Schenk, KPN, the Netherlands/TINA-C

For telecom operators, the core of the TINA work is probably the
service architecture that supports the construction of new services,
rapidly, efficiently and manageably.

In the TINA architecture, another central concepts is the connection
management. The concept and its model will be described in the
tutorial as well as the use within the service architecture and the
relation to the network.

Conference

The preliminary programme for the IFIP IN '95 Working Conference on
August 30-31 '95 in Copenhagen is as follows:


               Wednesday                    Thursday
900-1030       Welcome by Olli              Session: Feature
               Martikainen, Telecom         interaction
               Finland
               Opening by Ole Mrk
               Lauridsen, Tele Danmark

1030-1100      Coffee & Tea                 Coffee & Tea

1100-1230      Session: Market issues       Session: Performance

1230-1330      Lunch                        Lunch

1330-1500      Session: Service Creation    Session: Standards & IN

1500-1530      Coffee & Tea                 Coffee & Tea

1530-1700      Session: Database issues     Session: Multimedia
                                            services

Evening        Banquet



About the sessions:

Session: Market issues

Application of intelligent networks in banks
   Troels Schmidt Jensen, Institute of Telecommunication, Technical Univers-
   ity of Denmark,
   Lyngby, Denmark
On Intelligent Network Certification for Russian Market
   Manfred Schneps-Schneppe, R&D Center KOMSET, Moscow, Russia
On Market Issues
   William Melody, Center for Telecommunication, Technical University of
   Denmark,
   Lyngby, Denmark

Session: Service Creation

Formal Description of Service
   Yuzhang Liu, FangChun, Yang and JunLiang Chen Beijing University of Posts &
   Telecommunications, Beijing, China
User Control of a VideoConference: Comparing Solutions of Intelligent Network
to Multi-Agents
   Faouzi Daoud, Laboratoire PRiSM, Versailles, France
Open Service Node for Intelligent Networks
   Pasi Kemppainen and Olli Martikainen, Systems Software Partners,
   Lappeenranta, Finland
   and Telecom Finland, Helsinki, Finland

   Session: Database issues
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An Experimental Database Architecture for Intelligent Networks
   Kimmo Raatikainen, Juiha Taina and Mika Rautila, Department of Computer
   Science,
   University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Design Issues in Database Systems for Telecommunication Services
   Kimmo Raatikainen and Juiha Taina, Department of Computer Science,
   University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

   Session: Feature interaction

Formal Criteria for Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems
   Jan Bredereke, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
The Feature Interaction Problem in the IN: In search of a global solution
   Dominique Gaiti, Nadir Belarbi, Center for Telecommunications Research,
   Columbia
   University, New York, USA and University of Versailles, PRiSM Laboratory,
   Versailles, France

   Session: Performance

Reusable Simulation Models for Performance Analysis of Intelligent Networks
   Claes Wohlin, Lund University, Dept. of Communication Systems, Lund Insti-
   tute of Technology, Lund, Sweden
Methods to synchronize the IN SCPs overload protection mechanism
   Philip Ginzboorg, Nokia Research Center, Espoo, Finland
The Optimal Utilization of Multi-Service SCP
   Tang Haitao, Olli Simula, Department of Computer Science, University of
   Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Call Processing Architecture and Algorithms for Future Network
   Geonung Kim and Sunshin An, Department of Electronic Engineering, Korea
University, SEOUL, Korea

   Session: Standards & IN

ITU-T CS-1 in view of Service Creation: experiments and evaluations
   Sehyeong Cho, Chungjae Ihm, Junghoon Choi, Beijing University of Posts &
   Telecommunications, Beijing, China
on How Standardisation Works
   presenter to be confirmed

   Session: Multimedia services

The Multimedia Reference Model: A Framework Facilitating the Creation of
Multi-User, Multimedia Applications
   Stephan Abramowski, Karin Klabunde, Ursula Konrads, Karl Neunast and Hermann
   Tjabben, Philips Research Laboratories, Aachen, Germany
Call Processing Model for Multimedia Services
   O. Martikainen, V. Naoumov and K. Samouylov, Telecom Finland Ltd, Helsinki,
 Finland and Peoples Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
IN and B-ISDN Harmonisation
   Jrn Johansen and Jens Fischer, Switching Department, Tele Danmark Research/
   Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
A Generic Service Management Architecture for Multimedia Multipoint Commun-
ications
   Constant Gbaguidi, Simon Znaty and Jean-Pierre Hubaux, Telecommunications
Laboratory,
   Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Addresses

    o Center for Tele-Information, Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone],
      Technical University of Denmark, Elektrovej, Building 371, DK-2800
      Lyngby, Denmark,   URL: http://www.cti.dtu.dk/
    o Tele Danmark Research, Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone],
      Lyngs All 2, DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark, URL: http://www.tdr.dk/

   Registration Form

   Please fill in the registration form and fax it to Tele Danmark Research.

   Accommodation

   Reserved hotels

   Block reservation have been made at the following hotels, expiring
   by July 20th. Please fax
   arrival and departure date and indicate your choice of hotel (Palace or
   Sheraton) to:

   Annegrete Frandsen, Tele Danmark Research, Fax: [phone]

   The block reservation gives very attractive reductions and only a
   limited number of rooms.
   The reservation will expire by July 20th.

    o Palace Hotel, Rdhuspladsen 57, DK-Copenhagen V
      Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
      Price: DKK 620/night
    o Sheraton Hotel, Vestersgade 6, POB 337, DK-1601 Copenhagen V
      Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
      Price: DKK 600/night

   Both hotels are located in the center of Copenhagen.

   Account are settled directly with the hotels, not with Tele Danmark
   Research or Center for Tele-Information!

   Other hotels

   After the July 20th you may book at either one of the two above listed
   hotels or from the list
   below. Book directly by the hotels.

   Copenhagen center

   hotel-name, phone, fax

   Hotel Alexandra [phone], [phone]
   H.C.Andersens Boulevard 8
   DK-1553 KBH V
   (ask for a room not facing H.C.Andersens Boulevard if you are
   sensitive to noise)

   Altea Hotel Scala [phone], [phone]
   Colbjrnsensgade 13
   DK-1652 KBH V
   (behind the main railways station)

   Ascot Hotel [phone], [phone]
   Studiestrde 57
   DK-1554 KBH V
   (next to Alexandra, in small side street)

   Hotel Astoria [phone], [phone]
   Banegaardspladsen 4
   DK-1570 KBH V
   (Just next to the main railways station)

   Hotel Exelsior [phone], [phone]
   Colbjrnsensgade 4
   DK-1652 KBH V
   (behind the main railways station)

   Grand Hotel [phone], [phone]
   Vesterbrogade 9A
   DK-1620 KBH V
   (Just next to the main railways station)

   Imperial Hotel [phone], [phone]
   Vesterfarimagsgade 9
   DK-1606 KBH V
   (Close to the main railways station)

   Hotel Kong Arthur [phone], [phone]
   Nrre Sgade 11
   DK-1370 KBH K
   (Close to the "lakes" (serne). Close to Nrreport station)

   Lyngby

   (Near DTU)
   Hotel Erimitage [phone], [phone]
   Lyngby Storcenter 62
   DK-2800 Lyngby

   Jrgen Ngaard, [e-mail]

 ---- registration form ------------------------------------
       IFIP IN '95 Conference Registration Form
      *****************************************

Please return this form to:
Annegrete Frandsen, Tele Danmark Research, Fax: [phone]
no later than August 15th, 1995 and preferably before that.


Family Name:

Given Name(s):

Company:

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

e-mail:


Please fill in the following form as appropriate

Participation                  Price (DKK)
  Tutorial                           1500
  2 days

  Conference                         1500
  2 days
or
  Conference and tutorial            2500
  4 days

Total payable (DKK):





Welcome reception and banquet is included in the fee.

Payment by bank transfer to: Tele Danmark Research, Lyngs All 2, DK-2970
Hrsholm

Account details:
Unibank A/S
Usserd Branch
DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark
Registration number: 2269, Account number: 0112 106448
SWIFT code: unibdkkk

Remember to state "IFIP IN 95 - prj 205" and your name and address with the transfer.

Important! The payer must cover all fees, so the net amount received
is the total amount, based on the indicated figures!

If payment is done using Bank Cheque, remember to add additional DKK
100 to cover conversion fees for Tele Danmark Research


jrgen nrgaard         |  e-mail: [e-mail]
Tele Danmark Research    |  Phone: [phone]
Lyngs Alle 2            |  Fax:   [phone]
DK-2970 Hrsholm, Denmark|URL: http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/

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

From: [e-mail] (Seth B Rothenberg)
Subject: Transmitting Video
Date: 19 Jul 1995 12:32:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has recently begun to form
alliances with small regional hospitals in the tri-state (PA-OH-WVa)
region, and our department is anticipating a telecommunications
challenge.

We need to be able to transmit full-motion video for the purpose of
making medical diagnoses.  The example that was mentioned to me was five
minutes of video.  It does not need to be Real Time, but it must be
soon enough (eg, 30 min.).  The 'batch' transmission might be followed
by a videconference.

Two other factors were mentioned.  While the Medical Center is safely
in the heart RBOC country (Bell Atlantic), the remote locations are
not.  For example, one LXC is confirmed to NOT be offering ISDN.

Another concern is reluctance to build an expensive infrastructure.
Some of these locations may not remain in alliance with the medical
center on a permanant basis.  We don't want to lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars worth of equipment if the situation changes in a
few years.  (There are numerous locations, so all costs must be
multiplied.)  This is one reason we are considering small-dish
satellite links.  However, we know little about this.

There are a few ideas we have considered:
Satellite (in the lead), cellular (coverage questionable),
IXC-based ISDN (offered?), IXC-based Frame Relay?
IXC-T1 (expensive?).

We'd appreciate comments from anyone who has succeeded in
similar conditions.


Thanks,

Seth Rothenberg    Systems Programmer
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:46:25 -0400
From: Scot Desort <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Operator Services


A few months ago, I was looking for a number I had written down on a
scrap of paper on my desk. I came across 2 or 3, but wasn't sure which
one was right. I knew the town the party was in -- that's it. So, I
picked up the phone and dialed 00.

Oper: Bong. MCI Can I help you?

Me: Yes, can you give me a name-place on xxx-xxx?

Oper: Excuse me?

Me: Can you tell me in what city this number is located?

Oper: What is the number?

Me: xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Oper: Do you know what state it's in?

Me: No I don't.

Oper: Well what city is it near?

Me: Excuse me, I don't know -- that's what I'm trying to find out.

Oper: I don't have that information.

Me: Thank you anyway.


I hung up and dialed the three numbers until I got the right one. Oh
well. Today, I needed to find out where area code 909 was. Glutten for
punishment, I dial 00.

Bong: MCI

Me: operator can you tell me where area code 909 is?

Oper: What state is it in?

Me: Well, that's what I'm asking you. I don't know the state.

Oper: Our listings are only in order by state. (She begins to visually
scan the list).

Me (patience wearing thin): Nevermind, I'll call AT&T <click>

Me: 10288-00

Bong AT&T

Me:Operator can you tell me where area code 909 is?

Oper: If you have the next three digits I can tell you the city.

Me: No I don't, I just have 909.

Oper <clickety-click>: That's in California, sir.

Me: Thank you very much.

I *cannot* believe that with all the money and effort MCI has invested
in it's communication network, 1-800-COLLECT, and all these other
programs, that they can't implement a database for the operators to
use like AT&T. For something so trivial as the name of a state based
on a given area code.

Is Sprint or Wiltel or any of the other LD companies the same way? Is
a name-place database so impossible to maintain that only AT&T in it's
all-mighty power can do it? Having been an AT&T operator, had I been
presented the same question, and had my area code cards been missing
from my TSPS position, I would in the least have dialed the 909 inward
operator (maybe on another loop so the caller wouldn't hear) and asked
"What state is this?". In fact, back in those days, if the caller
wanted the actual city, we would have to call inward operators, since
TSPS could not display that information. Our cards only listed area
codes, numerically and by state.


Scot M. Desort    Garden State Micro, Inc.
[e-mail]   Fairfield, NJ
[phone]   [phone] FAX


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, how you would do it, as an Intelligent
Being, versus how it gets done in reality are two different things. I never
could understand the purpose of MCI operators; I really have no idea what
they are supposed to do with themselves all the time. They cannot call
inward, they have no database of where numbers are located, they have no
way of assisting customers who are unable to get through by dialing direct
(other than to attempt to dial direct themselves), and they have no idea
what the rates will be for any given call. Instead they tell you to call
customer service at some number where you get in a long holding queue
behind other callers. But hey ... if 00 on your phone defaults to MCI,
then you are getting what you deserve.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Smith)
Subject: Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications
Date: 20 Jul 1995 01:20:23 GMT
Organization: Telebit Corporation


If I wanted to make a product that connected to a channelized T1 and
appeared to the phone company to be a PBX, what specifications would I
need to meet for signalling, supervision, etc.?


Thanks!

Eric

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Special Area Codes' (was Re: 800/888)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 95 00:10:00 GMT


There already is a special area code in Canada, namely 600. The few
remaining TWX terminals in Canada (and those were never handled by
CNCP/Unitel telegraph, but ALWAYS the telcos of Telecom-Canada now
Stentor) within the 610 Special TWX Area Code were all cut over to 600
sometime in 1993. This opened up 610 for its assignment in
Pennsylvania, north of Philadelphia (215 split) in January 1994.

610 was being populated by special Data services (such as ISDN Data,
etc) back in the 1980's, while TWX was shrinking. According to a
notice in a recent ITU Operations Bulletin, the telex network country
code for Canada's Stentor-TWX has become free since Stentor (and its
member telcos) have discontinued TWX altogather. A few years back they
were not offering it to NEW or MOVING customers, but grandfathered it
in for existing customers. NOW it seems that TWX doesn't exist at ALL
in Canada.

600 is a code now used by CARRIERS in Canada for assignment to Data
services. The NXX codes are assigned to specific carriers, similar to
the way 900's NXX codes are, and the way 800 was BEFORE portability.
Dave Liebold's pages at www.io.org DO contain a 1994 edition of
600-NXX assignments to carriers, but this is NOT in the TD Archives!


MARK J. CUCCIA    PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:
WORK:      [e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954,TEL[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917,FAX[phone])
HOME:              CHestnut 1-2497
4710 Wright Road | fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail
New Orleans 28   | ([phone])  Louisiana (70128) USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll be glad to put it in the Telecom
Archives if Dave or someone else will send it along.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #312
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa28931;
          21 Jul 95 11:26 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25578 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:57:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25569; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:57:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:57:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #311

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Jul 95 00:57:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 311

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    UCLA Short Course: Wavelet Transform Applications (William R. Goodin)
    UCLA Short Course: Optical Fiber Communications (William R. Goodin)
    Kyl and Leahy to Introduce Anti-Hacker Bill (John Shaver)
    COOK Report Exclusive: AGIS to Acquire NET99 (via Gordon Jacobson)
    Book Review: "The Internet For Dummies Quick Reference" (Rob Slade)
    PacBell Video Dial Tone Order (FCC via S.J. Slavin)
    Book Review: "NetWare LANs Performance and Troubleshooting" (Rob Slade)
    Enterprise Management Summit '95 ([e-mail])

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Goodin)
Subject: UCLA Short Course: Wavelet Transform Applications
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 10:34:30
Organization: UCLA Extension


On September 11-15, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short
course, "Wavelet Transform Applications to Data, Signal, Image, and
Video Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.

The instructors are Dr. Harold Szu, Research Physicist, Washington, DC,
and Prof. John Villasenor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA.

The National Information Infrastructure (NII) has generated
substantial interest in the broad tele-informatics processing area in
which a new mathematical tool called the Wavelet Transform (WT) has
been developed based on human sensor wideband transient characteristics.
The wavelet transform has proved to be a powerful and efficient
mechanism whenever the noisy data, signal image, and/or video
processing functions are related to the quality of human sensory
perception.

This course builds the basics of both continuous and discrete WTs
(CWTs and DWTs) and demonstrates both techniques with various real
world signal restoration and pattern recognition applications.  Case
studies are then examined, including the FBI's decade-long fingerprint
compression program, the five-year NIST/ATP program in digital video
information infrastructure, the ARPA tele-medicine program, among
others.

The topics to be discussed include: Introduction to the Wavelet
Transform (WT); Applications-Driven Wavelet: Principles by
Dimensionality, Design by Functionality; Continuous and Discrete
Mathematics of WT and Comparisons, How to Design Mother Wavelets;
Neural Network Adaptive WT; Applications of Super-Mother Wavelets;
Advanced Medical Applications Using WT; Nonlinear Dynamics
Applications: Soliton WT Kernel; WT Implementation: Hardware and
Software Issues; Image Compression; 2D Wavelet Theory and Practice;
and Video Compression Applications.

The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials.

For more information and a complete course description, please contact
Marcus Hennessy at:
[phone]   [phone]  fax   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Goodin)
Subject: UCLA Short Course: Optical Fiber Communications
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:09:30
Organization: UCLA Extension


On September 26-29, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Optical Fiber Communications: Techniques and Applications", on the
UCLA campus in Los Angeles.

The instructors are Tran V. Muoi, PhD, President, Optical Communication
Products, Del Hanson, PhD, Principal Engineer, Hewlett-Packard, and
Richard E. Wagner, PhD, District Manager, Bellcore.

This course offers a review of optical fiber communications fundamentals,
then focuses on state-of-the-art technology and its applications in present
and future communication networks.

The course begins with the major building blocks of optical fiber
communications systems (fiber and passive components, sources and
transmitters, detectors and receivers).  Actual design examples of
fiber optic links for short-haul and long-haul applications are
studied, and recent technological advances in addressing problems due
to fiber loss and dispersion are presented.

The impact of fiber optic technology on communications is highlighted
in the latter half of the course.  Recent developments in local and
metropolitan area networks to support multimedia traffic (i.e., data,
voice, and video) and their evolving architectures and standards are
fully covered.  The treatment on telecommunications systems includes
various technological options for subscriber networks, exchange
networks, and the global undersea networks.  Network architectures
evolving from the traditional telephone and CATV networks are
contrasted.  Technology trends and directions for realizing the
so-called information superhighway are examined as well.  Finally,
optical networks using wavelength routing and multi-wavelength
cross-connects are presented.

The course fee is $1295, which includes extensive course materials.

For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:

[phone]    [phone]  fax   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 07:52:59 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kyl and Leahy to Introduce Anti-Hacker Bill


Forwarded to TELECOM Digest, FYI.

  From: [e-mail] at WOODY
  Date: 7/11/95 1:41PM
  To: John Shaver at E.M.E.T.F.
  *To: [e-mail] at WOODY
  Subject: Kyl and Leahy to Introduce Anti-Hacker Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   CONTACT:  Liz Hickey
Wednesday, June 21, 1995                          [phone]

          KYL AND LEAHY TO INTRODUCE ANTI-HACKER BILL


   (Washington, D.C.) -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) will introduce a bill next week that responds to the
rapidly increasing sophistication of computer crime by criminalizing
and toughening penalties for a host of computer security violations.

    The bill makes it a felony for a hacker to inflict reckless damage
on a computer system. It also makes it a felony for an authorized user
to inflict intentional damage on a computer system. And it criminalizes
cases where individuals threaten to crash a computer system unless
access and an account are granted.

   "Our national infrastructure, the information that bonds all
Americans, is not adequately protected," Kyl said. "This bill will
make criminals think twice before illegally gaining access to computer
files.

   "We have a national anti-stalking law to protect citizens from
harrassment, but it doesn't cover the equivalent of stalking on the
communications network. We should not treat these criminals differently
simply because they injure us in other ways."

   Reports demonstrate that computer crime is on the rise. The
Computer Emergency and Response Team (CERT) at Carnegie-Mellon
University found computer intrusions have increased from 132 in 1989
to 2,341 in 1994.

   A report commissioned last year by the Department of Defense and
the CIA states "[a]ttacks against information systems are becoming
more aggressive, not only seeking access to confidential information,
but also stealing and degrading service and destroying data."

   Current law punishes only those who trespass AND adversely affect
the use of a government computer. The bill treats viewing information,
even when no theft or damage occurs,  as a criminal offense. In this
situation, privacy and security have been breached.

    "The system administrator in these cases must spend time, money,
and resources to restore security," Kyl said. "We can no longer accept
trespassing into computers and viewing information as incidental just
because the information isn't stolen or damaged."

   The "Kyl/Leahy National Information Infrastructure Protection Act
of 1995"  adds a statute to allow prosecutors to fight interstate and
foreign transportation of stolen computer files.  And it ensures that
repeat computer crime offenders are subject to harsher penalties.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 05:15:20 -0400
From: Gordon Cook <[e-mail]> (via G. Jacobson <[e-mail]>)
Subject: COOK Report Exclusive: AGIS to Acquire NET99


In an interview this evening with Phil Lawlor AGIS, CEO we learned
that AGIS and NET99 have just announced the signing of a letter of
intent for AGIS to purchase a majority interest in NET99.

The letter of intent was signed on July 17 Lawlor said: We anticipate
consumation of the agreement by July 31.  The intent of AEGIS is to
provide financial and management support for NET99 to continue its
current market strategy of providing low cost unrestricted bandwidth
to downstream ISP resellers

AGIS runs (since April 1) a T-3 ATM backbone provided by WorldCom, the
transport service resulting from the merger of LDDS and WilTel.  The
AGIS backbone goes from the San Francisco PAC BELL NAP and CIX SMDS
cloud, to the Chicago NAP, to Detroit, to Washington DC (MAE East) and
to the Pennsauken NJ Sprint NAP.

Lawlor emphasized that the intent of his company's action was to
ensure that the combined AGIS-NET99 would be able to leverage NET99's
earlier role in ensuring the most affordable highest quality access
for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) - including a policy of no
settlements and no measured usage charging.

We said that we had been working on a story for our August COOK Report
about what we were calling the "Club of 6" at the top of the Internet
pyramid.  That we understood that ANS, Sprint, MCI, UUNET, PSI and
NET99 were in all the NAPs and in both MAEs where they were all
peering and providing transit to each other at no charge.  This meant
that NET99 had effective and predictable control over the costs of key
parts of its operation and could offer its downstream customers a
degree of protection from unpleasant surprises that the larger members
of the "Club of 6" might have in store.  We wondered whether part of
the intent of the purchase was to strengthen NET99's ability to
compete and remain a "club" member.  For if NET99 did so, the
possibility that the other Club members could take concerted action as
a cartel to impose measured usage charging or act in any similar way
to increase the cost of doing business for small ISPs would be
significantly lessened.

Phil agreed that this was absolutely the case and was a significant
advantage to be agained by AGIS in acquiring NET99.

When we asked him to elaborate on on the consequences of the
contemplated acuisition, he said that since they were buying a
majority stake in NET99, AGIS would have control of the resulting
company.  Phil anticipated that Joe Stroup would be staying on in a
major capacity and that NET99's technical management would not be
changed.

We asked Phil whether the exact percentage of the majority interest
and the size of the cash investment would be disclosed?  He said they
would not be.


Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher       Subscript.: Individ-ascii  $85
The COOK Report on Internet -> NREN        Non Profit.          $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618          Small Corp & Gov't   $200
[phone]                             Corporate            $350
Internet: [e-mail]              Corporate. Site Lic  $650
http://www.netaxs.com/~cook <- Subscription Info & COOK Report Index

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:30:38 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Internet for Dummies Quick Reference"


BKINDMQR.RVW   950516

"The Internet For Dummies Quick Reference", John Levine/Margaret Levine Young,
1994, 1-56884-168-X, U$8.95/C$11.95/UK#7.99
%A   John Levine [e-mail]
%A   Margaret Levine Young
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1994
%G   1-56884-168-X
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$8.95/C$11.95/UK#7.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   165
%S   ... for Dummies
%T   "The Internet For Dummies Quick Reference"

This is a quick reference, but not necessarily to the Internet,
itself.  The largest portion of the book is dedicated to Internet
tools and specific applications -- and, contrary to the cover blurb,
those are primarily the UNIX versions.

It is interesting to compare this book with "Zen and the Art of the
Internet" (cf. BKZENINT.RVW) which is of similar size and which *does*
provide general information about the Internet.  "The Internet for
Dummies Quick Reference" is much closer to Adam Gaffin's "Big Dummie's
Guide to the Internet" (printed as "Everybody's Guide to the
Internet", cf. BKEVBINT.RVW) -- again, very similar in size, but also
directed at the keystroke level of specific programs.

The chapters are divided logically, but sections within the chapters
can be wildly disorganized.  An introductory list of means to access
the archie program comes after three of them have already been
covered.  A discussion of search modes divides a list of servers from
the discussion of how to access the servers.  A blurb of the Usenet
archive at MIT suddenly pops up in the middle of the archie coverage.
Navigating the World Wide Web comes before you sign on to it.

There are some good bits of Internet info.  For example, the lists of
archie and ftpmail servers are quite useful.  If you are using the
standard UNIX tools, this reference does give you the basics in a
concise form.  (Do note that there are numerous typos in command
examples.)  As an overall guide to the Internet, however, this book
makes a lengthy sales pitch for something called "The Internet for
Dummies" (cf. BKINTDUM.RVW).

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINDMQR.RVW   950516. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book
reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]    | "A modern US Navy cruiser now requires
Institute for  [e-mail] |  26 tons of manuals.  This is enough
Research into  [e-mail]|  to affect the vessel's performance."
User           [e-mail]       |             "New Scientist" article
Security       Canada V7K 2G6      |              on the "paperless office"

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

From: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)
Subject: PacBell Video Dial Tone Order
Date: 20 Jul 1995 19:07:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)


                   COMMISSION AUTHORIZES PACIFIC BELL
                  VIDEO DIALTONE SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA

     The Commission has granted the Section 214 applications of
Pacific Bell to construct and operate common carrier video dialtone
systems in California, upon finding that a grant of these
applications, subject to certain conditions, will serve the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.

     Pacific has proposed to construct an integrated hybrid
fiber-coaxial system that will provide both telephone and video
services over the same transmission path.  These applications form
part of Pacific Bell's overall plans to deploy an advanced broadband
network that the company anticipates will reach more than 5 million
homes by the end of the decade.  The applications authorized today
will pass approximately 1.3 million homes and businesses in Orange
County, the southern San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles area, and
the San Diego area in California.  The Commission found that Pacific's
proposals will produce new investment in an advanced telecommunications
infrastructure, bring additional competition in the distribution of
video services, and give consumers in those areas additional choices
in video programming and interactive digital services.

     In the 1992 Video Dialtone Order, the Commission determined that,
through video dialtone, local telephone companies could participate in
the video marketplace consistent with the statutory telephone
company-cable television cross-ownership restrictions.  The Commission
defined video dialtone as the provision by a local telephone company
of a basic common carrier platform with sufficient capacity to serve
multiple video programmers on a nondiscriminatory basis.

     The Commission found that Pacific Bell's proposed platform,
consisting of 70 analog channels and between 150 and 300 digital
channels, would offer sufficient capacity to serve multiple
programmers.  The Commission stated that, in order to ensure there is
sufficient capacity, Pacific must report to the Chief of the Common
Carrier Bureau within 30 days of an anticipated capacity shortfall and
that Pacific may not permit any programmer to lease initially more
than 50 percent of the non-shared analog channels.  The Commission
declined, at the present time, to approve Pacific's proposal for
standard service channels (SSC), which will carry over-the-air
signals, and a SSC program administrator or its proposal for public,
educational and governmental (PEG) channels and a PEG administrator,
due to the pendency of the Commission's rulemaking addressing those
issues.

     Because the applications do not specifically propose that Pacific
or an affiliate directly provide video programming to subscribers, the
Order does not authorize Pacific or an affiliate to provide such
programming.

     After carefully examining the cost and revenue data submitted by
Pacific, the Commission concluded that the proffered economic
justification for the construction was reasonable, and that the new
facilities would serve the public convenience and necessity.  The
economic data submitted by Pacific showed that it would recover
dedicated video dialtone costs and make a significant contribution to
the common costs of the dual-use telephony-video dialtone systems.

     To protect telephone ratepayers, video programmers, and
subscribers, the Commission imposed a number of conditions on
Pacific's authorization.  Among other things, the Commission required
that Pacific: create two sets of subsidiary accounting records to
capture dedicated video dialtone costs and common costs; file
summaries of these records with the Commission; and file all revisions
to its Cost Allocation Manuals (CAM) within 30 days after release of
this Order and at least sixty days before providing non-regulated
products or services related to video dialtone.

     Action by the Commission July 18, 1995, by Order and
Authorization (FCC 95-302).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello,
Ness, and Chong, with Commissioner Barrett concurring in the result
and issuing a separate statement.

                                   -FCC-

News media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at [phone].
Common Carrier Bureau contact: Donald Stockdale at (202) 418-
1589.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:42:34 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "NetWare LANs Performance and Troubleshooting"


BKNTWLPT.RVW   950516

"NetWare LANs Performance and Troubleshooting", Theakston, 1995, 0-201-63175-X,
U$34.38
%A   Ian Theakston
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1995
%G   0-201-63175-X
%I   Addison-Wesley
%O   U$34.38 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: [phone]
%P   381
%T   "NetWare LANs Performance and Troubleshooting"

Local area networks (LANs) are a complex amalgam of computer hardware,
operating system software, network operating system software,
interface adapters and cables.  Performance and operation can be
affected by any part in the system, or any combination of parts, and a
great deal of information may be necessary to address performance
problems.  User/managers of small LANs, on the other hand, are
primarily interested in a quick, "Check this, then check that," type
of guide.

Theakston has provided both.  The first eighteen chapters give a
conceptual, as well as detailed, background to LANs and the common
technologies.  There are chapters on monitoring, Ethernet, token ring
network protocols, network operating systems, NetWare (various
versions), the use of Windows, printing, backup, and workstation
performance.  The remaining chapters outline troubleshooting
techniques and structures, as well as details of monitoring and
testing different parts of the net.  If even this isn't simple enough,
the appendices provide excellent "first aid" level problem resolution
guides.

The writing is clear and the material thorough.  There is enough
content in the book to be a valuable reference for a large computer
support department with thousands of nodes, but the small business
owner with a dozen workstations can understand and benefit from it.
And it'll more than pay for itself the first time you *don't* have to
call "Joe's System Integrators" for a hundred-dollar "consultation".

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKNTWLPT.RVW   950516. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book
reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters
Editor and/or reviewer [e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

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

From: [e-mail] (Summit '94)
Subject: Enterprise Management Summit '95
Date: 20 Jul 1995 01:05:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Enterprise Management Summit '95 will be held this October 23-27 at the
Dallas InfoMart. The theme this year is 'Managing Technology to Meet
Business Needs'. Major areas covered this year include asset
management, software distribution, help desk, applications management,
and proactive management. There will be 57 tutorials and technical
sessions, and 50+ exhibitors. The 1995 Summit Shoot-Out (sponsored by
Communications Week) will feature Bull, Cabletron, DEC, HP, IBM, Intel,
LEGENT, and SunSoft competing head-to-head to show the most effective
enterprise management solution.

The Summit Solution Centers will feature integrated solutions for Help
Desk and Proactive Network Management. Special events include The Wall
Street Journal's 'Measuring Your Marketability', the Summit Excellence
Awards (sponsored by Information Week), and a special panel
of CIOs presenting 'What Vendors Don't Tell You'. Don Haile (IBM) will
deliver the first keynote (Oct. 23) titled 'Managing Information In
The Next Millennium'. Jonathan Roberts (Microsoft) will speak on
'Microsoft's Back Office Strategy' on Oct. 24.

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

Conference discounts and free exhibit passes are available through our
Systems Integrator sponsors (Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Ernst & Young,
SSDS, and LAN Systems). For more information (and phone numbers for
conference discounts), visit the Summit Web site at
http://www.summit.micromuse.com, or contact the Summit. Phone:
800-340-2111, 415-512-0801. Email: [e-mail].

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #311
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29298;
          21 Jul 95 11:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26812 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 02:18:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26804; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 02:18:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 02:18:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #313

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Jul 95 02:18:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 313

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Petition to Immediately Implement 888 NPA (888 Area Code) (Paul Robinson)
    Loran-C Future (Keith Ouellette)
    NPA/NXX Web Search Page (Greg 'Arg' Argendeli)
    Device to Reset Modems (Greg Tompkins)
    Bell Atlantic Tests Cellular Fraud Software (Monty Solomon)
    'Interesting' Service Providers in the US? (Ben Lippolt)
    Zenith, Enterprise, and WX Numbers (Mark Cuccia)
    Enterprise/Zenith Numbers (Lisa Hancock)
    The Bell's Are Taking Over (Jeff Buckingham)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 01:44:11 GMT
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Petition to Immediately Implement 888 NPA (888 Area Code)


I faxed a formal petition to the FCC yesterday and I will mail them the
same text by U.S. Mail today.  Comments can be sent to me, or
criticism, but it probably should also follow the letter to the FCC
addresses shown.  That letter appears in the message after this one.

Maybe I'm naieve, but:

   1. NXX area codes had to be made dialable by last year.

   2. People only do things quickly when there's a crisis and it HAS
      to be done.

   3. The 800 number routing system is already operational, how
      difficult would it be to change the software just enough to change
      all references from '800' to 888, and run it either in parallel on
      the same computers or run it in tandem on separate ones, and have
      the routing system use that for 888 instead of 800;.

   4. The shortage of toll-free numbers should never have been allowed to
      happen, the system should have been implemented LONG before the
      runout was expected to occur, and I mean two or three YEARS, not
      months.

   5. Anything that is valuable that is inexpensive is going to get
      purchased.

   6. This was known to be needed months ago, it would have been more
      appropriate to have it implemented, tested, and up and running AS
      SOON AS POSSIBLE, not at the 11th hour.

   7. Those who say this was unpredictable need only to have checked on
      the number of 800 numbers being assiged, say when the system went
      from "number owned by carrier according to prefix" to "number owned
      by customer and fully portable," and do a time-series expansion to
      see when there would be 7 million numbers used, and work from that
      to start implementing a second (or third!) number series.

   8. Doing a time-series is trivial.  In June, 1992, I faxed a memo to
      every media outlet in Washington, DC, saying that by the end of the
      year, based on the trends then, there would be 492 people killed in
      DC by murder that year.  On January 1, 1993, the actual number of
      people killed was 494.  To be right to within 1/2 of 1% six months
      in advance tells me that either I'm superbright, or that nobody is
      using the sponge between their ears for much except as a hatrack, if
      they even wear hats much these days.

It just seems like someone's been asleep at the switch.

Here is a copy of the petition:


I.  Before the Federal Communications Commission           13 July 1995
    Petition for Immediate Rulemaking   ------------------------------
    Title: In the matter of NPA 800     FOR
           and NPA 888                  FCC
                                        USE
    NEW PETITION
                                        RM
                                        ------------------------------
    Petitioner:   Tansin A. Darcos & Company
                  8604 Second Ave #104
                  Silver Spring MD 20910
                  Facsimile:  [phone]
                  Telephone:  +1 800-TDARCOS
                  E-Mail:     [e-mail]
                  X.400:      C=US; S=DARCOS; ADMD=MCIMAIL,
                              DDA.UN=5066432

    Submitted By:  Paul Robinson

    Addressed To:  Federal Communications Commission
                   Office of the Secretary of the Commission
                   1919 M St NW #222 - Mail Stop 1170
                   Washington DC 20554

                   Federal Communications Commission
                   Common Carrier Bureau
                   1919 M St NW #500 - Mail Stop 1600
                   Washington DC 20554
                   Facsimile: [phone]


    Comes now the petitioner Tansin A. Darcos & Company, who
    respectfully submits the following before the Commission.


II. Reasons which would require the Commission to act upon
    this petition:

    -  The Commission has ordered that number allocation be
       restricted due to immediate critical shortage of numbers
       available for use in the 800 NPA ("Area Code 800").
    -  The restriction limits carriers issuing Area Code 800
       numbers ("Resp-Orgs") to 250 per week, which usually
       means resp-orgs must limit customers by lottery.
    -  This restriction in addition to others limits the
       availablilty by customers of access to Area Code 800
       numbers.
    -  A new NPA 888 ("Area Code 888") has been proposed for use
       in addition to Area Code 800 for use for called-party charged
       ("Toll Free") calls, in the same manner as Area Code 800.


                          Page 1 of 4

In the matter of NPA 800 and NPA 888       |
          June 13, 1995                    |
     Tansin A. Darcos & Company         RM |


    -  Area Code 888 will not be implemented at all during this year.
    -  This constitutes an inconvenience to customers such as applicant
       and others who now cannot obtain 800 numbers.
    -  This constitutes a clear and present danger to the public
       interest by threatening the continued survival of smaller
       resp-orgs who now cannot obtain new numbers to sell to (new and
       existing) customers, and represents an unnecessary and
       unreasonable burden upon them to continue to remain operating
       their businesses.
    -  All local exchange companies are already required to provide
       access to NPAs ("area codes") where the center digit is 2
       through 9.
    -  This change is absolutely required to be done to preserve the
       current Public Switched Telephone Network's viability.
       Therefore, the work must be done anyway and is not an
       unnecessary burden upon local carriers.

III.   Reasons why this should not cause a burden upon local
       exchange carriers or resp-orgs:

     - Local Exchange Carriers must already implement NXX style
       area codes.
     - This area code 888 will need to be implemented anyway.
     - Issuing an order will not impose an unecessary burden,
       excessive costs or unusual hardship.
     - Using an assist routing via an area code 800 number that is
       used to route calls into area code 888 will help those
       telephone companies that have difficulty implementing the
       new format area codes on an immediate basis.
     - Issuing such an order will not constitute a significant
       change to the environment or otherwise require an
       environmental impact report.

IV.    The petitioner respectfully prays for, and requests of the
       commission that it grant the following relief:

   1.  That the commission issue an immediate order advancing the
       date that the 888 area code be accessible by customers, and
       available for assignment by resporgs from 1996 to as soon as
       possible, preferrably before the end of July.

   2.  That the implementation be started as soon as possible, but
       no later than August 1.


                          Page 2 of 4

In the matter of NPA 800 and NPA 888       |
          June 13, 1995                    |
     Tansin A. Darcos & Company         RM |


   3.  That each local exchange company be required to report, once
       per business day, to the commission, on the status of
       implementing access to the area code 888.

   4.  To alleviate the hardship that might occur where such
       implementation on an immediate basis is not practical,
       such as for small local exchange companies, an interim "fix"
       be created with all resp-orgs cooperating to implement said
       fix.  Possible suggestions proposed by the petitioner are
       as follows:

       (a) That to assist in the temporary implementation of the
           new Area Code 888, that some form of either national
           number in Area Code 800, or some local number not
           charged such as the carrier access exchange 950-xxxx,
           be created to allow customers to dial into a number
           to route calls into Area Code 888, for the next few
           months in which it will either return some dial tone
           and/or voice prompt permitting the caller to connect
           to an Area Code 888 number at that point by dialing:

           (i)   an optional digit 1, followed by 888, followed by
                 the 7-digit customer telephone number, or
           (ii)  the area code 888, followed by the 7-digit
                 customer telephone number, or
           (iii) the 7-digit customer telephone number.

       (b) The call should then be processed by handing the
           call off to the Public Switched Telephone Network as
           if the call had been  dialed directly via 1-888 plus
           the 7 digit customer telephone number.

       (c) This 800 assist be maintained for approximately 60 days
           after all local exchanges have reported that they have
           completed implementation of this service to allow equipment
           owners time to reprogram equipment to use the new 888 area
           code.

           (d).  After this period, the 800 assist number be
           removed from service and changed to a recording
           indicating that the number should be dialed directly.


                          Page 3 of 4

In the matter of NPA 800 and NPA 888       |
          June 13, 1995                    |
     Tansin A. Darcos & Company         RM |


    5.  The identical 7 digit number in the 888 exchange be
    reserved to return a recording indicating that calls into
    area code 888 are now possible.

    6.  That the number used for this purpose be in NPA-NXX
    800-555 and 888-555. such as, for example, 800-888-0888 and
    888-555-0888, or any other appropriate number.

    7.  The number be set up cooperatively under a joint
    arrangement with all resporgs, similiar to 800-555-1212.

    8.  All resporgs bear a proportionate share of the cost
    relative to the amount of traffic they generate under the
    Toll-Free service for the cost of traffic into the 800
    assist to 888 number.

    9.  In the alternative, that the 800 assist to 888 number
    be set up by the local exchange companies and then routed
    to carriers similar to the current 800 scheme, or that
    carriage of calls into the 800 assist to 800 number be
    set up such that it is routed via any resp-orgs trunks,
    and that if it is routed to the wrong resp-org, the cost
    of carriage for the original call be cleared on a
    settlements or adjustment or other basis.

    10. That local exchange companies may simply terminate
    calls on that particular 800 assist to 888 number at the
    appropriate point in each LATA where an 888 database
    query can be used when the call is transferred from the
    LATA database lookup point to the destination resp-org for
    delivery to the customer, and simply charged as with any
    other call placed over 800, the carrier being given the
    888 terminating number instead of 800, but otherwise
    treated as 800 for billing and settlements issues.

    11. That such an immediate rulemaking would be in the public
    interest, convenience and neccessity to do so,

    12. That the commission issue such other relief as is
    reasonable and proper.

Respectfully Submitted, this Thursday, June 13, 1995.

Paul Robinson
Tansin A. Darcos & Company


C:\TDR\800-888.TXT
                          Page 4 of 4

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

From: [e-mail] (Keith Ouellette)
Subject: Loran-C Future
Date: 20 Jul 1995 13:21:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I keep hearing conflicting stories on the fate of Loran-C. I heard
that the government's initial aggreement was to continue funding it
until the year 2010. Then I heard a rumur that it was going to cut the
funding for Loran-C in the year 2000, and of course I also hear that
it planned on cutting the funding in 1987. Is there any way I can find
out what the actual intent is?


Thanks,

Keith

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg 'Arg' Argendeli)
Subject: NPA/NXX Web Search Page
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 16:30:41 GMT


PAT,

I have set up an npa/nxx lookup page on the web, and thought some of
the readers here might be interested.  It allows the user to search by
city, state, area code, prefix, or combined npa/nxx.

The page is http://www.natltele.com/form.html.


Greg

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

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Device to Reset Modems
Date: 20 Jul 1995 06:41:44 GMT
Organization: 4-T Acres


I've seen posts about this subject before but would like to know if
anyone knows of a device that will do the following:

Scenario: I have a bank of modems and one gets stuck.  If it gets
stuck good enough, it will cause the line to either ring ring ring or
something like this.  Is there a device out there that after a certain
number of rings (because the modem doesn't pick up the line) picks up
the line and re-sets the modem?  The computer people at my school have
problems with stuck modems ##all the time## and I suggested this as a
fix.  They said, you tell me where I can get this thing and we will.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.


GREG

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:21:35 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Atlantic Tests Cellular Fraud Software
Reply-To: [e-mail]


FYI.  Excerpt from Edupage 7/9/95.

BELL ATLANTIC TESTS CELLULAR FRAUD SOFTWARE

Bell Atlantic will test software designed to prevent cellular fraud
involving the use of counterfeit or cloned phones.  The PreTect
anti-fraud system uses radio frequency "fingerprinting" technology to
compare a cellular phone's unique frequency pattern with its customer
validation data and shuts down the call automatically if the two don't
match up.  The software is made by Cellular Technical Services Co.
(Investor's Business Daily 7/7/95 A5)


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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 06:29:34 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ben Lippolt)
Subject: 'Interesting' Service Providers in the US?
Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands


Hi,

I'm involved in a study on advanced services in the public telephone
nets. We have a fairly good idea of what the telephone companies in
the US are doing, but we would also like to know what indepent service
providers are offering. Our main interest are the high-end,
integrated, services, like personal numbers, flexible call-forwarding,
call-screening, name-dialing, unified messaging, etc. In short, things
like Wildfire and MyLine.

I'm trying to get names (and addresses or tel/fax-numbers) of service
providers which are offering these kinds of services. Any pointers to
WWW-sites or to literature would also be welcome.


Thanks,


Ben Lippolt   PTT Netherlands

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zenith, Enterprise, and WX Numbers
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 95 08:17:00 GMT


I remember seeing these operator translated/dialed/reverse-billed
numbers here and there for many years. I don't think there was
anything specific about whether BELL/AT&T or GTE and the independents
had Zenith and the other had Enterprise -- I just think it was a local
or regional assignment decision.  There was ALSO 'WX' - call operator
and ask for 'WX-1234' or 'WX-987' or 'WX-54321' - toll free!

I've seen ALL THREE of these toll free 'exchanges' in various telephone
directories throughout the US and also Canada, and I've seen the
'exchange-name' followed by three, four or five digits.

Last night, I called my AT&T '00' operator, and inquired as to the
current situation and was informed that there are still quite a few of
them all over! Only the 'traditional' Bell & AT&T (and traditional
indep, Canadian, Alascom, GTE-Hawaii, and 809 Caribbean) operators
have access to the translation records or actually dial the translated
Zenith/Enterprise/WX number. If you get an MCI or Sprint operator,
they either tell you to hang up and dial 10-288-0 or they give you the
AT&T 00 operator where THEY are located (and the second case could
allow you 'free' Zenith from an area you don't live in OR -- not allow
you your free Zenith number because the operator of the other carrier
is located where they don't have free access to that particular Zenith
number).

I also asked the AT&T operator about ring-down points (toll stations/
terminals), and was told that there are still quite a number of them
according to her records -- but the last one remaining in Louisiana
(Pilottown LA, a point at the mouth of the Mississippi River where
riverboat pilots guide the big ships between the River and the Gulf of
Mexico) must now be dialable -- her records show 504 + seven digits. It
must be a recent change, since I have a Bellcore TRA reference to an
88X-XXX code for Pilottown as recent as December,1994. The AT&T Operator
didn't have the NNX code for Pilottown -- just 504 for the NPA. It is
PROBABLY (but I'm not certain) served out of the NNX code for Venice
LA, the southernmost (dialable) NNX in Louisiana along the River. Back
in the 1970's there were NO FEWER THAN FIVE ring-down points along the
mouth of the River and along the Gulf Coast and Offshore areas.

BTW, Dial/Automated Toll Free was experimented on an inTRA-state basis
back in 1965/66 in Georgia and Alabama. InTER-state toll free using
Special Area Code 800 came on line in 1966/67. It was TWX which was
SPLASH-CUT over to dial (and an integral part of the DDD network) in
the early 60's (1962 to be exact) after having been manual (with its
own manual network and terminal/TWX numbering scheme) since its
introduction in 1931. Toll Free Numbers being automated/customer-dialable
is something that has been 'phased' in over the past 30 years -- and
we know that some 'manual' versions still exist.


MARK J. CUCCIA    PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:
WORK:      [e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954,TEL[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917,FAX[phone])
HOME:              CHestnut 1-2497
4710 Wright Road | fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail
New Orleans 28   | ([phone])   Louisiana (70128) USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Lisa)
Subject: Enterprise/Zenith Numbers
Date: 20 Jul 1995 23:26:51 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net


For whatever reason, most of the ones remaining in the phone book are
of heavy industrial businesses -- ie steel plants, oil refiners, and the
like.  While some are still active, many listings in the phone book got
missed and were disconnected.

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

Subject: The Bell's Are Taking Over
From: [e-mail] (BUCKINGHAM, JEFF)
Date: 20 Jul 95 08:29:48 EDT


This is some very disturbing news for competition in telecommunications.

WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWSWIRE ...

July 13, 1995

MAJOR CHANGES REPORTEDLY MADE TO HOUSE TELECOM BILL

Major changes were made to H.R. 1555, the house telecom reform
legislation, that are favorable to the Bell companies, sources said.

Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) reportedly has agreed
to proposals that would drop language from the bill that would have
required local competition comparable in price, features and scope
before the Bells could enter the long distance market.

Also, Bliley is said by sources to have agreed to language that would
eliminate the requirement that the Bells resell local service to
competitors at "economically feasible" rates and to shorten the time
that the Bells must use separate subsidiaries for long distance and
other businesses from three years to 18 months.

In addition, sources said, Bliley agreed to a proposal by Rep. John
Dingell (D-MI) that would prohibit local competitors from cross-
subsidizing business customers by purchasing residential service at a
lower cost and reselling it to business customers at a higher price.

Bliley met with Bell company and long distance company representatives
today in an attempt to negotiate a "managers amendment" for when the
bill comes to the floor, which Commerce Committee staffers said today
may not happen until August, before the Congressional recess.

In a written statement, Gary McBee, chairman of the Alliance for
Competitive Communications, who took part in the meeting with Bliley,
said he believes there has been progress in working out key issues.

"We appreciate the work of the committee in trying to make this
legislation more balanced," McBee said.

On the other side, Jim Smith, President of Comptel, issued a strong
statement saying he was "extremely disappointed" in the changes. "A
bill that was supported in committee by a vote of 38 to 5 now has been
subjected to wholesale changes outside the committee.  The bill now
has tipped tremendously toward maintaining the Bell monopoly.  The
pro-competitive, market-opening provisions have been gutted."

John Tuck of the Competitive Long Distance Coalition said his group
met with Bliley for about 40 minutes today, and he characterized the
meeting as disappointing.  "The actions that have been imposed on the
Commerce Committee generally jeopardize the prospects that a good bill
can be passed this Congress," he said.

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

For more information contact Washington Telecom Newswire at [phone]

Chris Valmassei
Washington Telecom Newswire    |   Internet:    [e-mail]

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

Jeff Buckingham
Call America, San Luis Obispo, CA
E-mail: [e-mail]
Home Page: www.callamer.com
MyLine Virtual Number: 805-545-5100 (Voice and Fax)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #313
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00543;
          21 Jul 95 13:39 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27664 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 03:36:26 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27656; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 03:36:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 03:36:24 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #314

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Jul 95 03:36:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 314

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    The Truth According to RogerShaw Cable et al (Kelly Bert Manning)
    PacBell Security Voicemail Hell (Alan Frisbie)
    RBOC Labor Contracts Update? (John S. Lively)
    Long Distance Coin Service No Longer a Monopoly (John Levine)
    North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold (via John Shaver)
    AIN Information/Specs Wanted (Greg Celmainis)
    Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888) (Linc Madison)
    Re: Finland Dialing Changes (A. Veller)
    Re: Finland Dialing Changes (Mauri Haikola)
    Re: Atlanta Automated 411 (Harpreet Singh)
    Re: Atlanta Automated 411 (Ed Ellers)
    Re: LEC to LEC DA Charges ([e-mail])
    Re: LEC to LEC DA Charges (Lee Winson)
    And my Alternative is ...? (Jamie Hanrahan)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kelly Bert Manning)
Subject: The Truth According to RogerShaw Cable et al
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kelly Bert Manning)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 05:03:22 GMT


Canadian cablecos are using their control of the Canadian Parliamentary
Cable channel to air selections from their national convention. Some
of the items seem to be giving the comedy channel a good run for it's
money.

At least this avoids concerns that arose when they used to abuse their
control of the community access cable channels the same way.

One of the items of revealed truth is that Telco's use "proprietary
interfaces such as ISDN to stifle competition". Since when is ISDN
something that Telcos can refuse to let other companies use without
their consent or paying them some sort of royalty?

Also, since Rogers is the biggest remaining partner in the money losing
Unitel venture, it must be using at least the higher bandwidth
levels of ISDN itself in it's own long distance network.

Isn't Rogers trying to impose it's own proprietary interface on
it's cable modem offerring?

RogerShaw have become very innovative about finding ways to use the
surplus long distance fiber capacity they can't find someone to pay for.
Both adopted policies of locking the doors at their local offices and
concentrating service in their provincial headquarters, forwarding local
numbers to the central bank of operators. The local jobs disappeared of
course, taking almost all of the cable revenue out of the local economies.
The second level of centralization for Rogers was to forward all calls
to a single national service call center in Ontario. Shaw probably
picked Edmonton, Alberta for it's national center.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 17:06:30 PDT
From: Alan Frisbie <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Security Voicemail Hell
Organization: Flying Disk Systems, Inc.


I am no longer surprised when I encounter mis-programmed voicemail
systems.  A lot of companies simply do not understand how to properly
design menus, defaults, timeouts, etc.  However, I was surprised today
to find that PacBell Security is one of the worst offenders.

This morning, I called their Los Angeles number, 213-975-7231, and
heard the main menu selections.  None of them exactly fit the problem
I was reporting, but "reporting a crime" seemed to fit best, so I
selected that option.

I then was connected to some guy's voicemail recording that indicated
he would be in meetings all day.  If I wanted to speak to a person, I
should press "03", which I did.  Instead of being connected to a
person, however, I was bounced back to the main menu recording.

This menu told me that if I did not have a touchtone phone or if this
was a life-threatening emergency, it would connect me to a person.
While this was certainly not a life-threatening emergency, I decided
to pretend that I did not have a touchtone phone and wait for the
timeout.

After a few seconds, I heard a message that my call was being
transferred to an operator.  There was a click, followed by the
original main voicemail menu again!  I waited through this several
times to verify that it was an endless loop before hanging up.

I can just imagine the reaction of someone who actually had a
life-threatening emergency.  Good going, PacBell Security!


Alan E. Frisbie               [e-mail]
Flying Disk Systems, Inc.
4759 Round Top Drive          [phone] (voice)
Los Angeles, CA 90065         [phone] (FAX)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if you want to hear something funny
about Ameritech -- the telco that in 'Illinois Bell' days used to be
pretty decent -- listen to this:  for awhile, they experimented with
having their business office open 24 hours per day. No matter that there
was probably only one rep covering the entire area all night, and the
wait on hold at 3:00 am often times exceeded twenty to thirty minutes
if you chose to call them then, they did offer token 'round the clock
customer service. They decided to discontinue this 'convenience' a few
months ago and go to a 7:00 am to 7:00 pm schedule Monday through
Saturday instead. But what does all their literature *still* say, now
a few months later? What do all their monthly bills say about contacting
them?  "You can reach us 24 hours per day, seven days per week by
dialing 1-800-244-4444." That might be understandable during the billing
cycle when the change of hours occurred, or even for a couple weeks
later. But thus far, a couple months after the fact, no one has bothered
to re-write a couple of print statements in the software which sends out
bills and junkmail sales pitches of various and sundry nature.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:48:00 -0005
From: John S. Lively <[e-mail]>
Subject: RBOC Labor Contracts Update?


    Anyone have a summary on status of LEC labor negotiations (IBEW, CWA)?

    Info wanted for RBOCs + GTE (individually):
    - When do current contracts expire?
    - How are talks going?
    - What is probability of a strike?

    Also, has strike threat historically driven higher or lower equipment
    purchases or network construction?

    Thanks in advance.

    John Lively
    Mgr. Forecasting
    Optical Fiber business
    Corning Incorporated
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:35:57 -0400
From: [e-mail] (John Levine)
Subject: Long Distance Coin Service no Longer a Monopoly


I got a press release last week reporting that AMNEX, one of the
operator service companies whose service you'd probably rather not
use, is getting into the long distance coin business.

Since 1984, inter-LATA coin telephony has theoretically been
competitive, but in practice AT&T was the only company interested in
the business and the only company that had the technical and business
arrangements to handle long distance coin calls from telco pay phones.
Telco pay phones have their coin collection controlled remotely, so a
long distance company needs to interface with the coin control systems
in each of the local telcos with whom they do business.  They also
need to make a deal with the local telcos to get the actual money,
since the telcos empty the coin boxes.

AMNEX says they'll have 30,000 phones connected by the end of
September, including some of their own that they already have.  They
say they'll be charging less than AT&T.

COCOTs are different -- when you make a coin call at a COCOT, the
phone itself rates the call, asks you for money, then places what
looks to the phone network like a direct-dialed call.  I've seen
COCOTs that give pretty decent rates on coin calls, typically 25
cents/minute anywhere in the U.S.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail]
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Even so John, as you point out, the
local telcos have to be part of the process, and therein lies the
bottleneck. Ameritech, as one example, has gotten to the point where
their payphones are just so, well ... downright crappy ... with no
two programmed in the central office quite the same way; many with
'coinbox full' sensors that are miscalibrated so the phone never
will accept coins; demands for 35 cents to get directory assistance
even when the latest phone book -- a month old! -- says that calls
to DA from payphones are free; and recordings superimposed on the
line over the ringing beginning with the second ring telling you
that your party is not answering and how about using their Store
and Foreward service for 75 cents; ... I used to protest vigorously
against COCOTS, but I am beginning to think that COCOTS -- when
they are owned and operated by a conscientous, non-ripoff company
are a good deal. An associate of mine has three Genuine Bell coin
phones at his place of business that get a lot of use. Two of the
three are *always* refusing to accept coins with claims that the
box is full; hah! ... you couldn't tell it from the puny commissions
he receives. Telco repair cannot be reached on 611 any longer either
according to the instruction cards. Now one has to dial a ten digit
800 number. According to the service reps this is also due to the
impending competition: it would give Bell an unfair advantage if
*their* customers could reach repair with three digits while the
competitors' customers had to dial seven or ten digits.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:57:39 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold


Forwarded to the Digest, FYI:

 From: [e-mail] (Keith Bostic) at WOODY
 Date: 7/19/95 5:05PM
 To: John Shaver at E.M.E.T.F.
 Subject: Excerpted: WhiteBoard News for July 14, 1995

 Forwarded-by: [e-mail]
 North York, Canada:

The mayor of this Toronto suburb has put voice mail on permanent hold
by decreeing that a real person must answer all government calls
during business hours.

"It's the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life," Mayor Mel
Lastman said of voice mail, those irritating telephone message systems
that are the scourge of the modern office.

Lastman said he had enough when he could not reach his city solicitor on
his way to an important meeting.

"How's talking to a machine going to solve your problem?" he said Tuesday.

Lastman received 343 supportive calls in seven hours from people
around Southern Ontario after a local newspaper published his recent
decree.

"I hit a nerve: that everyone is fed up with it," said the gravelly
voiced mayor.  He said people have hung up in fright after realizing
they had actually reached the mayor and not an answering machine.

"Any government that has voice mail isn't worth its salt," Lastman
said.  "If you're in the service industry, you're better off answering."


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So is each government agency now supposed
to hire a couple extra people for the sole purpose of answering the
phone live in order to tell the caller to please hold?  Imagine this as
an employment opportunity working for the government: your duties? As
a telephone rings, you answer and say 'please hold until someone is
available to speak with you.'  That's your sole duty. There is nothing
inherently wrong with voicemail, either as a front end answering system
for an office or for leaving messages for persons away from their desk,
etc. What *is* wrong are the multitude of systems which are misprogrammed,
or lack any real information for the caller, etc.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Greg Celmainis)
Subject: AIN Information/Specs Wanted
Date: 20 Jul 1995 22:44:52 GMT
Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation


Can anyone out there point me to the location(s) where I might find
some information on AIN and its specifications? I am looking for both
technical and application information.


Thanks in advance,

Greg Celmainis
Castleton Network Systems (A Newbridge Company)
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 23:04:37 GMT


Judith Oppenheimer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Beyond the false shortage assumptions, no one's rantings and ravings,
> including my good friend Patrick's,  alter the fact that neither
> residential nor pager toll-free use require the marketing utility of the
> *800* brand of toll-free, and hence could be moved -- with little cost or
> disruption to caller or recipient --  to other toll-free NPA's.

This is utterly false.  The only existing toll-free service at present
is 800 service.  It is also certainly the only one that the overwhelming
majority of average Americans know about.  The disruption to a personal
800 number of having it moved into a new toll-free is no less real than
the disruption to a major corporation.

Residential 800 service absolutely requires the marketing utility of the
800 brand of toll-free service, and so does toll-free pager use.  If
it's the only game in town, you've got to play it.

> To ignore these facts, or dismiss the value of marketing and brand utility
> of *800* toll-free, is just silly, and absurd.

To dismiss the value to personal 800 number users or pager users of the
common knowledge that 800 means toll-free is just silly and absurd.

Yes, the 800 brand utility is very important, but it is very important
to EVERYONE who has an 800 number, not solely to American Express and
800-Flowers.  I say give the current holders of 800 numbers no special
rights whatsoever on the corresponding 888 numbers.  As has been noted,
American Express can trademark "THE CARD" but not 843-2273, and
800-Flowers can trademark "800-FLOWERS" but not 356-9377.  If someone
else comes along with 888-THE-CARD as an ad slogan, AmEx will surely sue
them for trademark infringement, and the same with 888-FLOWERS.  In fact,
skeptical as I am of trademarks such as "it's in the bag[TM]", I think
that AmEx and 800-Flowers would probably win those suits, even without
resorting to delaying tactics to bleed the opposing firms by legal bills.
They might even win punitive damages.

The simple fact is that there will soon be two different "brands" of
toll-free number, 800 and 888 (and perhaps soon a third, 011-800, if the
details can be ironed out).  Those who have access to the original brand,
both commercial and residential users, will have an advantage over those
who get the new brand, but that advantage will rapidly diminish over
time as those who have the new brand work to inform the public about its
use.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (A. Veller)
Subject: Re: Finland Dialing Changes
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:57:26 +0100
Organization: T-REGS


In article <[e-mail]>, Toby Nixon <tnixon@microsoft.
com> wrote:

> It has been brought to my attention that the telecom administration in
> Finland intends to change dialing procedures as of 12 October 1995.
> Specifically, the long distance (intercity within the country) dialing
> prefix will change from "9" to "0". Can anyone confirm this?
> Interestingly, since the city code for Helsinki and environs is
> currently "0", this would mean people outside Helsinki would dial "00"
> instead of "90" to reach Helsinki.  This would be strange, because
> "00" is the EC standard prefix for international calls, and would be
> expected to be followed by a country code.  The international prefix
> in Finland has been "990"; is there any plan to change that?  Is there
> any plan to change the Helsinki city code from "0" to something else?

Hi, I'm not from Finland, but I think I can provide some information.

First of all, 990 is not the International prefix. 990 is the
international prefix for Telecom Finland. Finnet International has
prefix 994 and Telivo Oy prefix 999, they all provide international
telecommunications.

Carrier selection happens on a call-by-call basis. If no preselection is
made by the dialer, the call is routed trough a pre-selected carrier
(pre-selected by the user). Remnant traffic of long-distance calls is
equally divided between competing operators. The remnant traffic is
composed of those trunk calls where no operator code is used or where the
customer has no agreement with any operator.

So far an explanation of a fairly complex situation.

Now, the trunk prefix 9 will be changed to 0 and the international prefix
will be changed to 00 on 12 October 1996 *not* 1995. During the 1992-1996
period subscriber numbers will be changed to accomodate the new situation.

After this period, I have been told, the international access code will be
00, but the old numbers 990, 994 and 999 wil remain operational.

The scheme under discussion is the following:

Numbering area preselected carrier:                           SN
Numbering area carrier selection:                   CAC*      SN
National level carrier selection:              CAC   0   NDC  SN
International level, carrier selection:   CAC*  00   CC  NDC  SN

Whereby:

CAC = Carrier Access Code (including carrier identification)
CC  = Country Code
NDC = National Destination Code
SN  = Subscriber Number

Items marked with an * are still under study.

The people who can tell you the exact details are the people from the
Telecommunications Administration Centre Finland (Telecommunications
Administration and Standardisation).

Their co-ordinates:
Vattuniemenkatu 8 A
Lauttasaari, 00210 Helsinki
PO BOX 53, FIN-00211 Helsinki, Finland
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Telex:  124545 thk fi
X.400: S=asiakaspalvelu; P=thk; A=elisa; C=fi

Hope this helps and good luck.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 20:54:42 +0300
From: Mauri Haikola <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Dialing Changes
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Toby Nixon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It has been brought to my attention that the telecom administration in
> Finland intends to change dialing procedures as of 12 October 1995.

Almost right. The change will happen on 12 October 1996, at 00:00
hours.

> Specifically, the long distance (intercity within the country) dialing
> prefix will change from "9" to "0". Can anyone confirm this?

Yes. But also the area codes will be changed -- see below.

> Interestingly, since the city code for Helsinki and environs is
> currently "0", this would mean people outside Helsinki would dial "00"
> instead of "90" to reach Helsinki.  This would be strange, because
> "00" is the EC standard prefix for international calls, and would be
> expected to be followed by a country code.  The international prefix
> in Finland has been "990"; is there any plan to change that?  Is there
> any plan to change the Helsinki city code from "0" to something else?

Finland will use the EC standard international prefix 00 as of 12
October 1996 but also the existing codes 990, 999 and 994 for the
three long-distance companies will be used. How the calls using 00
will be shared between the three companies is yet to be decided.

The Helsinki area code will be changed from 0 to 9, in other words
you'll have to dial 09 to reach Helsinki from other parts of the
country. Similarly, other area codes will be changed and their number
will decrease dramatically so that there will be only 12 telephone
traffic areas with own area codes:

2    Turku and Pori
3    Hame
5    Kymi
6    Vaasa
8    Oulu
9    Helsinki
19    Uusimaa
13    Pohjois-Karjala    (North Karelia)
14    Keski-Suomi    (Central Finland)
15    Mikkeli
16    Lappi        (Lapland)
17    Kuopio
18    Ahvenanmaa    (Aland islands)

The areas are pretty much the same as the Finnish provinces. Helsinki
is the only city (or metropolitan area) that has its own area code.

When calling from abroad, the prefixes will be used as shown above.

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

From: [e-mail] (Harpreet Singh)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Automated 411
Date: 20 Jul 1995 20:46:44 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Andrew B. Hawthorn) writes:

> Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system
> and I was curious if anyone knew how it works.  When a person dials
> 411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What
> city please?"  The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?"
> The caller replies.....

[Stuff deleted.]

As soon as you are connected to the ADA system, you are either put in
an operator queue or connected to an operator position. While you hear
the recording, the operator sees your ANI on the screen and based on
your ANI the system does search of the listing database and downloads
listings of surrounding area codes to that operator station
(statistics show that most callers ask DA info for the surrounding
areas). The operator comes on-line as soon as you are connected. For
most calls the operator does not have to speak but just listen to what
you say. The caller gets the false impression of speaking to a
computer and not an operator. Based on the information (city and name
etc) the operator does a search from the (downloaded) database and
selects a listing. In case the number is not found in the
automatically downloaded database, then the operator does another
search which covers a larger area, from the central listing database.
This search takes longer and you have to wait while the search is
completed. The selected listing is sent to a voice server which speaks
out the number or completes the call if you so desire.

If for some reason (accent or system trouble) the first operator can
not handle your listing request, then you are transfered to another
operator. That is when you will some times hear another ring.

Various companies are trying to implement voice recognition for ADA
but I don't think there are any commercially viable products available
at this time.


HS

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

From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Automated 411
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 22:53:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Andrew B. Hawthorn <[e-mail]> writes:

> Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system
> and I was curious if anyone knew how it works.  When a person dials
> 411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What
> city please?"  The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?"
> The caller replies.

The same thing is in operation in Louisville (like Atlanta, in BellSouth's
region -- they may be using the same center).

> Does the directory information system attempt to locate the
> information and then make as many matches as possible followed by a
> transfer to an operator who finds the exact match?  Does the system
> play back the recorded voice to the live operator?  How did the live
> operator know that my friend calling was male before she was connected
> with him?

As best I can tell they just play the two responses back to the
operator, who keys in the search and either asks for more detail or
just triggers the voice response system to read the number.  This
saves time and allows BellSouth to do' the job with fewer operators
(who probably get bored poopless listening to the recorded responses).

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: LEC to LEC DA Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Maurice R. Baker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:09:25 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> When dialing 555-1212 from a payphone -- the only way to reach directory
> assistance, which MUST be used since Ameritech never bothers to put phone
> directories at their payphones (gee, I wonder why?) we get a recorded
> message saying 'please deposit thirty five cents for this call'.

Perhaps Ameritech stopped putting phone directories at their payphones
because of excessive vandalism which made the directory virtually
useless (missing pages, graffiti, written-in solicitations, etc.)
anyhow.

Further, suppose that some phone books in certain areas (neighborhoods,
schools, shopping centers, or whatever) were more prone to this than
phone books at phones in other places.  It seems likely that before
long, people might be screaming "discrimination" against Ameritech if
the phone books were not instantly and repeatedly replaced at the
phones they use -- particularly since there is now a 35 cent charge
for DA.  By not providing phone books at any payphone, that takes care
of this hassle for Ameritech.

Finally, I suspect that Ameritech would be glad to provide a phonebook
to a location (i.e., corner store or wherever) where it could be kept
"behind the counter" but available to those who asked.  The tariffs
may even cover how and when phonebooks must be provided?

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

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: LEC to LEC DA Charges
Date: 20 Jul 1995 03:57:49 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


Could the Skokie DA situation be merely a programming screwup rather
than actual policy?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its hard to tell what is policy and
what is not these days with Ameritech. They certainly do have a lot
of 'programming screwups' these days. Now and again I find that a
long distance call won't go through because they did not update their
tables, and Thursday I found a new wrinkle in 500 service here. 1-500
never did work from payphones here and now it appears 0-500 does not
work either. Where 1-500 is immediatly intercepted with a recording
which says you cannot reach the number 'from this line, and an operator
will not be able to connect you', 0-500 at first *appears* to work,
only it really doesn't. It goes so far as to hand you the AT&T bong,
accept your calling card number as a payment option and start ringing.
Only thing is, it is not ringing the 500 number ... it is ringing to
an intercept somewhere which never does answer with any message.
Instead, after about five or six rings to the intercept, the call is
simply dropped and dial tone returned to the line. I tried it from
various 'genuine' payphones with the same results each time, and no,
it is not AT&T's problem because when I dialed 800-CALL-ATT and put
it through that way it worked fine. When I got home it worked fine.
But 0-500 is somehow screwed up on Ameritech payphones, at least
here in Skokie.   PAT]

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

From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: And my Alternative is ...?
Date: 20 Jul 95 19:51:14 PDT
Organization: Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego, CA


I just got a junk phone call from the local RBOC, "Pacific Bell",
offering their "call return" service.

I politely said that I wasn't interested.  Then she said "we have
several other services..."  No thank you, I said, and in fact, please
put me on your "do not call list."

"All right sir... thank you for choosing Pacific Bell."

Uh, yeah.  Like I have a choice?


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: [e-mail] (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You will have a choice very soon. You
may have one already out there and just not realize it yet. Check
around and see. I'll tell you this much: it is going to be **great**
seeing competition arrive here. I may be one of the first to jump
ship from Ameritech once other options become available, and I suspect
Ameritech is going to hemmorage badly where small to medium size business
service is concerned. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #314
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04293;
          22 Jul 95 0:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10699 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:48:53 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10689; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:48:50 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:48:50 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #315

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Jul 95 15:48:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 315

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    800 / 888 Update (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Selling 800 Numbers (Brian Jay Gould)
    A Check from Mother (Jeffrey William McKeough)
    Response to "Deception" (Robert Deward)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Chuck Poole)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Mark Gabriele)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Stormy Trevino)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Mark Petersen)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Lee Winson)
    An Integratel Horror Story From Another Group (fwd) (Danny Burstein)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:33:58 -0400
Subject: 800 / 888 Update


Advance 800# User Survey Results...
Carrier Conduct Unbecoming...
and advice from top DC law firm to 800# users

Advance 800# User Survey Results...

A communications publishing/events company mailed out survey
postcards: 800 number and Freephone Shakeout -- to 500 end-user telecom
managers.

59 responses are back in so far.  Note some people gave more than
one response to some questions, so total may not always be 59.

How do you rate the way the FCC and the 800 database
administrator (DSMI) handled the 800 shortfall?

"Excellent" - no respondents
"Could have been better" - 12 replies
"Should have seen it coming and acted sooner" - 47 replies


Do you believe that carriers are hoarding 800 numbers?

"Yes" 52, "No" 7

Does your organization use an 800 number?

"Yes"  59.  Vanity number? "Yes" 27, "No" 32

Would losing or an involuntary change in your 800 number be:

"A major financial hit" - 23 responses
"A headache" - 29 responses
"No big deal" - 2 responses
"A marketing disaster" - 33 responses

"Several Million $$" ad-libbed by one respondent.

Carrier Conduct Unbecoming...  from an inside source ...

MCI is doling out 800's based on estimated thousands of $'s
monthly billing.

LDDS/Worldcom is accessing $100 surcharges for any month that
billing on a new 800 account is under $100 -- and making customers
agree as such in writing.

And GE/Sprint is refusing to assign vanities at all.

and finally, advice from a top DC law firm...

In a report to the Communications Managers Association, which is
composed of over 200 of the nation's prominent Fortune 1000
companies, the Washington DC firm of Levine, Blaszak, Block &
Boothby advises, among various recommendations:

Users need a show of force to convince carriers and the FCC that
800/888 issues should no longer be discussed without user input.

 ... The carriers are not willing to support replicating users 800
numbers in the 888 area code.

 ... user participation appears to have been almost completely
overlooked, thus far.

The treatment of this question by the carriers (and the FCC)
illustrates the need for users to become involved in the rulemaking
and in the industry meetings if their point of view is to be heard and
their interests protected.

Finally, Levine Boothby recommends,

"Because of the operational and technical nature of the discussions
and the time commitment involved, we recommend that users consider
direct participation and commitment of internal resources to this
process, perhaps attending only the meetings on user issues, rather
than (or in addition to) using lawyers for this purpose."


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].

Complete 888 Implementation Report available - $200.  Separates fact from
fiction.  Full FCC - OBF/SNAC - and other pertinent data.  Includes
carrier, regulatory and user issues.  Call 212 684-7210 to order.

Interactive CallBrand is a leading source of information and support on 800
and related issues, representing user positions before the FCC, State
Department, Int'l. Telecommunications Union, and domestic industry forums.

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould)
Subject: Selling 800 Numbers
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:39:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I have had an 800 number for about five years that spells a commonly
used word.  Recently a lawyer called me claiming that his client would
pay me $25,000 for the number (plus all expenses regarding the
transfer).

I basically agreed, but then he stopped calling and didn't return my
phone call.  I assume that his client is no longer interested.

I wasn't looking to sell the number and $25K won't change my financial
situation significantly, but I might be interested in selling it again
if I fully understand the following:

1) is this a legitimate practice?
2) are there brokers that handle these things?
2a)  If so, how do I contact one?
3) Is there risk involved?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me, may or may not
reflect the accuracy of my representing the opinions of myself or
anyone else.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:05:41 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey William McKeough)
Subject: A Check from Mother
Organization: UMass Amherst


In yesterday's mail I received a check from AT&T for $13.69,
identified only as "IDB Refund."  It was made out to me, and was from
my former telephone account (now disconnected), but had no explanation
attached.  Does anyone know what IDB stands for, and why AT&T is
sending out refunds for it?


Jeffrey William McKeough   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Deward)
Subject: Response to "Deception"
Date: 21 Jul 1995 18:32:30 GMT
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


On July 18, Daryl Frame asked here if it were "underhanded" and
"misrepresentation" when a Pacific Bell employee who called him
identified herself as belonging to the Customer Service Department
when that department is part of Marketing.  In other words: Is it
misrepresentation for Pacific Bell Marketing to call its people who
serve customers the Customer Service Department?

The customer service representative called Mr. Frame to alert him to
the possibility he might be paying long distance rates for calls that
are free or very low cost when carried by Pacific Bell.  Studies by
Pacific Bell indicate about one out of every four times one of its
customers dials an access code, they end up paying a local toll charge
for a call that would have been either free or available at a much
lower cost from Pacific.

It is also worth mentioning that since January 1 Pacific Bell has
offered its customers a 40 percent discount on short haul toll.  No
fine print; no take-backs later.

Considering all of the above, I think few people would pick a fight
over Pacific's choice of the term "customer service."  And they may
also have their own questions about where misrepresentation is taking
place in the telecommunications business.


Bob Deward,  Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F.  voice: 415-542-3196


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that generally, 'customer service
representatives' don't sell and sales people don't provide follow-up
service. Traditionally, the role of the CSR is to provide service in the
form of correcting errors on billings, arranging for additional service,
explaining the reason for things, etc. The role of 'marketing' on the
other hand is to initiate customer contact, attempt to convince the
customer to purchase something being sold, etc. Granted there are gray
areas in the middle where both could be involved, but 'marketing' is in
my opinion a better descriptor for the person who initiates customer
contact and attempts to make sales. At the very least, perhaps the
people doing the calling should state they are from Pacific Telesis
(without specifically saying a department designation unless asked)
and let it go at that.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Date: 20 Jul 1995 02:00:05 GMT
Organization: M.A.G. Information Services (MAGG.NET)


Snip
> It seems dialing that 800 number gets you a charge of anywhere between
> $46 and $93 per minute on your phone bill.

Snip

> Integratel refused to remove any of the charges, and instead said I
> could write the client direct to ask for an adjustment. They refused to
> give me any phone number to reach the scumbags direct. Well, that's okay,
> I was able to track down a few things.

Pat,

I have designed switching equipment for various clients engaging
similar business endevours, most of whom run a quality back-end
customer service department.  Knowing how the billing works may help
you.  In all cases these services use a third party billing company.
These companies specialize in "Collect Callback" (What they described
to you), Automatic Third Party Billing (What actually happened to
you), and LEC calling cards.

One important thing to note is that YOU CAN dispute these charges with
your LEC.  All of these Third party billing companies have very
specific contracts with your LEC.  They MUST list a customer service
contact.  If you can not resolve the disputed charges with the contact
number listed directly, you may still demand that the LEC remove the
charges from your bill.  The LEC may opt to put a block on your phone
to prevent Third Party billed charges in the future (Which can be a
pain), but you can write the PSC/PUC.  To avoid this mess it is much
easier to conference the LEC customer service with the Third Party
Billing company (This almost always resolves everything quickly -
grin).

Forty percent of LEC served areas have discontinued billing for
"adult" services on a Third Party basis (i.e. Southern Bell,
Southwestern Bell, etc.) because of the problem you have mentioned.

If you none of this helps give me a call, as I do business with most
of them.  I'm sorry you've experienced these problems, it always seems
a few "scammers" ruin a otherwise self-regulated group of legitimate
businessmen.


Chuck Poole
Voiceware Systems, Inc.
West Palm Beach, FL
407-655-1770 Ext. 14

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Gabriele)
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 07:46:51 -0800
Organization: RAND


In article <[e-mail]>, Pat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Of course you may also want to make certain you are on the
> negative database at Integratel as well.  You can reach them at
> 800-736-7500. Come to think of it, perhaps I should get the names,
> home addresses and other details about the officers of that company as
> well and print them here.

Well, I just called Integratel to place myself on that list, and of
course they complied.  The interesting thing is that in ending the
call, the representative said that "of course no blocking is 100%
effective, but this should work virtually all of the time."  (What he
said may have differed by a few words, but this is pretty close.)

Now, I really have no idea under what circumstances their blocking
fails, but should I ever have occasion to be charged by Integratel, I
have absolutely no intention of paying.  I find it galling that even
if one takes the extraordinary measure of contacting Integratel
directly and well in advance of any activity on the account, they
refuse to guarantee that they will honor the customer's request.

This may fall into the "there ought to be a law" category...


Mark Gabriele   (PGP public key available upon request)
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can understand their comment that
'no blocking is one hundred percent effective' since they are not
the only billers of 'adult' services any more than your local telco
is the only company to originate collect charges. Your local telco
won't give a hundred percent guarentee on blocking either. I have
found from my own experience with prior telephone numbers that in
fact being on Integratel's list is very effective since they bill
for a huge number of COCOT/AOS services, etc. Ever get stuck with a
huge bill from someone calling you collect from a COCOT served by
some ripoff AOS outfit?  I believe that between Integratel and the
database used jointly by ATT/Sprint/MCI and local telcos, you will
snag about 98 percent of what might otherwise get through on your
bill unauthorized. I'll give Integratel credit for that much: they
are happy to add your number since they don't want to listen to
you complaining and they don't want the additional paperwork of
having to reverse the unpaid charges to their clients, etc.  Anyone
not yet on Integratel's negative list can be added by calling them
at 800-736-7500 and wading through a lot of voicemail stuff on the
front end. If you run a switchboard, you should do it today and
save yourself a lot of hassles with 'collect' calls you did not
authorize.   PAT]

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

From: Stormy Trevino <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 12:33:40 -700
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients


Pat,

I work at Call America for Jeff Buckingham. I am the customer service
manager for our operator services. I have had to deal with Integretel
on numerous occasions on behalf of some of our customer, mainly
hotels. My tatic for getting credit on all calls is by threatening to
send letters to the FCC and state PUC. I also mention that these
"information providers" must have a signed contract with the billed
party in order for them to have any kind of recourse to collection. I
have been able, by doing this, to get credit on 100% of the calls that
my customers have been billed. It is a real pain in the butt dealing
with these scum bags but it has been worth it for my customers. I have
spoken with people at Pac Bell and GTE and I have complained
vehemently about them allowing Integretel to bill on their bills.

GTE claimed to not know anything about it and Pac Bell played stupid.
I gave up on trying to convince them that Integretel was a sleazeball
company because of their billing. Anyway, my suggestion to all is to
NOT pay the portion of a bill that is billed by Integretel, call your
LEC and tell them the Integretel part of the bill is in dispute so as
not to be cut-off for non-payment, and keep calling Integretel until
they give a full credit. Hope this little bit helps someone in some
way.


Stormy Trevino


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech claims they 'have to do it'
due to our good friend, Judge Greene. They claim they are not allowed
to refuse to deal with Integratel.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 21:47:01 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Petersen)
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Networks, Denver, CO.


PAT:

I once had a spurious bill-to-third-party charge show up on my phone
bill, from an outfit called "Integretel".  (No, I hadn't called a sex
line; the number being billed was my fax line.)  Called telco, no
problem removing it.

But is there a legit company called Integretel, different from the
company you've recently been ranting about, Integratel?

Inquiring vowels want to know <g>...


Mark C. Petersen        [e-mail]
Loch Ness Productions   [e-mail]
[e-mail]   http://www.lochness.com/lochness


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One and the same. On the telephone bill,
Ameritech spells it one way; when you ask the company, they spell it
another. I think the correct spelling is with /a/. I've deliberatly
left the error in the subject headers here so that when the articles
are indexed they won't get separated in the sorting ... but let's try
to spell their name correctly in the future, okay?  Was it Oscar Wilde
who once said, "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long
as they spell my name correctly ..."?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Date: 21 Jul 1995 04:00:06 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


What happens if you try that 800 number from a pay phone?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They answer with a recorded message saying
the number you are calling from cannot be used to call their service. They
were smart enough to use software designed to check the database of phones
with coin service and figure out how to disallow them.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: An Integratel Horror Story From Another Group (fwd)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 08:56:34 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


I think I should warn all of you of the dangers of long distance
companies ...

This month I got a bill from my local TelCo, Southern Bell. Inside of
it were bills for my local service and those for AT&T. Then upon
further investigation as I was writting my check for the TelCo. I
discovered that I was recieving bills from not only AT&T but also USBI
and Integretel, Inc. I first called AT&T and they verified what I had
thought. My long distance company was changed from AT&T to another ld
company on May 25, I was then changed back to AT&T on June 5. I was
infuriated, I asked AT&T why I was not notified and they told me about
an illegal practice known as "slamming." I called my TelCo and they
also verified that my ld company was changed. I asked that a code be
put on my line (I STRONGLY SUGGEST ALL OF YOU DO THIS) ... with this
code, the TelCo can't change the ld carrier unless prior voice
authorization by me.

Anyways, I thought that I should call USBI and Integretel to tell them
off, right? WRONG!!! After a _few_ days I finally got a live operator
from USBI.  They, in turn, refered me to LD Wholesale Club, apparently
USBI is a billing organization, independent of LD Wholesale Club (yeah
right...). I called LD Wholesale Club and as I would have guessed.
They denied everything. They looked up my record and said I didn't
have one. I said I'm recieving a bill from them. They said "that's
because you're using the special access code 10297, thus allowing you
to use our service without changing your long distance carrier." I
replied that I'm sure nobody used that code because it's _MY_ phone
and I've never even heard about your company. He replied that I _MUST_
have used it and that I must have forgot or that somebody came into my
home and used it (okay!).

I then brought out the hard evidence. I said "you're lying ... I
checked with my TelCo _AND_ AT&T and they verified that _YOU_ changed
my LD carrier!" The guy said for me to hold. After a few minutes he
said that he had made a mistake and that he looked up the wrong record
(hmm) He said that they had changed my carrier (finally the truth,
atleast partly) _BUT WITH_ my authorization. I said "no I didn't" and
he spent the next five minutes on why his company was so good and all.
I said "NO WAY, I refuse to change me ld company" He said "Do you like
to pay more for long distance or something?" I said "yes, I do but
atleast I choose to do so, AT&T is my choice and you have no right to
change it." Blaa blaa ... (more sales talk) After about five repeated
attempts to sell me his company, he agreed to knock off 50%.  Of
course their rate was high. _NOW_ it's about the same rate as AT&T.

Integretel was another matter. They said I bought one of their calling
cards.  I told them how illegal what they're doing was and they said
bla bla bla how I should try out their company. They finally agreed to
cancel this card (geee, It's only a $6 per month membership fee!) but
refuse to tell me who signed up for this card and refund my money.

Thanks for listening and BEWARE!!!

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

[e-mail] (or [e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You  did not supply us with the name or
net address of the person who wrote this, or the name of the newsgroup
where it appeared, but what the person speaks about is nothing new to
regular readers here. How about since you are around New York City that
you get me the details on that address I requested a few issues ago so
that a full report can be made available to readers here?  Thanks.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #315
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa13559;
          24 Jul 95 19:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20466 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:11:49 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20458; Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:11:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:11:46 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #316

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Jul 95 09:11:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 316

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    US-NK Telephone Service (Neal McLain)
    Canadian Government to Review Teleglobe Canada Monopoly (Nigel Allen)
    FCC Releases Report on Long Distance Market (Curtis Wheeler)
    Paul McCartney Voice-Spams Gillette (Dave Leibold)
    Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department (John Murray)
    Please Explain AT&T True Connections ([e-mail])
    Help Needed With X.21 Connectivity (S.M. Loghmani)
    Call for Participation: ACM Sigcomm 1995 (Srinivasan Keshav)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 05:34:00 CDT
From: Neal McLain <[e-mail]>
Subject: US-NK Telephone Service


The following is about three months old; however, since I haven't seen it
reported elsewhere in the DIGEST, here it is ...

THE KOREA TIMES
Seoul, Saturday April 1, 1995
Volume 13826

Front page lead article:

North Given Country Code of 850
US-NK Telephone Service to Start April 8

WASHINGTON (Yonhap) -- Telephone service between the United States and
North Korea will begin April 8 for the first time.

A Client Services official of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T)
said Thursday he was told by his company that they would make the
trans-pacific telephone hookup to North Korea on April 8.

North Korea's country code was set to be 850, but area codes for its cities,
including Pyongyang and Hamnung, have not been decided on, he added.

An official for the North Korean mission to the United Nations in New York
confirmed the planned telephone hookup to his country and North Korea's
country code as being 850.

In late January, the U.S. State Department announced the removal of several
trade restrictions on North Korea, including restrictions on telephone
services to the communist country.

The removal of restrictions was a result of the terms reached in an agreement
reached with North Korea last October in Geneva.

The formal opening of a telephone hookup between the United States and North
Korea is expected to affect Washington-{yongyang relations both directly and
indirectly.

Authorities of the two countries would no longer have to communicate through
the North Korean mission to the United Nations.  They could communicate
directly with each other via the new telephone link.

In addition business talks and private exchanges between the two countries
would be expedited.  Korean residents in the United States who have families
in the North will be able to talk with their families and relatives on the
phone.

However, as the distribution of telephone facilities among citizens in the
North is known to be limited, there is no certaintity as to how freely they
will be able to exchange telephone conversations.

A reliable source said "AT&T, having completed preparations for telephone
links with North Korea, has recently obtained a license from the U.S.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."

It has not yet been confirmed if other telephone firms have applied to
the FCC for licenses to open direct telephone links with North Korea.

MCI, another well-known U.S. telephone company, reportedly has been operating
a single, direct telephone circuit between the North Korean mission in the
United Nations and Pyongyang since last year.

Asked when it would be possible for common citizens to place direct,
long-distance calls to North Korea, an MCI official said, "We don't know as
all the details have been settled yet.

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

The above article was followed immediately by another article, also on
Page 1.  The "Foreign Ministry" referred to in this article is apparently
an agency of the South Korean government.

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

The Foreign Ministry said that American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) was
authorized to start telephone services with North Korea on a temporary basis.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorized AT&T to start telephone
services for six months starting April 10," a ministry spokesman said.

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

Transcribed by Neal McLain <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 02:02:19 -0400
Subject: Canadian Government to Review Teleglobe Canada Monopoly
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto


Here is a press release from the Government of Canada that I received
from [e-mail] (Communications Branch, Industry Canada).

 File name:07-21-95
 Internet address: info.ic.gc.ca
 File path:  /pub/ic-data/ppd/news-releases/1995
 Date archived: Fri Jul 21 01:60:06 EDT 1995
 Archive name: Industry Canada, Canadian Federal Government
 Archived by: [e-mail]

Industry Canada

          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO UNDERTAKE REVIEW OF
                    TELEGLOBE CANADA MONOPOLY

     OTTAWA, July 21, 1995 -- The Honourable John Manley, Minister of
Industry, today announced that he has initiated a review of the
various issues related to the carriage of telecommunications between
Canada and countries overseas, and in particular, Teleglobe Canada's
future role. Public comment on specific issues set out in a Canada
Gazette Notice is solicited, as are comments on any other issues which
are believed to be of relevance to the provision of international
telecommunications services.

     Copies of the Canada Gazette Notice "Review of Canadian Overseas
Telecommunications and Specifically Teleglobe Canada's Role" are
available electronically via the Internet at the following addresses:

     Anonymous file transfer (FTP)
     info.ic.gc.ca/pub/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp

     Gopher
     info.ic.gc.ca port 70/Industry Canada Documents/Regulatory
     Information and Documents/Gazette/dgtp

     World Wide Web (WWW)
     http://info.ic.gc.ca/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp

     Copies can also be obtained from the Communications Branch,
Industry Canada, 235 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5,
[phone].

For more information, please contact:

Michael Helm
Director General
Telecommunications Policy
Industry Canada
[phone]

Release 7300

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

forwarded by  Nigel Allen
Internet: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.io.org/~ndallen

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

From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Releases Report on Long Distance Market
Date: 23 Jul 1995 22:20:06 GMT
Organization: CCnet Communications


               FCC RELEASES REPORT ON LONG DISTANCE MARKET

      The FCC has released a staff report entitled Long Distance
Market Shares: First Quarter, 1995.

      The report summarizes publicly available data on interstate
calling and the share of that traffic handled by AT&T.  One specific
measure contained in the report is that of "switched access minutes"
 -- which are those minutes transmitted by long distance carriers that
also use the distribution networks of local telephone companies.

      AT&T's share of the overall market for interstate switched
minutes has declined from over 80% in late 1984 to 58% in the first
quarter of 1995.

      The report also contains information on the number of lines
"presubscribed" to AT&T, MCI, Sprint, LDDS, and other long distance
carriers.  For the first time, the report lists all long distance
carriers with .05% or more of the nation's lines.  The data reflects a
high proportion of lines presubscribed to AT&T but rapid growth among
its competitors.

      Total revenues earned by long distance carriers have grown at a
rate of about 5% since 1984.  Revenues have grown less rapidly than
minutes of calling because of sharply falling prices.  During the
period since 1984, AT&T's share of toll revenues has fallen from 90%
to about 55% at the end of 1994.

      Attached to the summary is a customer response survey form, upon
which recipients and users of the report are encouraged to record
their comments and suggestions.  The survey is part of the Industry
Analysis Division's ongoing effort to improve its publications and
thereby better serve the public.

      The report is available for reference in the Industry Analysis
Division Reference Room, Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Room 533.  Copies may be purchased by calling International
Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS) at [phone].  The report can
also be downloaded from the FCC-State Link computer bulletin board
system at [phone] [BBS file name MKSH1Q95.ZIP].  The FCC- State
Link also can be reached through the National Technical Information
Service's FedWorld system at [phone] or through FedWorld's
telnet internet node (fedworld.gov).

   -FCC-

      For additional information, contact Katie Rangos, Cathy Hsu, or
Jim Lande of the Common Carrier Bureau's Industry Analysis Division,
[phone].

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

Curtis Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 18:47:00 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Paul McCartney Voice-Spams Gillette


A Reuters-originated article carried in {The Toronto Star} 21 July 1995
reported that ex-Beatle Paul McCartney left voice-mail messages of
"animal rights" activism for employees of the Boston offices of Gillette.
Gillette is a maker of shaving products and various other products. An
estimated 600 employees were expected to receive these messages.

The voice bomb relates to allegations that Gillette is involved in
product testing that uses animals. McCartney thanked many employees
for apparently contacting an animal rights group (PETA) with inside
information.

Maybe that's the reason North York Mayor Mel Lastman wants "noooobody"
to use voice mail at his city hall ...

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

From: [e-mail] (John Murray)
Subject: Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department
Date: 24 Jul 1995 03:45:12 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <[e-mail]>, Daryl Frame <[e-mail].
com> wrote:

> Here's a good one: My company recently received a pamphlet from the
> local exchange carrier (PacBell) regarding intralata calls being made
> via a Long Distance Carrier by way of access numbers.  We happen to be
> doing that.  In the pamphlet they were trying to persuade customers to
> avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous carriers who charge up to "six
> times" the rate that Pac Bell charges when dialing direct.

> That's OK, we simply threw the pamphlet away and went on dialing around
> Pac Bell and saving money.

> Yesterday, I received a phone call from Pac Bell. ...

[...discussion of telco marketing misrepresenting itself as cust service..]

Last year, I received a series of calls from my long-distance company
supposedly verifying some elements of my service plan, and then
launching into a sales pitch for some other offering. I finally took
legal action against the company and won the maximum cash settlement
provided for in the FCC regulations.  [The full story is available on
the Web at the following URL:
http://www.engin.umich.edu/~jxm/tlmkting1.html]

The basic point hinges upon the abuse by the telco of it's "privileged"
position in having access to calling patterns, etc. In that respect,
my situation was similar to Daryl's.  If, during the first call, you
tell the caller not to phone again, then when they call again you can
claim harassment as defined in the FCC regulations.  [This would apply
to any telemarketing caller, not just telcos.]

However, in the ensuing legal process, pointing out that the telco's
privileged position might constitute *wilful* harassment seems to make
it come to heel, probably because it carries a higher penalty than
what would otherwise be *accidental* harassment.


John Murray, Univ. of Michigan

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

From: [e-mail] (Ma Bell)
Subject: Please Explain AT&T True Connections
Date: 23 Jul 1995 18:18:48 -0400
Organization: CyberENET Networks and Systems, 609 753 9840;


While flipping though {Internet World} at the library, I came across
an ad for AT&Ts True Connections. It promises you a 500 number, which
is reachable from almost any phone, that will let you have faxes,
phones, pagers etc all available via one number. It also claims to
eliminate separate numbers for cellular phones and international calls
to you.

Is this some menu system where callers press 1 to page 2 to fax, etc? Or
is it really an efficient means of simplifying attempts to contect you?
What is a 500 number, and can it really be reached with the same range
and ease as an 800 number (what the ad implied).

And most importantly off all, will AT&T blacklist my number because it
feels there is too high a likelihood that the phone someone is calling
from is being used for fraud?

The add makes this service sound very appealing, but I'd like to know
how easy it really will be to reach me with this service. How much
will it cost me, how much will it cost callers and is it really an
improvement over silent-answer fax machines and the like?


mb


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 500 service is a little more flexible
than most 800 service, in that you can elect to have the caller pay
for the call (dialing 1-500-your number or 0-500 plus his calling card
or charge to his phone) or you can agree to pay for it yourself by
issuing 'pins' to persons of your choice.

How the 500 number is routed is your choice. Using your master pin, you
tell AT&T what to use as the first number of choice to reach you, the
second number to try, and a 'final stop' when the above two numbers go
unanswered. What you put on each of those numbers (fax, voicemail, live
answer) is your business. When a person dials your 500 number, they hear
the AT&T bong, regardless of whatever carrier they are subscribed to.
After the first number on your 'reach list' rings a few times without an
answer, a computerized voice cuts in and says 'please stand by, we are
trying to reach your party at a different number', and the second number
on your 'reach list' is attempted. Failing to get an answer there, the
message is repeated and your 'final stop' number is connected. You can
change all three of these numbers around anytime you wish remotely from
any phone.   PAT]

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

From: S.M. Loghmani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With X.21 Connectivity
Date: 23 Jul 1995 21:51:50 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA


I need to implement X.21 connectivity for a special app. I have not
been able to find any IC manufacturer that provides any solution to
this, nor any vendor who builds anything like a black box that
converts X.21 to, say, RS232 or some other common form of signaling. I
would appreciate your help in leading me in the right direction.


Thanks,

S.M. Loghmani

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

From: [e-mail] (srinivasan keshav)
Subject: Call for Participation: ACM Sigcomm 1995
Organization: Info. Sci. Div., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 22:40:25 GMT


                      Call for Participation
              ----------------------

                         ACM SIGCOMM 1995

    Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols
                      for Computer Communication

                       Cambridge Marriott Hotel
                     Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA


                     August 28 to September 1, 1995
               (Tutorials and Workshop, August 28 and 29)


* The conference will be preceded by eight tutorials covering
  issues from protocol design, multimedia and wireless technology,
  to high performance networks, security and client/server computing.

* The technical conference begins August 30 with a keynote address by
  this year's ACM SIGCOMM award winner, Prof. David Farber. This will
  be followed by a highly selective three-day single track technical
  program with 30 papers in eleven sessions.

* The deadline for early registration is 1 August, 1995. The hotel
  registration deadline is 11 August, 1995.

* On-site registration will be available from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
  August 28- September 1 and during the welcoming reception, 7:00-9:00 p.m.,
  Tuesday, August 29.

* For more information: WWW: http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95/

       S. Keshav  [e-mail]
       Telephone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
       AT&T Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue,
       Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA.

Tutorials and Technical Program:

* Hot Topics in Networking, Including ATM, Multimedia, Wireless
        Raj Jain, (Ohio State U.).

* Designing Protocols using Techniques from Distributed Systems
        George Varghese, (Washington U., St.  Louis).

* Rethinking Client/Server Computing
        Marc Andressen, (Netscape Communications).

* Host-Network Interface Issues in High Performance Networks
        Bruce Davie, (Bellcore).

* Designing Secure Protocols
        Radia Perlman, (Novell Inc.) and Charlie Kaufman, (Lotus Corp)

* Multimedia Networks
        Aurel Lazar, (Columbia U.).

* The Ethernet Renaissance: Key Protocol Enhancements
        Henry Yang, (Digital Equipment Corp.).

* Congestion Management in High Speed Networks
        K.K. Ramakrishnan, (AT&T Bell Laboratories).

The technical program includes sessions on Bandwidth Reservation,
Switching & Routing, Protocols, Traffic Characterization, Protocol
Implementations, Scheduling, Wireless, Application Support, and Multicast

Detailed descriptions of the tutorials and technical program can be found in
the Sigcomm '95 home page http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #316
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa01688;
          28 Jul 95 0:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13506 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:21:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13498; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:21:02 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:21:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #318

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Jul 95 17:21:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 318

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    More Pacific Bell Deception (Jeff Buckingham)
    Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department (Paul Zirwes)
    Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department (Douglas Kaspar)
    Death of Residential ISDN? (Larry Rachman)
    Book Review: "Free Stuff From the Internet" by Vincent (Rob Slade)
    Book Review: "The Internet Direct Connection Kit" by Harrison (Rob Slade)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 10:23:02 -0700
Subject: More Pacific Bell Deception
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have seen some messages over the last few days about what most
people would call minor deceptions by Pacific Bell when working with
customers.

I think many of us know of much more serious deceptions being
perpetrated by Pacific Bell and other Bell companies. I think we need
to get the word out on these activities since the Congress seems
intent on turning over the industry to the monopolies with little
oversight.

Pacific Bell has been using something called a "win back script" in an
effort to reclaim intra-lata calling from businesses. I have included
a copy of the script which shows how the Pacific Bell representitive
leaves the customer with the impression that dialers (used to rout
intra-lata calls to carriers in the absense of intra-lata
presubscription) cause customers to be billed for busy and no answer
calls. We all know that dialers have no impact on answer supervision
and that the actual supervision is provided by Pacific bell back to
the carrier. The result of the "winback script" is Pacific Bell
trashing its carrier customers for not having proper answer
supervison, when they themselves are providing that supervision. This
is clearly monopoly anticompetitive behavior and we are going to see a
lot more of this type of deception if the Bells are freed without
proper oversight.

Pacific Bell likes to hold itself out as having the best interests of
the customer at heart but their actions are clearly anti-consumer. If
Pacific Bell was really concerned with consumers they would provide
intra-lata presubscription so they would not mistakenly dial local
calls over 10XXX through carriers. I think Pacific Bell and other
Bells need to be held accountable for their actions.

Here is the "winback script". You be the judge. I have been after
Pacific Bell for over a year to change the script and their own expert
has confirmed that it is incorrect. I have yet to receive a copy of an
updated, more truthful script.

Pacific Bell Win Back Script:

"YOU ARE PAYING AN AVERAGE OF ...OH... ABOUT 20 SOME CENTS/MINUTE WITH
PAC BELL.  WE'LL GIVE YOU 14 CENTS/MINUTE.  NOT ONLY THAT, WE'LL GIVE
YOU SIX SECOND BILLING.  and GUESS HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO
INSTALL ... NOT A DIME!"

IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT HAPPENED?

        yes

AND IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THAT IF YOU'RE SAVING
OVER FIVE CENTS/MINUTE AND MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF MINUTES YOU
HAVE THAT YOU'LL SAVE A LOT OF MONEY, RIGHT?

        right

EXCEPT IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

IT ALMOST SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, DOESN'T IT?

        yes

WELL, WHAT DOES IT USUALLY MEAN WHEN SOMETHING SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?

        it usually is

IF YOU'RE LIKE MOST PEOPLE, WHEN YOU GOT YOUR BILL, IF YOU DID
ANYTHING, THIS IS WHAT YOU DID.  YOU TOOK YOUR NEW BILL (take their
bill and pick a service area phone number to talk about), LOOKED AT
THIS CALL AND SAID THIS THREE MINUTE CALL WITH ___________ WAS _______
CENTS.  THE SAME PHONE NUMBER ON PAC BELL WAS FIVE CENTS MORE.  YOU
FIGURE IF YOU SAVED FIVE CENTS PER CALL YOU MUST BE SAVING PLENTY OF
MONEY.  NOW YOU'RE HAPPY, YOU PUT AWAY THE BILL AND NEVER CHECK AGAIN.
IS THAT CLOSE TO WHAT HAPPENED?

        yes

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY EITHER, I'LL SHOW YOU WHY IN A MINUTE.

WHEN YOU MAKE A PHONE CALL, ARE YOU USUALLY CALLING BUSINESSES OR
RESIDENCES?

        businesses

SO THERE IS USUALLY SOMEONE THERE TO ANSWER THE PHONE, RIGHT?

        right

WHEN SOMEONE DOES ANSWER THE PHONE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU GET
VOICE MAIL OR WHEN YOU PAGE SOMEONE, BUT WHEN A LIVE BODY ACTUALLY
PICKS UP THE PHONE; HOW OFTEN DOES THE CONVERSATION LAST ... OH, I
DON'T KNOW ... LESS THAN 30 SECONDS?

        not very often

(now get their bill and point out short calls, it will usually be
between 20-35% of the calls)

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, _____% OF YOUR CALLS ARE LESS THAN 30 SECONDS.  DOES THAT
SEEM LIKE A LOT TO YOU?

        yes

IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT TO ME TOO, WHY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE SO MANY?

        i don't know

WOULD YOU LIKE TO FIND OUT?

        of course

(now go to bill and find short calls that were dialed again in a short
period of time where the second call is longer)

LOOK AT THIS CALL, YOU DIALED IT ONCE AND IT WAS LESS THAN 30 SECONDS.
YOU DIALED THE SAME NUMBER LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES LATER AND IT WAS TWO
MINUTES (use an actual figure from the dialer bill).  WHAT DID YOU
ACCOMPLISH IN THAT FIRST CALL?

        i don't know

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?

        i don't know

(at this point find several other instances of the same thing to show
that it is not a fluke.)

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.  WITH PACIFIC BELL, WHEN YOU MAKE A CALL
AND YOU GET A BUSY SIGNAL, HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY?

        nothing

RIGHT, AND IF YOU MAKE A CALL THAT RINGS 20 TIMES AND NO ONE ANSWERS,
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY?

        nothing

RIGHT, THAT TECHNOLOGY IS NOT CHEAP.  IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT WE
HAVE A PRETTY LARGE BASE OF CUSTOMERS TO SPREAD IT OVER - BASICALLY
EVERYBODY IN CALIFORNIA.  UNFORTUNATELY NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE IN THAT
POSITION.  HOWEVER; MOST CUSTOMERS ARE SO ACCUSTOMED TO BEING BILLED
ONLY FOR CONVERSATION TIME THAT THEY ASSUME THAT ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANIES ONLY BILL FOR THAT.  THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

        so am i paying for incomplete calls?


I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE ACCESS TO__________________'S PHONE
SYSTEM.  AND I DOUBT IF THEY'LL LET ME LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE.  ALL I
CAN GO BY IS WHAT IS IN YOUR BILL.  WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO YOU?

        it looks like i am being billed for incomplete calls.

I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN.  BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?  THAT ISN'T EVEN THE MEAT OF THE
MATTER, BECAUSE IF YOU ADD UP ALL THE MONEY FROM THESE SHORT CALLS IT
WOULDN'T ADD UP TO THAT MUCH MONEY WOULD IT?  PROBABLY NO MORE THAN $5-$10 IN
THE WHOLE BILL, RIGHT?

        right

THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE IMPORTANT STUFF YET.  DO
YOU WANT TO GET TO THE IMPORTANT STUFF!?!

        yes

NOW, I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.  IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR CALLS THAT ARE
BUSY AND FOR CALLS THAT RING AND NO ONE ANSWERS, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU START
PAYING FOR A CALL WHEN SOMEONE DOES ANSWER?  WHEN THE CONVERSATION BEGINS,
OR WHEN THEY PICK UP?

        when they pick up (customers give this answer all the
time but some are more savvy than others and will answer "when it
rings" we'll address how to respond to that response in a little bit.)

NOW THINK ABOUT THAT, IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR A CALL THAT RINGS AND NO
ONE ANSWERS, AND YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT IT LOOKS AS IF THAT IS WHAT IS
HAPPENING, DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE THAT YOU WOULD START PAYING FOR EVERY
CALL WHEN IT RINGS, NOT WHEN THEY PICK UP!?!

        ahhh!!! now i see, it looks like i'm paying when it rings.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!!!

        (now pick out a service area call on the bill that is
2.1 to 2.5 minutes long)

NOW YOU KNOW THAT PAC BELL BILLS IN FULL MINUTE INCREMENTS. RIGHT?

        yes

WITH THAT IN MIND, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD PAC BELL BILL YOU FOR THIS CALL? -
REMEMBER, WE BILL IN ONE MINUTE INCREMENTS!

        3 minutes

WRONG!!!!!!!!

        (customer almost always looks very confused now and
usually sheepishly hazards another guess)

        2 minutes?

WRONG!!!!!!!

        then i don't know

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!  THAT'S THE ANSWER, I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DID THAT PHONE CALL RING?

        i don't know

NEITHER DO I, BUT I DO KNOW THIS, IT RANG AT LEAST ONCE BECAUSE IF
THAT IS A BUSY SIGNAL WE HAVE REAL PROBLEMS!!!  SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE
IS SOME FLUFF IN THERE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH.

HERE'S THE MEAT OF THE MATTER.  THAT HAPPENS ON EVERY..........SINGLE.......
CALL..........YOU..........MAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW, IF YOUR LIKE MOST PEOPLE YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE, LET
ME SHOW YOU HOW IT WORKS:

    (here is where we draw the picture of how a dialer works)

    (the picture and the explanation are now done - time to close)

HERE'S WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO.  WE WILL GO BACK TO THE PHONE CLOSET
AND UNPLUG YOUR DIALERS.  THEN, WE WILL GO BACK HERE AND MAKE A LONG
DISTANCE AND A SERVICE AREA CALL.  IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, THEN WE
WILL GO PLUG THE DIALERS BACK IN.  WHEN YOUR PAC BELL BILL COMES YOU
ARE GOING TO LOOK IT OVER AND IF EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED TODAY IS
WRONG, THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PLUG YOUR DIALERS BACK IN.  BUT IF WE
WERE RIGHT, AND I'M SURE WE ARE.  THEN YOU CAN CALL YOUR DIALER
COMPANY AND HAVE THEM REMOVE YOUR EQUIPMENT.  FAIR ENOUGH?

    yes, but what happens to the people that are on the phone?

NOTHING, THEY WON'T EVEN NOTICE.

    (when you are in the phone closet, show them the power cord
and have them unplug it - you must be confident and don't hesitate.)

SEE THAT (point to the modular power cord connected to the dialer) -
UNPLUG IT!  (don't say anything else, it might make the customer
nervous).


[e-mail]
Jeff Buckingham
Call America, San Luis Obispo, CA
805-545-5100 (MyLine voice or fax)

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Zirwes)
Subject: Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: InfoCenter Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:51:37 GMT


Bob,

So that's what PacBell calls Customer Service!!!

By "Alerting customers to the possibility..." (see below), PacBell is
in fact SELLING their over-priced inter-lata rates over their
competition under the guise of "Customer Service."  A simple example:
a five minute call (using PacBell) from Julian to Escondido costs me
$.40 using my carrier.  PacBell charges me $.58, or a full 32% higher
than my carrier.  Calls from Julian to Cardiff-by-the-Sea also cost me
$.40, but PacBell charges $.67 -- or 40% more than I pay.  If my
company makes over 1,000 of these type calls every month (our normal
call volume), they cost us about $400 (using our long-distance
carrier).  By using PacBell's newly "discounted" rates, the same calls
would cost us between $128 to $160 MORE per month!!!  This makes
paying the $15/month for our four line-dialer very profitable, and
eliminates the stated problem of "paying for a free call."

I'd love to see a copy of the study cited below, I wonder who paid for
it and what questions were asked?  IMHO, PacBell is simply using scare
tactics to try to freighten the uninformed customer back into their
inflated pricing structure.  Customer Service indeed!  As only PacBell
can provide ...


Paul Zirwes
InfoCenter Systems, Inc.
Julian, CA
[e-mail]
(c)1995 by Paul A. Zirwes, All Rights Reserved

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

From: [e-mail] (Douglas Kaspar)
Subject: Re: Deception by Telco Marketing Department
Date: 27 Jul 1995 16:09:25 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY


The points made are correct.  I have a question.  HR1555, which is a
major rewrite of the telecommunications law, looks like it will pass.
Based on the theme of this thread, will the general public be better
off?

I don't think so, any other comments?

DOUGLAS KASPAR  [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 95 13:10:08 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Death of Residential ISDN?


I have seen the future, and it is *not* residential ISDN.

Thanks to a number of things, among which were good luck and the help
of a friend, I'm currently a participcant in an experimental program
delivering residential data service via Cable TV.

The hookup consists of a card installed in my PC, plus an RF modem
about the size of the old US robotics 'dual standard' modem. The unit
is connected to the PC via a 15-pin 'D' connector which makes me think
that it may be a standard AUI connection. The modem is powered from
the PC, and has four lights on the front: Power, Activity, Transmit,
and Receive. Instead of a modular jack on the back, it has a pair of
'F' coaxial cable connectors, one of which connects to the same
spigott that serves our TV.

The Cable TV folks provide 'direct' access to Prodigy and America
online, but their system also gateways to the internet. This is a
helluva lot more interesting to me than Prodigy or AOL.

The software implementation is via TCP/IP, and it coexists well with my
Windows for Workgroups peer-to-peer network. My copy of Compuserve
Information Manager (WINCIM) includes TCP/IP as one of the network
choices, so I tried picking that from the menu, and darned if it didn't
link right up!

The thing is *fast*. Typical throughput is about 60-100kbps; I've seen
some transfers take place as quickly as 300kbps. I've only been
experimenting with it for a few days, so I probably haven't seen all its
able to do.

Where it really shines is, as you might imagine, with the web browser.
Clicking on something that will send a picture is now a pleasure rather
than a chore. And I'm not tying up my phone line, either.

IMHO, as NYNEX continues to drag their heels deploying basic rate ISDN,
these folks are going to catch them napping. If they price this service
right, they're going to sell a helluva lot of it. Why would anyone take
ISDN with an upper limit of 128kbps, when they can have this with what
appears to be a *lower* limit of about 64kbps?

And the neatest thing about it is that they're managing to do it
without the help of Al Gore or an 'Ominbus Information Superhighway
Act'.  Actually, I suspect that if they go ahead with the program,
they're biggest problem will be *sneaking it past* Al Gore and the
Ominbus Information Superhighway Act.

I'll report back in a month or so with a more complete user report.


L. Rachman
[e-mail] (the new service doesn't have a mail drop...yet)

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 16:03:20 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Free Stuff From the Internet" by Vincent


BKFRESTF.RVW   950525

"Free Stuff From the Internet", Vincent, 1994, 1-883577-11-X, U$19.99/C$26.99
%A   Patrick Vincent [e-mail]
%C   7339 E. Acoma Drive, Suite 7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
%D   1994
%G   1-883577-11-X
%I   Coriolis Group/IDG Books
%O   U$19.99/C$26.99 [phone] [e-mail]
%P   459
%T   "Free Stuff From the Internet"

The one word probably most responsible for the current interest in the
Internet is "free".  Free email.  (Well, distance and usage
insensitive.  Except for Compu$pend.)  Free software.  (Well, some
public domain and distance insensitive access to lots of shareware.)
Free advice.  (And worth every penny you paid for it.)

In fact, this book is basically another catalogue of stuff on the net.
Lots of Gopher (*lots* of Gopher!) sites, mailing lists, ftp sites,
and other resources.  As Vincent, himself, points out, it only
scratches the surface of what is available.  The entries average about
half a page, each, and some might wonder at the need to use that much
space in order to give directions on obtaining four utility programs
for manipulating your DOS PATH setting.  Each item is, however, quite
clear, and contains a description, the tool to use, the site to
access, and a directory path or menu list.

The listings are divided by topical chapters.  Within the chapters,
there is no discernable organization: this is a book for browsing, not
for reference.

Vincent, in common with many others, has confused the World Wide Web
with the Mosaic browser.  The chapter on "The Tightwad's Guide to
Mosaic" gives access directions for the client software, but I
wouldn't try to install it without more info.

The inclusion of a list of Freenets is a nice touch.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKFRESTF.RVW   950525. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]         | Nam tua res agitur, paries
Institute for  [e-mail]      | cum proximus ardet.
Research into  [e-mail] |    - For it is your
User           [e-mail]   | business, when the wall
Security       Canada V7K 2G6           | next door catches fire.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:35:35 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Direct Connection Kit" by Harrison


BKINTDCK.RVW   950524

"The Internet Direct Connect Kit", Peter Harrison, 1994, 1-56884-135-3,
U$29.95/C$39.95/UK#28.99
%A   Peter Harrison
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1994
%G   1-56884-135-3
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$29.95/C$39.95/UK#28.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   283
%T   "The Internet Direct Connect Kit"

The cover blurbs, as usual, overstate how much "free" stuff you get,
and how unique this package is, but Harrison has put together a very
practical kit.  The disk included with the book contains the Cello
World Wide Web browser, WS_FTP, WinQVT/Net ... and Trumpet Winsock, to
make it all work.

All of these programs are available from the net, so their inclusion
with the book is simply a convenience.  In works of this type, the
authors often do little more than regurgitate the documentation.
Harrison does more.  He includes documentation, but it also pointers
and tips about the weaknesses and relative strengths of specific
programs (even going so far as to note the superiority of a commercial
program to one provided with the book), network factors and common
difficulties.  The material is very realistic and helpful.  The
chapter on Trumpet Winsock setup could incorporate more detail, but it
does contain points I've never seen in any previous book.

It is occasionally difficult to find a point, and some areas could
benefit from additional content.  The Internet access list has nothing
in my area, despite the presence of eighteen local, five regional, and
three national providers.  Still, Harrison has chosen a minimal suite
of software which provides basic Internet clients (and includes an ftp
server), and has backed it up with a solid book for the intermediate
Internet user who wants to go to a "direct" connection.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINTDCK.RVW   950524. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.

Vancouver      [e-mail]                   | Ceterum
Institute for  [e-mail] | censeo
Research into  [e-mail]     | Canter et Siegel
User           [e-mail]       | delendam
Security       Canada V7K 2G6                     | esse

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #318
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02234;
          28 Jul 95 2:10 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11941 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:46:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11930; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:46:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:46:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #317

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Jul 95 16:46:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 317

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    911 Start-up in Illinois (Brian Krupicka)
    800 to be Replicated in 888 (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Virginia Area Code Mailing Goof (Greg Monti)
    AT&T 500 Numbers Still Don't Work From Europe (Charles Buckley)
    A Conference on DSP in Telecom ([e-mail])
    ITU-T H 324 Spec - Videoconferencing Over Analogue Lines (Rob Ollier)
    Canada Reviews Policy on Overseas Telecommunications (B. Graham)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:15:51 CDT
From: Brian Krupicka <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Start-up in Illinois


                             PS/ALI
                          Expanded 911
                   Implementation Check List
                    Printed July 22, 1995

                        Brian M. Krupicka
                        Aurora University
                          708-844-8396
               E-mail - [e-mail]

A new State of Illinois law requires integration of colleges and
universities telephone systems with the E911 emergency service
dispatcher center.  My thanks goes out to a number of people at
Nortel, Ameritech's technical assistance center and the Ameritech
911 project team for making this integration happen.

The following items are required in order to implement the
PS/ALI, Expanded 911 service between the Northern Telecom,
Meridian/SL-1 telephone PABX system and the Emergency Services
Dispatcher Center (PASP).

 1)  All buildings are required to have an address approved by
     the 911 emergency services provider.  These address can be
     obtained from your electric, gas, or water bills.  The city
     Department of Engineering should provide a new address
     within 5 to 10 working days. The city Department of
     Engineering will notify all city departments and the 911
     emergency services provider of new addresses.  You will be
     responsible for all other notifications (i.e.: Post Office,
     telephone, electric, and gas companies, etc.).  Only
     previously approved addresses can be entered in the PS/ALI
     address database.

      NOTE: It is best to check two or more sources for address
      accuracy.

 2)  Each telephone station user's location will require a
     designation, such as a room and floor number.  These
     designations should be consistent in design and clearly
     mounted.

          Note: This information will be entered in the PS/ALI
          "Location Information" database.  The database has a
          field for 20 alphanumeric characters.

  3) A telephone station user should be able to dial 9-911 or 911
     from any telephone.  The primary routing for these calls
     should be via CAMA trunks, in order to deliver telephone
     station user information to the emergency services
     dispatcher.  Alternate 911 routing should be established via
     central office trunk lines.  Alternate routing will secure a
     higher level of reliability.  These CAMA trunks will only
     carry 911 traffic.

 4)  Determine the number of CAMA trunks needed to handle the 911
     traffic volume.  Your Ameritech 911 project manager will
     assist you in determining the number of CAMA trunks
     required.  CAMA circuits will be invoiced on a separate
     Ameritech account.

          Note: Once the PS/ALI service agreement is signed, the
          911 project manager will order the required CAMA
          circuits.  911 CAMA circuits are NOT ordered from your
          Ameritech Services Coordinator.

 5)  The requirement for integration between the Northern
     Telecom, Meridian/SL-1 and the Ameritech 911 tandem is a
     minimum of two CAMA trunk connections.  This integration
     could be via:

           A)  Two T-1 channels, one on each of two separate
               T-1's.
                     NOTE: System release 5, software option 75
                     "PBXI" (PBX Interface for DTI/CPI) is

                     required when use T-1 trunking.
           or
           B1)  Two 4-wire E&M trunk ports via two NT8D15 trunk
                cards.
                or
           B2)  Two 4-wire E&M trunk ports via two QPC237 trunk
                cards.

          Note: Using two separate trunk cards increases overall
          reliability.

          Note: DX, 2-wire E&M and loop signaling are not
          recommended by Ameritech.

 6)  The Northern Telecom telephone system requires options 12
     "ANI" (Automatic Number Identification) and option 13 "ANIR"
     (ANI Route Selection).  Both options were available from
     release one.

 7)  The Northern Telecom telephone system must be equipped with
     an MF sender pack (card).  This card is located in the
     common equipment shelf.  Either the QPC189 MF sender circuit
     pack or the NT8D17 Conference/TDS circuit pack can be used
     for MF signaling.

 8)  The following Northern Telecom overlays need to be reviewed
     and programmed, in order to implement CAMA signaling and 911
     routing.

           Review NT X11 Input/Output Guide for:

                Load 16 - Trunk Route Administration
                Load 14 - Trunk Administration
                Load 15 - Customer Datablock
                Load 90 - ESN Translation Tables
                Load 86 - Electronic Networks

           Review NT Software Features Guide for:
                Automatic Number Identification feature
                     description
                Automatic Number Identification on DTI

 9)  All telephones having access to 911 dialing, must have a
     telephone extension number which complies with the Ameritech
     numbering plan. This could be Centrex or direct-in-dial
     numbers.  The numbering information contained in the
     Ameritech dialing plan and your telephone systems numbering
     plan must be the same.  If there was a difference, the
     number received at the Emergency Services Dispatcher Center
     could be falsely identified and responding emergency
     personnel could be dispatched to the wrong location.  The
     PS/ALI software will not accept telephone numbers which do
     not comply with both numbering plans.

          Note: At the current time the Northern Telecom
          Telephone system can only provide for one NXX insertion
          in the CAMA data stream exchanged between the telephone
          system and the 911 tandem.  If multiple NXX's are used
          in the same telephone system, then adjunct hardware is
          required to provide for digit to NXX manipulation.

 10) Secure a list of all D.I.D. number blocks from your
     Ameritech service records, your Ameritech monthly invoices
     or from your Ameritech customer service representative.
     Even though you may have a list of D.I.D. extension numbers
     for individual telephones, you need to know the blocks of
     D.I.D. numbers you have available for your use.  This
     information needs to be provided to the Ameritech 911
     project manager prior to entering any telephone extension in
     the PS/ALI telephone record database.

 11) A PS/ALI service agreement/quotation must be obtained from
     your 911 Ameritech project manager.  They can be reached at
     1-800-432-3911.  You need to inform your 911 project manager
     which one of the following telephone stations categories
     best represents your telephone PABX system.  A PS/ALI
     Service Agreement/quotation will then be developed.

                Number of Stations
                0 -50
                51- 150
                151-300
                301-500
                501-750
                751-1000
                1001-1500
                1501-2000
                2001+

          Note: Only count stations which have access to 911
          services.  Do not count modems (without telephones),
          incoming only FAX machines, internal intercom numbers,
          phantom DN'S, etc.


 12) A personal computer for operation of the PS/ALI software
     with the following requirements is required:

           486/66 or better processor
           8 Mbytes of memory
           50 Mbytes of free disk space
           Hayes-compatible, 14.4 Kbps error-correction modem
           VGA or better monitor and graphics card
           Microsoft Windows Environment operation system
           Microsoft Windows version 3.1 or later

          NOTE: This P.C. does not need to be a dedicated
          computer for this function.

     This P.C. is used for maintaining the addresses and
     telephone user database information.  The information is
     then downloaded to the Ameritech ALI database.

 13) A POTS line is required for the P.C's. modem.  This should
     be installed and working prior to delivery of the PS/ALI
     software.  This POTS line needs 800 calling access, only.


 14) Optional adjunct hardware is available in order to provide
     on-site notification of a 911 call while the call is being
     processed.  Each of the adjunct vendors will provide
     different features and options.  The following is a list of
     available providers.

           Northern Telecom
           Private 911 - Visit
           2221 Lakeside Blvd.
           Richardson, Tx.75082-4399
           Phone:    800-NORTHERN

           Digital Techniques, Inc
           402 West Bethany Road
           Allen, Texas 75002
           Phone:    [phone]

           Proctor & Associates
           15050 NE 36th Street
           Redmond, Wa. 98052
           Phone:    [phone]
           FAX:      [phone]

           Tel Control, Inc.
           P.O. Box 4031
           Huntsville, Al. 35815-4031
           Phone:    [phone]
           Fax:      [phone]

           Telident
           One Main Street SE
           Suite 85
           Minneapolis, Mn.
           Phone:    [phone]
                     612-623-0911
           FAX:      [phone]

 15) The following implementation and installation contractors
     can perform some or all of the following:

           consulting services
           911 on-site system design
           address validation or acquisition
           user database collection
           Northern Telecom telephone system CAMA trunk
               installation and software programming
           PS/ALI address and station user database programming
           CAMA trunk installation and system testing

           B&B Electronics
           2717 Bordeaux Place
           Lisle, Il. 60532
           Phone: [phone]

           Cable Engineering, Inc.
           P.O. Box 4086
           Louisville, Kentucky 40204
           Phone:    [phone]
                     502-589-2848
           FAX:      [phone]

           Tele-Studies, Inc.
           51 Shore Drive, South Suite
           BurRidge, Il. 60521
           Phone:    [phone]


Brian Krupicka                 INTERNET: [e-mail]     |
Telecommunications Manager     PHONE: [phone]  FAX:  [phone] |
Computer Information Services  PAGER: 312-824-6270  Home: 708-961-1243 |
Aurora University            ------------------------------------------|
347 S. Gladstone Avenue     |   Working together is the only answer    |
Aurora, IL  60506           |                                          |

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:44:24 -0400
Subject: 800 to be Replicated in 888


AT&T has submitted an issue statement calling for granting existing
800 users an advance window within which to obtain their matching
888's, effectively "grandfathering" those 800's requested by users.

This was apparently the result of the DSMI survey report that 75% of
vanity 800 users want this protection.

For the first time, not only a carrier, but the major carrier, is
responding to users.  Your voice now counts more than ever.

The issue statement was accepted.  It's current status is "open."

The next step is for this position to be reflected in the FCC Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking Memorandum on the ownership issues.  ICB will
be involved in the drafting of that NPRM, due out the third week in
August.


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So now in effect 888 is already as crowded
as 800, is that it?  It is barely possible to get an 800 number now because
so many are in use; it will apparently be barely possible to get an 888
number because so many will have been removed from assignment. What exactly
was the point of 888 if not to make millions of new toll-free numbers
available for assignment? But now they cannot be assigned because everyone
who has an 800 number will ask to have the corresponding 888 number made
unavailable. So where does that leave us, back where we started?   PAT

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:14:34 PDT
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virginia Area Code Mailing Goof


The following summarized story ran in the July 25, 1995, editions of
the {Washington Post} under the headline "Three Little Digits, One Big
Goof" by Mike Mills.

In a gaffe that would give any public relations manger intestinal
trouble, Bell Atlantic Corp. late last week sent notices to 388,000
Northern Virginia homes and businesses, telling them that their 703
area code would soon be changed to 540.

"Welcome to 540 country, from Bell Atlantic," read the cheerful
notices, which included little stickers for people to place on their
phones as a helpful reminder of the impending change.

The problem is, they told the wrong people.

The mailing should have been sent to folks farther west in Virginia,
where Bell Atlantic on July 15 began using 540 in place of 703.
Residents there may now use either area code until Jan. 1, when 540
will take over -- though they may not know it, because they didn't get
the notices.

The blunder will cost Bell Atlantic about $100,000 in printing and
mailing costs.  A corrected mailing will go out in about a week.

The mis-mailing did not affect GTE customers in the 703 area.

The northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, Prince William County,
eastern Loudoun County, Leesburg and northern Stafford County will
remain in 703.  The remaining area is now 540.


Greg Monti     Arlington, Virginia, USA     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:58:07 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Charles Buckley)
Subject: AT&T 500 Numbers Still Don't Work From Europe


I tried calling mine from Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, and
Holland.  I just checked to be sure mine was still reachable from
within the USA, and it is, but in Europe I always got some recording
saying that there was no telephone connected to this number.

I thought that these numbers were supposed to be reachable from
anywhere!  What gives?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey don't get in such a rush! 500 numbers
don't even work here in northern Illinois yet (at least not in the
Skokie area) so why should you get them from your country?

It seems that 0-500 bill to a calling card goes nowhere around here.
Of course 1-500 never did work from payphones so the only option is
0-500, with billing to a PIN or a calling card. Well for the past two
weeks at least, billing to a calling card causes the call to bomb out.

If you dial 0-500 and the number, you get the usual AT&T bong, followed
by a request to enter the pin number or zero plus pound to bill to a
calling card. You do zero plus pound and presently you get the AT&T
bong again and a request to enter the card number. You enter it, you
get told (read closely now!) 'thank you for calling A' with a ringing
that cuts in immediatly cutting off the rest of the thank you (the
'tee and tee' part). The phone number you are calling (translated to)
rings once only. No matter how fast the person answers it they just
get dial tone; its sort of like the warning ring you get when you have
your phone on call forwarding. The person calling hears one ring which
is different than what a 'normal ring' sounds like. Then dead silence,
and about ten seconds later the caller gets dial tone back also.

This is NOT an AT&T problem. When dialing 800-CALL-ATT or 800-321-0288
to place the call, everything works normally. It is only when you place
the call via Ameritech switches that the problem occurs. I've called
AT&T three times in the past three days to report this. I call them at
800-982-8480. They listen politely, usually don't say anything dumb,
and respond uh-huh ... okay we will report it. And that's the end of
it. I don't know if they follow up on it with anyone or not.

Of course using 10288 or 10222 or 10333 means nothing. You can use one
of those other carrier prefixes and still do 0-500 getting the AT&T
prompt. The call still won't complete when a calling card is used. So
basically we don't have 0-500 service here at the present time. Anyone
who wants to try it from elsewhere and see if their telco is similarly
afflicted is welcome to make a calling card call to 0-500-677-1616 and
see if they can get through. As for you people in Europe and around the
world, if I can't reach my own house from the parking lot at the Venture
store across the street yet, then I don't know why you should expect
anything. By the way, 0-700 under the same circumstances works okay.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Conference on DSP in Telecom
Date: 27 Jul 1995 10:48:12 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org)


IEEE Toronto and GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.  Present

    Conference on Digital Signal Processing in Telecom
         at Canadian High Technology Show
        September 19 & 20, 1995

   International Center, 6900 Airport Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
     (Tel: [phone], Near Toronto International Airport)

Morning Session, September 19, 1995
9:00am   Introduction
    Dr. Frank Gao, Chairman of the Signal Processing Chapter and
    CEO of GAO Research & Consulting Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario, Canada

9:05am  DSP Products and Support from Analog Devices
    Mr. Rupert Baines, Manager, Analog Devices Inc., Norwood, MA, USA

10:00am  Flexible Vocabulary Recognition? Unleashing the Power of the Phoneme
    Dr. Paul Boucher, Manager, Bell Northern Research, Montreal, Quebec,
    Canada

Break  10:45am - 11:00am

11:00am   DSP Software and Systems for Digital Telephony & Telecom
    Mr. Ben Chan, Manager, GAO Research & Consulting Ltd., Scarborough,
    Ontario, Canada

Afternoon Session, September 19, 1995
1:30pm   Answering the Call - Enterprise Mobility Solutions
    Mr. Douglas Michaelides, Director, Business Development, Nortel
    (Northern Telecom), Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

2:30pm   Speech Processing and Its Applications in Telecom
    Prof. Douglas O'Shaughnessy, INRS-Telecommunications, Montreal, Quebec,
    Canada

3:30pm  DSP Products and Support from Texas Instruments
    Dr. Tim Grady, DSP Solutions, Texas Instruments, Texas, USA

Morning Session, September 20, 1995
9:00am  A Simulation System for Modem Communications
    Dr. Ira Konvalinka, Manager, PureData Research Ltd., Toronto, Ontario,
    Canada

10:00am  Signal Processing Issues in Hands-Free Communication Systems
    Mr. Hussein Sallam, Director, Coherent Communications Systems, Leesburg,
    VA, USA

Break 11:00am - 11:15am
11:15am  Digital Audio: Algorithms, Implementations and Telecom Applications
    By Mr. Ted Tanner, Manager, Audio Group, National Semiconductor, USA

12:00 noon Semi-Intrusive and Non-Intrusive DSP-Based Methods for Trans-Hybrid
    Loss     Measurements for Digital Telephony Applications
    By Dr. Roman Dyba, Project Leader, Northern Telecom/BNR, Bramalea,
    Ontario, Canada

Registration fee: CND$200.00 for IEEE members,  CND$250.00 for non-members.

The fee includes admission to all sessions and exhibits over two days. Please
note that sessions and speakers are subject to change without notice.

For registration and any non-technical matters, please contact Ms.
Sandra Biback at Tel: [phone], ext 228, Fax: [phone],
Email: [e-mail]

For any technical questions, please contact Dr. Frank Gao, Conference
Chair at Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]

The updated information will be available at GAO Research & Consulting Ltd.
WWW home page: http://www.io.org/~gao

GAO Research & Consulting Ltd. is one of the world leading suppliers of DSP
algorithms, software and hardware modules, and consulting services.

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

From: Rob Ollier <[e-mail]>
Subject: ITU-T H 324 Spec - Videoconferencing Over Analogue Lines
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 15:45:02 GMT
Organization: BRT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am very interested in desktop videoconferencing now that prices
are falling rapidly.

The H320 stuff (i.e. using ISDN lines) is still overpriced in my view.
I believe the ITU have a new spec for video conferencing over
analogue, ITU-T H324, which would really give the market a boost if
the quality is acceptable.

Anyone out there with opinions on this issue?


Rob Ollier, BRT           | BR Telecommunications Ltd  | Any opinions
expressed
Asst Development Engineer | Work +(44) (0) 171 3918265 | are my own (not
BRT's)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 24 Jul 95 12:09:34 EDT
Subject: Canada Reviews Policy on Overseas Telecommunications


Attached are the government press release (file 07-21-95.txt) and the
internal Teleglobe Canada Inc. (mandata.txt) on the Canada Gazette Notice of
intention to review policy on overseas telecommunications carriage for
Canada.  Both are public documents.


Government issues notice on study of overseas telecoms, and specifically
Teleglobe's role

On Friday, the Government of Canada issued a Gazette Notice outlining
its plans for a public policy review to examine Teleglobe Canada's
mandate as Canada's exclusive intercontinental carrier.  This review
was scheduled when Teleglobe's mandate was last renewed in 1992.

The process places the issue of Teleglobe's mandate within a broad
context of the worldwide trend toward liberalization in our industry.
The discussion document makes it clear that the government favors a
more competitive marketplace.  Public comment is invited on a policy
framework for the industry, and provides an opportunity to suggest
conditions to be met prior to the transition toward a more open
market.

"We welcome the initiation of the review," said Meriel Bradford,
Vice-President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, who chairs the
working group preparing Teleglobe's response to the Gazette Notice.
"We feel confident about our ability to make a positive contribution
to the discussion, as Teleglobe's performance since the last mandate
renewal in 1992 has improved in line with global trends: prices have
steadily dropped as quality has risen.  We are in the process of
diversifying our business into new markets internationally, and into
new technologies, such as wireless communications, to serve our
customers better."

The Gazette Notice allows intervenors until October 27, 1995 to make
written submissions to the government.  All submissions are public
documents.  Interested parties will be able to review and respond to
the initial submissions until December 11, 1995.  The Minister of
Industry will then make a decision based on information provided in
the submissions.

Further information will be made available to employees as the process
develops this fall.  Anyone interested will be able to read the notice
on the Government's Internet site:

Anonymous file transfer (FTP)
info.ic.gc.ca/pub/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp

Gopher
info.ic.gc.ca port 70/Industry Canada Documents/Regulatory
Information and Documents/Gazette/dgtp

World Wide Web (WWW)
http://info.ic.gc.ca/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp


File name:07-21-95
Internet address: info.ic.gc.ca
File path:  /pub/ic-data/ppd/news-releases/1995
Date archived: Fri Jul 21 01:60:06 EDT 1995
Archive name: Industry Canada, Canadian Federal Government
Archived by: [e-mail]

Originator: <see document body>

                ** version franais ci-dessous **

Industry Canada

          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY TO UNDERTAKE REVIEW OF
                    TELEGLOBE CANADA MONOPOLY

     OTTAWA, July 21, 1995 -- The Honourable John Manley, Minister of
Industry, today announced that he has initiated a review of the
various issues related to the carriage of telecommunications between
Canada and countries overseas, and in particular, Teleglobe Canada's
future role. Public comment on specific issues set out in a Canada
Gazette Notice is solicited, as are comments on any other issues which
are believed to be of relevance to the provision of international
telecommunications services.

     Copies of the Canada Gazette Notice "Review of Canadian Overseas
Telecommunications and Specifically Teleglobe Canada's Role" are
available electronically via the Internet at the following addresses:

     Anonymous file transfer (FTP)
     info.ic.gc.ca/pub/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp

     Gopher
     info.ic.gc.ca port 70/Industry Canada Documents/Regulatory
     Information and Documents/Gazette/dgtp

     World Wide Webb (WWW)
     http://info.ic.gc.ca/ic-data/regulatory/gazette/dgtp

     Copies can also be obtained from the Communications Branch,
Industry Canada, 235 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5,
[phone].


For more information, please contact:

Michael Helm
Director General
Telecommunications Policy
Industry Canada
[phone]

Release 7300

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #317
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08725;
          28 Jul 95 4:42 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16399 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:15:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16391; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:15:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:15:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #319

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Jul 95 20:15:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 319

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Loran-C Future (Chris Gettings)
    Re: Loran-C Future (Gary Segal)
    Slamming and Disintegrity of Intega(e)tel (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications (Mike Bucklaew)
    Re: Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications (John Agosta)
    Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold (Fran S. Menzel)
    Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold (Rich Szabo)
    Question re Selling an 800 Number (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Information Request on ATM (Jose Manuel Barrutia)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:34:52 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Re: Loran-C Future


Keith wanted to know about the fate of Loran-C.  You could try calling the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association @ 1-800-USA-AOPA.


Chris Gettings   N5589D BE-35H
email: [e-mail]
http://canam.dgsys.com/cg/planes.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or, he can read the next article in this
issue of the Digest which gives a quite detailed look at Loran-C.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 13:07:52 -0500
From: Gary Segal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loran-C Future


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Ouellette)
writes:

> I keep hearing conflicting stories on the fate of Loran-C. I heard
> that the government's initial aggreement was to continue funding it
> until the year 2010. Then I heard a rumur that it was going to cut the
> funding for Loran-C in the year 2000, and of course I also hear that
> it planned on cutting the funding in 1987. Is there any way I can find
> out what the actual intent is?

Here's some info from the USCG's web site (http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/):

               LORAN-C
        NOT YET AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

         ENS John A. Thompson, USCG
         Radionavigation Information Officer
        USCG Radionavigation Division (G-NRN)

             18 Nov 1992

With the advent of the new satellite based Global Positioning System
(GPS), there is a growing concern among Loran-C users that their
time-tested navigation system will be eliminated in the very near
future.  The closure or turnover of several overseas Loran-C stations
is adding to the controversy.  Rumors of the demise of the Loran-C
system couldn't be further from the truth.  Although the Coast Guard
is withdrawing from overseas Loran-C operations by the end of 1994 as
mandated by public law, most nations will continue to operate these
stations for their own needs.  In many cases, they will actually
expand the coverage areas.  The U.S.  Coast Guard continues to fully
support, improve, and expand Loran-C facilities in the continental
U.S. and Alaska.  In 1991, two new Loran-C chains began transmitting
to complete the coverage over the continental U.S.  In addition,
modernization of older facilities continues.  The number of Loran-C
users has increased thanks to it's use by the aviation community and
to new applications by terrestrial users.  This trend is expected to
continue despite the arrival of GPS.  Due to the very large size of
the Loran-C user community, continued reliance on Loran by foreign
governments, and new non-navigation applications, Loran-C is expected
to be around until at least 2015.

Presently, Loran-C is one of the most widely used radio-navigation
systems available.  The Loran-C community consists of over 600,000
users worldwide including maritime, aviation, and terrestrial users.
Many of these are recreational boaters and small commercial vessel
operators who take advantage of Loran-C's very low cost and excellent
repeatable accuracy.  Loran-C remains as the designated
federally-provided radionavigation system for civil marine use in the
U.S. coastal waters.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
also designated Loran-C as a supplemental system for use in the
National Airspace System.

In the Pacific, Loran-C coverage will remain largely unchanged.  The
only exception is the recently closed Central Pacific chain, located
in Hawaii, that was originally intended to provide coverage for a DOD
missile test range.  It's loss is not expected to significantly effect
civil users.  The Republic of Korea (ROK) has taken over the operation
of the former Commando Lion chain (now called the East Asian chain)
and will relieve the U.S. Coast Guard of control and monitor duties by
the end of 1992.  In addition, the ROK is actually in the process of
upgrading the two stations located in Korea.  Japan will soon assume
operations and upgrade the equipment of four of the five stations that
form the Northwest Pacific chain.  These two chains provide coverage
for both Korean and Japanese waters.  A new chain (the Russian-American
chain) is being completed jointly by the United States and Russia and
should be operational by the end of 1993.  This chain was formed by
dual-rating (using one station for two chains) an existing Coast Guard
station at Attu, Alaska and two Russian stations, one at Petropavlovsk
on the Kamchatka Peninsula and one at Alexandrovsk.

In the Atlantic and in Europe, Loran-C coverage will continue as
before with only a few minor changes.  Several Northern European
nations have signed an agreement to assume control of four of the five
stations in the North Atlantic and Northern Europe that presently form
the Norwegian Sea chain.  Their plans include not only upgrading these
facilities, but adding three additional stations and eventually
reconfiguring the chain.  Canada is building a new station at Comfort
Cove, Newfoundland.  This station will replace some of the Loran-C
coverage of the Labrador Sea which would otherwise be lost due to the
potential closure of the station in Angissoq, Greenland.  Spain,
Italy, and Turkey have also expressed an initial desire to assume
operations of facilities within their borders.  This would ensure
continuing operation of the Mediterranean Sea chain following the
December 1994 closure date.

Several other nations have been operating their own Loran-C chains for
years.  Russia operates at least two chains independently.  These are
the Western USSR chain and the Eastern USSR chain (presumably, the
names will soon be changed).  There are two chains operated by the
Saudi Arabians that are, again, independent of U.S. control.  There
has been no indication of potential closure of any of these systems.
In fact many other countries including China and India are actively
developing new Loran-C systems for their own use.

Loran-C will also better serve the aviation community in the future.
The FAA has already designated this system as an approved enroute
navigation system.  The Coast Guard and FAA are working towards
approval of Loran-C as an approach navigation system.  To date, the
FAA has approved Loran-C for non-precision approaches at over twenty
airports.  This number is increasing with the newly expanded coverage
over the central U.S.

There are many non-navigational uses of the Loran-C system with more
being developed every day.  One of the most important of these is the
accurate time synchronization that Loran-C provides.  This invaluable
service is used by telephone and utility companies, television and
radio services, and satellite communication companies, among
others.  Another use is for monitoring the location of vehicles such
as ambulances, police cruisers, and vehicles carrying dangerous or
precious cargos.  The weather service uses Loran-C to monitor weather
balloons.  There are new auto alarm systems being marketed that use
Loran-C to locate stolen cars.  The railroad industry is developing a
Loran-based system to keep track of their trains.  Another interesting
use of Loran-C is for tracking animals, especially migratory species.

The Loran-C system may someday be replaced, but this is still years
away.  Once the decision is made to terminate the Loran-C program, a
ten to fifteen year phase-out period will help protect the user's
investment.  For the immediate future, the Loran-C system will
continue to grow and be upgraded.  Loran-C users can be assured that
this system will remain an accurate and affordable radionavigational
aid well into the next century.

Excerpts taken from 1992 draft of the Federal Radionavigation Plan.
Inquiries should be directed to:

               Commandant (G-NRN-1)
               U.S. Coast Guard
               2100 2nd St. SW
               Washington, DC 20593
               Phone: [phone]


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

Gary Segal         Motorola Inc.
[e-mail]  Cellular Infrastructure Division

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Slamming and Disintegrity of Intega(e)tel
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 16:58:00 GMT


Recently, Dateline on NBC-TV did a followup on Slamming, Private
Payphones (COCOTs) and AOSlime (private operators). I only wish they
also talked about 900, 976, etc, and billable 800 (toll-free?).

Regarding the slamming -- if I am not mistaken, if a subscriber
disputes high charges due to being slammed to a ripoff LD carrier,
they can pay the rates (via their LEC bill) that they would have paid
to their chosen LD carrier as if they were never slammed. I don't know
who the payment would eventually go to -- whether their chosen LD
carrier or the company which they were slammmed to.

I eventually called DISintegritel's 800 number recently to DIStance
myself from their billing -- It took SEVERAL repeated calls, all but
the final call got their recording as to how busy their reps were, but
not allowed to leave a message -- only told to call at a nonpeak hour
(after 5:30 pm, but before something like 10pm or whatever). I just
kept dialing again, and after about ten minutes, got thru to being put
on hold. When the girl came on the line, I told her that NO, I hadn't
been billed, but to flag MY number as NO Integratel billing of ANY
kind. The conversation was somewhat contentious, but I told her that
if I EVER had billing from or via them that I would NOT pay -- that I
would alert SCBell, other legit carriers (particularly AT&T), the
Louisiana PSC, any other state's reg body if billing was InTERstate,
and of course, the FCC (and alert people via the Internet and
local/national talkradio and other media).

Recently, several people I know in the New Orleans area have had
similar problems with Integratel and other teleSLIME!

I have a 'PIN'-type code to quote when calling SCBell's Business
Office (my request), I have third party standard blocking (via LEC,
AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc), 900/976/local-211 blocking, etc. I have also
informed Bell to flag my records that ANY strange billings would be
disputed! I also told them that there would be some occasions where I
might have non-AT&T handled 1+ calls via 10-XXX/101-XXXX, mainly MCI,
Sprint, Allnet, or WilTel, but should NOT have any overseas or other
types of billings via strange companies.

BTW, I think that the LEC's still bill for Western Union (or what's
left of it) for 'Grams'. You can bill telegrams to your home telephone
number, by major credit card (but not telephone card), or with cash at
a WU office/agent. ALSO, years ago, it WAS possible in many areas to
use a (telco) payphone to send a telegram- (drop in the initial
deposit if coinfirst payphone), dial 0 for Operator (or 110 in some
areas), ask for WU or Telegrams, and actually PAY IN COINS for the
telegram rate, right there at the payphone.

A QUESTION HERE--

 -did the Telco operator transcribe all of the telegram text and have WU's
rates on a chart/bulletin to request/monitor/collect the coin deposit?

 -did telco add a WU rep to the line (to transcribe), with telco operator
staying on the line to listen for 'dings' and 'dongs' and collect the
coins??

 -or did telco connect to a WU operator (and telco 'leave the line') implying
that WU would have the capabilities to monitor the 'dings' and 'dongs' and
collect the coins in the escrow bucket at telco's 3-slot public phone???

 -or was it something else, such as telco 'leaving the line' until WU flashed
back the telco operator position when it was time to pay at the payphone????

Thanks,

MARK J. CUCCIA    PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:
WORK:      [e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954,TEL[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917,FAX[phone])
HOME:              CHestnut 1-2497
4710 Wright Road | fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail
New Orleans 28   | ([phone])
Louisiana (70128) USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Western Union generally had the telephone
number (Exchange)-4321 in most communities. In manual central offices of
only one exchange in a small town, it was just '4321'. The telephone books
however stressed -- usually on the inside front cover where Western Union
had a prominent annoucement right along with fire and police -- that one
should dial 4321 *unless calling from a payphone*, in which case the caller
was to ask the operator for 'Western Union'. They would bill to your phone
number, and took your word for what number that was in an era when the
phone equipment was pretty antiquated by today's standards. At a payphone
you asked the operator for connection to Western Union. After you finished
your business with the Western Union clerk she told you to flash the hook
for the operator to come back on the line. She would then tell the operator
to collect a certain amount of money. The operator would account for it
by writing up a standard toll-ticket but with the notation it was for a
telegram rather than a long distance call. Upon collection of the coins,
the operator then gave the Western Union clerk a proof of payment number
which was the toll-ticket serial number. For at least 75 years, Western
Union and the Bell System were very close allies and friends. Most WUTCO
technical terminology came from the Bell System Practices.

In smaller towns, the typical arrangement was that the telegraph agent
was usually a private contractor operating on a commission basis for either
WUTCO or one of the other interconnecting carriers like Postal Telegraph.
WUTCO paid one commission rate for his outgoing sent paid and inbound collect
traffic and another rate for his outbound collect and inbound send paid
traffic. Generally they also leased him the machinery at some monthly rental.
The agent owned his own storefront and waiting room; hired his own employees,
etc. His franchise with WUTCO gave him the right to hang their sign in his
window. They arranged for him to have the phone number 4321 although the
agent had to pay his own phone bill. If he had messengers to deliver the
telegrams, generally they lived just on the tips they got, as there were
no mimimum wage laws in those days. If the agent tacked on a delivery fee
within suggested guidelines by WUTCO, he kept that money as additional
profit for himself, or perhaps he shared it with the messenger. The agent
had to go by the rates established by the company as tariffs for the
telegrams. He was not allowed to charge more or less.

Most of the agents were in that business for years. It was very rare for
WUTCO to ever get a different agent in a town once one was established
unless he died or they caught him cheating on the books. WUTCO reserved
the right to conduct surprise audits of the agencies and they often did
so. Since it was a 24 hour per day, seven day per week operation, the
agent had to have some employees there and usually during the busy parts
of the day there would be a telegrapher who attended to the machines and
a front desk clerk who waited on customers at the counter and took phone
calls for telegrams to be sent. At slower times of the day and during the
overnight hours, generally one person did it all, alternating between
typing outgoing messages, ripping off the paper on incoming messages,
waiting on the customers at the counter and taking calls on a phone that
never seemed to stop ringing. It was considered a very good job for a
kid in high school and in the 1940's most telegraphy clerks were paid
the grand sum of twenty-five cents an hour. Your salary for the week
would be about ten dollars, but bear in mind that a week's worth of
groceries from Safeway cost about three dollars and the rent on your
apartment was probably fifteen or twenty dollars per month.

In larger cities such as Chicago, the main telegraph office downtown
had five or six counter clerks, several telegraphers and a separate
phone room. In larger cities where WUTCO could make a profit at it,
the company owned and operated the telegram offices, leaving the
unprofitable small towns to the private agents. Because it was not
all that profitable, especially in the final years of the public office
arrangement, the agents as often as not had to have other business
ventures as well, which was why the local telegraph office was many
times located in the local bus station; it too was a 24 hour operation
and often times the local telegraph agent was also the bus agent for
his town since both Greyhound and the various Trailways companies
operate the same way, i.e. commission on sales to a private contractor.
So the combination bus agent/telegraph agent in Podunk operated 24
hours a day with kids he hired to work for him he hoped were smart
enough to both run the telegraph machines and write bus tickets, but
not so smart they would rip him off too much.  He would also likely have
a newstand there, and proably a lunch counter.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Bucklaew)
Subject: Re: Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Bucklaew)
Organization: State University of New York At Buffalo, NY (USA)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 01:58:52 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Eric Smith) says:

> If I wanted to make a product that connected to a channelized T1 and
> appeared to the phone company to be a PBX, what specifications would I
> need to meet for signalling, supervision, etc.?

Probably the spec with the most information is EIA-464.  There is also
an appendix that was published.  You also need to worry about FCC part
68 if you're going to connect to the phone company.


/* Mike Bucklaew  KA2KQP  [e-mail] */

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

From: [e-mail] (John Agosta)
Subject: Re: Channelized T1 Signalling Specifications
Date: 27 Jul 1995 03:21:33 GMT
Organization: Agosta and Associates


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Smith) says:

> If I wanted to make a product that connected to a channelized T1 and
> appeared to the phone company to be a PBX, what specifications would I
> need to meet for signalling, supervision, etc.?

ATT 62411 describes core DS1 attributes.

ATT 43801 defines "digital channel banks, objectives and
requirements".  You will find all A/B signaling schemes as well as
test/measuement criteria for VF interfaces.


Best 2 u,

ja

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

From: f.s.menzel <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:38:55 -0400
Subject: Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold


I totally agree with Pat on this one.  If used properly, voice mail can
substantially improve customer satisfaction as well as efficiency.

A few suggestions:

1. Answer the phone yourself if you're available (Mr. Lastman seems to
already have figured that one out.)

2. Update your greeting daily.  Tell your callers when they can expect
a return call.  Include your pager number for urgent calls.

3. Provide an override to a real person (who is knowlegeable about your
schedule) for those who need one.

4.  Return all calls when you say you will.  Nothing is more frustrating
than leaving a message that doesn't get returned.

Some personal experiences:

My insurance agent has voice mail, and I find it very convenient to
leave policy change instructions and questions on their voice mail
AFTER HOURS and get a response on my voice mail during the next
business day.  No personal contact, business completed.

A business partner has a commercial answering service (real people).
They never have any information about his whereabouts,and are
incapable of taking a meaningful message.  We play a lot of phone tag.

In order to make best use of voice mail as a caller, it's important to
have a clear idea of why you are calling and your expectations of the
party you're calling. (That's usually a pretty good idea anyway).  Be
sure that you leave a message that explicitly states your expectations
and gives information AT THE END about how to reach you.

Voice mail is change from the status quo for many people, and because
of its association with efficiency is assumed to provide poorer
service.  With the exception of those lucky few who have excellent
private secretaries, voice mail used correctly provides superior
service when used correctly.

I would be happy to leave a note to this effect on Mr. Lastman's voice
mail, but he's turned it off, it's too expensive for me to write him a
letter, and I suspect that his secretary wouldn't get the entire
thing.


Fran Menzel AT&&T Bell Laboratories (voice mail: 908-957-5615)
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One of the best uses of voice mail on
the front end of a phone system is the one operated by Compuserve.
They give you a variety of things to listen to, possibly eliminating
the need to speak with anyone at all. In an ideal world, every phone
call would be answered on the first or second ring by a human saying
hello and dealing with whatever is needed. In actual practice, it would
be extremely expensive to do this. Voicemail should never eliminate
the totally the need for human contact and assistance, but properly
utilized it can be extremely helpful.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (RichSzabo)
Subject: Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold
Date: 27 Jul 1995 13:57:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... There is nothing inherently wrong
> with voicemail, either as a front end answering system for an office
> or for leaving messages for persons away from their desk, etc. What
> *is* wrong are the multitude of systems which are misprogrammed, or
> lack any real information for the caller, etc.  PAT]

What is wrong is not voicemail, as you say, but the people who hide
behind voicemail and NEVER return calls even when they are obligated
to do so.  This has happened to me on numerous occasions with both
government and non-government bureaucrats.

And how about a wet noodle for my local tax agency which forces you to
press "1" every ten seconds in order to wait for the next agent, and
after seven tries tells you that you've been waiting for 7 MINUTES and
that you should just call back later, goodbye, arrivaderci.


Rich Szabo

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:48:41 -0400
Subject: Question re Selling an 800 Number


On 21 Jul 1995 [e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould) posted:

> I have had an 800 number for about five years that spells a commonly
> used word.  Recently a lawyer called me claiming that his client would
> pay me $25,000 for the number (plus all expenses regarding the
> transfer).

> ... I might be interested in selling it again...

Historically, in the regulatory scheme, all telephone numbers were
considered equal and the idea of "owning" numbers, much less "selling"
numbers was officially disapproved.  However, it was never officially
prohibited.  Three factors are now coming together to change that
position.  Most obvious is the huge popularity and corporate
investment in 800 numbers that spell brandnames and so forth, creating the
reality that all numbers are _not_ created equal.  Then came portability
of 800 numbers, so that the number was no longer tied to a particular
carrier.  Finally, the new fact and spirit of deregulation of
telecommunications includes movements to bring the buying and selling
of numbers up from underground.

At the moment, the only official prohibition against buying and
selling a number is contained in the tariffs of certain carriers.  If
your carrier has such a tariff provision, then selling your number is
a violation of your contract with the carrier which entitles your
carrier to take the number back.

This is an area where the changes are coming fast and furiously.  If
you are interested you should make efforts to keep yourself informed
as things happen.


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].

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

From: Jose Manuel BARRUTIA <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Request on ATM
Date: 27 Jul 1995 16:03:08 GMT
Organization: EPFL-DME-IMHEF-COSMASE


I'm a Spanish Electrical Engineer and I'm following a Master on SST
(Science, Society and Technology) from the ESST (The European
Inter-university Association on Science, Society and Technology) in
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Lausanne).

I must study the social, cultural, economical, etc. implications of
the use and introduction of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) networks
in a regional development.

In this way I'm interested to obtain as much as possible informations
about ATM networks. Not only in technical aspects (There is a lot!)
but also about policies, deployments, experiences, implications,
cultural change, management etc... of the ATM highways.

My Master's Thesis is entlited:

"Integration of the New Telecommunications Networks, particularly the
ATM Strategic Technology, from the Economical and Technological
Regional Development of the Basque Country point of view."

I would like to request you some informations about this. (Articles,
WWW Adresses, books, NewsGroups, People, Associations, Enterprises,
others...).

Do you know other information sources who could help me in my research?


Thank you very much.

Best regards.

NOTE: If you answer to this article, please send me and E-Mail also.
(I've some problems with my news reader)


Jose Manuel Barrutia                   E-Mail: [e-mail]
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology  Phone:  + 41 21 693 59 03
Mechanical Engineering Department      Fax:    + 41 21 693 36 46
EPFL-DME-IMHEF-COSMASE                 1015 Lausanne (Switzerland)
http://imhefwww.epfl.ch/lmf/multimedia/home.html

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #319
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08942;
          28 Jul 95 4:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17395 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:12:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17387; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:12:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:12:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #320

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Jul 95 21:12:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 320

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Roger Golden)
    Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888) (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold (Mike Sandman)
    Re: US-NK Telephone Service (Martin Kealey)
    Reverse Phone Directories (Frank Droste)
    Telecom Subjects on CNN (James E. Bellaire)
    Internet Access in Korea? (Verna Friesen)
    Re: PacBell Video Dial Tone Order (Gerard A. Robinson)
    Book Review: "HTML for Fun and Profit" by Morris (Rob Slade)
    V.120 TAs : Common Features? (Justin Medlock)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger Golden)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 04:06:07 GMT
Organization: GeoLinks SouthEast


Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have seen the future, and it is *not* residential ISDN.

I sell the future, and it is.

> Thanks to a number of things, among which were good luck and the help
> of a friend, I'm currently a participcant in an experimental program
> delivering residential data service via Cable TV.

I find this very interesting, but I fail to see it as plausible for a
mass market.

> The hookup consists of a card installed in my PC, ...which
> connects to the same spigott that serves our TV.

As would be expected.  Cable and telephone really are the two logical
contenders for the new communication norms to come.

> The Cable TV folks provide 'direct' access to Prodigy and America
> online, but their system also gateways to the internet. This is a
> helluva lot more interesting to me than Prodigy or AOL.

Why not a direct access to the internet, and gateways to these lesser
commercial services?  Is this intentional, and looked on by the
commercial service providers as a final effort to retain a market that
they once thought they controlled?

> The software implementation is via TCP/IP, and it coexists well with my
> Windows for Workgroups peer-to-peer network. My copy of Compuserve
> Information Manager (WINCIM) includes TCP/IP as one of the network
> choices, so I tried picking that from the menu, and darned if it didn't
> link right up!

Mine, too.  Except the Compuserve part, that is.

> The thing is *fast*. Typical throughput is about 60-100kbps; I've seen
> some transfers take place as quickly as 300kbps. I've only been
> experimenting with it for a few days, so I probably haven't seen all its
> able to do.

This is where I begin to get awfully skeptical.  I can see getting
extremely high throughput on a dedicated coaxial line, enough
throughput to knock yer socks off, in fact; but I don't understand how
high speed data transmissions can be acceptable or sustainable in a
coaxial cable that is already saturated with information.  And again,
as a new user of this service is added to the line, aren't we looking
at exponential degradation of the bps?  I was also under the
impression, wrong though it may be, that this type of system was
restricted in transmission speed as well, being held down to something
like 100kps as a maximum sustainable transfer rate?

> Where it really shines is, as you might imagine, with the web browser.
> Clicking on something that will send a picture is now a pleasure rather
> than a chore. And I'm not tying up my phone line, either.

ISDN is great for that, as well.  And it doesn't tie up your POTS line
unless you want it to do so.

> IMHO, as NYNEX continues to drag their heels deploying basic rate ISDN,
> these folks are going to catch them napping. If they price this service
> right, they're going to sell a helluva lot of it. Why would anyone take
> ISDN with an upper limit of 128kbps, when they can have this with what
> appears to be a *lower* limit of about 64kbps?

Somehow, I was under the impression that high speeds were relative to
limitations in the medium (wiring), not transmission mode (cable/satellite
and telephone)?  If my understanding is actually the case, coaxial
transmission wouldn't greatly increase the available throughput, and
you'd still face lien degradation with extended numbers of users over
the line.

> And the neatest thing about it is that they're managing to do it
> without ... Ominbus Information Superhighway Act.

Politics. yuck! :)

> I'll report back in a month or so with a more complete user report.

Please do. While I'm highly skeptical, I am still very much interested
in the actual results of such data transmission.

> [e-mail] (the new service doesn't have a mail drop...yet)

With ISDN, you could have a full connection, including a real email
address, along with all the other nifties that Internet users are
accustomed to.  I'm sure that cable transmission will adopt that
eventually, but I am also concerned that the immediate existence of
"Internet competitive" (to be totally meaningless, considering the
Internet is a world apart from any commercial online service) services
indicates a radical departure from the current Internet hype and
reverts to a more outdated and restrictive "piped" service.


Roger Golden ([e-mail]) ISDN Solutions / Internet Access :
http://www/ocn/com Business Information Exchange : http://www.bie.net
Telecommuting, Remote Access, and High Speed Data Solutions

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

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888)
Date: 27 Jul 1995 15:50:18 GMT


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

> Judith Oppenheimer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Yes, the 800 brand utility is very important, but it is very important
> to EVERYONE who has an 800 number, not solely to American Express and
> 800-Flowers.  I say give the current holders of 800 numbers no special
> rights whatsoever on the corresponding 888 numbers.  As has been noted,
> American Express can trademark "THE CARD" but not 843-2273, and
> 800-Flowers can trademark "800-FLOWERS" but not 356-9377.  If someone
> else comes along with 888-THE-CARD as an ad slogan, AmEx will surely sue

Would you want 888-843-2273?!  You'd get thousands of calls every day
even though you weren't allowed to market yourself as 888-THE-CARD.
This is precisely why all corporations that have put money in
advertising their phone numbers *will* mirror them in the 888 series.

> The simple fact is that there will soon be two different "brands" of
> toll-free number, 800 and 888 (and perhaps soon a third, 011-800, if the
> details can be ironed out).  Those who have access to the original brand,
> both commercial and residential users, will have an advantage over those
> who get the new brand, but that advantage will rapidly diminish over
> time as those who have the new brand work to inform the public about its
> use.

There can be only one (, highlander)....

Reserve area codes 880 through 889 for toll-free use.  Market them as
88-xnxx-xxxx (n = 2-9) and voila.  You've increased the toll-free
numbering space ten-fold.  Then 800 is moved to, i.e. 88-8.  You could
keep the 800 series as is for another couple of years mirroring 88-8.
That way it'd be fair to everyone and the public would get plenty of
time to get educated.  All new-800-numbers schemes involves educating
the public.  But teaching them that there are several toll-frees can't
be a very good idea.


Sam  www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam,   [e-mail],   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
Subject: Re: North York Ontario Puts Voicemail on Permanent Hold
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 02:05:46 GMT
Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So is each government agency now supposed
> to hire a couple extra people for the sole purpose of answering the
> phone live in order to tell the caller to please hold?

YES. Just because the technology exists, is not a good reason to use
it.

Any way you look at it, government -- or business for that matter --
is here to serve people. People generally don't like voice mail. This
is probably because it's programmed wrong or used in an entirely
improper application -- but the people only know they don't like it.

I've sold and installed lots of voice mail/auto attendants, and find
that customers generally have their own idea of the terrific labor
savings they're going to get -- and how they won't have to worry about
covering shifts etc. 99% of the time they won't look at it from the
caller's standpoint. They also love to start out using every stupid
feature the thing has, whether it's appropriate or not. When it starts
to screw up their company, they try to make excuses and generally try
NOT to blame the voice mail since it cost so much money, and they
bought it. They finally agree that they should have used the VM
differently -- just about the time they are auctioning off eveything in
the place.

The executives love to use the simple formula of how much the
operator(s) make, compared to how much the VM costs. There is no way
to quantify the other costs of lost customers etc., at least not
before they go out of business.

There is absolutely no reason to have VM/Auto Attendant answering
customer calls under any circumstances (but ACD usually works OK if
there are enough agents to answer the calles after a reasonable amount
of time (like a minute) -- not a very common ocurance). The most
important person in most companies is the operator(s), but it's the
position that they try to scrimp on the most. It's a nasty job, but
somebody good has got to do it.

I'm not saying that VM alone is bad, when a live person asks whether
you'd like to leave a message in their mailbox. No one is ever going
to be able to make everybody happy with a machine, no matter how
sophisticated it is. Can your average business, or government for that
matter, afford to have that percentage of people not happy?

Next time you're locked in voice mail jail, really needing to get a
piece of information fast, imagine how much easier it would be if an
intelligent person were talking to you about what you need - as
opposed to a machine that tells you to dial 0, and then that the
operator is unavailable -- leave a message.

With a live operator, you can observe and supervise how the calls are
handled, whereas the VM/Attendant isolates management from being able
to do ANY supervision ... and the complaints from customers are too
easy to dismiss (what are you going to do, yell at the VM box?).

By now, we can all think of businesses that have been put out of
business by their own VM.

On the plus side, I never thought I'd live to see politicians saying
they were going to do away with affirmative action. That goes to prove
that everything comes full circle eventually, and X number of years
from now -- voice mail will be dead and real live people will be on the
other end of the line.

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Kealey)
Subject: Re: US-NK Telephone Service
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:18:08 +1200


Interesting what makes "news" in different parts of the world ...

> THE KOREA TIMES
> Seoul, Saturday April 1, 1995
> Volume 13826

> North Given Country Code of 850

> A Client Services official of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T)
> said ...  hookup to North Korea on April 8...
> North Korea's country code was set to be 850, but area codes for its cities,
> including Pyongyang and Hamnung, have not been decided on, he added.

Just to check, I pulled out last year's old phone directory (printed
in February 1994 -- or maybe at the latest March), and indeed it does
have "850" as the country code for North Korea.  It also has area code
2 for Pyongyang and 52 for Local.  Allowing for publishing lead times,
that only makes AT&T Client Services at least 15 months behind the
rest of the world ...


Martin

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 19:29:08 EDT
From: Frank Droste <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reverse Phone Directories


Hi Pat,

   I remember reading a note in the Telecom Usenet Notesfile that
given a phone number you were able to come up with a location for the
phone.  I guess it is a reverse phone directory?  Anyway, how were you
able to accomplish this?


Thanks,

Frank


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that is exactly what it was. You
will probably find such a directory in your local library for your
community. The most common publishers of such directories are a company
known as Haines and a company known as Coles. There are others; they
specialize in various geographic areas of the country. Haines is quite
common here. Most reverse (or 'criss-cross') directories have both a
street address section and a telephone number section. You can look up
a given street address and see the name and phone number of the persons
living there, or the name of the business there. If you turn to the
phone listings, all possible phone numbers will be listed in order from
lowest to highest number with the name of the person and the street
address where they are at. All that needs to be done to create directories
like this is take an existing telephone directory and sort it in some
different order than the customary way of alphabetically by last name.
Compuserve has a national directory like this on line also.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 05:21:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Telecom Subjects on CNN


A story on CNN mentioned Southwestern Bell's latest goof.  They mailed
388,000 postcards telling customers their customers that their area
code was changing from 703 to 540.  The only problem is that they sent
them to the wrong customers, the customers that received the cards
will KEEP 703.  They will resend the cards to the correct customers,
at a reported loss of over a million dollars.

The advertising on CNN is also heavily Telecom related.  MCI and AT&T
both sponsor shows as well as having their ads spread throughout the
schedule.  AT&T is running ads asking people to call a 1-800 number to
'tell congress that you want competition in local telephone services.'
The main push is AT&T telling customers that competition is good for
them.

This is a big change from the 1980's when AT&T was fighting competition.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except it wasn't Southwestern Bell. It
was C&P Tel or whatever name they are using now. All the telcos, including
AT&T, are busy chattering about how good competition will be; but some
cynics -- including a few who read this journal -- claim its all a big
facade. Some say they want competition so they can cheat the competition
in an unregulated environment ... its easier that way!   <grin>   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Verna Friesen)
Subject: Internet Access in Korea?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:26:42 -0400


Does anyone know where I can go to find information on how to obtain
Internet access in Korea?  The city of interest is Uijongbu City,
although it might be OK to get access in Seoul, if that isn't
possible.


Thanks for any help.


Verna Friesen   Dept. of Computer Science
University of Waterloo   Waterloo, Ontario CANADA
http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~vjfriese/

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

From: [e-mail] (Gerard A. Robinson)
Subject: Re: PacBell Video Dial Tone Order (Separating Carried and Carrier)
Date: 27 Jul 1995 10:26:16 -0400
Organization: NandO -- The News & Observer online service


In article <[e-mail]>, SJSlavin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>     In the 1992 Video Dialtone Order, the Commission determined that,
> through video dialtone, local telephone companies could participate in
> the video marketplace consistent with the statutory telephone
> company-cable television cross-ownership restrictions.  The Commission
> defined video dialtone as the provision by a local telephone company
> of a basic common carrier platform with sufficient capacity to serve
> multiple video programmers on a nondiscriminatory basis.

>     Because the applications do not specifically propose that Pacific
> or an affiliate directly provide video programming to subscribers, the
> Order does not authorize Pacific or an affiliate to provide such
> programming.

In looking at some of the wisdom here, of keeping applications
separate from the transmission layer, I find it hard to believe that
the government cannot manage to apply the same wisdom to Microsoft
who, according to reports, cannot manage to (paraphrased from above)
"serve multiple programmers on a nondiscriminatory basis", and
certainly doesn't keep its application programming separate from the
"carrier", its operating systems.

More than just ranting about Microsoft, though, I think that the
notion of keeping what is carried separate from who carries it, is a
fundamental concept to be kept in mind in the regulation of "public"
carriers.  While that separation doesn't preclude local loop
competion, it certainly might make local loop monopoly more desirable,
no?


Gerard A. Robinson  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:27:13 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "HTML for Fun and Profit" by Morris


BKHTMLFP.RVW   950512

"HTML for Fun and Profit", Mary E.S. Morris, 1995, 0-13-359290-1, U$35.95
%A   Mary E. S. Morris
%C   113 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ   07632
%D   1995
%G   0-13-359290-1
%I   Prentice Hall
%O   U$35.95 [phone] FAX [phone] [e-mail]
%P   264
%T   "HTML for Fun and Profit"

If you are confused by this book, you are reading it all wrong.  It
*isn't* a book: it's a workbook.  You are intended to use the text as
a guide, while you work with the text editor, HTTP (HyperText Transfer
Protocol) server and Web browser to explore and experiment.

(I have only two quibbles with this plan.  The CD-ROM includes HTTP
servers for only Solaris, Windows NT and the Mac.  Also, Morris
assumes the use of the Mosaic browser: I would recommend the use of a
number of graphical and text browsers in order to see the differences
between them.)

While Morris very definitely knows HTML (HyperText Markup Language)
inside and out, there don't seem to be many examples and such as do
exist are illustrated as they appear on-screen.  Without the relevant
source code.

For the workstation crowd, this is an excellent hands-on introduction.
Business types, though, should be warned -- don't be fooled by the "for
Profit" designation.  This is for techies.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKHTMLFP.RVW   950512. Distribution
permitted in Telecom Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  [e-mail]
User           [e-mail]
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:07:01 +0000
From: justin medlock <[e-mail]>
Subject: V.120 TAs : Common Features??
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: BNR Richardson


I've been reading the ITU-T V.120 rec. and am wondering what features
of V.120 are generally implemented within a TA (the spec sheets I have
on several TAs don't mention any of the following - or mention them
at a very high/vague level):

- What transmission modes are commonly supported:
  - Async (protocol sensitive)
  - Sync  (protocol sensitive)
  - Bit Transparent

  What are the advantages/disadvantages/common uses between Sync and Bit
  Transparent?

- Are multiple logical links and statistical multiplexing generally
  supported -- or are these just nice features thought of when V.120 was
  undergoing finalization, but aren't widely implemented today?

- At an Interworking Unit (IWU) in the network, such as:

                              IWU
           ISDN     -----------+---------------     PSTN
     ---------------| V.120 TA | 3.1kHz Modem |--------------
                    -----------+---------------

  I've yet to find any recommendations as to how such a device should
  work (are there any??  has anyone ever built one of these??).  My
  assumptions are that due to this architecture:

  - Only default LLI 256 can be supported, and
  - Multiple logical links/statistical multiplexing cannot be supported.

  If these assumptions are correct then:
  - is LLI 256 automagically established at answer?

  - how are the characteristics of LLI 256 generally setup?  In-Band
    using LLI 0 or from the Bearer Capability/LLC information signalled?

  - what is the maximum bandwidth available over a single B-Channel using
    V.120 with respect to the various transmission modes?  According to
    V.120, the highest user rate that is allowed in the LLC is 56kbps.

  The following V.120 parameters can be signalled in ANSI and ETSI ISUP.
  What would be the default values for the interworking scenario shown above:

  - Header/No Header
    %% Wouldn't you want the Term Adaption Header included all
    %% the time for Protocol Sensitive mode?  I don't think the
    %% header is present for Bit Transparent?
    - Term Adaption header not included
    - Term Adaption header included

  - Multi-frame
    %% I have a high level view of what this field is for, but it's still
    %% fuzzy.  Can someone explain why this might be needed?
    - Multi-frame not supported, only UI frames allowed
    - Multi-frame supported

  - Mode
    %% Clear enough - setting depends on whether Async/Sync or Bit
    %% Transparent Sync is requested (along with the Async/Sync bit).
    - Bit Transparent Mode
    - Protocol Sensitive Mode

  - LLI Negotiation
    %% Setting would be Default LI 256 only?
    - Default LLI 256 only
    - Full LLI negotiation

  - Assignor/Assignee
    %% Setting doesn't really matter much?
    - Msg originator is assignee (doesn't mat
    - Msg originator is assignor

  - Inband/Outband Negotiation
    %% Setting would be Neg in-band using LLI 0?
    - Negotiation via USER INFO messages
    - Negotiation in-band using LLI 0

- I've seen some people post that when a TA requests a clear channel (UDI
  call) and a node/switch in the network doesn't have any available clear
  channel circuits, that the TA would drop back to 56kbps (not end-to-end
  ISDN).

  My understanding, though, was that the switch that encountered this
  situation would not continue routing the call, but would clear the call
  since it didn't have the requested resource (it wouldn't <or shouldn't>
  just route the call over a 56kbps circuit).

  Which is correct?  Both?  None?  Depends?


Thanks for any information!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #320
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa09875;
          28 Jul 95 6:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18423 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:22:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18415; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:22:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:22:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #321

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Jul 95 22:22:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 321

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Fax/dcom VP Engineering Job Offered, Boston, MA USA (Andrew Lindh)
    R & D Position For Ph.D. ([e-mail])
    Mainframe Telecom Opportunities (Mike Johnson)
    Looking for Editors to Review Software (Philip Currie)
    Customize Daily News Feeds For Clients (Steve Samler)
    Machine Translation for WWW (Telecom Tribune via Kevin Scherrer)
    800 Number Shortage (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
    Re: A Check from Mother (Rick Brown)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Lindh)
Subject: Fax/dcom VP Engineering Job Offered, Boston, MA USA
Date: 27 Jul 1995 18:30:37 GMT
Organization: NETPLEX
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've received a lot of 'help wanted'
notices recently, and in this issue of the Digest, we begin with
several of them. Good luck to those of you seeking new/better jobs!  PAT]


DO NOT RESPOND BY EMAIL TO ME! Contact info is at the end!

                Job Description

Position:        Vice President, Engineering

Reports to:        President/CEO

Work Experience:    Minimum Five to Ten Years in Engineering Related Jobs.
            Minimum Three to Five Years in Engineering Management.
            Experience in small to medium size companies preferred.
            Experience in the voice or fax processing industry.
            a significant plus.
            Experience in custom application programming a plus.

Responsibilities:    Successful candidate will be responsible for all
            engineering functions including systems architecture
            and maintenance, application programming and
            maintenance, technology direction, management of
            engineering staff (currently four persons), telephony
            resources, and interaction with customers on
            application and technical issues.

Management Skills:    - Must be able to direct engineering staff on a
              day-to-day basis, short-term projects and long-term
              projects.
            - Strong communication and interpersonal skills
              required. Must be able to maintain cohesive
              relationships with clients and other departments
              within Company.
            - Strong planning and organizational skills required.
            - Strong design skills required. Must be able to
              oversee systems architecture and design system for
              future growth.
            - Strong product vision a significant plus,
              particularly in designing services to meet customer
              and market needs.

Technical Skills:    Languages    C programming and Database experience
                    a must, C++ a plus.
            O/S        DOS and UNIX a must. Strong UNIX
                    Administration a plus.
            Networks    PC Networking experience required.
                    Preferably TCP/IP , LAN and
                    WAN a plus. Experience with routers and
                    bridges helpful.
            Hardware    PC based systems experience required.
                    Telco experience (particularly T1) a
                    plus.
            Datacom        TIFF and PCX experience a plus. Fax
                    Protocol a bonus.

Instant Information is a six year old company which specializes in providing
customized information delivery services to its clients. Today, the Company's
focus is on voice and fax related services which are used primarily to deliver
business to business information. The future includes other delivery vehicles
such as e-mail, wireless services and Internet. The Company is the leading
provider of Fax-On-Demand services. Clients include both Fortune 500 clients
and small information based companies. The Company is located in the Financial
District of Boston. Revenues are approximately $2.0 million and the company
employees 12 persons. The Company operates in a UNIX based PC Network
environment.

Contact:    Instant Information, Inc.
        5 Broad Street
        Boston, MA 02109
        [phone] FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: R & D Position For Ph.D.
Date: 27 Jul 1995 10:42:51 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org)


Dear Netters,

GAO Research & Consulting Ltd. is a fast growing technology company
specializing in the digital signal processing technology with focus on
telecom, and it is one of the world leaders in supplying DSP
algorithms, software and hardware tools. It is looking for full time R
& D engineers.

Expected starting dates: mid October or mid December, 1995. Those
applying for the positions starting in mid October should submit
resumes as soon as possible.

Qualifications:
        [1] Ph.D.;
        [2] Good background in digital signal processing, speech processing
    or telecom;
        [3] Real time programming experiences, particularly with digital
    signal processors;
        [4] Hard working and enjoy practical work.

Please send your resume, with transcripts and supporting materials to

Dr. Frank X.Y. Gao
Gao Research & Consulting Ltd.
85 Dundalk Drive
Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario
Canada M1P 4V1
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.io.org/~gao

Note: please elaborate your experiences with programming DSPs or micros,
and your practical experiences to help us make decision.

In complying with Canadian immigration regulations, these positions
are open for Canadian citizens and immigrants only. Please clearly
state your immigration status. If you are in the process of applying
for immigration to Canada, please state and feel free to send us your
resume.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Johnson)
Subject: Mainframe Telecom Opportunities
Date: 27 Jul 1995 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Horizons Corp


Computer Horizons Corp. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa currently has an
opportunity for a team or project leader.  The development will be
done for a major telecommunications firm and will be done in the city
of Cedar Rapids.  The project involves the development of a billing
system for a firm which is being created as a result of a joint
venture.

Work will take place on the IBM 3090 mainframe utilizing COBOL, CICS,
and DB2.

The team leader must be able to handle scheduling, planning, some
analysis, design, and coding and can start as soon as possible.

Computer Horizons Corp. (CHC) is a fast growing full-service
consulting firm with over 30 offices across the nation serving
numerous fortune 500 companies.  This growth has created many
long-term career opportunities within our organization.

Other employment opportunities include:

1.  Sr. Systems Analyst --  Must have IBM Mainframe experience,
specifically COBOL, and JCL.  Would be involved with a new release of a
commercial billing product for a major telecommunications firm.
MicroFocus COBOL and / or OS/2 would be a plus,but not mandatory.

2.  Programmer Analyst -- IBM mainframe programming with COBOL, CICS, and
DB2.  This position would also be working on development of commercial
billing products for major telecommunications firm.  MicroFocus COBOL,
OS/2, and IMS DB again would be a plus, but not necessary.

If interested, contact Mike Johnson at 800-936-6959 or fax resume to
[phone] or if you would prefer, e-mail it to [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Philip Currie)
Subject: Looking For Editors to Review Software
Date: 27 Jul 1995 17:31:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Ezcom is presently looking for editors interested in writing a review
on our product called EZCom/EZGo, a unique inexpensive Windows File
Transfer Program.

Features:

1.  The easiest to use communication software I believe you will ever
    see.  Select a name from a phonebook, the files to be sent or
    retrieved and then Ok.  That's it.

2.  Allows access to the files on a remote computer under 2 levels of
    password control.  GLOBAL password allows access to all the files
    on the remote computer (typically reserved for your self).  MAILBOX
    password allows access to a single predetermined directory (ideal
    for leaving files for a freind or business associate to retrieve
    at their convenience).

3.  CLASS 2 FAX RECEIVE ($10 Option) automatically switches the modem
    from FAX to DATA mode.  This option allows EZCom/EZGo to receive
    faxes as well as data files, and gives you the ability to retrieve
    your faxes when you are on the road.

Price $15 for EZCom/EZGo (base product)
      add $10 for the CLASS 2 FAX RECEIVE OPTION

If you interested in reviewing this simple yet very powerful program
please reply to:

EMail: [e-mail]
FAX:   [phone]
Voice: [phone]

Please include your phone number and mailing address along with whom
you represent and I will send you a copy ASAP.


Thank you very much,

Phil Currie

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:59:35 EDT
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customize Daily News Feeds For Clients


Seeking someone to work with our corporate clients in the communications
industry customizing daily new feeds.  These feeds are culled from major
industry news sources and press wires such as Reuters, AP, Business Wire
and PR Wire and delivered onto various platforms from fax to e-mail to
Lotus Notes and onto internal Web pages at our customers.  The successful
candidate will have a detailed grasp of the various segments of the
communications industry.  A market sense of how news events affect various
industry segments is required.  Also required is in depth knowledge of who
competes with whom at all levels and in all markets.

Individual is the provider of First!, HeadsUp, NewsPage on the Web,
and iNews.  This position is in Burlington, MA.

Replies can be e-mailed to [e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:00:55 +0900
From: [e-mail] (Telecom Tribune)
Subject: Machine Traslation for WWW


The following is an article which appeared in the June 1995 edition of
{The Telecom Tribune}. TT is an English language monthly trade paper
covering Japan's telecommunications and high technology industry from
within Japan itself.  We have recently begun posting the contents of
TT on the World Wide Web, and invite readers of TELECOM Digest to come
and have a look.  Telecom Tribune online edition is on the NTT
Mediascope WWW server.  The URL is http://www.tokio.co.jp/

This article has been submitted by Kevin Scherrer, Editor of {The Telecom
Tribune}.  I can be contacted via email at [e-mail]

 ---Begin story---

Machine Translation, New Tool to Clear Language Barrier in Internet Boom
By Noriko Takezaki

Though the Internet population has been steadily growing in Japan, it is
still limited to a handful of researchers, engineers, and corporate users.
For the general public, using the Internet is not an easy endeavor because
the majority of information is in English.  However, to do away with this
language barrier, and to correct the information imbalance, in which more
information flows into Japan from the West than the other way around, a
bright spot has appeared in Japan in the form of machine translation, along
with the worldwide attraction of the Internet.

Realization of machine translation systems has long been dreamt of by
the Japanese as a way of removing the language barrier.  Studies for
machine translation started about two decades ago.  In the 1970s, MITI
initiated a project for R&D on machine translation from English to
Japanese and vice versa.  Then several manufacturers, such as Fujitsu
Ltd., NEC Corp., Toshiba Corp. and Sharp Corp., developed machine
translation systems, which led to the technology's first boom in
Japan.  However, because of insufficient translation quality, the boom
faded quite quickly.

The most troublesome part of conventional machine translation was the
pre-editing required for the original material prior to translation.
This was mainly due to the differences in grammatical structure
between English and Japanese, including the vagueness of some Japanese
expressions which often tend to omit subjects in a sentence.  Recent
development of new machine translation systems is, therefore, focusing
on eliminating the need for time-consuming pre-editing.

In April Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd. developed a machine
translation system for the Internet called "PENS=C9E for Internet,"
specifically designed to support "Net-surfing," or searching for
data on the World-Wide Web (WWW) of the Internet, using a UNIX
workstation.

Consisting of multimedia information browsers for the WWW such as
Mosaic and Netscape, and a machine translation system called PENS=C9E,
which was jointly developed by Oki, Osaka Gas Corp., and OGIS-RI (a
software house related to Osaka Gas), the system translates the
information in the WWW from Japanese to English and vice versa.  Its
translation speed is about one minute per A4-sized page.

"We paid special attention to make this machine translation system as
user-friendly and suitable for Internet surfing during the current
Internet boom," said Mr. Junji Nagata, Oki's research manager for the
Machine Translation Project.  "We want to let people know that the
machine translation system is not something they will feel awkward
using, but something helpful when surfing the Internet."

Together with Osaka Gas and OGIS-RI, Oki released its first machine
translation system, PENS=C9E, to the Japanese market a decade ago.
And last year, Oki, Oki Software Co., Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Oki, and OGIS-RI released its Windows 3.1 version, PENS=C9E for
Windows.  This time, expansion of this translation system that deals
with the Hyper Text Mark-up Language (HTML) was released.

The operation of the new machine translation system is simple, having no
need to change the browser software.  When a user requests an address in
the WWW, called Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the system, which is
installed between a WWW server and client computers, receives the data
corresponding to the URL from the WWW server.  The system separates the
sentences from the HTML tags used in the original WWW texts, translates the
sentences and returns each tag to the original point so the HTML link
information remains unchanged.  The translated data are then sent to a
cache in the translation system in advance while the original data is sent
to the client's viewer, with header lines including a translation button,
for the user's Net-surfing.  When the user clicks the translation button,
the system sends the translated data stored in a cache to the user's viewer
so as to make the user feel as if they are seeing the realtime translation.

As for the quality of the translation made by this system, however,
Oki admits there is a need to improve it.  "We've dedicated ourselves
to improving the quality of our system, but we, unfortunately, have to
admit that its translation quality is not up to the level of work
performed by a human translator," said Mr. Nagata.  "However, we
consider that being able to commercialize such a machine translation
system suitable for the use in this Internet boom to be epoch-making.
And we really wanted to enter the market on time."

For the users who are searching for information on the WWW, the
translatio= n quality is less important than the operation speed.  The
users skim the displayed information until they find the desired data.
If not, the users click the link in the displayed information to skip
to the next information or input another URL of another WWW server.
For such purposes, the system should offer almost realtime
translation, even if the translation quality is not perfect.  Oki's
system realizes this crucial point.

The standard product, which has a dictionary with 150,000 words
installed, is available for =A5148,000 in the Japanese market.  As an
option, there is an additional dictionary available for =A548,000,
containing 118,000 words used in business and economics fields, and
technologies, such as electronics, information and communications,
automotive and mechanical engineering, medicine and chemistry.  Also,
users can update the dictionaries by adding new terms when required.

Oki currently offers only a workstation-version of the system, but is
scheduled to release its PC version this autumn.  The company plans to
offer the product only in Japan for the time being.  However,
depending upon market needs, Oki is considering export of the system
in the future, according to an Oki spokesperson.

"Our hope is to allow more and more people to enjoy the benefits of
machine translation," said Mr. Nagata.

Although there is much room to improve the translation quality in this
system, reactions from people involved in the Internet business in
Japan are favorable.  "The significance of such a machine translation
system would grow more in the future as the Internet population
grows," said Mr.  Hiroshi Kitajima, Marketing Manager at Netscape
Communications Japan K.K.  which is promoting the Netscape Navigator,
a browser software for the WWW based on Mosaic, in Japan.  "I think
the machine translation systems would be welcomed by corporate users,
university researchers and Internet service providers, though,
probably, not by the general public," said Mr. Kitajima.

Improvement of translation quality

As regards translation quality, all of the machine translation
systems available on the market now are far from sufficient.  To
improve the quality, several organizations and companies have been
conducting R&D on the systems.  NTT is one such company, particularly
concerning the translation from Japanese to English.

Although their ultimate goal is speech-to-speech translation over the
telephone, they plan to develop in the short term a system for
"communications with translation" sent over the electronic networks,
including the Internet.  This April, recent research at NTT's Network
Information Systems Laboratories was awarded the Japan Information
Center of Science and Technology (JICST) prize by its namesake, an
organization backed by the Science and Technology Agency, for its
realization of new translation process eliminating the need for
pre-editing of the Japanese original.

Significance of the NTT research lies more in the linguistic aspect
than the technical aspect.  The conventional studies on machine
translation had leaned toward the technical side for a while and many
companies spent much time and efforts in developing improved
artificial intelligence (AI) systems.  However, what NTT researchers
found as a breakthrough is an application of a new linguistic theory
into machine translation.

"We drastically changed the linguistic method to be employed for
machine translation," said Dr. Satoru Ikehara, senior research
engineer and supervisor at Knowledge Systems Laboratory of NTT's
Network Information Systems Laboratories.

In mainstream computational linguistics, the linguistic method
developed by Noam Chomsky has been applied worldwide.  What NTT
adopted was, however, the constructive process theory developed by a
Japanese linguist, which focuses on the speaker's cognition and
intention, returning to the origin of the Japanese language and being
aware of the unique structure of the Japanese language being different
from the Western language.

"This is because we have realized after a decade of our R&D that the
grammar of the language is rather the thing generated from social
customs, not like the one comprised of mathematical rules as Chomsky
explained," said Dr. Ikehara.  "Therefore, to improve the translation
quality, we think systematic arrangement of knowledge base is a must."

NTT applies a multi-level translation method which features
distinction between subjective expressions and objective expressions
as well as extraction of structural meanings free from compositional
semantics.  In addition, for the semantic analysis, the system's
linguistic knowledge base has a semantic attribute system with 3,000
categories and semantic dictionaries with 400,000 words and 15,000
patterns of structure.  Owing to such factors, NTT's system improved
the accuracy of translation to nearly 80% at the window test, which is
a test being conducted by using the given example sentences, in their
experiment.

The process of translation is divided into seven parts: First, the
system splits the Japanese text into morphemes.  Second, it analyses
the sentence syntactically, often giving multiple possible
interpretations.  Next, it rewrites complicated Japanese expressions.
Fourth, the system semantically evaluates the various interpretations.
Fifth, syntactic and semantic criteria are used to select the best
interpretation.  Sixth, the selected information is transferred into
English.  Finally, the English sentence is adjusted to give the
correct inflectional forms.  Its translation speed is between 5,000
and 10,000 words per hour (20 - 40 pages per hour).

According to NTT's research, the key to improvement in machine
translation seems to be the establishment of systematically-arranged
knowledge base, rather than the new AI system.  And preparation of
such a satisfactory knowledge base would require "about 10 more
years," says Dr. Ikehara, "if the researchers at each company
continues the development independently by themselves, as they are."

Currently, there is no single non-profit organization to administer
the overall development of the machine translation systems, and
individual companies and organizations have spent much time and money
developing their own knowledge bases as well as the AI systems.
However, speedy improvement of machine translation systems is much
awaited, particularly during the Internet boom.  It may not be an
exaggeration to say that whether the Japanese can really enjoy the
global aspect of the Internet depends on how soon and how much machine
translation systems here can be improved.

 ---End story---

The Telecom Tribune is a monthly English language newspaper about the
Japanese telecommunications industry.  Send email to
[e-mail] for more information.

A sample of Telecom Tribune stories can be viewed via WWW at
http://www.tokio.co.jp/tel-trib/TTindex.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And *thank you* for sharing. This was
an excellent article and I hope all telecom readers enjoy it as much
as I did.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Number Shortage
Organization: Idaho City University
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 20:29:13 GMT


Occasionally I'll see ads listing a separate 800 number for in-state
callers and out-of-state callers.  Are separate 800 numbers for in-state
and out-of-state callers used because of legal or economic reasons?
Either way, it seems like there's a lot of 800 numbers being wasted.


Larry Cipriani, [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are historic reasons for this.
When WATS (Wide Area Telephone Service) first began in the late
1950's (I think) it was commonly sold in 'bands' and by the hour. That
is, the states on each side of you were in 'band one'; states further
distant were in 'band two' and so forth until you reached 'band six'
which were the furthest away points such as California and Oregon on
the west coast and Maine or Massachusetts on the east coast. I am
speaking now relative to the way the bands were aligned here in the
midwest. Everyone all over the USA had all six bands, they were always
relative to exactly where you were located. At some point, maybe about
1970 or so, 'band six' was given over to Hawaii and Alaska with the
rest of the continental United States shuffled around into the five
remaining bands. We also had 'band eight' which was the intrastate
WATS band. I think 'band seven' was Canadian WATS, I don't recall.
You could purchase service in as many bands as desired, and the
charge was by the hour of use, typically $12-20 dollars per hour. You
got as many calls as you could make in that hour. If you had only
band one service, attempts to call area codes outside of that band
were blocked, however you could always use a larger band than necessary,
but you could never use a smaller band than called for.

For each band, you had to have a specific outgoing line. If a line
was rated for band one, as stated above, all you could do was call
neighboring states. If it was band eight, all you could do was call
within your own state. In order to save money on long distance calls,
many companies had several lines attached to each band and employees
were warned to use the smallest possible band for their call. Don't
use band six to call the next state over paying twenty dollars per
hour when you could use band one and pay only twelve dollars per hour.

Likewise, when the service known as IN-WATS (Inward Wide Area Telephone
Service) i.e. 800 service came into existence in the early 1960's
it was banded in the same way. You want to be able to receive calls
only from neighboring states?  Fine ... then get a band one IN-WATS
line. People outside of that band area dialing your 800 number got a
recording saying the number they were calling could not be reached
using the phone they were calling from. If you wanted to get calls from
all over the USA then you had to get a band six IN-WATS line. Each of
them had their own number assigned of course. For example, 800-621
was used for band six calls into the state of Illinois.

Eventually as the price of long distance calls came down -- AT&T still
was the sole provider of 800 at this point -- it became pointless to
try and save money by getting specific bands. Someone got the bright
idea of just averaging out the cost per band and selling one national
IN-WATS service at that price per hour, with the customers gambling
they would use lots of band six time and AT&T on the other hand gambling
the customers would mostly be using band one. It all averaged out. The
trouble was, although the FCC went along with the plan to get rid of
banded WATS service in lieu of a single rate across the board per hour
of calling, the individual states and their PUC's would not go along
with it. Intrastate WATS and IN-WATS still had to be kept separate
 from interstate services. Technically, that's still the way it is
today. The switching equipment in those days apparently could not
tell where the call was coming from -- only that it arrived and was
to be translated into some local number -- so in order to correctly
charge the subscriber one rate for interstate WATS and another rate
for intrastate WATS two separate outgoing lines (or in the case of
IN-WATS, two separate 800 numbers) had to be maintained. Actually,
when 'banding' was in vogue in the early sixties, companies had as
many as six or seven different 800 numbers for various parts of the
country ('if you are in Indiana, call us on 800-xxx-xxxx; if you
are in New York call us on 800-xxx-xxxx, etc') ...

Now-days, the equipment can tell who is calling from where, so most
carriers assign only a single 800 number to the customer for all
calls regardless of origin, but a few carriers, and I think perhaps
AT&T is one of them, still closely observe the interstate/intrastate
distinction by assigning two different 800 numbers if the customer
wants full national coverage, in-state only coverage, or out of state
coverage only. This is why you still see vestiges of this now and
then with an advertisement giving an 800 number and then saying in
smaller print 'from (this state) call 800-xxx-xxxx.'.

Now-days also, WATS itself is virtually a thing of the past. No one
purchases long distance by the hour any longer do they?  The cost of
long distance calls has come down so much in the past twenty years
it no longer makes sense to buy it bulk rate by the hour. I do recall
how in the past companies would get mad if their employees used the
WATS line to call AC-555-1212. While those calls were free from a regular
line, they did eat up your minutes if dialed via the WATS line, so
companies would tell their employees to use the regular line to call
directory assistance and then use the WATS line to make the actual
call itself.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Brown)
Subject: Re: A Check from Mother
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:09:14
Organization: Somewhere in EDS...


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

> In yesterday's mail I received a check from AT&T for $13.69,
> identified only as "IDB Refund."  It was made out to me, and was from
> my former telephone account (now disconnected), but had no explanation
> attached.  Does anyone know what IDB stands for, and why AT&T is
> sending out refunds for it?

IDB is Invoice-Derived Billing, where AT&T calculates your long
distance charges and sends them to the local carrier for inclusion in
your bill. AT&T has rolled out IDB in most, if not all, of the country
by now. You probably never noticed when the switch was made, except
for a smaller bill one month and a larger one the next month as the
bill cycles got realigned. (In Southwestern Bell's territory, at
least, there was a bill page semi-explaining what was happening, but
the phrase IDB was never used.)

If your account was disconnected, you might have been entitled to a
refund if you had a calling plan like Reach Out America that is billed
a month in advance, or if AT&T decided that for some reason your bill
had been calculated incorrectly previously, and you were entitled to
it because of that.

"IDB Refund" sounds like an Accounts Payable category that covers all
of the potential reasons an IDB customer (you) could need a refund. If
you want to know exactly what the $13.69 is for, I'd recommend calling
AT&T; they should be able to tell you by looking at your old account.


Rick Brown   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #321
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10323;
          28 Jul 95 8:20 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20217 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:13:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20209; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:13:09 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:13:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #322

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Jul 95 00:13:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 322

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Some 500 Activity Underway Here (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Good Example of Voice Mail Effeciency (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: RBOC Labor Contracts Update? ([e-mail])
    Outsourcing Information (Denise Ondishko)
    ABCD Signaling Bits for T1 ESF (Matt Noah)
    Re: Ameritech's Lack of Service (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Atlanta Automated 411 ([e-mail])
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Lewis Hosier)
    Need Panasonic V!-1232 Line Card (Craig Vincent)
    Continuing Trouble With NYNEX Voice Mail in NYC (Steve Samler)
    Least Cost Routing Equipment Wanted (Doug Neubert)
    Re: Device to Reset Modems (Gary Breuckman)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:12:37 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some 500 Activity Underway Here


Well ... calling today once again to report the problem with 0-500 finally
got some folks at AT&T interested and since about 4:00 pm this afternoon
through the present time (11:00 pm) they've been rooting around trying
to find the bug in the software.

The problem: Calls via 0-500 billed to a calling card would not go
through. The number can be dialed, then 0# entered to indicate
calling card billing. After entering the calling card number and pin
the message 'thank you for using A' is heard, with an immediate
ringing tone cutting off the 'tee and tee' conclusion to the thank
you message.  It rings once, including ringing the phone of the 500
subscriber, but then immediatly drops the call and returns dialtone
to the calling party. The called party hears the ring, but no matter
how fast he answers the phone, he gets only dial tone.

Its like the ring you get as a warning when Call Forwarding is in
effect. You can't answer the call ... the ring is just there to
remind you of what you have done. Well that's the kind of a ring
subscribers of 500 get when someone tries to call them via 0-500 and
billing it to a calling card.

At first we thought the problem was with Ameritech's local switch ...
since placing the call via 800-321-0288 works fine as does placing
the call via 800-CALL-ATT. But it seems to be a bit more involved
than that, as a gentleman from AT&T in Kansas City who has been
working on the problem advised me.

He had me try a 500 test number (0-500-677-4141) on which the normal
status is unsupervised, none the less entering my calling card.  The
call completed satisfactorily. He then temporarily changed the status
of that test number so that calls to it would be supervised and had
me try again ... and once again the call completed just fine. He
restored the status of that test line to unsupervised when I reminded
him that's the way it was before he adjusted it for our test.  <grin>.
That 500 number is located in Kansas City by the way.

He then had me try a 500 number locally at the AT&T office in Oakbrook,
Illinois, again as 0-500 with my calling card used for billing. The
call bombed out!

He then had people in Oakbrook try calling my 500 number using my
calling card from out there as well as other calling cards. All the
attempts bombed out.

The latest word I got as of 10:30 pm was that there is some bug in the
software which causes intra-lata calls made via 0-500 and billed to
a calling card to bomb out ... they don't know why yet and are still
working on it.

He asked me, "do you recall if this ever worked correctly or not?"
I sort of laughed and said in other words you are telling me since
500 went into service this bug has been there and no one ever
discovered it until now ...

"Well, well ... umm .. ummm " was the reply I got.

10:45 pm .... two calls in a row, both one-ring jobs where when I
pick up the phone all I get is dial tone. I assume they are testing
it again.  10:47 pm I get a call from a man who says he is with
Ameritech looking into the problem. I tell him he just tested my
line twice in a row dialing 0-500 and a calling card and it bombed
out both times.

"How did you know that?" he asks ... simple, I told him, my phone
just had a one-ring two times in a row and nobody on the line
either time.

In response to my message in the Digest earlier today inviting test
calls from around the USA, there have been a few and the calls have
all gotten through okay. When I mentioned this to the Kansas City
fellow at AT&T he said it simply confirmed what he suspected all
along:  it is a bug that only strikes intra-lata calls.

So here is another test you can try if you wish: call your own
number via 0-500 from within your own lata of course, and try to
bill it to your calling card. Let's find out if the bug only
is present in Ameritech territory and northern Illinois specifically
or if its a bug in the 500 software distributed to all the telcos
where intra-lata calls are concerned.

It might be intra-state and not just intra-lata; they are not sure
of the former yet but they know the latter is having a problem.
It sure would be fun to find out that the bug was all over the USA
in AT&T's 500 software and not just isolated here.

Still ... its hard for me to imagine that *I* discovered this and
that it has always been there. I can't beleive I am the only person
around here to try and call my home number from a nearby payhone
using 0-500 and my calling card.

Anyway, send more test results if you wish. No need to call me from
interstate just to test it ... we have found that works okay. Try
calling 0-500 intra-lata and billing to a calling card in your
location.


PAT

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:28:54 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good Example of Voice Mail Effeciency


A local taxicab service here in Skokie is called 'American Taxi' on
the number 708-673-1000. For the past couple of months they have been
advertising that their 'new phone system' would soon be going into
effect, allowing callers with touch tones to enter their order for
cab service directly into the computer at the dispatch office.

Sure enough, about a week ago it started  and the system really worked
great ... note I said 'worked' in the past tense.

When you dialed 673-1000 a series of menu prompts let you enter the
information for ordering a cab. You entered your telephone number and
if you previously had ordered cab service from that location, the
computer would read back your address. You were then told 'hold while
your order is sent to dispatch and confirmed ...' and within a matter
of five seconds or so the computer would respond that 'cab <number>
is on the way and will arrive in five to ten minutes ...'.

Now before this system went in, the operators at the taxicab dispatch
office were *so* overloaded that waits on hold of five to ten minutes
to reach an operator and order a cab were not uncommon. This new
system eliminated all of that. I memorized the prompts the first time
I heard them, and by the second or third time of calling for a cab
and discovered that one need not even listen to the prompts. All one
had to do when the computer answered after the first ring was merely
start punching in the digits desired to answer the questions about
when you wanted the cab, where you were going (press one for your
local community, press two for a nearby town, press three for Ohare
Airport, etc). Punch in my own number, it would immediatly read back
'you are at 9457 Niles Center Road in Skokie', press a digit to
confirm, wait five or ten seconds for it to hit the computer in
the dispatch office, and hang up.  Total time on the phone to
order the cab was about 30 seconds.

Well it was on line a couple days ... and now is gone. I tried calling
the manager of the cab company on his personal line to ask him why
they discontinued using it, but they would not tell me. I strongly
suspect it is because one or more eighty year old ladies here in
Skokie probably tried to get a cab, went into a panic about the
new system and made such a fuss they took it off line.

Too bad .. it was great while it lasted.  Now calling American Taxi
we are back to the 'please hold' message and five minute waits,
but I guess the old ladies like it better that way.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Justin H.)
Subject: Re: RBOC Labor Contracts Update?
Date: 27 Jul 1995 01:05:06 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider


John S. Lively ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Anyone have a summary on status of LEC labor negotiations (IBEW, CWA)?

> Info wanted for RBOCs + GTE (individually):
> - When do current contracts expire?

    Bell Atlantic's contracts w/ CWA expire August 7th at
midnight.  Most other RBOC's are up around the first week of August.
NYNEX has an agreement.

> - How are talks going?
    Bad

> - What is probability of a strike?
    Depends on what part of the country your talking about. I'd say
    it's 60/40 at Bell Atlantic

>   Also, has strike threat historically driven higher or lower equipment
>   purchases or network construction?

    They're pushing like mad to get their work orders done before
August, but only 'hot' jobs are getting done. Nothing new is in the
pipe.


[e-mail]      CWA local 13000  cserve 71412.313

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

From: [e-mail] (Denise Ondishko)
Subject: Outsourcing Information
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 19:49:39 GMT


I'm looking for information or a contact from a telecommunications
(and/or LAN) service organization that has been outsourced, or has
been considered for outsourcing. We're in an exploration situation
here and we'd like to compare notes on what to expect and how
decisions are made.


Thanks!

denise ondishko, phd                                 [e-mail]
network engineering, telecommunications                       716-275-9115
university of rochester, 727 elmwood ave.                 FAX:[phone]
roch., ny 14620                          http://www.utd.rochester.edu/~dmo

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

From: [e-mail] (Matt Noah)
Subject: ABCD Signaling Bits for T1 ESF
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:05:12 GMT
Organization: ACT Networks, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have been looking for a reference which will explain ABCD robbed-bit
signaling for T1 ESF.  There is sufficient information regarding AB
robbed-bit signaling but I can not find anything on C and D.  Any
suggestions for me?

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech's Lack of Service
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 22:44:44 -0400


I keep reading about Pat's problems with Ameritech, and I am amazed.
I'd quickly like to share my recent telecom experience ...

I'm moving from NYNEX (Long Island) to Southern Bell (Charlotte, NC).
I called the residence service center to establish service (a toll-free
call for out-of-staters - 1 800 767 BELL), and the representative
there was willing to spend _TWO HOURS_ on the phone with me, listing
every available service and price, and explaining the ones I wasn't
sure of (everyone has there own cute name for things).  After all the
order taking was over, she read me a list of phone numbers and asked
me which ones I liked (for purposes of distinctive ring, I have more
than one).  She told me (when I asked) that I would be in a 5AESS 9.1
switch (and no, I wasn't the first person to ask that - I just like to
make sure they don't stick me in the last crossbar station in town).
When all was said and done, she repeated her name, gave me her
extension number, asked me to call if there was anything else she
could do.  They're open 24/7 down there.  At the end of the
conversation, she told me "We're happy to welcome you to Southern
Bell".  Damn!  At this rate, who cares how they program their pay
phones!  ;-)


Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my message earlier in this issue.
Ameritech seems to be restless tonight; they and AT&T are looking
into the bug in the software handing 0-500. But I don't think they
are doing it for me; I think what happened was I piqued their
curiosity about what's causing the problem and how it was undetected
until now.   PAT]

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

From: Dan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Automated 411
Date: 27 Jul 1995 02:41:12 GMT
Organization: via CompuServe Information Service


According to my knowledge and the documentation from Northern on ADAS
the feeling that you are talking to a computer is NOT a figment of
your imagination ... you are.  Although this increases holding times,
it decreases overall operator worktime since the operator does not
have to be on the line at the time the bid announcement goes out and
the customer responds.  To further reduce operator worktime the
customer's response is trimmed of leading and trailing white space
(maybe in the middle too, I'm not sure about that) before it is
delivered to operator.

I'm not sure if you may be alluding in your response to products like
PRS (Personalized Response System) where it is answered in the
operator's voice automatically on call seizure but wherein the
operator is always on the line.  Some companies like NYNEX I know do
not use the actual operator's voice but rather a generic male or
female voice such that if the operator does happen to have to speak
then the impression that you were talking to "a machine" before may be
prevelant.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lewis Hosier)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:25:10 -0600
Organization: Phoenix Data Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger
Golden) wrote:

> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I have seen the future, and it is *not* residential ISDN.

> I sell the future, and it is.

If the cable companies ever get off their butts it will be.

snip

>> The Cable TV folks provide 'direct' access to Prodigy and America
>> online, but their system also gateways to the internet. This is a
>> helluva lot more interesting to me than Prodigy or AOL.

> Why not a direct access to the internet, and gateways to these lesser
> commercial services?  Is this intentional, and looked on by the
> commercial service providers as a final effort to retain a market that
> they once thought they controlled?

They will when they figure out how to charge for it. It's easier to sell a
name brand product.

>> The thing is *fast*. Typical throughput is about 60-100kbps; I've seen
>> some transfers take place as quickly as 300kbps. I've only been
>> experimenting with it for a few days, so I probably haven't seen all its
>> able to do.

> This is where I begin to get awfully skeptical.  I can see getting
> extremely high throughput on a dedicated coaxial line, enough
> throughput to knock yer socks off, in fact; but I don't understand how
> high speed data transmissions can be acceptable or sustainable in a
> coaxial cable that is already saturated with information.  And again,
> as a new user of this service is added to the line, aren't we looking
> at exponential degradation of the bps?  I was also under the
> impression, wrong though it may be, that this type of system was
> restricted in transmission speed as well, being held down to something
> like 100kps as a maximum sustainable transfer rate?

A saturated cable, but in rebuilds, a 750mHz or 1 GHz pipeline.
Various cable engineers talk about speeds of 40 mbs downstream to your
computer!  Upstream will of course be lower.  All in all, if they
deploy fast enough, ISDN will be an Interesting Service you Don't Need ;)

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:45:04 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Craig Vincent)
Subject: Need Panasonic VA-1232 Line Card


I'm in need of a line card for a Panasonic VA-1232. I can't seem to find
anyone who has one for sale. Can anyone out there help? I need to get my
customer off my back for this. Please reply to: [e-mail]

Thanks in advance!

Message from:


Craig Vincent   C&M Telecom
P.O. Box 11570  Glendale, CA  91226
(voice 213-255-4500) (fax [phone])

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:30:22 EDT
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Continuing Trouble With NYNEX Voice Mail in NYC


Our office continues to have trouble with Nynex voice mail.  Calls to
repair have had no effect.  Callers to the office often get RNA.  We
know of at least one other subscriber that has the same problem.  Is
there anyone out there from Nynex that wants to help solve this
problem?  Alternatively are there other ways to get voice-mail without
our having to install equipment?  Is MFS offering local dial tone in
TriBeCa?  Do they have voice mail?

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Neubert)
Subject: Least Cost Routing Equipment Wanted
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 02:08:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I need the names of companies that still make least cost routing
boxes. This would be an external routing device (like in the old days)
I hope they still make them. If you could E-mail me that would be
great since I don't always get a chance to get into the news.


Thanks,

dn

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 09:47:39 PDT
From: Gary Breuckman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to Reset Modems


On 20 Jul 1995, Greg Tompkins wrote:

> I've seen posts about this subject before but would like to know if
> anyone knows of a device that will do the following:

> Scenario: I have a bank of modems and one gets stuck.  If it gets
> stuck good enough, it will cause the line to either ring ring ring or
> something like this.  Is there a device out there that after a certain
> number of rings (because the modem doesn't pick up the line) picks up
> the line and re-sets the modem?  The computer people at my school have
> problems with stuck modems ##all the time## and I suggested this as a
> fix.  They said, you tell me where I can get this thing and we will.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

We avoid this problem by having our modem lines set to "forward on
busy / no answer" to the next number of the series, rather than a
standard hunt group or rotary.  At the end of the third ring, if the
modem hasn't answered, it will go to the next one.

One of the problems with having a black box to reset the modem is that
it might not be the modem that's having the problem.  It could be an
open line somewhere (so that even if you know about it, you can't busy
it out), or the modem, or the port on the equipment or terminal server
could be refusing calls.  Another problem is the expense, the box must
cost something.  Last but not least, where do you put these black
boxes if you have many modems?  The space and wiring concerns would
not be trivial and problems might cause more outages than you would
have without them.

Our lines are on a Centrex arrangment, and there is no additional cost
in doing it this way.  You need to verify that you are not paying a
charge for each forwarded call, it would add up quickly to forward
each busy call all the way down to the end of the group, one line at a
time.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #322
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa15503;
          28 Jul 95 17:22 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25630 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:11:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25622; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:11:33 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:11:33 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #323

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Jul 95 09:11:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 323

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Kyl and Leahy to Introduce Anti-Hacker Bill (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Future of LORAN-C (Coast Guard Communications)
    ISDN vs. Cable Modems (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: ITU-T H 324 Spec - Videoconferencing Over Analogue Line (Robert Shaw)
    Is AT&T Forcing Folks Off Reach Out America? (Jeff Jonas)
    Correction to Mis-attribution (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Local Measured Telephone Service Experiences (Christine MacDonald)
    10XXX Access for GTE? (Donald M Larson)
    ZENITH Still in Use in Ontario, Canada (Henry W. Troup)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Kyl and Leahy to Introduce Anti-Hacker Bill
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 06:19:30 GMT


>   (Washington, D.C.) -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Patrick
> Leahy (D-VT) will introduce a bill next week that responds to the
> rapidly increasing sophistication of computer crime by criminalizing
> and toughening penalties for a host of computer security violations.

>    The bill makes it a felony for a hacker to inflict reckless damage
> on a computer system.

> It also makes it a felony for an authorized user to inflict
> intentional damage on a computer system.

You can read this two ways.  One is that an authorized user may not
exceed his authority to inflict intentional damage on a computer system.
Fine.  We don't need employees and contractors planting time bombs that
go off after they leave or putting their foot through the monitor.  But
Congress has long demonstrated its ability to screw up details, and in
any bill to outlaw sodomy, they'll make chicken-egg production impossible
because they'll arrest the roosters when they try to do their job, and
probably charge the farmer as co-conspirator and seize the entire farm.

What is the point of making it illegal for a user authorized to crash
the system to actually crash it?  I've ended up doing that several
times -- a system was set up for the sole purpose of stress-testing it
in the hopes of making it crash so we could isolate, and eventually
fix, the bug.  Or sometimes it was to probe for new bugs nobody found
yet.  I wouldn't necessarily do the fix.  My job was to find
conditions that reproduce the bug as quickly as possible.  Other times
I did tests on a live system (but usually live with my data only) and
took calculated risks of the chance of having to restore the data vs.
the time to set up a separate system to test the bug.  Management knew
what I was doing.  If anything, they wanted me to hurry up and repeat
the bug, and quit worrying about backups.

Sysadmins, watch out.  Upgrading to a new version of the OS could easily
be called "intentional damage", especially if you KNEW in advance there
were various incompatabilities with the previous version.  Even shutting
off a system for maintenance, or because of impending air conditioning
shutdown, could get you in trouble if someone's unauthorized
multi-player DOOM game got caught in it.

Users, watch out.  Deleting a file, *ANY* file, even compiler or editor
temporary files, could be called "intentional damage".  If you are a
government official doing this on a government computer, this is
probably also called a "coverup" by the press.

OS writers, watch out.  Providing the ability to delete a file could
make you a co-conspirator with a user who actually uses the function.

I pity the guy whose job it is to dispose of obsolete computer
equipment.  This is certainly "intentional damage", especially erasing
the hard drive.  (Side note: I find it absolutely amazing that
companies will sell obsolete hard drives without erasing what's on
them first.  Some of the data you find is amazing.  I would try to
identify the owner, then erase it and tell the owner about it.)


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: USCG TELECOMMS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Future of LORAN-C
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:50:00 -0400
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service [e-mail] 703-448-4470


There have been several queries in this news group concerning the
future of Loran-C.  Some of the information available from the USCG
Home Page on the matter is over two years old.  The most recent
information is available from the National Technical Information
Service in Springfield, VA 22161.  The document is entitled, "1994
Federal Radionavigation Plan," document number DOT-VNTSC-RSPA-95-1/
DOD-4650.5.  The document is dated May 1995.  The document can also
be downloaded from the USCG FTP server: ftp.navcen.uscg.mil.

With regard to the future of Loran-C, the subject document states,
"The system is expected to remain part of the radionavigation mix
until the year 2000, to accommodate the transition to GPS.  Continued
operation after that date will depend on validating requirements for
Loran-C that cannot be met by GPS or another system.  The DOD
requirement for the Loran-C system ended December 31, 1994.
Operations conducted by the USCG at overseas stations were phased out
by the end of 1994.  Current use of the Loran-C system appears to be
leveling off and will most likely decrease as GPS and DGPS equipment
fills the market place.  This trend is expected to continue unless
user equipment is developed that will take advantage of the two
systems; i.e., Loran-C and GPS have no common vulnerabilities as they
would apply to jamming, spoofing and interference.  However, given the
expected decrease in use, the estimated time frame for continued need
of Loran-C in the US has been reduced to the year 2000.  Accordingly,
the USCG has suspended its Loran-C equipment recapitalization program.
The remaining initiatives include replacement of older transmitters in
Alaska, the introduction of the automatic blink system, and
consolidating the control of Loran-C."


                     COAST  GUARD  COMMUNICATIONS

       Telephone: [phone]         U.S. Coast Guard (G-TTM)
       Fax:       [phone]         Washington DC 20593
       Internet:      CGComms/[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 00:50 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: ISDN vs. Cable Modems


Greetings.  Before becoming too enamored of CATV (Cable TV) based
Internet connections, it's important to keep some fundamental issues
in mind.  Obviously there are variations between different
implementations, but the following generally holds true.

First off, the cable companies getting into this business are
definitely aiming their "mass market" products at "unbalanced"
distribution models -- most data toward the cable-end user, not much
coming back.  There are all sorts of reasons for this, but one of the
biggies is that getting cable TV reverse channels to work properly in
the first place, and then continue to work *reliably*, is usually a
royal pain.

For big customers (paying the bigger bucks) the cost and effort of
keeping wideband reverse channels calibrated can be worth it.  For Ma
and Pa Internet user, it's really the last thing the cable companies
want to deal with.  Outside of equipment costs, one basic problem is
that even with many newer systems, reverse channels are notoriously
subject to critical alignment and drift problems.

In many cases, even keeping the *forward* channel working properly is
problematical.  Given the design of cable TV distribution systems, one
cable guy who doesn't bother screwing a single connector in all the
way can throw the entire system out of wack for all regular TV viewers
(how's the "herringbone" on your channel 2 been lately?), much less
for data!  "Reliable" or "high quality" have very rarely been terms
subscribers tend to apply to their cable TV service.

Also, remember that RF bandwidth does not equal throughput.  A 6 Mhz
RF channel does not necessarily mean 6 Mbits/sec of data to the end
user.  Raw bandwidth issues aside, most of these systems are designed
to multiplex lots of users on what bandwidth is available, meaning
that you'll end up competing with other folks (perhaps lots of other
folks) as these systems expand, with resulting possibly wide
variations in end user throughput.

Of course, different people will have different levels of service that
they find acceptable.  If you're a hobbyist who doesn't require a
uniform grade of service, doesn't mind random disruptions of data, and
mostly receives data, you may find a cable-based system to be
adequate.  If you require a reliable, stable throughput or send lots
of data as well as receive, you're probably best off sticking with
"conventional" data delivery technologies.

In other words, watch your step!


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:25:49 +0100
From: SHAW [phone] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ITU-T H 324 Spec - Videoconferencing Over Analogue Lines


Rob Ollier <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am very interested in desktop videoconferencing now that prices
> are falling rapidly.

> The H320 stuff (i.e. using ISDN lines) is still overpriced in my view.
> I believe the ITU have a new spec for video conferencing over
> analogue, ITU-T H324, which would really give the market a boost if
> the quality is acceptable.

For a good overview of what's happening in the video conferencing
standards area, see the "International Multimedia Teleconferencing
Consortium" web site at:

http://www.csn.net:80/imtc/

The PictureTel H.324 archive site available off a link at IMTC gives
lots of good information about the status of H.324 and related
standards.  Text pulled from their PictureTel's "h324info.txt" says:

"The H.324 suite is a recommendation for real-time voice, data, and
video over V.34 modems on the GSTN (POTS) telephone network.  It
consists of 5 documents:

        H.324   Systems
        H.223   Multiplex
        H.245   Control
        H.263   Video codec
        G.723   Speech codec

All five of these documents were "Determined" at the February 1995
meeting of ITU-T Study Group 15 in Geneva, and therefore they will be
up for "Decision" at the next SG15 meeting in November 1995.  If
Decided there, they will go to ballot, and if approved, become ITU-T
recommendations three months later."

Hope this helps you out.


Robert Shaw     International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations   1211 Geneva 20  Switzerland
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Jonas)
Subject: Is AT&T Forcing Folks Off Reach Out America?
Date: 27 Jul 1995 03:57:31 -0400
Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts


I just reviewed my phone bill and I found that without my consent,
AT&T switched me from the Evening Plus plan (much like Reach Out
America $8.25 for the first hour, 10 cents each additional minute) to
the "True USA savings" (a 20% discount) which is costing me a lot
more!

I heard that AT&T had discontinued the Reach Out America and similar
plans, since they'd otherwise respond to the Sprint Sence commercials
that you can get AT&T for 10 cents a minute too.

I am most certain that I would NEVER consent to anything that would
jeopardize my staying in the Evening Plus Plan, and I do not recall
even receiving a call from AT&T, let alone agreeing to anything.  I
never recall receiving any notification about ROA being cancelled.

Am I the only one? I'm going to call them ASAP and record the conversation.


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:27:53 -0400
Subject: Correction to Mis-attribution


Guys, I love to see my name in writing -- but the following has been
mis-attributed to me.

However, I'll take this opportunity to say that I agree wholeheartedly with
Linc's rebuttal.  :-)


Judith

On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail].
nwu.edu> said:

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

>> Judith Oppenheimer ([e-mail]) wrote:

>> Yes, the 800 brand utility is very important, but it is very important
>> to EVERYONE who has an 800 number, not solely to American Express and
>> 800-Flowers.  I say give the current holders of 800 numbers no special
>> rights whatsoever on the corresponding 888 numbers.  As has been noted,
>> American Express can trademark "THE CARD" but not 843-2273, and
>> 800-Flowers can trademark "800-FLOWERS" but not 356-9377.  If someone
>> else comes along with 888-THE-CARD as an ad slogan, AmEx will surely sue

>Would you want 888-843-2273?!  You'd get thousands of calls every day even

> though you weren't allowed to market yourself as 888-THE-CARD. This is
> precisely why all corporations that have put money in advertising their
> phone numbers *will* mirror them in the 888 series.

>> The simple fact is that there will soon be two different "brands" of
>> toll-free number, 800 and 888 (and perhaps soon a third, 011-800, if the

>> details can be ironed out).  Those who have access to the original
>> brand, Both commercial and residential users, will have an advantage
>> over those who get the new brand, but that advantage will rapidly
>> diminish over time as those who have the new brand work to inform the
>> public about its use.

> There can be only one (, highlander)....


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry for the confusion caused by somehow
getting the >> marks out of sequence, and thanks for the correction.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Local Measured Telephone Service Experiences
Date: 27 Jul 1995 15:15:47 GMT
Organization: InterLog Internet Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Bell Canada is planning to introduce local measured service -- we
currently have unlimited free local calling -- and we are quite
concerned about the increased costs to our business, and to Canadian
business in general.  I would like information on the percentage of
U.S. cities that have local measured service, whether or not your
telephone company offers you options, and mainly I'd like to hear from
any businesses that relocated due to the cost of local measured
service.  Also, information on how much costs increased once local
measured service was introduced would be appreciated.  Were there any
additional costs that you didn't anticipate?

I understand that the UK experience may also be relevant, and I would
like to hear from anyone who had concerns and/or problems with their
business and local measured telephone service.

Thank you for your help.


Christine MacDonald

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

From: [e-mail] (Donald M Larson)
Subject: 10XXX Access for GTE?
Date: 27 Jul 1995 13:09:06 -0700
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


I was wondering if anyone out here knows if there is a 10XXX access
number for GTE in the California market area?

I ask primarily out of concern for accessing GTE when out of my home
area (in California) but may be at a payphone either in or out of the
GTE service area. I wish to ensure that I would be able to use my GTE
card or calling card and if necessary, I would like to directly access
them through their 10XXX code (if there is one at all ...)

Please reply to my via e-mail if you have the answer.


Thanks,

DML

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 17:30:00 -0400
From: henry troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: ZENITH Still in Use in Ontario, Canada


My 1995 Ottawa, Canada phone book lists "dial 0 and ask for ZENITH
90000" under Ambulance, Other Municipalities.


Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #323
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17817;
          28 Jul 95 22:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11176 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:52:17 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11166; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:52:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:52:14 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #324

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Jul 95 15:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 324

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Larry Rachman)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Scott Coleman)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Tom Davidson)
    Re: ABCD Signaling Bits for T1 ESF (Wally Ritchie)
    Re: 800 Replicated in 888 - Weeding Out False Conclusions (J. Oppenheimer)
    Re: 800 Replicated in 888 - Correction of J. Oppenheimer (Gary Bouwkamp)
    Re: Device to Reset Modems ([e-mail])
    Re: Device to Reset Modems ([e-mail])

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 28 Jul 95 14:44:54 GMT
Organization: Midnight Networks Inc. Waltham, MA


[e-mail] (Roger Golden) writes:

> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The thing is *fast*. Typical throughput is about 60-100kbps; I've seen
>> some transfers take place as quickly as 300kbps. I've only been
>> experimenting with it for a few days, so I probably haven't seen all its
>> able to do.

> This is where I begin to get awfully skeptical.  I can see getting
> extremely high throughput on a dedicated coaxial line, enough
> throughput to knock yer socks off, in fact; but I don't understand how
> high speed data transmissions can be acceptable or sustainable in a
> coaxial cable that is already saturated with information.

By the same logic you couldn't send a single cable TV channel through
the cable system, because it's already "saturated" with 35 or 71 other
channels.

In most cable TV systems the bandwidth below channel 2 (0-50 MHz) is
available for transmitting from the user to the head end, and you
dedicate one or more TV channels (at 6MHz apiece) for transmitting
data from the head end to the user.  (If you're cramped for channels
on a 36-channel system, you lose, just like the Sci-Fi channel lost
where I live ...)

> And again, as a new user of this service is added to the line, aren't
> we looking at exponential degradation of the bps?

No.  First, your degradation due to sharing is going to be linear
(1/N), rather than exponential (1/e^N).  Second, as any user of a LAN
can tell you, if you generate bursty data you're much better off being
able to use the full bandwidth of a shared facility for part of the
time than being restricted to no more than 1/Nth of the bandwidth all
the time.

(to a close approximation, file access on my workstation would be ten
times slower if I had a dedicated 1mbit connection to the server
rather than sharing a 10mbit LAN with nine other machines)

> I was also under the impression, wrong though it may be, that this
> type of system was restricted in transmission speed as well, being
> held down to something like 100kps as a maximum sustainable transfer
> rate?

My understanding from a previous job (another group was looking at
implementing a cable modem) is that with adequate modulation
technology the total capacity that could be shared on a single cable
segment (maybe 100-500 households) is over 10 megabits.  With some of
the modems on the market today I think you can get over 1 megabit.

> With ISDN, you could have a full connection, including a real email
> address, along with all the other nifties that Internet users are
> accustomed to.

With ISDN you get a miniscule 64kb/s link, sharing a cable bundle with
idle pairs that could be carrying megabits of data but instead are
idle due to telco-think, and you're stuck doing business with a
low-tech company which is in the business of watering and feeding a
cable plant and placating local regulators and wouldn't recognize
technology if it stepped on it.

[maybe I'm somewhat bitter; the first half of my career was spent on
ISDN work, which came to naught because of telco and user inaction.]

As far as a "real email address" -- surely you understand the
difference between local transport and Internet service?  You can have
a real email address with a modem and PPP, and you can have a
Compuserve address with a leased T1.


Peter Desnoyers  : Midnight Networks Inc. 200 Fifth Avenue Waltham MA 02154
[e-mail] : Ph. 617/890-1001 Fax -0028  The Best in Network Software

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

Date: 28 Jul 95 10:37:07 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN


In his reply of 28JUL95, Roger Golden ([e-mail]) enjoyed
an opportunity to take a few potshots at an experimental 'internet via
cable tv' project I described. It wasn't my intention to claim that
this is the only way data will ever enter anyone's home. Perhaps I
need to clarify where I'm coming from.

I'm excited that I now have a two-way data pipe coming into my home
that wasn't provided by the local phone company. If a third service
provider shows up, or a fourth or a fifth (perhaps via two-way
wireless?), I'll be even more excited.

Right now, the program is experimental (about 100 users so far). The
company is 'pushing' connections to Prodigy and AOL, probably because
they're canned, easy-to-provide user-friendly applications. But I can
Telnet or FTP over the circuit to anyone on the internet. The thing
works just like you'd want ... I turn on my PC, double-click on the
Telnet icon, pull down the connect menu, select xyzzy.com or whatever,
and the appropriate salutation appears in a few seconds.

WRT available bandwidth, the physical coaxial cable itself is usable
from DC to about 500 mHz+. Assuming 50 tv channels at 6 mHz apiece are
present, the cable is hardly 'saturated'; it would seem that that
tacking a two-way Ethernet-wide path on is perfectly reasonable.

Now, of course, nobody wants to be on a single Ethernet loop with a
jillion other subscribers. But here's where the data users get sort of a
free ride on the backs of the tv viewers.

Historically, cable TV has consisted of a 'head end', *LOTS* of
amplifiers, splitters, and ratty coax, and your TV. Whenever any one
of those cable runs or connectors became waterlogged or loose, all the
amplifiers cranked up their AGC, and the poor TV viewer was subject to
a miserably noisy picture. Plenty of microvolts, but noisy as h*ll.

In response to this problem, (and probably with some 'encouragement'
from the local PSC), our cable company is investing some serious $$ in
what they call their 'cascade reduction' program. Basically, large
portions of the physical plant are being replaced by fiber, with only
the last portion to the residence remaining coax. So, instead of
having 35 analog amplifiers and 30 miles of coax between you and the
head end, you might have 27 miles of fiber, a 'terminal', and 3 miles
of coax with only a few amplifiers. In my town and one other in the
area, this system is already in place.

What this does for the data end of things is that you're *not* going to
be sharing your circuit with everyone in town -- just the chain of
subscribers that goes down your block to the 'terminal' and then enters
the (broadband) fiber.

Now I realize that there will be a temptation to put as many data
users on one loop as possible for $$ reasons, but there is really no
*technical* limitation to providing the needed performance level. Will
the system realize its potential? I don't know? But, being a
capitalist at heart, I'm excited by the prospect of two (or more?)
well-funded companied duking it out in the marketplace.

>> And the neatest thing about it is that they're managing to do it
>> without ... Ominbus Information Superhighway Act.

> Politics. yuck! :)

Remember, just because you're not interested in politics doesn't mean
that politics isn't interested in you!

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in titling the thread 'Death of Residential
ISDN'. A better title might have been 'Displacement of ISDN as the only
broadband conection to the home.' But when your market share is 100%,
any serious competition has the potential to be a big hit on that share.

>> With ISDN, you could have a full connection, including a real email
>> address... {many more goodies omitted}

I was under the impression that 'ISDN' defined the pipe, not the
services at the other end of it. The system I described is
experimental; its not 'done' yet. But I'm sure glad I have it, and I
hope it becomes widely available. I don't work for the cable company.
I don't own any of their stock. All I get out of this is the internet
feed. Plus the sheer, naked thrill of watching the PC screen fill up
with data, and then glancing at the telephone and seeing that none of
the lights are lit.  If you don't instinctively understand that last
part, I'm not sure I can explain it.


LR

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 28 Jul 1995 14:10:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lewis
Hosier) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger
> Golden) wrote:

>> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> I have seen the future, and it is *not* residential ISDN.

>> I sell the future, and it is.

> If the cable companies ever get off their butts it will be.

Yes, and we all know how the net-via-cable rates will be in the
absence of competition from other services like ISDN - rapaciously
high everywhere (except perhaps Washington, D.C. ;-).  Don't wish too
hard for the death of residential ISDN -- you just might get it. :-(


Scott Coleman, President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Davidson)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 28 Jul 1995 13:05:58 -0500
Organization: Motorola, Inc. -- Austin,TX


The problem with using cable for data transfer is right now its really
fast, but what happens when your whole neighborhood is trying to use
the thing?  Lots of collisions, reduced throughput, just like
ethernet. I've put five PC's on a single coax line running 10Mbps
Ethernet, if only one PC is doing anything, everything is great, but try
to websurf on all five at the same time, the collision light starts
flashing. I really dont see the cableco putting a router every couple
of blocks.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ABCD Signaling Bits for T1 ESF
Date: 28 Jul 1995 16:01:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matt Noah) writes:

> I have been looking for a reference which will explain ABCD robbed-bit
> signaling for T1 ESF.  There is sufficient information regarding AB
> robbed-bit signaling but I can not find anything on C and D.  Any
> suggestions for me?

Signalling bits in all T1 formats occur every 6th frame.

In D4 and SLC-96 the frames are organized into a 12 frame multiframe
so you have two signalling bit per multi-frame signalling every 1.5
milliseconds.

In ESF the frames are organized into a 24 frame multiframe so you have
four signalling bits per multi-frame signalling every three milliseconds.

Most applications need less than five signalling states in each
direction and compatibility and interworking are enhanced by setting
C=A and D=B when mapping four states to 16.

BTW SLC-96 formats use three-state signalling where the A and B bits
can each be 0, 1, or alternating 0's and 1's. SLC-96 format thus has
nine possible signalling states in both directions.

Many robust applications de-bounce the signalling bits by ignoring single
transitions.

As to references I think PUB-43801 is still a valid target and I think the
mapping from AB to ABCD is covered in 62411. For current references
you have to decide to which organization(s) you want to pay the ransom,
Bellcore, ANSI, and now once again ITU.


Hope this helps.

Wally Ritchie  [e-mail]
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 10:11:28 -0400
Subject: Re: 800 Replicated in 888 -- Weeding Out False Conclusions


Patrick, in response to my notice:

AT&T has submitted an issue statement calling for granting existing
800 users an advance window within which to obtain their matching
888's, effectively "grandfathering" those 800's requested by users.

You wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So now in effect 888 is already as crowded
> as 800, is that it?  It is barely possible to get an 800 number now
> because so many are in use; it will apparently be barely possible to
> get an 888 number because so many will have been removed from
> assignment.

> everyone who has an 800 number will ask to have the corresponding 888
> number made unavailable.   PAT]

Patrick, on what do you base this statement?

Following is the survey done by 140 RespOrgs of their customers, which
was also presented at this week's OBF/SNAC meeting by DSMI.

The numbers reflect percentages of user demand for replication.

1.  How many working 800 numbers do you currently provide RESP ORG services
for?

    4,745,514

2.  What number of your total working 800 numbers are considered by
your customers to be "vanity" numbers and/or numbers which they have a
vested interest in retaining (hereinafter "vanity" numbers?)

    1,142,247 (24%)

3.  Of those customers who consider their 800 number(s) "vanity"
numbers, how many would consider that same number to be a vanity
number and would want it replicated in:

    888:    1,138,122 (24%)
    877:
    866:
    855:
    844:
    833:
    822:    721,484 (15%)

4.  What number of those numbers which would be replicated in 888 are
considered to be assigned to customers with monthly billings of:

    a)  More than $5,000 (i.e., large customers):      542,556 (53%)
    b)  Between $1,000 and $5,000 (medium customers):  151,986 (15%)
    c)  Under $1,000 (small customers)               325,503 (32%)

5.  To the extent that your company differentiates residential
customers from business customers, of the total numbers projected for
replication, how many would be replicated for residential customers?

    8,122 (1% of total for questions 6,7,8)

6.  To the extent that your company differentiates residential
customers from business customers, of the total numbers projected for
replication, how many would be replicated for business customers?

    961,396 (97% of total for questions 6,7,8)

7.  Of the total numbers projected for replication, how many would be
replicated for the paging industry?

    23,199 (1% of total for questions 6,7,8)

8.  Of the total numbers projected for replication, how many numbers
would be replicated for the reasons below:

    Vanity number and/or marketing concerns (i.e., "branding"): 75%
    Wrong number billing concerns:                    35%
    Concerns over consumer education regarding toll-free NPAs:  10%
    Other:                                    10%


Patrick, that's why I sent you the survey.  24% of users consider
their numbers branded, 75% of whom would want replication.

Among pager users, 1%.  Same, with residential users:  1%.

Rather than guess and project hysterically, here are the numbers.

However, if you are that concerned that more users than anticipated
will want their corresponding 888, then maybe you are confirming what
we've been saying all along regarding brand value, costs of lost
business and costs of misdials.

There IS a business reality here.  Ignoring it (or worse, judging it to be
dismissable) is bad business.

Toll-free service exists to serve businesses and consumers.  Why ignore
them?


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alright, I stand corrected on this, sort
of. In other words, it is in your opinion more like overall 20-25 percent
of the existing 800 users who would want the corresponding 888 number
made unavailable for one reason or another?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 15:59:14 EST
Subject: Re: 800 Replication in 888: Correction of J. Oppenheimer


In TELECOM Digest Volume 15 : Issue 317, Judith Oppenheimer commented:

> AT&T has submitted an issue statement calling for granting existing
> 800 users an advance window within which to obtain their matching
> 888's, effectively "grandfathering" those 800's requested by users.
> This was apparently the result of the DSMI survey report that 75% of
> vanity 800 users want this protection.

Actually, the survey showed that less than 25% of existing 800
customers have an interest in retaining a replicated number in the 888
resource.  Of that number 75% wanted replication for "marketing or
branding concerns" and the remainder wanted replication because of
wrong number or consumer education concerns.

> For the first time, not only a carrier, but the major carrier, is
> responding to users.  Your voice now counts more than ever.
> The issue statement was accepted.  It's current status is "open."

No, the issue was not accepted.  The topic was rolled into the overall
issue of 888 implementation, and promptly tabled.  It was thought to
be a waste of time to formulate replication guidelines or procedures
without any knowledge of how the FCC would rule.  The industry
committee will meet via conference call as soon as the NPRM is
released.  There was no consensus reached among any carriers (except
AT&T) for further discussion of the topic.

In other words, only one carrier went on record as promoting special
privileges for a few large customers, while the rest of us can just
wait in line.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So now in effect 888 is already as crowded
> as 800, is that it?  It is barely possible to get an 800 number now
> because so many are in use; it will apparently be barely possible to get
> an 888 number because so many will have been removed from assignment. What
> exactly was the point of 888 if not to make millions of new toll-free
> numbers available for assignment? But now they cannot be assigned because
> everyone who has an 800 number will ask to have the corresponding 888
> number made unavailable. So where does that leave us, back where we
> started?

If the DSMI survey is correct, on day one of 888 implementation there
will be at least 1,200,000 numbers used-up right out of the gate.

Get your lawyers ready, that NPRM is due in about two weeks.


Gary Bouwkamp   Allnet Communication Services Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (jimbo)
Subject: Re: Device to Reset Modems
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:56:39 GMT
Organization: megan co.


Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]> had this to say:

> Scenario: I have a bank of modems and one gets stuck.  If it gets
> stuck good enough, it will cause the line to either ring ring ring or
> something like this.  Is there a device out there that after a certain
> number of rings (because the modem doesn't pick up the line) picks up
> the line and re-sets the modem?

Yes, there is but the name escapes me. {Computer Shopper} would be the
source to search for it (probably toward the back where the smaller
ads reside).

While Gary's reply does provide an alternative and points out the need
to check for an open loop, the problem you describe sounds like the
modem needs to be reset or is not defaulting to "answer" mode
(providing the loop tests are positive).  Since I cannot make
assumptions as to what you know, please pardon any over-simplification
henceforward.

Remember that the modems, when turned on or reset, can be programmed
to use either the settings stored in memory or factory defaults.
Also, on some modems, there are small switches that may override
either memory or factory settings.  All modems on the pool should have
the same exact programming and switches thrown.

There is, among these settings, a method for the modem to reset itself
upon losing carrier.  While some manufacturers provide this options
via a switch on the modem, more often it must be set with a PC and
saved to the modem's memory thereby necessitating that all modems use
the settings stored in memory rather than factory defaults.

I've seen too many techs, while skilled in telephony, who are unable
to comprehend that simply "slapping them in" might provide room for
future problems for the client.

In the end, it is always best to have a qualified computer tech who is
skilled in modem communications to check each modem in the pool and
verify the settings of each modem when turned on or reset.

Hope this helps.


jimbo

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

From: PJK <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to Reset Modems
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 11:51:17 CDT
Organization: R&D, Advanced Products - 16th Floor


On 20 Jul 1995, Greg Tompkins wrote:

> I've seen posts about this subject before but would like to know if
> anyone knows of a device that will do the following:

> [ discussion about modems not answering snipped ]

Gary Breuckman wrote:

We avoid this problem by having our modem lines set to "forward on
busy / no answer" ...

I avoid this problem by not buying $99 modems from with buggy firmware.

But seriously, I have found that using inexpensive modems for dial-in
access is a problem.  Their target market is dial-out desktop users,
so, much like PC users don't mind rebooting their machines a few times
a day, nobody cares when you have to power cycle the modem.

For dial-in use, buy a Telebit or a Motorola/UDS modem.  Not the most
bang for the buck, but they DO work.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #324
******************************

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20399;
          31 Jul 95 10:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07379 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 01:43:36 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07371; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 01:43:33 -0500
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 01:43:33 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #325

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 31 Jul 95 01:43:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 325

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    LD Provider Charged With Blackmail (Van Hefner)
    Inexpensive DID Trunk Pass-Thru Device/PBX Design (Paul Robinson)
    Some 800 Shortage! (Richard M. Sander)
    Book Review: "Mosaic for Dummies" by Angell/Heslop (Rob Slade)
    Telecom R&D Conference (Steve Rubin)
    Number of the Beast (Mark Thorson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:32:52 GMT
From: [e-mail] (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS)
Subject: LD Provider Charged With Blackmail


By Denny Walsh, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

July 27 -- J. Michael Sunde was a provider of long distance telephone
services who, according to the government, reached out and touched
someone too hard.

He was arrested Tuesday afternoon as he sat in a Reno restaurant
talking with Paul Lindahl, an Amador County telecommunications
executive. According to an affidavit of a U.S. postal inspector, the
meeting was arranged after Sunde demanded that Lindahl deliver a
$70,000 payoff in exchange for Sunde's not going to federal and state
authorities with accusations that Lindahl's company failed to pay
taxes.

Sunde, 52, was released Wednesday after he posted $10,000 of the
$50,000 bail set by a federal magistrate. He could not be reached for
comment.

The day before his arrest, Sunde was charged in a sealed criminal
complaint in Sacramento federal court with mail fraud and blackmail.
In addition to the Lindahl matter, the postal inspector's affidavit
attached to the complaint cites an alleged attempt by Sunde to shake
down Don Merriam, a Rancho Murieta telecommunications executive, and
goes on to say that Sunde "is known in the California telecommunications
industry for frequently bringing lawsuits against telephone companies."

The affidavit, signed by Postal Inspector Pedro Colon, cites a letter
Sunde once sent to Citizens Utilities in Redding promising that "every
time you screw with me, you're going to court."

Sunde, a Reno resident, has owned and operated small telecommunications
companies, and is currently president of Westcom Long Distance Inc., a
Nevada corporation. However, according to an affidavit he filed
recently with the California Public Utilities Commission, Westcom is
no longer active in providing long distance services in California and
has developed new, unrelated business interests.

According to Colon's affidavit, Sunde "devised a scheme to defraud in
which he identifies persons he believes, or purports to believe, have
not complied with all CPUC and IRS regulations, and threatens them
with referral for criminal prosecution to the IRS and with lengthy and
costly litigation before the CPUC and in California courts.

"He then attempts to extort monetary 'settlements' from (them) by
demanding payoffs in exchange for not turning them in to the IRS and
not filing complaints against them in court and before the CPUC."

According to the inspector's affidavit, Sunde told both Lindahl and
Merriam that he had negotiated a special contract with the IRS to
identify people who had violated the federal tax code.

Telephone companies that provide long distance services are
responsible for collecting and remitting various taxes on those
services, including federal excise tax.

                             * * *

I thought that your readers might find this of interest. One has to
wonder what this man's "new, unrelated business interests" are. I
imagine that he will soon want to branch-out into providing OSP
services to federal prisons.  He'll certainly have plenty of time to
gain 'insider knowledge' of the industry. Probably 8-10 years worth,
at the least!!!


Van Hefner   Publisher
Discount Long Distance Digest
http://www.webcom.com/~longdist


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indeed, it is of interest. We had
mention of this fellow awhile back here, by someone who alluded to
the allegations made in the report you cited.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 12:24:35 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR,Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Inexpensive DID Trunk Pass-Thru Device/PBX Design


I want to find out if someone makes, has made, or can make an
inexpensive DID Pass-Through device for a Direct Inward Dial (Inbound
PBX) trunk.

This type of line is usually used by a large company, a pager service
or a cellular company, in which the telco hands off the incoming call
to the PBX or other equipment, where the PBX is signalled and sent the
last 3, 4, or 5 digits of the dialed telephone number.  The PBX either
then returns a busy or ring signal, and then, when the called
telephone answers, sends back a grounding or short to indicate
"supervision", e.g.  the call may now be charged.  At this point the
connection is made.

I would like to be able to obtain or build a simple, inexpensive, not very
complicated, Pass-Through device, that would do the following:

1.  Accept a DID trunk attached to it, and either accept wink or ground
    start depending on whether it makes a difference.
2.  Accept the incoming number, probably simplest way is to
    always take 5 digits.  It might accept touch-tone only or touch-tone
    and pulse.
3.  Generate a ring signal to the accepting device, so that it thinks
    it is being called by a standard Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)
    line.

Then do one (or both) of the following:

4.  A. Wait for the POTS device to go off hook, then generate the same digit
       sequence that was received, issuing it in touch tone format.
       Wait one second then supervise.

    B. Send the POTS device a caller-id data stream on the 2nd/3rd ring,
       and if it goes off-hook, supervise.  The caller-id stream would be
       the CALLED number, not the CALLING number.

5.  There should be a means for the accepting device or the DID Pass-Thru
    to indicate that it should generate a ring signal, a busy or reorder,
    or if authorized, to play an intercept, such as "This is a non-working
    number, please dial xxx-xxxx to reach the operator" or allow the
    device to instead play a "The number you have dialed xxx-xxx has been
    changed to" and then any appropriate announcement.

The idea is to enable inexpensive PBX capabilities for business or
residential service.

I have six phone lines coming in to my place, because I need six
incoming trunks.  I would probably need maybe two or at most three
outgoing because of what I am doing.  I would love to be able to
purchase 20 phone numbers in a DID block, and six incoming and two
outgoing trunks if it was less expensive, or perhaps buying four incoming
and two bidirectional ones, or whatever, and then I can put a phone,
with a different number, in each room, and any phone can be used to do
internal calling anywhere in the place, or dial out if an outgoing
call is desired.

Yes, I can get Centrex if I want to pay through the nose for every
feature.  I figure if a DID interface could be made wholesale as
inexpensively as telephones are -- say $5 wholesale -- then they would
be relatively easy to implement the features.

Combine this with some form of POTS multiplexer, so that I can simply
connect every phone in the place into it and have it transfer trunks by
switching the output ports, this could be done with only one moving part,
the latch to each trunk, and the rest all done with microprocessors.  In
fact, if the information stream coming through the lines is done in a
pass-through form via the processor, there may be NO MOVING PARTS AT ALL!

(I am not that familiar with modem/telephony hardware, so I'm not sure if
a modem has moving parts in the dialing system, since on/off hook is
simply raising or lowering an electrical signal value to connect or
disconnect the circuit, it may simply be a type of electrical connection
rather than a physical moving part, I do not know.

If someone would be interested in designing this on a royalty basis, or
even implementing the concept of an inexpensive PBX device, please
contact me.

Now, someone on here is going to probably flame me about the alleged
"lack of" reliability of such a device:

  First, if the device has no moving parts, or very few, it should have
  a high MTBF and probably a fairly high expected usage period.  Moving
  parts are where the highest probability of failure is located

  Second, I think most external modems, which are essentially telephones
  that translate data, have multi-year lifespans, and usually are obsolete
  long before they fail.  If these can be made inexpensively, the same
  should be true of something similar.  Build the device to use the minimum
  parts to do the minimum job.  The less that is there and the less it does,
  the less that can go wrong and the less that has a probability of failure.

  Third, Most electronic components fail in the first 24-72 hours after
  burn-in.  If run continuously for several days without failure, then
  the device should have a good probability of high lifespan.

  Fourth. The idea is to make something inexpensive, not cheap.  The whole
  PBX type system should be buildable from perhaps $50 worth of parts, due
  to the small amount of capability being desired:

  - Accept incoming DID and either do ring, busy, reorder or supervise.
  - On outgoing calls, generate a dial tone, once a digit is received, then
    drop that and pass the call through.
  - Connect two lines according to the type of call.
  - Disconnect when the line is dropped from both ends or indicates the
    call disconnected by line voltage.
  - Some PBX features, such as call pickup, park, hold, etc.

Most of this can be done with inexpensive microprocessors and
circuits, to simply provide the equivalent of a PBX functionality at a
reduced price.  The software would not be that difficult to do, we are
simply handling a small number of lines that connect or disconnect,
and would use standard coding, e.g. 9 for outside, then let the phone
company handle the dialed number, or the other digits either call
other extensions, or activate features.

The device itself could be fairly "dumb" and all the processing be
done by using an RS-232 signal to any computer that can handle a
serial port, meaning the device could send information about what is
being done, and a cheap used AT could tell the device how to process
the call or provide advanced features.  Or it could be done from a
program running minimized under MS-Windows or a TSR in the background
of someone's computer.

I like this idea!

With a wholesale cost of around $60 this makes it possible to sell a
9-Station PBX for $199 retail.  People pay that much for single
telephones in some cases, plus the PBX could do anything it could be
told by a PC to handle, the PBX box could be simply a dumb call
processor if no PC is attached, just calls another room or uses the
code to indicate where the call is to go.  And could handle incoming
DID trunks to give a group of lines the same phone number, ringing
them either in sequence or on least-used first.

As an added note to reliability, I would say that more than 95% of all
PC failures are do to software bugs, not to hardware.  Most hardware
in PCs is fairly high reliability, it is the software that is the
problem.

But if this can't/won't be done now (or nobody wants this capability
now), I expect it won't be more than a few years before most more
affluent households would want to be able to have this feature without
having to purchase a dozen phone lines just to be able to direct-dial
any room in the place (great for teenagers; they can each have their
own number and not have to be causing the main phone to ring or
fighting over an alternate phone in case both want to grab the phone!)


Copyright 1996, Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:09:46 -0400
Subject: Some 800 Shortage!


We all know about the lack of available 800 numbers ... but imagine my
surprise when answering my home phone last night and listening to an MCI
salesperson fumble his way through a sales pitch for their "great new offer:"

* 25% off "forever" (off of what, hmmm??)
* 50% off for 3 months (50% off of way too much is *still* too much)
* my own "special" 800 number (1-800-plus my home nxx-xxxx) at $0 monthly
 and  25/15 (peak/off-peak) ...

Well, I won't detail my amusement as I toyed with this poor guy as he
tried to convince someone who knows more than he does about telephones
 ... that my usual $200 phone bill (my admission) would drop to $150
using MCI (it won't -- it'll go up) and his continued attempts to
avoid telling me their *rates* ...  but for a company that claims it
isn't stockpiling 800 numbers, this incident gives one reason to
wonder!  Hmm, maybe they're trying to give away as many 800 numbers
from their 'arsenal' as they can, and are calling my home nxx-xxxx
in every area code?


Richard M. Sander
President, The Sandrose Group, Inc.
[phone] (1 800 651 5575)
[e-mail]  [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I really have to wonder how they
could possibly commit to giving everyone 800 plus their existing seven
digit number. Surely there are going to be some conflicts with other
already in use 800 numbers as a result. As you point out, perhaps they
are only calling those selected numbers in every area code for which
they have the corresponding 800 number in their 'warehouse', but it
seems more likely to me what they intend to slip to you, had you fallen
for it would be some sort of *master* 800 number that everyone uses
which then gives a prompt saying for the caller to dial the actual
number desired, having the charges automatically reversed. MCI has
something like that now, where everyone dials a single 800 number and
then enters a pin which corresponds to the desired person being called.
Things like that are just gimmicks. No wonder they are giving it away.
They expect to make their profit on all the reverse call traffic it
stirs up. I'll just keep my regular 800 numbers, thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 20:26:50 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Mosaic for Dummies" by Angell/Heslop


BKMOSDUM.RVW   950523

"Mosaic for Dummies", David Angell/Brent Heslop, 1995, 1-56884-242-2,
U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.99
%A   David Angell [e-mail]
%A   Brent Heslop [e-mail]
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1995
%G   1-56884-242-2
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   356
%T   "Mosaic for Dummies"

Parts two and three do provide a basic overview of the Mosaic
interface (although the coverage of the menu items is pretty
disorganized), customization, and "add-ons" you can use to enhance
your setup.  Chapter eleven gives a reasonable start to basic HTML
(HyperText Markup Language) although it gets kind of confused between
the raw HTML and HTML Assistant examples.  The last part, as now seems
to be mandatory, lists the usual bunch of Web sites.

There isn't much to say about the rest of the book.  Two chapters are
devoted to *not* telling you how to set up IP connections, TCP/IP and
Mosaic.  Believe me, unless you already know how to prepare for a
Mosaic installation, you will *not* be able to set up the program from
the information in this book.

Perhaps, though, the minimalist content is a blessing in disguise.
The lack of accuracy in some of the current sections makes one wonder
what would have happened had the authors tried to cover more advanced
topics.  The failure to have current numbers for Web sites is
understandable, given the rapid growth of the World Wide Web.  The
implication that TCP/IP "comes with" ftp may be simply careless
wording.  But the large, boxed, highlighted statement that HTML+ will
provide email capability in the future is flatly wrong.  In the first
place, the current version of HTML already provides adequately for
email, and in the second place it is a fault within Mosaic, itself,
which does not allow the use of forms or mailto tags.

Of the many texts on Mosaic, this rates way down the list.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKMOSDUM.RVW   950523. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]    | "La mathematica e l'alfabeto
Institute for  [e-mail] |  nel quale Dio ha scritto
Research into  rslade@freenet/     |  l'universo."
User              .vancouver.bc.ca |
Security       Canada V7K 2G6      |            - Galileo

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Rubin)
Subject: Telecom R&D Conference
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 00:25:58 GMT


                    *** Call for Papers ***

                Second Technical Conference on
            Telecommunications R&D In Massachusetts
                        March 12, 1996
                              at
             University of Massachusetts Lowell

                           Hosted by
          Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
                              and
                  University of Massachusetts


Purpose:

The Massachusetts Telecommunications Research and Development
Conference will focus on innovative research and technical
developments in telecommunications.  The purpose is to provide a forum
for universities, industry and government to disseminate information
on the results of ground breaking work that will create the future.
The conference will examine emerging telecommunications applications
in education, medicine, commerce, manufacturing, and entertainment and
supporting core technologies such as semiconductors, electro-optical
devices, signal processing and software.

Submission of Abstracts:

The conference will be held March 12, 1996 on the campus of the
University of Massachusetts, Lowell.  Papers will be accepted on the
basis of extended abstracts.

Potential participants are invited to submit an abstract of no more
than 1500 words.  They must be typed single-spaced on 8-1/2 x 11 inch
white paper with one inch margins on all sides.  The title should be
capitalized and centered followed by the author's name(s), institution
and full address.

Two copies of the abstract should be sent to the Program Coordinator
by October 16, 1995.  However, authors are urged to respond before the
deadline.  Oral presentations will be of 10 minutes duration and
papers should be less than 12 pages in length.  Instruction as to the
paper format will be sent to the author on November 15, 1995.

Send Abstracts to:

   MTC/UMass R&D Conference
   c/o Dr. C. Charles Thompson, Program Coordinator
   University of Massachusetts
   Lowell, MA  01854
   Phone:  [phone]
   Fax:    [phone]
   e-mail: [e-mail]

Schedule of Deadlines:

   October 16, 1995    Deadline for abstracts
   November 15, 1995   Notification of acceptance
   January 22, 1996    Full paper due
   March 12, 1996      R&D Conference

Topics:

Papers are being solicited for presentation in all technical areas of
telecommunications.  They should emphasize R&D results in the
following topic areas:

   Applications:
      Education
      Medicine
      Commerce
      Manufacturing
      Entertainment
      Government

   Technologies:
      Audio and speech
      Multimedia
      Networking protocols and management
      Distributed operating systems and database management
      Security/privacy
      Wireless
      ATM
      Frame Relay
      Internet
      Remote Access
      Signal Processing
      Core enabling semiconductor and optical technologies

General Information:

Audience:

This is the second conference on telecommunications research and
development organized by the Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
and the University of Massachusetts. The first conference held at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell on October 25, 1994 had an
attendance of more than 600.  Conference attendees will include,
research scientists, industry analysts, corporate executives,
technology students, entrepreneurs and investors.

Publication of papers:

Proceedings will be distributed at the conference and will be issued
as a special report of the Massachusetts Telecommunications Council.

Co-Hosted by:

   Howard Salwen, Chairman   Mass. Telecommunications Council
   and
   Sherry Penney, President  University of Massachusetts

Chair Conference Steering Committee:

   Don Towsley, U. Massachusetts Amherst

Conference Fees:

   Corporate $195
   Academic $150
   Mass. Telecommunications Council Members $100
   Students $35

To request further information on the Second Technical
Conference on Telecommunications R&D In Massachusetts --

Please call: Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
             617-439-8600
or write:    MTC at
             One Financial Center, 17th Floor
             Boston, MA  02111
or e-mail:   [e-mail]
or WWW:      http://www.commx.org/mtchom

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:57:44 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Mark Thorson)
Subject: Number of the Beast


I've been seeing TV commercials recently for the Competitive Long
Distance Coalition.  So I called 1-800-999-4744 to find out what they
were about.

I talked to a clueless robot who could only read a letter which would
be sent to my Congressman in my name and/or give me the address of the
Competitive Long Distance Coalition, which is 1875 Eye St. NW, 10th
floor, Washington DC 20006

 From the text of the letter, it appears to object to the entry of
Baby Bells into the LD marketplace without simultaneously allowing
entry of LD carriers into regional LD.

Apparently, this recent spate of TV commercials was stimulated by
H.R. 1555, whatever that is.  It's mentioned in the letter.

What amazes me is that any marketing executive/idiot would think that
people are such sheep that they would see a cagily-worded TV
commercial, call up the 800 number and hear an equally dodgy letter,
consent to have a copy mailed to their representative under their
name, and that the Congressman would be deeply impressed by their
concern.

I guess when you're an LD carrier and your ox is gored, you've got
lots of money to throw around on PR to assuage your temper.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #325
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04590;
          1 Aug 95 5:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27856 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:42:41 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27848; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:42:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:42:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #326

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 31 Jul 95 21:42:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 326

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    911 Northern Telecom Programming (Brian Krupicka)
    Which ISDN is Used in Japan? (Stefan Lundgren)
    New Statement of Rules - Naming Internet Domains (James E. Bellaire)
    Re: Reverse Phone Directories (Kelly Bert Manning)
    Inexpensive Design For "WATS Extender" (Paul Robinson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:34:56 CDT
From: Brian Krupicka <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Northern Telecom Programming


                       Aurora University
                          Expanded 911
                 Telephone System Programming
                    Printed July 31, 1995

                        Brian M. Krupicka
                        Aurora University
                          708-844-8396
               E-mail - [e-mail]

A new State of Illinois law requires integration of colleges and
universities telephone systems with the E911 emergency service
dispatcher center.  My thanks goes out to a number of people at
Nortel, Ameritech's technical assistance center and the Ameritech 911
project team for making this integration happen.

The following items are required in order to program the Aurora
University telephone system for Expanded 911 services between the
Northern Telecom, Meridian/SL-1 telephone PABX system and the
Emergency Services Dispatcher Center (PASP).

Given each user's locations are at different telephone system release
levels and equipment configurations, the following application notes
are based on Aurora University's main campus, located in Aurora, Il.
The A.U. telephone system is a Nortel, SL-1 "NT" series, and was at
generic 1111, release 17.74, prior to PS/ALI 911 integration.  There
are 750 telephone users, 35 D.I.D. circuits, 24 central office
circuits, 22 MCI long distance circuits.  These circuits terminate via
three T-1's and copper pairs.  Two T-1's, providing D.I.D. and central
office traffic, had 4 spare channels between the two.

The telephone system did not have four-wire E&M tie trunk cards for
CAMA trunking nor the ANI software, options 12 and 13, both are
required in order to provide PS/ALI 911 integration with the emergency
services dispatcher center.

We first reviewed the need to upgrade our release 17.74 software to
include the ANI software.  One of the distributors told me this would
cost $16,000, based on 1,000 TN's.  A second vendor told me the same
thing, however I could upgrade to Release 20 for $7,500 instead, since
release 20 has options 12 and 13 in the base feature set.  The point
is, check all available options, not just the one you think you need.
Release 20 also provided a number of additional features.

We then reviewed the need to provide CAMA trunking.  We could have
purchased two "QPC" series four-wire E&M tie trunk cards.  However, we
would only use two of the eight available circuits for this
application.  Since we have the capacity in two of the T-1's, we
decided to use one channel from each.  Based on my review with the
Ameritech E911 project manager, A.U. would require two dedicated E911
CAMA trunks.  It was also determined that the SL-1 could provide for
alternate E911 routing via the central office trunks for increased
reliability.

     Note: The central office trunks will only provide the main
     listed telephone number and address, whereas the two T-1
     channels will provide PS/ALI end telephone users name,
     location, and address.

     Note: Since A.U. employs D.I.D. and central office traffic
     over the same T-1 span, Ameritech installed a D-5 channel
     bank in the central office to split out the circuits by line
     type.  If the T-1 does not have a channel bank to split out
     circuits, then Ameritech will need to re-configure and
     engineer the T-1 span or you will not be able to use a T-1
     channel.  Ameritech routes E911 trunks on interoffice
     carrier systems to the centrally located 911 tandems.

Aurora University, like most sites, has telephone extensions numbers
which are for internal dialing only.  We needed to secure D.I.D.
numbers for each user.  D.I.D. or Centrex numbers are the only way
Ameritech can track the user's 911 dialed call.  In our case, we have
750 telephones on campus and 300 of them needed to be changed.  All
telephones have access to 911 dialing, therefore, we need to have a
telephones extension number which complies with the Ameritech
numbering plan.  The numbering information contained in the Ameritech
dialing plan and your telephone system's numbering plan must be the
same.  If there was a difference, the number received at the Emergency
Services Dispatcher Center could be falsely identified and responding
emergency personnel could be dispatched to the wrong location.  The
PS/ALI software will not accept telephone numbers which do not comply
with both numbering plans.

     Note: At the current time, the Northern Telecom telephone
     system can only provide for one NXX insertion in the CAMA
     data stream exchanged between the telephone system and the
     911 tandem.  If multiple NXX's are used in the same
     telephone system, then adjunct hardware is required to
     provide for digit to NXX manipulation.

These number changes cause a strain on staff to change Load 95 "Call
Party Name Display", the voice mail system and the call accounting
system databases.

The following Northern Telecom overlays need to be reviewed and
programmed, in order to implement CAMA signaling and 911 routing.


           Review NT X11 Input/Output Guide for:

                Load 16 - Trunk Route Administration
                Load 14 - Trunk Administration
                Load 15 - Customer Datablock
                Load 90 - ESN Translation Tables
                Load 86 - Electronic Networks

           Review NT Software Features Guide for:
                Automatic Number Identification feature
                     description
                Automatic Number Identification on DTI

The following are examples of the noted "LOADS" used to program the
CAMA trunks and the 911 routing.  The following is written with the
understanding that the reader has knowledge of the Meridian/SL-1
database.  The following highlight only those programming items which
are important to configure CAMA and 911 routing.

          Load 16 - Trunk Route Administration

     Prompt    Response

     REQ       NEW
     TYPE      RDB
     ROUTE     9         This is trunk route nine
     TYPE      CAM       CAMA Trunk
     DGTP      DTI       Digital trunk type
     PTYP      DCO       Port type, far end equals digital
     SIGL      BEL       Bell Method
     FORM      M2B       Format 2
     ID        0         Identification digit for CAMA trunk
                         routing, when 911 calls are coming from
                         a directory number which resides it the
                         Ameritech database.
     ICOG      OGT       Outgoing trunk group
     ACOD      209       Trunk route access code
     SPTO      YES       3 digit out-pulsing on ANI calls (i.e.
                         911)
     ANKP      NO        The KP signal is NOT suppressed
     CNTL      YES       Change timers and ANDT prompt
     ANDT      YES       ANI dial tone is returned if the trunk
                         access code is dialed

          Load 14 - Trunk Administration


     Prompt    Response

     REQ       NEW
     TYPE      CAM
     TN        21 1      loop and channel on T-1
     CUST      0
     RTMB      9 1       Route and route member number
     NITE
     SIGL      EM4       4-wire E&M
     STRO      WNK       Wink start
     SUPN      YES       Supervision
     CLS       MFR       Arrange trunk for multi-frequency out-
                         pulsing
     TKID


     REQ       NEW
     TYPE      CAM
     TN        22 1      loop and channel on T-1
     CUST      0
     RTMB      9 2       Route and route member number
     NITE
     SIGL      EM4       4-wire E&M
     STRO      WNK       Wink start
     SUPN      YES       Supervision
     CLS       MFR       Arrange trunk for multi-frequency out-
                         pulsing
     TKID

          Load 15 - Customer Datablock

     Prompt    Response

     REG       CHG
     TYPE      CDB
     CUST      0
     ANAT      7800      Main four digit attendant number
     ANLD      844       ANI listed director number. This is the
                         NXX which will appear in the ANI
                         information sent to the Ameritech ALI
                         database, along with the four digit user
                         telephone number.

          Load 90 - ESN Translation Tables
                    Special Number Translation (SPN)

     Prompt    Response

     REQ       NEW
     CUST      0
     FEAT      NET
     TRAN      AC1
     TYPE      SPN       Special number translation

     SPN       911       This SPN code is for users dialing 9911
     RLI       1         Pointer to route list index 1
     SDRR
     ITEI

     SPN       11        This SPN code is for users dialing 911
     RLI       2         Pointer to route list index 2
     SDRR
     ITEI


          Load 86 - Electronic Switched Networks
                    Route List Index (RLB)
     Prompt    Response

     NEW       NEW
     CUST      0
     RLI       1         Route list index 1
     ENTR      0
     ROUT      9         This is the route as assigned in load 16
     FRL       0
     DMI       91        pointer to digit manipulation index 91


                    Digit Manipulation Index (DGT)
     REQ       NEW
     CUST      0
     FEAT
     DMI       91        digit manipulation index 91
     DEL       3         This will delete the three "911" digits
                         dialed.
     INST      1911      Note: The SL-1 needs four digits for
                         setting up a CAMA call but the first
                         digit (one) is not out-pulsed to the 911
                         tandem.  Because of this, the Ameritech
                         911 tandem needs to be set up to receive
                         the three digits 911. Normally the 911
                         tandem only receives the digits "11".
                         This was a change which took a lot of
                         time to work out.

                    Route List Index (RLB)
     NEW       NEW
     CUST      0
     RLI       2         Route list index 2
     ENTR      0
     ROUT      9         This is the route as assigned in load 16
     FRL       0
     DMI       92        pointer to digit manipulation index 92


                    Digit Manipulation Index (DGT)
     REQ       NEW
     CUST      0
     FEAT      DGT
     DMI       92        digit manipulation index 92
     DEL       2         This will delete the two "11" digits
                         dialed.
     INST      1911      Note: The SL-1 needs four digits for
                         setting up a CAMA call but the first
                         digit (one) is not out-pulsed to the 911
                         tandem.  Because of this the Ameritech
                         911 tandem needs to be set up to receive
                         the three digits 911.  Normally the 911
                         tandem only receives the digits "11".
                         This was a change which took a lot of
                         time to work out.

If you need assistance contact your authorized Nortel distributor or
one of the following implementation and installation contractors which
can perform some or all of the following:

           consulting services
           911 on-site system design
           address validation or acquisition
           user database collection
           Northern Telecom telephone system CAMA trunk
               installation and software programming
           PS/ALI address and station user database programming
           CAMA trunk installation and system testing

           B&B Electronics
           2717 Bordeaux Place
           Lisle, Il. 60532
           Phone: [phone]

           Cable Engineering, Inc.
           P.O. Box 4086
           Louisville, Kentucky 40204
           Phone:    [phone]
                     502-589-2848
           FAX:      [phone]

           Tele-Studies, Inc.
           51 Shore Drive, South Suite
           BurRidge, Il. 60521
           Phone:    [phone]


Brian Krupicka                 INTERNET: [e-mail]
Telecommunications Manager     PHONE: [phone]  FAX:  [phone]
Computer Information Services  PAGER: 312-824-6270  Home: 708-961-1243
Aurora University              347 S. Gladstone Avenue  Aurora, IL  60506

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

From: [e-mail] (Stefan Lundgren)
Subject: Which ISDN is Used in Japan?
Date: 31 Jul 1995 12:26:26 GMT
Organization: Erisoft AB. Sweden


Can anyone tell me which ISDN that is used in Japan?

I would like to use Sun's ISDN card and according to Sun is their
SunISDN certified in Japan.

It's has Euro-ISDN support, National 1 and 2 compliant, Northern
Telecom DMS-100 custom and AT&T 5ESS custom support according to Sun`s
white papers.

Also, I would like to use Sun's XTL (library for developing telecom
applications) together with the Sun ISDN card. Then I wonder if anyone
has developed a Provider that can be used by XTL for the Japanese
ISDN?


Regards,

Stefan Lundgren        Tel [phone]
Erisoft AB             Fax [phone]
932 83  Ursviken       E-mail : [e-mail]
Sweden                 MemoId : ERI.EPL.EPLSLUG

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 02:17:57 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: New Statement of Rules - Naming Internet Domains


With all the talk of brand naming 800 and 888 numbers another area of
communications remains entirely un-regulated.  Internet domains (the
part after the @ in your email address) do not have to follow
trademark rules.

Network Solutions, Inc. who operate Internic, the people who issue top
and second level domains (top level domains would be like com., second
level would be domains like tk.com.) have issued the following press
release explaining the new policy regarding domains.

(The old policy was first come, first served with no inteference.
Applicants were requested to avoid trademarks of others, but were not
stopped from using them.)

[ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-domain-2.txt ] [ 07/95 ]

Contact: David Graves
     703-742-4884
     [e-mail]

NETWORK SOLUTIONS ANNOUNCES INTERNET DOMAIN NAME POLICY

(HERNDON, VA) July 28, 1995 -- A new policy that deals with disputed
Internet domain names until ownership issues are resolved by the
courts was announced today by Network Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of
Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC).

The new policy recognizes that an Internet domain name may conflict
with an existing trademark or service mark, but that the trademark or
service mark holder may not have the exclusive right to use that name
on the Internet.

NSI serves as the InterNIC domain name registrar under a cooperative
agreement sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

Domain names are assigned to organizations that want to be accessible
on the Internet.  The Internet's growing popularity hasled to an
explosion of requests for domain names, with NSI currently processing
more than 600 per day.

Domain names will continue to be assigned on a first-come, first-serve
basis, with NSI checking to ensure that a requested domain name has
not already been given to another user.  Like a telephone book
publisher, NSI presumes that an applicant for a domain name has the
legal right to use that name.  Applicants now will be asked to confirm
this on their registration forms.

NSI has found that Internet users occasionally select domain names
which may be identical to the registered trademarks or service marks
of other organizations.  While NSI cannot resolve such legal disputes,
the company is concerned that domain names not cause confusion or
interfere with the legal rights of third parties.  Although ownership
of a trademark or service mark does not automatically include rights
to domain name ownership, the new policy recognizes trademarks as
quantifiable evidence relevant to domain name disputes.

If the holder of a trademark provides evidence to NSI that a domain
name already assigned to an Internet user is identical to that
trademark, NSI will ask the Internet user to submit proof that the
user also has a trademark for that name (for example, the trademark
Acme may have been issued to many different entities for different
types of products or services).  If the Internet user cannot provide
such proof of trademark, the holder of the domain name will be allowed
a reasonable period of time to transition to a different domain name.
Then the disputed name will be placed in a hold status and not used by
anyone until a proper court resolves the dispute.  This policy is
intended to be neutral as to the respective rights of the registrant
and trademark holder to the disputed domain name.

If the user does provide proof of its trademark, that user can
continue to use the name as long as the user agrees to protect NSI
from the costs of defending lawsuits brought against NSI by the other
trademark holder.  Otherwise, the domain name will again go on hold.

NSI will also apply these procedures in dealing with foreign trademark
holders who have their trademarks certified by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.

"We want to emphasize that Internet users don't need to have a
trademark to get a domain name", said NSI attorney Grant Clark.  "The
problem is that NSI doesn't have the authority or expertise to
adjudicate trademark disputes.  Some have even suggested that NSI
should pre-screen domain names to check for possible infringement.
That would turn us into a mini-trademark office with costs going
through the roof and processing times in months rather than days."

Clark said NSI will evaluate its policy on an ongoing basis, and will
remain sensitive to the opinions of the hundreds of thousands of
diverse Internet users.

Note:
The complete agreement for receiving a domain is available in
URL ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-domain-1.txt


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

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

From: [e-mail] (Kelly Bert Manning)
Subject: Re: Reverse Phone Directories
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kelly Bert Manning)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 20:49:39 GMT


Frank Droste ([e-mail]) writes:

> Hi Pat,

>    I remember reading a note in the Telecom Usenet Notesfile that
> given a phone number you were able to come up with a location for the
> phone.  I guess it is a reverse phone directory?  Anyway, how were you
> able to accomplish this?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that is exactly what it was. You
> will probably find such a directory in your local library for your
> community. The most common publishers of such directories are a company
> known as Haines and a company known as Coles. There are others; they
> specialize in various geographic areas of the country. Haines is quite
> common here. Most reverse (or 'criss-cross') directories have both a
> street address section and a telephone number section. You can look up
> a given street address and see the name and phone number of the persons
> living there, or the name of the business there. If you turn to the
> phone listings, all possible phone numbers will be listed in order from
> lowest to highest number with the name of the person and the street
> address where they are at. All that needs to be done to create directories
> like this is take an existing telephone directory and sort it in some
> different order than the customary way of alphabetically by last name.
> Compuserve has a national directory like this on line also.   PAT]

But what about areas like Los Angeles where most phone numbers are
non-published? Aren't non-publication rates of 30% typical for US
urban centers?

I only got a 60% hit rate when I tried this with the library copy of
the POLK directory for an exchange in my area. I spent about 20
minutes going through the "missing" numbers in a range of about 400
sequential numbers.  Of the missing 40% only 3 answered with a
fax/modem whine or with a Telco message saying the number is not in
service.

I did this after the Telco refused to give me stats for unlisted
numbers.  I just dialed the missing numbers and hung up after the
second ring. I didn't actually get any people picking up at any of
these unlisted numbers.  I thought that hanging up after the second
ring would minimize the intrusion since anyone not at the phone would
hear it stop after the second ring and not bother to go to the phone.
Seems to have worked.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer the last part of your note
first, I personally strongly discourage the random dialing of telephone
numbers just to see what, if anything, happens to be on the other end.
You might as well go around peeking in windows at night to see whatever
you can see; it amounts to the same invasion of privacy although in a
different sense. This topic has come up before where phreaks, wanting to
find all the possible modems, call-extenders and other special arrange-
ments within a given central office just start dialing at 0001 and work
their way up the line to the end. You have *no business* causing any
telephone to ring -- I don't care if its one ring or a dozen rings --
unless you have a specific, legitimate reason for communication with
whoever or whatever answers on the other end. Please cease doing this
immediatly, and may those called parties with caller-id on their lines
who catch you in the act give you some grief in return. I mean it.

Your 'survey' or whatever you want to call it where you use a process of
elimination to dial numbers not listed in Polk to detirmine if they are
in fact working numbers or not is flawed since many of the numbers not
in the criss-cross may have been put in service since the last issue of
the directory was published. Also, many of those numbers not in the criss-
cross may be overflow or 'hunt' lines behind a number that is in fact
listed elsewhere in the directory. When looking for something in a criss-
cross directory, the things you see or don't see have to be put in the
proper context with the other entries surrounding it many times. If you
see a number which references some large company or organization, and
then there is a gap of a couple dozen numbers in the sequence following,
logic would dictate that those missing numbers probably belong to the
company/organization whose entry was seen first. If an entire prefix is
missing, or only one or two numbers out of the entire prefix appear, then
what the one or two numbers that *do* appear have listed often times
tells you what happened to the rest of the numbers. Chances are likely
that some large company has a centrex and is using that entire prefix with
the only listing which appears in the telephone directory (and thus, in
any criss-cross which was compiled by re-sorting telco's directory) being
the company's main switchboard number, etc.

On the other hand, if the prefix you are checking is known to be an older,
established exchange in a mostly residential neighborhood, and you find
page after page after page of listings for that exchange beginning with
whatever-0001 through whatever-9999 then missing entries take on a
different significance. If one or two numbers is missing out of every
group of a hundred or so, those might be not in service when the book was
compiled, they might be non-published numbers, or they might be second
lines belonging to the subscriber whose number appears immediatly before
the gap. Often times second lines in residences are just different by one
digit.

You see, the other way your little survey was flawed is that although
you took a sample of several hundred numbers not listed and dialed
them to see if they were in service or not, apparently you did not
take a similar sample of numbers that *were* listed to see if they are
*still in service* or not ... if you had, you would have found many of
the numbers shown in the criss-cross to return not-in-service messages
when dialed, or to produce subscribers different than listed since a
number was reassigned, etc.  People do move around, and cross
reference directory publishers hire less than competent help at times,
causing errors to appear. Data entry operators sit there at terminals
with pages from the phone book, typing in line after line as it
appears in the phone book. I guess now-days they scan rather than
physically enter all the data by hand. Then using sort routines, they
sort on column 5, sort on column 10, etc ... you want a list of
everyone whose telephone number ends with the digit '6' they will sort
it that way for you.

Years (and I mean years!) ago, they used to 'key punch' the directory
as soon as telco issued it. Typically, the criss-cross would come out
each year about two months following the publication of the telco direct-
ory itself. I mean, they would put their staff of key-punchers on overtime
as needed, working 24 hours per day seven days per week to create a
couple million eighty-column punch cards. Once all the cards were punched,
off they went to an IBM sorting machine where all the cards were put in
a hopper at one end. The machinery would 'feel' for the holes in each
card and toss them in different 'pockets' up and down the length of the
sorting machine based on whatever column was designated as the place
to sort. Once that was finished, the cards would be removed *carefully*
out of the various pockets, stacked up in the hopper all over again in
the order they came out, and the machine would start the sort again,
based on current column + one. The cards would again go flying out the other
end into the various pockets and the process would be repeated time and
time again through all seven columns/punches devoted to the phone number.
Eventually the whole mess then went to a printing machine which felt the
holes punched in the cards and printed out the information accordingly.
For accuracy, the key punch people had to enter the data for each card
twice. They entered it all once, then immediatly entered it a second time.
(Sort of like when changing your password: (1) enter old password; (2) enter
new password; (3) enter new password a second time ...). The idea was the
same mistake -- transposed digits, misspelled name, etc -- probably would
not happen twice in a row.

The problem was, the telephone directory itself takes a couple months of
editing and updating work each year; one the criss-cross people had a
copy of it (and they often had cheats working at the telco who would
slip them advance copies of the proof sheets, etc) it took a couple months
more to get *their* directory out, meaning at best, the criss-cross was
always going to be about three to four months after the fact. Now with
modern computers, telco gets theirs out in a much shorter time and the
criss cross people likewise are on the street with theirs much earlier
than in years past. But still, there is that interval of time for people
to move around. Years ago people did not move like they do now; they
stayed at the same residence for umpteen years as a routine thing. Now
a good percentage of the population moves every year or two. Both telco
and the criss-cross people kept their punch cards from prior years so they
did not literally have to do everything from scratch every year, but you
get the idea, I'm sure. There is a time lag between the information
existing and it being generally available to the public. In the meantime,
some of the information invariably becomes inaccurate.

So cross reference books of this type mean nothing. You can't draw any
conclusions at all about the ratio of listed versus non-pub phones from
them. All you can make at best are some general conclusions based on the
context of all the listings taken as a whole. And it helps after looking
up a given phone number to then turn to the 'addresso-key' part of the
book (that is Haines' name for the front part where everything is sorted
by street and number upon the street) and double check there the address
you found when you first saw it in the 'tele-key' part of the book. See if
you can visualize the address given and its surroundings if it is a place
in your town. That might give you an idea of what happened to some of
the missing numbers in the back half of the book.

I wonder if I should print my skip-tracing tutorials once again? Most
folks have *no idea at all* how extremely easy it is to get all sorts of
information about other people by using reference tools such as criss-
cross directories available in all public libraries. I did that Digital
Detective thing a couple years ago until I got bored with it and busy
with other stuff. Most public libraries have a reference desk where the
clerks will read from the criss-cross over the phone to you. Supposedly
Coles has clamped down on this and insists the person has to come to
the library and read from the book in person; but most are not that way.
So you call the library in the distant city, and ask the reference
librarian to check the criss-cross for that town and tell you what they
find at a given address or phone number. Really, its quite simple.

Smart people do not publish their telephone numbers in any directories,
period. And as for you dear writer, please cease that trolling for
working/non-working numbers immediatly. It's not your business!  Looking
at voluntarily published information is another matter altogether.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 13:20:23 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Inexpensive Design For "WATS Extender".


A "WATS" extender is a device to allow someone to call into a phone
that the device then either dials out on another line to create a
transfer, or would do a "flash", wait for second dial tone, then dial
the other number and "flash" to do a three-way connection.

The alternative is to allow the user to input a passcode and either
get raw dialtone or to allow them to enter a number and the WATS
extender will dial the number if validated.

What is the least expensive way to do either of the above?  I suppose
using a modem which recognizes incoming touch tones, and can do voice
pass-through, would be fine if the modem can be programmed by a PC
(which I am aware is possible).  Is there a current design out there
to do this that isn't very expensive to implement if one wanted to
include this in a design?

This goes in complement to the other points I mentioned in other articles.


Copyright 1996, Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #326
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29935;
          2 Aug 95 19:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22611 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:04:24 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22603; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:04:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:04:22 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #327

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 Aug 95 09:04:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 327

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    HR 1555 Pointer (James E. Bellaire)
    Book Review: "Detour" by Sullivan/Trainor (Rob Slade)
    India's First Cellular Phone - News Analysis (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    611 From Cell Phone Free? (Larry Schwarcz)
    Severe Weather in Florida Causing AT&T Problems (Stan Schwartz)
    How to Access Incoming Voice and Touch Tone on Modem (Paul Robinson)
    Need Help With Videoconferencing FAQ (Charles Hendricks)
    Installing a Second Phone Jack (Dan Nolen)
    Competitive Local Service (James E. Bellaire)
    800 Replication Into 888: Separating Fact From Fiction (J. Oppenheimer)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 00:09:02 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: HR 1555 Pointer


HR 1555 is on the net for your information.  I have not read it yet so
I cannot express support or non-support for this bill.  I found it
through an Internet Search in Netscape.  The source of this copy is a
pro-bill coalition called the "Alliance for Competitive Communications."
The bill is quite large (189K) so I have included only the URL and the
title page.

[URL http://www.bell.com/legislation/1555.html]
FILE h1555.ih
    104th CONGRESS
    1st Session
        To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure
        lower prices and higher quality services for American
        telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of
        new telecommunications technologies.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
        May 3, 1995
Mr. Bliley (for himself, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Moorhead, Mr.
Oxley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Hastert, Mr.
Stearns, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Klug, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Frisa, Mr. White, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Boucher,
Mr. Manton, Mr. Towns, Ms. Eshoo, and Mrs. Lincoln)  introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,  for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

    A BILL
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices
and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and
encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress     assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE;  TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title: This Act may be cited as the `Communications Act of 1995'.
(b) Table of Contents:
    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKETS
    Sec. 101. Establishment of part II of title II.
`PART II--DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS
    Sec. 102. Competition in manufacturing, information services, and alarm
        services.
`PART III--SPECIAL AND TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
    Sec. 103. Forbearance from regulation.
    Sec. 104. Privacy of customer information.
    Sec. 105. Pole attachments.
    Sec. 106. Preemption of franchising authority regulation of
        telecommunications services.
    Sec. 107. Mobile service access to long distance carriers.
TITLE II--CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITIVENESS
    Sec. 201. Cable service provided by telephone companies.
`PART V--VIDEO PROGRAMMING SERVICES PROVIDED BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES
    Sec. 202. Competition from cable systems.
    Sec. 203. Competitive availability of navigation devices.
    Sec. 204. Video programming accessibility.
    Sec. 205. Technical amendments.
TITLE III--BROADCAST COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITIVENESS
    Sec. 301. Broadcaster spectrum flexibility.
    Sec. 302. Term of licenses.
    Sec. 303. Broadcast license renewal procedures.
    Sec. 304. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction over direct broadcast satellite
        service.
    Sec. 305. Automated ship distress and safety systems.
    Sec. 306. Restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.
    Sec. 307. DBS signal security.
TITLE IV--EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS
    Sec. 401. Relationship to other laws.
    Sec. 402. Preemption of local taxation with respect to direct-to-home
        satellite services.
TITLE V--DEFINITIONS
    Sec. 501. Definitions.

For more coverage of HR1555 from the 'Alliance for Competitive Communications'
and their supporters see [URL http://www.bell.com/1555update.html ]


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

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

Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 14:44:23 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Detour" by Sullivan-Trainor


BKDETOUR.RVW   950522

"Detour", Sullivan-Trainor, 1994, 1-56884-307-0, U$22.99/C$32.99/UK#21.99
%A   Michael Sullivan-Trainor
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1994
%G   1-56884-307-0
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$22.99/C$32.99/UK#21.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   315
%T   "Detour"

Once upon a time there was a space agency.  They realized that writing
and note-taking would be vitally important, even in a high-tech
spacecraft.  They also realized that ordinary pens do not work well
upside down and require gravity to ensure a dependable flow of ink.  A
tender called for submissions for the design and production of a
"space pen" which would write right side up, upside down, or in the
absence of gravity.  It was also to write in a vacuum, or even under
water.

Someone submitted a pencil.

This is known as a reality check.

I wish it were as easy to get the authors of information superhighway
books to take a reality check.  "Detour" is YAISB (Yet Another
Information Supercliche Book) with yet another "gee whiz," Space
Cadet, look at the blue-sky future, and yet another compilation of
recycled press releases and promotional blurbs.  The book is short on
analysis, insight and real information.  The cover's promise of
"Revealing Interviews with Industry Experts" is limited to quotes from
said experts' writing in other publications.

A careful reading makes it difficult to quibble with the precise
wording of the book, but the portrayal of many topics is oddly
distorted or incomplete.  The usual round of experiments and trial
runs are presented as if they had some significance as models for the
future.  Comments on the Microsoft/IBM partnership might seem profound
to the uninitiated, but are merely out of touch.  The Pentium is the
"fastest" central processing unit? -- This person has never heard of
MIPS?  SPARC?  Alpha?  PowerPC? or any mini or mainframe processors?
A sudden (and odd) mention of computer viral programs betrays no
knowledge of the reality of either viral technology or the actual
level of the threat.

The few pieces of hard information in the book recur in several places
in broad outline, if not specific wording.  As usual, the work
purports to talk of global information access, but limits specifics to
the United States.  Much of the material creates wild flights of fancy
based on very little fact.  It is intriguing to note that some of the
strongest writing in the book uses not any industry pronouncement, not
any academic study, not any expert forecast, but episodes of the "Star
Trek" TV show.  For all the preceding, the author doesn't create very
appetizing sales pitches for the Infobahn: since the market for the
thousand-page printed version of "The Haldeman Diaries" is probably
limited, who cares if you can get twice as much electronically?

The best part of the book is probably the beginning of chapter eight,
where Sullivan-Trainor essays to "prove" that neither the government,
the utilities (cable and telephone companies), nor the communication
(media) industry can build the projected highway.  Unfortunately, he
only seems to be able to maintain this quality of writing for a few
pages before reverting to the unfocused, repetitive and enthusiastic
style of the rest of the book.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKDETOUR.RVW   950522. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]              | "Hey, when *you* have the
Institute for  [e-mail]           |  box, *then* you can give
Research into  [e-mail]      |  us geography lessons.
User           [e-mail]|  Until then, Tahiti is in
Security       Canada V7K 2G6                |  Europe."    - Sneakers

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

From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: India's First Cellular Phone - News Analysis
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:04:22 GMT
Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org 510-658-6376


-==This Indian Techonomist bulletin (C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh

India's first cellular service launched in Calcutta

July 31, 1995: Today West Bengal Chief Minister made India's first
cellular phone call, inaugurating Modi Telstra's MobileNet service in
Calcutta. The company, a joint venture between India's Modi Group and
Australian telecom giant Telstra, is one of the eight licensed to
provide cellular services last year, two for each of India's major
cities.

Delays have been for various reasons, including last-minute haggling
between the companies and India's Department of Telecommunications
(DoT) and problems with allocating frequencies (many of which the Army
 -- using them for its own communications -- is reluctant to give up).
The providers started advertising only around April, and most,
including those in Bombay and Delhi, say they will start services
later this month, assuming they finish installing their equipment.

After the demonstration in Calcutta, there is still a technical
evaluation that Modi Telstra's network will have to undergo. That
should take a week, then it will start commercial operation.

Meanwhile, the DoT today opened and cleared the technical portion of
all 158 bids from 32 companies for nationwide cellular services. These
covered 20 'circles' excluding India's main cities for which licenses
were awarded earlier. Financial bids will be opened next Monday
(August 7th), to select two private service providers for each circle
 -- except for Assam and West Bengal (of which Calcutta is the
capital), which received only one bid each. The troubled northern
state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the remote Andaman and Nicobar islands
off the Burmese coasts, received no bids at all.

More information, including likely pricing for cellular services,
at http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/news/cellular.html

-==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
-==Licensed for COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC distribution provided this
-==notice is attached. This bulletin is from The Indian Techonomist,
-==the newsletter on India's information industry.
-==http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/ - e-mail [e-mail]
-==Phone [phone]; H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

                       ------------------
The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/                   [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

Subject: 611 From Cell Phone Free?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 95 16:18:23 -0700
From: Larry Schwarcz <[e-mail]>


I always thought that dialing 611 from a cellular phone anywhere in
the USA was a free call.  But, a friend of mine was telling me that
she's charged everytime she dials 611!

Now, here in the San Francisco/Bay Area, our two cellular providers
are Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet.  She bought her phone through some
other company that buys blocks of time from GTE.  So, she's basically
a GTE customer, but, she can't use 611 to get to the billing company.

So, the big question is ... is this legal?  Can some company that buys
cellular air time to resell, charge for 611 calls?  I thought that you
were supposed to be able to contact your provider for free.  This is
like being charged for dialing the operator from our landline phones
(it seems to me).


Thanks in advance!

Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/IND      Internet:  [e-mail]
Hewlett Packard Company                               Direct:  [phone]
19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN                            Main:  [phone]
Cupertino, CA 95014                                      Fax:  [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no requirement that anyone be able
to contact a vendor or supplier for free. You'll note, for example, that
the envelope which comes with your phone bill each month requires you to
put a stamp on the envelope. Just because the vendor/supplier happens to be
in the business of providing the service you use to contact them (i.e. phone
or cellular phone) does not mean they have to give it to you for free,
anymore than a vendor of some other service or merchandise which uses the
phone to conduct business is required to let you call them for free. One
might think it a nice gesture by the vendor/supplier, but I guess all of
them do not feel that way. You can still call their 800 number from a
regular phone at no charge can't you?   PAT]

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

From: Stan Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Severe Weather in Florida Causing AT&T Problems
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 14:51:33 -0400


I had to call American Express today, and while their main number
answered, I had to go a few menus deep to reach the department I wanted.
 When I finally found my selection, I received a "one moment please"
from the voice-response system, and then:

"Due to severe weather conditions, the 800 number you have dialed is
temporarily out of service.  Thank you for using AT&T"

I guess AMEX in Fort Lauderdale is taking the appropriate precautions. I
hope everything turns out OK for all our friends (telecom and otherwise)
in Florida!


Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What I am hearing on the news Wednesday
morning is that the hurricane hit overnight and was not as severe as
expected. As of now it has been downgraded to the status of tropical
storm. It is moving north/northwest across the state as I write this.
I'm sure I'll receive some messages from the folks in Florida as the
day goes on with information on weather-related telecom problems.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 01:27:21 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: How to Access Incoming Voice and Touch Tone on Modem


I have some questions regarding programming a modem that supports
voice capabilities, and how to access them.  The modem is extremely
reasonable, selling for less than $100 in an external model.

The modem is a Magnum 144 External Fax modem.  The software being used
is Message Center for Windows, from Smith Micro Software, Inc.  The
system being used is either a 386 or a 286.  (286 may be too slow to
run Windows, and even 386 is iffy.) I want to figure out how the modem
and the features it provides are handled by the software, so I can do
some of this under DOS so it could operate on, say, a 286 either
stand-alone or under Desqview so I could run two modems on one machine
each handling a call, or so that I am able to create my own voice mail
or "PBX-like" system allowing the modem to transfer a call to other
numbers, possibly by using 3-way calling with a switchhook flash.

Excluding the usual data and send/receive fax capability (14K data and
fax for modem <-> modem, 9600 modem <-> fax this modem (and this
software) support the following features:

- Record, Store, and playback of voice messages
- Recognition of Touch-Tone input
- Voice Mail with eight mailboxes
- Access messages from console or from a telephone
- Selection of a document from a list for fax-back
- Call a pager when a message is received for a mailbox

This means the software can do a number of things I would like to do,
the only problem being it does not do what I want, because of the
limitations of that program.

But more importantly, the hardware has the support for every feature I
would want to use, meaning it is up to whatever software is controlling
the device.

So, I need to find one of the following, if available:

1.  Is there a specific (standard or one of a few standard) AT commands
    for enabling these new features:

    A.  Recognizing Touch-Tone  (either it is recognizing it
        by comparing the signal to the value of the digit as a
        binary datum, or it has the ability to receive a
        touch-tone digit or symbol in Ascii from the modem.
    B.  Enabling voice/sound input.
    C.  Enabling voice/sound output.
    D.  Returning to data/fax mode.

2.  If this isn't well documented, is there a "shim" which I can
    install, even if I have to do some customization on the source,
    which would monitor the com port and store everything sent and
    received over the port by intercepting all traffic on the port
    both ways and storing it before transfer, e.g. something akin to
    a fossil driver or a com-port driver, only being used to watch the
    data rather than to handle odd port values.

I appreciate any assistance offered in this matter.


Copyright 1996, Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.  Among other things,
"Above All else...We shall go on..."                  we sell and service
"_And continue!"                                      ideas.  Dial
                                                      1-800-TDARCOS

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Help With Videoconferencing FAQ
Date: 02 Aug 1995 05:47:55 GMT
Organization: BitScout Software Inc.


(Repost and Update)

I am in the process of writing a Draft FAQ on videoconferencing which
will be both posted on the soon to be created comp.dcom.videoconf
newsgroup.  A draft is now available on the Web at the BitScout
Software Homepage <url:http://www.bitscout.com>.  I will be
incorporating research on many areas of computing, such as ISDN,
Groupware, CSCW, as well as videoconferencing.  Indeed, it is all
interconnected.

I am interested in what your product descriptions and most recent
price quotes were on the following:

 standards

     H221
     H321
     H261 Lossless compression
      the difference between Indeo and H.261

 cameras
     Sony
     Howard

videoconferencing speakers systems

microphones
     Shure

MCU Vendors
     AT&T
     MultiLink

system vendors
    PictureTel
    VTEL

board vendors
    Zydacron
    PictureTel

chip vendors
    AT&T MicroElectronics
    Phillips

software vendors
              InVision
    Cu-SeeMe

videoconferencing shareware/freeware available through Internet
              VAT
    NB
    VIC
 industry shows on videoconferencing

     DVC
    Telecon
    ITCA
    COS

I will be incorporating your comments directly into the draft, and
will resubmit to you directly to ensure accuracy and approval.
Constructive feedback on my work so far would be welcomed and
appreciated.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and/or respond.  You can
e-mail me at [e-mail]


"The Higher The Fewer",
Charles Hendricks

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Nolen)
Subject: Installing a Second Phone Jack
Date: 02 Aug 1995 07:08:04 GMT
Organization: Mac Solutions


Can anyone point me to a document which describes the procedure for
rewiring a standard residential telephone jack (with four wires) for two
jacks?  Note that I did comb the net extensively including reading the
comp.dcom.cabling FAQ prior to posting.

I'm trying to save paying the telephone company $60 to do 15 minutes
worth of work with $10 worth of parts.  It is my understanding that
most jacks contain four wires (mine do anyway), though only two are
used per phone line.  Further, if both pairs are present, then that is
sufficient to allow the drop to be rewired for two jacks.

It seems that moving two wires from one pair of screws to another is
no great feat.  I should mention that I have no background in wiring,
but work in a PC Support field and consider myself capable of
following instructions.  I would appreciate any relevant caveats for a
beginner. If I am sorely mistaken about the ease of this task, please
don't hesitate to educate me.

I prefer an e-mail response, if possible.

Thanks in advance,


Dan Nolen   [e-mail]
[e-mail] - Austin, TX


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Normally, the wiring is done in such a way
that the red/green wires form the pair for 'line one' with the black/yellow
wires forming the pair for 'line two'. If you look inside the box you
will find the screws are labled B/Y/R/G, and this is normally where the
wires will be attached. The way these come out on the modular plug is
the two innermost pins (3&4) are for the first line, while pins 2&5 are
for the second line. Pins 1&6 are for various things, including a third
line. Now I know at your first casual glance, you only see four pins there
and you are wondering where I came up with pins 1&6, or maybe 5&6 depending
on how you are counting. If you look at the little plastic slug carefully
and the tiny wire slivers therein, you will see the two outermost slots
are empty most of the time. Those two are where 1&6 would go if they were
present.

Okay, that's all clear, right?  Now if you are going to put your two lines
on two separate instruments and two separate jacks, you have to remember
that most single line phones are defaulted to 'line one'; that is, the two
wires from the jack to the phone which do anything are the red/green wires
on positions 3&4 of the little plastic holder on the end of the wires. If
you get an answering machine or some other ancillary device which is to be
plugged into its own jack, you'll often times see how they only give you
a two-wire cord rather than four wires, and only the two innermost slots
in the plastic end piece have the little metal contacts. So what you need
to do is 'fool' the second (newly installed) jack and whatever is fed from
it into thinking it is getting 'line one'. You take the yellow/black wires
from the first jack and connect them to the *red/green* screw terminals
in the second jack. Now whatever comes into your premises as 'line two'
will be output to a jack as 'line one' and thus will allow devices with
only one line (i.e. single line phones, answering machines, modems, etc)
to operate properly. Alternatively, you can take the cover of the new
jack, and connect the red/green jumper wires in the cover to yellow/black
terminals at some point in the line.

Make sure of course that when you make this swap-out at some jack, you
disconnect the 'true' line one from the red/green terminals so you don't
have a short or a cross-connection of the lines. Essentially all four
wires in the cable and their colors are relative to everything else;
you can attach them to terminals anywhere you want **as long as you are
consistent** throughout your entire premises. In other words if you
prefer for whatever reason to have 'line one' make all of its appearances
on phone buttons or switches traditionally intended for 'line two' you
can do so, just see to it that red/green and black/yellow are swapped
out consistently up and down the entire line to each other's terminals.

Your question, or variations on it comes up regularly from people asking
'how can I make my answering machine work on my second line?'.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 01:19:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Competitive Local Service


First an apology ...

I'm not sure why BellSouth came out of my keyboard in my last post;
Bell Atlantic is the one that told the wrong people of the change from
703 to 540.

Just after I sent my last post CNN reported that the LD companies were
no longer running ads supporting the telephone competition bill.  The
new ad does not mention which LD carriers are paying for it, and
features a man in a diner saying that we won't like the next phone
'bill' featuring higher local service rates.  CNN reported that the LD
companies do not like the Baby Bells entering the LD market.

Competition?  Yes or No it looks like the telcos will be unhappy.

I know I'm not happy with AT&T's plans to lease the local loops from
Ameritech.  I wonder how hard they will try to get into non-Ameritech
areas. I don't expect competitive service in rural areas from any of
the skimmers.

How I could become a local service provider ...

In the GTE North's Michigan Tariff it lists 'Direct Route Interexchange
Channels' being available for $5.65 per wire pair same or adjacent
blocks or $17.70 per wire pair in non-adjacent block.  I assume this
would be the type of leased line service that AT&T or others would use
to add you to 'their' local network.  Am I right?  What is the
definition of a block?

I assume I could set up a good size PBX, get a handful of DID and
outdial lines, and (with PUC approval) lease lines to customers in
'same or adjacent blocks' and become a 'competitive carrier.'
(Leasing lines to non-adjacent blocks would be too expensive.)

The GTE tariff lists a rate $13.66 business for local service (+10
cent per local call metered only, $11.56 unlimited residential).
Businesses making a lot of local calls to GTE customers would not help
me make a profit, I would just be passing their outdial lines through
mine.  Of course I could use those lines after hours for residential
calls.  My university's PBX does this, sharing 17 outdials among about
1,400 DID extensions.  (Of course most of their calls are within their
network.)

In this town I would have to be able to make a profit on $4-8 per
month per line and be able to undercut GTE (the only way to GET
customers, other than offer BETTER service) as well as pass on the 10
cent per local call charge for any calls placed to local GTE customers
or eat it (I hate the taste of lost profit).

Of course I could give away the custom features (Call forwarding,
Voicemail ETC.), maybe offer dialup internet service or second lines,
but the only way to turn a profit would be volume.

AT&T has a good brand name and could get the volume.  They could also
offer larger local dialing areas, or bundled LD service IF the FCC and
PUC allow it.  (How would AT&T like you using MCI as your default
carrier?  Ensuring that REQUIRES regulation.)  I just hope they come
to rural areas.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The heck if they are not still running
that advertisement!  Just five minutes ago I heard it on WNIB during
their morning program with Carl Grapentine. If I am not mistaken, I
think giving away the custom calling features is one technique a lot
of the competition is using. Isn't Teleport or one of the competitive
carriers in New York City doing that? I think they charge about the
same as Nynex for a line, but then give away all the extras.   PAT]

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 11:00:50 -0400
Subject: 800 Replication into 888: Separating Fact From Fiction


According to Gary Bouwkamp of Allnet Communication Services Inc.,

> No, the issue was not accepted.  The topic was rolled into the overall
> issue of 888 implementation, and promptly tabled.  It was thought to
> be a waste of time to formulate replication guidelines or procedures
> without any knowledge of how the FCC would rule.  The industry
> committee will meet via conference call as soon as the NPRM is
> released.  There was no consensus reached among any carriers (except
> AT&T) for further discussion of the topic.

Not to nit-pick -- and I am reconfirming details for clarity's sake --
but my engineer was present at this meeting.  I also spoke afterward
with John Cushman of AT&T, who submitted the Issue Statement.  I was
informed that there was no opposition to the issue, and its status is
now "open".

Gary goes on to say,

> In other words, only one carrier went on record as promoting special
> privileges for a few large customers, while the rest of us can just
> wait in line.

Who is on record in opposition?

Also, the AT&T proposal calls for this option to be made available to
ALL users, large and small, using both numeric and alpha 800's ... the
survey -- taken among all of the RespOrg's users, not just AT&T's --
specifies that 32% -- ONE THIRD! -- of users who want replication are
SMALL customers.

So what "special privileges for ..." which " ... few large customers"
is Gary referring to?


Judith Oppenheimer, President
Interactive CallBrand(TM):  Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence
[e-mail].    Ph: [phone].    Fax: [phone].

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #327
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02590;
          3 Aug 95 1:23 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05901 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:14:05 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05893; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:14:02 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:14:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #329

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 Aug 95 19:14:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 329

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Wants to Hear From You (S. Wegman)
    US West 360 Area Code Fiasco (Russ Dent)
    Cellular 800 Forwarding (Everett F Batey)
    India's VSNL, MCI to Launch Internet Service August 15 (Rishab A. Ghosh)
    GPS-System For PC (Martin Hucke)
    Re: ISDN vs. Cable Modems (Mark Peacock)
    Re: Device to Reset Modems (Dave Bernardi)
    Re: RBOC Labor Contracts Update? (Michael A. Chance)
    Re: Help Needed With X.21 Connectivity (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Atlanta Automated 411 (Kent Polkinghorne)
    Re: And my Alternative is ...? (Tom Horsley)
    Last Laugh! 800 Numbers Already in Use (Ralph Becker)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: Wegman, Steve <[e-mail]>
Subject: South Dakota Public Utilities Commissions Wants to Hear From You
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 95 12:09:00 PDT


Dear Friends:

     The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission opened a Notice of
Inquiry providing the public until October 2, 1995, in which to submit
comments regarding their aspirations for the future of South Dakota's
telecommunications industry.  Your comments may cover any specific
telecommunications related issue important to you or the "big picture"
of South Dakota telecommunications.  No issue is too big or too small.

     South Dakota's future will likely rest upon our ability to
instantaneously share information throughout the world.  Despite our
rural status, we now enjoy a competitive edge in the deployment of
modern and useful telecommunications technologies.  Even so, we need
to better utilize what we have, and we need to ensure that we never
fall behind.  We are seeking comments from pragmatists, innovators and
dreamers in an effort to arrive at a far-reaching and achievable plan
for improving our state's telecommunications system.

     Telecommunications is a tool.  Are we using this tool effectively
to sustain our small businesses? to attract and develop new or
expanded businesses? to maintain the highest standard of educational
excellence? and to foster an economy which encourages our young people
to live and work in South Dakota?  These unanswered questions show why
everyone's help is necessary.

     We need your written thoughts and comments on how South Dakota
can best achieve the most effective, efficient, fail-safe and
economically feasible telecommunications system possible.  What
telecommunications related services do you need now, and what will you
likely need in the future in order to achieve economic and social
fulfillment?

     Your response to these questions and any others you wish to pose
will help us tremendously.  Please forward your comments by mail,
Internet e-mail, or FAX to: Bill Bullard, Executive Director, Public
Utilities Commission, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD 57501.

Internet e-mail:  [e-mail].
FAX: [phone].

Remember, your comments must be received by October 2, 1995.

      Thank you for your time and assistance.  We look forward to
hearing from you and will keep you informed of our progress.


Sincerely,

Ken Stofferahn   Jim Burg            Laska Schoenfelder
Chairman         Vice-Chairman       Commissioner

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

From: Russ Dent <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West 360 Area Code Fiasco
Date: 2 Aug 1995 22:11:25 GMT
Organization: Pacifier BBS, Vancouver, Wa.  ([phone])


Brief History: On August 16, 1995 the "grace" period will end for the
old 206 area code in most of western Washington state.  The new area
code for this area will be 360.  This is one of the first areas of the
United States to be converted to the new area codes that use digits
other than 0 or 1 for the middle digit.  This is causing HUGE problems
for our customers and facilities around the world.  If the local
carrier, long distance carrier, and callers equipment has not been
upgraded to work with the new area codes they will get a message that
says the number they are dialing cannot be reached!

This will have a limited impact on residential customers with one
line, if their local carrier has been upgraded, but can effect any
business that uses a PBX type phone system or Least Cost Routing.  To
give you an idea of the significance of this problem, any phone system
that is currently three or more years old may be unable to use the new
area codes.  On some it is an "easy" upgrade, swap out a chip ($$$),
AND REPROGRAM YOUR WHOLE SYSTEM.  On others, it may not be possible!
By the way, our own federal government can't afford to upgrade all
their systems!  Our state capital is in the area covered by the new
code.  Result: parts of the federal government cannot call the
Washington state government!  Depending on your opinion, this could be
a bad thing or a good thing!  Probably not a good thing in a state of
emergency!!!

Our current system is less than one year old but had to be upgraded to
use the new codes anyway.  It cost us close to $2,000 just for the chip
and installation and the phone guys had to come in and work all night
reprogramming.  Anyway ...

I am looking for a creative way around this obvious obstacle.  I have
looked into 800 numbers, "Business Expansion Numbers" (# in another
area code that the phone company routes to you), and using a number in
another area code.  None seem like the ultimate solution.  Any
Ideas???  I am not a telecom expert and am afraid I may be missing a
simple, or at least less expensive, solution.

Follow up on this NOW if your area is scheduled to be converted to the
new codes!!! We received notice from US West less than two weeks before
the scheduled implementation advising us that "there may be a
problem".  They have made it very clear that this is our problem, not
theirs, and they intend to do nothing further.  By the way, we were
able to get the deadline extended by getting local government, the
chamber of commerce, and politicians at the state level involved.  Get
this ... they didn't even know it was an issue!  US West had
convinced everyone that was involved in the approval process that this
was no big deal!

Any information would be greatly appreciated!!!


Thanks,

Russ Dent   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It *isn't* a big deal. If some of those
telecom people doing all the whining had been paying attention two, three
or even four *years* ago they would have had all that time to get
prepared. I refuse to believe the federal government cannot afford --
especially over a three or four year period -- to upgrade all their
switches. They certainly were able somehow to afford that new system
they got from Sprint and AT&T ... they are certainly able to afford
the millions of dollars per month spent when people call government
800 numbers and get left on hold 20-30 minutes at a time, i.e. calls
to the IRS.

I'm sure many users in the past have also questioned some of these high
and mighty telecom managers, asking them to *please* get the system in
order for changeovers and they probably have been ignored. After all,
what do users know about anything worthwhile, right?

A few years ago I worked on a part-time, on call basis for a company
in downtown Chicago, doing some stuff with their computers as needed.
I discovered one day that their Rolm PBX had not been programmed to
deal with zero or one as the second digit in a prefix. 'That has to
be an area code' the machine would claim, and since most users were
not allowed to dial long distance direct without prefixing it with a
special code and adding their pin at the end, the calls would not
complete. When the user dialed it as a long distance call with the
front-end code and their pin at the end the Rolm would say okay but
then telco would toss it out when the call was passed along.

I told them once, twice, three times they had better fix that since
there were (at the time) starting to be N0/1X exchanges here. This
would have been the middle 1980's. I wrote them a couple of memos.
Nothing changed, everything was ignored. I did not even get the
courtesy of a response. Finally one day I discovered a voicemail
service using N1X as their exchange. Guess what? I opened an account
on that voicemail system and had my residence number (that the company
was familiar with) disconnected and put on referral to the voicemail
number. It took about two days before the fun started. They wanted me
to come around one day to do something, and try as they might, their
phone system would not let them call me!  After several hours of
confusion (I am told it was several hours) one of the bosses finally
went to the payphone in the company lunchroom and called me from
there, huffing and puffing about could I come in to fix whatever.
I told him, "Ed, fix the #$$@# phones!".  Well, a day or so later
the programming was changed.

Honestly, I am sort of looking forward to the fun of all the confusion
over the next several months. So you say one government is going to
be unable to call another government. My, won't that be too bad. And
of course, they will all blame each other and none of them will have
the slightest notion what they are talking about. I love it when the
bureaucrats fight and squabble among themselves. You watch, as soon
as the permissive period ends, they'll get their act together soon
enough, and at quite a bit of expense I might add; expense they would
not have had were most of them not so stubborn, and frankly, bureaucratic.
Maybe with a little luck the government won't be able to call the citizens
either for a few days. I say keep your nose out of it; most of them do
not want advice from anyone who actually knows anything; it causes them
to look ignorant.   PAT]

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

From: Everett F Batey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular 800 Forwarding
Date: 2 Aug 1995 12:11:59 GMT
Organization: NSWC PHD, Port Hueneme CA


Is AT&T the only company which refuses to sell 800 service to forward
to my cellular phone in southern California in area 805 ... or is this
just some more standard ignorance on the loose?

Where do I find a vendor of low priced minutes for 800 service to my
cell tel?


[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] WA6CRE
Opinions MINE, NOT Uncles | Edu: http://www.oxnardsd.org/ innd email DNS
805.655.2017 Beep .. 805.982.7180 ofc many fwds .. 805.340.6471..2..5 VM


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most 800 vendors could care less what you
have your 800 number translated to; many will however hasten to remind you
that owing to the funny way some cell companies 'supervise' calls, there
may be billings for a lot of incomplete 800 calls, etc that you get stuck
with, especially if you do a lot of roaming, try to send your cellphone to
voicemail, etc. Ask reader Doug Reuben about the many varieties of ways
cell companies handle roaming or even local calls. I am not even sure that
AT&T flatly refuses to provide an 800 number for a cell phone; you may have
gotten an over-ambitious rep who read things the wrong way. They *are*
supposed to caution you that since you will be paying for the calls (in
effect twice: once for the airtime on the cellular side and once for the
800 side of it) that you may want to think it over first owing to the
800 charges you may get even on incomplete ('the cellular customer you
are calling is out of their vehicle or left the area') calls. Try calling
someone else at AT&T on this, and this time keeping your mouth shut; just
tell them you want it translated to whatever number it is. Don't get into
a big discussion with them about it being cellular, etc.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: India's VSNL, MCI to Launch Internet Service August 15th
Date: 2 Aug 1995 19:47:55 GMT
Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org 510-658-6376


-==This Indian Techonomist bulletin (C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh

India's VSNL, MCI, to launch Internet service by August 15th

August 1, 1995: The Indian public may get full Internet access at
reasonable prices when Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), the public
sector company with a monopoly over overseas communications, launches
its Internet Gateway "by August 15th" - Indian Independence Day. The
Gateway will be connected to the world through satellite or
terrestrial links to MCI.

VSNL's plans were leaked earlier this year, and were very confused
when reported in a bulletin from the (then unnamed) Indian Techonomist
on April 23rd. They seem somewhat clearer now, and have already
purchased equipment (including Alpha servers from Digital).

Unlike the two other government-run networks, ERNET and NICNET, which
are not available to the general public, VSNL's service will be open
to students, 'professionals' (individuals) and corporations. They will
also be available to e-mail providers (who are burdened by $80,000
annual licence fees) and Internet service providers. The latter don't
exist yet, thanks to Department of Telecommunications (DoT) rules that
increase charges prohibitively when two networks interconnect. VSNL
itself will be able to offer its services because it will emphasise
_international_ connectivity - hence the service's name, the 'Gateway'
 -- and will not build infrastructure within the country.

VSNL will be available through dial-up lines in Delhi and Bombay, and
later other cities such as Bangalore and Pune. It will be available
through the DoT's I-NET network. This is based on the X.25 protocol
and can be accessed through a local call in major cities, and through
a special long-distance code at concessional rates from elsewhere.

As predicted in the earlier bulletin, VSNL will probably not be able
to cope with demand. It expects at least 20,000 users nationwide in
the first year, but has planned for only about 100 dial-in lines. It's
inter-city network will be based on 64 kbps lines leased from the DoT,
and it's link to MCI in the US will be between 128 kbps and 2 Mbps.

And VSNL is -- as their Chief General Manager, Planning, told
the Techonomist today -- still committed to providing 250 hour/year
accounts to 'students' for US$ 16 (Rupees 500) annually, later this
year. To begin with, services will range from $160 for 250 hours
for individuals (shell account only), through corporate SLIP/PPP
at $600/year, to 128 kbps leased connections to other service providers
at $100,000/year (excluding last-leg line costs).

For more information on VSNL's Internet plans, including pricing
and an analysis, http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/news/vsnl.html
For information on the DoT's licensing policies and how India's
Telecom Secretary told the Techonomist they may change,
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/dcom.html


(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Licensed for COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC distribution provided this
notice is attached. This bulletin is from The Indian Techonomist,
the newsletter on India's information industry.
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/ - e-mail [e-mail]
Phone [phone]; H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/                   [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Hucke)
Subject: GPS-System For PC
Date: 2 Aug 1995 16:32:41 GMT
Organization: TU Braunschweig, Informatik (Bueltenweg), Germany


Hello All,

I am looking for a special kind of a "Global Position System"-Receiver.
It must be possible to connect a personal computer to this receiver.
The system should work with a accuracy of +/- 30 meters.  If anyone
knows something about such a thing, I would be very happy to hear
about this system.

Thanks in beforehand.


Salut,

Martin !!!

PS: I am developing a low-cost, computer aided navigation-system for
sailing boats.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 95 13:43:25 CST
From: Mark Peacock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN vs. Cable Modems


> Greetings.  Before becoming too enamored of CATV (Cable TV) based
> Internet connections, it's important to keep some fundamental issues
> in mind.  Obviously there are variations between different
> implementations, but the following generally holds true.

> First off, the cable companies getting into this business are
> definitely aiming their "mass market" products at "unbalanced"
> distribution models -- most data toward the cable-end user, not much
> coming back.

The consensus RBOC broadband/interactive TV model is also built around
unbalanced data distribution.  This is because the base application
around which the model has been designed is video-on-demand.  Video-on
-demand has a small amount of data going to the head-end ("Give me
'Hot Shots Part Deux' at 2:30am") vs. receiving a huge amount of data
(video) from the head-end.

This model may map nicely into a consumer Internet model where the
data traffic is primarily Web-based.  However, it does not seem to fit
a small-office/home-office model with a high proportion of two-way
(e-mail and/or file transfer (FTP)) traffic.


Mark Peacock
Deloitte & Touche Management Consulting
Detroit, Michigan   [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Bernardi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to Reset Modems
Date: 02 Aug 1995 15:14:45 GMT
Organization: Morgantown Energy Technology Center, US DOE


>> Scenario: I have a bank of modems and one gets stuck.  If it gets
>> stuck good enough, it will cause the line to either ring ring ring or
>> something like this.  Is there a device out there that after a certain
>> number of rings (because the modem doesn't pick up the line) picks up
>> the line and re-sets the modem?  The computer people at my school have
>> problems with stuck modems ##all the time## and I suggested this as a
>> fix.  They said, you tell me where I can get this thing and we will.
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

> We avoid this problem by having our modem lines set to "forward on
> busy / no answer" to the next number of the series, rather than a
> standard hunt group or rotary.  At the end of the third ring, if the
> modem hasn't answered, it will go to the next one.

In addition to the forward on busy / no answer option we use a product
called Remote Power on/off Switch Box from Server Technology Inc. that
will cycle power to a device (modem, PC) based on several line conditions.
They'll even reprogram it to reboot on just about any condition you want.

Their number is 800 835-1515 and the box costs about $150 each.


Dave Bernardi

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Chance)
Subject: Re: RBOC Labor Contracts Update?
Date: 02 Aug 1995 11:47:56 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


John S. Lively <[e-mail]> writes:

>    Anyone have a summary on status of LEC labor negotiations (IBEW, CWA)?

>    Info wanted for RBOCs + GTE (individually):

Info  for Southwestern Bell/CWA contract:

>    - When do current contracts expire?

August 5th.

>    - How are talks going?

Don't know.  I haven't heard hardly a peep from either side since
negotiations started in June.

>    - What is probability of a strike?

SWB and CWA have signed a "No Strike/No Lockout" agreement, which was
announced on June 19th.  It's similar to the agreement that was
reached during the 1992 negotiations, and requires a 30 day notice of
intent to rescind by either party.

The CWA has had a few folks handing out "informational" flyers at the
SWB buildings in St. Louis, and held a "practice picket line" a week
or so ago in front of the Southwestern Bell Building downtown.


Michael A. Chance          St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Work: [e-mail]   Play: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Help Needed With X.21 Connectivity
Date: 02 Aug 1995 21:37:55 -0700
Organization: Rockwell Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> S.M. Loghmani <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

> I need to implement X.21 connectivity for a special app. I have not
> been able to find any IC manufacturer that provides any solution to
> this, nor any vendor who builds anything like a black box that
> converts X.21 to, say, RS232 or some other common form of signaling. I
> would appreciate your help in leading me in the right direction.

X.21 is a two-part story. The full X.21 (including the dial portion)
is used on some European circuit switched data network. It is quite
bizarre. A simplified X.21 interface without dialling is used in much
of Europe as a replacement for V.35. It is basically a V.10/V.11 with
a different connector.

With some care, a universal interface can be constructed that will
interoperate with RS-232 (V.24), V.35, RS422/RS423 (V.10/V.11) and
X.21 with a simple substitution of cables. (RS-530 is a good starting
point for such an effort.)


Lars Poulsen            Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
Rockwell Network Systems    Phone:        [phone]
7402 Hollister Avenue         Telefax:      [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93105        Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: [e-mail] (Kent Polkinghorne)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Automated 411
Date: 02 Aug 1995 22:59:17 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.


Andrew B. Hawthorn <[e-mail]> writes:

> Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system
> and I was curious if anyone knew how it works.  When a person dials
> 411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What
> city please?"  The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?"
> The caller replies.

There is a similar system at the University of Colorado here in
Boulder.  If you call the student directory assistance after working
hours, a computer handles the call.  It asks the caller to use the
number keys on their phone to spell the last name, then the first.  It
interrupts as soon as a unique match is made, or will spell out the
matches it makes and lets the caller choose one.

This probably wouldn't be viable for a whole city because of the number
of matches involved.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Re: And my Alternative is ...?
Date: 02 Aug 1995 13:12:08 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> I'll tell you this much: it is going to be **great** seeing competition
> arrive here. I may be one of the first to jump ship from Ameritech once
> other options become available

I am also looking forward to local competition, but even before it has
arrived here in south Florida it is starting to have an effect. For
years, Southern Bell has charged huge bucks for "local" long distance
calls, but now that local competition is inevitable, they have
suddenly petitioned to change their rate structure so that most calls
in wide areas of south Florida will be charged a fixed $.25 rate (no
matter how long they last). I don't think I ever paid less than $.25
for any call before, and I was champing at the bit to get away from
Southern Bell, but with this move they may have managed to keep my
business (I'll still be interested to see what kind of competition
arrives).


[e-mail]
Home: 511 Kingbird Circle  Delray Beach FL 33444
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309
Support Project Vote Smart! They need your support in non-election years too!
(email [e-mail], 1-800-622-SMART, http://www.peak.org/vote-smart)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ralph Becker)
Subject: Last Laugh! 800 Numbers Already in Use
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 14:29:51 GMT
Organization: Xyplex Customer Support


Governor William Weld of Massachusetts is trying to set up an 800
number to allow citizens a way to suggest ways to reduce government
bureaucracy.  However, the vanity 800 numbers that the governor's
staff wanted to use were already in use -- by phone sex lines.  They
wanted 800-CUT GOVT (800-288-4688) but that number is in use by the
Anal Action Hot Line.  They also wanted 800-DOWNSIZE (800-369-6749),
but that that's the same number as 800-369-ORGY and is also a sex hot
line.  The final number that they will use has not been announced yet.

[Paraphrased from an article in the Boston Globe].


Ralph Becker (mailto:[e-mail])    http://www.iii.net/users/ralphb


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did I ever mention the fellow (this is
a true story!) who had somehow latched onto 800-EAT-7448? I think he
got it back in the days when AT&T had control over that prefix. He
got it on purpose, although I assume he did not tell the rep when he
ordered it what the alpha translation was. He had it terminated on a
jack at his house and usually left the phone unplugged so the ringing
would not disturb him. When he had some spare time and felt in the
mood for a few cheap thrills, he would plug a phone into the line.
Invariably on plugging in a phone, the line would be ringing. Aapparently
there was always *someone* dialing it. The idea was, he said, to have
a few laughs by seeing what sort of perverts would dial the number, and
what they had to say for themselves. And I guess they had plenty to
talk about; he says it roasted his ears a few times, and this was someone
who already had calluses on his ears; no mental virgin by any means.
He'd finish with one caller and within a few seconds it would ring again
with someone else; new suggestions and propositions with each call
received. When he decided to end the fun for the night, he would unplug
the phone and put it away. By not answering, he was not charged for
how many ever calls came during hours that were inconvenient for him
to chat with the callers; by unplugging the phone the almost constant
ringing did not disturb him. He said that on the few occassions when his
'call volume' slowed down, a quick message posted to a few public chat
systems like Compuserve CB inviting users to phone 800-EAT-7448 (but I
guess he spelled out the alpha translation) would always perk things
up again.  I hope Governor Weld can find some number that has not been
polluted too badly over the years.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #329
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02879;
          3 Aug 95 1:47 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04674 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:46:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04666; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:46:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:46:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #328

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 Aug 95 17:46:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 328

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Fraudulent Phone Bills (Kathy Perry)
    Telenet Flanders Report (Sergej H. Katus)
    Re: Inexpensive DID Trunk Pass-Thru Device/PBX Design (Kevin Fleming)
    Re: Some 800 Shortage! (David Winters)
    Help! Need Info to Change India's Horrid Datacom Laws (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients (Brian Brown)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (John Nagle)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Steve Norton)
    Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888) (Linc Madison)
    Job Offer: DSP, Modem, C, Assembler, DOS/Windows Developer (VoCal Tech)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kathy Perry)
Subject: Fraudulent Phone Bills
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 10:30:38 -0400
Organization: Steelcase Research
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kathy Perry)


Nine months ago $300 worth of 900 calls showed up on my phone bill.
They were billed through American Tel Net and FTT. I called my phone
company (Ameritech) and they stated that the calls were directly made
from my phone. I know that nobody in my household (my husband and I)
made the calls. Our cordless was on the handset. Ameritech checked the
phone line and it tested ok. I got them to drop the charges and put a
900 block on the phone.

A couple months ago I changed my long distance carrier from Sprint to
MCI.Then some international calls were charged to my phone. Same
situation as above. I didn't place the calls and MCI contends that the
calls were directly made from my phone. Again, I got them to drop the
charges, but Ameritech can not place an internation call block on my
phone. Again, Ameritech checked the line and it tested ok. Also, the
cordless was on the handset.

And again a month ago, more international calls were charged to my
phone, but this time through Integretel. This time I was out of town
when the calls were placed. And I have proof. Again, the cordless was
on the handset.

My house shows no signs of being broken into and the phone box outside
my house does not appear to be tampered with. Ameritech has refused to
conduct any type of investigation into the incidences as they say the
calls had to have been placed from my phone and they have no affiliation
with the long distance carriers that the calls are going through.

I live in the 616 area code in Michigan. The first part of my phone
number is 792. Does anyone know how it is physically possible for
these calls to be charged to my number? Could a computer hacker or an
employee of Ameritech be tapping into my phone through the switching?

What legal recourse do I have and how can I prevent this from
continuing to happen? I have filed a police report and they are
investigating. They've come up with a couple conclusions: either
someone at Ameritech is doing it which they won't investigate further,
someone is tapping into the line through the 'little grey box' that is
outside my home, or someone is breaking into my house and using the
phone. I don't see how anyone could be breaking in to my home or using
the 'little grey box' as I have a German shepard/black lab that would
go nuts.

Please E-mail.


Kathy    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is possible there are multiples on
your pair that were never opened up when you had your phone installed.
Ask telco to check for multiples on the cable that might be easily
accessible for unauthorized use by others. My favorite story in this
vein was the time a Digest reader told me about having a single line
phone in his bedroom which was separate from the other phone lines in
his house. One day he took the cover off the little box to check it out
and as an experiment he put a phone on 'line two', the yellow/black
wires. Bingo! he got dialtone ... hmmm ... using a ringback code on
that line he let it ring several times until finally a woman answered
the phone. He asked her where she was at and it turned out she was
down the street a few houses and across the alley. When an installer
turns on your service, he is *supposed* to climb all the poles in
the vicinity and open up any multiples he finds to prevent others
who happen to have that same pair in their house from using it at
your expense (both of money and privacy). Obviously the installer had
not done his job. That might be the solution in your case also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telenet Flanders Report
Date: 02 Aug 1995 16:14:52 GMT
Organization: K.U. Leuven-ICRI


For those of you who are interested in the offer of alternative
infrastructure and services in Belgium, our report 'Telenet Flanders;
overall policy proposal' is available on:

<http://cc5.kuleuven.ac.be/~skatus/icri.htm>

via

'available documents'

It's in .pdf-format. You will also find a link to the Adobe company, who
distributes free pdf-readers.


Sergej H. Katus      Legal telecom research
K.U. Leuven-ICRI     Tel. [phone]
Tiensestraat 41      Fax  [phone]
B-3000 Belgium       [e-mail]
<http://cc5.kuleuven.ac.be/~skatus/sergej.htm>

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

From: Fleming, Kevin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive DID Trunk Pass-Thru Device/PBX Design
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 15:53


Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I want to find out if someone makes, has made, or can make an
> inexpensive DID Pass-Through device for a Direct Inward Dial (Inbound
> PBX) trunk.

 -- snip --

> I would like to be able to obtain or build a simple, inexpensive,
> not very complicated, Pass-Through device, that would do the following:

> 1.  Accept a DID trunk attached to it, and either accept wink or ground
>     start depending on whether it makes a difference.

This part is easy, but note: the receiving device _generates_ the wink, it
doesn't receive it.

> 2.  Accept the incoming number, probably simplest way is to
>     always take 5 digits.  It might accept touch-tone only or touch-tone
>     and pulse.

Simplest would be DTMF only (note that Touch-Tone is an AT&T trademark,
just like Kleenex and Xerox).

> 3.  Generate a ring signal to the accepting device, so that it thinks
>    it is being called by a standard Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)
>    line.

> Then do one (or both) of the following:

> 4.  A. Wait for the POTS device to go off hook, then generate the same
>        digit sequence that was received, issuing it in touch tone format.
>        Wait one second then supervise.

This is pretty easy, but requires call progress detection and DTMF
generation.

>    B. Send the POTS device a caller-id data stream on the 2nd/3rd ring,
>       and if it goes off-hook, supervise.  The caller-id stream would be
>       the CALLED number, not the CALLING number.

This is harder, since you have to overlay the data on the ringing signal,
so now you can't use the same ringing signal for all attached ports, they
have to each have their own ring+data signal.

> 5.  There should be a means for the accepting device or the DID Pass-Thru
>     to indicate that it should generate a ring signal, a busy or reorder,

>     or if authorized, to play an intercept, such as "This is a non-working
>     number, please dial xxx-xxxx to reach the operator" or allow the
>     device to instead play a "The number you have dialed xxx-xxx has been
>     changed to" and then any appropriate announcement.

I'm not sure what you really mean here; the "Pass-Thru" would generate
busy if the POTS device was off-hook. There'd never be any reason for
reorder, except in the case of an unassigned DID extension. Playing
back digitized voice messages would make this unit much more complex.

> The idea is to enable inexpensive PBX capabilities for business or
> residential service.

This is a good idea, and there are lots of cheap hybrid key/PBX units out
there for this purpose.

 -- snip --

> If someone would be interested in designing this on a royalty basis, or
> even implementing the concept of an inexpensive PBX device, please
> contact me.

I think there's lots of people that'd be interested, but see below...

> Now, someone on here is going to probably flame me about the alleged
> "lack of" reliability of such a device:

This is only the least of your concerns. You're right, electronic hardware
is pretty reliable and stable nowawadays.

 -- snip --

>  Fourth. The idea is to make something inexpensive, not cheap.  The whole
>  PBX type system should be buildable from perhaps $50 worth of parts, due
>  to the small amount of capability being desired:

This shows your lack of knowledge of telephony hardware. This device would
need some or all of the following hardware:

  - 48V DC power supply and battery, to power DID lines as well as all
    attached POTS devices that are line-powered
  - 90V AC ringing generator for POTS devices
  - DTMF receivers, one per incoming line
  - line-interface transformers and optical isolators for incoming lines
  - transformers and isolators for POTS device lines
  - solid-state relays to switch on and off battery power and ringing
    voltage for each POTS device line
  - for internal calls, line amplifiers to connect multiple phones
    together
  - FCC compliance testing and certification (or the use of pre-
    certified line interface components)
  - microcontroller, RAM, interface to PC, operating code
  - testing with all known widely-deployed CO switches to verify
    compatibility and operation
  - etc., etc.

I'd guess that the above components, for a four-incoming-line, eight-POTS-
device unit, would cost as least $200. Maybe more.

> The device itself could be fairly "dumb" and all the processing be
> done by using an RS-232 signal to any computer that can handle a
> serial port, meaning the device could send information about what is
> being done, and a cheap used AT could tell the device how to process
> the call or provide advanced features.  Or it could be done from a
> program running minimized under MS-Windows or a TSR in the background
> of someone's computer.

This is not a bad idea, but you're getting too far along the line of a
real PBX here, and you're losing reliability. The last thing you want
is for your PC to be waiting for user input at some error message and
no incoming calls to be handled.

> With a wholesale cost of around $60 this makes it possible to sell a
> 9-Station PBX for $199 retail.  People pay that much for single
> telephones in some cases, plus the PBX could do anything it could be
> told by a PC to handle, the PBX box could be simply a dumb call
> processor if no PC is attached, just calls another room or uses the
> code to indicate where the call is to go.  And could handle incoming
> DID trunks to give a group of lines the same phone number, ringing
> them either in sequence or on least-used first.

I don't see how this box could be sold for less than $500, in a basic
configuration. It might top $1500, when you got up to eight incoming lines
and sixteen POTS devices.

> As an added note to reliability, I would say that more than 95% of all
> PC failures are do to software bugs, not to hardware.  Most hardware
> in PCs is fairly high reliability, it is the software that is the
> problem.

> But if this can't/won't be done now (or nobody wants this capability
> now), I expect it won't be more than a few years before most more
> affluent households would want to be able to have this feature without
> having to purchase a dozen phone lines just to be able to direct-dial
> any room in the place (great for teenagers; they can each have their
> own number and not have to be causing the main phone to ring or
> fighting over an alternate phone in case both want to grab the phone!)

Every custom home that I've been inside in the last four or five
years, and most semi-customs, have small PBXs in place already. Most
are AT&T Merlin-types, or small Panasonic units. They can be put in
place for under $3000 with eight phones or so, and three or four trunk
lines. Most of them don't support DID yet, though. When you compare
this to the cost of a custom home (most around here are $300K and up),
it's a drop in the bucket.


Kevin Fleming, Reliable Networx, Phoenix, AZ
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Winters)
Subject: Re: Some 800 Shortage!
Date: 02 Aug 1995 23:17:20 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates


TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

> MCI has something like that now, where everyone dials a single 800 number
> and then enters a pin which corresponds to the desired person being called.
> Things like that are just gimmicks. No wonder they are giving it away.
> They expect to make their profit on all the reverse call traffic it
> stirs up. I'll just keep my regular 800 numbers, thanks.   PAT]

This is exactly how it works.  I have an 800 number which is 800-484-9409
and a four digit pin which directs the call to my house.

I certainly think this is worth something ... certainly more than what
I paid for it.  When I'm traveling, it is much less expensive than
using a calling card call to retreive my messages.  This is my only
use for the number.

I don't know why there is continuous MCI bashing here.  I'm on the
"new friends and family program".  Because I do make freqent calls to
other MCI customers and also get American Airlines frequent flyer
miles, I think it is the best deal going right now.

I don't have a huge long distance bill.  It is generally only $20 or
$30 per month.  I received a $40 check from AT&T if I'd switch.  I'm
satisfied with MCI so I figured I call them and see what they'd do.
Their offer was to send me a $40 check now or bank it toward long
distance which I will certainly spend in the future.  I also get $5
additional credit per month up to 12 by staying with MCI.  This is a
total of $100 free long distance on a very inexpensive program and I
only spend $30 per month anyway.  I stay with the company I really
want and will get three to four months free long distance in the
future.  Not a bad deal.


David Winters     Austin, Texas


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually David, you just came in at the
wrong period in the cycle. Sometimes there is 'continuous AT&T bashing'
for a couple months at a time; Sprint has also seen the wrath of the
readers here at one time or another. There is nothing special about MCI
around here. We get after them also now and then.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 12:50:09 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: Help! Need Info to Change India's Horrid Datacom Laws


If you can provide reasons and facts why India should not charge BBS
sysops $50,000 annually, read on ... Hong Kong and Taiwan replies most
appreciated (as Asian examples -- Yankee replies wanted too, of
course).

Rishab

(no, I'm not quite back on Cypherpunks yet. I just can't wade
through the traffic like I used to.)

As you know, the 1885 (British) Indian Telegraph Act allows, in
effect, the Department of Telecommunications to do as it likes. It
likes to charge minimum annual licence fees of $80,000 for e-mail
providers, and $50,000 for BBSes. I spoke to former Chief Justice of
India, P N Bhagwati, who said that, in the light of a recent Supreme
Court ruling against the government monopoly of broadcasting, the DoT
licences would be struck down in court. Someone will, of course, have
to take it to court -- an expensive and time-consuming process.

That may not be necessary, for the DoT Secretary told me that he was
willing to reduce licence fees to any level as the idea was to
encourage the growth of datacom (including Internet) services. As
described in the Techonomist article attached here, he wants "to be
educated." I'm planning to visit him with representatives of the
datacom and BBS world, and I need some background material.

Basically, my argument was that the datacom (ISP) and telecom business
models are quite different -- start up capital requirements are lower
in datacom by several orders of magnitude; ISPs are tiny and work in
large, cooperative networks; most important, even in an "advanced"
market such as the US, the big companies (AT&T, etc) have shied away,
leaving the field open to the little ones.

I plan to suggest a licencing policy similar to the earnest money paid
to ensure responsible operation for tenders -- 2.5% of estimated
CAPITAL required for a business or project, rather than the current
licence fees based on REVENUE (the $50,000 and $80,000 figures refer
to the MINIMUM).

I need, at the very least, figures to show that the average US ISP is
small; that the total revenue is small too, compared to telecom; that
the explosive growth in ISPs there is a result of this, and of the
ease of start up (read no licencing). I would appreciate info on Asian
markets such as HK and Taiwan, and anything else you could suggest.

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

Here's the datacom story/interview. One on the Supreme Court ruling,
and Justice Bhagwati's comments, is on the Web at http://www.c2.org/
~rishab/techonomist/legal.html

(C) Copyright 1995 Deus X Machina, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The Indian Techonomist, Sample issue, July 1995

Bandwidth restraint

How excessive regulation hurts India's promising data communications
industry, and what the government appears willing do about it.

When, three years ago, India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
allowed the entry of the private sector into the "value-added
services" -- a quaint term including everything from electronic mail
to radio paging -- it ignored reality. It did so again in a strange
notification last year, where it announced annual licence fees of Rs
2.5 million ($80,000) for e-mail providers and Rs 1.5 million
($50,000) for bulletin board services. Electronic bulletin boards
(BBSes) had been active since at least 1991 in India's major cities;
with its notification, far from "constantly endeavouring to upgrade
technologies," as it claimed, the DoT became the major impediment to
the growth of Indian datacom.

The value of India's data communications market (including fax and
networking products) has been estimated at $150 million this year by
Voice and Data magazine. Indians took quite rapidly to fax, once
import duties were low enough for reasonable prices.  They are taking
as well as they can to e-mail, given the limited opportunities, thanks
to the DoT. Astonishingly the DoT is not posing obstacles deliberately,
but is just not aware of the differences between the economic models
of datacom and telecom -- it can't tell a modem from a phone.

This should change soon, for two reasons. First, the 110-year-old
Indian Telegraph Act, from which the DoT draws its power, is under
attack from several directions (see ITK_ITA) -- although changes to
such entrenched legislation take time. More encouraging is the
attitude of the DoT itself, or at least of its Secretary, R K Takkar.
In an exclusive interview for The Indian Techonomist Mr. Takkar
expressed the DoT's willingness to change the way it behaves towards
datacom.

He accepted that licence fees "should not be looked upon as a source
of revenue" -- answering the concern that the DoT wanted a share in the
earnings of datacom service providers over and above that from the
considerable additional telephone traffic generated. He said the
intention of the DoT should not be to make money, and that "at best
the government is entitled to recover its administrative costs"
through such fees. The sole purpose of licencing, Mr Takkar
maintained, was to ensure that the prospective service provider "is
earnest about that business, [will] be able to provide a public
service," and, echoing India's suspicion of foreigners' intentions,
"is a responsible citizen or company."

When it was pointed out that excessive fees curtail the spread of
electronic networks in the country, Mr. Takkar agreed that "licence
fees should not be fixed [at a point that] stifles the growth of the
services" as the primary focus "should be on the widest possible
provision of the service." Widespread access to data communications
services, he reiterated, "should be the only objective of determining
the level of licence fee," and offered to "give a serious relook" to
the current fee structure.

Mr. Takkar was quick to appreciate the distinction between the
huge investment requirements of telecommunications infrastructure
and the distributed, small-scale nature of Internet and other
electronic networking services. When it was suggested that India
was poised for the proliferation of small Internet service
providers, as in the US, if it were not for the DoT's licencing
policies, he repeatedly expressed that he was open to further
inputs. "I would greatly appreciate meeting [knowledgeable people
from the industry]" said Mr. Takkar, "I'd like to be educated."


TECHONOMIST COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND SUBSCRIPTION
(C) Copyright 1995 Deus X Machina, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This article has been licenced for commercial electronic reproduction in
TELECOM Digest, Compuserve, America Online and Prodigy.

Elsewhere, this article may be redistributed in electronic form only,
provided that the article and this notice remain intact. This article
may not under any circumstances be redistributed or resold in any
non-electronic form, or for compensation of any kind, without prior
written permission from Rishab Aiyer Ghosh ([e-mail])

This article is from the Indian Techonomist
(http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/), the newsletter on India's
information industry. Annual subscription (monthly print edition plus
e-mail bulletins) is for US$ 595 or equivalent. For information, contact
Rishab Ghosh by e-mail at [e-mail], call [phone] or
post to H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

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

The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/                   [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Brown)
Subject: Re: More About Integretel and Their Sleazy Clients
Date: 2 Aug 1995 10:21:47 -0600
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee
Winson) writes:

> What happens if you try that 800 number from a pay phone?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They answer with a recorded message saying
> the number you are calling from cannot be used to call their service. They
> were smart enough to use software designed to check the database of phones
> with coin service and figure out how to disallow them.   PAT]

Actually, they probably get ANI information digits, which describe the
type of phone you are calling from.  For example, code 27 is a pay
phone, and 61 is a cellular phone.  Both are refused by most phone sex
operations.  In addition, hotels, prisons, and hospitals have unique
ANI information digits.  The bonus is that once in a while a pay phone
gets mistakenly identified with the wrong digits.  So if you're really
interested in getting them back, you may want to call it every time
you use a pay phone.  If it works, call it a few dozen times and be
satisfied that this company will be trying to squeeze blood from an
RBOC when they try to collect a bill.


Good luck,

Brian

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

From: [e-mail] (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 1995 06:11:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Tom Davidson) writes:

> The problem with using cable for data transfer is right now its really
> fast, but what happens when your whole neighborhood is trying to use
> the thing?  Lots of collisions, reduced throughput, just like
> ethernet. I've put five PC's on a single coax line running 10Mbps
> Ethernet, if only one PC is doing anything, everything is great, but try
> to websurf on all five at the same time, the collision light starts
> flashing. I really don't see the cableco putting a router every couple
> of blocks.

     So far, two-way data over TV cable systems is very rare, and the
industry is trying various architectures.  It's not at all unlikely
that there will be routers every few blocks, although muxing
everything onto fibre and doing most of the work at the headend is
another option.  Still, there's no reason there can't be quite a bit
of electronics in outside plant, whether from cable companies or
telcos.  Traditionally, telcos liked to avoid electronics in outside
plant, but that's changing.  PacTel has gone so far in that direction
in its latest San Jose test that there's been community objections to
the fan noise from the boxes.  The latest experimental box not only
has electronics and fans, but a natural-gas powered backup generator.


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Norton)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 02 Aug 1995 17:19:49 GMT
Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider


[e-mail] (Roger Golden) writes:

> This is where I begin to get awfully skeptical.  I can see getting
> extremely high throughput on a dedicated coaxial line, enough
> throughput to knock yer socks off, in fact; but I don't understand how
> high speed data transmissions can be acceptable or sustainable in a
> coaxial cable that is already saturated with information.  And again,
> as a new user of this service is added to the line, aren't we looking
> at exponential degradation of the bps?

The key is bandwidth allocation on the cable network.  Replacing one
TV channel (6Mhz) with a data channel (1 4Mhz or 8 500khz) provides
bandwidth to a group of homes.  The box Larry spoke of is probably the
500kbit/sec Zenith Homeworks unit.  You share bandwidth with your
neighbors, but assuming that 1% of Americans use online services, and
then only occasionally, you often get stunning data transfer rates.
Transfer rates decrease with increasing users, and are greatly
affected by weather and electrical interference.

Rumor has it that a small group of people in a Chicago suburb decided
to try some Zenith boxes in their neighborhood.  They chose
frequencies not currently being used by the cable company, and as
there were no amplifiers or filters between their houses, were able to
setup a 500kbit/sec private network.

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

From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: ... Of Shortages and Toe Shoes ... (aka 800/888)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 21:29:58 GMT


Sam Spens Clason ([e-mail]) wrote:

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

>> Judith Oppenheimer ([e-mail]) wrote:

First off, as Judith pointed out, the part you quote below is my
response to some of her previous comments.

LM >> Yes, the 800 brand utility is very important, but it is very important
>> to EVERYONE who has an 800 number, ...  If someone else comes along
>> with 888-THE-CARD as an ad slogan, AmEx will surely sue

SSC: > Would you want 888-843-2273?!  You'd get thousands of calls every day
> even though you weren't allowed to market yourself as 888-THE-CARD.
> This is precisely why all corporations that have put money in
> advertising their phone numbers *will* mirror them in the 888 series.

I really think this effect is being grossly overestimated.  I'd bet
that the person who had 888-843-2273 would get dozens of calls every
year, if that.  What wrong number calls I would expect would be at
least 100:1 in the other direction, people hearing "toll-free 888" and
assuming "oh, that must mean 800."

The problem I have with Judith's talk about the importance of "800
branding" is that she seems to be of two minds on the subject:

(1) The 800 "brand" of toll-free number is very important.  It is
important to have your toll-free number in the 800 area code because
that is the one people know.  People make a strong distinction between
800 and other area codes because they know that 800 is toll-free.

(2) The 800 "brand" of toll-free number is meaningless.  The consumer
only knows "call American Express at TollFree-THE-CARD" and "order
flowers from TollFree-FLOWERS."

You can't have it both ways!  If people have a strong 800-brand
association with 800-THE-CARD and 800-FLOWERS, they won't be confused
by 888-843-2273 or 888-356-9377.  American Express never advertises
"just call THE-CARD to apply," they ALWAYS give the 800 right there.
People will be no more likely to dial 888-843-2273 than to dial just
843-2273; if anything, less so.

The solution to this is simply for American Express to continue
advertising "800-THE-CARD" and if someone else gets "888-843-2273,"
they will have to advertise "Our new TOLL-FREE number is 1-888-843-2273,
that's one, EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT, 843-2273.  Remember to dial the three
eights to save 748,216.4% on widgets!  Offer expires at midnight
tonight."

Let me put it another way: before the 415/510 split a few years ago, a
number of Oakland businesses advertised in San Francisco and
vice-versa.  We were all one big, happy area code back then, so most
of the ads only carried the seven-digit number.  In fact, in many cases,
the fact that the business was across the bay was carefully hidden
from view.  Should we have reserved every business number in both area
codes, just so that some poor sap in downtown San Francisco dialing
444-xxxx for Joe's Widgets on Wheels [now on 1-510-444-xxxx in
Oakland] wouldn't wake up Aunt Hattie in San Rafael?  The plot gets
thicker if you factor in the fact that that eleven-digit number in Oakland
is local, but the same seven-digit number in San Rafael is Zone 3 toll.

Of course, that would have been ridiculous, just as mirroring existing
800 numbers -- even a subset of them -- is ridiculous.  The very most
I would think it justified even to *consider* would be allowing
existing 800 subscribers to -- FOR A FEE -- place their number on a
list not to be assigned in 888 FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS.  That allows
time for a lot of media coverage of the new 888 numbers, and the
importance of knowing WHICH toll-free area code a particular number is
in, and all that.

In fact, the long-distance companies, being the good corporate
citizens they are, could merge two themes in their ads: "[animated
area code map of the US showing new area codes sprouting up] This
year, lots of new area codes are popping up all over the country, to
make room for all the folks who want everything from plain
old-fashioned telephone service [photo of an old black desk set] to
the latest high-tech telecommunications equipment [photos of fax,
modem, cellphone, etc., maybe something exotic like a videophone].
It's important to know the correct area code, because the same number
may reach totally different people in different area codes.  Starting
April 1st, the same is true with toll-free numbers.  All the 800
numbers you know will stay the same, but new 888 numbers will start
popping up.  Be sure you dial the right area code when you call!"


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Human Resources)
Subject: Job Offer: DSP, Modem, C, Assembler, DOS/Windows Developer
Date: 2 Aug 1995 22:00:25 GMT
Organization: VoCAL Technologies, Ltd.


VoCAL Technologies, Ltd.  Amherst, New York

VoCAL Technologies, a communication software technology firm is
seeking highly motivated engineers and programmers to fill positions
made availble due to expansion of the company.

Highly competitive salary and incentive program for top-notch employees.

Electrical Engineer -   Full time BSEE or MSEE C and Assembler programmer.
                        Experience in embedded systems and DSP's a plus.
                        Must be very comfortable with assembly language
                        programming.

Electrical Engineer -   Full time BSEE or MSEE Digital Signal Processing.
                        1 year minimum DSP expereince required.
                        Background course work in speech processing,
                        image processing, or communications is preferable.

Programmer -            Full time.  C programming for the PC.  Must have
                        Windows application development and low level
                        hardware I/O software expereince.

Interested applicants should email or mail a resume in confidence to:

                        [e-mail]

                        Human Resources
                        VoCAL Technologies, Ltd.
                        1576 Sweet Home Road
                        Amherst, NY 14228

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #328
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20579;
          3 Aug 95 23:36 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19013 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:50:29 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19004; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:50:27 -0500
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:50:27 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #330

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Aug 95 12:50:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 330

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    HR 1555: Exon All Over Again (Jim Donaldson)
    Exon Again, With Still More Draconian Proposals ([e-mail])
    Maryland Area Code Proposals (Carl Moore)
    CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds? (Steve Samler)
    Western Union Agents (Lee Winson)
    IVR For Directory Assistance (Karen Joe)
    Telecom R&D Conference (Steve Rubin)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: Jim Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: HR 1555: Exon All Over Again
Date: 3 Aug 1995 16:31:57 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI


[e-mail] (James E. Bellaire) wrote:

> HR 1555 is on the net for your information.  I have not read it yet so
> I cannot express support or non-support for this bill.  I found it
> through an Internet Search in Netscape.  The source of this copy is a
> pro-bill coalition called the "Alliance for Competitive Communications."
> The bill is quite large (189K) so I have included only the URL and the
> title page.

James,

Pleased to see your pointer but please keep in mind that the text of the
bill probably does not yet contain the manager's ammendment that was
worked out after the committee work was done.

Those changes significantly alter the bill in several ways which is
why the long distance companies pulled their support of the bill.  The
only way that I have found to keep up-to-date with what that bill
actually says/actually will do, is to read the news reports and
industry reports that detail out the additional text.

Just wanted to make that point.


Thanks,

Jim


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is one reason I decided today to
print one of the more detailed messages to come my way from the ACLU
recently, and it follows next in this issue. The "Manager's Amendment"
is adding some entirely new kinks to the whole thing. I don't think
the net is anywhere close to seeing the end of these attacks. Read on into
the next message and see how much more involved HR 1555 has become.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:06:19 -0400
Subject: Exon Again, With Still More Draconian Proposals


ACLU Cyber-Liberties Alert:
Oppose Exon-Like Speech Crimes in the Managers Amendment to the House Telco
Bill

The House is expected to begin considering the telecommunications bill
(HR 1555) tonight, August 2, 1995, and to vote on the bill by Friday,
August 5th.  The managers for the telco bill on the House floor --
Representatives Bliley (R-VA), Hyde (R-IL), and Dingell (R-MI) will be
introducing an omnibus "Managers Amendment" to HR 1555.

The Managers Amendment would create, among many other unrelated
changes, new Exon-like speech crimes that would censor the Internet.

To prevent online censorship and preserve free speech and privacy
rights on the Internet, we urge you to voice your opposition to this
dangerous amendment.

The Managers Amendment would add an entirely new Exon-like provision
to the existing federal obscenity laws.  The provision would make it a
crime to "intentionally communicate by computer ... to any person the
communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any
material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs."  (18 U.S.C. 1465)

This provision, like the Exon amendment passed by the Senate, would
effectively reduce all online content to that which is suitable only
for children.  It also raises the same questions about service
provider liability that were raised by the Exon amendment.

The Managers Amendment would also make it a crime to "receive"
material from overseas "by computer," thereby subjecting both Internet
users and service providers to new prosecutions (18 U.S.C. 1462).  In
addition, these new provisions, like the Exon amendment, would cover
private e-mail.

Finally, the criminal code changes in the Managers Amendment would
reduce all online speech to the obscenity standards of the most
restrictive community in the United States -- unless the courts
clarified the relevant "community standards" for cyberspace (and we're
losing the cases in court so far).

If the House adopts the Managers Amendment, both the House and Senate
versions of the telco bill will include severe attacks on
cyber-liberties.  This would make it difficult for the conference
committee to avoid some kind of severe online censorship provisions in
the final version of the telecommunications deregulation bill.

The Cox/Wyden amendment, which has received widespread support, will
be offered as a separate amendment to HR 1555.  Cox/Wyden is far
preferable in approach to either the Exon amendment in the Senate
telco bill or the Exon-like speech crime provisions in the Managers
Amendment to the House telco bill. Cox/Wyden also prohibits FCC
censorship of Internet speech.

However, the ACLU remains concerned about certain ambiguities and some
genuine problems in the Cox/Wyden bill.  When Cox/Wyden is adopted by
the House, we will work with the conference committee to resolve these
concerns, but we are troubled that they have not been resolved up to
now.  Representative Cox has committed again to working out these
problems.  We hope this will prove successful.

But an affirmative vote on Cox/Wyden will not stop online censorship,
especially if the Exon-like Managers Amendment is also approved by the
House!!

**Please call your Representative today to express your opposition to
the speech crime provisions in the Managers Amendment to the telco
bill (HR 1555).  Express your support for the approach of the
Cox/Wyden amendment.**

In addition to lobbying on the telco bill, and to lobbying the Rules
Committee to prevent floor action on either the Exon amendment or the
Exon-like new speech crimes provisions, the ACLU delivered the
following letter to Republican members and some Democrats in the House
of Representatives today:

Re: Important Statements by Conservatives and Others on
Unconstitutional Provisions of Telecommunications Deregulation
Legislation (H.R. 1555 in the House)

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we are pleased to
provide the enclosed statements from The Wall Street Journal, the Cato
Institute, Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Center for Democracy and
Technology and the Interactive Working Group.  All address the
importance of leaving American citizens free to decide -- not have
some government bureaucracy control -- what they wish to watch on
television or access by computer.

While we do not agree with everything in any one of these statements,
we hope that you will find them of assistance as the House considers
telecommunications legislation.  You will be asked to vote on House
amendments paralleling those so devastatingly critiqued in these
materials.

We urge your attention to two amendments that we believe are clearly
unconstitutional.

The first amendment (included as item #41 in the managers amendment)
would, similar to the now heavily discredited Exon amendment,
unconstitutionally interfere with the free market and free speech
approach that has turned the Internet into the incredible source of
entrepreneurial promise and educational impact it is today.

Although the July 31st memorandum on the managers amendment claimed
that this provision "creates criminal liability for intentionally
sending obscenity over computers," the amendment in fact deals with
more expression than just obscenity as the Supreme Court has defined
it.  Instead the amendment mixes elements of both obscenity (which the
Supreme Court has said is not constitutionally protected) and
indecency (which is First Amendment-protected speech) and seeks to
make it a Federal crime for anyone to communicate such material to
someone under 18.  This provision of the managers amendment is clearly
unconstitutional for all the reasons so eloquently expressed in the
enclosed materials.  It is also silly.  Does the Congress of the
United States really intend that the Federal criminal justice system
will be used to send two 17-year-olds to Federal prison for five years
because their online dating chatter took an overly salacious turn?

This provision is, further, profoundly unwise policy.  It is another
example of what, in the Senate/Exon context, the Wall Street Journal
referred to as the "ham-handed approach" or resorting to the
"big-bureaucracy method to solve problems."  More importantly, this
government-dictated control would interfere with the implementation of
parental control technologies (including those in use today; see the
CDT report) because software developers would wait to deploy their
products widely or develop improvements until the inevitable legal
challenges to the combined obscenity/indecency provision are finally
resolved.  This Federal criminal law approach would be another
"constitutional glue factory" that, for example, in telephones took a
decade to untangle before that law could take effect.  Meanwhile,
consenting adults will have their own free speech limited to
"child-proof" e-mail, and parents will be deprived of meaningful
technology to control what their children access on the Internet.

We urge you to vote against this Big Government, anti-private sector
and unconstitutional addition to the Federal criminal code by voting
against the managers amendment.

We also ask that you oppose the so-called "V-chip" amendment proposed
by Representative Markey.  The "V-chip" amendment would also stifle
other approaches and actually serve to lessen, not increase, effective
parental control over what their children watch on television.  The
Markey amendment would operate to censor broadcast and cable
television programs, putting time slots or channels under the power of
a Federal government ratings authority.  Despite assertions to the
contrary, the plain language of the amendment requires the formation
of such a Federal government authority, to be established by the
Federal Communications Commission as an advisory committee to form
rules to identify and rate programming.  The actual censorship would
be effectuated through the mandatory installation in television sets
of "V-chips."

The ACLU opposes the "V-chip" amendment because it would install an
unconstitutional government-run system designed to censor First
Amendment-protected expression on television.  The amendment would
have the effect of actually usurping control from parents in favor of
a government approval panel.  Under this regime, when the "V-chip" is
activated, government-mandated technology would operate to block an
entire television program based on expression that a government rating
authority -- rather than the parents -- finds to be violent, sexual or
otherwise inappropriate.  We urge you to vote against the Markey
"V-chip" amendment.

Once the free enterprise system has identified a market (e.g., for
parental control technologies), private sector development works much
faster and provides a greater range of choices than having a
government bureaucracy foist its choice for a "winning technology" on
parents and other consumers.  The Markey "V-chip" amendment would
strangle development of the new technologies that will give parents
much more precise control over what their children watch.  The Coburn
amendment, on the other hand, would review and encourage this private
sector development of parental control technology for televisions, and
we believe that it merits your support.  As the Wall Street Journal
concluded, "The more forward-moving solution is to empower parents and
encourage good corporate citizenship."

We appreciate this opportunity to express our reasons for opposing
both the Markey "V-chip" amendment and these criminal code changes in
the managers amendment.  We hope you find the enclosed materials
helpful as the House considers telecommunications deregulation.


Sincerely yours,

Laura W. Murphy, Director
Washington National Office

Donald Haines
Legislative Counsel

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 10:52:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Maryland Area Code Proposals


{Baltimore Sun} 2 August 1995, page 1A

[Brackets used for my own comments; apparently this is taking similar
form to arguments regarding splitting 708 in Chicago suburbs.  Two of
the names seem humorous: Shock for shocking change, and Fioravanti
reminding me of "avant-garde".  Some local calls originating in Mary-
land are already 10 digits, noting that the leading 1 can be omitted:
calls to DC and Virginia suburbs, and going across the 301/410 border.]

Running out of numbers; Phoning neighbor may take 10 digits
(continuation on page 14A: CODES: Telephone industry proposes
splitting Maryland into 4 calling areas))

By Michael Dresser, Sun Staff Writer

Courtney Shock, 6 years old, lives on the odd-numbered side of Limit
Avenue in Baltimore [city?].  Her playmate Ashley Williams, also 6,
lives on the even-numbered side of Limit Avenue in Baltimore County.

Under one option the Public Service Commission will consider to add
two new area codes in Maryland, Courtney and Ashley would have to dial
10 digits every time they call each other.

"In our situation, it seems ridiculous," said JoAnn Shock, Courtney's
mother.

The splitting of Limit Avenue is just one of the inconveniences that
could result if the PSC adopts a map proposed by the telephone
industry that would place the city and the county in different area
codes.

A four-way split of Maryland is one of two possible solutions
suggested to the PSC by an industry group to deal with the thorny
question of how to ensure that the state has sufficient telephone
numbers in the late 1990s.  The group also suggested an "overlay"
solution under which customers would receive numbers with a new area
code once the supply of numbers in the 410 and 301 area codes is
exhausted.

The problem is the result of the explosive growth in demand for
numbers for pagers, cellular phones, computer modems and other
telecommunications devices.  With Maryland customers consuming numbers
like crab cakes, Bell Atlantic Corp.  has estimated that the industry
will run out of 410 and 301 numbers in 1997.

An industry group that met in June could not reach a consensus on
whether to recommend the four-way split or the overlay solution, said
Shannon Fioravanti, a Bell Atlantic employee who is serving as the
industry's spokeswoman on the issue.  The group, convened by Bell
Atlantic under guidelines set down by the Industry Carriers
Compatibility Forum, included representatives of the cellu- lar,
paging, cable TV and long-distance industries.

One product of the group's labors was a map showing how Maryland might
be carved up into four area codes.

To the layman's eye, it appears to be something a legislative
redistricting committee might scrawl on a napkin during a long night
session.  One area code -- encompassing Howard, Carroll, Baltimore and
Harford counties and the Eastern Shore -- resembles a praying mantis
biting the head off an adjacent area code.  The head is Baltimore
[city], which sits atop a slug-shaped area code whose tail would be
Solomons Island in the far reaches of Calvert County.

The effects on Western Maryland and the Washington suburbs would be
less picturesque but perhaps equally inconvenient.  Montgomery County
would be split in two, with Wheaton and Burtonsville cut from the rest
of the county and glued onto Prince George's.

The proposal did not address the question of which areas would retain
410 and 301 and which would get a new number.  One thing that is
certain is that the new codes would not have the traditional "1" or
"0" in the middle.  Those are all taken.

[I guess that without the DC area suburbs to consider, Baltimore city
and the state capital at Annapolis would stay in 410, so I'd get a new
area code in Harford and Cecil counties, not even ten years after the
301/410 split.  The map shows 301 and the code that would split from
it both bordering DC; one code goes down to the mouth of the Potomac
River in southern Maryland, and the other goes out through Frederick
into far western Maryland.]

Ms. Fioravanti said the industry representatives drew the map with the
goals of anticipating population growth and maximizing the life of
whatever new area codes result -- whether they come in the form a
split or an overlay.

"They didn't just throw the maps together and say this is the best we could
do.  They put a lot of thought into it," she said.

But Ms. Fioravanti emphasized that the map does not represent an inflexible
industry position.

"We realize that it is not cast in stone and it could change," the spokes-
woman said.

Ms. Fioravanti added that Bell Atlantic has taken no position on the question
of an overlay vs. a split.

With a split, about half the phone numbers in the state would switch to a new
area code.  Businesses would face the enormous costs of changing stationery,
business cards and signs.

With an overlay, all customers could be required to dial 10 digits to
make a local phone call because the next-door neighbor might have a
different area code.  Your own home could end up with two area codes
if you order a second line.  [This has already happened sometimes with
foreign or pseudo-foreign exchanges in the Baltimore and Washington
areas.]

Michael Starkey, director of the PSC's telecommunications division,
said no solution will be adopted until the commission has held a
series of public meetings around the state.  They will culminate in a
legislative-style hearing Sept. 17 in Baltimore.

Mr. Starkey said his staff will file a reply by Aug. 25 and that it
could propose an alternate plan.  "Our job will be to maximize the
options the commission has," he said.

That would certainly be the hope of Mrs. Shock, who said most of her
family's friends live on the county side of the line.

"I would imagine [that for] every call we make we would have to dial
the new area code if this goes into effect," she said.

But Lynne Butler, an analyst with the Market Dynamics research and
consulting firm in Bethesda, said finding a better solution won't be
easy.

"No matter how the state is divided up, someone in the state is going
to have to dial 10 digits to call across the street," said Ms. Butler,
whose company has followed the issue closely.  "It's going to happen
to somebody.  If it's not them it'll be shifted to someone else."

The problem is hardly unique to Maryland.  Telephone number shortages
have been causing ringing headaches all over the country, especially
for businesses that have had to replace their phone systems because
older PBXes won't recog- nize three digit numbers without a middle "1"
or "0" as an area code.

Paul Miller, a spokesman for Bell Atlantic, said the problem even
snared the Pentagon, which found its aging PBX would not place calls
to a naval base in Bremerton, Wash., after a switch from 206 to 360.

But the woes aren't confined to the customers.  Last month, Bell
Atlantic sent out notices to 388,000 subscribers in Northern Virginia
telling them their 703 area code would change to 540.  The problem
was, Bell sent them to the people who were keeping 703.

"It was an expensive mistake," Mr. Miller said.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 20:01:40 EDT
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds?


I heard today that if strikes occur at the six RBOCS, that there only
enough strike funds to pay union members for one and a half to two
weeks.  Can anyone confirm or deny this?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know the exact amount budgeted
for strike benefits for union members, but I have heard the same as
you from a contact here in Ameritech territory in the midwest. The pantry
is not very stocked this time around. Oh well, its their choice if they
go out or not, but I suspect once they play that card, the RBOC's will
respond with a real vengeance. Are there any last minute updates on this
that anyone knows about?  If anything happens, it should be this coming
weekend shouldn't it?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Western Union Agents
Date: 28 Jul 1995 23:25:36 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


Today, there are many Western Union agents all over, but their
function is just to accept and delivery wire money transfers, which is
(and has been) WU's major business for many years.

Apparently those agents do not accept Telegrams or Mailgrams -- one
has to call WU direct.

I know one can send a Mailgram through a service such as Compuserve,
but can a person dial directly into Western Union with a PC and send a
Mailgram/Telegram?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was possible for several years with
Western Union's commercial online service called 'Easy Link', and I
assume it is still possible with whoever is operating Easy Link today.
Would that be AT&T?  Using Easy Link, you could get to a certain prompt
which allowed you to type in a message using the same format they used
in the 'old days', along with the person's name and phone number, etc.
Off it would go into the Telex/TWX network. You were billed on your
Easy Link account. Have they still got that function available?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 20:15:37 EDT
From: Karen Joe <[e-mail]>
Subject: IVR For Directory Assistance


    I'm interested in talking to anyone with experience with using
an IVR system to provide employee, student and patient telephone
information to outside callers.  We're particularly interested in
operator or employee locator personnel requirements; that is, did the
implementation of such a system reduce force requirements?

    Any comments or information would be appreciated.


Karen L. Joe    Internet: gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
        Voice:      301 774-6571

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Rubin)
Subject: Telecom R&D Conference
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 12:43:10 GMT


                    *** Call for Papers ***

                Second Technical Conference on
            Telecommunications R&D In Massachusetts
                        March 12, 1996
                              at
             University of Massachusetts Lowell

                           Hosted by
          Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
                              and
                  University of Massachusetts

Purpose:

The Massachusetts Telecommunications Research and Development
Conference will focus on innovative research and technical
developments in telecommunications.  The purpose is to provide a forum
for universities, industry and government to disseminate information
on the results of ground breaking work that will create the future.
The conference will examine emerging telecommunications applications
in education, medicine, commerce, manufacturing, and entertainment and
supporting core technologies such as semiconductors, electro-optical
devices, signal processing and software.

Submission of Abstracts:

The conference will be held March 12, 1996 on the campus of the
University of Massachusetts, Lowell.  Papers will be accepted on the
basis of extended abstracts.

Potential participants are invited to submit an abstract of no more
than 1500 words.  They must be typed single-spaced on 8-1/2 x 11 inch
white paper with one inch margins on all sides.  The title should be
capitalized and centered followed by the author's name(s), institution
and full address.

Two copies of the abstract should be sent to the Program Coordinator
by October 16, 1995.  However, authors are urged to respond before the
deadline.  Oral presentations will be of 10 minutes duration and
papers should be less than 12 pages in length.  Instruction as to the
paper format will be sent to the author on November 15, 1995.

Send Abstracts to:

   MTC/UMass R&D Conference
   c/o Dr. C. Charles Thompson, Program Coordinator
   University of Massachusetts
   Lowell, MA  01854
   Phone:  [phone]
   Fax:    [phone]
   e-mail: [e-mail]

Schedule of Deadlines:

   October 16, 1995    Deadline for abstracts
   November 15, 1995   Notification of acceptance
   January 22, 1996    Full paper due
   March 12, 1996      R&D Conference

Topics:

Papers are being solicited for presentation in all technical areas of
telecommunications.  They should emphasize R&D results in the
following topic areas:

   Applications:
      Education
      Medicine
      Commerce
      Manufacturing
      Entertainment
      Government

   Technologies:
      Audio and speech
      Multimedia
      Networking protocols and management
      Distributed operating systems and database management
      Security/privacy
      Wireless
      ATM
      Frame Relay
      Internet
      Remote Access
      Signal Processing
      Core enabling semiconductor and optical technologies

General Information:

Audience:

This is the second conference on telecommunications research and
development organized by the Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
and the University of Massachusetts. The first conference held at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell on October 25, 1994 had an
attendance of more than 600.  Conference attendees will include,
research scientists, industry analysts, corporate executives,
technology students, entrepreneurs and investors.

Publication of papers:

Proceedings will be distributed at the conference and will be issued
as a special report of the Massachusetts Telecommunications Council.

Co-Hosted by:
   Howard Salwen, Chairman   Mass. Telecommunications Council
   and
   Sherry Penney, President  University of Massachusetts

Chair Conference Steering Committee:
   Don Towsley, U. Massachusetts Amherst

Conference Fees:
   Corporate $195
   Academic $150
   Mass. Telecommunications Council Members $100
   Students $35

To Request Further Information on the Second Technical Conference on
Telecommunications R&D In Massachusetts:

Please call: Massachusetts Telecommunications Council
             617-439-8600
or write:    MTC at
             One Financial Center, 17th Floor
             Boston, MA  02111
or e-mail:   [e-mail]
or WWW:      http://www.commx.org/mtchom

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #330
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20749;
          3 Aug 95 23:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22058 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:52:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22048; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:52:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:52:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #331

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Aug 95 14:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 331

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint Canada Picks Up Long Distance Carrier STN (David Leibold)
    PBX Problems After 12/31/99 (David Appell)
    Read if You Are Going to Defon III ([e-mail])
    Call Blocking Due to Unpaid Bill ([e-mail])
    Do Quiet Computers Exist? (Peter Rukavina)
    "Orange" LCI Calling Card (Dave Rand)
    800-CUT-JUNK Not Responding to Requests (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: PC Based GPS Receiver (Chris Gettings)
    Re: ISDN vs. Cable Modems (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Re: 10XXX Access for GTE? (John R. Levine)
    Re: Internet Access in Korea? (Richard F. Masoner)
    Re: Good Example of Voice Mail Effeciency (James E. Bellaire)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 00:24:25 EDT
From: David Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Canada Picks up Long Distance Carrier STN


Various Toronto broadcast news reports announced Wednesday that Sprint
Canada will be picking up the customer base of the carrier Smart Talk
Network (STN). STN went into receivership a few weeks ago with
millions of dollars in losses; it did have a reported customer base of
approximately 200 000. $19 million was quoted as the price of Sprint's
purchase.

CFTO-TV Toronto reported some speculation that Sprint (Canada's #3 LD
carrier overall) may be interested in buying up Unitel (the #2 carrier
which has had various ownership and financial woes of late).


David Leibold     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 14:41:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PBX Problems After 12/31/99
Organization: Arizona State University


I'm writing an article on the Year 2000 software crisis, and would be
very interested to hear from any PBX administrators who are aware of
PBX software that is unable to handle dates after 12/31/99.  I've
heard several rumors of such (in one case that a major utility's study
showed that eight out of ten of their PBXs would encounter problems at
that time), but both AT&T and NT have officially told me they have "no
issues" with the new century.


Thanks,

David Appell   [e-mail]  [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those not familiar with it, the 'crisis'
goes like this: When computers were first becoming a part of our world
back in the 1950-60 era, companies decided to have the current date shown
as MM/DD/YY. This worked out okay since the software could easily deal
with YY and YY+1. After 50 came 51, then 52, etc. Perhaps it did not occur
to them that they should be thinking fifty years in the future. The concern
now is that when 2000 gets here, it might be a little difficult to convince
the computers of the world that zero-zero is one more than ninety-nine.
That oversimplifies it a bit, but that is the basic idea. Now people are
wondering what to do: if the year 2000 should become (for the computer's
purposes) the year '100' (meaning for example we are now in the year 095)
or if some other trickery should be employed. I guess a lot of software
which uses the current date does not have space allocated in the screen
display or the print out for two extra digits to be inserted so that the
year can be 1999 or 2000. I'd think the software could be modified to
actually deal with the entire year but supress the printing of the first
two digits of the year, then certainly 1999 + 1 = 2000 and there should
be no problems. Someone however has painted a scenario which says there
is *so much* software running presently; *so much* obscure code written
in machines that very few people know about; that even if all the software
writers in America today were put on the assignment full time of finding
every single instance of code which is going to cause a crash at the stroke
of midnight on Saturday, January 1, 2000, they still would not have enough
time to correct it all.

How would YOU solve this if you were responsible for the computers at
(let us say) the First National Bank?  How would you get the computer to
correctly calculate interest due on a loan based on the number of days
the loan was outstanding if the loan started December 1, 1999 and was
repaid January 31, 2000 ... and your computers only dealt with '99' and
'00' as the years?  That is one manifestation of the 'crisis' and although
the software programming is basically trivial -- you can make the computer
say whatever you want it to say; it does not know one thing from another --
supposely finding *all* the things that have to be changed in time to get
them changed before what probably will be one of the wildest weekends
any of us can imagine (you *know* there will be partying over that weekend
before the new work week starts on January 3) is the challenge.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Read if You Are Going to Defcon III
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:47:15 GMT
Organization: DEFCON



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Attention Hackerphreaks! Don't forget
your annual convention is this weekend!  Make haste to get out to
Nevada now. A final reminder follows, and I hope that any Digest
readers who attend will write up a nice summary for us when they
return.   PAT]

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

This is the last update before the convention at the Tropicana this
August 4-6th.  If you can't find it in this or the main last
announcement (Version 1.80) then it isn't mentioned and you need to
email me ([e-mail]).


SPEAKERS:

These are the speakers currently listed.  If they are not listed here
but were in the 1.80 announcement it means they have dropped or I
can't get ahold of them and assume they are not showing up.  New
speakers include:

John Q. Newman, Sponsored by Index Publishing and author of several
     false identity books in the US and Canada.

Mark Lottor - The latest Net Survey results and a new cellular goodie.

Novocain - An ISDN primer.

Deth Vegetable - The media sucks!

Bruce Schenier - Keynote Speech.

Winn Schwartau - The Year in Review.

Chris Hall     Theora         Curtis Karnow         Robert D. Steele
James Settle     Karen Coyle     Peter J. Skelly     Oscar Meyer
Stephen Cobb     Dead Addict     Attitude Adjuster     Susan Thunder
Pete Shipley     Koresh         Dan Farmer

WEB PAGE:  Is working now at http://www.defcon.org/ and announcements and
stuff will be posted there.  But you don't care because you'll be at the
con and it won't make a difference.

BAR: I got a wet bar again for the convention area (Nobody better
break it this year or I will sic _all_ the Goons (c) on you and you'll
be screwed) and it starts around 10 pm on Friday night to get us
liquored up in time for hacker jeopardy.  If it survives we'll have it
again Saturday.

NETWORK:  Don't forget to bring your stuff for the 10baseT ethernet
network.  Get the winsock tcp/ip stack installed in advance if you can.

MOVIES:  Bring a vcr if you want to dub anything people are offering,
bring the movies you want to show.

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

From: [e-mail] (Data Control Systems)
Subject: Call Blocking Due to Unpaid Phone Bill
Date: 03 Aug 1995 14:49:29 -0700
Organization: accessnv.com


Sprint / Central Telephone Of Nevada has put a restriction on my line.
My previous months bill was 260. I paid 200 on Friday (last week) and
on Monday I told them that they would recieve the rest; Okay no problem
with them about it. Now they have a restriction on my line restricting
me from dialing 1+ and even 1-800's ... (my understanding was that 800
blocking is a big issue, didn't the FCC bust private payphone owners
for that?) I called them and they said that they want $300 more as
deposit to enable me to dial un-restricted. I called the local board
of public utilities and they don't even know their own names.

Can someone give me some details or point me in the right direction
to get more info to resolve this matter and to get back my service?


Thanks.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: '800 blocking' refers to customers of
re-sellers (i.e. users of pay phones or users of hotel switchboards, etc)
not being allowed to call an 800 number merely because the reseller has
no convenient mechanism in place to collect for the use of his instruments.
It does not refer to denial of service or denial of network access in
general based on credit considerations. In other words, if your telco
gave you long distance service but denied you access to 800 service because
they were unable to get a piece of the action for themselves, that would
be in violation of FCC rules as they are now written. If you telco denies
you access to *all* long distance because you have not paid their fee or
met their credit requirements, that is a different thing, and not against
the rules. It seems to me however the security deposit requirements they
are demanding of you may be a little outrageous unless your bill has
routinely gotten that high in the past and gone unpaid for some period
of time. Ask if they won't accept your deposit in four or five installments
payable monthly. Most telcos are willing to do that much.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:54:27 ADT
From: Peter Rukavina <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do Quiet Computers Exist?


I have been a PC owner for 15 years, and am just now becoming aware of
how much the constant hum of cooling fans and hard disk drives
detracts from the experience of using them.  I could never figure out
why an hour or two of work would send me away with a headache and
fatigue, but the recent pleasant experience of using a friend's laptop
convinced me that noise was part of the problem.

I'd buy a laptop, but the small screen and cramped keyboard [to say
nothing of the price!] would only cause me other ergonomic problems.

So I am wondering: are manufacturers who produce "silent" or
noise-reduced desktop PC-compatible machines?  Such a question
produces only blank stares from local computer dealers.


Thanks,

Peter

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

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 20:26 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Subject: "Orange" LCI Calling Card


I had a strange thing happen on my Orange card today.  Since obtaining
it about three years ago, I treat it like a "debit" calling card,
always keeping around $25 credit on my account.  I figure this saves
me from sending in a $1.37 cheque with a $0.32 stamp.  On my invoice
received this month, my balance suddenly went to zero, with the
obscure billing entry of "W/F RECOVERY" in the amount of my credit
balance.  I talked to five people at LCI, and determined that the
billing computer hadn't seen me place a call in a while, and figured
that I was probably dead.  So they just took the money.  They
apparently have issued a credit, and this is all due to new procedures
on their billing computers.

Check those bills, folks.


Dave Rand


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for bringing this to the attention
of everyone here. To be honest about it, they have not paid me any comm-
issions in several months for the customers -- including Dave Rand -- I
got for them, so I don't care if you continue to use the Orange Card or
not. It is a good deal under some circumstances, provided your calls are
of a certain length in time or less. On longer calls, other types of
calling cards work just as well and for the same cost. The nice thing
about Orange Card is no expensive 'first minute'.  But, that was three
or four years ago I was promoting those cards, and I no longer do it.  I
would be interested in knowing, however, how many of the readers here from
that period of time are still using Orange ... just curious.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 13:56:45 EST
From: Atkinson, Fred <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800-CUT-JUNK Not Responding to Inquiries


In response to the advice of some of you, I have called the
'800-CUT-JUNK' number requesting information about their services.  In
fact, I've called them three times because you spoke so well of them.
They have yet to call me or send me any information.

Does anyone know what their problem is?  Now I am really leery.


Fred


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is basically a one-man operation.
Maybe he is on vacation or something.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 12:14:37 -0500
From: "Andrew C. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills


[e-mail] (Kathy Perry) writes:

> My house shows no signs of being broken into and the phone box outside
> my house does not appear to be tampered with. [...]
> [The police have] come up with a couple conclusions: either
> someone at Ameritech is doing it which they won't investigate further,
> [or] someone is tapping into the line through the 'little grey box'
> that is outside my home

The "little grey box" outside the house may not be the only accessible
junction box. Our neighborhood has an extremely large junction box
mounted on a telephone pole at sidewalk level, and on more than one
occasion I've walked by and noticed it open, with dozens of pairs in
plain view. I see no reason to assume that a telephone and a pair of
alligator clips wouldn't get me a dial tone from practically any pair.

My call to 611 to point out the unlocked box was met with only mild
interest, and I've seen it hanging open on a couple of other occasions
since then. (For some silly reason, it needs a key to _close_ it as
well as to _open_ it.) It would seem that when it comes to protecting
easily-accessed phone line hardware, the phone company relies less on
carefully-sealed tamper-proof boxes and more on people simply not
recognizing the importance of what those anonymous grey boxes contain.


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Frame Technology Corporation
Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:58:07 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Re: PC Based GPS Receiver


[e-mail] (Martin Hucke) writes:

> I am looking for a special kind of a "Global Position System"-Receiver.
> It must be possible to connect a personal computer to this receiver.

Industrial Computer Source [phone], fax [phone] makes
two models the Mobile/GPS ($700, $995 with developer's kit) and the
Mobile/GPS-DF ($1595, $1695 with developer's kit).  The first has a
stated accuracy of 25 meters, 100 meters if the gov't enables
selective availability.  The second is a differential GPS with 2-5
meter accuracy.  Differential rely's on receiving a ground based
signal in addition to the satellites so it probably won't work for
your sailing application.  These systems are cards which install in a
PC slot and will require programming.

Many off-the-shelf GPS receivers include a data port, however.  The
Garmin 55 and 95 which I use constantly for aviation are very
economical handheld models.  I paid $995 for the 55 two years ago,
they must be less than $500 now.  It has a NEMA-0183 format data
stream which includes position, altitude, track made good, speed in
knots & some other good stuff.  I have it wired into a Macintosh
laptop and it runs moving map software.  Happy sailing.


Chris Gettings
N5589D BE-35H
email: [e-mail]
http://canam.dgsys.com/cg/planes.html

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: ISDN vs. Cable Modems
Organization: as little as possible
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 18:59:45 GMT


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

> First off, the cable companies getting into this business are
> definitely aiming their "mass market" products at "unbalanced"
> distribution models -- most data toward the cable-end user, not much
> coming back.  There are all sorts of reasons for this, but one of the
> biggies is that getting cable TV reverse channels to work properly in
> the first place, and then continue to work *reliably*, is usually a
> royal pain.

Getting the cable system to work *reliably* *at all* is enough of a
pain that many cable companies don't find it worth the effort.

Regarding cable modems in general: the other day we had a one-hour
power failure in which I lost most of a morning's work. (Power
failures here have been so infrequent, even during high-demand periods
and storms, that I found no need of a UPS.) Turns out some cable
company doofus knocked out power to most of three suburbs (100,000
people).  Frankly, that's all the data loss I'm going to allow to be
attributed to my cable company, and should they offer data service it
won't be found in THIS home.

(Cynical remark "they've screwed up their own system so often and so well
they need other systems to mess with" deleted. :-)


   Cliff Sharp                  There are days when no matter which
     WA9PDM                      way you spit, it's upwind.
  [e-mail]       --The First Law of Reality

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 11:20:25 -0400
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: 10XXX Access for GTE?


> I was wondering if anyone out here knows if there is a 10XXX access
> number for GTE in the California market area?

> I ask primarily out of concern for accessing GTE when out of my home
> area (in California) but may be at a payphone either in or out of the
> GTE service area. I wish to ensure that I would be able to use my GTE
> card or calling card and if necessary, I would like to directly access
> them through their 10XXX code (if there is one at all ...)

You can't.  GTE is a local telephone company, not a long distance one
(at least this week they are.)  That means that when you use your
calling card to make an intra-LATA call from a telco pay phone, it's
rated and billed by whatever phone company runs that phone, and the
charge is forwarded back to GTE who puts it on your bill.  This is the
same no matter what local telco you have, GTE, PacBell, or (in my
case) the Trumansburg Home Telephone Company.  If you use your card
for an inter-LATA call or from a private COCOT payphone, the call is
carried by whataver long distance carrier services the phone.  If
you're lucky, it'll be Sprint, MCI, or AT&T and the charge will be
reasonable.  If you're unlucky it'll be Oncor, ATN, or (perish forbid)
Integratel and the charge will be unreasonable.  Either way, it'll
still be billed by your local telco.

In nearly every case, the calling card rates you get this way are not
very competitive, and invariably tack on a per call fee of anywhere
from 45 cents to $2.  You can get calling cards with 800 access and
much lower rates, e.g.  I pay 20.9 cents/minute for calling card calls
with no per call charge.  I've seen rates as low as 17.5 cents.


Regards,

John Levine   [e-mail]

PS: For people wondering why I don't go with the lower rate, my
current card is billed together with my cellular and 800 service, and
I don't make very many calling card calls.  For the three numbers I'd
be most likely to call, home, office, and modem, I have 800 numbers
which are cheaper.

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard F. Masoner)
Subject: Re: Internet Access in Korea?
Date: 03 Aug 1995 19:33:18 GMT
Organization: Central Data Corp.


Verna Friesen ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can go to find information on how to obtain
> Internet access in Korea?  The city of interest is Uijongbu City,
> although it might be OK to get access in Seoul, if that isn't

Since this subject (Internet providers at ...) seems to be of general
interest, here's a URL that I ran across that seems fairly useful:

        http://www.best.be/iap.html

which has a list of providers around the world, arranged geographically.
For Korea, listed providers include:

    ** DACOM Corporation
    140-716 DACOM B/D., 65-228, 3-Ga, Hangang-Ro,
        Yongsan-Ku, Seoul, Korea
    Phone : [phone]
    Fax   : [phone]
    E-Mail : [e-mail],[e-mail]

    ** KORNET [Commercial]
    Jongseok Lee ([e-mail])
    Phone : [phone] (Check country/city code)
    Fax   : [phone]

    ** NuriNet
    I.Net Technologies Inc.
    Delta Bldg. 732-21
    Yoksam-dong, Kangnam-ku
    Seoul 135-080
    Phone:  [phone]
    Fax:    [phone]
    E-Mail: [e-mail]

 ... among others.


Richard Masoner

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 01:19:56 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Re: Good Example of Voice Mail Effeciency


TELECOM Digest Ediitor wrote:

> A local taxicab service here in Skokie is called 'American Taxi' on
> the number 708-673-1000. For the past couple of months they have been
> advertising that their 'new phone system' would soon be going into
> effect, allowing callers with touch tones to enter their order for
> cab service directly into the computer at the dispatch office.

  [SNIP]

> Well it was on line a couple days ... and now is gone. I tried calling
> the manager of the cab company on his personal line to ask him why
> they discontinued using it, but they would not tell me. I strongly
> suspect it is because one or more eighty year old ladies here in
> Skokie probably tried to get a cab, went into a panic about the
> new system and made such a fuss they took it off line.

> Too bad .. it was great while it lasted.  Now calling American Taxi
> we are back to the 'please hold' message and five minute waits,
> but I guess the old ladies like it better that way.

How about convincing the manager to change the first prompt on the
VMail system to 'Please hold for an operator or press '1' for our
automated system.'  The technological people who can TT a phone would
relieve the delay from the voice operators.  The non-techs would still
wait for an operator, just like they are used to, but probably less
time.  The key would be to offer a personal (although delayed) answer
as the primary option and a 'BTW we have a computer' option for the
capable.

HSN uses this type of prompts on its ordering system, hold for an
operator or 'use tootie' to automate your order.  The order is
important.  Some VMail systems seem to stress the machine. 'Press one
for ... Press 2 for ... Press 3 for ... or hold for an operator.'  Not
very friendly.

I suppose the best question is if the cabs came any faster.  They may
have taken it off-line because their cabs couldn't keep up with the
system.  That five or ten minute delay may have helped their business,
as well as weed out multiple calls for the same ride.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The cabs came *much* faster under the
automated system because when the data was input via TT phone it went
right through to the dispatcher who got a message on his terminal
with all the details. He would be calling it out over the radio at
the time you were 'hold for your cab number and estimated arrival time'.
Five to ten minutes arrival time was typical, while waits on hold for
the operator were otherwise close to five minutes. I called again just
now to ask if they intend to start it again soon and the response I got
was that they are 'simplifying the program' for the benefit of the
majority of their regular customers who are non-tech people. One thing
they are going to do is provide a way to bail out at the very beginning
as you suggested. I don't see how it could have been much simpler than
what it was before; after using it a couple times I had the prompts
totally memorized and instantly upon it answering I would 'punch through'
the prompts right to the end. If you knew the system you could be put
in your order and be finished in fifteen or twenty seconds.

When I called today to complain about it not being on line, the manager
offered me a compromise: instead of calling 673-1000 from now on, he told me
to call another number instead; its a 'priority' number that always gets
answered first if there are calls waiting on the main number. Plus he
opened a charge account for me, which I think was very nice of him. He
did say the automated system would be back 'soon'.  I hope so.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #331
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29006;
          4 Aug 95 6:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01045 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 23:32:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01037; Thu, 3 Aug 1995 23:32:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 23:32:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #332

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Aug 95 23:31:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 332

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GPS-System For PC (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: GPS-System For PC (Jalil Latiff)
    Re: GPS-System For PC (Sethu R. Rathinam)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Heath Roberts)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Alan Larson)
    Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills (Mark Cuccia)
    China and Egypt Declare Callback Service to be Illegal (Toby Nixon)
    VP Gore Statement Against H.R. 1555: Call Your Rep! (Anthony E. Wright)
    Re: 10XXX Access for GTE? (Linc Madison)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: GPS-System For PC
Date: 3 Aug 1995 00:41:26 -0700
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin
Hucke) writes:

> I am looking for a special kind of a "Global Position System"-Receiver.
> It must be possible to connect a personal computer to this receiver.

> PS: I am developing a low-cost, computer aided navigation-system for
> sailing boats.

Rockwell's "Multimedia Communications Division" is the world's leading
manufacturer of GPS chipsets and plug-in boards.

1) Look at http://www.nb.rockwell.com/pb/wireless/gps_ad.html

2) The sales office nearest you is
    Rockwell Multimedia Communications Division
    (Munich) Tel [phone]
   The GPS marketing HQ office is in Newport Beach, California.
   Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

3) You may be late to market. I recently bought a Volkswagen Westfalia
   camper, and friends suggested that I get a boating catalog to look
   for accessories (like a little fan for the inside of the
   refrigerator). I was blown away by what is available. Several
   manufacturers have PC-based systems that combine CD-ROM navigation
   charts with GPS location sensors to quite literally show you a map
   with a blinking red "you are here" marker that moves with you.
   Prices start at less than USD 1000. Rockwell's target is to
   put such a system in your car, with a heads-up display on the
   windshield.

I am not professionally involved with the GPS business, just very
impressed with it!!


Lars Poulsen            Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
Rockwell Network Systems    Phone:        [phone]
7402 Hollister Avenue         Telefax:      [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93117        Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: [e-mail] (Jalil Latiff)
Subject: Re: GPS-System For PC
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 95 09:07:08 GMT
Organization: Universal Telecommunication Network Services


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Martin Hucke)
wrote:

> I am looking for a special kind of a "Global Position System"-Receiver.
> It must be possible to connect a personal computer to this receiver.

sci.geo.satellite-nav has plenty of discussions about GPS.

Most of the GPS can do what you want with RS-232 o/p.

For marine, you should consider those designed for it as not all of them are.


Jalil Latiff
Universal Telecommunication Network Services
19, 1st Floor, Jalan SS 15/4, Subang Jaya, 47500 Petaling Jaya,
MALAYSIA
Tel : (+ 603 ) 735 6980  Fax : (+ 603 ) 735 6978

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 16:18:04 CDT
From: Sethu R Rathinam 319-395-2874 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GPS-System For PC
Followup-to: sci.geo.satellite-nav


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

> I am looking for a special kind of a "Global Position System"-Receiver.
> It must be possible to connect a personal computer to this receiver.
> The system should work with a accuracy of +/- 30 meters.  If anyone
> knows something about such a thing, I would be very happy to hear
> about this system.

> PS: I am developing a low-cost, computer aided navigation-system for
> sailing boats.

Most handheld GPS receivers can be interfaced to a PC (NMEA is a
popular protocol a lot of them follow - in case of others, you may
want to check if the manufacturer or someone else provides the
necessary software).  If you want a moving map display, DeLorme's Map
Expert seems to be one of the popular ones.  There are also GPS
engines available -- even in PCMCIA format for laptops.  See
http://galaxy.einet.net/editors/john-beadles/gps_vnd.htm for a vendor
list.  Remember accuracy is subject to the US Federal Radionavigation
Plan.  Along the US sea coast and Mississippi, you can get
Differential GPS Beacon Receivers to achieve a better accuracy (The CG
braodcasts the corrections for search and rescue and other purposes).
See the US Coast Guard Web page at http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/ for
full text and related information.  Thank you for paying your taxes.
:) There are commercial differential correction providers for many
other parts of the world (DCIDGPS.COM -- Differential Corrections Inc.
 -- is one of them).

If you want a low cost unit for land/marine use, you might want to
consider the Garmin GA45 (note it has a 99kt speed limit).  It seems
to be the least expensive handheld at about US$300.  More in
sci.geo.satellite-nav since the topic is more relevent (and is
discussed a lot) in that group.  Check the LAND navigation web page at
http://www.liikkuva.com/retki.html for a demo.

BTW, rumor has it AUTOMAP mapping program from Microsoft has a
GPS receiver interface software you can download from the Microsoft
FTP site. :)  ].


Sethu R Rathinam                     sys_srr%afds.cca.rockwell.com
Senior Design Engineer -(Avionics) Advanced Systems and Integration
I am not a Rockwell spokesperson                [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 19:49:56 GMT
From: heath roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Organization: Bell Northern Research


Larry: you mentioned a 15-pin connector and a guess that it was
an Ethernet AUI port. What does the cable connect to on your
computer? An Ethernet card? What kind of software (IP stack) did
they give you?

[e-mail] (Roger Golden) wrote:

> Larry Rachman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The Cable TV folks provide 'direct' access to Prodigy and America
>> online, but their system also gateways to the internet. This is a
>> helluva lot more interesting to me than Prodigy or AOL.

> Why not a direct access to the internet, and gateways to these lesser
> commercial services?  Is this intentional, and looked on by the
> commercial service providers as a final effort to retain a market that
> they once thought they controlled?

It sounds like he's also got 'direct' access to the Internet. I wonder how
they're dealing with IP address assignment.

>> The thing is *fast*. Typical throughput is about 60-100kbps; I've seen
>> some transfers take place as quickly as 300kbps. I've only been
>> experimenting with it for a few days, so I probably haven't seen all its
>> able to do.

> This is where I begin to get awfully skeptical.  I can see getting
> extremely high throughput on a dedicated coaxial line, enough
> throughput to knock yer socks off, in fact; but I don't understand how
> high speed data transmissions can be acceptable or sustainable in a
> coaxial cable that is already saturated with information.  And again,
> as a new user of this service is added to the line, aren't we looking
> at exponential degradation of the bps?  I was also under the
> impression, wrong though it may be, that this type of system was
> restricted in transmission speed as well, being held down to something
> like 100kps as a maximum sustainable transfer rate?

A given pipe (wire, fiber, etc) can transmit data based on the quality
of the wire and inversely proportional to its length. Most CATV
systems have 300-500MHz of available bandwidth. A 'normal' analog TV
channel takes about 6MHz. That's one limit. The second limit is the
head-end equipment.  Most CATV systems are designed to be uni-directional --
data (video) goes from the head-end to the subscriber. If you change
out those amplifiers and head-end equipment for more intelligent,
faster

>> Where it really shines is, as you might imagine, with the web browser.
>> Clicking on something that will send a picture is now a pleasure rather
>> than a chore. And I'm not tying up my phone line, either.

> ISDN is great for that, as well.  And it doesn't tie up your POTS line
> unless you want it to do so.

I'm also using Ethernet-over-ISDN, and while it blows the doors off
modem connections, it's still not what I'd describe as very fast.
200-300Kbps is getting there. (as an aside, the ISDN-enet bridge we
have doesn't take advantage of the "voice" B-channel when it's
available so we only get 64Kbps for data ... the next unit we get is
supposed to use 2 B channels for 128Kbps until you pick up the phone,
then drop back to 64K until you hang up.)

>> IMHO, as NYNEX continues to drag their heels deploying basic rate ISDN,
>> these folks are going to catch them napping. If they price this service
>> right, they're going to sell a helluva lot of it. Why would anyone take
>> ISDN with an upper limit of 128kbps, when they can have this with what
>> appears to be a *lower* limit of about 64kbps?

> Somehow, I was under the impression that high speeds were relative to
> limitations in the medium (wiring), not transmission mode (cable/satellite
> and telephone)?  If my understanding is actually the case, coaxial
> transmission wouldn't greatly increase the available throughput, and
> you'd still face lien degradation with extended numbers of users over
> the line.

All this depends on how the network is configured. If it's shared
media (like Ethernet) then as you add more nodes to a wire, the
bandwidth available to each node goes down. If it's some kind of
switched network (like ISDN or a large LAN/WAN with routers) then it's
much harder to generalize how it's going to behave, but with a good
network design performance can stay pretty constant as you add
nodes. This is where you have to start doing serious traffic and
cost analysis, just like a telco, and it gets hairy.

> With ISDN, you could have a full connection, including a real email
> address, along with all the other nifties that Internet users are
> accustomed to.  I'm sure that cable transmission will adopt that
> eventually, but I am also concerned that the immediate existence of
> "Internet competitive" (to be totally meaningless, considering the
> Internet is a world apart from any commercial online service) services
> indicates a radical departure from the current Internet hype and
> reverts to a more outdated and restrictive "piped" service.

ISDN, per se, doesn't really get you any of those things. Being
connected to the Internet makes those things possible, and an ISDN
connection to an Internet service provider is a convenient, better-
than-modem way to get those kinds of services. ISDN is just a data
pipe. You can't really claim benefits that come from what the pipe
is connected to as an advantage of what kind of pipe you installed.

I really wish that ISDN was available, cheaply (basically the same as
flat-rate POTS), everywhere, and I think that if it had been a year
or two ago, the operating companies would have a huge advantage. But
where it's available, ISDN is expensive and hard to order. Not many
people are going to buy a service that (as far as a consumer can tell)
is just like a phone line with a fast modem, but dramatically more
expensive, and until there's an obvious mass market the telcos aren't
going to push ISDN, and service providers aren't going to offer
service over ISDN.

So if they move quickly and price it appropriately, I wouldn't be
surprised if the cable companies, using technology like what's
described above, aren't able to get a big market share advantage
for residential data services.


Heath Roberts   [e-mail]   ESN 283-7873 or [phone]
Unix Operating Systems/Nortel Global Enterprise Services

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 3 Aug 1995 23:12:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger
Golden) writes:

> With ISDN, you could have a full connection, including a real email
> address, along with all the other nifties that Internet users are
> accustomed to.

  With cable, you can have the same thing, but it is 24 hours a day,
without having a call up.  Unless ISDN goes to 'free' to the ISP (who
is also needing to be very inexpensive), it will be hard to beat the
cable approach, since it includes the internet connection service.

  ISDN provides a pipe to the network, the cable companies appear to
be looking at providing the network.

  If they actually do it in my area at a good price, I could reconsider
my having sworn off cable.  (Still might not connect it to the television,
though.)


Alan

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 18:14:00 GMT


There have been NUMEROUS instances of this occurring in the New
Orleans area over the past few months. I know of SEVERAL people who
received strange International billings via their South Central Bell
Telephone monthly bill - and I'll give you ONE GUESS who the 'carrier'
is -- INTEGRATEL!

I know that there is frequent pair-stealing and multipled lines, and
also cordless phones arrangements CAN be 'tapped' from other people
driving thru the neighberhood. BUT when everyone I know who gets a
strange billing (usually international) via Integratel, then SOMETHING
ELSE IS FISHY!

Who's to say that some of these TeleSLIME operations aren't claiming
you dialed international (011) when you did NOT dial it -- nor one of
their billable 800 numbers.

And others I know HAVE 900 blocking from Bell on their line, but are
getting billed by strange carriers (need I mention who) for calling
900 numbers. The ESS offices are most likely NOT failing in their 900
block on those lines -- the billed party is NOT dialing a 900 number,
and claims no-one dialed any strange 800 numbers. Yes, these people do
have kids at home- either at home in the afternoon during the school
year, or the kids are at home during the Summer - but most of these
billable 800 numbers are advertized LATE AT NIGHT on cable (and local)
TV, and you'd think the kids are asleep at that time.

I only hope that the FCC and the State/Local regulatory bodies will do
some SERIOUS INVESTIGATION into this! *I* thought I had seen a few
years back when the FCC required local telcos to provide blocking to
900 that there ALSO be some investigation into telephone number
privacy- the *67 on Caller-ID, and SOME form of number privacy when
dialing 800 and 900 numbers using ANI delivery.

I also thought it was illegal to call a number via a recorded message
and tell them that they won a prize, but had to pay a 'shipping' fee
billed via their phone bill. Press 1 to accept, Press 2 to deny.
Hanging up did NOTHING to avoid the 'shipping' fee, and neither did
pressing the number to refuse.  Answering machines and rotary phones
who hung up were getting charged, and non-English-speaking people
along with the Disabled and Senior Citizens (and kids who answered the
phone and didn't know what to do) were getting charged a 'minimal'
(ha-ha) 'shipping/acceptance' fee. I heard this form of fraud referred
to as 'Collect-900'.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK:[e-mail]           |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu,  3 Aug 95 13:17:13 PDT
Subject: China and Egypt Declare Callback Service to be Illegal


This was an interesting tidbit in ITU Bulletin #599 (for full
document, see http://www.itu.ch/itudoc/itu-t/op-bull.html).  I guess
the Chinese and Egyptian governments think they are losing too much
telephone revenue to callback providers!


China

Communication of 8.VI.1995:

    The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of the People's
Republic of China announces that as a result of telecommunication
deregulation and liberalization in some countries, great changes have
taken place in the international telecommunication environment.
Consequently, Call Back and Refile have appeared. However, Call Back
and Refile are not in accordance with the relevant regulations of the
Chinese Government.  Therefore, China hereby formally notifies that it
is prohibited in China to be engaged in Call Back by any resellers or
engaged in Refile and Call Back promotion for China's incoming and
outgoing calls by any foreign communications partners of China.

Egypt

Communication of 22.V.1995:

    The National Telecommunication Organization (ARENTO), Egypt,
announces that as a result of telecommunication deregulation and
liberalization in some countries, great changes have taken place in
the international telecommunication environment. Consequently, Call
Back and Refile have appeared. However, for the time being Call Back
and Refile are not in accordance with the relevant regulations of
ARENTO. Therefore, ARENTO hereby formally notifies that it is
prohibited in Egypt to be engaged in Call Back by any resellers or
engaged in Refile and Call Back promotion for Egypt's incoming and
outgoing calls by any foreign communications partners of ARENTO.

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

From: [e-mail] (Anthony E. Wright)
Subject: VP Gore Statement Against H.R. 1555: Call Your Rep!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 21:32:40 -0400
Organization: Center for Media Education


Thursday, August 3, 1995. 9:00pm

Below is a statement released today by Vice President Al Gore,
opposing the Telecommunications Bill of 1995, H.R. 1555.

It will be taken up again for debate after an appropriations bill is
done, probably midnight or later. The debate is scheduled to go on
through the night, well into the early morning hours. Votes on
amendments regarding cable rates, media concentration, Internet
censorship, the V-chip, and the entire legislation looks like they
will take place tonight/tomorrow early morning.

A coalition of public interest groups urge you to CALL YOUR
REPRESENTATIVES [202/225-3121] and ask them to OPPOSE THIS BILL. For
more information, send mail to [e-mail] with the word "alert" in
the title, or check out our ad-hoc home page at http://www.access.digex.net
/~cme/bill.html


Statement of the Vice President on H.R. 1555

The telecommunications reform legislation being considered by the
House of Representatives is abhorrent to the public interest and our
national economic well-being. Without significant changes to the
legislation, the President has said he will be compelled to veto it.

In the early morning hours, the House today began debate on H.R. 1555.
They are expected to vote late tonight on the bill. It seems the House
does not want the American people to see or hear what's in this
legislation -- and for good reason. They couldn't support it if they
knew what H.R. 1555 contained.

One person owning the majority of the media outlets in a community is
a threat to the very system of democracy upon which our society is
built. And it is wrong. Raising cable rates on American consumers
immediately _after_ the next elections to avoid responsibility is
wrong. Replacing competition with consolidation in the cable and phone
industries is wrong. Preventing parents from having simple and cheap
technologies to block explicit sex and excessive violence from coming
into their living rooms to young children is wrong.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1555, as reported by the Commerce Committee and
amended by the managers' amendment, does all of these things. This
bill has been sold to the highest bidder in every telecommunications
industry. The losers are the American people.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The House of Representatives switchboard
is open 24 hours per day at 202-225-3121. You might wish to call when
you see this message, or anytime during the early morning hours on Friday.
Remind them that VP Gore spoke out against the bill on Thursday. When
calling, put it on your repeat dialer and speaker phone because you will
need to dial repeatedly to get past the busy signal and when you do get
ringing, it will ring a *long* time before you get an answer. Be prepared
to give the operator who answers your zip code.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:08:02 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 10XXX Access for GTE?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


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

> I was wondering if anyone out here knows if there is a 10XXX access
> number for GTE in the California market area?

> I ask primarily out of concern for accessing GTE when out of my home
> area (in California) but may be at a payphone either in or out of the
> GTE service area. I wish to ensure that I would be able to use my GTE
> card or calling card and if necessary, I would like to directly access
> them through their 10XXX code (if there is one at all ...)

As things currently stand, GTE does not have a 10XXX code, because there
is no situation where it could be used.

If you are calling from a payphone in a GTE area:

* calls within your Service Area dialed "0+" will be carried by GTE
* calls within your Service Area dialed "10XXX-0+" will be carried by
  the indicated carrier
* calls outside your Service Area dialed "0+" will be carried by the
  presubscribed carrier for that payphone
* calls outside your Service Area dialed "10XXX-0+" will be carried by
  the indicated carrier
* calls to any location dialed through a 950 or 800 number will be
  carried by the carrier whose access number you dial

If you are calling from a payphone in a Pacific Bell area, everything
is the same as above, except that the first category will be carried
by Pacific Bell.  In both cases, it only matters which company serves
the area you are calling FROM, not which company serves the
destination.  Similarly, it only matters whether the two points are in
the same Service Area as each other, not whether either is in your
home Service Area.

In all cases, you can use your GTE calling card unless you select a
long distance company that chooses not to bill through GTE.  All of
the "name brand" long-distance companies do, and nearly all of the
minors.  Pacific Bell certainly will.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #332
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00274;
          4 Aug 95 9:19 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02304 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 01:30:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02292; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 01:30:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 01:30:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #333

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 Aug 95 01:30:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 333

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Maryland Area Code Proposals (John Mayson)
    Re: Maryland Area Code Proposals (Matthew P. Downs)
    Re: Private Citizen, Inc. (Fred Atkinson)
    Phone Bills For Fortune 500 Companies (Meloni Monroe)
    Re: Some 800 Shortage! (Richard E. Szabo)
    800 Voice Mail With No Usage Charges - No Limits (Barton Fisher)
    Re: US West 360 Area Code Fiasco (Gerry Belanger)
    Frame Relay Lines (Adam Furman)
    Re: Reverse Phone Directories (Dave Levenson)
    Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds? (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: PBX Problems After 12/31/99 (Rich Greenberg)
    Re: PBX Problems After 12/31/99 (Carl Moore)
    Sending Cash to Distant Places? (A. E. Siegman)
    Coax Modems? (Robyn Rudisill)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (John Mayson)
Subject: Re: Maryland Area Code Proposals
Date: 4 Aug 1995 03:18:59 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY


> By Michael Dresser, Sun Staff Writer

> Courtney Shock, 6 years old, lives on the odd-numbered side of Limit
> Avenue in Baltimore [city?].  Her playmate Ashley Williams, also 6,
> lives on the even-numbered side of Limit Avenue in Baltimore County.

> Under one option the Public Service Commission will consider to add
> two new area codes in Maryland, Courtney and Ashley would have to dial
> 10 digits every time they call each other.

> "In our situation, it seems ridiculous," said JoAnn Shock, Courtney's
> mother.

This is what I just love.  Reporters finding "poor, young children"
and implying we're somehow abusing them and denying them a happy
childhood by asking they dial ten numbers to call another "poor, young
child".

I admit dividing a street is a little ridiculous, but please come up
with a more intelligent argument against it.


John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A good one involving 'poor innocent
children occurred here a few years ago when 911 service started in
Chicago. There are areas on the northwest side of Chicago which have
extremely irregular boundary lines dividing Chicago and a suburban
community or in some instances, Chicago and an unincorporated area.
In some cases the boundary line runs between houses on the same
side of the street on the same block, etc. When we were all 312 a
few years ago it did not matter. But then suddenly next door neighbors
found themselves with different area codes, etc. There are a few cases
where the area code is 312 even though they are not actually in Chicago
but in an unincorporated area. Those folks had to have a prefix just
for themselves which would *NOT* connect with 911 like their neighbors
next door or across the street, etc. So of course there were the usual
complaints of how little Johnny, just learning how to read and how to
use the telephone can't understand why little Patrick, living next door
has been taught to use 911 to call for help if his house catches on
fire or some bad man tries to molest him while Johnny is being taught
to call whatever-2121 for police and whatever-2131 for fire.  Naturally,
telco is always the one blamed for these things, never the people who
live on the properties which declined to be annexed by the City of
Chicago back in the 1950's.

And we have the businesses along Harlem Avenue near Lawrence Avenue
who if they are on the west side of the street are in the suburbs and
if they are on the east side of the street are in Chicago. No matter
that both sides are served by the Chicago-Newcastle telephone office.
Both 312 and 708 with prefixes for each are served in the same office.
When some of the businesses on the suburban side were started, they
ordered phone service and gave their address mistakenly as xxxx North
Harlem Avenue, *Chicago*, instead of the same street number with the
suburban community name. The telco service rep was also sloppy in
setting up the order and gives them a *Chicago* number. Then the 312/
708 split comes along, and many businesses along there scream bloody
murder. They find they are getting 708 while the business next to
them is getting 312. In one little shopping strip on the Chicago side
of Harlem Avenue two or three of the businesses got put in 708 since
they got assigned suburban numbers way back when. One store on the
Chicago side has a 312 number for the business, but a 708 number for
the payphone *in their store* because service reps at telco did not
carefully check out the address when service was first turned on. Of
course when the ones who got 708 complained and insisted on staying
with 312 they were told they would have to change their number to one
in a prefix that should have been assigned to them in the beginning.
When they heard they would have to change their number to stay in 312
then they really did scream.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew P. Downs)
Subject: Re: Maryland Area Code Proposals
Date: 3 Aug 1995 18:48:16 GMT
Organization: ADC Telecommunications


When will every one learn that for every call you make in the near
future ten digits will be required! I have little sympathy for people.
Just learn it and move on. Dial ten digits ... it's not that hard.


Matt

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 14:24:44 EST
From: Atkinson, Fred <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Private Citizen, Inc.


Pat,

On my previous message about the annoyance calls, I did get a call
back from them later on the afternoon I posted the message.  They
apologized and said they had sent the info out the first time.
Apparently Uncle Sam lost it in process.  I've got the information
from my mail delivery today.

Additionally, I checked them out through the BBB in Chicago and they
have a satisfactory record with BBB.  I think I'm going to sign up for
a year and see how it goes.

Have a good one.


Fred


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I was a little surprised to get your
first note saying they had apparently ignored you. The group has a very
good track record working with the members of their organization.   PAT]

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

Date: 3 Aug 1995 15:53:46 -0500
From: Meloni Monroe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Bills For Fortune 500 Companies


Hey Telecom Man -

I just received my September issue of {Internet World} and read your
article.  Maybe you could help me find some information that I need
for a project I'm working on at work.  I need to find out how much
money the Fortune 1000 companies spend in telecom costs per year.  Any
ideas where I could find this information?


Regards,

Meloni Monroe
Control Data Systems, Inc.
[e-mail]
612/482-4430  612/482-4393 Fax


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I might as well confess now and get it
over with. The people at {Internet World} magazine published something
about me in the current (September) issue. You get to see my picture
and everything. Check it out if you want. Regards Fortune 500 companies,
phone bills of a million dollars per month are not unusual. The three
largest employers in Chicago are the City of Chicago, the University of
Chicago, and Cook County including the Cook County Circuit Court system,
which itself (the Court) employs a couple thousand people. All of the
above spend about a million dollars each month on *local* phone
service. Amoco Oil Company and First National Bank of Chicago are also
quite large employers and they spend about the same on their phones.
United Airlines is based here in the Chicago area and between their local
service and their national private network called Unitel, they spend
about the same. That's a million -- a one with six zeros after it.
Wouldn't you love to have your phone bill arrive by a private courier
service in several large carton boxes each month, and write a check
for one with six zeros after it as a routine thing?  Rush, Presbyterian,
St. Luke's Medical Center doesn't pay *quite* that much. The Marshall
Field and Company Department Store with its several branch stores in
the Chicago area only pays a mere hundred thousand dollars or so each
month. Back in the 1960's I worked for a short time at Commonwealth
Edison, the electric utility here. One of my jobs was reconciling the
phone bill each month. Typically there were 600-700 pages to the bill
and they paid about forty thousand dollars each month. That was by
1960's money of course. Does that give you an idea of where to start
your calculations? Telcos *love* Fortune 500 companies and huge government
agencies ... that is, unless said companies/agencies get the bright idea
in their head to take their business elsewhere such as to Teleport.   PAT]

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

From: Richard E. Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some 800 Shortage!
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 00:26:48 EDT
Organization: APK - Internet Provider for Ohio.


On 2 Aug 1995, David Winters wrote:

> I don't know why there is continuous MCI bashing here.

[much deleted about Friends and Family, incentive checks, and
15-digit 800 number]

UNPAID TESTIMONIAL:

I too was once loyal to MCI, until the time I called to see how much
my $100 "accruing incentive check" was currently worth, and they
mistakenly redeemed it at that time when it was worth only $35.  Then
they tried to convince me that I, the customer, was WRONG when I
claimed they erred in redeeming it.  This after many *long* waits on
"hold".

Then I discovered the pearl known as CBLD, which is available only in
a certain midwest region: OH, IN, KY, PA, MI, TN, IL.  This is
Cincinnati Bell, and they are some special exception to the MFJ
whereby they are an LEC allowed to sell LD also (PAT please correct me
here).

-- With their MultiLink plan, flat rate LD 15 cents in-state, 16c within
   7-state region, 17c / minute national.
-- FREE 10-digit 800 number whose rates are only a penny higher - no PIN.
-- 6-second billing. NO 1-minute minimum.
-- 2% prompt payment discount applied to next month's bill.
-- 10% annual rebate for large volume use ($600 yearly).
-- TravelLink 950-xxxx calling card with NO surcharge, 6-second billing,
   NO minimum, but works only from midwest region.  More expensive
   card works from entire US.
-- Customer service answered by live, knowledgeable HUMANs on 1st or
   2nd ring (during business hours only, though.  After hours you may
   transfer to human in an "emergency").

What a difference from MCI's bills.  I discovered that many one-minute
MCI calls were costing me over $1 per minute when you tack on the
calling card surcharge.  Now I'll NEVER pay more than 17c a minute
locally.


Rich Szabo


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct that Cincinnati Bell
was and remains an exception to the divestiture rules. That is because
despite the Bell in their name, they were never owned by AT&T other
than a very small share, and were never technically part of the "Bell
System".  I have heard from others that they have a pretty good long
distance service.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Voice Mail With No Usage Charges - No Limits
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 00:14:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


With all the talk about 800 numbers here and how hard they are to get,
I thought this might of interest too the group. I found a company
offering 800 voice mail numbers.  These are not extension numbers, but
real 800 numbers.  What's more, there is NO PER MINUTE CHARGES.  You
only paid monthly service charge. Also they will page you if you get a
message.

If you would like to learn more,  email me at [e-mail]
or give me a call at 714-228-5405.


Bart


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alright, I'll take the bait: are you a
marketing rep for the company by chance?  So many folks who write me to
tell about a 'new service' and invite people to 'email me or call' are
in fact involved with whatever it is.  If you are, that's fine.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gerry Belanger)
Subject: Re: US West 360 Area Code Fiasco
Date: 3 Aug 1995 23:53:51 GMT
Organization: North American Internet Company


Some companies who will be affected are not trying very hard to tell
their customers their new number.  Today I had occasion to contact
Sharp Electronics in Camas WA, soon to be '360.  When I called their
Literature fullfillment center and asked for the direct number, I was
given 206.  When I got a Voicemail back, even the Sharp employee I
had called gave me (206) return numbers.  I use 360 to call back.

The second employee I talked to remembered some internal memos about
this, but apparently no one is taking it seriously.

I then contacted the Sharp's rep in Connecticut.  He had no idea about
the NPA split.  Apparently they have not informed their agents about
the change.  Will they be in for a surprise!


Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ     [e-mail]
Newtown, CT                [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dount that the people you talked to
at the company had ever heard of 360 either. It is amazing how many
people don't know of these changes until the day their phone quits
taking calls the way they dial them.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam Furman)
Subject: Frame Relay Lines
Date: 4 Aug 1995 00:19:19 GMT
Organization: TZ-Link, a public-access online community in Nyack, NY.


I would like to know who I can talk to in New York for a Frame Relay
outside of my area.  I would like to go from New York to Seatle
Washington.  I would like to know who I should call.


Thanks,

Adam Furman

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Reverse Phone Directories
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 01:45:02 GMT


Pat writes:

> Smart people do not publish their telephone numbers in any directories,
> period.

I guess I must be a stupid person, but my name appears in the local
white pages on the off-chance that somebody may, in fact, have a need
to call me.  It irks me no end to be unable to use my telephone to
contact a person I know because he/she decides to remain unlisted.

I suggest that persons who elect not to publish their telephone
numbers in the directory should be prevented from having access to the
published directory!  I don't mind sharing my listing with those who
share their own.  I don't have much respect for the people who seem to
feel that they have a right to know my number but I have no right to
know theirs.

How about it?


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess I should not have lumped it all
together as 'smart people'. I probably should have said 'people who are
concerned with privacy issues and who are sophisticated in the ways they
can be tracked by other people do not get listed in directories.'   PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds?
Date: 4 Aug 1995 02:37:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


If there is a strike and there is a need for money to support it, the
will get the money from other locals that are not effected and further
can tap members for strike funds. They also will get funds from other
AFL-CIO unions, no one wins in a strike, but whoever had the deepest
pockets will last.

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

From: [e-mail] (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: PBX Problems After 12/31/99
Organization: Sorry,  left it in my other pants.
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 04:21:23 GMT


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

>I'm writing an article on the Year 2000 software crisis, and would be

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those not familiar with it, the 'crisis'
> goes like this: When computers were first becoming a part of our world
> back in the 1950-60 era, companies decided to have the current date shown
> as MM/DD/YY. This worked out okay since the software could easily deal
> with YY and YY+1. After 50 came 51, then 52, etc. Perhaps it did not occur

Pat, as if this isn't bad enough, when I worked for Immense Insurance
Co in NYC in the late 60's panic was setting in for all their brand
new apps which used *ONE* digit for the year.  So they converted them
all to use two digit years.  Hey, storage was expensive then ...  :-)


Rich Greenberg            Work: TBA.  Know anybody needing a VM guru?
N6LRT   TinselTown, USA   Play: [e-mail]               310-649-0238
Pacific time.    I speak for myself & my dogs only.        VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky)

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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 17:27:16 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PBX Problems After 12/31/99


What is NT?  Northern Telecom?

The {Baltimore Sun} had an article (earlier this year?) about the year
2000 and its effect on software, and it cautioned that the year 2000
will begin to cause broken software much sooner (for example, driver
licenses, insurance policies, etc., with expiration dates beyond Dec.
31, 1999).  It did not mention the U.S. Senate, whose members serve
terms of six years (with about 1/3 of the membership being elected every
two years); I mention it here because the 1/3 which was elected last
November has terms expiring on Jan. 3, 2001.

There is a "reminder" program at my own end on a Unix operating system
which cannot handle dates beyond Dec. 31, 1999 (it's using 1900 plus a
two digit number), so as it stands it thinks 00 is referring to 1900.
And do you notice "19__" pre-printed on the checks you write?  (If you
still have such checks after Dec. 31, 1999, you will have to cross off
the 19 and write the four-digit year in.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember that when I was in high school
in the 1950's in the principal's office were some forms to be filled out
which used "193_" for the date. I asked him once if perhaps the school
board had overstocked on those forms.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (A. E. Siegman)
Subject: Sending Cash to Distant Places?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 14:53:49 -0800
Organization: Stanford University


All the alternatives I've ever encountered for 'wiring money' to
someone else at a distant location seem to be inconvenient and more
important expensive, e.g. on the order of $20 and up minimum
transaction costs.

   Are there any telephone or Internet-based methods by which a
private party can send funds on a one-shot basis to someone at a
distant location at a modest cost (like say $5 plus 1% of the
transmitted amount)?  (For foreign locations, delivery in U.S. or
local currency could be acceptable.)

   Could there be?  For example, with a world-wide ATM network the
sender (who has an ATM-connected account) puts in an order by phone or
keypad at the sending end, designating a specific remote ATM machine,
and receiving in the process a one-time withdrawal code.

   The sender then transmits this to the recipient, by whatever means
they judge adequately secure, and the recipient uses the code, perhaps
even _without_ a card, to receive the cash at the receiving end.

   Seems feasible -- but maybe too much trouble and risk, and not
enough business, for the ATM networks to consider it.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, anytime you are charged a fee
for handing your money over to a company you are getting ripped off.
Consider the case of American Express Traveler's Checks or money orders.
As a result of all the people who buy money orders and traveler's checks
through Amex, the company has a cash float of a couple million dollars
or so each day; i.e. money handed over to them that they don't have to
account for for at least a few days or perhaps weeks until the money
order or traveler's checks get cashed. Any readers who would like to
loan me a couple million dollars for a day or two -- or even a few
hours?  I'll be glad to return it to you with interest, and I certainly
won't ask you to pay me a fee for accepting the money.

Even considering administrative costs which have to be dealt with such
as bookkeepers and commissions to the selling agents, there is still
lots of money to be made handling *other people's money* for free, or
certainly for a much smaller sum than most of them charge.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 95 11:17:18 PST
Subject: Coax Modems?


Can any one out there explain to me how a coax modem works?  Can you
get to companies that are using dial up services?  Does it cross over
to phone services to get to these sites?

Let's just say I wanted to use one to get to some canned information
system like Compuserve, or America On-line. Could it be done now, or
does the far end have to have specialized equipment?

So many questions.


Thanks for your time.

Robyn Rudisill   Adobe Systems Inc.  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #333
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa05501;
          4 Aug 95 17:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07619 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 10:19:44 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07601; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 10:19:38 -0500
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 10:19:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #334

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 Aug 95 10:19:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 334

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ACLU Cries Wolf on HR 1555 (Eric Florack)
    Fiber Cut in Upstate N.Y. (John Levine)
    Cellucomm 95 Update (Tyler Proctor)
    Help Needed With STAR QAM, pi/4 DQPSK, GMSK (Tiew Kei Tee)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Death of Residential ISDN? (Bobby Krupczak)
    Re: Mirroring 800 Numbers in 888 (Charles McGuinness)
    Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills (Mike Rehmus)
    Re: 611 From Cell Phones (Bob Lombard)
    Bell Canada Announces Worldlinks Web Site (Shaun McLaughlin)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 05:31:19 PDT
Subject: ACLU Cries Wolf on HR 1555


> The Managers Amendment would add an entirely new Exon-like provision
> to the existing federal obscenity laws.  The provision would make it a
> crime to "intentionally communicate by computer ... to any person the
> communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any
> material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
> offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
> excretory activities or organs."  (18 U.S.C. 1465)

Forgive me, but isn't this just a parallel of every other law on the subject?
To wit: Is it legal to sell SCREW to a 16 year old?

> This provision, like the Exon amendment passed by the Senate, would
> effectively reduce all online content to that which is suitable only
> for children.  It also raises the same questions about service
> provider liability that were raised by the Exon amendment.

Well, it's not that the LAW does that, as much as the lack of security
designed into the net as currently designed.

> The Managers Amendment would also make it a crime to "receive"
> material from overseas "by computer," thereby subjecting both Internet
> users and service providers to new prosecutions (18 U.S.C. 1462).  In
> addition, these new provisions, like the Exon amendment, would cover
> private e-mail.

Again, an extension and refinement of existing law. Certain kinds of
obsene matirial cannot now be legally mailed from other countries via
snailmail. The difference in this case is that the cariier can be held
lible. But even there this isn't too earthshaking since the only
reason the carrier couldn't be held liable in the case of the domestic
mail is that it's run by the government, which can't be sued in any
case.

I'm sure the ACLU would like to paint this as an attack on civil
liberties, but the bottom line is that these points at least, are
nothing new, nothing earthshaking. The ACLU is crying 'WOLF' again.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it is precisely because of the
technical differences -- and the inability, or ability with great
difficulty -- to control network transmissions that the ACLU is
complaining. I agree with you that it is by and large an extension
and refinement of existing law, but I don't like the congress people,
with their limited understanding of the whole thing, getting involved.

Meanwhile a Capitol Hill update: Thursday night into early Friday
morning the House of Representatives did *not* vote on this. It got
very, very late and the debate was continuing at the time they finally
adjourned. It is expected *for sure* they will vote sometime during
the day on Friday. You can still register your opinion by calling
202-225-3121. I tried calling direct to my representative (Yates) in
the early morning hours but their phone system was down. None of the
202-225-xxxx numbers would ring! All you could get through on was
the operator's number, 225-3121, and as of 1:00 am Eastern time the
operators told me they had been extremely busy handling calls all
evening. A few minutes ago (10:00 am Eastern) I got through on the
number to Yates office.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 02:19:29 -0400
From: [e-mail] (John Levine)
Subject: Fiber Cut in Upstate N.Y.


Thursday morning I was dismayed to find that any inter-LATA call I
tried to make from here (Trumansburg, NY) went to reorder tone,
regardless of which IXC I used.  Trumansburg is served by a small but
sophisticated independent telco, who told me that NYNEX had a severe
fiber cut that had knocked out LD in the whole area. My cell phone
didn't work for LD either, and it's hooked into the PSTN in Syracuse,
the largest city in the LATA. Oddly. the local radio news station said
nothing about it.

So:

 -- anyone else hear about this?

 -- I know NYNEX is dumb, but do they really route all of the IXC
traffic for the whole LATA through one cable?  Sheesh.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail]
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, maybe you need to write another
book entitled 'How to Run a Telephone Company For Dummies'.  <g>  PAT]

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

From: Tyler Proctor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellucomm 95 Update
Date: 4 Aug 1995 13:07:58 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)


Cellucomm 95 is focused specifically on cellular data. Doubling in
size every year , CelluComm '95 will likely attract 600 or more
professionals, including corporate customers and industry
representatives.  For the first time, Cellucomm 95 will include two
concurrent conference agendas.  IndustryTrack is aimed at cellular
industry insiders.  CorporateTrack, new for 95, is designed to meet
the needs of the early adopter of wireless data.

General sessions for all attendees, social activities, and a 60 booth
exhibit area are also featured.  A great opportunity to learn about
the technical and marketing side of cellular data and network with the
decision makers in the industry.

If you would like more information on this conference, please
e-mail Tyler Proctor [e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiew Kei Tee)
Subject: Help Needed With STAR QAM, pi/4 DQPSK, GMSK
Date: 4 Aug 1995 06:20:21 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore


I am doing a project on a comparative study of different modulation
schemes used in digital cellular environment.  In particular I would
like to compare the performances of pi/4 DQPSK, GMSK and STAR QAM
under different type of channel impairments.  pi/4 DQPSK and GMSK are
currently being used in Japan, USA and Europe respectively while the
application of STAR QAM seems still in an early stage.

    I would like to know whether there is any mobile radio system
using STAR QAM modulation scheme. Also, I would like to know the Web
site or ftp site to obtain the relevant information.  Anyone with the
above information please kindly email me.  Thanks in advance.


Tiew Kei Tee  ~{UE?,VG~}
email : [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 4 Aug 1995 12:43:15 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm


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

> Rumor has it that a small group of people in a Chicago suburb decided
> to try some Zenith boxes in their neighborhood.  They chose
> frequencies not currently being used by the cable company, and as
> there were no amplifiers or filters between their houses, were able to
> setup a 500kbit/sec private network.

The FCC requires 18 dB of isolation between any two subscriber
outlets, to insure that the one-way cable stays one-way, and that you
cannot force stuff into the line and have it received by the fellow
next door.

If the Zenith boxes work properly in such a system, then the cable
system is falling down on the job, and not following the guidelines of
the FCC Report and Order.  It certainly wouldn't the first time,
though, I will tell you that ...


scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Bobby Krupczak)
Subject: Re: Death of Residential ISDN?
Date: 04 Aug 1995 12:47:11 GMT
Organization: College of Computing


Hi!

> With cable, you can have the same thing, but it is 24 hours a day,
> without having a call up.  Unless ISDN goes to 'free' to the ISP (who

I dont know what cable company you have but it is definitely not 24
hours a day considering the average cable company's qos.

The thing that is almost missing in most of the discussion is that the
cable folks are providing you a shared medium with almost no
guarantees as to how much bandwidth you will REALLY receive when other
people start using it too.  Folks here at cc.gatech.edu are doing
research into various data-over-cable protocols and they have the same
problem as well only more compounded since you cant do carrier sense
and collision detection.  Without these, the utilization rates go even
lower for a shared medium.

I'll stick with ISDN to my service provider and get a guaranteed
bit-pipe to him.  Not included in this discussion is your Internet
provider and his/her capacity to the Internet.  That washes out since
both cable and ISDN providers face the same problem.


Bobby

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

Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 09:03:15 -0400
From: jyacc![e-mail] (Charles McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Mirroring 800 Numbers in 888


It seems to me that, no matter what, either a system will be devised
to allow 800 number holders to obtain their corresponding 888 number,
or people will treat 888 land as a sort of lottery, trying to grab a
prestigious number and then reselling it to the 800 holder.  (If the
IXCs don't do that themselves!)

Regardless, 800 number holders will get the corresponding 888 number
if it's important to them.  But if it's a free-for-all, there will be
a lot of lucky privateers making off with a small booty.


Charles McGuinness | JAM Product Manager    | JYACC Inc.
[e-mail]  | [phone] x 3026 | 116 John St, NY NY 10038

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

From: Mike Rehmus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills
Date: 4 Aug 1995 00:34:56 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications


I had the same thing happen on my business phone.  Seems that the
phone company had some 'bad' employees who were using/selling access
codes to make calls.

They are not correct to say that the calls had to come through your
phone.  Course someone can probably hack the telephone system or tap
the line and do the same thing.


Best,

Mike Rehmus


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About twenty years ago I had a situation
such as you describe. I had a business line with an unusually high number
of local message units on it for about three months in a row. The phone
office serving that number had just about the same time been converted
to ESS. I called the business office to complain about all the local
message units I was certain were not mine, and I spoke with Ms. Prim and
Proper, a service rep who assured me telco did not make mistakes and that
'obviously' I must have dialed all those calls. Her mistake was she said
under ESS it was possible to provide a print out of all the local calls
and would I like one. I certainly would, and she mailed it to me.

I went through pages of local calls checking out the numbers, using this
criteria: if I recognized the number, I assumed I made the call regardless
of time of day or day of week. If I did *not* recognize the number, I
nonetheless assumed I made the call if it was a time of day I was likely
to be at that location. The numbers I did not recognize, for calls made
at times of day when I was unlikely to be at the location (it was an
office, and I was never there at 7:00 am for example) I investigated
further. When I found calls in that category, I then made a note of the
numbers called and began looking for those same phone numbers at other
times of day as well.

I found dozens of calls which when traced through the Illinois Bell
reverse directory service turned out to be listed to IBT itself in
various locations around the city, such as 'IBT Supply Warehouse', and
'Western Electric Order Desk', and 'IBT Vehicle Repair Depot' ... lots
of internal numbers at telco that the public would never call!

It so happens in the basement of the building in which my office was
located was a large 'outside plant' facility; a place where a large
number of cables were administered serving three or four big highrise
office buildings in the immediate vicinity; thousands of pairs which
terminated there. It was a place where installers and repair techs would
sit in the early morning to drink coffee and hide from their supervisors.
After reviewing all the fraud calls on my bill made by telco employees
themselves, it was obvious where the calls were coming from.

I called back Ms. Prim and with a gloating voice she asked me, "Now that
I sent you the print out (my, aren't we at Bell really on top of things
now that we can prove to you moron-customers that you made all the local
calls we claim you made?) are you satisfied, Mr. Townson? Have you been
able to locate the errors in *your* record keeping so that you know we
are correct?" I told her yes, I was satisfied, and asked her if she had
ever heard the term 'theft of service' and if she knew what the federal
penalties for same where. Well believe me you, in about two minutes I
was giving some hell to a supervisor who went over the print out with
me line for line for about a dozen of the stolen calls. She promised to
investigate and she called me back about thirty minutes later to say
that they were going to write off *all* the excess message units on my
bill for the past five months, and would that make me happy and make
me shut up?  I told her it would, provided the business office also got
the word to the outside plant people to stay off my lines totally. If
they needed to call their foreman or the parts warehouse or whatever,
they could use their own lines.

I guess they got that message across, because after that, my monthly
message units were about half of what they had been previously. I know
how the plant people were thinking on this: they were in that terminal
room in the basement of our highrise and they figured they could just
use their alligator clips and go on anyone's line anywhere. Most of the
businesses were so large, they would not have noticed the difference
anyway.   PAT]

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

From: Bob Lombard <[e-mail]>
Organization:  NRaD Code 871
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 00:47:45 PST
Subject: Re: 611 From Cell Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Most cell phone systems I've used are set up such that *611 is a free
call to the service providers customer service.  My current provider
(Airtouch) is set up this way.

611 (w/o the asterisk) will connect me to the regular phone co (ie Pac
Bell in this area) customer service and *is* a charge call.


Bob Lombard    [e-mail]   619-553-9425

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

From: Shaun McLaughlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Announces Worldlinks Web Site
Date: 4 Aug 1995 02:02:23 GMT
Organization: Global-X-Change


Announcing WorldLinx Web Site -- Business Without Boundaries

Visit WorldLinx at <http://www.worldlinx.com> and you'll see how the
best technology in enterprise data networking, multimedia messaging,
information exchange and electronic commerce is changing business
methods and mindsets. With business case studies, brief technical
explanations and service descriptions, WorldLinx shows how any
business -- small or large -- can make the convergence of information
systems work for them.

WorldLinx Telecommunications Inc. is a Bell Canada company and
Canada's leading provider of national and global electronic business
services, including: Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) -- complete
with data security and EDI-to-fax service; e-mail -- complete with
message management and Internet, LAN and X.400 gateways; mail-enabled
applications; fax broadcasting, fax mailbox and fax-on-demand; a fully
managed and secure LAN/WAN network service (WorldLinx is the Infonet
Corporation's Canadian affiliate); gateway connections to more than
1,700 public databases; personalized news profiles delivered
electronically to employees; and connectivity to everything from
Newtons to mainframes.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #334
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25376;
          9 Aug 95 2:51 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18182 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:29:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18174; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:29:19 -0500
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:29:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #335

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Aug 95 19:29:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 335

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Senate Passes Kyl Amendment to Protect Information Systems (John Shaver)
    Area Code Split Update (John Levine)
    Revised Area Code List (Steve Grandi)
    Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    PacBell Yellow Page Display Ads (Daniel James Dick)
    India Opens Financial Bids For Cellular Services (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Free Month of Long Distance Calls (Tad Cook)
    Ameritech Musings (Michael J. Kuras)
    More Area Codes vs. More Digits per Number (David Jensen)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 95 15:27:23 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Senate Passes Kyl Amendment to Protect Information Syst


From: [e-mail] at WOODY
Date: 8/4/95 5:03PM
To: John Shaver at E.M.E.T.F.
*To: [e-mail] at WOODY
Subject: Senate Passes Kyl Amendment to Protect Information Syst


              SENATE PASSES KYL AMENDMENT TO
                PROTECT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(Washington) -- The Senate last night approved an amendment introduced
by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to require the President to begin the
process of developing a national policy to protect the nation's
information systems, including defense, telephone, public utility, and
banking systems. Kyl's proposal amends S. 1026, the Defense
Authorization Act.

"The United States currently has no ability to protect itself from
cyberspace attacks, or legal or political authority to protect its
information systems from another country's offensive," Kyl said.

Current CIA Director John Deutch has expressed concern about the
threat. At his Senate confirmation hearing he said "[t]his is a very
important subject ... which we really don't have a crisp answer to."

According to a 1994 report prepared by the National Communications
System (NCS), no fewer than 30 countries are working on information
warfare techniques. "The Administration must develop a comprehensive
national policy that coordinates national security defense for both
United States government and private sector users of our National
Information Infrastructure," Kyl said.  "My amendment seeks to analyze
all critical issues involved to provide a framework toward developing
our policy for defending against strategic attacks against the
National Information Infrastructure."

According to a June 1995 Federal Computer Week article, the Defense
Department's Center for Information Systems Security is victim to two
computer attacks a day -- twice the rate of last year. In 1994, the
Defense Department recorded 255 successful attacks on their computer
systems.

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

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 15:56:09 -0400
From: [e-mail] (John Levine)
Subject: Area Code Split Update


I just got a press release from Pac Bell with this list of NPA splits.
A few of the ones at the end are new to me.

Location           New Area  Old Area  Beginning        Mandatory
                     Code      Code       Date            Date(a)

Chicago, Illinois     630       708    Jan. 7, 1995   Nov. 30, 1996
Southern Alabama      334       205    Jan. 15, 1995  May 13, 1995
Western Washington
(except for Seattle
 and immediate
 suburbs)             360       206    Jan. 15, 1995  Aug. 20, 1995
Houston, Texas        281       713    March 1, 1995  March 1, 1996
Arizona (except
 for Phoenix and
 immediate suburbs)   520       602    March 19, 1995 Oct. 22, 1995
Colorado (except for
 Denver area)         970       303    April 2, 1995  Oct. 1, 1995
Southwestern Florida
 (except for Tampa
  area)               941       813    May 28, 1995   March 3, 1996
Western Virginia      540       703    July 15, 1995  Jan. 27, 1996
Connecticut           860       203    Aug. 28, 1995  Oct. 4, 1996
Southern California   562       310    Sept. 2, 1995  Not applicable
Eastern Tennessee     423       615    Sept. 11, 1995 Feb. 26, 1996
Bermuda               441       809    Oct. 1, 1995   Sept. 30, 1996
Miami, Florida        954       305    November 1995  No date available
Oregon                541       503    Nov. 5, 1995   June 30, 1996
South Carolina        864       803    Dec. 3, 1995   May 1, 1996
Atlanta, Georgia      770       404    Aug. 1, 1995   Dec. 1, 1995
Dallas, Texas         972       214    Feb. 1, 1996   Aug. 1, 1996
Chicago, Illinois     847       708    Jan. 20, 1996  April 20, 1996
St. Louis, Missouri   573       314    Mid-1996       No date available
British Columbia      250       604    Oct. 19, 1996  May 3, 1997
Cleveland, Ohio       330       216    3rd Quarter 96 No date available


The split for Bermuda is kind of peculiar -- there are only 20
prefixes there, vs. about 250 in Puerto Rico and 180 in the Dominican
Republic.  I realize that they probably find it classier to have their
own NPA, but if every little territory in 809 got its own NPA, we'd
run out again.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail]
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well hey John, every little company with
an 800 number is probably going to demand the same 888 number be held
out for them, and we will run out of those shortly after distribution
begins; why not area codes also. Hey, can I have an area code of my
own?   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 01:28:07 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Grandi)
Subject: Revised Area Code List


Area Code Changes: 1995-

Maintained by Steve Grandi ([e-mail]).  Additions and
corrections are welcome!  My latest version of this file may be
obtained by anonymous FTP to gemini.tuc.noao.edu in
pub/grandi/npa1995.txt

Last Revised: 4 August 1995

Latest changes: Permissive period extended for 602/520 split (AZ)
                404/770 split (GA) date clarified
                AC 626 assigned to 818 overlay or split (CA)
                ACs 410 & 301 (MD) to each be split or overlaid
                Revised city list for 540/703 split (VA)
                314/573 (MO) will be a split; more details
                More information on 310/562 (CA) overlay or split
                More information on 619/760 (CA) split
                604/250 split (BC) date clarified
                612/??? split (MN) boundaries decided
                305/954 split (FL) decided

    Date       Event

1)  1/7/95     AC 630 temporarily overlaid on AC 708 (Chicago metro area)
2)  1/15/95    AC 334 splits from AC 205 (Alabama)
3)  1/15/95    AC 360 splits from AC 206 (Washington)
4)  1/19/95    500 goes into service
5)  3/1/95     AC 281 overlaid on AC 713 (Houston metro area)
6)  3/19/95    AC 520 splits from AC 602 (Arizona)
7)  4/2/95     AC 970 splits from AC 303 (Colorado)
8)  5/28/95    AC 941 splits from AC 813 (Florida)
9)  7/15/95    AC 540 splits from AC 703 (Virginia)
10) 8/1/95     AC 770 splits from AC 404 (Atlanta metro area)
11) 8/28/95    AC 860 splits from AC 203 (Connecticut)
12) 9/2/95     AC 562 overlaid/split on AC 310 (Los Angeles metro area)
13) 9/11/95    AC 423 splits from AC 615 (Tennessee)
14) 9/??/95    AC 954 splits from AC 305 (Miami metro area)
15) 10/1/95    AC 441 splits from AC 809 (Bermuda)
16) 11/5/95    AC 541 splits from AC 503 (Oregon)
17) 12/3/95    AC 864 splits from AC 803 (South Carolina)
18) ??/??/95   AC 850 splits from AC 904 (North Florida)
19) 1/1/96     AC 573 overlaid on AC 314 (Eastern Missouri)
20) 1/20/96    AC 847 splits from AC 708 (Chicago Suburbs)
21) 1/??/96    AC 330 splits from AC 216 (NE Ohio)
22) 2/1/96     AC 972 overlaid on AC 214 (Dallas metro area)
23) 2/??/96    AC ??? splits from AC 612 (Central Minnesota)
24) 4/1/96     888 goes into service
25) 10/96/96   AC 250 splits from AC 604 (British Columbia)
26) 03/??/97   AC 626 overlaid/split on AC 818 (Los Angeles metro area)
27) ??/??/97   AC 760 splits from AC 619 (San Diego)
28) ??/??/97   ACs 301 & 410 each split or overlaid (Maryland)
29) ??/??/98   AC 630 splits from AC 708 (Chicago Suburbs)
30) ??/??/??   AC ??? overlaid on AC 817 (Ft. Worth metro area)
31) ??/??/??   AC 340 splits from AC 809 (Puerto Rico)


Notes...

1) Originally reserved for Wireless services (cellular phones and pagers).
       All wireless services in 708 would have been forced to move to 630.
       All new wireless services in areas served by 312 and 708 would have
       been in 630.  Wireless companies appealed to the Illinois Commerce
       Commission and to the FCC.  The FCC seemed to indicate that wireless
       overlay area codes were discriminatory.  The latest plan as decreed by
       the Illinois Commerce Commission is for 708 to do a three-way split
       into 708, 847 and 630.  Wireless numbers assigned to 630 in the meantime
       would be reassigned into the geographical codes (but most existing 708
       wireless services will not have to change to 847 or 630).

2) 334 for Southern Alabama, Northern Alabama keeps 205
   334 will contain Auburn, Dothan, Mobile, Montgomery and Selma
   205 will retain Anniston, Birmingham, Decatur, Huntsville and Tuscaloosa
   Permissive period ends 5/13/95

3) 360 will cover all of Western Washington except Seattle and immediate
       suburbs which stay in 206
   360 will contain Bellingham, Bremerton, Olympia, Vancouver
   206 will retain Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Redmond, Seattle, Tacoma
   Permissive period ends 8/20/95 (an extra 90 days was tacked on by order
       of the state PUC in a response to horror stories by companies that
       can't be reached via AC 360).

4) Special Area Code 500, for "Personal Communications Services", goes
       into production with AT&T's service.  Codes 533, 544, 566, 577
       and 588 reserved for future expansion.

5) First numbers assigned in AC 281 (until 2/29/96) will be wireless services.
       After 3/1/96, all new numbers assigned will be in 281.  Mandatory
       10 digit dialing for all local calls in the 713/281 area begins
       on 3/1/96.

6) 520 will cover the entire state of Arizona except Phoenix and its suburbs
       which stay in 602
   520 will contain Flagstaff, Prescott, Sierra Vista, Tucson, Yuma
   602 will retain Buckeye, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale,
       Tempe
   Permissive period was originally to end on 7/23/95.  The ACC (Arizona
      Corporation Commission), in response to the usual horror stories, asked
      US West to add 90 days to the permissive period.  US West and the rest
      of the local phone companies in AZ originally said no.  The ACC started
      to convene a "show cause" hearing to determine why US West and the
      dozen or so other local phone companies shouldn't extend the permissive
      period.  US West and the other phone companies agreed on June 19 to
      extend the the permissive period 90 days to October 21, 1995.
      As a further palliative, prefix 602-696 will be available to folks in
      the southern Arizona LATA who want to avoid the switch to 520
      altogether; prefix 602-671 will be available in the northern Arizona LATA.
      I wonder what US West will charge for the privilege?

7) 970 will serve Northern Colorado and the Western Slope except Denver and
       its suburbs which stay in 303
   970 will contain Aspen, Durango, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Greeley,
       Loveland, Steamboat Springs, Vail
   303 will retain Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Denver, Englewood, Littleton,
       Longmont
   Permissive period ends 10/1/95

8) Southwestern coast of Florida splits: Southern part moves to 941; Northern
       part (Tampa-St. Petersburg) stays in 813
   941 will contain Bradenton, Fort Myers, Lakeland, Sarasota, Winter Haven
   813 will retain Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa
   Permissive period ends 3/3/96

9) 540 will cover all of Western Virginia except the Washington DC area which
       stay in 703
   540 will contain Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, Roanoke, Salem, Winchester
   703 will retain Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Falls Church, Leesburg,
     McLean
   Permissive period ends 1/27/96 (originally 7/13/96)

10) Atlanta and suburbs interior to I285 (the Perimeter) will stay in AC 404,
    the remainder--a donut--moves to AC 770.  The Georgia Public Service
    Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the geographic split rejecting staff
    recommendations to adopt an overlay.  Southern Bell says AC 404 will
    have to split again in eight years.
    404 will contain Atlanta, College Park
    770 will contain Lawrenceville, Marietta, Norcross
    Permissive period ends 12/1/95.

11) SW CT (Fairfield and New Haven Counties) will retain 203; the rest of
    the state will move to 860.
    860 will contain Hartford, Middletown, New Britain, New London, Norwich
    203 will retain Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Danbury, Norwalk, Waterbury
    Permissive period ends 10/4/96

12) Originally designed as a wireless overlay for ACs 213, 310 and 818;
    then, in addition, landline users in 310 would be included; then as only an
    overlay on 310 (wireless first, landline later).  The usual arguments were
    made and the state PUC got into the act to decide if 562 will split or
    overlay 310.  A PUC Administrative law Judge has recommended an overlay,
    with mandatory 10-digit dialling, largely to avoid changing 2.5 million
    numbers in 310 that were just moved from 213 in 1991.  New customers
    would be required to get 562 numbers; the remaining 310 numbers would be
    restricted to existing 310 households who want additional lines.  A final
    PUC decision is expected soon.

13) Eastern Tennessee moves to 423 while Middle Tennessee retains 615
    423 will contain Chattanooga, Johnson City, Kingsport, Knoxville
    615 will retain Clarksville, Murfreesboro, Nashville
    Permissive period ends 2/26/96

14) 954 was originally to be a wireless overlay on top of 305 effective
    3/1/95.  The Florida Public Service Commission rejected this proposal
    and decreed that Broward Co. (Fort Lauderdale) would move to 954 and
    Dade Co. (Miami) and the Keys would retain 305.  Southern Bell is appealing
    the decision since 305 would have to split again in a few years.  The PSC
    is holding hearings and a final decision is expected this summer.  On
    August 1, the PSC voted 3-2 to confirm the geographical split.
    Southern Bell predicts a need for another overlay or split in the Miami
    area in 5 years.

    954 will contain Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pompano Beach
    305 will retain Coral Gables, Hialeah, Homestead, Key West, Marathon,
      Miami, Miami Beach
    Permissive period ends 1/1/96 for pagers, 6/1/96 for landlines and
      1/1/97 for cellular phones

15) Permissive period ends 9/30/96

16) NW Oregon (including metro Portland and Salem) will keep 503; the rest
    of the state moves to 541.  The state PUC rejected an overlay in favor
    of a split.
    541 will contain Corvallis, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton,
       Roseburg
    503 will retain Astoria, Hillsboro, Portland, Salem
    Permissive period ends 6/30/96

17) Northwestern South Carolina moves to 864, rest of state keeps 803.
    864 will contain Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg
    803 will retain Charleston, Columbia, Florence, Myrtle Beach, Rock Hill
    Permissive period ends 5/1/96

18) Southern part of existing AC 904 in North Florida becomes AC 850; the
       Panhandle retains AC 904.
    850 will contain Daytona Beach, Gainesville, Ocala
    904 will retain Jacksonville, Panama City, Pensacola, Tallahassee

19) Southwestern Bell has proposed to overlay AC 573 upon AC 314 (Eastern
    Missouri, including St. Louis).  Mandatory 10 digit dialing for all local
    calls in the 314/573 area would begin in 6/96.  The usual protests are
    being heard and the state PUC is holding hearings to decide between a
    split or an overlay.  The PUC voted 4-0 in favor of a split.

    Eastern MO outside the St. Louis area will move to AC 573; St. Louis
       retain AC 314.
    573 will contain Cape Giradeau, Columbia, Fulton, Hannibal, Jefferson
       City, Mexico
    314 will retain Chesterfield, St. Charles, St. Louis, St. Peters, Union
    Permissive Period ends 7/1/96

20) Landline service in the North and Northwest Chicago suburbs will move into
    AC 847 (suburban Cook Co. north of Chicago city limits, Lake Co. and the
    portion of McHenry Co. currently in AC 708 and the northern part of Kane
    Co.).  Most existing wireless services with 708 numbers will not be
    required to change.
    Permissive period ends 4/20/96

21) Cleveland will retain AC 216; the rest of NE Ohio will move to AC 330.
    Ameritech proposes that only Cuyahoga Co. will remain in AC 216.
    330 will contain Ashtabula, Akron, Canton, Kent, Lorain, Mentor and
      Youngstown
    216 will retain Cleveland, Euclid, Lakewood, Parma

22) Mandatory 10 digit dialing for all local calls in 214/972 area begins on
    8/1/96.  All new numbers assigned after 2/1/96 will be in 972.

23) Metro Minneapolis/St. Paul will keep 612, the rest of Central Minnesota
      will change.
    ??? will contain Alexandria, Hutchinson, Le Sueur, Little Falls,
      St. Cloud, Willmar
    612 will retain Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Edina, Minneapolis,
      Minnetonka, Plymouth, St. Paul
    As part of the the 612/??? split, 5 communities SE of the Twin Cities
      (the biggest of which seems to be Red Wing) will switch from AC 612 to
      AC 507

24) 888 will be used as an extension of 800 "Free Phone" services.  877, 866,
    844, 833 and 822 are reserved for any future expansion.

25) Greater Vancouver will retain AC 604; the rest of the province will move
      to AC 250.
    250 will contain Campbell River, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kitimat, Nanaimo,
      Prince George, Victoria
    604 will retain Chilliwack, Hope, Powell River, Squamish, Vancouver
    Permissive periods ends 5/3/97

26) The PUC will decide on a split or an overlay.  One proposed split would
    move most of Burbank and the San Gabriel Valley to 626 while a small part
    of Burbank and the San Fernando Valley would stay in 818.

27) San Diego and areas south will retain AC 619.  AC 760 will contain areas
      currently in AC 619 north of San Diego and in the 5 LARGE Southern
      California counties stretching to the Nevada and Arizona borders.
    760 will contain Alpine, Barstow, Bishop, Borreago Springs, Camp Pendleton,
      Carlsbad, El Cajon, Encinatas, Indio, Julian, Needles, Oceanside,
      Palm Springs
    619 will retain Chula Vista, Coronado, La Mesa, National City, Poway,
      Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego

28) An industry group has met to advise the state PSC on how to accommodate
  growth.  The industry group did not reach consensus but produced a map with
  a 4-way split of the state.  Overlays are, of course, under consideration.
  The PSC will deliberate.  Note that neither 410 nor 301 are in the list below
  of area codes nearing exhaustion!

29) Landline service in the Western suburbs of Chicago will move into AC 630
    (Dupage Co., southern portion of Kane Co. and the portion of Kendall Co.
    currently in AC 708).  Landline service in the Southern and Southwest
    suburbs of Chicago (south suburban Cook Co., areas around Peotone and
    Beecher in Will Co. currently in AC 708 and near-west Cook Co. suburbs
    south of O'Hare airport) will remain in AC 708.  Most existing wireless
    services with 708 numbers will not be required to change.

30) Overlay similar to Dallas

31) Unconfirmed.  Seems to be a stray rumor.



Splits to watch for (Based on Bellcore's projections of number exhaustion
contained in letter IL 95/01-018)

210 (San Antonio) (1998 2Q)
318 (Louisiana) (1998 3Q)
213 (Central part of Los Angeles Metro area) (1998 4Q)
816 (Kansas City) (1998 4Q)
312 (Chicago) (about 1998; revised forward since 312 will get no relief from
               new 630 code)
501 (Arkansas) (1999 1Q)
504 (Louisiana) (1999 1Q)


David Esan's ([e-mail]) April 1995 NPA/NXX report suggests the following
NPAs are also becoming ripe for a split:

212 (Manhattan, New York City)
403 (Alberta)

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor ([e-mail])
Subject: Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:30:00 GMT


What will probably be the smallest area code anywhere, in terms of its
geographic size and range is planned for the downtown Chicago area sometime
in 1996. They are going to take a very small part of the downtown area
out of 312 and put it in a new area code. I believe it is going to be 773.
The whole thing will be less than a mile wide by a mile or two long. Discuss-
ions took place beteen the city and Ameritech to decide if the new code should
be an overlay or follow the traditional geographic boundary split process.
They decided on the latter, and when they audited the number of phones in
that small central area of downtown with a very high concentration of banks,
stock brokers, government agencies of every jurisdiction, they found that
pulling out that little slice would give enough relief to 312 to prevent
further splits on it for at least a few years.

They have not firmly defined the boundaries for the new area code yet,
and have said they might go so far as to include 'most of the downtown
area' in it; but still, that's only an area about two miles square. Where
is all this going to end, anyway?


PAT

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

From: Daniel James Dick <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Yellow Page Display Ads
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:54:09 -0700
Organization: Stanford University


How many of you folks out there have taken out an advertisement in the
PacBell Yellow Pages and have come away with the experience with a
hard-luck story?

A few years ago, a well-dressed young man visited my house and told me
of all the wonderful things that a PacBell Yellow Page display
advertisement would do for my one-man computer consulting business in
Fresno.  As a young, inexperienced businessman, I listened, took out
an ad, and lost my shirt.

Previously, I took out a very small in-line advertisement with Valley
Yellow Pages with some success, so it was very easy for PacBell's
sales person to convince me how much better a display advertisement
would be.  My advertisement would "grab the consumer's eye, bring in
more phone calls, and pay for itsself many times over".  Furthermore,
as the cost of the ad was spread over the whole year, I would reap the
benefit of the ad prior to incurring the expense of the ad each month.
And, should the ad prove ineffective, I could cancel the advertisement,
change my phone number, and rely on other advertising at any time.
How could I lose?

When the new phone books were printed, I discovered that my "Computer
Consulting" advertisement was placed away from the other computer ads
over on the following page alongside the concrete contractors' ads.  I
tracked each and every source of business and found that none of my
clients whatsoever contacted me as a result of having seen my display
advertisement.

I called Pac Bell Directory at once to have my phone number switched and
to have my advertising costs discontinued as I was promised that I could
do.  I was turned over to my salesman who assurred me that advertisements
had to be given a couple months to have their effect.  Naively, I agreed
and suffered as expenses multiplied, business remained static, and not
one call came in as a result of the ad.

Running low on finances, I found it necessary to call again to have my
phone line changed and advertising costs discontinued.  I was told
that I would have to discontinue phone service so that no further
reference would be made via 411 and that this would basically mean
that I was closing shop.

I closed shop, turned over my clients to other consultants, and took a
job with NASA working hard to recover from my losses and fulfill all
my financial obligations.  Every company was patient as I paid off
each and every debt -- every company except one.  PacBell Directory
turned my debt over to J.J. MacIntyre who injured my credit, insisted
on payment with hefty interest charges, and left my credit injured for
years following complete payment of the debt.  They refused to
negotiate any corrections or restoration of my losses.

I eventually turned over my case to the Better Business Bureau, and so
far the only response I have gotten is that PacBell Yellow Pages
considered the charges legitimate and that this problem had gone
beyond their statute of limitations.  To me, this says that they
stubbornly refused to address the problem for years in a reasonable
manner acceptable to their customer.

I am left seriously questioning the effectiveness of their advertising,
their integrity, their kindness, and their concern for their customers.
Because of this, I have told the BBB that I want to remain on file as a
dissatisfied customer until some restoration of losses can be made.

Although I have recovered financially, the injury done to my credit
has cost me dearly in terms of higher interest payments on my home and
difficulty in the past obtaining credit cards.  Should I decide to
open a business in the future, you can be certain that I will steer
clear of PacBell Yellow Page advertising and rely on a smaller, more
customer oriented advertising solution.


Daniel J. Dick
PacBell Acct 209-292-3133


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, someone gave you some very bad
advice. You *do not* have to discontinue your phone number when you
discontinue your yellow pages advertising. You *do not* have to in essence
go out of business by changing your name, etc to prevent inquiries via 411
 from reaching you. This really sounds like something some rotten and
dishonest, morally corrupt salesman would say. Typically they are all over
you until you sign up, then they can't be found afterward; the salesman
that is.

What really is the case with yellow pages advertising is this: your phone
*cannot* be disconnected for failure to pay yellow pages advertising that
is billed on your telephone account. You need not make any changes in your
telephone service at all. Directory assistance provided by telco (555-1212
or shorthand '411' in some communities) has no relationship whatsoever to
the yellow pages. What one does has no affect on the other.

I will say I have heard from others that yellow pages advertising is not
nearly the bargain it was thirty or fifty years ago in terms of readership.
Back then, it was a big drawing card for merchants and professionals. These
days there is simply too much competition for your advertising dollar.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:56:48 -0700
From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: India Opens Financial Bids For Cellular Services


-==This Indian Techonomist bulletin (C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh

India opens financial bids for cellular services

August 5, 1995: India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) today
opened financial bids submitted for a tender on nationwide cellular
services. The technical bids, specifying infrastructure building
plans, had been opened on Monday (July 31). Today's bids indicate how
much the 32 applicants are willing to pay, over a 10-year period, as
licence fees.

Among the highest bidders was Birla Communications, a joint venture
between India's Aditya Birla Group and US-based AT&T. Birla bid about
$570 million for the prosperous western state of Gujarat, and slightly
less for its southern neighbour, Maharashtra. Licences for Bombay -
Maharashtra's capital - were awarded last year, along with Delhi,
Calcutta and Madras.

Other bidders included joint ventures with US West (which came second,
after AT&T, in the two western states), Australia's Telstra, Hughes,
and companies from Thailand, Switzerland and Singapore.

A surprise was the tie-up between Reliance - a large industrial group
moving into infrastructure - and America's Nynex. This bid for all
telecom 'circles' barring the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir, and
the remote islands of Andaman and Nicobar. Its bids were ridiculously
low, in comparision with the others - $95 million for Gujarat. Still,
Reliance will get some areas by virtue of being the only bidder - such
as in the eastern state of West Bengal, of which Calcutta is the
capital.

It will now take a few weeks for two companies to be selected for
each circle, based on a weighted evaluation of both financial and
technical bids.

The complete list of bids should be available shortly at
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/news/cellular.html


-==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
-==Licensed for COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC distribution provided this
-==notice is attached. This bulletin is from The Indian Techonomist,
-==the newsletter on India's information industry.
-==http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/ - e-mail [e-mail]
-==Phone [phone]; H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

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

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free Month of Long Distance Calls
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 15:21:01 PDT


Anyone know anything about the following?  I found this on PNEWS.


[e-mail] | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | Ham Radio: KT7H

Forwarded message:
> Subject:      FREE MONTH OF LONG DISTANCE CALLS
> To: Multiple recipients of list PNEWS-L <PNEWS-L>

> From: Art Rosenblum <[e-mail]>
>               NON-PROFITS PHONE FREE FOR MONTH

>      All my long distance phone calls will be free (max. $1,000)
> for a month from Aug. 7 to Sept. 6. If you have any kind of
> organization doing good things, or even a small business, we can
> get the same gift for you.

>      Do we have a friend at the phone company ?  Yes, his name is
> Joe Johnson, but what he's doing is perfectly legal. MCI Long
> Distance has an experiment to see how many they can sign up by
> word of mouth - no advertising - (that's their main cost as they
> already own the long distance lines.) So in this un-advertised
> promotion they give away a free month (up to $1,000) to anyone who
> signs on as a commercial customer. Doesn't matter if your phone is
> listed as commercial or residential with Bell. As long as you are
> not presently a COMMERCIAL MCI customer, you can get this
> promotion, no strings attached. You don't have to remain with MCI
> after the month. In fact, after that we can connect you with John
> BMIchael who will provide you with even cheaper service than
> MCI's. (perhaps 14.5 cents/min. day/eve anywhere, or just 10% off.

>      So, if you want to know more, just e-mail me
> <[e-mail]> a note with your phone number also if you like.
> (My calls are free), or I'll just e-mail you the info. You can
> decide when you want your free month to start, but it may be a
> week or 10 days at the earliest.   -Art Rosenblum


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alright, I'll bite. Anyone else want to
see what this is all about?  Is this one of those deals where you get
your *third or fourth month* as the 'free month' after you have been
signed up awhile? Is the 'up to $1000' part contingent on whatever your
highest monthly charge has been up to that point? In other words if I
spend $25 per month in the months I am paying for it does that mean I
get $25 worth in my 'free month'?   There seem to be lots of these
scam deals around; might as well stick with AT&T like I always have
except for that month when Sprint was giving away the free fax modems
to new customers. Remember what a nice free gift that was, folks? I
assume you all still have those fax modem cards they sent out; I still
have mine and use it now and then.

Speaking of the Sprint fax modem offer, I just remembered something:
you guys out in California who had several (maybe a dozen) lines switched
to Sprint who claimed that they then owed you the same number of 9600
baud modems based on the sales rep's false information; you were going to
sue Sprint. How did that ever turn out?  Care to tell the readers here?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:15:09 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Kuras)
Subject: Ameritech Musings


Pat, I figured you might be interested in this since many of us are
familiar with your (and others) rantings about Ameritech.

AMERITECH PONDERS STRATEGIES

Ameritech is considering dropping its plan to open the Chicago local
phone market to competition, pending provisions included in federal
telecommunications legislation.  The Justice Department earlier had
approved a proposal allowing Ameritech to offer long distance services
in exchange for opening the Chicago and Grand Rapids, Mich. markets to
competition. Current proposed legislation would allow the Baby Bells
into the long distance market within six months, regardless of the
local market competition situation.  AT&T has complained that
Ameritech is stalling on its promise, calling it "classic monopolist
behavior."  Ameritech responds that AT&T "really has no interest in
doing anything other than playing games and delaying our entry into
long distance."  (Wall Street Journal 7/24/95 B5)

(Oh, the irony!  AT&T is complaining that now its *children* are too
monopolistic.)


michael j kuras     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 08:30:04 -0600
From: [e-mail] (David Jensen)
Subject: More Area Codes vs. More Digits Per Number


PAT-

I didn't see this in FAQ: Why did BELLCORE decide to break metro areas
into ever smaller area codes rather than go to eight digit numbers as in
Tokyo?


Dave Jensen


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good question. Answers from the experts
on this?  Why was this the decision?     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #335
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02639;
          9 Aug 95 8:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20843 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 23:29:10 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20831; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 23:29:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 23:29:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #336

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Aug 95 23:29:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 336

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    House Approves Cox/Wyden Net Freedom Amendment (Ben Heckscher)
    Could India's Internet Monopoly Serve a Purpose? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Book Review: "Internet Secrets" by Levine/Baroudi (Rob Slade)
    Telecom, IT News Carried on Free Press Distribution Site (Darren Ingram)
    Privacy on Cellular Phones (Dimitrios Tombros)
    Birthdate For LD Information? ([e-mail])
    Request for Interest - Fiber Optics in NYS (Richard J. Morris)
    Help! SL/1 M1250/M2250 Protocol (Jan Langevad)
    How Often Do We Change Phone Numbers? (Thomas Lapp)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 07:52 EST
From: Ben Heckscher <[e-mail]>
Subject: House Approves Cox/Wyden Net Freedom Amendment


Patrick,

This looks VERY interesting.  Suggest that you edit and distribute
to the Telecom*Digest.

Regards,
Ben Heckscher

Date:     Fri Aug 04, 1995  3:43 pm  EDT
Source-Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 13:59:16 -0400
From:     editor
          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
          MBX: [e-mail]
TO:     * Ben Heckscher / MCI ID: 309-4996
Subject:  CDT POLICY POST No.23 - House Approves Cox/Wyden Net Freedom Amdt.


  CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
  A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
  CDT POLICY POST Number 23                       August 4, 1995

CONTENTS: (1) House Approves Cox/Wyden 'Internet Freedom' Bill 420 to 4
              Major Victory for Cyberspace -- Indecency Statues Remain
              A Serious Issue
          (2) Subcribe To The CDT Policy Post Distribution List
          (3) About CDT, Contacting US

This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its
entirety.


(1) HOUSE PASSES COX/WYDEN 'INTERNET FREEDOM' AMENDMENT
    MAJOR VICTORY FOR CYBERSPACE -- INDECENCY STATUTES REMAIN A MAJOR ISSUE

By a overwhelming vote of 420 to 4, the US House of Representatives
today approved the 'Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment'
amendment, sponsored by Reps. Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR),
which would prohibit the federal government from regulating content on
the Internet, commercial online services, and other interactive media.

Unlike the Senate-passed Exon/Coats Communications Decency Act (CDA),
the Cox/Wyden amendment ensures that individuals and parents can
decide for themselves what information they or their children receive.
By contrast, the Exon/Coats CDA would grant the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) broad powers to regulate the expression of each and
every one of the millions of users of the Internet.

The Cox/Wyden amendment:

* Prohibits the FCC from imposing content regulations on the Internet or
  other interactive media.

* Removes disincentives for online service providers to exercise
  editorial control over their networks and to provide blocking and
  screening technologies to their uses.

* Seeks to create a uniform national policy prohibiting content
  regulations in interactive media.

CDT believes that the Cox/Wyden amendment is an enlightened approach
to addressing the issue of children's access to objectionable material
online.  Unlike the Senate-passed CDA, the Cox/Wyden approach
recognizes that the Internet is a global, decentralized network, with
abundant capacity for content and tremendous user control.

House passage of the Cox/Wyden amendment sets the stage for a direct
battle between the House and Senate on the issue of government content
regulation in interactive media. CDT will work vigorously to ensure
that the Cox/Wyden amendment replaces the Exon/Coats CDA in the final
version of telecommunications Reform legislation.

NEW UNCONSTITUTIONAL INDECENCY RESTRICTIONS ALSO APPROVED

Although the House vote today significantly advanced freedom of speech
on the Internet, the threat of unconstitutional indecency restrictions
remains.

In a vote unrelated to the Cox/Wyden amendment, the House also
approved changes to federal obscenity laws which would criminalize the
transmission of constitutionally protected speech online. These
amendments were approved as part of the "Managers Amendment" to the
Telecommunications reform bill (HR 1555). Although these amendments
are more narrowly drawn than the Exon/Coats CDA or the Grassley/Dole
"Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act (S. 892), they
clearly violate the First Amendment and remain an issue of serious
concern to CDT.

The new criminal law amendments are opposed by several prominent
members of both the House and Senate, including Cox and Wyden. As the
bill makes its way through the House/Senate conference committee, CDT
will work with Reps.  Cox and Wyden, Senator Leahy, and others to:

* Remove the unconstitutional indecency restrictions added as part of
  the "Managers amendment"

* Ensure that the Cox/Wyden amendment replaces the Exon/Coats CDA in the
  final telecommunications reform bill

* Clarify that the Cox/Wyden amendment does not affect privacy
  protections under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)

* Strengthen provisions that pre-emption state online censorship laws.

COX/WYDEN AMENDMENT PROTECTS CYBERSPACE FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION,
RECOGNIZES PARENTAL CONTROL POSSIBILITIES

The Cox/Wyden bill seeks to accomplish four principal objectives:

* PROHIBIT FCC CONTENT REGULATION OF THE INTERNET AND INTERACTIVE
  COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

  The bill explicitly prohibits the Federal Communications Commission
  from imposing or content or other regulations on the Internet or other
  interactive communications services (Sec 2 (d)).

  This provision recognizes that Interactive media is different from
  traditional mass media (such as broadcast radio and television), and
  will enshrine in statue strong protections for all content carried on
  the Internet and other interactive communications services. Instead of
  relying on government censors to determine what is or is not
  appropriate for audiences, this provision recognizes that individuals
  and parents are uniquely qualified to make those judgments.

* REMOVE DISINCENTIVES FOR ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO EXERCISE
  EDITORIAL CONTROL OVER THEIR NETWORKS AND TO DEPLOY BLOCKING AND
  SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THEIR SUBSCRIBERS.

  The bill would remove liability for providers of interactive
  communications services who take good faith steps to restrict access
  to obscene or indecent materials to minors or provide software or
  hardware to enable their users to block objectionable material.(Sec 2
  (c))  In addition, the bill would overturn the recent court  decision
  (Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24,
  1995) which held Prodigy liable for content on its network
  because the service screens for sexually explicit material and
  language.  Prodigy now faces a $200 million lawsuit.

  The bill does not intend to create an obligation for providers to
  monitor or screen content or to allow violation of Federal privacy
  statutes (such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act), although
  some concerns remain on these points. CDT remains committed to
  addressing these concerns as the legislation moves to conference, and
  has been assured by Rep. Cox and Wyden that these issues will be
  addressed.

* PRE-EMPT INCONSISTENT STATE LAWS REGULATING CONTENT ON INTERACTIVE
  COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

  The bill seeks to pre-empt States from enforcing inconsistent laws,
  including restrictions on content available on interactive
  communications services.  (Sec 2 (e)(2))

  The actual scope of this preemption remains an issue of some
  discussion. CDT believes that any legislation in this area MUST
  contain a strong pre-emption of inconsistent state laws. A patchwork
  of state laws which impose varying, and in some cases contradictory,
  obligations on service providers and content providers must be
  avoided. CDT will work to ensure that the Cox/Wyden bill creates a
  uniform national policy which prohibits states from imposing content
  regulations on interactive media.

* NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW.

  The bill is not intended to prevent the enforcement of the current
  dial-a-porn statute or other Federal criminal statutes such as
  obscenity, child pornography, harassment, etc. (Sec 2 (e)(1))

NET ACTIVISM A CRITICAL FACTOR

When Senator Exon (D-NE) first proposed the CDA in February 1995, the
net.community reacted with strong opposition. A coalition of online
activist organizations, including CDT, EFF, People for the American
Way, EPIC, the ACLU and organized with the Voters Telecommunications
Watch (VTW), worked tirelessly over the last six months to mobilize
grass roots opposition to the CDA. Through our efforts of generating
thousands of phone calls to Congressional offices and an online
petition which generated over 100,000 signatures in support of an
alternative to the CDA, the net.community was able to demonstrate that
we are a political force to be reckoned with.

The net.campaign and public education efforts helped to encourage
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to come out against the CDA, and
was an important factor in Reps. Cox and Wyden's decision to propose
their alternative. As the legislation moves to the conference
committee and then on to final passage, the net.community must be
prepared to continue to fight to ensure that the new criminal
provisions are removed and that the Cox/Wyden amendment is not
weakened.

GENESIS OF THE COX/WYDEN AMENDMENT

After the Senate passed the CDA by a vote of 84-16 on June 14, CDT
stepped up our efforts to find an alternative which protected the
First Amendment and recognized the unique nature of interactive media.
Both on our own and through the Interactive Working Group (a group of
over 80 public interest organizations and leading computer and
communications companies, content providers, and others, coordinated
by CDT. The IWG includes the ACLU, People for the American Way, the
Progress and Freedom Foundation, America Online, MCI, Compuserve and
Prodigy, and many other organizations and corporations), worked
directly with Reps. Cox and Wyden to bolster the case that parental
control technologies offered an effective alternative to government
content regulations.

To this end, the IWG held a demonstration for members of Congress and
the press in mid-July to demonstrate parental control feature of
products offered by Netscape, SurfWatch, WebTrack, America Online, and
Prodigy.

In addition, the IWG issued a comprehensive report reviewing current
technology and the state of current laws prohibiting trafficking in
obscenity, child pornography, stalking, threats, and other criminal
conduct online (this report can be viewed on CDT's web site
URL:http://www.cdt.org/iwg/IWGrept.html).

Through these efforts and the efforts of VTW's online coalition, to
educate members of the House about the problems with the Exon/CDA and
the promise of interactive media, the House today has enacted an
enlightened approach to dealing with children's access to
inappropriate material online. Today's vote represents a tremendous
victory for the first amendment and the promise of cyberspace.

NEXT STEPS

The House Telecommunications legislation (HR 1555) is expected to pass
later today (8/4). The Senate approved similar legislation (S. 652) in
June. Both bills now move to a House/Senate Conference Committee where
differences will be worked out. The Conference Committee is expected
to begin deliberation in early September. Once the Conference
Committee agrees on a version of the bill, it will be sent back to
both the House and Senate for final approval. This vote is expected to
occur before the end of October.

The Internet-censorship provisions of the Senate bill are among the
key difference between the House and Senate proposals. However,
several key members of the Senate, including Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-VT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) have expressed opposition to the
Exon/Coats approach.

CDT will fight vigorously throughout the remainder of this Congress to
ensure that the Exon/Coats CDA does not become law. We will also work
to remove the new unconstitutional criminal law amendments passed by
the House today.

(3) How To Subcribe To The CDT Policy Post Distribution List

CDT Policy Posts, which is what you have just finished reading, are the
regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology. CDT
Policy Posts are designed to keep you informed on developments in public
policy issues affecting civil liberties online.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMAITON

1. SUBSCRIBING TO THE LIST

To subscibe to the policy post distribution list, send mail to
"[e-mail]" with:

    subscribe policy-posts

in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank)


2. UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THE LIST

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list,
you can send mail to "[e-mail]" with the following command
in the body of your email message:

    unsubscribe policy-posts [e-mail] (your name)

(leave the subject line blank)


(4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US

The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest
organization. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public
policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic
values in new computer and communications technologies.

Contacting us:

General information on CDT can be obtained by sending mail to
 <[e-mail]>

World-Wide-Web:

   http://www.cdt.org/

ftp:

   ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/

snail mail:

Center For Democracy and Technology
1001 G Street, NW Suite 700 East
Washington, DC 20001
voice: +1.202.637.9800
fax:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: Could India's Internet Monopoly Serve a Purpose?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 20:11:39 GMT
Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org 510-658-6376


(C) Copyright 1995 Deus X Machina, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Indian Techonomist, Sample issue, July 1995

The Internet, a monopoly

India's first public-access Internet service provider will be a
monopoly. This need not be as bad as it sounds

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) is the public-sector international
communications monopoly. It has long provided leased lines to those
needing more direct international connectivity. It has also provided a
gateway to international X.25 data networks, so its foray into
Internet services is not unexpected.

This came at a moment that can only be described as interesting.  This
year, modem sales will double, crossing 25,000 - one for every 10 PCs
sold. Most modems are used in internal corporate networks, due to
restrictions on public networks - the Department of Telecommunications
(DoT) has been sitting on its hands as far as datacom reforms go, and
potential private service providers wait uneasily.

VSNL couldn't be bothered. It is not always on the best of terms with
the DoT, but has avoided licensing problems by declaring its service
an "Internet Gateway" - obviously a form of overseas communications.
VSNL will use its limited last-leg rights to connect to major cities,
and route the rest through the DoT's own data network. Perhaps
strangely for a monopoly, VSNL's pricing structure is almost rational,
and its rates for individuals - about 60 cents an hour - are quite
reasonable. Much less, at any rate, than what private e-mail providers
charge, which is closer to 60 cents per page of text.  VSNL is poor at
customer support, and will probably not be able to meet the demand,
despite their senior management's fond hopes. But when it decides to
concentrate on connecting other, private, providers (as it is already
willing to do), and lets them handle the end users, it would have set
the precedent of a low price in India.

Providers will have to revise their plans, to the customers' benefit.
The DoT will end its freeze on datacom next year.  But VSNL would have
broken the ice.

VSNL will launch its services by August 15. Pricing structure and
further details at:
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/news/vsnl.html

TECHONOMIST COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND SUBSCRIPTION
(C) Copyright 1995 Deus X Machina, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Licenced for COMMERCIAL electronic reproduction to TELECOM Digest,
Compuserve, Prodigy, Delphi, GENIE and America Online. This article may
be redistributed elsewhere in electronic form only, provided that
the article and this notice remain intact. This article may not under any
circumstances be redistributed or resold in any non-electronic form, or for
compensation of any kind, without prior written permission from
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh ([e-mail])

This article is from the Indian Techonomist
(http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/), the newsletter on India's
information industry. Annual subscription (monthly print edition plus
e-mail bulletins) is for US$ 595 or equivalent. For information, contact
Rishab Ghosh by e-mail at [e-mail], call [phone] or
post to H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

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

Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 15:14:10 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet Secrets" by Levine/Baroudi


BKINTSEC.RVW   950519

"Internet Secrets", John Levine/Carol Baroudi, 1995, 1-56884-452-2,
U$39.99/C$54.99/UK#38.99
%A   John Levine [e-mail]
%A   Carol Baroudi
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1995
%G   1-56884-452-2
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$39.99/C$54.99/UK#38.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   990
%T   "Internet Secrets"

This book is very much like the Internet.  The material was written by
all kinds of different people; the organization is subjective, at
best; there are flashes of neat things amid the mass of data; but,
when you really want an answer, it might not be there.

Part one, personal essays, ranges from the classic Salzenberg/Spafford/
Moraes Usenet definition through a tale of meeting and mating on
France's Minitel to an excellent resource list of products to assist
those with disabilities to gain internet access.  Part two contains
aspects of the technology of connecting to the net.  A look at
applications ranges from advice on your own plan and profile files, to
terse program documentation, to FAQs in part three.  A few pieces from
the (technical) perspective of the information provider make up part
four and some lists of Windows and Mac software, part five.

As is stated in the introduction, this book is not for the novice.
Those on the steep ramp of the learning curve may find various bits of
interest, but those who are on the net can find most of this already.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINTSEC.RVW   950519. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.

DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters
Editor and/or reviewer [e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0


[TELECOM Editor's Note: John Levine? Hey, we know that guy!    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 15:29:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Darren P. Ingram)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom, IT News Carried on Free Press Distribution WWW Site


May I just draw your attention to our latest project -- M2 NewsWEB -- a
free net resource with news / press information updated throughout the
day from firms all around the world.

The press release distributed on 1 August (available from
www.m2.com/pw/m2c017.html) basically said: "NewsWEB provides free
worldwide news, updated throughout the day, to Internet WWW (world
wide web) users as well as a dedicated free and low-cost distribution
service for organisations looking at relaying their news throughout
the world. Material carried on NewsWEB is also relayed free-of-charge
on M2 PressWIRE, an existing high-quality information dissemination
resource. Until 30 September companies can have their press material
carried free-of-charge on NewsWEB and M2 PressWIRE, as well as taking
advantage of a very low annual subscription fee for unlimited usage."

Your patronage, consideration and views would be welcomed on NewsWEB
and the other features on our WWW site. We are also looking at gaining
and giving links too.

Access www.m2.com today -- feedback may be sent to me at [e-mail].

Thanks for your time!

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

From: [e-mail] (Dimitrios Tombros)
Subject: Privacy on Cellular Phones
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 14:25:38 GMT


Hi all:

Could you please give me some pointers concerning privacy on cellular
phones.  What I am interested in, is if privacy of calls can be
guaranteed or how easy it is to tap into cellular calls. Is there any
difference depending on the system used (I am primarily interested in
GSM)?


Thanks,

Dimitrios Tombros             Database Technology Research Group
e-mail: [e-mail]        Computer Science Department
Tel. [phone]            University of Zurich


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no such thing as guarenteed privacy
on a cellular phone. There is what I would call 'privacy for all practical
intents and purposes' since probably 99 percent of celluar calls are not
overheard. The mechanism for doing so is quite easy however, even though
it is illegal. On most Tandy/Radio Shack scanners capable of receiving the
800 mz range for example, the removal of just one diode will make the
scanner become capable of listening to cellular phones. The thing most
people do not realize however in their eagerness to own a pirate (and
quite illegally modified!) scanner is that cellular calls for the most part
just are *not interesting*, and furthermore, all you get are just fleeting
whisps of conversation as the cars drive past. There is no continuity in
the conversations overheard, and people with anything much to say do not
use cellular phones any more than they use landline phones; not if the
message is *really* a juicy one. GSM is a different thing altogether; I
don't know that much about it.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:16:06 -0400
Subject: Birthdate For LD Information?


I recieved a strange call about a week ago. It was out of area by
the CID box.  The person on the other end wanted to give me two weeks
of FREE LD.  I didn't have to change my present carrier.  All I had to
do was give them my address and birthdate.  As soon as I heard
birthdate, I got suspicious and said no thank you and hung-up.  The
company was (I think) LDS or LDDS.

My question is why would they need my birthday, except to change my LD
carrier?

About 20 minutes later I heard my other line ring (computer line).
Since it is always in fax mode when I'm not using it, the fax answered
the phone. The other line is about 200 away from my voice line ...


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like you were smart and
avoided a scam of some sort. They don't need your birthday to change your
LD carrier; all they have to do is submit the proper form (whether or not
it was properly submitted is a different matter) to the local telco. It
does however help to have your birthday for the purposes of running a
credit check on you.

None of us here would ever be victimized by some of the scams which take
place by phone, but a great many people would be and are daily. One scam
which phone phreaks use to illicitly obtain credit and other information
is to pose as telemarketing reps for bogus, non-existent carriers. Or, they
may choose a real carrier. Then they take 'credit applications' right
over the phone from people who express an interest in changing their
carrier. "Now Mrs. Jones, may I have your social security number please?
Good ... and what was the number on that Visa card you are giving as a credit
reference?  What did you say your mother's maiden name was?"

When I reported a couple weeks ago about the bug in the 500 software being
used in Ameritech switches here, AT&T went to work on it after my third
call, and about 10:30 pm one night I got a call from an AT&T guy in Kansas
City who was working on it. A few minutes later a guy from Ameritech called
to say they were looking at the software in the Oakbrook office and he was
pretty sure they had isolated the problem but he wanted to make a couple of
test calls using *my* Ameritech calling card (as in, 'to bill this call to
a calling card, press zero followed by the pound key now'). He apologized
profusely for it but asked if I would give him my pin so he could try it
on my account. In a teasing way I asked him in an astounded tone of voice
that, 'gee, I thought I read in the informative front pages of my local
phone directory that Ameritech representatives will *never* call you asking
for your pin number to conduct tests, etc ....'

He probably saw the twinkle in my eyes right through the receiver and he
said if I wanted, he would be glad to change the pin for me immediatly
after the tests were finished, but I told him he could use it and did not
have to bother changing it afterward -- I watch my phone bill pretty
closely anyway.

The trouble, by the way, turned out to be a bug which prohibited intra-lata
calls to a 500 number from being completed with a local telephone company
calling card. As long as I called a 500 number *whose home number* (regardless
of where the call actually was forwarded to) was outside this LATA the
call would complete with a telco calling card. If it was a 500 number *whose*
home number* was inside this LATA you could bill it to any credit card
accepted by AT&T including an AT&T card, but not to an Ameritech calling card.
Don't ask me why or how. Anyway, Ameritech got it fixed, apparently by
reloading the software. Would you believe those test calls came through on
my phone bill a couple days ago?  Yeah, I guess why wouldn't they?  I
called the business office and the rep wrote them off along with that nasty
mess from Integratel last month which was still hanging on also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:37:11 -0400
Subject: Request for Interest - Fiber Optics in NYS


    NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    "Notice for Letters-of-Interest"
    for the Installation, Operation and Maintenance
    of Fiber Optic Facilities on Specified Freeways

    Notice is hereby given that the NYSDOT is planning to make
available the rights-of-way of various freeways to responsible
transportation corporations for the longitudinal installation,
operation, and maintenance of fiber optic facilities in accordance
with the accommodation plan filed in 17 NYCRR Part 133.  These
installations are intended to enhance the telecommunications
infrastructure within New York State by opening freeway corridors for
installation of facilities with the objectives of creating business
opportunity for the builder, broadening access for users and
benefiting the State in its telecommunication and Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) needs.  NYSDOT plans to advertise a
Request for Proposals (RFP) in the New York State Contract Reporter
and other periodicals normally used for such purposes.  The selected
proposer would gain exclusive access to these rights-of-way for a
"minimum" period of ten (10) years.

    The RFP issued will involve several freeways which enter,
traverse and/or encircle some major cities in New York State.  A list
of these cities and freeways is as follows:
        Buffalo:  I-290, I-190
        Rochester:  I-390, I-490, I-590
        Syracuse:  I-690, I-481
        Utica:  I-790
        Schenectady:  I-890
        Albany:  I-787, I-90
        Kingston:  I-587
        White Plains:  I-684
        New York City:  I-87, I-95, I-295, I-278, I-678

    The RFP will also involve freeways servicing large portions of
New York State and providing access to Canada, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey.  These freeways are as follows:
        I-87:  Albany <-> Canadian border
        I-81:  Syracuse <-> Canadian border
        I-81:  Syracuse <-> Binghamton <-> Pennsylvania border
        I-88:  Schenectady <-> Binghamton
        I-390:  NYS Thruway <-> Rte 17
        Rte 17:  Selected sections
        I-495:  Long Island

    NYSDOT will also entertain proposals and suggestions from
responsible transportation corporations beyond the scope of this
proposed RFP.

 Additional freeways may yet become available and also be included in
the RFP.


    Interested parties must submit a brief, one-page Letter-of-Interest
(LOI) by August 18, 1995.  An informational meeting will be scheduled,
and all interested parties will be notified of the time and place.
The RFP will be mailed to all parties submitting an LOI.

    Submit LOI's to:        Richard J. Morris
                Real Estate Division
                NYS Department of Transportation
                State Campus Bldg 5, Room 203
                1220 Washington Avenue
                Albany, NY 12232-0320
                [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jan Langevad)
Subject: Help! SL/1 M1250/M2250 Protocol
Date: 7 Aug 1995 21:14:53 GMT
Organization: DKnet


Does anyone have access to a description on the serial protocol used
on the switchboards used on Northern Telecom / Meridian SL-1 PBX?

On the back side of the M1250 and M2250 Switchboards, there is a
normal RS-232, DB-25 serial interface. Via this it should be possible
to control the switchboard from a PC, and to get status, call/progress
information etc.

What I need is DETAILED information, enabling me to program the
protocol on a PC, for use in our already existing SW product, COMPUTER
AIDED eXCHANGE (CAX) (tm DaTelCo). So if timing is important, details
on that is needed too. All commands, functions, status feed back,
SW/HW- handshake, speed (baud/rate), stop-bits, parity information
etc. is needed too.

We are willing to pay for a detailed, complete description, send by
E-mail, or normal postal service. But it MUST be complete!

If you can help, please state price, method of payment etc.

Thanks in advance, and best regards from (Mr.) Jan Langevad.


[e-mail]   or
Company address
DaTelCo ApS - P.O.Box 25 - DK 3520 Farum - Denmark - Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Lapp)
Subject: How Often Do We Change Phone Numbers?
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 14:22:32 EDT


In a previous digest, Pat was commenting on differences between
criss/cross directories and mentioned something that caused me to
think about an interesting question.

Pat writes:

Forwarded message:

> Years ago people did not move like they do now; they stayed at the
> same residence for umpteen years as a routine thing. Now a good
> percentage of the population moves every year or two.

This made me wonder: are there any statistics as to how often the
average number stays in use by the same subscriber?  At one company I
know of that has its own internal phone network, at one point there
were two changes each year for every phone number kept up internally!
I'm wondering with our mobile society, how the number of phone switch
changes in general has changed over the past ten years or so.


tom
internet: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several years ago, the customer news-
letter which went out with every phone bill from Illinois Bell was
called Telebriefs. They had a contest to find out which IBT subscriber
had had their number the longest. One company had the same phone number
for *eighty-three* years. They proved it by submitting a photocopy of
an advertisement their company had run in the {Chicago Tribune} in the
year 1900 with the same number, given the exchange name having been
converted to two letters and then finally eliminated entirely for seven
digits. They literally had gone from 'ask central for XXXX' to Central XXXX
to CENtral-XXXX to CEntral-6-XXXX to CE-6-XXXX to 236-XXXX, always keeping
the same XXXX.

312-236 is the oldest exchange in Chicago; it was the first and only one
in the days when there was simply the 'central telephone exchange' back
about 1879, and everyone in Chicago with a phone was listed on three or
four pages.

A large number of old established companies in the Chicago area reported
having the same number for a half-century or more. The University of
Chicago had MIDway-0800 as their main switchboard number for about seventy
years until sometime in the early 1970's when they 'went centrex'. The
Hilton Hotel downtown (formerly the Stevens Hotel) still has WABash-4400;
it was spotted in a microfilm copy of a Chicago Telephone Company phone
directory from about 1921. The Lawson YMCA has been WHItehall-6211 since
1930.  Marshall Field and Company was always STAte-1000, then one day it
changed to 781-1000 (*not* 782 as might be expected). And this will only
be appreciated by people who live in Chicago and who remember 'State Street,
that Great Street' from a half-century ago when it was a great thoroughfare.
Every major department store heading southward from Fields had phone
numbers in order: Remember, we used to have a dozen large major department
stores downtown back then. Heading south from Fields with STAte-1000 came
Carson Pirie Scott with STAte-2000, followed by Weiboldts with STAte-3000,
Goldblatt's with STAte-4000, and directly across the street was the Fair
Store (later Montgomery Ward, and for the past twenty years just a vacant
rubble strewn lot) with STAte-5000. A bit up the block coming north was
the Boston Store with STAte-6000. Over two blocks west, City Hall was
RANdolph-8000 for maybe 65 years, but the mayor had a private line in his
office, CENtral-0001, a vestige from the days of 'central' when City Hall
was phone number 1, the {Chicago Tribune} was 2, The First National Bank
of Chicago was 3, etc ... and for police or fire, you asked central to
connect you with the police or the fire alarm office in City Hall.

'Twas a funny thing how our 312-744 exchange came to be also. City Hall
and all the various police stations all over the city moved onto 312-744
as a centrex in the late 1960's. (Since then they have expanded to
include 745 and 747, but that is not the point of this story.)  The old
RAndolph-6-8000 was abandoned, and I am not sure if it ever has been
re-assigned or not, but anyway, recall please that the 1960's in America
were a perfectly dreadful time with respect to civil disobedience and
general discontent with the government. Riots everywhere including two
here in 1968 alone. The police were known as 'pigs', and someone who
worked for Illinois Bell at the time City Hall was changed over to the
new centrex had the duty of assigning an available prefix (and there
were plenty of them in those days) to the new centrex account. After
some thought and careful consideration of the letters on the telephone
dial, a central office technician given the duty of setting it up said --
with a perfectly straight face mind you -- that the new prefix they would
open for the City Hall and Police centrex would be 744. No one questioned
it; no one apparently thought twice about it. Once it was turned on and
too late to do anything about it, word quickly went around that to reach the
Chicago Police or the local politicians with the new phone system, one simply
dialed PIG followed by the pig's four digit extension number. PIG-4000 got
you the City Hall switchboard, while PIG-5000 got you the Mayor's Office.

Just as in those days the Chicago Police 'Red Squad' had a lot of inside
contacts at telco (usually in the security department) to set up illegal
wire-taps and the like, there were also a lot of Vietnam War protestors and
assorted other dissidents, 'anarchists' and phreaks working at telco, but
as equally in the closet about it as were the police officers and local
politicians who would meet their telco contacts at the bar and grill on
South Clark Street. Someone maxxed that 744/PIG joke to the hilt: for a
brief time a certain non-working number PIG-xxxx got diverted somewhere
to an answering machine with a cute message on it: The voice said "sorry
we are out to a free lunch right now, and lunch around here lasts most of
the day, especially since the taxpayers buy it for us, but leave a message
and if we are not dodging your calls we will get back to you." In the back-
ground on the tape, the sound of a couple dozen hungry squealing pigs making
oinking noises as they crowd around their slop buckets, pushing each
other out of the way, etc.  It disappeared suddenly one day, with the
more standard 'number you have dialed is not in service' recording
back in place.  The same identical recording showed up for awhile also on
a non-working 312-353 number (one of the several federal government centrex
systems here) for a short time, and mysteriously disappeared from there
also.  That would have been 1968-69. What times those were!     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #336
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa03721;
          9 Aug 95 10:28 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22382 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 01:25:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22374; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 01:25:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 01:25:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #337

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Aug 95 01:25:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 337

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500? (Paul Carl Kocher)
    Enterprise Management Summit '95 - Summit Shoot-Out ([e-mail])
    Compatability With U.S. Standards? (Tony Zara)
    Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds? (John P. Dearing)
    The Bell Atlantic Way? (John P. Dearing)
    Late Notice is Better Than None? (Mark Brader)
    Need Help With FAX Machine Reprogramming (Wolf Paul)
    Re: US West 360 Area Code Fiasco (Melvin Klassen)
    Re: Phone Bills For Fortune 500 Companies (Heath Roberts)
    Re: Atlanta Automated 411 (Nick Vora)
    Re: ACLU Cries Wolf on HR 1555 (Tom Olin)
    Re: Some 500 Activity Underway Here (Richard Barry)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Carl Kocher)
Subject: Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 20:53:06 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA


Hello --

My problem is I move around quite a bit and want to have a stable
telephone number that will route my calls to wherever I am.  800
numbers aren't acceptable because they can't be called from overseas
and I don't want to get a lot of wrong numbers or give out a PIN.
Ideally, I'd like the system to ring twice at an easily-programmed
number then, if nobody picks up, go to voicemail.  The automatic
forwarding isn't essential, but would be nice.

I tried the AT&T 500 number service, but it's *awful*.  People can't
direct dial the number from overseas.  Someone in Canada who had tried
to call me asked their operator why it didn't work and was told it was
a "porn line or something."  (Thanks, AT&T!)  Even worse, people can't
dial it from companies where 900 access is blocked (most of them) --
even though AT&T advertises the service to businesses.  (People can
call through 0-500, but it's expensive and still often fails.)  It
also doesn't work from Alaska, and who knows what other states.
Before signing up, I asked whether it could be direct-dialed from
overseas and the answer was "yes."  (Now they say that direct dialing
works -- if it's an AT&T line.  Sigh.)  They didn't tell me about any
of the other problems.  One last minor annoyance is that callers are
subjected to irritating "welcome to AT&T" and "please wait while we
try the next number" messages when they call.

So far I've come up with two very expensive alternatives, and I'm
hoping someone might know of a better one:

  (1) Get a local number from the phone company that is permanantly
      set to forward to the 500 number.  AT&T says this will work
      (though don't believe anything they say anymore) but it will
      be *really* expensive in the long run.

  (2) Pay for a phone number at a human-operated call answering
      that will answer the phone and forward calls to me at whatever
      number I've told them I'll be at.  This is less expensive than
      choice #1, but still seems unnecessary.

  (3) Pay for a local number and pay $19 whenever I want to change
      the number it forwards to.

Ideally I'd like to pay a $50 (or less) per month flat fee, regardless
of the amount of local calling, but some per-minute fees would be OK.
The number *must* be in a normal area code (415 would be ideal, but
other places would be OK).  Built-in voicemail would be a plus worth
another $30/mo (what I'm paying now after I figure in 12 cents/minute
local access charges).

Thanks for any suggestions!


Paul    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you might want to talk to the 'MyLine'
people. Yes, I know they are known for programmable 800 numbers, but the
catch is they also have area 805 numbers in San Luis Obispo, CA terminated
on their switch, and they give those out to people who are expecting a lot
of international traffic. A recording in your voice, made by yourself and
changeable at will greets callers saying 'please stand by while your call
is tranferred to me' or whatever you want to say. You can punch in your
security code over the greeting message to go into maintainence mode; you
also can have a two digit 'priority callers code' which if entered by
persons you give it to causes them to be transferred immediatly to the
number you establish (and change at will) as your 'priority number.' Voice
mail is part of the package of course. It would not make sense in your
case with an 805 number to make outgoing calls through 'MyLine' but you
can if you want. Usually that would be via an 800 incoming number which you
do not publicize, keeping it only for your own use in maintainence mode
or for outgoing calls, etc. I imagine they could tie an 805 number on with
an 800 number; one for your callers and the other for yourself. Rates are
not too bad either.

Write [e-mail]. His name is Jeff Buckingham, and he is a
regular reader here. I imagine he could turn it on in a couple days.  Other
readers who want great programmable 800 service should inquire also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Enterprise Management Summit '95- Summit Shoot-Out
Date: 9 Aug 1995 01:15:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom


The 1995 Summit Shoot-Out is part of the Enterprise Management Summit
'95 which will take place this October 23-27 at the Dallas InfoMart.
As of 8/1/95, there are seven participants in the shoot-out: Bull,
Cabletron, DEC, HP, IBM, LEGENT, and SunSoft. Networks include
NetWare, NT, Warp, DECNet, and TCP/IP. Systems include DOS, Windows
95, UNIX, and OS/2. Also present will be distributed applications,
databases, messaging networks such as Lotus Notes , Internet
applications such as Netscape, as well as enterprise management
platforms and thrid-party management applications.

The Summit Shoot-Out is the only place where prospective buyers of
enterprise management products can evaluate them side-by-side, in a
live format, with objective and quantifiable ways of comparison.
Vendors will appear together on the Shoot-Out stage to demonstrate
comprehensive end-to-end management capability as they respond to a
series of challenges that include the following:

* Asset Management: basic discovery and hardware/software inventory,
unauthorized and disappearing workstations

* Fault Management: defective hubs, failed WAN links, disk space
problems, trouble ticketing, enterprise wide help desk

* Software Distribution: an enterprise wide solution

* Proactive Management/Network Automation: excess traffic, out of
memory errors, runaway processes.

* Applications Management

Like Summit '94, demos will NOT be allowed in the Shoot-Out. Instead,
vendors must respond to a series of 'scenarios' that incorporate the
above hazards.

(See the Summit WWW page at http://www.summit.micromuse.com, select Summit
Bulletin Board for details on the scenarios). The schedule for the
1995 Summit Shoot-Out is:

Monday, October 23
IBM, Cabletron
Tuesday, October 24
SunSoft, Digital
Wednesday, October 25
Hewlett-Packard, LEGENT, Bull

A panel of judges will evaluate each vendor presentation. Chairing
this panel is Bob Kronzer of Booz-Allen & Hamilton which has developed
the criteria for the judges.

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

From: [e-mail] (TonyZara)
Subject: Compatability With U.S. Standards?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 18:53:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (TonyZara)


My company buys, repairs and sells used telecommunications equipment in
the U.S.

We have a strong market in the states, and we are developing some
contacts in Mexico and Latin America. I would like to do some business
in Europe and Japan.

Does anyone have telco experience in these places? How do systems,
tech, power differ. Would it be possible to buy used gear in Europe or
Japan and use it in the States or vice versa?

Any insight would be appreciated.


[e-mail]

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

From: John P. Dearing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds?
Date: 9 Aug 1995 00:51:29 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Connection


Steve Samler <[e-mail]> wrote:

-=[ stuff about 1 to 2 week strike fund supply deleted ]=-

And then our esteemed Moderator replied:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know the exact amount budgeted
> for strike benefits for union members, but I have heard the same as
> you from a contact here in Ameritech territory in the midwest. The pantry
> is not very stocked this time around. Oh well, its their choice if they
> go out or not, but I suspect once they play that card, the RBOC's will
> respond with a real vengeance. Are there any last minute updates on this
> that anyone knows about?  If anything happens, it should be this coming
> weekend shouldn't it?    PAT]

Here in Bell Atlantic Land (CWA Local 13000), the strike benefit is as
follows:

After the 15th day of a strike a member shall be entitled to a $200
per week strike benefit. The member must have perfrmed picket duty or
other assigned strike duty during that week in order to qualify for
the benefit.

If a member has a paid vacation day or a paid vacation week, they are
not eligible for strike fund benefits that week.

As an aside, many people try to schedule vacation time and/or Military
"Reserve" duty at or around contract deadline time. This lessens the
financial impact of a strike. The above provision ensures that they
don't get to "double dip".

Right now (Tuesday 8-8-95), Bell Atlantic and the CWA are still
talking but there is currently *NO* contract between bargaining unit
members and the company. This means that the Union could call a
walkout at any time or that the company could lock us out at any time
as well.

I, for one, am hoping that *neither* becomes a reality.


John Dearing
Speaking only as a member of, but not speaking *for* CWA Local 13000

[e-mail]

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

From: John P. Dearing <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Bell Atlantic Way?
Date: 9 Aug 1995 01:08:48 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Connection


Found this today, thought you would find it amusing....

THE BELL ATLANTIC WAY

Bell Atlantic and the Competition decided to engage in a competitive
boat race. Both teams practiced hard and long to reach their peak
performance.  On the big day, they both felt ready.

The competition won by a mile!

Afterward, the Bell Atlantic team was discouraged by the loss. Morale
sagged. Corporate management decided that the reason for the crushing
defeat HAD to be found, so a consulting firm was hired to investigate
the problem and recommend corrective action.

The Consultant's findings: The competition team had eight people rowing
and one preson steering; the Bell Atlantic team had one person rowing and
eight people steering.

A year of study, and millions spent on analyzing the problem, the
consulting firm concluded that too many people were steering and not
enough were rowing on the Bell Atlantic team.

So, as race day neared again the following year, the Bell Atlantic
team's management structure was completely reorganized. The new
structure: four steering managers, three area steering managers, one
staff manager and a new performance review system for the one person
rowing the boat to provide incentives.

That year the competition won by *TWO* miles!!

Humiliated, the Bell Atlantic corporation laid off the lone rower for
poor performance and gave the managers all bonuses for discovering the
problem.


Disclaimer -- Speaking as a member of, but not *for* CWA Local 13000


John Dearing   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well,  what you are saying is very true!
Finally, a dozen years into divestiture, the Bells are beginning to learn
how things are done in the real world. Do you remember the first year
or so following divestiture how embarassing -- utterly embarassing --
it could be at times talking to an AT&T 'sales' representative?  They
had no concepts about anything other than their own red tape. They
could not sell air conditioning units in hell ... that's how bad they
were at it. After all, for eighty years, they did not have to sell; they
just wrote tariffs, had thousands of clerks dealing with a huge amount
of red tape, and were generally sort of benevolent toward customers who
did not give them a hard time. I don't think it ever occurred to them in
those days that some of their competition would skin and eat them alive.
Even MCI was treated like a big joke back in the early 1970's; ask any
of the old-timers in marketing and traffic if you don't believe me. And
even though MCI and Sprint combined are not even half as good at overall
customer service and satisfaction as AT&T -- and never will be in my own
opinion -- those two still have managed to erode AT&T's customer base to
the point where Mother now has just a little over half of the business;
down from something like 85 percent of the business a few years ago.

Unfortunatly, some of the upper management in the RBOCs still haven't
completely grasped the Good News for Modern Man: there are people out
there who know just as much about telephony as they, and I dare say have
more respect for Ted Vail and his 'marketing techniques' (hee hee hee, big
grin) than they. Vail, the chairman of AT&T at the start of the 1900's
made Mother into what she was for most of this century. Imagine someone
of that caliber at the head of what we used to call the 'Other Common
Carriers' -- at least that's what AT&T taught us to call the upstarts.
Just imagine if Ted Vail was running MCI -- which is not to put down Bill
McGowan; while he was alive he made MCI what it is now -- but suppose a
Ted Vail came on the scene now. Ruthless?  You bet!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 95 12:00:31 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Late Notice is Better Than None?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 95 16:00:27 GMT


I got my phone bill from Bell Canada in the mail today, August 8,
1995.  There was an insert about "*New* procedures for direct dial
calling to the United Kingdom".

You guessed it -- it describes, in the future tense, the changes that
British city codes that "will" go into effect on April 15, 1995.

(In case anyone reading this newsgroup/list had sometimes managed to
miss this: most city codes have been prefixed with 1, e.g. central
London 71 became 171.  There are five exceptions: new codes 113 for
Leeds, 114 for Sheffield, 115 for Nottingham, 116 for Leicester, and
117 for Bristol.  In those five cities, the existing *local* numbers
have been prefixed with 9 [Bristol and Nottingham] or 2 [the other
cities].)


Mark Brader, [e-mail], SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
        "Have you ever heard [my honesty] questioned?"
        "I never even heard it mentioned."      -- Every Day's a Holiday

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help With FAX Machine Reprogramming
Date: 8 Aug 1995 09:51:37 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Austria AG/KSR


A friend of mine was given a used FAX machine and asked me to help her
reprogram the machine with her phone number in the Answerback/TLI
string.

There are no instructions on how to do this in the manual which came
with the machine, and the original vendor wants the equivalent of US$
100 to do the job, which I consider rather outrageous.

Maybe someone reading this group can help by providing information on
how to accomplish this.

The machine is a Gestetner 9625TC, also marked "Hitachi HF 25E [G] A",
manufactured in April 1987.

I have already posted this in comp.dcom.fax, to no avail, so I hope
that this group is where the experts congregate :-)


W. N. Paul/KSRU * Alcatel Austria AG * Scheydgasse 41 * A-1210 Vienna, Austria
[e-mail] * [phone] x2523 (voice)/x118 (fax) * [phone] (h)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
"Wo Dummheit als Erklaerung ausreicht, sollte man nicht nach Bosheit suchen."

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

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 16:58:34 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: US West 360 Area Code Fiasco
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ
[e-mail] wrote:

> Some companies who will be affected are not trying very hard to tell
> their customers their new number.  Today I had occasion to contact
> Sharp Electronics in Camas WA, soon to be '360.  When I called their
> Literature fullfillment center and asked for the direct number, I was
> given 206.  When I got a Voicemail back, even the Sharp employee I
> had called gave me (206) return numbers.  I use 360 to call back.
> The second employee I talked to remembered some internal memos about
> this, but apparently no one is taking it seriously.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dount that the people you talked to
> at the company had ever heard of 360 either.  It is amazing how many
> people don't know of these changes until the day their phone quits
> taking calls the way they dial them.  PAT]

I live in British Columbia, Canada, but, via cable, receive many
Seattle-area stations.  So, I can report that there *are*
advertisements about the 206/360 split, on TV.  Using the '360' code
works, in "permissive" mode.  You'd have to be a well-buried ostrich
to have missed the publicity.

Yes, I also have also seen promos on TV about the 604/250 split,
coming in October 1996, to British Columbia.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 21:16:44 GMT
From: heath (h.h.) roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Bills For Fortune 500 Companies
Organization: Bell Northern Research


Pat wrote:

> Wouldn't you love to have your phone bill arrive by a private courier
> service in several large carton boxes each month, and write a check
> for one with six zeros after it as a routine thing?

Actually I think it's more normal these days to get it on a WORM
CD-ROM in a FedEx envelope. The times they are a'changin' ...

I wonder how many of the telecom managers out there who are
complaining about having to reprogram their PBX'es are re-visiting the
cost analysis that led them to buy their own system instead of Centrex
service. Surely they saved *so much* money that the cost of annual
software maintenance is nothing by comparison. :-)

Realistically, it's just a cost of doing business. If you bought the
line from the telco, you wouldn't have to worry about changes. Since
you're saving money by not buying from telco, you've got to spend some
of your 'savings' to keep the system running.

As always, everybody wants everything. They want DID and cellular
phones and fax machines, but they want somebody else to deal with how
to deliver them.  You can't have all those phone numbers unless we
somehow get some more phone numbers ...

It's the same kind of thing as the computer date representation thread
that came up earlier -- somebody decided they were going to save two
bytes of storage per record in some database, claimed it on their
performance report, and got promoted before they problem they created
catches up with them.

For what it's worth, I think all the systems I have to deal with were
designed to handle the 21st century, or at least its dates, and my
bank's already given me amortization tables that run into 2020, so as
always, the most serious problems, the ones that involve money, will
get solved without too much ruckus, and someone else will spend time
cost-justifying re-writing some code that assumed society wouldn't
make it past 1999. Ironic that somebody else had to write a cost-justi-
fication for leaving off two significant digits just a few years ago.
I just don't know what we do with all the money these MBA's save
us ... unless maybe we use it to pay the MBA's? :-) --


Heath Roberts   [e-mail]
Unix Operating Systems/Nortel Global Enterprise Services


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whether you go with Centr(al)ex(change)
service or <P>rivate <B>ranch E<X>change service is purely an applications
problem; one that has to be resolved on a case-by-case basis at each
company. And where it is true as you point out that if you go with Centrex
the local telco will supply all your needs; it is also true as I think
John Higdon once pointed out here several years ago that when natural
disasters like earthquakes, fires and floods bring telco to its knees
even for a short time then your company's internal phone service is down
for the duration as well.

Consider the fire at Hinsdale, Illinois back on Mother's Day in 1988. They
got the Ohare Airport/FAA circuits re-connected within about an hour of
getting back into the building after the fire was extinquished. The guys
just walked right in through the soot and two inches of water all over the
floor and got those lines back up so Ohare Airport could resume operations.
911 was mostly reinstated within a day; a couple of 911's were back in two
days. Cellular service in northern Illinois was out for about a week as were
all pagers, etc. Long distance was re-routed around Hinsdale for about three
weeks. Remember all those 'due to local telephone company problems, your call
cannot be completed at this time' intercepts, and the endless redials to get
through the bottleneck here?  Well at least you got through. They brought the
switch up and started local Hinsdale area service about a week after the fire,
but it was so badly corroded they had to toss it out and buy a new switch.
Hinsdale was up for a day or a day and a half with more cross-talk, static,
dropped calls, lost and improperly supervised traffic than you could imagine
when they decided to take it down and start from scratch.  Finally Hinsdale
and nearby towns came back on line with dialtone and a brand new switch *one
month* after the fire.  Guess what?  For all the companies in the area with
Centrex, that's when their internal communications system came back on
line also. The PBX salesmen chortled; the Centrex salesmen hung their heads
in shame.

Maybe the answer is not so much which is better; both have very definite
roles. Perhaps the answer lies in the competecy and dedication of the
sysadmin. Yes, there are hardware limitations you cannot get around at
times, but so many companies don't hire a competent person to administer
the phones. They just make it a part time job handled by some clerk. Even
some PBX sysadmins don't know what they are doing.    PAT]

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

From: Nick Vora <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Automated 411
Date: 8 Aug 95 18:15:57 EDT
Organization: Univ of Miami IR


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kent Polkinghorne) writes:

> Andrew B. Hawthorn <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system
>> and I was curious if anyone knew how it works.  When a person dials
>> 411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What
>> city please?"  The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?"
>> The caller replies.

Miami (Southern Bell) has a similar (if not the same system).  The
operator comes on line to confirm any discrepancies with you and then
patches you through to an automated voice that tells you the number
and informs you that for an additional charge it can be dialed for
you.  However I've found that even when there is no doubt and no
discrepancy the operator comes on line, if only to say "Thank you" and
then patches you through?  Is there a reason beyond alleviating the
fears of people who believe machines are taking over?  Can't the
computer system handle it fully?!


Neeraj "Nick" Vora     Programmer/Analyst
Dept of Pathology     Unversity of Miami

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

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 08:10:40 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Tom Olin)
Subject: Re: ACLU Cries Wolf on HR 1555


[e-mail] writes:

> I'm sure the ACLU would like to paint this as an attack on civil
> liberties, but the bottom line is that these points at least, are
> nothing new, nothing earthshaking. The ACLU is crying 'WOLF' again.

The ACLU's position is that the government should not be restricting
what adults may or may not read.  Period.  However, within the
realities of existing law and court precedents, the ACLU will work to
minimize the negative impact of such laws, both existing and pending.

That is one reason why they were working against this bill.  Another
reason is that the Internet presents significantly different problems
for enforcement, which leads to a troubling question: Is this proposed
law largely unenforceable -- in which case, what's the point? -- or
is the government going to do everything necessary to enforce this
proposed law -- in which case we are certain to see severe attacks on
several articles in the Bill of Rights.

Regarding your point about the legality of selling SCREW to a minor:
The ACLU's letter specifically questioned the wisdom of a law that
imposes jail time for two 17-year-olds whose e-mail exchanges get a
little too steamy for somebody's community standards.  Although I have
not read the text of the proposed amendment, I would certainly not be
surprised to find that the law was written so broadly as to do so.  If
we don't care how sloppily laws are written, we can save heaps of time
and trouble by simply locking up all citizens immediately; our crime
problems will be solved overnight!

If the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, are not
important, then, yes, I guess the ACLU is crying 'WOLF'.


Tom Olin
8213 Bailey Lake Rd.             Internet: [e-mail]
Waterville, NY  13480           Voice/Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Barry)
Subject: Re: Some 500 Activity Underway Here
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 16:27:03 GMT


On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:12:37 -0500, you wrote:

> In response to my message in the Digest earlier today inviting test
> calls from around the USA, there have been a few and the calls have
> all gotten through okay. When I mentioned this to the Kansas City
> fellow at AT&T he said it simply confirmed what he suspected all
> along:  it is a bug that only strikes intra-lata calls.

> So here is another test you can try if you wish: call your own
> number via 0-500 from within your own lata of course, and try to
> bill it to your calling card. Let's find out if the bug only
> is present in Ameritech territory and northern Illinois specifically
> or if its a bug in the 500 software distributed to all the telcos
> where intra-lata calls are concerned.

Or try calling your 500 number from outside North America!  Chances
are you won't get through.

This area code used to work from Ireland for a short period, but it
has been blocked for the past few months.  I hear that Telecom Eireann
got a letter from AT&T asking them to block ordinary IDDD traffic from
Ireland to +1-500, apparently because AT&T want to force people to use
an AT&T calling card, when using this service! Depending on the length
of the call, using an AT&T calling card can be five times as expensive
as dialling direct on TE using 001 500 nnn nnnn.

Presumably AT&T have also written to other members of The Cartel (ie
the PTTs) in Europe and elsewhere making the same demands in order
that AT&T can monopolize access to this "area code" from abroad.

I find it incredible that AT&T are brazen enough to take steps like
this to monopolise this segment of the telecommunications market and
wonder what plans the EU Competition Commissioner has in this regard?

Only a tiny fraction of one per cent of the 600 odd million people in
Europe would have an AT&T calling card, so in effect AT&T are banning
international traffic to this numbering space.   One wonders if AT&T
have told their 500 service subscribers of this limitation?


Richard Barry   [e-mail]
Richard Barry   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #337
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa19221;
          10 Aug 95 7:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15064 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:37:07 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15056; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:37:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:37:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #338

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Aug 95 23:36:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 338

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Who is Unabomber, Anyway ... Maybe I Know (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    809 is in Jeopardy! (Mark Cuccia)
    Numbering Plans, Overlays, 888, and the Public (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Conference: Effective Deployment of Wireless Data ([e-mail])
    Easy Access to Information (Barry Mishkind)
    Bob Scott to Speak at Cellucomm 95 (Tyler Proctor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 22:14:54 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Unabomber, Anyway ... Maybe I Know


So, just who is this mysterious Unabomber person we have been reading so
much about in the past few months?

Well, some people on the net claim the person may have the initials:

                          P.M.G.

Maybe that 'M' as his middle initial might stand for Michael ... ya
never know ... a good Irish first name as well, for sure!

It is also possible that Mister PMG as a little tyke lived in the
Park Ridge/Des Plaines, IL area back in the 1950-60's. These are
north suburban communities that are part of the Chicago area.

Further research has shown that if PMG is the son of GG, a fellow who
had a construction/home remodeling business in those days, with a
TAlcott-5 phone number at the office in Park Ridge, and a VAnderbilt-7
number at his home in Des Plaines, that he might well have had an
affiliation with Northwestern University for a few years during the
early to middle 1970's.

The last name 'G' seems to be relatively rare around these parts
now-days. There are absolutely none at all in the 708 north or west-
suburban telephone listings, but the same last name shows up exactly
twice in the listings around San Fransisco and Berkeley, and oddly
enough, one of them is a person with the same first name as GG.

The one in Berkeley is just some kid in school there; the initials
are BG. One of his roommates answered the phone and honestly told
me he knew nothing of a person known as PMG.

When I called the San Fransisco GG and innocently asked if I could
please speak with PMG, he seemed to get sort of flustered, and we
spent several minutes -- far longer than your average 'wrong number'
call -- chatting as he carefully explained to me how he was the
only person in the area listed with that last name. He volunteered
without me asking that he was a nurse by occupation. When I asked if
he had ever lived around the Chicago area he said indeed he had,
'back about 1973 or so' ... "but the only reason I went there was
to avoid the draft ..." . I asked if he lived on the north side,
around the Evanston area. He did not answer me.

I asked if he had ever been around the Salt Lake City area, and in
fact he had 'passed through there a few years later' he told me.

He was curious to know what I wanted to speak with PMG about ... "does
he owe you money or something?" ... no, I said, it was just a social
call to someone I had not seen in a long time and lost track of over
the years. When I mentioned that there 'used to be a GG in the
north suburbs of Chicago thirty-five years ago who was a builder/
home remodeling man (this was a different GG for sure, the one I had
on the phone sounded much younger than the earlier one would have to
be by now), this fellow thought for a few seconds and said "well it
must be a different GG, you see I am a nurse". Then he suggested it
would be a good idea for me to try southern California, saying "there
are a lot of people with the last name G. down there; they are all
various cousins of mine. He also knew about BG in Berkeley and wanted
to steer me in that direction again. He also said that 'all of my
family lives in Milwaukee'; this just minutes after telling me that
many of his cousins lived in Los Angeles.

I said that since he did not know PMG, and since all the ones with the
last name G in Los Angeles were his cousins that he surely must know
all of his cousin's names so what would be the point of me calling
down there. Well, we bantered back and forth for a few more minutes
like this, with him making a variety of 'helpful' suggestions on how
to locate PMG. I finally terminated the call; I think he would have
kept right on talking.

Since when do people who get wrong number calls not simply terminate
them ASAP and hang up?  Since when do they stay on the phone for
another five or ten minutes talking to the caller, giving him ideas
on how to find who it is he wants and telling them about things they
did twenty years earlier?

This guy was telling me how he had traveled a lot around the USA:
"I was in Alabama for ahwile, and I also lived in Arizona, but I have
been in California now for many years."

I'll say one thing: for whatever its worth, the GG in San Fransisco
is a liar. You get to where you can tell it in their voice every time.

If the San Fransisco GG was evading the draft in the early to middle
1970's, that would put him in the late thirties to middle forties age
wise now, wouldn't it ....

Another interesting thing: his listing in the phone book was his first
intial only 'G' followed by his complete last name. Usually only women
do that, so that strangers won't know if it is a man or a woman. He told
me however what the 'G' stood for; it was the same as the one in this
area back in the 1960's.

I am NOT going to say GG = PMG or knows/is related to PMG. Neither am
I going to say that PMG = Unabomber. Not for certain ... not yet.

In any event, regardless of what I say, PMG, GG and Unabomber must,
according to our constitution in the United States, be presumed
innocent of any and all crimes until the same are proven beyond a
doubt in a court of law.

And say!  to the person who brought PMG to my attention and got me
started looking at dusty old microfilms here -- you know who you are! --
thanks a lot. This is starting to get quite interesting indeed.

By the way, where is 415-750?  What part of SFCA is that?


PAT

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: 809 is in Jeopardy!
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 95 13:02:00 GMT


I am on the Bellcore NANPA mailing list of free, unrestricted IL's
(Information Letters) on Numbering Issues.  In a recent mailing, one
IL (I don't remember the exact IL code or date) stated that due to
unexpected Central Office Code assignment growth, 809 is in a jeopardy
situation, as defined in the 'Central Office Code Guidelines' of the
ICCF/INC (Industry Carrier's Compatability Forum, Industry Numbering
Committee), where jeopardy means that the NPA is in danger of
exhausting its available central office codes prior to the date when a
relief NPA code (for split or overlay) would be put into 'mandatory'
effect. There was no mention about what NPA code has been assigned for
a possible split (or overlay).

It seems that the 441 NPA is not going to give any real code relief
for the remainder of 809. I didn't understand WHY only Bermuda got a
new NPA, but was later informed (by telephone with Bellcore people,
and from the free mailings I get from the ICCF and INC) that every
country island in 809 COULD get their own NPA code. There are about 20
individual countries and island territorial jurisdictions or
geographic regions in the Caribbean which is part of +1-809 (including
+1-441 Bermuda). This might be a better situation than having just two
or three NPA's to cover +1 Caribbean, since boundary lines would have
to be drawn somewhere, grouping certain islands/countries/territories/
regions togather.

Also, I read somewhere that IF Cuba (+53), Haiti (+509), St.Pierre &
Miquelon (+508) [a French group of Islands not in the Caribbean but in
the Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland Canada], the Dutch Antilles
(+599), Guadeloupe (+590) and Martinique (+596) (along with the other
small French Caribbean Islands - I don't remember right now if they
are +590 or +596) wanted to join the North American Plan (and also
would need approval by other countries of the North American Plan),
there were procedures for doing so. These non +1-809/+1-441 points
would up the 809-NXX assignments somewhat unless THEY would also be
assigned a 'new-form' (NNX style) areacode.  Incidently, I've seen 800
numbers which DO work from Haiti (or at least say the do- I've never
been to Haiti and have NO plans to go there), as the SAME
800+seven-digits as the 800 number from other Caribbean islanes (as
well as the US/Canada).

One interesting point here- many island tourist commissions have stated
slogans like: EIGHT-OH-NINE means SunSHINE. Eventually maybe only Puerto
Rico will be 809.

A few years back, there was a Caribbean/Reggae festival in New Orleans,
and one of the Reggae bands was called the '809 Band'.

Bellcore NANPA directly administers the Central Office Code
assignments for the 809 NPA, while the dominant Local Exchange Carrier
in all other geographic NPA's handle the others. (Alascom does 907 up
there). Stentor handles the 600-NXX assignments to Carriers, Bellcore
handles 500-NXX and 900-NXX assignments to carriers, and now since 800
numbers are portable (or so they say), Lockheed does that mess. (I'm
not getting into the 800 & 888 situation here!) Except for the major
Canadian telcos handling NXX assignments in their own respective
NPA's, and the Alaska situation, GTE seems to be the ONLY non-Bell
Telco that does any NXX administration- 808 Hawaii, and 813 & 941
Florida. Connecticut would be another location if you don't consider
So. New England Tel. a Bell (SNET has been doing 203-NXX's and will
continue with the new 860-NXX's).

If 441 is going to be exclusively Bermuda, I wonder if the Bermuda
(government) Telecom Authority (along with Cable & Wireless) is going to
handle all 441-NXX assignments from now on.

Since Bellcore has stated it wants to transfer numbering administration
to another party, I've been frequently checking the FCC webpages for
press releases and public notices. A recent one stated that a new
administration might even handle ALL central office code assignments
for the ENTIRE +1 North American region. This would include ALL
countries involved, and the FCC stated that they look forward to
co-operating with other foreign government and telecommunications
organizations in this matter.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK:[e-mail]           |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 12:23:21 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Numbering Plans, Overlays, 888, and the Public


The premature exhaustion of the earlier phase of the North American
Numbering Plan has led to a lot of discomfort.  Two current threads in
the Digest reflect related problems.  One is the frequency of area
code splits and overlays.  The other is the 800 exhaust and the
forthcoming opening of 888.

Americans have grown up with a fixed-format numbering plan.  For years
and years it was stable.  We _know_, deep inside, that telephone
numbers are seven digits long, in a 3+4 format, with an _optional_
area code that almost always means it's the dreaded (Jaws music,
please) Long Distance.  And of course we _know_ that area codes have 1
or 0 in the middle.  And we _know_ that free numbers begin with 800.
Americans are proud of what they know.  They _hate_ learning new
things, when it means that old assumptions are no longer entirely
true.

I do have some proposed solutions.  While the number space is finite
and filling up, it can be administered in such a manner that pain is
minimized to the people who are most sensitive to it.  I propose that
appropriate policies for the administration of the number space can
alleviate most of the difficulties in NPA and SAC (service area code,
what 800 is) splits, at least for the Great Unwashed.

Let's look at NPAs.  Splits are No Fun.  Changing your number is a
pain.  It's inconvenient to dial the area code to cross the new
boundary, but that's inevitable: There have been area code boundaries
since there have been area codes, so dialing the longer number across
a _new_ boundary is nothing new.  The pool kid in Bal'mer who now has
to dial 10 digits to call across the street into the (proposed) new
area code is no different than the kid today, in Monroe Twp., NJ, who
has to dial the area code to call across the street to the other half
of Monroe Twp, or the kid in Lincoln, MA who has to dial the area code
to call next door to Wayland, etc.  Boundaries are inevitable.  Number
changes are more of the problem.  But some of the new "tiny" NPAs,
like the Chicago Loop proposal, make it awfully hard to know when to
dial what.

Overlays help a little, because they're administered today such that
"ordinary" users don't see them.  But if you limit them to wireless,
fax-DID and other such services, they don't do a whole lot of good.

Proposals for Texas and perhaps elsewhere today call for ALL calls to
be dialed 10 or 11 digits, with numbers freely assigned from either
area code.  In effect a Numbering Plan Area gets two Area Codes.  And
to be "fair", you dial your _own_ NPA too.  This is not going to make
people happy.  Sure, with touch-tone (not a valid TM anymore), it's
not as hard as pulling a crank wheel, but it's lousy ergonomics.

Proposal: Stick to overlays whenever practical.  But reserve numbers
in the _old_ area code for two classes of user.  One is the
residential subscriber, especially the _listed_ numbers.  Secondary
(data, etc.) lines can be in the overlay.  (Generally today one CO
switch can handle prefices in both NPAs.)  This way, the vast majority
of residential-to-residential calls won't see the overlay, and can
dial 7d.

The other class of number is _listed_ business numbers, such as the
lead number in hunt groups, etc.  These prefix codes should NOT be
wasted on Direct Inward Dialing groups, fax-DID groups, wireless, or
other special uses.  Perhaps this can be "encouraged" by setting a
small surcharge for each business NUMBER in the "preferred" area code,
say a dollar a month.  This is nothing for a listing, but given DID
blocks today at usually 20-50 cents/number, an extra buck is a lot to
ask, so most users will be happy to put their ordinary desktops into
the overlay.

There really isn't much growth in those two categories, except for
normal population growth.  Case in point: In my 1975 phone book,
Arlington, MA had the same six prefix codes it has today.  No adds!
Of course there's little industry there.  Newton, MA, on the other
hand, has grown from six to 18 codes.  Its population has probably not
changed significantly, but it has a few office parks, wireless
services, etc., tied to its CO.

Yes, places like Texas and Florida do have huge population growth, and
will still need some relief, but most residential users don't call
many pagers, DID extensions (except family members at work), etc.
Business users are much less put off by new numbers.

With regard to 800/888, the solution is equally simple.  Charge a few
bucks a month for an 800 number, above the cost of an 888 number.
Give existing 800 number owners the right to the corresponding 888
number, for say a one-time price of $100.  The pagers, residential
users, etc., won't care, but it'll keep the pirates at bay, satisfy
the "branded" owners, etc.  New numbers in 800 can then be had too,
for those willing to pay, while other toll-free users can get cheaper
888 numbers.  Large hunt groups, of course, will almost always end up
in 800, since it'll amortize to zilch/minute.

Let these per-number fees all go to the Universal Service Fund.  Maybe
it'll help reduce other rates.

Both of these are "free-market" solutions that recognize the relative
value of different places in the numbering plan, provide incentives to
"do the right thing", and prevent most of the "pain and suffering"
associated with NPA problems today.

BTW, it's technically infeasible to go from, say, seven to eight
digits because the 3+4 format is hard-coded into so much network
software that the thought of changing it is virtually incomprehensible.
Other countries had variable or mixed lengths; the North American
Numbering Plan never had the flexibility that hindsight tells it it
maybe should have had.


Fred R. Goldstein      [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.  Cambridge MA  USA [phone]

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

From: ICM Conferences <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference: Effective Deployment of Wireless Data
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 15:39:11 -0700
Organization: DigiLink Network Services


      Overcoming The Barriers To Effective Deployment Of Wireless Data:
                   Realizing The Potential Of Wireless Data

                           October 23 & 24, 1995
                   The Tremont Hotel, Chicago, Illinois

ICM Conferences, Inc. brings you an executive conference confronting the
key issues and challenges in delivering wireless data.

The goal of this event, headed by Chairperson Ken Blakeslee, Director of
Business Development for Wireless Networks, Northern Telecom, United
Kingdom, and other Key Contributors, is to:

   * Address the benefits and challenges of entering the virtual workplace.

   * Identify the hurdles to horizontal business and mass consumer markets.

     * Learn how to exploit the benefits of wireless data applications for
                             marketplace acceptance.

      * Discuss end-to-end solutions: Tackling the issue of disenchanted
                                   consumers.

      * Discuss winning and keeping customers: Identifying the demand for
                          value-added mobile services.

     * Developing a successful relationship between operator and vendor.


You should attend this event if you are an executive of:

   * TELECOS: All Wireless Divisions, Network Planning, Engineering,
     Business Development, Product Development, System Design, Sales and
     Marketing, International Development, Systems Integrators, Test and
     Market Measure & Development.

   * CABLE OPERATORS: Sales and Marketing, Telephone Operations, Business
     Development, Engineering, Strategy, Network Integrators, Technical
     Planning.

   * INDUSTRY: Sales, Marketing, Product Development, Access systems and
     products, Strategic Planning, manufacturing, engineering, Business
     Development.

   * AND: All existing and potential players involved with the deployment
     of wireless data solutions and services.

Content and Theme:

The move to a virtual office is happening. Competition is fierce, and
pressures to identify demand for new services and to integrate new
technologies while keeping costs down for the manufacturer, provider,
and consumer, is tremendous. This conference identifies and provides
solutions to hurdles still in place. With the mobile data revolution
rapidly gaining momentum, new technological advancements being
deployed, and regulatory barriers relaxing, it is crucial to have the
capacity and knowledge to support the wireless data applications
required in this extremely dynamic marketplace. The ultimate goal is
to drive revenue for vendors and to supply value-added services to the
consumers.

The state of wireless data applications consists mainly of
cutting-edge or even prototypical technologies. Prototypical market
tests and field trials are proving technical feasibility and end-user
acceptance. This movement adds further support to the current evidence
that the marketplace is ready to make the move to the virtual office.
Two comprehensive case studies pinpoint successes, as well as areas
where consumer requirements are not being met.

It is crucial for the telecommunications industry to have an
understanding of both the technological advancements and capabilities,
as well as the direction and speed of acceptance of this technology.
This conference identifies how to respond to the practical
requirements of profitable economical development, and integrated
wireless data solutions.  Performance in these areas will determine
competitive advantage for corporations who meet the challenge. What
will be the market demands? Will the benefits justify the costs? How
can consumer demand be stimulated by exploiting wireless solutions?
What direction will market trends take regarding service? What
end-user requirements are not being met? Through detailed case studies
and expert input, solutions and critical information are provided on
the following areas:

   * Exploring existing and emerging technologies
   * Revenue opportunities from value-added services
   * How to create mass market demand by exploiting wireless data solutions
   * Interoperability issues
   * End-to-end solutions
   * Entering the virtual workplace

This conference will offer the unique and first-time opportunity to
very specifically and thoroughly identify the necessary steps that
need to take place to overcome the remaining barriers. The resulting
insights will enable your business to avoid costly and time consuming
mistakes when designing and implementing an effective wireless data
solution.

If you would like more detailed information including a list of actual
speakers via fax or have specific questions, you can make an Online
Inquiry at http://www.intermarket.com/icm/oninq.html or contact ICM
Conferences, Inc.  directly at [phone] or [e-mail].


   International Communications for Management Conferences, Inc. (ICM)
         ICM Conference Guide:  http://www.intermarket.com/icm/

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

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 15:03:44 -0700
From: Barry Mishkind <[e-mail]>
Subject: Easy Access to Information


Over the past month, I've been trying to contact a friend on MCIMail. For
some reason the address bounced.

Today, I finally crawled up the supervisory ladder far enough to learn an
answer to a question, an answer which leaves me stunned.

SUMMARY:

The problem: Trying to get help in verifying Don's (now non-existant) address.

Normal solution: Address a post to [e-mail]

Response to repeated attempts over three weeks: none.

Reason: Are you all sitting? The reason I was given was (after talking
to no less that six people -- most of whom claimed all mail to
postmaster@ was answered within 24 hours) "Postmaster has been deleted
as a working address."

Yes, the folk at MCIMail decided, for some insane reason, to no longer
use it.  [sfx: three rising tones] The new address, is help_with_internet@
mcimail.com.  Of course, messages to postmaster are neither forwarded
or bounced.

Next time you watch the commercial with the catchy "don't fence me in"
jingle, see if you can figure out the logic behind this.


Barry Mishkind             [e-mail]                    Tucson, AZ
             home page: http://www.azstarnet.com/~barry



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a good one, but here is another one
about mcimail.com that has gotten a few newsgroup/mailing list managers
and moderators steamed over the years ... mcimail.com had this thing about
refusing delivery of mail to any addressee named in the envelope/header
if any one name was incorrect. Now if you know something about how email
works, you know that if two or more users at a single site are to recieve
the same piece of mail (or example, one is 'To:' and the other is 'cc:'
or perhaps as in my case all are 'bcc:') then only one copy of the mail
is actually handed to the site with data saying who all that one copy
is to be handed to, and the conditions under which the users named therein
are to be revealed to one another, i.e. known to each other in the cc:
line or unknown to each other in the bcc: line, etc. The site then takes
the one copy and replicates it as needed to various email boxes. If
one address is bad for whatever reason, all other addresses at the
same site get the mail, and generally a process known as 'mailer-daemon@
site.name' sends back the reason for the non-delivery to the *one name
involved* That is the Internet standard. That is the way all sites I've
ever dealt with always handled it. All except mcimail.com that is.

MCI's attitude was that if any single address is bad, then *bounce the
whole mailing back to the sender*. Now I have about 150 names on the
telecom list at mcimail.com.  Each issue of the Digest is sent there *one
time* with the list of all names it is to be distributed to. A common
problem on all large mailing lists is that users will abandon their accounts
or get kicked off or whatever and not bother to notify the mailing lists
they are on. This is normally not a problem (well, some days I get upwards
of 150-200 mailer-daemon messages about one thing or another, so it is
a pain) since you just find the user name mentioned in the mailer-daemon
and you delete it from the list, the same as if the user himself had
written saying 'please unsub me'. But mcimail.com would not bother to
deliver the other 149 copies either. And that is not entirely true ...
It seems they were unable to handle that many names on a single envelope
so they were creating three or four envelopes and only the fifty or so
names on the *affected envelope* were not getting delivered. Of course
we moderators never knew exactly which names went with which envelopes,
etc., so we had to remail the whole issue of our Digests over again to
mcimail once we had purged the bad name.

I'd have people from mcimail.com write me and complain that an issue of
the Digest had not reached them, so I would remail it, only to have
a hundred or so others there write and tell me they had now received it
two times ... and another moderator well-known to many of us got really
sore when he found out they were *totally ignoring* bcc's and printing
out all the names on a common envelope for all the other subscribers to
review.

It had gotten so bad up to a year ago that a lot of us were giving serious
thought to simply deleting all names via mcimail.com -- that is how badly
out of compliance they were with Internet email standards. They finally
got the 'one address bad, bounce the whole thing' problem fixed, but it
is interesting to see now that attempts to reach 'postmaster' are futile.
How they want to handle intra-site mail is their business I guess, just
as it should be for Compuserve or AOL, but where the rest of the email
world is concerned, they should abide by established policy. The trouble
with all those commercial services though, is they are angry at us to
begin with, and only grudgingly permit email interconnections because
their users demand it. They cannot collect their fees on our traffic,
so they gouge their own users inbound as well as outbound to make up
for it. And for a long time -- maybe still -- MCI was letting their
users hang on an 800 number for free reading inbound email from the
net -- including large Digests -- for which MCI was not collecting a
nickle of revenue. Maybe that is why they are so hard to get along with.  PAT]

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

From: Tyler Proctor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bob Scott to Speak at Cellucomm 95
Date: 9 Aug 1995 13:21:07 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)


Bob Scott of AT&T Paradyne, original developer of the ETC modem
protocol, will be speaking during the Circuit-Switched Data panel
Friday morning. He will discuss the new V.34 modem standard (28.8Kbps)
and its performance in cellular networks. He will also address the ETC
modem protocol and its evolution.

AT&T Paradyne will show its new modem pool product which has been
getting quite a bit of industry attention. The company has taken two
booths on the exhibit floor to highlight both their Keep-In-Touch
modems and their modem pool. Early on Friday afternoon, direct product
questions will be answered during two back-to-back presentations.
These will immediately be followed by AT&T Network Wireless Systems,
discussing the new Circuit-Switched CDPD specification.

If you would like more information on Cellucomm 95 please e-mail
[e-mail] or call 800-594-5102.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #338
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25303;
          10 Aug 95 19:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24478 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:35:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24470; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:35:02 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:35:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #339

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Aug 95 11:35:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 339

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    More Information About Unabomber (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Local Measured Telephone Service Experiences (Tansin A. Darcos)
    Some New Orleans Exchange History (Mark Cuccia)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor ([e-mail])
Subject: More Information About Unabomber
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 02:35:04 CDT


After my first message early Thursday morning about Unabomber, I got
a note from the person who first got me looking at PMG. Here are
some excerpts from a note received overnight, with a few details
left out, and the name of the person replaced by initials as before.

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

WOW, I just read what you wrote and I'd have to say that's pretty
interesting.  First, I don't know if PMG has any relatives.  I
do remember him telling me that his father died a little before he
moved to Princeton, which would be about three years ago now.  Maybe
GG is a brother or uncle or something.

Anyway, that reminds me.  You know how after each one of the bombings
there is a fair amount of publicity and the FBI uses this to request
info from the public.  I kind of follow these pretty closely, and try
to read into their investigtation.  Well, after the bombing from last
December one of the things they asked the public in San Francisco was
to report any recent house guests.  I read that as the FBI was looking
for a bomber who was from outside of SF, but made occasional trips to
the area and mailed his bombs from there.

This makes alot of sense to me.  There's several reasons.  (1) The
postmark is the only real lead that Unabomber gives away, and you'd
think that he'd try and make it deceiving.  (2) All his correspondence
is with the national media, mostly the {New York Times}.  Most other
serial criminals who comunicate with the media do it through their
local paper.  (Okay, I can only really think of two others.)  Anyway,
I'm thinking that if Mr. GG is a relative of PMG, and PMG is
Unabomber, Mr. GG probably knows that whenever PMG visits, people seem
to get exploding packages a few days later, which may be why he is
somewhat nervous on the phone talking about PMG.

Okay, I'm running wild speculating here.  I'll tell you some more
about what I know about P. This is all from what he told me.

I was a graduate student in the physics department at Princeton
University.  At our weekly colloqium, there was a talk on "physics of
the brain" or something like that given by a guy at NEC.  I saw PMG
there.  A couple days later I saw him in our apartment and asked him
what he thought of it.  He wasn't too impressed.  I started asking him
why and he says something like, "Well, you know, if I had been able to
stay in the field I'd be the leading neurologist in the world today."
So, I kind of asked why he left the field.  He says that "Well,
scientists are threatened by people who don't have a PhD.  I was
forced out."  I start talking to him and he says that he "was at" MIT
doing research on the brain a while ago at the AI lab. Eventually, at
MIT his research progressed to the point where he needed to obtain
funding.  When he tried to get money from NIH, they said forget it
because he had a PhD.

You might think that's a BS story, but I kind of have reason to
believe him.  I kind of do BS checks every now and then.  You know, I
have a PhD in physics and know a fair amount of other sciences and I
could tell that he wasn't BSing about a lot of stuff.  Anyway, I was
also an undergraduate at MIT, and I know the attitude there,
especially at the AI lab, was one which ignored official credentials
(like PhD's) and valued personal skills and knowledge.

By the way, I don't know if I told you this, but P is the sort of
guy whose apartment was filled with books.  Every wall was covered
with shelves and they were covered with books.  The books were like
standard graduate texts for all sorts of fields like physics, biology,
genetics, computer science, math, history.  If you opened up the
books, the margins would be covered with notes.  P really read and
thought about all these subjects.  He probably knew more about a wide
range of subjects than anyone I ever knew.

It first occured to me that P might be Unabomber when I was sitting
at home one night and one of those TV tabloid shows comes on with a
story about Unabomber.  They had a description of the incidents and gave
a description "Lives alone, a good neighbor, meticulous, in his 40's"
a sketch and they said there was a $1,000,000.00 reward.  I started
thinking "wow, a million dollars, I wonder if I know anyone like
that."  Then I start thinking, wait what about P!  He lives alone,
he's a friendly neighbor, and meticulous describes him perfectly. He
even looks like the sketch!

Anyway, I start thinking more about the recent victims. (At that time
it was a computer scientist at Yale, and a geneticist at UCSF.)  I
started thinking how there were so few people who would even know of
these two scientists, and P could easily be one of those few.  Then
I started thinking about the six year gap.  (There were no bombings
between about 1986 and 1993, I think.)

I know that the standard model of serial criminals says that the only
reason they ever stop for a gap like that is because they have to.
Usually, because they are either in jail or maybe a mental hospital.
P had just moved in next door to me at the beginning of May of that
year, six weeks before the bombings.  This is somewhat stretching it,
but I remember him being gone for an extended period of time a month
or so after he moved in.  It could have very well been the week before
that June 1993 bombing which was mailed from San Francisco.

Finally, I was worried about my mind going crazy on me.  I know how
easy it is to make the evidence fit and I wanted some predictive
value.  I read up on the case and serial criminals and I decided that
the one sure thing about Unabomber was that he lived in Chicago
when the bombings started.  (Serial criminals always start close to
home and grow from there.)  Now, I had no clue where else P had
lived.  All I knew was that he had lived in Boston, Princeton, and
Austin TX.  A few months later, P was really pissed at the janitor
in our building and told me how when he lived in Chicago fifteen years
ago, people worked hard even at menial jobs.  I didn't even ask him,
and he let me know what I really wanted to know.

Anyway, like I told you before my mind swings wildly from "I know the
Unabomber," to "I've gotta be crazy, thinking I know the Unabomber."
Tonight, I am certain, it is "I know the Unabomber."

By the way, I called the FBI number about a year and a half ago.  I
told them what I thought, and they said they'd check it out.  I talked
to the lady a little and it sounded like they just get a zillion calls
about this, and this is before he started getting big publicity.  I
think they get so many calls they can't really check them out in
depth.  What they really want to hear is something like "I saw my
neighbor making a bomb and sending it to a computer scientist at
Yale," and not "I think my neighbor might be the Unabomber."

Well, I hope someone at the FBI reads TELECOM Digest and you convince
them to check out this guy you've found in San Francisco.

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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, they always read the newsgroups
on the net. After all, the Internet is a shelter for criminal activity,
sex molestors and serial bombers isn't it, to say nothing of being a
fraud-hive for phreaks, hackers and quack practioners of every art
you can think of, and a few you haven't thought of yet. The trouble
with them using a resource like this net to find their man is that in
their estimation it amount to collaborating with their perceived enemy.

I sincerely doubt they will pay any attention to anything written here.
That's just my belief. They only thing they look for here are criminal
activities, not suggestions on deterring criminals. That would burst
their bubble, and screw up their fantasy about the net.

Regards 415-750, several people wrote to ask why that was important.
Well, you see it is the prefix to GG's phone number.  415-750 prefix
is assigned to the "San Francisco 13" central office.  It's on Geary
St., between Golden Gate Park and The Presidio, and presumably serves
the northwestern quadrant of the city (billing zone 2).  Just thought
you'd be interested.  (PacBell sent me a prefix list showing CO, and a
map showing where each CO is located.)

Maybe I should go to Chicago today and look around at a few more old
files. I might also stop over at Northwestern University and look at
a few old student records from the time in question using PMG as the
search-string, as we who use grep a lot call it.  And speaking of
'mental hospitals' as you did in your response, did you or anyone else
reading the manifesto notice the several times he mentioned 'psychology'
in a derogatory way. Its as though he has a complaint or two about that
also when he discusses 'treatment', etc.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 05:54:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Local Measured Telephone Service Experiences
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc., Silver Spring MD USA


On 27 Jul 1995 15:15:47 GMT, Christine MacDonald <[e-mail].
com> wrote:

> Bell Canada is planning to introduce local measured service
> -- we currently have unlimited free local calling -- and

Lucky you.

> we are quite concerned about the increased costs to our
> business, and to Canadian business in general.  I would
> like information on the percentage of U.S. cities that
> have local measured service

Probably in excess of 90% of the U.S.  Every larger city [1] I have
ever heard of usually has only measured calling for businesses, and
sometimes (but not always) has some form of unlimited local calling
for residential customers.

In small towns, the phone company (often a non-Bell company which is
NOT owned by GTE) will offer unlimited local calling to businesses.

A random sampling: In Long Beach, California, where I used to live
maybe 10 years ago, local phone service was about $18 or so, for a
residence with unlimited local calling.  Otherwise a business paid
about $22, PLUS 5c for each 5 minutes or fraction, and a pay phone was
then 10c and later 20c, with untimed calls.

Here in Silver Spring, MD, which is Bell Atlantic (Formery C&P Telephone),
a residential phone line is about $9 for a line with no call
allocation (you pay for all calls) [2], about $12 for a line with a
minimal allocation, and $22 for a line with unlimited local service.

Business customers pay about $18 for a line with no call allocation,
and all calls are charged.  Now, here is where it gets interesting.
There are two ways to be charged for calls: by time or per call.

If you take the "per call" rate, then you pay just a hair below 10c
per call whether you are a business or a residence.  (Residence
customers pay about 1/2c to 1c less).  Only calls that "supervise" are
charged, e.g. busy or no answer isn't charged.  This charge does not
apply to calls to any 3-digit number such as 611 for repair, or 911
(411-Directory Assistance, is handled separately[3]), nor does it
apply to calls to a Long Distance carrier in the 950 exchange, nor to
any "customer" in the 954 exchange.[4]

If you take the "by time" rate, you pay about 3.5c for the first
minute after the line supervises, and about 1c each additional minute.
About the only places I can see paying this rate are ones that churn a
lot of calls, such as telemarketers, and people who have their line
transfer to voice mail.  Since most people leave short messages on
voice mail, you'd pay about 4c per call in most cases instead of 10c.

For residence customers with measured service, you get either 65 call
units or $5.50 worth of time charges included in your service.  The
measured calling is "aggregated" which means that if you have multiple
phone lines on a single bill -- as I do -- the combined lines would get
the usage allocation combined for all of them, so you can make any
call from any line and it counts toward the total usage allocated
rather than each individual line.  For example, I have 4 measured
lines, so I have 65*4 or 260 message units before any calls are
charged, e.g. if one line made 120 calls, another made 40 a third made
80, and the other was on a fax machine that only received calls, the
combined usage is less than 260 so no message units would occur even
though two of the lines used more than 65 calls during the month.

Since I am on the phone calling my Internet provider for an average of
over an hour a day, all month, I'm not stupid enough to take time
measured service!  In fact, I switched providers because the one I use
now does not charge for connect time for shell users.

[Repeating the first half of your sentence]

> I would like information on the percentage of U.S. cities that
> have local measured service, whether or not your telephone company
> offers you options, and mainly I'd like to hear from any businesses
> that relocated due to the cost of local measured service.

Doubtful that measured service alone would make someone move unless
the measured rate was time only and there was a place that had "per
call" and it was less expensive but could still make calls into the
same local area.  Usually that would require that there be another
telephone company in the other area.

More likely they move because the local politicians see a business
as a means to extract even more bribes and protection money (always
called "user fees" and "local taxes", of course!) until one day the
milch cow decides it can be treated better by changing its address
by a few miles.  A processing office that doesn't see customers, or
a professional business can do this without too much trouble, and
as it turns out, these are usually the ones that are more profitable,
and thus they are the ones that get targeted for even higher tax
levies, then the local politicians complain about all the jobs being
taken by "greedy" businessmen.  Nobody asks them why THEY had to be
so greedy when the town a few miles away is able to live within its
means without squeezing companies for more money.

Most companies probably figure that phone usage costs money and
figure it into the cost of doing business.  Most smaller businesses
such as service places like dry cleaners, restaurants, repair shops,
etc., are net consumers of telephone service, because they don't make
very many calls, mainly it's customers calling them.

> Also, information on how much costs increased once local
> measured service was introduced would be appreciated.  Were
> there any additional costs that you didn't anticipate?

If you do make a large number of outgoing calls, or are on the phone
a lot, the charges can be devastating.  Pat here can tell the horror
stories of Illinois Bell (now Ameritech) claiming to the PUC there
that the change from people having "call paks" where they could call
quite a ways away for free or not very much, to making those who made
calls of longer distance pay for usage, in exchange for a slight
reduction in local service prices would be "revenue neutral".  NOT.

After that proposal, Ameritech had one of its biggest profit years,
because *everyone* saw their phone bill go up - sometimes 100% or
more, some people saw their bill go from $50 to $350 the next
month - except for the tiniest segment of the market, those who
hardly use the phone, or who mostly receive calls, they saw very
tiny (perhaps $3) reductions in their bills, while everyone else
saw huge increases.

I don't mind the phone company making money, but I do object to
deception in that manner.  Did the company offer to petition to
change back to the old "call pak" system when people discovered
it wasn't "revenue neutral"?  Not on your tintype!

And even that so-called "savings" on local bills may be illusory.
I have heard some people claim they've never found *anyone* who saw
a reduction in their phone bills.  I *hate* time-charged usage, and
that is going to be one of the things that is going to cause the
local phone companies to lose people once someone figures a way to
provide less expensive local calling for people and make a profit at
it.

I figured it out once, depending on the usage, I could set up a system
where people could call anywhere in the Washington DC-Baltimore area
for only a fixed fee per call, provided enough calls were made per
line on average to make a profit.

Currently, a call from Silver Spring to Baltimore, about 40 miles,
costs 14c a minute days, 13c a minute nights.  (It's an inter-LATA,
intrastate call, veddy expen$ive.)

It would cost about $95 a month to have a foreign exchange line from
here to an area that can call or be called by a number in Baltimore,
but then the rate is the same 10c per call (I priced it once).  A
remote-call- forwarded (RCF) number is about $20 a month, but you then
pay the carrier's rate of around 13-14c a minute depending on time of
day.  At these rates, the break-even point comes when you use over 200
call- minutes above the first one minute of the call, e.g. about 4
hours a month of usage, against the per-call charge of 10c.

If, for example, you spent about 5 minutes per call, then the cost per
call with either a call-forwarded remote line or an 800 number would
be about 68c vs 10c, so in that case, the point where it is cheaper to
have a foreign exchange line even with the $75 per month mileage
charge, comes at about 150 calls per month, or about 5 a day.  If you
get or place that many (and 5 a day isn't "many" for some customers)
calls in these circumstance, getting a hard-wired line makes more
sense than RCF service.

In this case, a not-very-long telephone call being very expensive
causes a remote call-forwarded number to be more expensive for
anything above a very small usage than a Foreign Exchange line.

One thing I found which was ridiculous, was that both Alexandria, VA
(703-998) and Gaithersburg MD (301-208) are local to me in Silver
Spring, MD (301-585) and I to them.  But, from that Alexandria number,
it's the same rate to call that Gaithersburg number (about 30 miles,
just outside of their local calling area) as it is to call Baltimore,
(about 60 miles), a whopping 14c per call!  I was calling my regular
BBS that I and my seven close net-friends have been using for five
years, and I ran up about $45 in charges one month from that number in
Alexandria even though I thought I hadn't been on much at all!  At
that rate, it would have been cheaper to buy a line here and have it
call forward to them for 10c a call; at 20c a call (10c from there to
Silver Spring and 10c from there to Gaithersburg), it would have saved
money from the 3rd minute as long as I used enough to justify the $13
a month per line.

I'm waiting until someone figures out how to use the Internet to carry
digitized phone service, say over a T3, then drops it on local areas
and maybe sets a rate of 5c a minute, since they don't have to pay any
termination charges, since they are not using equal access, they use
regular local phone numbers.  The phone companies are going to scream
bloody murder.

Arthur C. Clarke once wrote in a book that eventually there would be
non-time-charged calls to anywhere in the world.  I thought his
comments were ridiculous.  But, once there's enough surplus capacity
on data networks for someone to consider translating voice calls to
digital and carrying them, the same as other "data" on unused circuits
that they pay by the month for, it certainly means a huge reduction in
costs, in fact, we might actually see such a thing happen, of course
everyone would pay about twice as much for local phone service, say
$50 a month instead of the usual $20 or so.

Or what just might happen is those that want this kind of capacity
will purchase it, in order to get the security of knowing your bill is
never going to be more than that each month, or because they use more
than that in long distance.  In the end, it will average out, and as
always, the low usage customers subsidize the high usage ones, the
same way that a letter going across town for 32c partially subsidizes
the one going 4,000 miles.

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

[1] For the purpose of this article, I'm calling a "larger city" as
any town of over 50,000 even though that's not very large.  I think
only rural areas (Blythe, California, for one, I distinctly remember),
had unlimited local service for business customers, I was traveling
through there - exactly once, perhaps fifteen years ago - and happened
to notice this when I was reading the inside of the telephone book in
the motel room. I always like to read the instructions in telephone
books of places I visit, it lets me learn new things.

Another place I visited - once, maybe 8 years ago - was Bishopville,
SC, which is run by a cooperative which is "owned" by the subscribers.
There are only two exchanges in that town, and I think that's
essentially the entire local calling area.

Blythe probably got taken over by GTE when they ate Contel a few years
ago, so I don't know if they offer unlimited local calling for
businesses any more.

[2] You can only get residential service with no call allocation if
you have one (1) and only one telephone line in your house.  If you
have more than that, you MUST purchase either measured or unlimited
service.  I got snagged on this because I ordered one line with
unlimited service for my computer, and one line with no call
allocation since except for my computer, we don't even make 15
outgoing calls a month.  After 5 months of their computer kicking it
out, Bell Atlantic discovered that what the clerk had sold me violated
the tariff schedules!  After being back billed by restoring my service
to measured usage at 65 calls per month, I ended up with about an $80
credit.

The clerk had misinformed me that when you get two lines on the same
bill, you only get 65 calls per line, NOT 65 calls times the number of
lines you have.  So I ordered it the way I did since I knew I could
use at least 100 units a month, and I didn't want to have to switch
phone lines every couple of weeks for my outgoing calls.

Once I got it straightened out, everything was fixed and the bill was
about $30 a month less than what I was paying when I had two unlimited
usage lines, e.g. from $85 a month to $54.  (Our family hardly even
makes any long distance calls, but I have lots of toy features like
call waiting, 3-way, extra ring number, etc., and each kicks in
another $2-6 a month depending on whether you get them in a
combination package or separately.)

[3] Local Directory Assistance costs 25c per usage.  Bell Atlantic pay
phones do not charge for DA, probably because they don't include phone
books at them.  Privately operated public pay phones do charge because
Bell Atlantic charges them for DA usage.  A business customer gets 3
free calls to Directory Assistance for each line they are billed for,
if I understand the rates.  Residential customers get 6 free per line.
It used to be 6 and 12, but BA got that reduced.

[4] The only user of phone service in the 954 exchange is Bell
Atlantic.  That's the standard exchange for all calls to any of its
offices, which are always dialed as a local 7 digit number and may be
called from a Public Coin telephone without depositing money (or
you'll get it back).

The interesting thing is that you can call ALL Bell Atlantic offices
from anywhere in Bell Atlantic's territory.  For example, Richmond, VA
is a long-distance call from here, in the 804 area code.  The (local)
phone number for me to call to change my service in Silver Spring is
954-6260.  But, if I dial the local number 954-xxxx (I've forgotten
it), that connects me to the Richmond office, without charge.

In California, I understand Pacific Bell did even more than that, I
think they even had it that the SAME number (815-????)  connected you
to the local office for that area no matter where you were.  I think
that they got caught providing themselves with an untariffed service
that nobody else could buy, so they had to stop it.  Too bad.

In fact, every place I've been, I think the telephone company was a
free call from its service area; in fact, most would even accept a
collect call (for someone wishing to establish new service in advance)
back when I once did, maybe 20 years ago.


Paul Robinson  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
General Manager   Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some New Orleans Exchange History
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 08:26:00 GMT


Pat:

I enjoyed your response in the origianl article, where you described some
Chicago telephone history.

I remember that before the uplink provider for WGN-TV 9 began
'covering' the local Chicago commercials with 'generic' national
commercails (sometime around 1989 or 90), I was STILL seeing Chicago
businesses identifying their telephone numbers with the old exchange
names - there was a musical commercial with a 'ring' of a 500 set
telephone as their commercial was sung- Call NAtional 2-9000, NAtional
2-9 (ringngng) Thousand!

BTW, Empire Carpets had their musical commercial 'Call 588-2300,
Empire'.  What was 58X in the exchange name days up there?

And listening to WBBM NewsRadio 78(0) at nite off and on for 20 years
now, I have still heard your old exchange names quoted in commercials!

For the most part, New Orleans businesses don't quote out old exchange
names, but there is still an occasional delivery truck from the 1960's
with the exchange name printed or the old billboard. Some 'promotional'
items such as matchbooks and pens/pencils/etc. given out (and letterheads)
are sometimes still from old stock and have the old exchange printed.

Here in the Crescent City, 504-523 can claim to be the FIRST exchange-

The original magneto board was put into effect in 1879 and 'evolved'
into a sectional and multiple magneto board until replaced by common
battery manual in 1900. When the "Uptown" office was put into effect
in 1903, the older office in the Central Business District became
known as "Main". When the first dial cuts (step-by-step) went into
effect in 1927, all manual offices had their first two letters made
BIG, BOLD, and capitalized. "Main" became MAin. All line numbers in
manual offices which had only 2 or 3 digits (there had been no leading
0's in front of line numbers at the time) were prefixed with the
significant number of 0's to make a standardized 4 digit line number
for dialing in.

"Main"-XX-(p)  became MAin-00XX-(p)
"Main"-XXX-(p) became MAin-0XXX-(p)

(p) is the POSSIBLE party line letter since in a manual office, all
parties sharing the same partyline had the same numerical line number
(since they were ALL on the SAME LINE and operator's jack) but
differentiated by a partyline letter. 2-party service customers used W
& J, 4-party service customers used W, J, M and R. {and BTW, call
letters WJMR were used in New Orleans years back by what is now
AM-990, and in the 1950's there was a WJMR-TV, but even that has
changed call letters & ownership - and channel}.  When a manual office
became a dial office, all parties on the same partyline, while still
having partyline service, were assigned UNIQUE last 4 digit line
numbers. In New Orleans, whenever a particular manual office became
dial, it SEEMS that ALL subscribers had their 4-digit line number
changed, even if they had single-party service. I would have to double
check at the Public Library's collection of old New Orleans phonebooks
again.

MAin manual became MAgnolia dial in 1938.

When New Orleans began converting from 6 to 7 digit (or dial-pull)
local numbers beginning around 1955, most exchanges did NOT simply
have an extra digit tacked on, but were CHANGED. All offices in a
single building were 'consolidated' into a SINGLE (sometimes NEW)
name, with each office having a digit. Some old "6-digit" names were
kept, some kept the same 'digits' but had a new name or similar
letters; Some "6-digit" names were reused in a conversion in an office
in another part of town a few years later. The conversion lasted from
about 1955 to 1960, so we had MIXED 6 and 7 digit numbers for about 5
years. THIS WAS NOT a permissive dialing period. It took five years to
convert all switches individually to 7 digit numbers. But there was NO
permissive dialing when any PARTICULAR switch changed.

MAgnolia became JAckson-3 in 1957. (Its sister exchanges in the same
building were also changed to a common JAckson-x).

JAckson-3 is REALLY the same as 523, so 504-523 can in theory be the first
New Orleans exchange.

The other predial manual offices in New Orleans:

1903: "Uptown" manual;  1955: UPtown manual went dial changing to
TWinbrook-7 (or 504-897)

1906: "Hemlock" manual;  1927: "Hemlock" manual became dial and changed to
FRanklin;  1957: changed to WHitehall-7 (or 504-947)

1906: "Algiers" manual;  1955: ALgiers manual went dial changing to FOrest 1
& 6 (or 504-361,366)

1909: "Jackson" manual;  1941: JAckson manual went dial;  1955: JAckson
became TWinbrook-5 (or 504-895)

1910: "Walnut" manual;  1956: WAlnut manual went dial changing to UNiversity
1 & 5 (or 504-861,865)

1911: "Galvez" manual;  1927: "Galvez" went dial and kept its name GAlvez;
 1959: GAlvez became HUnter-2 (or 504-482)

1925: "Cedar" manual;  1950: CEdar manual went dial;  1955: CEdar became
VErnon 1 & 5 (or 504-831,835)

All cuts from manual to dial were to Step by Step.  All NEW exchanges
in an existing office building were Step beginning 1927 and before
1960. After 1960, most step offices had new NNX codes as step although
some had #5XB and later ESS.  All NEW dial switch buildings prior to
1960 were also Step.

Our first #5XB was a new building in New Orleans East, the CHestnut-2
office. (It is now #1(A)ESS, and handles 504-241,242,243,244,245,246 and
maybe one or two new NNX codes).

The last step switches became ESS by 1982 or 83, and the last #5XB's
went ESS (digital) in Sept.1987. Presently, about half of the switches
are #1(A)ESS and the other half Digital ESS.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK:[e-mail]           |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only 58x I remember for sure was the
one called JUNiper, or 586 and LUDlow, or 583. Like yourself, I have heard
the five-eight-eight, two-three-hundred commercial many times, but I
cannot recall what 588 was. Perhaps David Tampkin knows.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #339
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26256;
          10 Aug 95 21:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29458 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 15:08:01 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29450; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 15:07:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 15:07:58 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #340

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Aug 95 15:07:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 340

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls (Roger Snyder)
    Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls (William Brownlow)
    Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Default Carrier = None? (Clifton T. Sharp)
    Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills (Matthew Lasater)
    Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds? (Howard M. Weiner)
    Re: AT&T 500 Service, Call Forwarding (Peter Kerrigan)
    MCI Begins Area Code 500 (Mike Miller)
    500 Numbers the New 900? ([e-mail])
    Re: Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon (Robert Kenneth Lock)
    Re: Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon (Steven Lichter)
    Stupid Letter of the Day (TELECOM Digest Editor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Roger S.)
Subject: Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls
Date: 9 Aug 1995 14:28:13 -0400
Organization: The Print Shop


At the end of last year I signed up with MCI and got the free of (up
to $1000) bonus for my business. I received a coupon good for up to
$1000 off of any one billing month. You could use it any time in the
first year of service. My LD bill usually runs <$25 dollars, but with
a lot of help from some friends we managed to spend close to $900. (I
put the calling card number in my modem software, so my normally local
charged calls became LD (free) calls.)

     Two things to be carefull of. First if you go really crazy and
run up $2000 worth of calls, you will pay for the second thousand. (I
had everybody keep rough track so we didn't do this.) Second, the
credit is for a _billing_ month, not a calender one. The material they
sent out was not clear about this, and neither was the salesperson who
sold me. If your billing date is the 17th of the month, your credit
will be for calls made from the 17th to the 17th (or so) of the next
month. This caught a few people including me. I call a customer
service rep, who was very nice, and refigured my bill so that all the
calls in December came off, (not the calls from end of Dec. begining
of Jan.). I saw others people post that this also happend to them and
replied that they should speak with customer service, but I don't know
how they made out. I do understand that the wording on the credit slip
was changed.


Roger

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

From: [e-mail] (William Brownlow)
Subject: Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls
Date: 9 Aug 1995 14:57:33 -0400
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation


Tad Cook ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Anyone know anything about the following?  I found this on PNEWS.

>> From: Art Rosenblum <[e-mail]>
>>       NON-PROFITS PHONE FREE FOR MONTH

        <<snip>>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alright, I'll bite. Anyone else want to
> see what this is all about?  Is this one of those deals where you get
> your *third or fourth month* as the 'free month' after you have been
> signed up awhile? Is the 'up to $1000' part contingent on whatever your
> highest monthly charge has been up to that point? In other words if I
> spend $25 per month in the months I am paying for it does that mean I
> get $25 worth in my 'free month'?

Typically it is the 7th month of a 12 month commitment.  And the amount
reimbursed cannot exceed the highest month of the preceeding period.
As far as the claim in the original post about no advertising -- seems
that by getting it posted as a Usenet article accomplished the advertising.

BTW, I wonder if the "no advertising" savings works like the original
F&F, get someone else to do your marketing.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like yourself, I get rather suspicious
when I get a message for the Digest which appears to be advertising
although *I can't prove it*. Some people do submit legitimate articles
on those promotional plans thinking that perhaps there are other readers
who may not have heard about them.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Re: Free Month of Long Distance Calls
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:53:03 GMT


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

> scam deals around; might as well stick with AT&T like I always have
> except for that month when Sprint was giving away the free fax modems
> to new customers. Remember what a nice free gift that was, folks? I
> assume you all still have those fax modem cards they sent out; I still
> have mine and use it now and then.

Never ever got mine. Sprint did finally get me off _their_ backs by
sending me a copy of something they supposedly faxed to Best Data,
telling them to send me a modem. Presuming that they did (and I have
no reason to believe otherwise), I owe my debt of no-thanks to the
folks at Best Data.

Grrrrrr.


Cliff Sharp    WA9PDM
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Clifton T. Sharp)
Subject: Default Carrier = None?
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:32:57 GMT


I could swear it was here that I read about the brouhaha about the
AT&T $6, and how people were calling their local RBOC and changing
their default IXC to "none". In any event, I told a friend with a
small business to call Ameritech and do so; they told him it wasn't
possible.

Am I going to be able to pull my foot out of my mouth? :-)


Cliff Sharp  WA9PDM
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course you can have no default LD
carrier if that is your choice. It is done all the time. When I was
operating some phone lines here a few years ago for someone, I had
all those lines (eight of them) set for no carrier. You still have to
pay the network access fee of course, which is a different matter. If
you have no default carrier, then dialing one plus anything (with the
exception I guess of 800) fails to go through. You get a recording
saying your call cannot be completed as dialed. Double zero either
gets you the same recording, or in some places a fast busy. Zero will
get you the local operator, and zero plus works only to the extent
its a local telco handled intra-lata call. If you do the call as
10xxx plus 1 plus or 10xxx plus 0 plus or whatever, then that works
fine. I suggest you call telco back and talk to someone else about it.
It can be done.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Lasater)
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Phone Bills
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 03:02:14 -0700
Organization: SPPPS


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kathy Perry) wrote:

> What legal recourse do I have and how can I prevent this from
> continuing to happen? I have filed a police report and they are
> investigating. They've come up with a couple conclusions: either
> someone at Ameritech is doing it which they won't investigate further,
> someone is tapping into the line through the 'little grey box' that is
> outside my home, or someone is breaking into my house and using the
> phone. I don't see how anyone could be breaking in to my home or using
> the 'little grey box' as I have a German shepard/black lab that would
> go nuts.

The police have apparently not assigned anyone to investigate this who
has any idea what s/he is doing. The means mentioned are possible, of
course, but, as the editor noted, there are more.

In more than one of my previous residences, including one single-family
home, I have had access to other people's lines. In the single-family
dwelling, there was a separate jack for a second line. A few months
after the second line was dissconnected, I noticed that the jack was
active again. (I told someone on the line that I had access to it, but
several months later there was still a dial tone on that jack.) In
apartments where I have lived, at least two or three lines generally
came to each jack, and in one location an entire cable went to each
apartment. In the former situation, I sometimes found other active
lines when I was trying to find my legitimate pairs. In the latter,
_every_ apartment had access to _every_ line on that cable, and the
cable carried twenty-something pairs, many of which were probably
active.

I've had the same multi-line phone for about 13 years, and its
line-in-use lights also show if each line is connected or not, so
whenever I move that phone to a new jack I see what's going on. In any
case, most of the times that I have had a line disconnected, it later
became active again, meaning that I could have made any calls on that
line that the legitimate user could have made. Scary.


aaron   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Howard M. Weiner)
Subject: Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds?
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 15:22:22 -0800
Organization: Pacific Bell Strategic Systems Engineering


In article <[e-mail]>, John P. Dearing
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Steve Samler <[e-mail]> wrote:

> -=[ stuff about 1 to 2 week strike fund supply deleted ]=-

> Here in Bell Atlantic Land (CWA Local 13000), the strike benefit is as
> follows:

> After the 15th day of a strike a member shall be entitled to a $200
> per week strike benefit. The member must have perfrmed picket duty or
> other assigned strike duty during that week in order to qualify for
> the benefit.

I've been away from the craft ranks for some time, but during the last
strike that I participated in (think it was '83), I worked as an
"advisor" for financialy strapped members of my local.  Talk about an
experience I don't ever want to relive, but that's another story ...

Anyway, as I remember it, the funds available from the national were
meager, certainly not enough to keep anyone afloat.  I do remember the
same rule about no funds until after 15 days.  But to qualify to get
those funds, the member had to have exhausted every possible avenue of
credit.  It was made clear to us (by the national rep) that this money
was not an entitlement, but for emergency ONLY.  They did vow that no
member would lose his/her house, but you weren't going to get the
money just because the payment was due.  I do remember talking to
several members who were really in trouble, but then, most were in
trouble before the strike even started.  We did have our own small pot
of cash within the local, and bought staples that we gave to any
member who asked for it, as well as a few dollars pocket cash.  These
were made available after one week.  Luckily, the strike only lasted
about two weeks.

The bottom line is (was), that the strike funds are in no way, shape
or form, meant to replace wages.

FWIW, after about two days of contract extension, PacBell and CWA
reached a tentative agreement.  Thanks goodness all the way around!


Howard M. Weiner   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 15:04:21 -0500
From: Peter Kerrigan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 500 Service, Call Forwarding


a) Trying AT&T 500 service from 312-258 (Chicago - Canal St) does not work.

b) This subject (how to get programmable call forwarding) comes up
every three months or so.  At the last go-around, somebody made the
excellent suggestion of using the combination of a Big Mouth (PC voice
mail system) and three-way calling.  The Big Mouth answers the call,
then uses three-way calling to conference the inbound caller to the
forwarded number.

No doubt there is a commercial product out there that does this
already?  I recall that one guy who's on this list was making a
Mac-based product with all the hardware (CNID modem, DAA, etc) and
software (Call progress detection, tone generation, scripting
language) that gave a Mac the same power and programmability as my
AT&T AUDIX system at a fraction of the cost.

When I worked at Bell Labs on the 5ESS switch, one the feature sets
for the 5E6 generic was remotely programmable call forwarding.  You
would call the switches' access port (a special number, much like
there is with voice mail), put in your phone number and PIN, then be
able to program a new forwarding number.  Looks like this never made
in in the final cut, or Ameritech never brought it, or the ICC
wouldn't tariff it.

This wouln't be the first time a truly useful and technically feasable
feature was supressed -- look at the fiasco with Called-ID & California.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are mistaken about remote call forwarding.
We have had that here in the Chicago area for several years. If you have
call-forwarding on your line, you can automatically get RFC for free. They
give you a certain phone number to call and a pin to use. You call in,
enter your number and pin, and tell it where you want your calls to go
to, or to stop forwarding calls as the case may be. Is Ameritech the only
one offering this?  I had it about five years ago but I don't bother with
it now.

This type of 'remote call forwarding' should not be confused with Remote
Call Forwarding where you have a number that terminates only in the
central office and it is permanently linked to some other number in a
distant community. That is also a feature available here, and at a very
low cost. You pay for the 'line charges' for a number in the community
you want, plus the direct dial long distance rate in effect at any time
someone dials that distant number. To the caller, it is entirely trans-
parent.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI Begins Area Code 500
Date: 9 Aug 1995 09:32:39 GMT
Organization: DES MOINES INTERNET, DES MOINES, IA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


MCI has finally started their 500 service. I got my number on Monday.
The following are the costs for the service:

   $.245 / minute daytime
   $.145 / minute nights/weekends
   $1.00 / month service charge  starting Jan 1 1996 (5 month freebie)

Up to three redirected numbers, changeable at any time, plus an over-ride
number for special occasions.

Provision to direct calls to voice mail - retreivable for free;
Provision to direct calls to a pager - with notification if wanted for
   messages in the voice mail box;
Call screening;
Calling party gets voice prompts to complete the call, leave voice mail or
   disconnect.

MCI customers get 25% discount off all costs.

   I haven't set mine up yet - plan on doing it before the end of the week.


Regards,

Mike Miller   Des Moines, IA   [e-mail]

PS: I only have plain ole long distance service with MCI - no F&F or
calling circles or special rates to special areas or bulletin board
specials, etc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I might be mistaken on this but I believe
the terms are the same as those of AT&T. You must be a customer otherwise
of MCI to be able to enroll in their 500 program. And like AT&T, 1-500
calls cannot be completed from payphones or anywhere that has 900/976
screening in effect. At least that's what I have been told.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: 500 Numbers the New 900?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 22:20:47 GMT


I got a mass-mailed promotional blurb from an audiotext company
touting "500 services now available."  It says "End user is billed
$3.99/minute and you receive $1.05 to 1.20 per minute based on
volume."

I always thought 500 numbers were kind of like 800 numbers in that it
was a universal area code with the caller paying the toll freight
instead of the callee.  Does the 500 subscriber set the rate at which
the caller is billed?  If so, isn't this just another 900 service?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The carrier offering 500 service
(and now in addition to AT&T, MCI has gotten in on it along with a
few others; see the list of 500 prefix assignments and the carriers
assigned to each which appeared here several months ago) sets the
price. AT&T gets one price per minute, and MCI gets other rates. The
firm sending you the mailing apparently has a block of numbers in the
500 code it is using for the purpose you mentioned, and they have
apparently decided to charge $3.99 per minute. This seems to be more
a variation on the international direct-dial adult chat line concept
where the distant telco is glad to cut the 'information provider' in
on a piece of the action in return for all the traffic generated that
otherwise would not exist.

And guess who is one of the major players in the newly emerging 500-SEX-FONE
business:  Allnet and the folks at Beylen/WKP Long Distance in Seattle.
Allnet totally denies having anything at all to do with 'adult phone
services' but here is something which contradicts their denials:

All 500 exchanges use 4141 as a test number. For example 500-677-4141
is an AT&T test line, as are 500-739-4141 and 938-4141. Allnet's test
number is 500-200-4141.

Now if Allnet apparently has 500-200 as per the test line, then it would
follow that everything on that prefix is under their control directly
or indirectly.

        So try 1-500-200-0000  (that's two hundred zero thousand).
      then try 0-500-200-0000  (it won't go through as zero-plus).

Its a heavy breather, and no mention is made of any premium charges
involved; the folks involved just start entertaining you. But note that
at the beginning, we hear the carrier identification tone, a series
of chimes and the phrase "WKP Long Distance". According to a contact
at Ameritech, WKP Long Distance (aka WKP Communications) has PIC code 10718.
In the assignment chart I published here several years ago, 10718 is
listed to "Beylen", whoever they are. Calls to 10718-0 get an intercept
announcing non-completion and giving the switch identification 'WCCH-2'.

Many of you will also recall that Allnet operated adult stuff on 1-700
for quite awhile also, using their PIC as the way to enter that block
of numbers.

Despite the above, Allnet insists they have nothing to do with it; that
they do not want adult services on their network. They claim WKP is
not their customer. In fact, one Allnet upper management person went
so far as to claim that 'AT&T is really who is operating 500-200-0000;
somehow they are doing it on our lines ...'  Oh yeah?

Not that AT&T is pure on this either ... we all know about the guy running
a gay chat line in Nevada where AT&T is sharing the profits with the guy
in exchange for having the calls all forced in over their T-1, and we
know about AT&T's similar arrangement with an adult service in Bonnaire,
Netherland Antilles. (The caption on a picture of two men engaged in
s/m activities with whips, chains, the whole bit which appeared in one
of the raunchier gay magazines was "Reach out and touch a new friend using
the AT&T network! No premium charges apply -- all you pay is the toll
charge by dialing 10288-011-whatever it was.)

All the carriers are in the closet on this. None of them admit to having
anything at all to do with adult phone services with the exception of
Integratel. For that, I applaud Integratel for their honesty in saying
exactly what their corporate purpose is.

Integratel has stated that WKP is their client, and a reader here
reports that although he has billed number screening on his lines in
the Integratel database, it did not prevent billing from coming
through for the above number on a separate page of his phone bill
entitled WKP Long Distance. Their screening does not seem to work with
WKP.

What I see happening now is more and more blocks being placed on 1-500
type calls. What hotel or company switchboard wants to get stuck with
charges of $3.99 per minute so that an extension user gets to have some
pleasure at the switchboard's expense?  Before long, 500 will have the
same lousy reputation that 900 has. Remember, twenty years ago 900
started out as a reputable service. It was described by AT&T as 'mass
calling service', intended for large volumes of calls. It was intended
as a way for legitimate information providers to collect small amounts
of money per call on services that would otherwise be inconvenient to
bill for or collect. Then the adult services, horoscopes and similar
got in on it.

It seems like a pretty clever new approach to me: Integratel gets a
bunch of 500 numbers, each with the ability to have the incoming call
transferred to one of several places.  They give out no pins except
for the administrator's master pin which is used to direct where the
calls will forward to. Then they get some otherwise unemployable young
men and young ladies to accept calls in the privacy of their own homes
all over the USA ... you place a call to that 500 number, either
billing it to your telephone (1-500) or to your calling card (0-500)
and the call is then forwarded to a 'counselor' <grin> who will
discuss with you whatever it is you want to talk about, at a mere
$3.99 per minute. This way, we get away from those nasty old 900
numbers where people are always refusing (legally!) to pay with all
the chargebacks. We get away from the bad stench associated with
900 numbers and all the call blocks people are always asking for. We
have maybe six months or a year before 500 blocking becomes as
prevalent as 900/976 blocking. But most important, as of yet there
are **no consumer protection laws** dealing with 500. That means
we don't have to listen to any backtalk from these deadbeats who
don't want to pay the bill after they have had their fun. We are
not required to announce in advance what the charges for the call
will be as we do with 900 service. We don't have to deal with all
the complainers who say they always heard that there was no charge
for calls to 800 numbers. We are not stuck with requiring the use
of a PIC code as we would be with 700. Overall, 500 is a great new
way for the adult services to thrive and survive.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 10:14:38 CDT
From: Robert Kenneth Lock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon


PAT:

    I was surprised to see a message regarding the proposed split
in the 312 area code that considered giving the loop a new area code.
Actually, the only party in the workshop process that advocated that
approach was the City of Chicago.  It was not stated publicly, but the
impression that I got was that the City found it easier to impose the
burden of an area code changeover on the businesses in one ward,
rather than deal with voters in the remaining 50 or so wards in the
other areas of the city.

    At this point, the recommendation of the industry has been to
retain the 312 area code for the downtown area, since it is so closely
identified with Chicago.  Also, the costs of changeover for the
businesses in the loop would be astronomical.  A tough sell at best.


Bob Lock


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you expect the industry recommendation
to be anything other than what it was?  The City of Chicago's stance was
that the other two million plus residents of the city should not have to
be imposed upon in order that a couple dozen very large downtown businesses
could have their way. Personally, I agree with that posture and I hope
the City prevails. As of next January, my area code will have been changed
three times in the past decade from 312 --> 708 --> 847 because among
other things in the first changeover to 708, we suburbanites were expected
to make the change so that the big businesses, etc in Chicago would not
have to.  Now we are changing again because Cellular One and Ameritech
Cellular can't understand why *their customers* should be imposed on. Now
the vast majority of residents in the city itself will be expected to
change because once again, big business finds it too administratively
inconvenient for themselves to do so. For once, as these scarcity of number
crunches cause new area codes to open, let's see big business have to
take the hit for a change, and that includes the 800/888 scandal.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: Chicago 312 Also Getting Split Soon
Date: 8 Aug 1995 22:00:06 -0700
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


You are about to get what downtown Los Angeles got when it stayed 213
and the rest of the metro area went 310. We are about to get another
one in Riverside, and parts of San Diego.

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

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Letter of the Day
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995  14:45:00 CDT


Do I look like some kind of fool?  The attached showed up in my mail
just this afternoon. A total forgery ... and note how it came via
UUNET of course ...


  From [e-mail]  Thu Aug 10 12:55:40 1995
  Received: from relay4.UU.NET by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26540 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:55:38 -0500
 From: [e-mail]
 Received: from alterdial.UU.NET by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP
    id QQzcff20531; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:32 -0400
 Received: from 199.173.128.1 by alterdial.UU.NET with SMTP
    id QQzcff10076; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:30 -0400
 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:30 -0400
 Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V15 #338
 To: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
 In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
 X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
 Status: RO

Your recent E-Mail regarding the UNABOM case has been received.  The
information you provided has been forwarded to the UNABOM Task Force.

We appreciate your interest in this case.  You will be contacted if
additional information is necessary.  Thank you.

UNABOM Task Force

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

You bet!  'The UNABOM Task Force' indeed.  The only way FBI agents
'contact you if additional information is necessary' is by kicking your
door down, stampeding into your home and stealing your computer and all
its peripherals.

Mail which comes to the telecom mailbox gets an autoreply message sent
back in most cases. The autoreply tried to respond to 'The UNABOM Task
Force' but did not seem to get very far, as is seen next:

 From [e-mail]  Thu Aug 10 12:55:49 1995
 Received: from relay2.UU.NET by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP  id MAA26576 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:55:49 -0500
 Received: from alterdial.UU.NET by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
    id QQzcff29215; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:48 -0400
 Received: from localhost by alterdial.UU.NET with internal
    id QQzcff10088; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:46 -0400
 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:46 -0400
 From: [e-mail] (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
 Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
 Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
 To: <[e-mail]>
 Status: RO

The original message was received at Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:44 -0400
from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu [129.105.5.103]

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<[e-mail]>  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
popdeliver: unknown user '[e-mail]'
550 <[e-mail]>... User unknown

   ----- Original message follows -----
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by alterdial.UU.NET with SMTP
    id QQzcff10086; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:44 -0400
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26560 for [e-mail]; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:55:44 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:55:44 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Receipt # 134: Your Article to TELECOM Digest
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

N + Your letter to   : TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
O + Subject title    : Re: TELECOM Digest V15 #338
T + Sent by you      : Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:55:30 -0400
E + Rec'd at TELECOM : Thu Aug 10 12:55:43 CDT 1995   <Control # 134>

Your correspondence to TELECOM Digest (Usenet: comp.dcom.telecom) has
been received at the Digest editorial office, per the advice shown
above.

(balance deleted)

Maybe someday the FBI will be able to afford its own direct hookup to
the net and have someone on their staff knowlegeable enough to connect
it and they won't have to go through alterdial and uunet ...  grin ...

Grow up, children of UUNET!  Practice being a real FBI agent by going
out and kicking down someone's door tonight and stealing their computer.
Don't waste time sending forged messages to poor moderators.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #340
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa11522;
          11 Aug 95 22:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23099 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:06:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23091; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:06:25 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:06:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #341

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Aug 95 16:05:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 341

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Splits v. Overlays (Mark Cuccia)
    Bell Canada Pulls Measured Service (Ian Fradsham)
    Telephone Number Format (Lloyd Lim)
    MFR Codes in IS-54/EIA/TIA-553 ESN (Glenn Shirley)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Splits v. Overlays
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 19:28:00 GMT


Damned if you do - Damned if you DON'T

People in Maryland are crying crocodile-tears about their little ones
soon having to dial ten digits (local) just to call their little
playmate across the street or next door. What is REALLY disturbing is
that the local and state governments (and FCC) seem to discourage
overlays and rather go with the traditional splits, which means
*changing* your areacode on letterheads, personal directories,
stationery, auto-dialers, modems, call-forwarding, speed dialing,
etc.etc.etc. This affects ALL telephone users in ALL classes of
service (Business, Residence, fax, data modems, cellular, coin, etc).

You will HAVE to eventually dial ten digits on most local calls -- I
wonder how many Chicago Loop customers will place the VAST majority of
their 'local' calls with ten digits -- or what percentage of incomming
calls will be from *outside* of their 'Loop' NPA.

Here in New Orleans, we went from six dial-pulls (two Letter exchange
name plus four digit line number) to seven dial-pulls (2L+1 digit
exchange plus four digit line number), and then the NPA was 'publically'
known by the early 1960's. We don't yet have N0X/N1X central office
codes in either 504 or 318 in Louisiana (and I don't think that 601
Mississippi has them yet), but with the introduction of NNX form NPA
codes we dial 1 + 504 + NNX-XXXX for all toll 504 calls (or 0 +ten digits).
Local calls (including 'Local Option Service', an optional purchased
package for toll calls within 40 miles within the LATA, but LOS
subscribers ONLY) dial only seven digits (unless it is 0+ local, where
it is 0 + 504 + NNX-XXXX). Sometime around the year 2000, Bellcore
estimates that 504 will 'exhaust'. I ASSUME we will probably have a
split, with the New Orleans LATA keeping 504 and the Baton Rouge LATA
getting the new NNX form NPA. Incidently, the Baton Rouge LATA is
smaller geographically. I don't have any idea when 504 will 'need' N0X
and N1X central office codes.

When I lived in Spokane for 1980/81, I researched their numbering and
exchange history, which is similar to New Orleans (manual offices ONLY
thru the 1920's, with manuals cutting over to STEP dial, and the first
#5XB's comming on line in the early 1960's, ESS comming in by the
early 1970's).  Spokane had *ONE* letter exchanges thru 1948. In 1948
they began dialing the *two* letters of the exchange name (splash cut
with NO permissive dialing period), one year after AT&T finalized
their conception/plans for the Integrated North American Network with
three digit NPA's plus (eventualy) seven digit numbers (or at that
time 2L+5N). Sometime in the mid 1950's, Spokane went to seven dial
pulls.  Unlike New Orleans, Spokane did it in a 'splash' cut (again
with NO permissive dialing period). Like New Orleans, some Spokane
switching buildings housed more than one Exchange Name. When they went
to seven digits, most buildings consolidated their switches into a
common name, but unlike New Orleans, the common exchange name was one
of the existing names for that building, and all had a digit tacked
onto it.  {BTW, 509-624 can claim to be the oldest exchange for
Spokane; "Main" manual, M-adison dial sometime in the 1930's, MAdison
in 1948, and MAdison-4 beginning in the mid 1950's.} I don't know how
or even *IF* people balked back then about longer telephone numbers.

Remember, this was the period of American Growth, the 1950's. The
Great Depression followed by 'The War' were NOW OVER. People who
couldn't afford phone service in the 1930's, and people who couldn't
get it due to 'lack' of facilities due to the war effort were now
EXPLODING the growth of telephone service. People were moving to the
new suburbs. The Baby boom years! Long Distance dialing was being
introduced or PLANNED for with the local and switching networks being
upgraded- Some *31* NEW areacodes were assigned between 1947 (the
original plan of only 86 areacodes) and 1960.

New Central Office codes over the years have been introduced as both splits
AND overlays. Splits usually occurred when a new wirecenter/switch was
introduced in a growing suburban area (where there was little or no
telephone service PRIOR to the development of the subdivision, and the new
phone numbers were for NEW people moving in!). Longer established cores of
cities/metro-areas usually don't introduce NEW wirecenter regions. The
boundary lines are more or less established. New NXX codes have always been
added to EXISTING wirecenter switches -- AN OVERLAY! For the most part,
established customers don't 'have' to get a new telephone number.

So what's the big deal about an overlay? Most metro areas have had
overlays with NXX Central Office codes for YEARS- and telephone
numbers haven't always been just seven digits for a local call; A ten
digit local number is only adding the areacode in front of it as part
of the local call.

NOW -- for Local v. Toll, Home NPA v. out-of-NPA, and 1+ or NO-1+,
seven vs. ten digits:

Most local switching offices are now of the Common Control type. The
digits dialed do not indicate a dedicated trunk or routing. Dialed
digits are first TRANSLATED and then routing is determined depending
upon the traffic. Common Control type includes Panel (non existant),
Crossbar (as far back as the #1 which doesn't exist anymore), and
ESS/Digitals.

IMHO, 'local' calls, be it part of a flat monthly package or SMALLER
per-call/per-minute/per-millage rate should be ALWAYS available
without a 1+ in front. The length of the local number could be seven
digits in less-dense metro areas, and MANDATORY ten digits within
heavily populated metro areas.  Smaller rural areas with a smaller
number of NXX codes dialable locally COULD be programmed for five
digit local calls, or if they are local only to their own NXX could
get by with four digit (or even three digit) local calls IF the line
numbers didn't begin with one or zero, and if certain 411X, 911X, etc.
were forbidden from assignment. You also wouldn't want to assign, say
to NPA-234 any line numbers of the form 234X to avoid confusion. The
seven digit form would also be acceptable and in mandatory seven digit
regions, the ten digit form would ALSO be acceptable. ALL TOLL CALLS,
including NPA-976-XXXX and the like would HAVE to be dialed with a 1+.

All it takes is proper number management from ALL branches/levels of
the industry and *trying* to get the government/public/media to
understand!  <ha-ha>


Thanks,

MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK:[e-mail]           |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

From: Ian [e-mail]
Date: 11 Aug 1995 08:58:18 -0230
Subject: Bell Canada Pulls Measured Service


Bell Canada has dropped its plans to charge local measured service.
Attached are some articles giving some more details.  Basically, the
Bell executive capitulated to "a groundswell" of opposition to the
plan.

PAPER      The Financial Post
PDATE      Fri 28 Jul 95
HEADLINE   BELL BUCKLES TO BUSINESS: 'Staggered by the opposition' from
           business customers, phone giant scuttles plan to bill local calls
BYLINE   * Joanne Chianello Telecom Reporter

 * Bell Canada has cracked under intense pressure from its
   business customers and pulled plans to bill local calls on a
   pay-per-use basis.

   The phone giant will instead offer the subscribers the option of
   being billed a flat rate.

   "I have rarely seen such a groundswell of anger and resentment and
 * bitterness," said one telecommunications analyst of the complaints
   by business.

   Another source said Bell "was staggered by the opposition."

 * The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
   received in excess of 1,000 letters complaining about the proposed
   payment method, and 55 parties registered as formal intervenors.

   Bell told the CRTC it wanted to revise its May "pay-as-you go
   business pricing filing." Bernard Courtois, group vice-president at
   Bell, said the new application would take about three months but the
   pricing scheme would remain revenue neutral.

   "We talked to a lot of people" who voiced concerns about the
   plan, said Courtois.

   In May, Bell said about 30% of its customers would have paid more
   for local service under the pay-per-call plan.

   One of the major criticisms of the pay-per-use system came from
   users of the so-called information highway. Any business that spends
   time on-line would have almost certainly seen its monthly bill rise.
   For organizations like the Canadian Library Association, which spend
   all day networking, the scheme would have been a disaster.

   Pay-per-call "will harm information services of all kinds," wrote
   Ian and Lis Angus in the June issue of their influential industry
   newsletter Telemanagement.

   "It will increase the administrative and operational costs of
   doing business electronically. It is unwise and unnecessary."

   Ian Angus followed this up with a seven-page critique of the plan,
   encouraging readers to write the CRTC and participate in the
   proceedings.

   Industry insiders said the widely read article had a large impact
   on Bell's decision to change strategies.

   Analysts are skeptical that anyone will now actually opt for the
   pay-as-you-use plan.

   "No one ever believes revenue-neutral stories," said one analyst.

   Bell will have to develop software for both pricing systems, even
   though relatively few companies are expected to use the usage-
   sensitive pricing.

   The change in the application doesn't mean business consumers are
   totally off the hook.

   The new flat rate will surely be higher than the current price, as
   the CRTC ordered Bell to adjust the price discrepancy between
   charges for single lines and PBX's, or private branch exchanges. In
   1992, the CRTC decided the two technologies work so similarly now
   that a price difference was no longer warranted. That directive
   began an onerous proceeding that ended with Bell's pay-per-use
   application.


 GLOBE AND MAIL - Document 26 of 26  -  Page  1 of  4
 952090250   FRI   JUL.28,1995     PAGE: A1
 BYLINE: LAWRENCE SURTEES

                    ** Bell backs down on rate plan **
                  ** Fight against pay-per-use scheme **
                ** not won yet, business groups caution **

  BY LAWRENCE SURTEES
*Telecommunications*Reporter

 *Bell*Canada*has capitulated to pressure from its business customers and
 says it will give them a choice of either flat-rate monthly prices or a
 pay-as-you-use option for their local*telephone*service.

    Canada's largest*telephone*company announced yesterday that it has
 asked its federal regulator to revise its unpopular TelecomLink scheme,
 which would have made pay-as-you-use rates mandatory for all businesses in
 Ontario and Quebec by July 1, 1997.

    Bell submitted the TelecomLink proposal to the Canadian Radio-
 television and*Telecommunications*Commission early last month.

    "We are listening to our customers' concerns," Bernard Courtois, group
 vice-president of law at Bell, said in a statement revealing the change.

    Bell's controversial proposal generated an outcry from thousands of
 business users who feared that usage-based local rates would cause their
 phone bills to soar by as much as $60 a month for each line.

    A coalition of businesses, non-profit organizations and individuals
 also formed a special interest group, named HALT, to fight against Bell's
 scheme. Coincidentally, HALT announced yesterday that it has hired former
 Quebec communications minister Lawrence Cannon to lead the fight.

    But Mr. Cannon said it is premature for Bell's one million business
 customers to claim a victory.

    "Bell has not backed away from its proposal to charge businesses on a
 pay-per-use basis and we still have to see what their new proposed rates
 will be," Mr. Cannon said in an interview yesterday.

    Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent
 Business, echoed the concern and said she believes Bell's decision is
 simply a brief delay on the road toward pay-as-you-use pricing.

    "This is no time to sit back and sip champagne," Ms. Swift said in a
 news release.

    Despite Bell's change, Mr. Cannon said HALT still wants the CRTC to
 hold a public hearing into the proposed rate changes.

    Bell was the first phone company in Canada to attempt to introduce
 mandatory pay-as-you-use pricing, also termed local measured service, LMS.

    And the company received approval in principle from the CRTC almost
 three years ago to make the change to pay-as-you-use business rates in a
 regulator-backed initiative to harmonize the confusing welter of business
 phone prices.

    Under its original proposal, termed threshold pricing, businesses would
 have been charged on a pay-per-use basis after exceeding a certain volume
 of local calls.

    Despite objections from business customers, Bell went ahead with the
 scheme and scrapped the threshold.

    Now, however, Bell will revisit its computer models and will need 90
 days to file new price proposals for both the flat-rate and pay-per-use
 options, Mr. Courtois said.

    But he said Bell will still proceed with the first part of its scheme,
 called access banding, to reduce the subsidy of rural phone rates by urban
 customers.

    Under that scheme, Bell will set higher prices for access to business
 phone service in small cities and towns and lower prices in Montreal and
 Toronto. Customers would then pay a fee for usage in addition to the
 access charge.

    Bell claimed 70 per cent of business customers would have no change or
 would pay less with pay-per-use billing and that LMS would not increase
 Bell's revenue.

    But Mr. Cannon rejects the claim that TelecomLink is "revenue neutral."
 He believes many businesses would pay more, particularly if they use the
 phone to sell services, to access computer networks such as the Internet
 or to send a lot of faxes.

    "I'm convinced the pay-as-you-use scheme was aimed at preparing the way
 for competition in local services because it would allow the phone company
 to squeeze the profit margins for any potential entrant," Mr. Cannon said.


PAPER      The Toronto Star
PDATE      Fri 28 Jul 95
SECTION    News
HEADLINE   Firms make Bell back down on pay-per-call bid
BYLINE     Robert Brehl

 * Bowing to an unprecedented backlash, Bell Canada has backed
   down on a plan to force businesses to pay for every local phone call
   they make.

   The pressure ranged from big companies on Bay St. twisting arms of
   Bell executives to a bingo caller in Leamington collecting hundreds
   of signatures of people opposed to the idea.

   "This is a clear victory for the customer," said telecommunications
   analyst Ian Angus.

   "Just like the cable companies, Bell had to be reminded that the
   customer is in charge."


PAPER      The Toronto Star
PDATE      Fri 28 Jul 95
HEADLINE   Battling bingo caller gets Bell's number
BYLINE     Robert Brehl


   Bingo caller Norma Tassey knows her numbers.

   And forcing business customers to pay for each and every local
   phone call didn't add up -- for her, or hundreds of bingo players she
   alerted to the problem.

   Manager of Bingo Country in Leamington, Tassey is one of many Bell
   customers who have been on a campaign to make sure people knew about
   the controversial pay-per-call plan for local service before it was
   too late.

   And yesterday -- following an onslaught of pressure spearheaded by a
   business lobby group called HALT (Halt All Local Tolls), of which
   Tassey is a member -- Bell said it wouldn't force customers to pay
   for every local call they make.

   If customers want to keep flat-rate calling, they can. If they
   don't make lots of outbound local calls, they have the option of
   choosing measured service, Bell said.

   "Sometimes you wonder if you're ever noticed," Tassey said. "I
   guess we are, even in small towns."

   Through her microphone -- before each bingo session -- Tassey would
   ask players if they were aware that Bell wanted to force business
   customers to pay for every local phone call they make, and put a
   meter on, too, like long-distance billing.

   It was easy to get more than 200 signatures on a petition earmarked
   for the phone regulator chastising Bell for its mandatory plan, she
   said.

   Bell introduced the plan June 1 and has insisted it didn't intend
   to force it on residential customers. But plenty of people were
   convinced if the meter was put on business, residential lines would
   follow.

   While Ron Kawchuk is pleased with the turnaround, the telecommunications
   analyst said the fight is not over.

   "Bell has been stalled, but not halted," the co-founder of HALT
   said.

   Bell could introduce flat-rate fees so prohibitively high that it
   would force many of its monopoly customers to choose pay-per-call
   out of necessity and end up paying higher rates than they do today,
   Kawchuk said.

   Bell is to file detailed new rates within 90 days.

   The uproar throughout Ontario and Quebec, where Bell operates,
   surprised the phone giant.

   "It wasn't just a letter-writing campaign or just one thing
   centralized in the media ... it was multi-point," said Bernard
   Courtois, Bell's group vice-president for regulatory affairs.

   Customers complained to every Bell person they could reach, from
   field agents making calls to president John McLennan.

   To its credit, Bell listened.

   "It indicates a new sensitivity on the part of the phone company
   and it comes from the top (McLennan) down," said telecommunications
   analyst Eamon Hoey.

   The downside to the entire pay-per-call episode, Hoey said, is that
   the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
   stayed out of the fray.

   "It remains a passive regulator ... It's the customer being forced to
   be pro-active because the regulator isn't," Hoey said.

   In many ways, mandatory pay-per-call was Bell's version of Ted
   Rogers' rough ride earlier this year over his attempt to force
   monopoly cable subscribers to pay for Canadian specialty channels
   many did not want.

   "There's no doubt we're operating in an environment in Canada
   where people view the backlash against the cable companies as sort
   of the high-water mark of how not to do things," Courtois said.

   So when all that negative feedback rang through Bell, it was time
   to throw in the towel on mandatory pay-per-call.

   "It's our expectation that the (optional) service will be quite
   attractive to a large portion of our customer base," Courtois said.

   "Once they see what it would mean to them, they will realize how
   much better off they will be."

   Unlike Rogers cable, which apologized to customers for its heavy-handed
   marketing tactics, Bell did not admit publicly it made a mistake.

   "It remains for us a very important strategic thing to introduce
   pay-as-you-go pricing," Courtois said.

   "The way the services of the future are evolving, the way the
   network is evolving, and with the advent of competition, it is
   extremely dangerous for us to remain trapped with only one option
   for us to offer customers, which is flat-rate."

   And that has some fuming still.

   "Providing it as an option is just another way to massage the
   message," said Marita Moll, co-founder of the Public Information
   Highway Advisory Council.

   "The end result will be the same (a cash grab for Bell), but it
   will just take a little longer to get there," she said.

   Courtois also said Bell still plans to go ahead with rebalancing
   rural and urban business rates for local service, a sister filing to
   TelecomLink sent to the CRTC.

   At present, businesses paying higher rates in big cities like
   Toronto help subsidize the cost of local service in small towns,
   where it costs Bell more to provide service.

   "Business customers, small, medium and large, generally are
   against subsidies," Courtois said. "So that filing is not as
   controversial as the original TelecomLink."

   TelecomLink, if implemented, would have forced business customers
   to pay an average of 1.5 cents per minute for a call across town or
   down the street, on top of their monthly charge just to have a
   phone.

   Here's the choice a typical Metro business customer will get,
   according to Courtois:

   - The monthly flat-rate local service fee will be somewhere between
   today's price of $48.50 and $85.

   - The measured service rate will have a monthly access rate "well
   below" the flat rate while charging 1.5 to 2 cents per minute on
   average for each local call.

 * Bell Canada asked the federal telecommunications regulator
   yesterday to withdraw its current pricing plan submitted on June 1.

   That proposal would have seen businesses pay a lower monthly fee
   than they do now but be charged for local calls.

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

From: Lloyd Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Number Format
Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:13:40 GMT
Organization: Lim Unlimited


I remember reading that there is some sort of standard (ISO? ANSI?)
for formatting international telephone numbers (for printing, displaying,
etc.).  Can someone tell me what it is?


Thanks,

Lloyd Lim         [e-mail]
Lim Unlimited     http://www.limunltd.com/

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Shirley =WA TELEC ENG=)
Subject: MFR Codes in IS-54/EIA/TIA-553 ESN
Date: 11 Aug 1995 21:05:43 +1000
Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia


Is there an FCC document listing the MFR (manufacturer) codes that
make up the eight most significant bits of the 32 bit ESN in the IS-54
and EIA/TIA-553 cellular specs?

The reason I assume it would be an FCC document is that is who(m?) the
above mentioned specifications indicates as the allocator of these
numbers.


Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #341
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa11693;
          11 Aug 95 22:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23760 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:33:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23751; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:33:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 16:33:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #342

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Aug 95 16:33:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 342

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Some Chicago (Was New Orleans) Exchange History (David W. Tamkin)
    AT&T Business Practices (Bhaktha Keshavachar)
    Book Review: "City of Bits" by Mitchell (Rob Slade)
    HR 1555 Update (8-9-95) (James E. Bellaire)
    Intecom ACD CallWise (Rex Ridgeway)
    Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits ([e-mail])
    Looking For a RAN Interface (Alan Langford)
    CNN's Indian Venture Booed; Broadcasting Reforms Stalled (Rishab A. Ghosh)
    Door-to-Door Ethernet (Dave Bernardi)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 16:16 CDT
From: [e-mail] (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Some Chicago (Was New Orleans) Exchange History
Organization: TIPFKAG  [World-Wide Access, Chicago, Illinois  60606-2804]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This time around, I decided to save the
best for first. We don't hear nearly often enough from David Tamkin, a
fellow with a marvelous memory for trivia ... and much of it very, very
interesting.   PAT]

Mark Cuccia wrote in <[e-mail]> in comp.dcom.telecom:

> BTW, Empire Carpets had their musical commercial 'Call 588-2300,
> Empire'.  What was 58X in the exchange name days up there?

And Telecom Digest Editor noted,

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only 58x I remember for sure was the
> one called JUNiper, or 586 and LUDlow, or 583. Like yourself, I have heard
> the five-eight-eight, two-three-hundred commercial many times, but I
> cannot recall what 588 was. Perhaps David Tampkin knows.    PAT]

Nope, but David Tamkin knows.  (And that done to the fellow who is
always telling people that PAT's last name is not Townsend or Towson.)
Note: I'll be using O's instead of 0's below to make this easier to
read for people in whose fonts zeroes and eights look too similar.

Mark's making the assumption, which holds in many other places but not
in Chicago, that prefixes with the same first two digits served the
same area.  It doesn't hold here; it never did.  The named 58x numbers
made up one of the *least* scattered scattered decades we had.  For an
example, consider the named prefixes equivalent to 26x:

     COlumbus 1 - Chicago-Austin
     AMbassador 2 - Chicago-Rogers Park
     ANdover 3 - Chicago-Franklin
     COmmodore 4 - Chicago-Pullman
     COrnelia 7 - Chicago-Irving
     BOulevard 8 - Chicago-Oakland

Even those that started with the same two holes in the dial and were
in the same switch didn't necessarily have the same name: consider
ARdmore 1 and BRoadway 5 in Chicago-Edgewater, ARmitage 6 and
BRunswick 8 in Chicago-Humboldt, and BEverly 8 and 9 but CEdarcrest 3
in Chicago-Beverly.  (BRoadway 3 and BRiargate 4 are in the same
exchange [Chicago-Rogers Park] but are served from different switches.)

We also have names that appear in more than one switch or exchange:
BIshop, BRoadway, FAirfax, GLadstone, INdependence, KEystone, LAfay-
ette, LUdlow, MIchigan, NAtional, SPring, and TAylor come to mind.

When Chicago went from three letters to two letters and one digit in
1948, JUNiper in the Chicago-Irving switch became JUniper 8 rather
than the native JUniper 6, the only Irving prefix to get a mismatching
digit (but hardly the only one in the city) because the other Irving
prefixes became COrnelia 7, INdependence 3, IRving 8, and KEystone 9.
JUniper 3 was assigned in Irving in the early 195O's.

At the time of that changeover the only prefixes in Chicago-Portsmouth
were PORtsmouth and RELiance.  They became the equivalent POrtsmouth 7
and REliance 5.  Later additions in Portsmouth were the Ludlows:
LUdlow 1, LUdlow 2, and LUdlow 5.  The westernmost extreme was
apparently cut over to the Summit switch sometime later; it was given
LUdlow 6, the only prefix there that has a name.

So in fact, 583 is JUniper and 586 is LUdlow!  (There never was a
three-letter LUDlow.)

The other named 58x prefixes in the old (pre-1989) 312 were JUno 4 in
St. Charles, soon to move from 7O8 to 63O, and JUstice 7 in Fox Lake,
soon to move from 7O8 to 847.

Empire -- now named Empire Home Services, Inc. -- is located in
Lincolnwood and should have service from the Skokie central office: in
fact, (7O8) 588-23OO might reach them, and though that prefix is wired
from the Newcastle central office, it serves southern Niles (same as
NIles 7) and technically is part of the Skokie exchange.  But its
famous phone number is in 312, FXed from Chicago-Irving.

7O8-588 did not open until 1994; for several years after the 312/7O8
split in 1989 Empire's ads had the old "five eight eight, two three
hundred, Empire" jingle with the spoken words "that's three one two"
added.  The digits on the video portion were narrowed to make room for
the area code.

Nowadays they advertise (8OO) 588-23OO in the video portion and say
nothing about any area code in the audio; it's an interesting study
in evolution.  I can understand their not bothering to publicize
(7O8) 588-23OO [if they even have it] since it will be in 847 soon.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry about that spelling error in your
last name David, and thanks for going to bat for me on the same matter
now and then. As Oscar Wilde once noted, I don't care what they say
about me on the Internet or Usenet as long as they spell my name
correctly.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bhaktha Keshavachar)
Subject: AT&T Business Practices
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 00:11:48 GMT


Hi,

Last week a AT&T long distance rep called me at home and offered
me a deal (aka a sweet package) so that I switch to them. The deal
was that AT&T would give $100.00 and some good international
calling rates for three months.

Well ... when the rep called I was rather busy. So I told the rep that
I will call their long distance service center later after deciding.
Now this week I call them and they reply saying that they haven't
heard of such a deal! I thought it was rather funny.

I was wondering if someone from AT&T reading this can clarify the
situation.

1. Did I speak to an bonafide AT&T rep?
2. If so was the deal bogus?


Regards,

Bhaktha


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They do have some deals where they will
send you a check for varying amounts of money if you agree to switch
to them. How much they are willing to send depends on what they think
of your business, I guess. They have never offered me more than $35 at
a time, and that is all they gave me to come back after I left them for
a month to get the free fax modem from Sprint. I imagine you did talk
to a bonafide rep and I imagine the deal was legit at the time it was
offered.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 02:05:00 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "City of Bits" by Mitchell


BKCITBIT.RVW   950629

"City of Bits", William J. Mitchell, 1995, 0-262-13309-1, U$20.00
%A   William J. Mitchell [e-mail]
%C   55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA   02142-1399
%D   1995
%G   0-262-13309-1
%I   The MIT Press
%O   U$20.00 [e-mail]
%P   225
%T   "City of Bits"

In chapter four, Mitchell's background in architecture is used to
advantage as he presents examples of the forms which have followed
various functions.  Famous buildings are designed with particular uses
in mind.  This provides interesting material as the author
demonstrates how technology is eliminating the need for these
architectures -- but it doesn't give much information on what the new
architectures are likely to be.

Of the plethora of Information Superhighway books, this is the most
erudite to date, and contains overall the greatest "insight per page"
ratio.  The benefits of its historical perspective, however, could be
improved by less playing with language and more analysis.  The basics
are here, but just when it starts to get really interesting we "need
to consider" or "have to figure out," rather than taking that one step
further to see if the "what if" matches up against known fact.

Mitchell does tend, at early points in the book, to use impressive
academic language to cloak "gee whiz" outlooks.  In spit of that, I
would still recommend this as the primer for general discussion on the
information society.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKCITBIT.RVW   950629. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  [e-mail]
User           [e-mail]
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

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

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:21:58 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: HR 1555 Update (8-9-95)


An update on HR1555 information previously posted ...

        http://www.bell.com/1555update.html now features the
amendments passed by the House of Representatives amending HR1555, as
well as roll call lists of who voted for and against this legislation.

As AT&T mentions in it's latest press release on the matter, its not
over until the conference committe finishes deliberation.  AT&T press
releases can be found at:
        http://www.att.com/press/

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

I hope they do a good job of combining billing when competition comes.
Otherwise I'll have to pay my 'Local Loop Carrier' for the link to the
switch, my 'Local Exchange Carrier' for the use of their switch, my
'intraLATA Exchange Carrier' for regional calls, my 'interLATA
Exchange Carrier' for national calls, my 'International Carrier' for
calls overseas.  Not to mention my 'WATS Carrier' for those incoming
calls.

AT&T does not bill through GTE (my current LEC) for personal 800
service, and refused to send me a combined bill for 1+ residential and
personal 800 service.  (Unless I make my home a business account.)
That explains why I don't use their service.  I don't like their
billing practices.

One bill per month please!


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

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

From: [e-mail] (Rex Ridgeway)
Subject: Intecom ACD CallWise
Date: 11 Aug 1995 19:13:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


We are considering purchasing Intecom's Automatic Call Distribution
(ACD) system called "CallWise".  Does anyone have any comments, words
of praise or warning about this product?

Also, and more important to me, since the switch this ACD system will
be on is rebilled to our customers (eg. central service government
agency providing services to smaller government subdivisions on the
central Intecom switch) --- does anyone have any suggestions as to the
most simple and fair way to bill for the use of the CallWise ACD
system (e.g. would $s per supervisor and/or $s per agent and/or $s per
pilot group, etc...)?

Please respond by email and/or posting a response.


Thanks,

Rex Ridgeway ----- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 20:53:58 GMT


Saw this in the paper today:

Shanghai will become the world's fourth metropolis with eight-digit
telephone numbers beginning November 25th.

Demand for telephones is soaring among the 12 million residents of
China's commercial capital, with the number rising to 2.31 million in
1994 from just 440,000 in 1989.  The city is expected to have 3.3
million telephones by the end of this year.

It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone
numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Shanghai upgraded to six-digit numbers on September 1, 1957 and to
seven digits on November 12, 1989. The city will be able to provide 80
million telephone numbers, ten times the current capacity, when it
increases to eight digits.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 14:51:27 EDT
From: Alan Langford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For a RAN Interface


I have a friend who wants to hook up a voice card (in this case, a
Dialogic card) to a PBX as a Recorded Announcement (RAN) unit. It
seems that RANs use a different electrical interface than voice
boards, possibly an E&M link.

So I have a multi-part question: Does anyone know of a device that
will let my friend do this? Does anyone know what the RAN interface
specifications are? and has anyone heard of a loop-start to E&M
conversion device?

Please e-mail responses to [e-mail]. Thanks.


     Alan Langford              Ambit Perspectives:
     [e-mail]                     Voice Response Systems Consulting
Bus: [phone]                  Computer Integrated Telephony
     Toronto, Ontario, Canada       Publishers of Ambit Voice Views

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

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 14:52:24 -0700
From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN's Indian Venture Booed; Broadcasting Reforms Stalled


-==This Indian Techonomist bulletin (C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh

CNN's Indian venture booed; broadcasting reform stalled

August 10, 1995: Ever since American Cable News Network (CNN)
inaugurated its tie-up with India's state broadcaster with a programme
on Indians' supposed love for cows, it has been in trouble. It is not
enough that this American parochialism so typical of CNN will do
little to enhance its viewership; the network has also been plagued by
criticism from almost everywhere.

Yesterday in Parliament leading opposition parties accused the
government of "selling out to foreigners" and weakening national
security. Accompanied by much routine hysteria, they walked out of the
House. They also claimed the government had made the first step
towards loosening controls on foreign ownership of print media, which,
strangely, is prohibited -- although foreigners may own up to 49% of
telecom service providers. They made much of the fact that even the
American government restricts foreign controls in media.

The government, for its part, claimed the tie-up between CNN and
Doordarshan, the state broadcaster, will be "good for India's image."
Indeed it will -- CNN has committed to produce a programme for
broadcast over its global network on India's Independence Day, August
15th. This will include excerpts of the Prime Minister's Independence
Day speech, but, hopefully, no cows.

Meanwhile India's broadcasting reforms are stalled with the procedural
delay of the Indian Broadcasting Act, created after a Supreme Court
verdict in February declaring the current state monopoly
unconstitutional.  K P Singh Deo, Minister for Information and
Broadcasting (I&B), said in Parliament that the government would soon
introduce comprehensive broadcasting legislation -- although the Act
has been in preparation for some time it has rarely been mentioned in
public, and the comment has gone unnoticed once again.

However, Secretary for I&B Bhaskar Ghose told The Indian Techonomist
today that the Act cannot be placed before Parliament in the current
session. It has first to be cleared by the Cabinet, which includes the
Minister. With a looming general election on its collective mind, the
Cabinet has other things to worry about. So, for that matter, has the
Opposition.

For an analysis of Indian broadcasting reforms based on an interview
with Secretary Ghose, see http://dxm.org/techonomist/regu.html#IBA
See also:

- CNN ties up with India's state broadcaster
  http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/cnnddbu.html

- Monopolies and free speech (analysis of the Supreme Court ruling, with
  former Chief Justice's views) http://dxm.org/techonomist/legal.html


-==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
-==Licensed for ELECTRONIC distribution, including commercial, provided
-==this notice is attached. This bulletin is from The Indian Techonomist,
-==the newsletter on India's information industry.
-==http://dxm.org/techonomist/ - e-mail [e-mail]
-==Phone [phone]; H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://www.c2.org/~rishab/techonomist/                   [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

From: Dave Bernardi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Door-to-Door Ethernet
Date: 11 Aug 1995 11:53:40 GMT
Organization: Morgantown Energy Technology Center, US DOE


Hi,

I've been asked to look into a "new" telco service called door-to-door
Ethernet.  I suspect it would have to be a multi-T1 IMUX type setup or
a fractional T-3 service of some kind with the bridge/router included.

Has anyone heard of this service?


Thanks,

Dave Bernardi

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #342
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07325;
          16 Aug 95 2:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15078 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:01:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15070; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:01:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 20:01:17 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #343

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Aug 95 20:00:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 343

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow Up in its' Face (Paul Robinson)
    California's 310 Area Code to Split (Steven Lichter)
    AT&T Uniplan Contracts - Deception and Legal Enforceability (MurrayH295)
    New NPA Hysteria Already! (Alan Lange)
    Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (North Coast Communications)
    EC Telecom Deregulation ([e-mail])
    Accessing Toll-Free 800 from Overseas (Peter Mansfield)
    Telephone Future Shock (L) By Ted Landphair/Washington (Danny Burstein)
    War on Payphones (Dave Levenson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 16:49:42 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA
Subject: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow up in its' Face


Bell Atlantic, the local telephone company for Washington, D.C., and
its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, as well as most of those states as
well as New Jersey, West Virginia, and perhaps a few others, has a
rather serious, juicy problem just waiting to blow up on them into a
major scandal.

I have received independent confirmation from a second source, not
with the telephone company, of the same item that I had heard earlier
from a site installer, so I considered this reasonable confirmation of
what I had been told before.

Currently, a private contractor [1] performs certain back-office work
or in-office processing for Bell Atlantic, which has to do with the
internal execution of orders that are entered by the clerks when a
customer places an order for service, including new service or service
changes.  Bell Atlantic is allegedly doing the processing this way
because it is a less expensive method than what was previously done.

The order takers, I have found, are professional, courteous and
routinely get the orders right.  Occasionally they have wrong
information, but it is usually because I ask a complicated question.
Even if they have the information wrong, I can still get my orders
placed correctly.  In one case where I placed an order incorrectly
because I was misinformed, the new clerk accepted the correction,
waived the charge for the new order, then, because I had been wrongly
charged, had me back-billed for the months the service was incorrectly
installed; I ended up with about $80 credit because the way I wanted
the service, what I received ended up costing me more than it would
have, had the order taker given me the correct information.  This
incident was reported in prior issues of this publication.

The technicians who perform on-site installations are always very
competent and very professional, on occasion doing more than the order
actually provided for, such as when I had more lines installed a
couple of years ago, the installer was nice enough to leave me an
extra 50 feet of wire, as well as throw it up on the roof when he was
bringing over the extra lines from the telephone pole, so that I could
do the installation of the extra jacks myself, without having to pay
the $1 a minute that Bell Atlantic would charge me.  Nor did I even
have to pay anything for the extra wire, which I consider to be very
nice of him.

No, the problem lies with what happens to orders which are received by
the company and are either being performed internally or are being
scheduled for processing by a technician, or are otherwise not
finished.  Since the issue is over cost, the "back office" processing
which is handled, allegedly by a contractor's employees, is not only
being done badly, in some cases *it isn't even being done at all*!

Both a Federal Government Employee in that agency's telecom section,
and a C&P Telephone Installer, who each work in two different states,
have both independently told me that when orders come into the back
office processing center, the clerks there more-or-less enter them
into the system, and there's really either no- or not-much quality
control.  And there's simply not enough people to handle all the
orders that come in to enter them all in the same day without running
overtime, which they are of course, not going to do.  So the employees
have a method of handling the excess orders that they can't get done
by the end of their shift.

 ** They throw them in the wastebasket without even processing them! **

That means that the order has been entered, the customer has probably
either been billed for the service or expects it to be changed, but
the order was never even done by the back-office clerks!

And *this* explains why sometimes I place an order for service and
don't get it done.  It also explains why I've had orders that are done
incorrectly unless they were complicated; a simple order, the
back-office clerk just throws in the system any-old way, but a
complicated order probably requires that the clerk look up the coding
to process it.

And if they can't finish what orders they have by the end of the day,
they get "processed" via File 13, e.g. the Round File, for the
"reprocessors" (janitors) to "process" (dispose of in the recycling
bins, naturally.)

But that because even the installation people and (some) customers are
aware that this is going on, is a scandal.  It either means that
management in Richmond, VA (Bell Atlantic's Headquarters) is either
aware of this happening and is consenting for this sort of
disreputable practice to continue, or, like too many incompetent
managers of huge companies, have their heads so far up their keisters
that the only thing they know how to do is complain about competitors
eating their market share, or else keep screaming about how they are
losing money on some of the services they provide (possible, but maybe
the real reason they lose money is something else).  That is, when
they aren't busy petitioning for rate increases and ways to eliminate
untimed service offerings in order to push more metered service on the
customers!

If Bell Atlantic can't do the work internally for less than they can
hire it out, that is reasonable to do so in that manner.  But it is
not reasonable to expect less than the same quality as is expected
from their own staff, considering that telephone service, in many
cases, is actually a matter of life-and-death, e.g.  literally
critical to survival even when someone isn't in a state-of-emergency.

I have other comments about telephone service, which I'll leave for a
separate article.


Paul Robinson
President and General Manager
Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc,  1-800-TDARCOS
Silver Spring MD 20910      We sell and service ideas.

[1] An installer here in Maryland, a Federal Employee in DC, and an
    installer in Virginia have all told me that contractor employees
    handle back-office order processing.  The Federal Employee and
    the Bell Atlantic/Virginia Employee confirmed that undone/unfinished
    work is being thrown in the trash.

    An order clerk for Bell Atlantic stated on the telephone call I made,
    that all processing is done by Bell Atlantic Employees.  I pass this
    on because I can't confirm either.  The information about the dumping
    of unprocessed orders was from two different sources that did not
    know I was told this by another person.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The same thing was going on at the Internal
Revenue Service for a few years and maybe it still is. As you might imagine,
mail rolls in by semi-trucks every day for the first two quarters of the year
and well into the summer.  The newspapers reported a major scandal in which
clerks at one of the processing back offices were 'processing' thousands of
un-opened letters in much the same way, by flushing them down toilets and
carrying out large bins of mail to dumpsters unopened. And I thought *I*
was behind in my mail!  Supposedly the two or three dozen employees doing
this at the one processing center -- I think it was the one in West Virginia
which caught fire and burned down about three months ago -- were fired as
a result. Speaking of the fire, the IRS Commissioner issued a press release
the next day (this was was near the end of the current filing period) in
which she was quoted as saying, 'this will cause us a few problems this
year I am afraid ...'

There have also been six instances in the past two years of postal employees
in Chicago who were unable/unwilling to deliver all the mail for their
route each day so they disposed of the mail in interesting places such
as the basment of their homes or under the back porch, etc. The {Chicago
Sun-Times} reported not long ago of a retired postman whose house caught
fire. As firemen worked to put out the blaze they came across many carton
boxes of undelivered mail; some going back five years.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: California's 310 Area Code to Split
Date: 15 Aug 1995 12:36:07 -0700
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


PUC rules to split 310 Area Code in early 1997

The California Public Utilities Commission today ruled that the 310
Area Code will be split during the first quarter of 1997, creating the
562 Area Code.  In issuing this ruling, the Commission ignored a PUC
administrative law judge's warning that splitting the 310 Area Code
would be highly disruptive and costly for consumers.

GTE had recommended overlaying the 310 with the 562 Area Code for new
customers, to minimize the disruption and cost to existing customers.
According to Tim McCallion, Regulatory and Governmental Affairs vice
president, GTE is disappointed with the decision. "The split will be a
costly and unnecessarily disruptive burden on millions of Southern
California telephone customers," said McCallion.

With an overlay code, all existing GTE and Pacific Bell customers
would have kept their current phone numbers.  Numbers in the overlay
area code would have been assigned only to new local phone and
wireless service customers.

Now, based on the PUC ruling, depending on where the revised 310 and
new 562 area code boundaries are set, 2.4 million of the 5 million GTE
and Pacific Bell customers in the existing 310 Area Code will be
forced to change their phone numbers for the second time in five
years.

Affected business customers will incur the expense of changing
signage, stationery, business cards, advertising materials and, in
some cases, reprogramming their PBXs and private phone systems and
computerized data bases.

GTE believes today's decision clearly benefits local phone companies'
competitors such as AT&T, MCI, the California Cable Television
Association, and various cellular and paging companies, and that this
benefit comes at the expense of customers, and to the competitive
disadvantage of GTE.

Boundaries for the new 562 and revised 310 area codes will be determined
later.

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

The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is.
SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub [phone] 2400/14.4 24 hours,
Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II.

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

From: [e-mail] (MurrayH295)
Subject: AT&T Uniplan Contracts - Deception and Legal Enforceability
Date: 15 Aug 1995 14:17:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MurrayH295)


I have seen a number of AT&T Uniplan agreements in which it appears
that AT&T have engaged in deception in order to secure long term
commitments from large volume customers.

The basic scheme seems to be that a large volume customer e.g.. $10,000
per month is promised a range of very high discounts in return for a three
year commitment. A smaller volume customer e.g.. $3,000 per month is
offered slightly lesser discounts in return for a similar term commitment.

If you work out the actual rates charged (and AT&T constructs their
bills to make that very difficult) there is very little difference or
benefit that the high volume customer receives over the smaller volume
customer.  In fact in there is little difference between discounted
rates that any Uniplan customer gets when compared to the rates that
AT&T's Global Business Advantage customers receive in return for a
minimal volume commitment ($200.00 per month) and no term commitment.

It seems that the base rate to which discounts are applied varies
depending on the customers calling volumes. In other words: the higher
the volume, the higher the basic rate and the greater the discount.
The net result is that everyone pays the same.

In addition the penalties for breaking the contract seem to be
somewhat excessive: the monthly $ commitment times the number of
months remaining in the agreement. These penalties obviously do not
reflect potential losses AT&T will experience in the event that a
contract is broken and seem to be inserted solely to make sure that
the customer cannot cancel the agreement. As such I do not believe
that these penalties would be legally enforceable.

Any comments concerning experiences with AT&T Uniplan agreements or
thoughts concerning the legal enforceability of these agreements would
be welcome.

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

Date: 15 Aug 95 16:42:55 EDT
From: Alan Lange <[e-mail]>
Subject: New NPA Hysteria Already!


The front page of {The Hartford Courant} ran a story about a business
that is already up in arms about the new 860 NPA.  We do not begin
permissive dialing until 8/28/95, and mandatory dialing doesn't even
begin until 10/4/96.  Even with that much lead time, and a promise
from SNET that even after mandatory dialing begins, they will
intercept calls with a message saying to use the new code until the
prefix is assigned in 203.  In all fairness to the {Courant}, they
again ran the map of the state with the new area code boundaries, and
stated that 11 digit dialing (1+203+7 digit) seemed to be a bigger
problem than the new area code.


Alan Lange

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 00:01 EST
From: North Coast Communications <[e-mail]>
Subject: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services


Further developments on the Allnet/WKP communications "500" number
situation.

On Saturday 8-12-95, test calls placed to 1-500-200-4141, 1-500-739-4141,
and 1-500-938-4141 reached the Allnet test recording (switch 47.8).
Calls to other numbers in this prefix were branded "WKP Long Distance",
an Adult Services Provider.

0+ calls to ANY number in these prefixs were branded "ALLNET" however.
(Even the 1+ "WKP" ones.)

As of 8-13-95, 1+ calls to the "4141" test numbers tell me that I have
reached the "SPR - WORLDCALL NETWORK". 0+ still gets the "ALLNET" jingle.

I will bet that 0+ jingle is removed in the next day or two as Allnet
hastily covers its butt. First they tried to blame AT&T. Are they now
trying to imply SPRINT is to blame? (SPR - Worldcall).
                                     ^^^
I am looking for ANY information on the following companies;

Beylen Communications
WKP Communications or WKP Long Distance (Seattle WA)       pic 10718

International Audiotext Network Inc. (location unknown)  pic 10509

Financial reimbursement possible for really helpfull information.


Thank You!

Michael L. Fumich  /  E-Mail  <[e-mail]> /  Phone: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like you really hate
those people ... grin ... tell us what they did to you. The readers here
always like juicy stories.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: EC Telecom Deregulation
Organization: NLnet
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 06:37:14 GMT


It will all begin on Jan 1st 1998.

It can't happen soon enough.

Currently, I am trying to procure a PBX for an international agency
for whom I work in a European (EC) seat of govt. Tenders for equipment
from:

  Siemens
  Alcatel
  Northern Telecom
  Philips
  Ericsson

ended up in three of five cases on the desk of the same PTT "account
representative" who has a monopoly right to sell the equipment
concerned.

I would like to help change this situation and I am willing to provide
further information to journalists and or policy makers who can help.

If you are a telecoms consultant familiar with the current PBX systems
from the vendors named above please send me an email.  I may need your
help.


Paul

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 14:01:29 +1000
Subject: Accessing Toll-Free 800 from Overseas


I recently came across an interesting situation when attempting to
dial a US 800 number from Sydney, Australia.

Optus Communications (our second national carrier, formed in 1992) adver-
tises direct connection to US 800 numbers. Just dial international
access code 0011 + 1-800-NXX-XXXX and you're connected.  When you do
dial this, a intercept message before connection states that you will
be charged normal IDD rates to the US for this call.

However, the situation using Telstra (formerly Telecom Australia,
government-owned carrier) is quite different. They do not advertise
any such access. However, when I tried to call, I got an interesting
Telstra intercept message as follows:

"To access the North American toll-free number dialed, hang up and
redial using 880 in place of 800. Connection is not toll-free and you
will be charged normal IDD rates to the USA when connected. Thank you
for using Telstra."

Note *880 in place of 800*.  I had never heard of such a thing, but
when I tried it, it worked, and I was connected. In fact, I tried
several 800 numbers, and all were connected.

Has anyone ever heard of this 880 area code being used from other
countries or domestically in the US. I do not know whether this is
some special arrangement between Telstra and one of the US carriers,
just for Australia, or whether it is used in other countries under
similar arrangements.

Theoretically, this current usage also precludes NPA 880 being used as
a relief code, because international access will not be available
(from Australia at least). Any thoughts?


Peter Mansfield     Sydney, Australia
Tel [phone]  Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Telephone Future Shock (L) By Ted Landphair/Washington
Date: 15 Aug 1995 11:11:53 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


Forwarded to the Digest FYI:

DATE=8/11/95
TYPE=CURRENT AFFAIRS FEATURE
NUMBER=3-22829
TITLE=TELEPHONE FUTURE SHOCK (L)
BYLINE=TED LANDPHAIR
TELEPHONE=619-3515
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=NANCY SMART

CONTENT=  [INSERTS IN AUDIO SERVICES]

[ED. NOTE.  THIS IS ONE OF TWO PIECES ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH MODERN
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.  THIS ONE DEALS WITH THREE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHANGES. THE OTHER, SLUGGED AREA CODE CONFUSION,
DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE EXPLOSION OF AREA CODES.]

INTRO:   DO YOU LIKE CHANGE?  LOTS OF CHOICES?  IF YOU DO, VOA'S
         TED LANDPHAIR SAYS YOU'D BE IDEALLY SUITED FOR TODAY'S
         WORLD OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS.

TEXT:    IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORLD WAR TWO, AMERICANS FELT
         FORTUNATE TO HAVE TELEPHONES IN THEIR HOMES.  MANY HAD
         TO SHARE A NUMBER WITH ONE OR MORE NEIGHBORS ON WHAT WAS
         CALLED A "PARTY LINE."  TELEPHONE NUMBERS VARIED FROM
         THREE TO SEVEN DIGITS.  SOME WERE A COMBINATION OF
         LETTERS AND NUMBERS.  IN MUCH OF RURAL AMERICA, YOU HAD
         TO CALL AN OPERATOR DOWN AT THE PHONE COMPANY EACH TIME
         YOU WANTED TO MAKE A CALL.

         EVEN AFTER DIRECT DIALING CAME TO MOST LOCAL
         COMMUNITIES, YOU STILL HAD TO DIAL "ZERO" FOR "OPERATOR"
         TO CALL LONG DISTANCE. SAME THING IF YOU SIMPLY WANTED
         TO FIND OUT SOMEONE ELSE'S NUMBER.  YOU DIALED WHAT WAS
         THEN CALLED THE "INFORMATION" OPERATOR.

         NOW AMERICANS DIAL MOST CALLS THEMSELVES, USING
         THREE-DIGIT PREFIXES CALLED AREA CODES THAT ROUTE CALLS
         TO A CERTAIN PART OF THE COUNTRY.  AND YOU DON'T GET THE
         "INFORMATION OPERATOR" ANY MORE.  YOU DIAL WHAT'S CALLED
         "DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE" AND TALK MOSTLY TO A ROBOTIC
         VOICE RATHER THAN A HUMAN BEING.

TAPE CUT ONE: CALLING DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE  :36

         (PHONE RINGS ONCE)

         [RECORDED FEMALE VOICE]  "WHAT CITY?

         (CALLER)  "BALTIMORE."

         [RECORDED FEMALE VOICE]  "THANK YOU.  WHAT LISTING?"

         (CALLER)  "BALTIMORE SUN NEWSPAPER."

         [RECORDED FEMALE VOICE]  "THANK YOU"

         (PHONE RINGS AS CALL IS TRANSFERRED TO LIVE OPERATOR)

         [LIVE FEMALE OPERATOR]  "WAS THERE A CERTAIN DEPARTMENT
         YOU NEEDED?"

         (CALLER)  "JUST THE MAIN NUMBER."

         [LIVE FEMALE OPERATOR]  "THANKS FOR CALLING."

         [RECORDED FEMALE VOICE]  "THE NUMBER IS, AREA CODE
         4-1-ZERO.  3-3-2-6-THOUSAND.  THE NUMBER IS, AREA CODE
         4-1-ZERO.  3-3-2-6-THOUSAND.  THANK YOU FOR CALLING."

TEXT:    THAT CALL LASTED 35 SECONDS  -- ONLY FOUR SECONDS OF
         WHICH INVOLVED A LIVE OPERATOR. SHE HAD TO SPEAK ONLY
         TEN WORDS, THEN COULD MOVE ON TO ANOTHER CALL WHILE THE
         COMPUTERIZED VOICE GAVE OUT THE NUMBER.

         SOME LONG-DISTANCE DIALING IS FREE THESE DAYS, THANKS TO
         WHAT AMERICANS CALL 8-HUNDRED NUMBERS.  THE 8-ZERO-ZERO
         AREA CODE WAS INTRODUCED IN THE MID-1960S.  IF YOU
         BOUGHT 8-HUNDRED SERVICE, YOUR CUSTOMERS, FRIENDS, OR
         FAMILY COULD CALL YOU AND PAY NOTHING.   THE COMPANY, OR
         THE HOUSEHOLD WITH THE 8-HUNDRED NUMBER, PAID FOR THE
         PHONE CALL. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POSSIBLE 8-HUNDRED
         NUMBERS IS ABOUT SEVEN-AND-ONE-HALF MILLION -- AND
         THEY'RE NEARLY ALL TAKEN.

         THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S NO LONGER A TELEPHONE MONOPOLY,
         AND SEVERAL COMPANIES NOT ONLY GET TO SELL 8-HUNDRED
         NUMBERS, THEY ALSO GET TO SET ASIDE -- OR HOARD -- EVEN
         MORE FOR FUTURE SALE.

         THE 800-NUMBERS HAVE BECOME SO POPULAR THAT INDIVIDUALS
         AS WELL AS COMPANIES ARE GETTING THEM.  MIKE WADE IS
         PRESIDENT OF DATABASE SERVICE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED,
         THE COMPANY THAT RUNS THE GIGANTIC COMPUTER DATABASE
         THAT ENABLES THESE 800-NUMBER CALLS TO BE SWITCHED ALL
         OVER THE COUNTRY.  HE SAYS FACSIMILE MACHINES AND
         INDIVIDUAL PAGERS HAVE GOBBLED UP STILL MORE 800
         NUMBERS.

TAPE CUT TWO: WADE  :14

         "WHAT USED TO BE A  PAGING COMPANY THAT HAD
         ONE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND CUSTOMERS BUT ONE 800 NUMBER, NOW
         IS A PAGING COMPANY THAT HAS ONE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND 800
         NUMBERS, ONE FOR EVERY PAGER THEY HAVE IN SERVICE."

TEXT:    NOW THAT 800 NUMBERS ARE ALMOST GONE, WHAT'S TO BE DONE?
         BEGINNING NEXT APRIL, THERE'LL BE A SECOND CODE --
         8-8-8  -- FOR FREE LONG-DISTANCE CALLS.   BUT PROBLEMS
         ARE SURE TO COME WITH IT.

         SOME BUSINESSES' TELEPHONE SYSTEMS MAY NOT RECOGNIZE THE
         8-8-8 AS AN AREA CODE.  AND CUSTOMERS WHO'VE BEEN USED
         TO FREE 800-NUMBER CALLS FOR 30 YEARS MAY THINK THERE'S
         SOMETHING INFERIOR ABOUT COMPANIES THAT OFFER AN 8-8-8
         NUMBER INSTEAD.

                      [/////BEGIN OPT////]

         AND THERE'S A BIG MARKETING PROBLEM AS WELL.  SOME
         COMPANIES HAVE INCORPORATED THEIR 800 NUMBERS INTO THEIR
         ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS OR EVEN THEIR NAMES.  THERE'S A
         COMPANY WHOSE OFFICIAL NAME IS 1-8-HUNDRED-FLOWERS.  YOU
         ORDER FLOWERS FROM THE COMPANY BY DIALING 1-8 HUNDRED
         AND THE NUMBERS ON THE TELEPHONE DIAL THAT CORRESPOND TO
         THE THE LETTERS IN THE WORD "FLOWERS."

         BUT COME NEXT APRIL, WHAT'S TO PREVENT A COMPETITOR FROM
         COMING ALONG AND SIGNING UP FOR A NEW 8-8-8 NUMBER THAT
         SPELLS OUT 1-8-8-8-FLOWERS, AND THUS QUICKLY AND EASILY
         STEALING BUSINESS FROM THE WELL-ESTABLISHED FLOWER
         COMPANY?

                       [/////END OPT////]

         ONE THING'S FOR SURE. ALL THESE TIME-SAVING,
         LABOR-SAVING INNOVATIONS IN THE TELEPHONE BUSINESS CAN
         BE CONFUSING.

TAPE CUT THREE:  CHAOTIC MONTAGE OF PHONE SOUNDS*  :30

         (BRIEF PHONE RING)  YOUR CALL CANNOT BE COMPLETED AS
         ENTERED.  PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER AND TRY AGAIN

         (BRIEF PHONE RING)  WE'RE SORRY, ALL CIRCUITS ARE NOW
         BUSY.  PLEASE TRY YOUR CALL LATER-LATER-LATER
         (ECHO)--JUMBLE OF CODE NUMBERS.

         (BRIEF PHONE RING)  WHAT CITY?

         WHAT CITY?

         WHAT CITY?

         (BOING-BOING-BOING SOUND)

         WE'RE SORRY, YOUR CALL CANNOT BE COMPLETED AS DIALED

         WE'RE SORRY

         WE'RE SORRY

         WE'RE SORRY  (FADE OUT)

TEXT:    IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET HIGH-TECH IN
         TELECOMMUNICATIONS, YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ONE MORE
         SERVICE -- JUST NOW BEING INTRODUCED.  IT'S CALLED
         "NUMBER PORTABILITY" AND ITS USES A 500 AREA CODE.  IT
         MEANS THAT YOU CAN BUY A TELEPHONE NUMBER THAT'S YOURS
         AND YOURS ALONE -- FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IF YOU
         CHOOSE.  IT'S LIKE AN AMERICAN'S SOCIAL-SECURITY NUMBER.
         IT FOLLOWS YOU WHEREVER YOU MOVE.  SO IF YOUR FRIEND HAS
         SUCH A NUMBER AND MOVES AWAY TO ANOTHER CITY, YOU CAN
         DIAL THE SAME OLD AREA-CODE 500 NUMBER, AND THE
         TELEPHONE COMPANY'S COMPUTER WILL INSTANTLY TRACK HIM
         DOWN AND RING HIS TELEPHONE.

         HE CAN EVEN PUNCH IN A FEW NUMBERS, AND THE PERSONAL
         PHONE NUMBER WILL FOLLOW HIM FROM HIS HOME RIGHT TO HIS
         DESK OR AUTOMOBILE.

         OF COURSE, IF HE'S EXHAUSTED FROM ALL THESE
         TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPTIONS, HE CAN SIMPLY SWITCH OFF THE
         PHONE AND NOT BE BOTHERED!

(SIGNED)

NEB/TL/NES

*THE MONTAGE WAS CREATED BY KEVIN RAIMAN.

11-Aug-95 4:49 PM EDT (2049 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: War on Payphones
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 01:38:59 GMT


It has previously been recounted here.  The War on Drugs turns into a
War on Payphones.  The politicians have finally found a way of
accomplishing something visible; the payphones don't fight back.

Pat has described how the City of Chicago has ordered touch-tone
payphones replaced with rotary-dial payphones, so that they cannot be
used to signal pagers.  Some cities have outlawed payphones which
accept incoming calls.  Others have required that payphones be
disabled during certain hours of the day (or night).

In Boonton Township, New Jersey, a new municipal ordinance advances
courageously in the ongoing battle.  Under this ordinance, all outdoor
payphones must be removed by October 1, 1995.  Bell Atlantic and
several COCOT-providers have been ordered to remove their phones, or
to relocate them indoors (where they may be accessible only during the
business hours of the establishment whose doors they are within).

Two Boonton residents were quoted in the newspaper: a resident of the
public housing project, the mother of two epileptic children, stated
that she cannot afford a phone at home.  She depends upon an outdoor
payphone to summon medical attention in times of emergency.  Another
resident (of Boonton, but, apparently, not of the public housing
project) replied: "Let her get off welfare and get her own phone".

Next, I suppose, they'll discover that drug-dealers use automobiles.
And their use will be banned.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]


[TELEOCM Digest Editor's Note: If ignorance was bliss, some Chicago
aldermen would be the happiest people in the world.  We have some
neighborhoods here where outdoor payphones have been banned entirely
also, thanks to the War on Drugs. Its the old thing about what do
you do when you have a large, very decayed inner city; a place where
the tax base has eroded so badly due to abandoned properties that
there is not enough money to anything right; a place where hundreds
of industrial businesses, factories and other commercial enterprises
have fled over the years rather than be continually harrassed. What
do you do when you are an alderman/local government honcho in such a
case?  The answer is simple: you become even more oppressive toward
the folks who still live there. If someone wants to fix up their prop-
erty, you bury them in tons of red tape with building inspectors,
plumbing inspectors, fire inspectors and miscellaneous inspectors
all coming around for a handout. You give them an alderman who tends
to get ignorant. You let maruding packs of gang members take over the
street corners because the American Civil Liberties Union says they
have the right to freedom of assembly, but you yank out all the pay
phones the citizens would otherwise use to call the police when the
street corner becomes impassable. All big cities in the USA are getting
very bad, but Chicago is among the worst. Heck, the city council has
been messing aorund with the payphones here for years with the 'no
coins after dark' rule, the 'rotary dial so pagers cannot be called'
rule and the 'one way outgoing service only' rule so even if those
drug dealers manage to find a touch tone pay phone they won't be able
to use it to get incoming calls. And bless them one and all, they just
cannot imagine why no one bothers to vote any more, preferring to just
let the lawyer-judges and politicians make all the decisions, since
that is what they will do anyway. The last election here had a perfectly
dreadful turnout: less than fifty percent of the citizens bother regis-
tering to vote; of those, only about forty percent voted in the last
local election. They are getting so desparate now for citizens willing
to go along with the gag that everywhere you go they have 'voter signup'
stations. Supermarkets, libraries, churches, schools; even the County
Jail, where the payphones are among the worst ripoff phones to be found
anywhere.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #343
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07933;
          16 Aug 95 4:02 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16497 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:07:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16488; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:07:25 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 22:07:25 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #344

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Aug 95 22:07:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 344

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Peter Mansfield)
    Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (David E A Wilson)
    Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Glenn Shirley)
    Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Jerry Gaines)
    Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Erez Levav)
    How India's DoT Prevents Internetworking With Sloping Tariffs (R. Ghosh)
    Rural Fibre (Tony Harminc)
    Telephony Frameworks For CTI Applications (Bill Wright)
    Wideband SATCOM Nets to Support WWW (Kramer)
    Dallas Area to Start Charging Local Calls (Russ Latham)
    Questions on ISDX's ([e-mail])
    Country and City Dial Codes ([e-mail])
    ACM Sigcomm 95 Call For Participation (Srinivasan Keshav)
    Re: Some Chicago (Was New Orleans) Exchange History (Joe Lynn)
    Stanilite Trunked Radio (Francis CM Chan)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 14:07:00 +1000
Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits


> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone
> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

There are a number of other locations in the world which have
eight-digit phone numbers.

Denmark and Norway have national eight-digit number dialing plans (and
have had for several years). The rest of France (ie outside Paris)
also have eight-digit numbers.

Melbourne, Brisbane and Gold Coast (Australia) currently have eight
digit numbers (still in permissive period from old seven-digit numbers
(six digit for Gold Coast)), with other cities and the rest of
Australia to follow in the next few years in a major area code and
telephone renumbering -- I have more info if anyone is interested.
Sydney is currently in the middle of a three-stage changeover to
eight-digits (because our 02 area code is so full it cannot be done in
one hit) so we have some eight-digit numbers -- again I have more info if
anyone is interested.

The above are the only places (that I know of) where all numbers are
eight-digits.  There are some other countries where eight-digit numbers
exist, but it is not the standard length.

Eight-digit numbers are in use in major German cities (eg Berlin,
Munich etc, although there are also five to seven digit numbers, with
five-digit numbers generally for PBX switchboards, and eight-digit
numbers generally for extensions, with six and seven-digit numbers for
POTS lines).

Eight-digit numbers are also in use in Rome (numbers there vary from
four to eight digits, again four digits for PBX switchboards etc), and
I have seen them in use in Czechoslovakia (can't remember where).

I have even come across nine-digit local numbers in Germany (Berlin)
and Austria (Vienna).

I'm sure that there are other places that I have missed where
eight-digit numbers are already in use.


Peter Mansfield   Sydney, Australia
Tel [phone]   Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits
Date: 15 Aug 1995 12:54:48 +1000
Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.


[e-mail] (BUBEYE!) writes:

> Shanghai will become the world's fourth metropolis with eight-digit
> telephone numbers beginning November 25th.

> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone
> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Sydney Australia started to go eight digits in July 1994. It now has six, sevenand eight.

Melbourne Australia went to eight digits in May 1995.

Brisbane Australia went to eight digits in July 1995.


David Wilson    Dept CompSci Uni Wollongong Australia    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Shirley =WA TELEC ENG=)
Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits
Date: 15 Aug 1995 14:08:23 +1000
Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia


[e-mail] (BUBEYE!) writes:

> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone
> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Depends what you mean by metropolis, I suppose.  Melbourne, Australia
(only about three million people I think -- not quite the same scale)
changed to eight digits in May 1995.  Parts of Sydney have already but
won't be entirely changed until about half way through next year.
Brisbane was planned for August this year, Adelaide was August next
year, Perth was September 1997 although these were the timetable they
have probably changed.  They could hardly be called metropolis'
although Sydney and Melbourne would probably be.


Glenn

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 08:58:55 +1000
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Gaines)
Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits


On Friday, 11 August [e-mail] (BUBEYE!) wrote:

> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone
> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

In May of this year the city of Melbourne here in Australia saw the
digit "9" prefixed to all local telephone numbers, bringing the total
number of digits in Melbourne to eight.  Last month Brisbane followed
suit, prefixing "3" to all telephone numbers.  Other major cities are
due for similar changeovers over the next twelve months or so.

Austel, the relevant regulatory authority, has sped up the eight-digit
switchover scheme because of fewer-than-anticipated problems in
Melbourne and Brisbane and faster-than-anticipated subscriber
acceptance of the additional digit.  Meanwhile Telstra (Telecom
Australia) is using an IN service to continue to support the old
seven-digit numbering scheme for some nine months after a city
switches over to eight digits.

Australia's population totals only 18 million, so the country was not
facing an immediate numbering scheme exhaustion.  Just thinking ahead
I guess.


NETWORK AND SERVICES MANAGEMENT
CiTR Pty Limited
"For the rapid deployment of new telephony services"
Brisbane Australia and Denver Colorado

Jerry Gaines                | [phone]/ph -4399/fax
[e-mail] | http://www.citr.uq.oz.au

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

From: [e-mail] (Erez Levav)
Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits
Date: 14 Aug 1995 14:00:32 GMT
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Erez Levav)


Interesting, luckily all I have to do is change a constant and
recompile ...  I can tell you that the phone company in China is not
run exactely like one would expect.  I was there (in this case, in
Shanghai) to install some equipment and they gave us two phone line
for testing.  So, we asked what are the phone numbers of these lines.
The answer (kinda standard reply): "very difficult..."  Mind you, the
phones were no more than 50 feet away from the CO. They could not
tell us!  After going round and round, we used my demo program to dial
from these phones to our system, and read the CID.  I don't want to
even think what would have happened if the demo didn't work.


Erez Levav        Fox Chase Cancer Center
[e-mail]    7701 Burholme Avenue
[phone]        Philadelphia, PA 19111
ATT: 0-700-2xpress    0-700-2101010 (FAX)

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:19:50 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Subject: How India's DoT Prevents Internetworking With Sloping Tariffs


Here's an excerpt of a recent mail of mine to Tony Rutkowski.

[summary: tariff for two leased lines = four * rate for one leased
line, especially if between companies, or public access] [request for
info: is it true that the entire ISP business is worth under $600
million a year in the US? Where can I get such info?]

Here's something I left out of the datacom article because it is not,
strictly speaking, anything to do with the government.  It is not Dept
of Telecom (DoT) policy, but the tariff structure of the telco
monopoly that happens to be part of the DoT.

Suppose company A gets a leased line between its offices in Delhi and
Bombay. It pays x Rupees.

Now, if it gets a further line from Bombay to Bangalore, it pays, to
the telco provider that happens to be a part of the DoT, 4 * x Rupees.
Not 2 * x Rupees for two 'point to point' lines, because the rates for
'private data networks', including any case when a line is connected
to a point with further connections, is double.  So all the lines are
charged at double rates if it has a network.

Now, the confusion. Company A can get its offices in several cities
connected on leased lines at normal rates, if it uses 'Single Party
Network Mode' group band circuits. This is in fact what everyone seems
to be doing, and appears to be the same as multiple p-to-p links.

However, the emphasis is on 'Single Party'. If company A wants to
connect its Bombay node to company B (which may or may not have a net
of its own), it becomes a 'private data network'. BOTH companies will
have to pay double rates, for ALL THE LEASED LINES IN THEIR ENTIRE
NETWORKS!

Of course, nobody seems to know what's what, including the DoT. But
the impression of these tariffs is such, that if I want to send mail
to someone on NICNET from ERNET (both government networks) or to
Axcess or to Sprintmail, all of us in New Delhi, the mail will first
go to the US, and then will be ROUTED BACK to India. Because none of
the networks want to risk double rates by connecting to each other.

I can quite imagine a new category, for 'private-owned public-access
networks' with six times ordinary rates or something, for ISPs, who
don't exist right now. This is in keeping with the DoT philosophy -- if
you use more resources, we'll charge higher rates.

I don't suppose AT&T or any of the companies bidding for basic telecom
services will have this idiotic pricing structure. But even after
tenders are opened, and contracts awarded, by the end of this year, it
will take them a long time to raise the money and build their
networks.  (http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html)

DoT will be a monopoly for some time yet. And officially will continue
to be the long-distance carrier, although the details for this are to
be worked out. It is not clear at the moment what role the Telecom
Regulatory Authory of India, to be formed soon
(http://dxm.org/techonomist/regu.html)
will play in all this, even if it is quite independent of the DoT.

I don't think Takkar or Sukh Ram quite know their own tariff structure.
I haven't found two DoT officials with the same opinion!

What I suggest you ask for, is a pricing policy that recognises the
distributed nature of Internet services. That nobody should be forced
to build nationwide networks, but should be allowed to build in bits
in pieces. You know -- backbones, major and minor service providers,
etc. So, to this end, the DoT should ensure that prices for X leased
lines should be no more than X times the price of one leased line,
regardless of whether they interconnect, include switching, or link
multiple organisations or sub-networks, or provide public access
through dial-up.

Pretty miserable, isn't it?

Of course it is possible to ignore the DoT, and admittedly both
private and public service proders in operation right now don't
connect partly out of petty competition because they all flout, or
push the envelope with, several DoT regulations when convenient.

And it is true that VSNL, an unusual public sector monopoly, is about
to provide a reasonably priced (much cheaper than the private
providers' atrocious per-e-mail rates) Internet service, which will
eventually encourage private providers (see Could India's Internet
monopoly serve a purpose? - http://dxm.org/techonomist/vsnlanal.html )

But red tape being the way it is, we've got to attack all the
restrictions the DoT could possibly come up with.

Now this is a moderately urgent matter. I've just heard rumours that
Takkar will retire soon, perhaps by the end of the year. The next one
may be better, but you never know - Takkar does want to "be educated"
now! - http://dxm.org/techonomist/dcom.html


The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://dxm.org/techonomist/                             [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 15:58:17 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rural Fibre


I've just spent a vacation week in rural Ontario (Haliburton area),
and was astonished at the amount of aerial fibre I saw.  I found
myself watching the poles rather than the road each time we drove
through a new area, and sure enough those orange tagged loops were
almost everywhere.  Questions:

What is the significance of the orange tags?  I had assumed they just
marked the cable as fibre rather than copper, so the field people
would know not to yank too hard on it.  But then I noticed that some
areas had blue tags.  What do they signify?

What is the equipment found every 15-20 km?  Typically there is a little
fenced compound with a couple of cabinets beside the road, supplied with
120V power.  Just repeaters?  As far as I could see, the copper cable
did not enter the compound, so it presumably was not an SLC type of thing.

How many strands are typically in one of these aerial cables, and what
data rate do they run at?

What is the topology of these fibre networks?  It looked as though the
fibre runs were simply interoffice trunking, that is each little town
big enough to have its own CO/wire centre was connected to each
neighbouring little town/village.  But I don't see how this explains
the easy availability of phone lines, e.g. the people next door to the
cottage we rented had no trouble getting two business lines and one
residential line, even though they are in an area where 6 and 8 party
lines were the norm not too many years ago.  This was at the end of a
little gravel road by the lake in the middle of nowhere, around 10 km
from the CO in the village.  They told me that an Internet provider is
promising service in a couple of months.

How do they install the fibre -- it seems to be bound to the existing
copper cable with a spiral wrap.  Is there a sort of giant sewing-machine-
on-a-truck that just cruises along the road wrapping a huge bobbin of
nylon around the whole bundle ?  Or do they typically replace the
copper at the same time ?


Thanks,

Tony Harminc   (Tanned and rested - thanks :-))

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Wright)
Subject: Telephony Frameworks For CTI Applications
Date: 14 Aug 1995 20:43:18 GMT
Organization: Texas Networking, Inc.


I'm looking for telephony frameworks (source or layer document) for
implementing CTI applications.  We are developing CTI applications
that will be used in-house and will run on MVS, OS/2, RS/6000s, or
Windows.

We would like to wrap our existing call manager with an "established"
framework such as TAO or XTA.  However, I have not been able to locate
any docuementation on these frameworks or similar object-orientated
frameworks for use in Client/Server environments.


TIA,

Bill Wright

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

From: Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wideband SATCOM Nets to Support WWW
Date: 14 Aug 1995 20:53:50 GMT
Organization: megaburst


Is there a market to support the wideband download of data (imagery,
video, bulk files, etc.) from www sites based on narrow band requests?
Considering developing asymetrical net using DBS satellites (similar
to Spaceways concept) to provide 23MBS downlink to 20cm antennas and
embedded terminals with 14.4 teresstial and/or satcom uplinks for
request channel.  Price targets $1/2k per terminal.  $3/4 per 15
second @ 23MBS.  What do you think?


geyzer

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

Subject: Dallas Area to Start Charging Local Calls
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:54:51 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Russ Latham)


I've heard that sometime in the near future, toll charges will be
charged on some calls that are currently free (local calls) in the
Dallas area.

Anyone know about this?

Also, has anyone heard anything new about the class-action lawsuit
that was filed against Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems for the $0.02
interconnect charge?


russ latham   [e-mail]  or   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions on ISDX's
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 17:42:44 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.


I am hoping someone out there might be able to give me some information
about GPT's ISDX PBX's.  (that was enough initials for a while).

I have heard rumours that these PBX's sometimes "lose" switch information,
does anyone know anything about that?

Also, can anyone reccomend good Call Detail Recording software for these
switches?  The software we are using currently seems to lose calls and
minutes when we compare that data to the invoices from our carriers, more
then a 5% loss in duration.

Please email any helpful suggestions in regards to this at:
[e-mail]


Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Country and City Dial Codes
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 17:47:03 PDT
Organization: NetVision LTD.


Where can I get an upto date list of regional and city codes for the
world?  Does such a thing exists anywhere or in several places?

I found the country code list from the ITU, but they do not have
domestic numbers.  Can anyone help me on this?

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

From: [e-mail] (srinivasan keshav)
Subject: ACM Sigcomm 95 Call For Participation
Organization: Info. Sci. Div., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 17:57:53 GMT


                          Call for Participation
                          ----------------------

                              ACM SIGCOMM 1995

      Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols
                          for Computer Communication

                            Cambridge Marriott Hotel
                          Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA


                          August 28 to September 1, 1995
                    (Tutorials and Workshop, August 28 and 29)


    * The conference will be preceded by eight tutorials covering
      issues from protocol design, multimedia and wireless technology,
      to high performance networks, security and client/server computing.

     * The technical conference begins August 30 with a keynote address by
      this year's ACM SIGCOMM award winner, Prof. David Farber. This will
      be followed by a highly selective three-day single track technical
      program with 30 papers in eleven sessions.

        * The deadline for early registration is 1 August, 1995. The hotel
      registration deadline is 11 August, 1995.

          * On-site registration will be available from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
      August 28- September 1 and during the welcoming reception, 7:00-9:00
      p.m., Tuesday, August 29.

        * For more information: WWW: http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95/

          S. Keshav  [e-mail]
          Telephone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
          AT&T Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue,
      Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA.


Tutorials and Technical Program


* Hot Topics in Networking, Including ATM, Multimedia, Wireless
        Raj Jain, (Ohio State U.).

* Designing Protocols using Techniques from Distributed Systems
        George Varghese, (Washington U., St.  Louis).

* Rethinking Client/Server Computing
        Marc Andressen, (Netscape Communications).

* Host-Network Interface Issues in High Performance Networks
    Bruce Davie, (Bellcore).

* Designing Secure Protocols
    Radia Perlman, (Novell Inc.) and Charlie Kaufman, (Lotus Corp.).

* Multimedia Networks
    Aurel Lazar, (Columbia U.).

* The Ethernet Renaissance: Key Protocol Enhancements
    Henry Yang, (Digital Equipment Corp.).

* Congestion Management in High Speed Networks
    K.K. Ramakrishnan, (AT&T Bell Laboratories).

The technical program includes sessions on Bandwidth Reservation,
Switching & Routing, Protocols, Traffic Characterization, Protocol
Implementations, Scheduling, Wireless, Application Support, and
Multicast.

Detailed descriptions of the tutorials and technical program can be found in
the Sigcomm '95 home page http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm95.

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Lynn)
Subject: Re: Some Chicago (Was New Orleans) Exchange History
Date: 15 Aug 1995 16:53:10 -0500
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.


I hate to split hairs on David's excellent history of Chicago
telephone exchanges, but ...

David W. Tamkin <[e-mail]> wrote, regarding Empire Home
Services' commercials:


> Nowadays they advertise (8OO) 588-23OO in the video portion and say
> nothing about any area code in the audio; it's an interesting study
> in evolution.  I can understand their not bothering to publicize
> (7O8) 588-23OO [if they even have it] since it will be in 847 soon.

Empire's most recent TV commercials have an odd-sounding "eight-hundred"
sung in front of the "five-eight-eight..." bit they've used all along.
For someone who's heard the jingle for years, it's sort of unsettling. :-)


[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David's very good article discussed how
the exchanges here have always been scattered about all over the area
and in addition to the examples he gave, I will include these:

465 HOLlycourt is on the far north side in Rogers Park, however
468 INTerocean is on the extremely far south side, at the city limits.

642 MIChigan is on the near north side of the downtown area, while
643 MIDway is wired out of the Hyde Park/Kenwood office on the south
side in the University of Chicago area.

684 MUseum-4 is in the above mentioned Hyde Park/Kenwood area.
685 MULberry is on the far northwest side of town in the opposite direction.

664 MOHawk is on the near north side of the downtown area.
666 MONroe is on the west side of the city, served by Chicago-Monroe.
667 NORmal is in the Hyde Park/Kenwood area.

922 WABash is in the downtown area in the Chicago-Wabash office but
924 WAGner is on the south side. WAGner-1000 is the White Sox switchboard.
927 YARds is in the same area as 924. It used to serve the Union Stockyards.
928 WATerfall is way far out south somewhere.

326 DANube and 842 VICtory serve the McCormick Place area.
327 EAStgate is in the mid north area out of Lakeview, but
328 DAVis was in the town of Evanston before the 312/708 split.

332 DEArborn is in the downtown area served by Chicago-Wabash.
333 was in one of the far south suburban areas prior to the 312/708 split.
334 EDGewater is north, in the Uptown area.
337 DElaware-7 is near north side, out of Chicago-Illinois/Dearborn.
338 DEVon is far north in the Rogers Park area.

342 DICkens is on the northwest side, however
346 FINancial was in the Lasalle Street financial district downtown and
347 FIRe-1313 was translated in each CO and sent to the Fire Alarm Office.
348 DIVersey and 248 BITtersweet are mid-north in the Lakeview office, and

525 LAKeview is in the office by the same name along with 248/348 but
523 LAFayette is on the southwest side.

633 OFFicial long ago used to be used exclusively by telco business offices.
638 and 639 NEVada and NEWcastle are both in the far northwest Newcastle CO.

763 RODney is on the northwest side somewhere.
764 ROGers Park (and 761 ROgers Park-1) are in the far north CO by that name.
765 POLice-1313 was translated by each CO and rang various police stations.
768 SOUth Chicago is at the opposite extreme end of the city from 761/764.

782 STAte (now there is 781 STate-1 also) are downtown.
783 STEwart is a south side exchange.
784 SUnnyside-4 is north in the Uptown area.
785 PULlman serves the far south Pullman neighborhood.
787 SUPerior is on the near north side of the downtown area.

842 VICtory opened in 1946 (guess how it got its name!) near south but
843 TRIangle was around long before in the south side Englewood area.

364 ENGlewood is the CO name where the aforementioned 843 resides but
363 DOrchester-3 while also south side is some distance away in Hyde Park.
493 HYDe Park should be obvious, but other 49x were mostly suburban towns.

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

The thing here was that the exchanges tended to be named after the neigh-
borhood in which they were located, or perhaps after an prestigious insti-
tution therein or a major street in that neighborhood rather than having
the number version in any sort of geographic order. Between David's list
and mine, I think we have covered about half of them. Finally, while 221
was BAyport-1 in a sort of dreary South Chicago neighborhood, 225 was CALumet
and 226 was CANal. They are in close proximity. 227 was CAPitol and I
forget where it is located. The nice one though was 228, known back then
as CAThedral. I always did think that was a classy name!      PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mr Francis CM Chan)
Subject: Stanilite Trunked Radio
Date: 15 Aug 1995 23:05:24 GMT
Organization: Hong Kong Supernet


Does anyone have information about the trunked radio products of the
Australian company, Stanilite?

If you have the appropriate contact point for inquiry, please tell me.
Thanks.


Regards,

Francis C M, Chan     Engineering Department
Techno Factor (Development) Ltd
6/F Harcourt House    39 Gloucester Road
Wanchai, Hong Kong
Tel: +(852) 2863 8300  +(852) 2863 8657
Fax: +(852) 2520 6353  Email: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #344
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa15088;
          16 Aug 95 8:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17910 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 00:16:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17902; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 00:16:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 00:16:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #345

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Aug 95 00:16:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 345

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ISOC Releases "Strategic Note on New Host Counts" (John Shaver)
    Re: Questions About the Internet/Telephone Companies Link (Bill Halverson)
    Forged Cancel Messages on USENET - Suppression of Free Speech? (K. Weide)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 07:19:26 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISOC Releases "Strategic Note on New Host Counts"


      ---------------- Forwarded -------------

  From: [e-mail] (Keith Bostic) at WOODY
  Date: 8/14/95 8:05PM
  To: John Shaver at E.M.E.T.F.

  Forwarded-by: Wendell Craig Baker <[e-mail]>

  Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 14:00:32 -0400
  From: Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>

[ See the addendum following -- WCB ]


                                                              11 Aug 95

                      INTERNET SOCIETY
             STRATEGIC NOTE ON INTERNET HOST COUNTS


During the past two weeks, two of the Internet's measurement experts
teamed up to provide the most current overview of Internet size and
growth available.

Mark Lottor of Network Wizards in Menlo Park CA USA released his
latest results from the Internet's most basic and longest continuing
measurement of it's size.  The Domain Survey attempts to discover
every announced host on the Internet by doing a complete search of the
Domain Name System.  The latest results were gathered during late July
1995.  The data is available in the zone directory on ftp.nw.com, or
http://www.nw.com/

John Quarter of Texas Internet Consulting in Austin TX USA and
publisher of Matrix News, then further analyzed the so-called 3-letter
global domains that had previously resulted in uncertainty about the
actual country host numbers.  This is the first time this has been
done on this scale and provides an entirely new perspective on how
Internet's .com, .net, .org, .edu, and .int global domains are being
used worldwide.  Information will be published in the next Matrix
News.  See http://www.tic.com/

The Internet is a very complex, dynamic, distributed aggregation of
more than 50 thousand autonomous networks.  It defies definitive
measurement.  Nonetheless, these values constitute the potentially
reachable host computers, and Lottor has carefully conducted these
counts over many years, and provided the basis for valuable relative
comparisons.  A "host" in Internet terms is a computer that is
connected and directly reachable as part of the Internet via a unique
address.  It does not include computers that are part of other
networks peripheral to the Internet such as on-line provider customer
terminals, bitnet, fidonet, etc.

A Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Survey Working Group is forming
under Quarterman is further analyzing these statistics and
methodologies to detect anomalies improve their value.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Strategic highlights of the Lottor-Quarterman work include:

- A new total host count of 6.6 million Internet computer hosts.

- A strong exponential growth rate, but very slightly decreased.
  At the average rate of increase over the past 14 quarters,
  the total projected hosts the end of the decade is 101 million.

- A surprisingly significant use of global 3-letter domains around
  the world.  In some countries, they may encompass the
  preponderance of hosts in the country, as in the USA.

- There are .COM domains in 54 countries, .NET domains in
  57 countries, .ORG domains in 27 countries, including most
  of the United Nations agencies, and .EDU domains in 16
  countries.

- There are 1142 .COM domains encompassing 30,484 hosts in
  Canada; 241 .COM domains encompassing 13,260 hosts in the UK.

- Hosts in 106 country domains were counted, an increase in
  15 countries. See below. (Note that verification is not performed
  to verify these hosts are physically located in the country.)

- The global commercial domain .COM continues not only to be
  the largest, but continues growing at a rapid rate.

- Germany and Japan are exhibiting very rapid growth rates
  among industrialized countries with a first half rates
  of 41% and 40%, respectively.  However, some of the German
  hosts appear to be announced twice, and are

- In absolute terms, the USA  had the largest jump of about
  24%.  The USA increase  is subject to inherent uncertainties
  because of the mix of 3-letter global domains and the .US domain.

- Strong Russian Federation growth continues at a 68% half
  year rate.

- Most regional growth rates throughout the world continue at
  averages exceeding 40 percent.

The statistics below are derived from an information system of this
work over several years.  Updated color graphs of these trends,
including those for most countries are available at:

ftp://ftp.isoc.org/isoc/charts/hosts4.ppt (PowerPoint v.4)
ftp://ftp.isoc.org/isoc/charts/hosts3.ppt (PowerPoint v.3)


Tony Rutkowski
Executive Director
Internet Society

*new*
July 1995 - Internet Hosts by Country
       Counts above 1000

USA                4,177,454
Germany              360,434**
Canada               329,299
UK                   309,715
Australia            207,876
Japan                160,131
Netherlands          145,139
Finland              119,863
France               115,841
Sweden               112,881
Switzerland           69,306
Norway                69,044
Italy                 47,033
New Zealand           43,863
Austria               42,059
South Africa          42,054
Spain                 40,021
Denmark               37,018
Belgium               24,878
Korea                 23,952
Israel                19,797
Hong Kong             17,017
Taiwan                16,867
Poland                15,707
Czech                 14,842
Brazil                11,580
Hungary               11,347
Ireland               10,454
Portugal               8,893
Mexico                 8,445
Singapore              8,251
Iceland                6,800
Chile                  6,694
Russian Fed. (RU)      6,210
Greece                 5,591
Russia                 5,467
Argentina              3,444
Slovenia               3,434
Turkey                 2,790
Thailand               2,728
Estonia                2,403
Colombia               2,131
Croatia                2,035
Slovakia               1,994
Luxembourg             1,615
Ukraine                1,339
Malaysia               1,088
China                  1,033
Costa Rica             1,029

** Subject to further analysis, actual
   values may be slightly lower


July 1995 - Internet Hosts by Region

North America        4,515,871
Western Europe       1,530,057
Pacific                252,014
Asia                   233,343
Eastern Europe & CI     67,648
Africa                  42,108
Car, Cent, & S Amer     28,493
Middle East             21,179


TOP 50 DOMAINS*** WITH 1995 GROWTH RATE

DOMAIN             COUNT  SIX MONTH INCREASE
com-domain            1,743,390     24%
edu-domain            1,411,013     20%
Germany-domain          350,707     41%
net-domain              300,481     50%
UK-domain               291,258     17%
gov-domain              273,855     24%
Canada-domain           262,644     29%
mil-domain              224,778     22%
Australia-domain        207,426     22%
org-domain              201,905     23%
Japan-domain            159,776     40%
Netherlands-domain      135,462     34%
France-domain           113,974     18%
US-domain               113,226     67%
Finland-domain          111,861     36%
Sweden-domain           106,725     27%
Norway-domain            66,608     25%
Switzerland-domain       63,795     11%
Italy-domain             46,143     33%
New Zealand-domain       43,863     29%
South Africa-domain      41,329     35%
Austria-domain           40,696     27%
Spain-domain             39,919     29%
Denmark-domain           36,964     30%
Korea-domain             23,791     24%
Belgium-domain           23,706     21%
Israel-domain            18,223     27%
Taiwan-domain            16,166     10%
Poland-domain            15,692     27%
Hong Kong-domain         15,392     19%
Czech-domain             14,842     22%
Brazil-domain            11,576     17%
Hungary-domain           11,298     25%
Ireland-domain            9,941     37%
Portugal-domain           8,748     31%
Mexico-domain             8,382      3%
Singapore-domain          8,208     36%
Iceland-domain            6,800     30%
Chile-domain              6,664     30%
Russian Fed.-domain       5,700     68%
Greece-domain             5,575     28%
Russia-domain             5,467      9%
Slovenia-domain           3,381     48%
Argentina-domain          3,270     56%
Turkey-domain             2,790      5%
Thailand-domain           2,481     19%
Estonia-domain            2,403     42%
Colombia-domain           2,075     88%
Croatia-domain            2,035     46%
Solvakia-domain           1,992     29%


*** The total country host counts consist
of the country domain PLUS global domains
in the country.


The following countries appear for the
first time in the count:

Antigua & Barbuda
Cayman Islands
Dominican Republic
Nepal
Guam
United Arab Emirates
Pakistan
Barbados
Ghana
Monaco
Macedonia
Anguilla
Cote d'Ivoire
Lebanon
Kenya


DOMAINS WITH 1995 GROWTH RATE EXCEEDING 30%

Faroe Islands-domain        471     99%
Iran-domain                 224     92%
Saudi Arabia-domain          18     89%
Colombia-domain           2,075     88%
Panama-domain               127     87%
Indonesia-domain            848     79%
Bulgaria-domain             639     77%
Macau-domain                 47     74%
Russian Fed. (RU)-domain  5,700     68%
USA-dom                 113,226     67%
Moldova-domain                9     67%
Armenia-domain               50     62%
Belarus-domain                5     60%
Luxembourg-domain         1,516     59%
Ukraine-domain            1,339     57%
Kuwait-domain               776     57%
Argentina-domain          3,270     56%
Lithuania-domain            268     55%
Peru-domain                 367     53%
net-domain              300,481     50%
Slovenia-domain           3,381     48%
Croatia-domain            2,035     46%
Cyprus-domain               163     46%
Fiji-domain                   9     44%
China-domain              1,023     44%
India-domain                645     44%
Estonia-domain            2,403     42%
Germany-domain          350,707     41%
Japan-domain            159,776     40%
Algeria-domain               16     38%
Ireland-domain            9,941     37%
Uruguay-domain              273     37%
Kazakhstan-domain            11     36%
Finland-domain          111,861     36%
Singapore-domain          8,208     36%
Latvia-domain               950     36%
South Africa-domain      41,329     35%
Liechtenstein-domain         41     34%
Netherlands-domain      135,462     34%
Italy-domain             46,143     33%
Romania-domain              891     33%
Portugal-domain           8,748     31%


The Internet Society is the non-governmental International Organization
for global cooperation and coordination for the Internet and its
internetworking technologies and applications.

Its International Secretariat can be reached at:
  [e-mail]
  http://www.isoc.org

  tel: [phone]
  fax: [phone]

  12020 Sunrise Valley Dr suite 210
  Reston VA
  USA

A.M. Rutkowski, Executive Director
Larry Landweber, President


  Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 17:23:18 -0400
  From: Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Host Count Note - minor corrections


If you use or distribute the Internet Society note on host
counts, please incorporate the following changes.

1. The analysis of 3-letter domains should be indicated as:

   John Quarterman
   Matrix Information and Directory Services (MIDS)
   Austin TX USA

2. Matrix News and the Matrix Maps Quarterly (MMQ)
   will include the new data in the next version.  Samples of
   these elegant depictions are available at http://www.mids.org/
   or send  mail to [e-mail] for copious information.

3. Some of Lottor's data shows hosts that are firewalled,
   and not reachable, even though their DNS servers permit ZONE
   transfers.  Defining in the other direction may be easier,
   e.g., a computer that has a unique address and that
   can reach the rest of the Internet for interactive services
   such as WWW or FTP.

4. The number of new countries is 18, not 15.

   ai    Anguilla
   ag    Antigua and Barbuda
   bd    Bangladesh
   bj    Benin
   ky    Cayman Islands
   ci    Cote d'Ivoire
   do    Dominican Republic
   gt    Guatemala
   lb    Lebanon
   mk    Macedonia
   mc    Monaco
   np    Nepal
   sn    Senegal
   tt    Trinidad and Tobago
   tc    Turks and Caicos Islands
   ug    Uganda
   uz    Uzbekistan
   vg    Virgin Islands (British)


tony

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

From: Bill Halverson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the Internet/Telephone Companies Link
Date: 15 Aug 1995 17:42:26 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell's HealthCare Market Group


[e-mail] (Andrew L. Soodek) wrote:

> I am performing research on the future development of the Internet,
> and I am perplexed by a few things.

> The telephone companies contribute to the 'net by supplying the
> lines over which the information is transferred.  In the past, the
> telephone companies have been able to determine how much they can
> charge for long distance, or even local service, based on per minute
> usage.  Now, I pay >my service provider a flat fee, and I could
> potentially communicate with someone overseaes for hours, without
> incurring the high costs associated with standard telecommunications.
> What are the incentives for the telephone companies to offer up their
> transmission lines, when they could alternately charge for the link
> via long distance service?

Think of it this way: Taken as a group, the 'internet providers'
connect themselves together using a mesh network of fixed
point-to-point circuits.  There is a fixed cost-per-month for this
network they rent from the world's phone companies.  They allocate the
cost of this network in some fashion, and the sum of all the 'flat
rates' you and people like you pay your provider covers the entire
cost of the internet.  So [in theory] if the entire world-wide cost of
all the circuits used in the internet is $50 million/month, and there
are 5 million internet users, you would expect to pay something over
$10/month to your internet access provider.  [Of course it has to be
higher than that because of all the computers and routers needed to
make sure your data gets to where you wnat it to go, and then some
profit, etc.]

To get access to this network, you must rent service from an
internet-access provider.  How you -get- to your internet provider ...
can be by using a modem to connect to a set of modems they own, or can
be via ISDN, or by renting a T1 ciruit to them.  This is the part of
the cost you pay to the phone company.  You do not see the bill your
internet access company gets from the phone company, or the bill he
gets from the internet backbone company he has his internet link from.

Thus the answer to your question is this: the phone companies cannot
charge long distance service because the 'link' you need is a routed
link that uses a number of data protocols to route your data traffic
through a number of routers, not a circuit-link between telco
switches.

Now, the Internet world is salivating over this, because they know
they can modify their routing protocols so -- in the next five years --
they will be able to connect voice calls too.  When that happens, all
hell will break loose because then, as you correctly noted, they will
be able to sell you long distance voice service much less espensively
than you now buy from the phone companies.

> As a related question, I'm interested in finding out exactly how routing
> on the Internet is handled.  Are there currently, or have there been in
> the past, incentives for the phone companies to offer up their lines for
> Internet transmission?

None to my knowledge.

> If so, how is it determined that this posting will reach its
> destination by travelling via Ameritech, AT&T or MCI's wires?

Recall ... you are buying internet access from some company that, in
turn, buys a link from a backbone internet provider.  Some of the long
distance circuits are AT&T, some are MCI, etc.  Which precise circuit
your message takes is determined by the routing protocols based on
which circuit has the least amount of traffic on it.  The actual path
will vary over the course of the day.

So the answer to this question is: software in the routers sends the
traffic over the route it calculates to be the best route at the time
the data is sent.  These 'best paths' are recalculated every few
minutes and may change.

> It seems that the telephone companies would want to keep theirphonelines
> free for their per minute, paying cutomers, and yet, they supplythelines
> for full scale multimedia file transmission.

Completely different networks carry these different types of traffic.
In effect, the 'public' network is designed so when you pick up your
phone, there is a 99.9% chance you can dial anywhere in America and
get to the other person's phone.  Of course on Mother's Day ... well
we all know what happens on Mother's Day.

The multimedia traffic [aka webpages] is using a dedicated, private mesh
network.

> Therefore, it seems that Internet users and access providers depend on
> the telephone companies.

Not correct.

> (Is there a source on the Internet that can supply me with information
> regarding what happens to a file when it sent out over the Internet?i.e.
> Digitalization, encryption, transmission, routing, receiving,decryption,
> etc.)

Hoo boy ... could take a while to explain all these things.

> Lastly, I am trying to understand why MCI is offering the varied types of
> services they do (online mall, etc.), while other telephonecompanies may
> offer detailed information about their executives (Ameritech), while
> still others offer a telephone directory.

'Artistic license' is the term they use...

> I know that each company controls its own content, but is there any
> organization attempting to standardize the types of information
> broadcasted over the net?

The FBI?  heh ... heh ... heh ...

What does the future hold?  As a Research Analyst (Librarian), I can
tell you that its nice to be able to get free press releases from the
phone companies, but I can't expect for that to continue forever.

Oh no!  I thought we were _charging_ for those things!!!! DRAT!!!

Seriously ... nobody has a real clue what is coming.  The CATV and phone
industy may both get blindsided by new developments in satellite
communication.  But until then, you can expect a cat fight betwen them.

Note that the house bill on telecommunications reform has preempted
local authority over the licensing of 100' communciation towers?
Imagine how long it would take to build the PCS network if every towm
council wanted a franchise fee to allow these new networks to be
built.

> Eventually, Internet content providers will realize that they are
> giving away thestore, or at least, they will realize that they are
> giving away valuable information that people would be willing to pay
> good money for.  (The headhunters >love it when the phone companies
> tell you about their upper level >management.)

> I realize that until now, the government has played an integral role
> developing the infrastructure to build the Internet, but they
> certainly had help from the phone companies.  In addition, as the
> impending privatisation occurs, the phone companies will be called
> upon to step up their contributions to the existing infrastructures.

Hmmm ... last time I checked, _no_ phone company anywhere was
'donating' to the cause of the internet.  Any circuit used by an
internet provider was paid for by somebody.


Bill Halverson   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 15:14:26 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Klaus Weide)
Subject: Forged Cancel Messages on USENET - suppression of free speech?
Organization: The Univ. of Chicago, Advanced Research Systems


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will offer a very brif note at the
end of this press release which explains my position ont this.  PAT]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                            Tuesday, Aug. 15

AD-HOC COMMITTEE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP/"Rabbit Hunters"

CONTACT:
Dick Cleek, Univ.of Wisconsin Centers  [e-mail] [phone]
James Lippard                     [e-mail] [phone] ext:2110
Deirdre Maloy                     [e-mail]
Michael Maxfield              [e-mail]
Cheryl Morris (Canada)            [e-mail]
Tilman Hausherr (Germany)         [e-mail]
[affiliations are listed for identification only]

INTERNET USERS CRITICAL OF SCIENTOLOGY SYSTEMATICALLY CENSORED BY
MEANS OF FORGERY AND MANIPULATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS

 -- Users worldwide affected when their messages were erased without their
    consent and without any legal authority

 -- Methods used may constitute a Federal crime

 -- Discussion of materials from open court documents recently seized in
    raid of Virginia man's home suppressed without due process

The USENET newsgroup "alt.religion.scientology" has recently been the
target of an apparently systematic censorship effort, in a manner that
appears to violate the Federal laws of the United States of America,
and which may violate laws in other jurisdictions as well.

This newsgroup, like thousands of other such groups available via the
Internet and other computer networks, is a forum for the free
discussion of ideas.  It is more like a soapbox in the village square
than a newspaper -- anyone can have their say.  Millions of people can
read and contribute to these groups.  "alt.religion.scientology"
(a.r.s) is an "unmoderated" group, where no control is exerted over
which articles get "published" and which do not.  The group's charter
is the discussion of the Church of Scientology, and it was created by
a person who is critical of the Church.  Both Scientologists and
non-Scientologists post to the group.

MESSAGES ERASED

Since December, 1994, the freedom to speak one's mind on a.r.s has
been inhibited by one or more people who have used "forged cancel
messages" to censor other's writings.  On USENET newsgroups, one can
send a message through the network requesting that one's message be
deleted.  It is generally accepted that only the original author of a
"post," the author's system administrators, and the moderator of the
newsgroup (if any) have the authority to cancel a message.  It is
technically possible, however, to forge such a message in order to
cancel someone else's posts. Such forged cancel messages carry false
information about their origin and the way they were inserted into the
USENET system.


ONGOING HISTORY OF FRAUDULENT MESSAGE CANCELLATIONS

In January 1995, several accounts at Netcom, Inc., a major Internet
service provider, were terminated when it was discovered that users of
those accounts were forging cancel messages in order to censor
messages posted in a.r.s which were critical of Scientology.  Soon
thereafter, more such cancel messages were posted from accounts at
Deltanet, another provider.  Those accounts were likewise terminated
by the provider.  The Deltanet forgeries were made to appear as if
they were issued by a user with the electronic mail address
"[e-mail]," which is nonexistent.

Further forged cancels from "[e-mail]" appeared in March and
July of this year.  Detective work by concerned Internet users tracked
down the point at which the forger was inserting the messages into the
USENET system, a site at the University College in Dublin, Ireland.
Officials at the University quickly took measures to prevent further
insertions at their site.

However, the cancels from "noman" have not stopped.  Until recently,
cancels from "noman" were being inserted into a news server at the
University of Delaware.  We have worked with the administrator at
Delaware, and we have determined that the messages were probably being
inserted by users at two service providers in southern California:
Kaiwan and Directnet.  We have strong circumstantial evidence that
point to specific usernames, one on each system, as probable sources
of these forged cancels.  This evidence comes from information which
is available to any Internet user through established protocols.  It
shows a close temporal correlation between certain users' activity and
the receipt of the forged cancel messages at the University of
Delaware.

POSSIBLE IDENTITY OF CENSOR KNOWN

As of Monday, August 7, the University of Delaware closed the security
hole in their news server which permitted the introduction of the
forged cancel messages.  At that time, a user on Kaiwan was able to
track the usage of one of the suspicious accounts, again using
publicly-available commands.  The monitoring indicated that the
suspected canceler was apparently trying desperately to find a USENET
news server which would accept a fraudulent news connection of the
sort necessary to insert forged cancels.  Additionally, forged cancels
by "noman" since Monday appear to have been inserted into USENET at
Kaiwan's news server.  Since this news server is only open to Kaiwan's
customers, it indicates that the forger is probably a client of
Kaiwan.

FBI, OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AWARE OF FORGED CANCELS

We have contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about this
matter, since tampering with stored electronic communications is a
violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the United
States of America, and we believe that other Federal laws may be
applicable as well.  We have been in contact with high-ranking
officials in the FBI's Computer Crimes Squad. It is the FBI's policy
to not discuss pending cases.

Because it is not difficult to get an Internet account, even under an
assumed name, we do not believe that it will be effective if Kaiwan or
Directnet simply terminate the accounts of anyone found to be forging
cancel messages.  History has shown that the forger simply moves on to
a new service provider and begins again.  We believe that only
criminal proceedings will suffice to prevent this attack upon
international free speech.

CONTACTS FOR CENSORSHIP VICTIMS

We recommend that any concerned citizens contact appropriate law
enforcement agencies about this matter, particularly if their words
have been censored in this fashion.  In the United States, victims
should call their local branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
the number is listed in the front of most phone books.  Also, most
states have computer crime squads in their state police force.  In
Canada, victims should contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who
are also investigating this matter.


RELATED INFORMATION

Recently, the cancel messages have contained variations on the phrase
"COPYRIGHT / TRADE SECRET VIOLATIONS," a reference to the various
legal claims made by the Church of Scientology about its scriptures.
Some of the posts which have been fraudulently canceled contained
brief quotations of about four sentences from Scientology materials,
which the posters claim was used legally under the doctrine of Fair
Use.  This doctrine permits the usage of portions of copyrighted
material in order to further criticism, debate, or education, where
such use does not cause direct financial harm.  A message which simply
pointed out the location of fraudulently canceled material was also
canceled.

"LEGAL" THREATS

Some authors who have had their messages canceled have also received
messages from a user at Netcom who claims to be the Church's attorney,
Helena Kobrin.  These messages, apparently a form letter, threaten the
recipient with legal action if they do not immediately cease their
usage of the Church's secret materials and destroy any copies of such
materials in their possession.  We have been unable to verify that
these messages are in fact genuine, and there is some evidence that
they are forgeries as well.

HOMES OF CRITICS RAIDED; PROPERTY SEIZED; SUITS FILED

The Church is currently suing critic Dennis Erlich, as well as Mr.
Erlich's service provider Tom Klemesrud and Mr. Klemesrud's service
provider, Netcom, on the grounds that Mr. Erlich violated the Church's
copyrights and trade secrets by publishing portions of Scientology
scriptures on a.r.s.  The service providers are named as co-defendants
on the grounds that they did not prevent Mr. Erlich from publishing
the material.  A Federal court decision on the Church's claims is
expected soon.

The Church has alleged that Arnaldo Lerma, a resident of Alexandria,
Virginia, violated their copyrights by publishing a series of
documents on the Internet in the newsgroup a.r.s.  On Saturday, August
12, U.S. Marshals accompanied by Church lawyers Helena Kobrin and
Earle Cooley as well as a Religious Technology Center executive raided
Mr. Lerma's house, seizing his computer equipment and more than 400
computer disks.  Some of these disks contained unrelated personal and
business data.  Mr. Lerma's posts contained material which is
available to anyone as part of a U.S. Federal circuit court record, as
described below. As in the Erlich case, Mr. Lerma's Internet service
provider, Digital Gateway Systems was also included in the suit filed
by the Church.

In view of the recent raids and litigation against Mr. Erlich and Mr.
Lerma, the spectre of these fraudulent and suppressive cancel messages
is foreboding.  We believe that a clear and present danger to the free
speech of Internet users exists so long as people's words may be
erased from existence without their approval and without due process
of law.  Although we have no evidence that these cancels are
sanctioned by the Church, it is disturbing that the recent flurry of
cancels and the raids occurred contemporaneously and that they aim to
suppress discussion of the same material.

ALLEGEDLY SECRET MATERIALS ARE PART OF OPEN COURT RECORD

Notably, the scriptures in question are part of a public court record in
California.  By law, such records must be made available to anyone who
desires them for the cost of copying seemingly making it extremely difficult
to assert "trade secret" status.  There would appear to be some doubts about
the Church's claims that Mr. Lerma violated copyright law, as the materials
they seized as allegedly infringing the Church's copyrights were legally
obtained as part of an open, public court record.

Any person wishing a copy of these materials named in the search
warrant for Mr. Lerma's home may obtain them by calling the
Correspondence Clerk at the Federal Courthouse, Central District of
California, at [phone].  The materials are part of case
CV-91-6426 HLH(Tx), "Church of Scientology International v. Fishman
and Geertz," specifically the Fishman declaration dated April 9, 1993.
For less than $40, the court will photocopy the relevant sections and
mail them to you.

Readers requiring more information are invited to take part in the
discussion on alt.religion.scientology or to point their web browsers at
"http://www.cybercom.com/~rnewman/scientology/home.html"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to add a few thoughts
to the fray here. The writer says "it is generally accepted that only
the original author of a post, the author's system administrators and
the moderator of a moderated group have the authority to cancel messages."

Very well, let us talk about that for a minute. Who 'generally accepts'
this rule? Who are the people who wrote this 'generally accepted' rule?
The writer is angry that some person(s) is/are cancelling messages they
find disagreeable. Is the writer equally angry about the mass cancels
which are done everytime spamming takes place on the net?  He no doubt
finds himself in disagreement with those messages and the irritating
manner in which they are posted, so he probably in that case agrees
that 'forged cancellation messages' have to be sent out.

If the only persons who legitimatly cancel messages are the original
author, the author's syadmin and the moderator of a moderated group
in which the message appears, then when spamming occurs and various
people set about killing the message from all its appearances, are
they (the message cancellers) guilty of the same offense the writer
claims has occurred when the Scientologists do it?

I am *not* taking the side of the Scientology people here; in fact
I think most of their ideas are pretty goofy. I've read about their
'e-meter' device and lots of other things. I used to listen to L.
Ron Hubbard's radio program on Scientology on WLS 890-AM years and
years ago when he was alive. At best he was very misguided. At worst
he was a complete fraud, and it was LRH the science fiction writer
who went to a science fiction convention in the late 1940's and
told the audience that they would never get rich by writing science
fiction books. "If you want to make lots of money," he said, "the
way to do it is to start a church."  And so he did. That should tell
you what I think of him and his (as the Church calls it) "applied
regligious philosophy".

What I am complaining about here though are the contradictions apparent
in the operation of Usenet. I can cancel your messages if I feel they
are in the wrong group or stated too many times, but you had better not
cancel my messages because I speak only the truth and I have freedom
of speech to back me up. The small, rather cliquish handful of people
who consider themselves to be 'in charge of Usenet' see nothing wrong
with issuing cancel messages wholesale when some posting aggrieves
them ... why shouldn't the Scientology people have the same right?

As every day goes by, I see Usenet becoming more and more like Citizen's
Band radio was in the middle 1980's: massive noise, excessive rudeness
combined with deliberate attempts to 'jam' the airwaves effectively
preventing others from communicating. In the 1960's, CB started out as
a wonderful way for people to communicate with each other. They all
had courtesy and it would not have occurred to them to use their free
speech liberty on the CB radio to foul up the airwaves with the degree
of vulgarity and downright smut for which CB was well known by the
middle to late 1970's, about 15 years after it first began getting
popularized as a medium 'by the people and for the people.'

Do any of you remember the final couple years of CB before its popularity
began to decline?  Do you remember how it got to the point that any hour
of the day or night, any 'channel' (frequency) you tuned in to, there
was so much hetrodyne from so many people keyed up at one time screaming
and yelling at each other that the radio was essentially worthless for
even short distance communications?  Do you remember the long bouts with
ignorant people who would deliberatly key up with huge amounts of excess
power then play music, add electronic sound effects, and cause other
disturbances for the purpose of keeping someone they did not like from
being able to use *his* free speech rights on *his* radio elsewhere?
Do you remember them sneaking around in the middle of the night looking
for other CB'ers they did not like in order to 'cut their coax feed'
to the antenna?  Do you remember how some days the only conversations
to be heard were the American Nazis and Jews screaming and cursing at
each other?  The black people and the mountain hillbilly people going
at it day and night, then a third party coming on the air with a noise
maker to jam the frequency so bad no one could hear anything for miles
around except the noise?

You who are too young to remember CB or where never involved in it do
not understand what I am saying at all. It was a *wonderful* concept
in which people everywhere could communicate with other people everywhere.
Just tune until you heard something you were interested in then wait
patiently until the present speaker finished and unkeyed his mike. You
would immediatly slap your mike switch and ask for a 'breaker'. The two
or more parties (and sometimes there were dozens of people listening
to a conversation between two others) involved would tell you 'go ahead
breaker' and you would add some comment to the discussion and everyone
would hear what you had to say. Many times they would answer you back
with criticism or comments of their own, and you were now an accepted
part of that conversation.

Then Johnny Cash sang a song about CB radio, and everyone went out to
buy one -- I mean everyone. Over a period of a year or so there were
suddenly over a million new users out there. Many were nice folks but
ignorant ... some were just plain malicious. The American Nazi Party
soon found out CB radio was a great way to get their messages of hatred
out. Lots of unethical business people would buy a CB radio then make
an endless loop tape recording commercial for their business and play
it over and over all day ... effectively removing one of the channels
out of use until they 'unkeyed'. All these completely anonymous porno-
graphic -- well just plain wierd is a better term -- messages began
popping out of the radio with no station ID, no user asking to get
a 'break' and say something, etc ... just someone with a very strong
radio keying up in the middle of your transmission to walk all over
your tranmission and let out a loud unidenfiable belch, or say something
so obscene it would curl your hair. One fellow in my neighborhood was
fond of keying up his radio with a thousand watts of power and letting
it (and most of northern Illinois) sit there and listen as he and his
wife had sex. As each person would buy new and stronger equipment so
they could 'get out over the noise level' to make their speech or share
their comments, it all became more or less just a constant roar of
sound. You could hear dozens of voices at one time, and yet not be
able to understand any of them ... the constant squeals of hetrodyne
as dozens of radios were keyed at one time, each person trying to
talk louder than the others while at the same time prevent the others
 from being heard at all. All the while, the Nazis making their speeches
and the black brothers who had been 'dissed' retaliating with rather
ugly messages of their own.

How many of you now have CB radios sitting in a closet somewhere gathering
dust?

It is happening on Usenet isn't it?  Yes, the technology is different
but the same script is playing all over again. The hate and discontent,
the really raunchy messages, the spams splashed all over everywhere,
the users busy trying to 'cut the feed' of the ussers they do not like,
disturbances and disruptions becoming an almost daily affair. Every
newspaper article on the Internet brings a few hundred more people into
the fray, some so dumb it never occurs to them that the same old stupid
chain letters have already been seen *dozens* of times here; each one
detirmined to spring a new surprise. They pop into the middle of someone
else's 'conversation' to insert a few belches and mind-numbing off-the-
wall comments of their own. They get chased away one day, and show back
up again the next.

Usenet will always be around the same as CB radio is still around. Some
people still talk on CB thinking that somehow, somewhere it makes a
difference, that someone, somewhere is encouraged or helped or educated
by what they have to say. Gene Spafford once commented that Usenet was
like spending Sunday afternoon in the park: you meet all kinds. Well,
some of us quit going to the park also when it became overrun with punks
and rowdies.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #345
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07650;
          17 Aug 95 19:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22561 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:14:37 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22553; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:14:34 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:14:34 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #346

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 95 13:14:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 346

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cordless Telephone Warning (David B. Horvath)
    New Bell Service Draws Fire (David B. Horvath)
    Modems Without the Modem (Just the Dialer!!!) (Roger Kinkead)
    Seven Digits Across NPA lines (James E. Bellaire)
    Integratel Customer Service (David B. Horvath)
    Share Your Telephone Company Complaints (Jeffrey Kagan)
    Free Fax Test (Mike Rehmus)
    PacBell's New Network (Steve Cogorno)
    Payphone Acquisition ([e-mail])
    Modems Powered From the Telephone Line (Roger Kinkead)
    More Than Eight Rings? (Jim Hickstein)
    Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople (John Shaver)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:10:06 EDT
From: David B. Horvath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Telephone Warning


Here's a little tidbit from the  Bell Atlantic Diamond State
Telephone book that defines the customer's responsibilities:

*Cordless Telephones*
Cordless phones operate on radio channels.  You may experience
interference from CB or HAM radio transmissions.  Neighbors'
cordless phones may be on the same frequency as your cordless phone.

**This may let calls you do not know about be charged to your bill
or may cause interference on your line.  Bell Atlantic has no control
over these phones or the radio channels on which they operate.  If
one of these situations develops and you are using a cordless phone,
you may want to stop using that phone.  You are responsible for the
equipment you use on your line and calls that are dialed from
your phone line.**

[--- emphasis mine]

So, you're responsible for *all* calls made over your phone line.
Even if they're made from another cordless handset, up on a pole
(or in-ground box), or at the NID.

I doubt that most people read that paragraph in the beginning of the
phone book.


David B. Horvath, CCP    [e-mail]
Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are NOT responsible for circumstances
beyond your control which would include theft of service from the pole
or at a neighborhood common demarc point, etc. You have no ability or
lawful right, for example, to weld a utility hole cover shut to prevent
others from entering it. You have no right to enter your neighbor's
property to insure that the cable multiples have been properly disconnected
before they reach his demarc or instruments. You ARE responsible for the
uses made of your telephone instruments when you voluntarily allow someone
to use them or fail to keep them in such a working order that theft of
service is unlikely to occur. If you attach a device to the phone line
which responds to radio signals (i.e. cordless phone) and you do not take
the proper precautions to insure it is not abused, then you are responsible.
The key to whether or not you are responsible for calls made on your line
is whether or not you have taken reasonable care to avoid these problems,
and whether or not you 'allowed' someone to use the phone.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:10:49 EDT
From: David B. Horvath <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Bell Service Draws Fire


The {Philadelphia Inquirer} had a recent article by James O'Neill:

"'Call 54' allows access to addresses and ZIP codes in N.J.  Questions
of privacy have been raised."

Basiclly, Bell Atlantic New Jersey is offering CNA service for $0.50
per call in the 201 and 908 area codes at 555-5454.  Only Bell
customers with *listed* phone numbers are available and those
customers can opt out by calling 800-282-6002.  After a six month
trial period, the service may also be available in the 609 area code
(southern New Jersey).

"BellSouth has provided a similar service since 1986 to customers in
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Kentucky.  Customers merely call
411 and ask for addresses and zip codes.  BellSouth does not provide
the addresses of customers with unlisted numbers, but -- unlike Bell
Atlantic -- it doesn't give listed customers the option of blocking
their address from the database."

The article also discusses the reaction of the ACLU and NOW-NJ
(regarding privacy and shelters for battered women).  "It's strange
that just as New Jersey is requiring sex offenders to register with
police, they're allowing this new service that only serves stalkers.
This does the exact opposite of what Megan's Law is supposed to do."
(Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of Privacy Journal in Providence, RI).

"Bell Atlantic officials call all this criticism unfounded. 'Some may
raise the privacy issue, but that argument is misdirectd,' Rabe said.
'This information is widely available now.'"  Mention was made about
the inability of the telephone company to copyright the phone book and
CD-rom [sic] directories.


David B. Horvath, CCP    [e-mail]
Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer

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

From: [e-mail] (roger)
Subject: Modems Without the Modem (Just the Dialer!!!)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:42:13 GMT


Is it possible to buy a BABT approved box just to dial a number?  Such a
box (if nice and cheap) would be useful to call a number to indicate
an alarm condition or something like that (the receiver using caller-id 'to determine who is calling).

Just a thought ...

All suggestions much appreciated.


Roger Kinkead


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dialers are available all over the place,
at least here in the USA. I cannot see why they wouldn't be in the UK.
You can get them arranged so that whatever triggers them (heat due to a
possible fire; dampness due to a possible flood; cold due to the furnace
going out of order; a break in the circuit due to a possible burglar)
then dials one or more numbers in succession to tell whoever answers the
phone about the problem. The call recipient has to press a combination
of keys on the phone to tell the dialer he acknowleges and understands
what the problem seems to be. These are very common devices here.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:10:20 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines


Q. Why should NPAs be required to split rather than be overlaid?

A. They should not.  NPA overlays have been in use for several years in
   New York and California.  This means 10 or 11 digit dialing for local
   calls, with the old users being able to keep their numbers.  Sometimes
   7 digit dialing is allowed IF the area code is the same.

Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA
   boundries?

A. They are not.  Suprised?  In many rural areas users can dial across NPA
   and state lines with 7 digits.  The only time 10 or 11 digits are used
   is in major metropolitan areas.

In residential areas an overlay could be perfomed by allowing 7 digit
dialing to all exchanges within the community, and 11 digit dialing to
zone dialing or LD locations.  That way neighbors could call each
other using 7 digit dialing.

Business areas would not be able to do this because of their high use
of NXXs, but the problems are their creation and a split would be
worse.  (See previous messages about stationary and advertising costs
associated with a split.)

The choice is to allow 7 digit dialing for 'within NPA' or 'within
local area'.  Within NPA discriminates against the new NPA.  Within
local area gives residences the advantage to call across the street to
a different NPA with seven digits.

The plan:
    Overlay the area with a new area code.
    Require 1+NPA+local number for LD and ZONE calls.
    Permit 7 digit dialing to local exchanges, regardless of NPA.
    Prohibit 7 digit dialing to same NPA, except for local exchanges.
    Allow 1+NPA dialing for all calls AND BILL AT THE PROPER RATE.

Dense business areas:
    Prohibit 7 digit dialing outside exchange.
    Encourage 1+NPA dialing on all calls.

The goal:
    Prohibit splits in metropolitan areas.
    Prohibit re-splits in other areas.

This would take a reasonable amount of planning, but WOULD work.

I doubt if the telcos would want to mess with cross-NPA 7 digits in
major metropolitan areas, so I don't expect this to be implemented
without PUC or FCC pressure.

If we continue to see splits we eventually will be dialing 10 or 11 digits
on all calls anyways, with the NPA becoming of historical significance the
same way that lettered exchanges are generally historical.

I'll be telling my grandkids about the days when you could call across the
street with seven digits the same way the elders and historians here are
telling us how exchanges were once named.

Do you remember when you could call someone (direct dial) within your local
area by dialing less than 7 digits?  There are still areas in rural Indiana
where this is an unadvertised switch feature.

                              ----------

Sent from OLiver 1 in the original 616 NPA (no split since 906 left in
1961 for political reasons).

Thot for the day:  When was the last NXX split?  Overlays work fine.


James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is no reason to ever go to
eleven digits as in 1+anything. The reason is that when we get to the
point that all calls must be dialed as AC + seven digits, we will no
longer need the initial '1' as a flag. Right now it serves as a flag
to indicate that an area code is following rather than a prefix. When
we get to where we always begin with an area code, then switches can
be modified to always expect ten digits and always expect the first
three to be an area code.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:09:25 EDT
From: David B. Horvath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integratel Customer Service


I followed the advice floating around on TELECOM and called Integratal
at 800-736-7500 to get on their exclusion database.  It took five or
six calls to get into the "waiting for a representative" queue and
less than five minutes in that mode.

Their ACD does advise the best time to call (after 5:30 PM).

I played slightly "dumb" -- the representative was very helpful.  Her
first question was why I was calling (did I have current Integratel
charges?).  When I mentioned blocking 900 call database, she told me
that I should contact my local phone company for 900 blocking.  She
then asked if I wanted to be on the 800 number blocking database.

me: "I can be charged for 800 number calls?  I thought they were free."

Her: "You sure can - calls to psychic hotline, chat lines, others."

me: "Yes, please put me on that list."

her: "It will be effective in 7 to 10 days and isn't 100% effective."

I wonder if the FCC knows about this -- their representatives freely
admit that they are charging for 800 number calls -- no suggestion of
accepting collect calls back ...

Every entry in the Bell Atlantic Diamond State Telephone book shows
"(toll free)" before the 800 number.  They offer free 700 and 900
number blocking with a $40.00 fee for removal (request must be in
writing).


David B. Horvath, CCP    [e-mail]
Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: She was speaking a little shorthand in
the call and should have perhaps been more precise. There is no charge
to the caller for carriage of his traffic to an 800 number. The called
party has an agreement to use telco as the collection mechanism for the
sale of information provided over the phone. *Do you wish to have us
presume that such sales of information, billed via your local telephone
company are to be forbidden at all times?* ... that would be a better
way of phrasing it. Billed number screening prohibits collect calls from
ever reaching you, along with calls made by persons attempting to charge
the call to your number. Instead of an operator having to call and ask
you 'will you accept' (and the obvious problems that will occur from time
to time when you say 'no' but the operator puts it down in error as 'yes',
the computer just automatically refuses to accept such charges when you
are in the database. MCI/Sprint/AT&T and the local telcos all share the
same database, therefore telling any one of them is telling all of them
what your intentions are. Integratel and certain other long distance
carriers do not share the same common database, preferring to maintain
their own so you have to tell them separately, thus 800-736-7500 for the
purpose of reaching Integratel which is itself a billing agent for numerous
other small carriers and information providers. If you get listed with
the local telcos, you will eliminate lots of unwanted, unexpected charges
on your phone bill, but you will not eliminate those carriers/IP's who
do not share the same database. If you notify Integratel as well, then
your success rate will approach one hundred percent, but there are still
small chinks in the armor. By notifying Integratel, you will get rid of
charges coming in from countless private payphones and the AOS's which
service them.

Why not one hundred percent? Because there are a few that use neither
the major carriers or Integratel for their billing; they just do their
own thing.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Kagan)
Subject: Share your Telephone Company Complaints
Date: 16 Aug 1995 15:59:44 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY


I write a newspaper column and am writing about your local and long
distance phone companies. What are they doing right/wrong? What are
your pet peeves, gripes, complaints?  What would make you switch to
the competition? Let me know all the juicy details ... the good-bad-and
ugly.  What drives you nuts.

My column runs in the {Atlanta Business Chronicle}, and appears in
sister publications nationwide.


Thanks,

JEFFREY KAGAN  [e-mail]
KAGAN TELECOM ASSOCIATES - Atlanta
[phone]
Telecommunications industry analyst/consultant/columnist

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

From: Mike Rehmus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free Fax Test
Date: 16 Aug 1995 16:21:21 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications (service)


Appologies to those who have tried to send a test fax and received
the incorrect report.

We tried to set this system up to automatically crunch the incoming
call.  That works well.  Unfortunately, the scheme to send the report
back on the next polling call doesn't.  At least it doesn't when the
activity is 10X higher than expected.

For those of you that sent us a test fax, please be patient.  If we
can identify you from the page you sent, we will get the report back
to you.  If you do not receive a reply in a week, please E-mail me
and I'll arrange to carry out a test for you.

Until we create a better automatic report delivery system, this one's
'hung up'.

Please E-mail me if you want to arrange a test and we'll get it done.

Best regards,

Mike Rehmus
Gray Associates    Engineering tools just for FAX
                   See our WEB page at  http://www.grayfax.com

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: PacBell's New Network
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:07:07 PDT


It seems the issues between Pacific Bell and the City of San Jose (CA)
hAve been resolved and PacBell has resumed installing it's new
network.

THe new network is fiber optic to each neighborhood and then coax into
each home.  The city was concerned becausethe network distribution
boxes are quite large (5' x 4' x 4'), and contain noisy fans and
natural gas back-up generators.  Amplifier boxes need to be placed in
each neighboorhood (serving up to 20 houses or so), however these are
smal;ler (about 2' x 2' x 3').  The city is satisfied with PacBell's
assertion that the boxes will not cause a noise problem, but the city
will perform its own investigation once the first unit is operational.
The city also ruled that PacBell will have to negotiate with the
individual property owners to install the amplifier boxes.

According to PacBell, the target date for city-wide deployment is Summer
1996 (IMHO pretty fast for a city of 800,000 residents).

Video services will be availible by that time, and by the end of 1996,
PacBell will abandon it's regular copper network.


Steve  [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think PacBell should appeal the city's
ruling regards negotiations with each property owner. Most cases involving
utility easement rights over the years have gone in favor of the utility
and that is how I think it should be.   PAT]

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

From: snake <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Acquisition
Organization: MOTOROLA
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:29:34 GMT


I have a perverse desire to install a standard street-corner variety
payphone in my home as a working private phone but also as a conversation
piece. Do the telcos sell off old payphones? Where could I find one?
Could it be wired/programmed to not need coins? Where can I find
technical information on payphones?

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

From: [e-mail] (roger)
Subject: Modems Powered From the Telephone Line
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:34:34 GMT


I recall a magazine article a good many months back about such a
modem. I believe that at that stage there was only one manufacturer
with BABT approval for a line-powered modem.

Of course I've lost the magazine and the article.  Has anybody else
used/know of such devices?

All advice/suggestions much appreciated.


Thanks for your time,

Roger Kinkead

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

Subject: More Than Eight Rings?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:44:12 -0400
From: Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]>


I have received complaints from callers to my home phone that, after
eight rings, the call was interrupted, and they were "offered" the
option of leaving me a voice mail message, for a fee of $1.50.
Naturally, they refused, but they were apparently unable to elect to
continue to ring my phone.

This burns me because my home phone is forward-no-answer after four
rings to my work phone, which is forward-no-answer (in the PBX) after
four rings to my voice mail.  I often get "blank" voice mail messages,
consisting of ten seconds of a quiet hiss, which I now suspect are
people trying to reach me, and being blocked by this "product".  (This
is pure speculation, though.)

My question is this: Whose "product" is this, and how do I make it
stop?  Is it AT&T?  (One call was from 612-439 to 617-262, via AT&T.)
Is it NYNEX?  (An AT&T representative I called suggested this may be
happening in my local switch.)  How can one let the phone ring until
one is good and ready to give up?

Does this *really* cost the phone companies so much money that they
feel compelled to drop the trunk after only eight rings?  Whatever
happened to the "rule" of my youth, that one should always let it ring
*ten* times?  (Granted, times have changed, with answering machines and
all that.)  Wasn't this "the phone company"'s "rule"?  To whom should
I complain about this?  (Other than TELECOM, of course. :-) --


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne Inc., M/S K4, 321 Harrison Ave., Boston MA
01228 USA [e-mail] [phone], fax [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If your calls are supposed to be forwarded
after four rings, then how is it ever getting as far as eight rings in
the first place?  What is supposed to be happening is after four rings,
the call is withdrawn from your line and handed to the other CO involved
for ringing. Your callers should hear a pause after four rings and then
after a couple seconds hear the ringing resume again at the other location.
Are you certain they are waiting *that long*?  Here in Skokie, some of
the payphones have the same thing 'offered', but it is in the form of a
message that is heard over the ringing and in the event the called party
answers during the announced offer to accept voicemail, the recording is
dropped immediatly. Furthermore, it starts in the middle of the third
ring -- not the eighth ring! You might want to ask your callers if they
are truly being cut off from further ringing at whatever point it occurs
or if the recording is superimposed on the line. Try calling your own
line *from some other central office* and seeing if you can re-create the
situation for yourself and let us know the results.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 09:33:32 MST
From: John Shaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Getting Rid of Pesky Phone Salespeople


Forwarded FYI to the Digest for a good chortle.

  From: [e-mail] (Keith Bostic) at WOODY
  Date: 8/17/95 8:05AM
  To: John Shaver at E.M.E.T.F.
  Subject: Getting rid of pesky phone salespeople.

  Forwarded-by: Margo Seltzer <[e-mail]
  Forwarded-by: [e-mail] (Andrew Liu)
  From: Ben Bonham <[e-mail]>

I was just stepping into the shower this morning when my SO handed me
the phone, telling me it was someone from a long distance company.  I
was eager to get into the shower; my conversation went like this:

Me:  Hello?
Him: Hello, sir.  I'm from <Major long distance carrier>.  How would
     you like to save money off your long distance calling?
Me:  If I told you that I was very happy with my current carrier, would
     that preclude any further conversation?
Him: Actually, no, sir.  I have to hear a certain number of "no's" before
     I let you go.
Me:  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Him: Have a nice day, sir. <Click>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #346
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08997;
          17 Aug 95 22:23 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27864 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:07:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27854; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:07:15 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:07:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #347

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:04:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 347

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds? ([e-mail])
    Re: MCI Begins Area Code 500 (Douglas Kaspar)
    Re: Door-to-Door Ethernet (Dan Cromer)
    Re: Privacy on Cellular Phones (Aris Stathakis)
    Re: Telephone Number Format (Michael Stanford)
    Re: Telephone Number Format (Malcolm Osborne)
    Re: Telephone Number Format (Robert Parker)
    Re: Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500? (Ken Weaverling)
    Re: Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500? (Scot Desort)
    Re: HR 1555 Update (8-9 (Steve Ng)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] ('70 Roadrunner)
Subject: Re: CWA and IBEW Low on Strike Funds?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:44:41 GMT
Organization: PsychoDemogroup,Houston
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Howard M. Weiner) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]>, John P. Dearing
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Steve Samler <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> -=[ stuff about 1 to 2 week strike fund supply deleted ]=-

>> Here in Bell Atlantic Land (CWA Local 13000), the strike benefit is as
>> follows:

>> After the 15th day of a strike a member shall be entitled to a $200
>> per week strike benefit. The member must have perfrmed picket duty or
>> other assigned strike duty during that week in order to qualify for
>> the benefit.

> I've been away from the craft ranks for some time, but during the last
> strike that I participated in (think it was '83), I worked as an
> "advisor" for financialy strapped members of my local.  Talk about an
> experience I don't ever want to relive, but that's another story ...

> Anyway, as I remember it, the funds available from the national were
> meager, certainly not enough to keep anyone afloat.  I do remember the
> same rule about no funds until after 15 days.  But to qualify to get
> those funds, the member had to have exhausted every possible avenue of
> credit.  It was made clear to us (by the national rep) that this money
> was not an entitlement, but for emergency ONLY.  They did vow that no
> member would lose his/her house, but you weren't going to get the
> money just because the payment was due.  I do remember talking to
> several members who were really in trouble, but then, most were in
> trouble before the strike even started.  We did have our own small pot
> of cash within the local, and bought staples that we gave to any
> member who asked for it, as well as a few dollars pocket cash.  These
> were made available after one week.  Luckily, the strike only lasted
> about two weeks.

> The bottom line is (was), that the strike funds are in no way, shape
> or form, meant to replace wages.

> FWIW, after about two days of contract extension, PacBell and CWA
> reached a tentative agreement.  Thanks goodness all the way around!

The same holds true today! I am a steward in CWA Local 6171 and I have
been asked almost everyday "how much, how often, and when will I get
it" concerning the strike funds ... should we go out sometime later
this month. I, along with most of my fellow members CANNOT depend on
what the CWA national will give out as a strike fund. Some of us have
already been planning ahead if this scenario arises due to the
GTESW/CWA contract talks not making much progress to date. I also
remember the last time I had to go out and it seems that there were
more funds available, as well as "donations" from the local members
that had it a little better than the members that were about to lose
it all. I have also seen in the past that we kept on working even
though the contract had expired while negotiations went on past the
strike deadline. BTW, here in CWA Local 6171 the strike vote was held
last week and more than 95% of the members voted to go out if GTESW
doesn't change what they have on the table which is mostly "take away"
items.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So where are things at today, now a
couple days past the deadline of August 15 which had been set? As of
Tuesday I heard that talks were going to continue 'around the clock'
for 'a few more days'. Any late developments?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Douglas Kaspar)
Subject: Re: MCI Begins Area Code 500
Date: 17 Aug 1995 05:24:12 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY


[Regards whether or not one has to be defaulted to MCI in order to
obtain an MCI 500 number ...]

So what?  MCI's standard tariffed rates are .0001 less than AT&T's or
Sprint's MCI is good at marketing hype, but are they significantly
cheaper?  I don't think so.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:47:35 EDT
From: Dan Cromer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door Ethernet


     NIMLI (sp? - I've heard it said, not actually seen it written) is
offered in Gainesville, Florida, by Southern Bell/BellSouth.  I think
that stands for something like "Native IP Mode LAN Interface", and is
a fiber(?)  connection to the premise equipment, which then can either
be ethernet or token ring and offer full LAN speed connections.  I
didn't pay too close attention to the specifics, since the original
pricing was ~$1200/month, though I think that price has perhaps been
cut in half to about $600/month over the last year or two, especially
since local Cox Cable was seriously discussing using set-top boxes to
do a similar thing with reserved 6mHz channels on the TV cable.

     As a side note, neither agency has the infrastructure yet to do
that except certain parts of Gainesville, and Cox hasn't really
started any sites as far as I know; I wanted ISDN for my home and due
to a "hairpin turn" environment, whatever that is, I was offered a
special assembly of $130/month, not the $52/month in the tariff.


Daniel H. Cromer, Jr.   Director, Information Resources
School Board of Alachua County, Gainesville, Florida
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Aris Stathakis)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Cellular Phones
Date: 17 Aug 1995 14:29:16 +0200
Organization: The Internet Solution (PTY) LTD


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dimitrios
Tombros) writes:

> phones.  What I am interested in, is if privacy of calls can be
> guaranteed or how easy it is to tap into cellular calls. Is there any
> difference depending on the system used (I am primarily interested in
> GSM)?

It is just about impossible to listen in on a GSM conversation on the
air.  You'll have better luck plugging in at the GSM switch.  GSM is
not only digitised, but also encrypted on the air.  Look at
http://www.supercall.co.za/ for more info on GSM.


Aris Stathakis            Tel: [phone]       Snail Mail:
Pre-Sales Support         Fax: [phone]       P.O. Box 781228
SDD (Pty) Ltd.            Cell:[phone]       Sandton, 2146
E-Mail: [e-mail]      http://www.sdd.com/        R.S.A.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 23:41:15 -0400
From: Michael Stanford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format


Lloyd Lim wrote

> I remember reading that there is some sort of standard (ISO? ANSI?)
> for formatting international telephone numbers (for printing, displaying,
> etc.).  Can someone tell me what it is?

TAPI uses "Canonical Format" like this:

           [phone]

The "+" indicates that this is a canonical number, with the country
code to follow.  The country code is terminated with a space, and
followed by the city code in parentheses, followed by another space
and the directory number in a format that doesn't appear to matter.
So a number in London, UK might look like this:

          [phone]

Full details in the TAPI SDK, downloadable from compuserve ("go winext,"
I seem to remember), or from ftp.microsoft.com.  Also on the Microsoft
Developer Network CD.

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

From: Malcolm Osborne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format
Date: 17 Aug 1995 07:35:37 GMT
Organization: Telkom S.A. Ltd


ITU (CCITT) Recommendation E.123 (1988) [Blue Book Fasc. II.2] [Publ.:
Jan.89] - `Notation for national and international telephone numbers'
gives guidelines in this regard.


Malcolm Osborne  Pretoria South Africa
EMail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert PARKER)
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Format
Organization: CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:07:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...

> I remember reading that there is some sort of standard (ISO? ANSI?)
> for formatting international telephone numbers (for printing, displaying,
> etc.).  Can someone tell me what it is?

The notation is described in ITU-T Recommendation E.123

If you want to show both the national number and international number
the recommendation is:

       National       [phone]
Telephone: -------------------------------
       International  [phone]

(where + is the international prefix, eg 011 in N. America or 00 in
many other parts of the world, and 22 is the country code)

An alternative notation for N. America is:

       Within N. Amer. zone   [phone]
Telephone: -------------------------------------
       International         [phone]

All of this is very long-winded, and I have only seen it uses rarely.
Much more common is just to quote the international number:

       [phone]

E.123 also has recommendations about how to indicate internal extension
nubmers, second dial tone, etc.


Hope this helps.

Rob Parker   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Weaverling)
Subject: Re: Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500?
Date: 17 Aug 1995 04:52:34 -0400
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Carl Kocher
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> My problem is I move around quite a bit and want to have a stable
> telephone number that will route my calls to wherever I am.

[snip]

> Ideally I'd like to pay a $50 (or less) per month flat fee, regardless
> of the amount of local calling, but some per-minute fees would be OK.
> The number *must* be in a normal area code (415 would be ideal, but
> other places would be OK).  Built-in voicemail would be a plus worth
> another $30/mo (what I'm paying now after I figure in 12 cents/minute
> local access charges).

I have a service with Bell Atlantic Mobile called "Contact Line" (BAM
is now merged with Nynex so maybe it's also available up north).

For $19.95 a month I get:

*) One number that can reach me anywhere I am, programmable by me at
any time;

*) Voice mail with beeper alert;

*) Ability to get an outside line while in voice mail (saves tons of
quarters, call in from pay phone, check message, get outside line,
return the call.

I live in Bell Atlantic, Delaware area, and get toll free calling all
over New Castle County. No charge to call in for messages, no charge
for forwarding calls to local numbers, no charge for outgoing local
calls after listening to voice mail.

It gets better (this sounds like a cheezy commercial)! When I am at
work and need to make a personal LD call or at a pay phone, I call my
own Contact Line number, punch in my pin, get an outside line, and
make the LD call. I only pay normal LD rates, no calling card
surcharge.

Wait, there's more!  I can implement call screening features, which
allows me to be available by cell phone without giving out my actual
cell phone number. I decide when calls should be forwarded to it. I
can also set it to go to voice mail unless a user PIN is entered,
which then forwards the call to my location (for close friends and
business contacts).

There is also a feature where I can use my pager as my cell phone
ringer instead of running the phone battery down.  The user calls my
number, it informs the user that I am available by pager and if it is
urgent, I can be paged to a phone. If they select this option, the
user is put on hold, I am paged with a special code indicating someone
is on hold. I turn on my cell phone (or grab a nearby phone), call
into my own number, punch in my PIN, and it connects me with the
waiting party. No more pager tag.

The voice prompts change depending on how you program the service.
Below are the choices I have set up and what the user hears when they
call the number. (all begin with "You have reached the Contact Line
for Ken Weaverling..."

"... Please wait, we are connecting your call..."  (connects to my home).

"... Please wait, we are connecting your call to his office..." (connects
to either one of my two office locations, depending on which I specify.)

"... Please wait, we are connecting your call to his cellular telephone..."
(connects to my cell phone).

"... who is in contact by cellular telephone. If it is urgent that you
speak with him now, press 0. Otherwise hold the line and leave a detailed
message."  (I use this one most when carrying my portable cell phone).

"... we are connecting your call. When the phone is answered, ask for your
party by name."  (This occurs when I forward the phone to a specified
number that isn't my home, offices, or cell number).

"... who is currently out of the office. If it is urgent that you speak
to him, press 0. Otherwise hold the line and leave a detailed message."
(This is spoken when I am at another number as above, but don't want to
be disturbed unless it is urgent).

"... who is currently out of town. If it urgent that you speak with
him now, press 1, to speak with his office, press 2, or hold the line and
leave a detailed mesage."  (I use this when roaming or at a hotel out of
state and have to pay for LD charges to get to me (and roaming if
applicable).  The office selection goes to someone at my office who can
take a message and hopefully help out.)

"... who is available by pager. Please touch in the phone number of
your location now, or if it is urgent that you speak with him now, press
0. Or hold the line and leave a detailed message."  If they press 0, it pages
me with a code so I can call in and connect with them.

"... who is currently unavailable, however we will connect you to his
message center where you can leave a detailed message." (For times when
I am on my motorcycle and can't hear the portable ringing. (I'll be getting
a vibrating motorola phone soon to solve this one too.)

This is only some of the many programmable options you can specify.
It's excellent if most of your calls are within a local calling area.
If I ever move out of the area, then I am still faced with the problem
of getting my number changed so it's not for everyone.

I read on the Bell Atlantic web site that they are testing a system in
New Jersey where you connect transceiver devices inline between your
phone and the wall at home, office, or whever you hang out at a lot.
You then carry a keychain transmitter with you. Whenever you get
within 100 feet of one of these phones, your calls are automatically
forwarded to that phone.  When you wander out of range, it will
forward to your cell phone automatically.


Ken Weaverling   Computer Services, Delaware Tech College
[e-mail]   http://www.dtcc.edu/~weave/
(Finger [e-mail] for PGP key, [e-mail] for fingerprint)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wow ! ... This sounds like it might be
highly competitive to AT&T 500 among other things, and it certainly is
of the same caliber as "My Line" which does most of what you mention above.
Are any other telcos getting started on this yet?  How much is the caller
charged per call, and is it simply dialed like any regular number, i.e. no
restrictions from payphones or special access codes to dial, etc?    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:13:52 -0400
From: Scot Desort <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Programmable Call Forwarding That Isn't AT&T TRUE 500?


On 10 Aug 1995, TELECOM Digest Editor (Patrick Townson) wrote:

> If you have call-forwarding on your line, you can automatically get
> RFC for free. They give you a certain phone number to call and a pin
> to use. You call in, enter your number and pin, and tell it where you
> want your calls to go to, or to stop forwarding calls as the case may
> be. Is Ameritech the only one offering this?

Here in Bell Atlantic-NJ land, they distinguish Remote Call Forwarding
as a transparent call-forwarding service for callers to dial one
number, which is transparently forwarded to a fixed number, which you
designate. This is most often used by businesses who relocate their
offices to a location not serviced by the same central office. They
obtain a new number in the new CO, and RCF their old number to the new
one. That way customers are not shell-shocked with a "The number you
have reached..." intercept. The RCF subscriber pays all toll charges
associated with the call from the RCF CO to the destination CO.
Monthly charge is minimal.

The programmable call-forwarding you've described is called Ultra-Forward
here. It too has been available for some time now, but is not a
no-charge add on for standard, call-forwarding subscribers.  But I
don't think it is a very expensive add-on. Very popular. Here's a
kicker -- if you have Centrex (which by definition includes regular
call-forwarding as part of the package), you cannot get Ultra-Forward,
because BA-NJ is not tariffed to offer it in conjunction with Centrex.
Ridiculous, since Centrex users are already paying a lot for their
service, and they can't add something so basic to their service, even
when willing to pay extra for it.

Something new that BA-NJ has just announced is the ability to remotely
change what they call the ring-cycle for customers who subscribe to
their AnswerCall Voicemail service in conjuction with call-forwarding/busy/
no answer. Previously, you selected a ring-cycle, which represents how
many times your phone rings before forwarding to voicemail. The true
ring count is often one to two rings more than that number, by the
time the switch kicks in and forwards.  If you wanted to change the
ring-cycle after your service is activated, there would be a service
charge.  Well, now you can do it via your DTMF keypad. Dial an access
number, key in your voice tel number and a PIN, and select the ring
count.  Simple. Free. Change it as often as you want. Great for people
who travel and want to change the ring count to one when their away, and
back to three or four when their home, and maybe up to eight when they're
going to be out back grilling shrimp on the bar-b!


Scot M. Desort   Garden State Micro, Inc.   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Ng)
Subject: Re: HR 1555 Update
Date: 16 Aug 95 04:55:33
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


I am a newcomer to the telecom regulations (and the US legislative
procedures), please excuse for my novice questions:

What is the difference between HR1555 "The Telecommunications Act of
1995" and S652 "Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of
1995"?

When do you expect HR1555 and S652 be passed? Will these become a law
(legislation) or a FCC regulation? (Or what do we call them when they
are passed?)

Apparently, each State can introduce its own telecom regulations. I
have read some articles talking about the Public Service Commission
(from one of the State) has allowed a LEC to offer intraLATA services.
Is this correct? How is this related to HR1555 or s652? When HR1555 is
passed, what kind of impact will we see on LEC? allowing them to offer
interLATA services? (I guess the IXC can offer local access services
if HR1555 is passed, right?)

Thanks for your help.


Steve C. Ng                     Internet  : [e-mail]
MPR Teltech Ltd.,               Voice     : [phone]
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, B.C., Fax       : [phone]
Canada. (V5A 4B5)               URL        : http://www.mpr.ca/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #347
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa09833;
          18 Aug 95 0:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29051 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:52:33 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29043; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:52:30 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:52:30 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #348

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:52:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 348

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Need Information on AT&T 8102, MLX-10DP Sets (Steve R. Frampton)
    Bell Canada Calling Cards in USA (Scott Robert Dawson)
    VSNL Starts India's First Internet Service (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Deregulation and Competition in Telecom: MIT Journal Report (M. Darden)
    NANP vs E.164 (was Re: Numbering Plans, Overlays, 888) (Ralph Hyre)
    Re: Privacy on Cellular Phones (Henry Oshiro)
    Re: Privacy on Cellular Phones (Chris Farrar)
    Re: Accessing Toll Free From Overseas (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: Accessing Toll Free From Overseas (Steven Lichter)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

From: [e-mail] (Frampton Steve R)
Subject: Need Information on AT&T 8102, MLX-10DP Sets
Date: 17 Aug 1995 13:15:31 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston


The organization I work for is upgrading their telephone system.  We
are moving to an AT&T Merlin Legend Communications System, with a
mixture of AT&T 8102 standard phone sets, as well as AT&T MLX-10DP
feature sets.

Personally, I and many other employees are unhappy with the 8102 sets.
We believe we are more restricted with these sets than we were with
the old telephone system!  We were impressed with the MLX-10DP sets,
and we think the organization should bite the bullet and pay the extra
cost to give *all* of us the MLX-10DP sets.

However, my boss has no time for "emotional rantings", but he did ask
if I could come up with some cold, hard facts to back up our feelings.
Further, the price difference between the sets are quite substantial
so I need some real convincing information!

After looking over the sets, I've come up with the following information
(but it is not yet enough to go forward):

Limitations of the 8102 vs. MLX-10DP:

- Lack of support for hands-free dialing or holding
  (if on hold for 10 minutes, would have to hold handset)
- Lack of support for hands-free conversation
- Lack of digital display area
  - Is an extension busy when call transferred?
  - Is a new call coming in, or is transferred call returning due to N/A?
  - Is an extension being forwarded to another extension?
  - What extension is calling me?
  - What time is it?
- No mute button
- No alarm clock/reminder feature
- Different U.I. between 8102 and MLX-10DP makes it hard to become
  comfortable with both models if work needs to be transferred to another
  worksite temporarily
- Lack of ISDN capabilities for future high speed digital communications.

Well, aside from the ISDN major selling point, the rest are just minor
annoyances and emotional preferences, and are unlikely to impress anyone.

So *please* help me!  I hate the look, feel, and operation of the
8102!!  Please help me get some evidence over the benefits of moving
everyone to the MLX-10DP sets.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Robert Dawson)
Subject: Bell Canada Calling Cards in USA
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:22:55 GMT
Organization: InterLog Internet Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hi!

My sources at Bell have revealed an 'interesting' tidbit ... as you
know, we now have long-distance phone competition. Bell Canada in
Ontario and Quebec is corporately allied with MCI in the States.
AT&T, the largest long-distance carrier in the States, the successor
to the long-distance parts of Bell before its breakup, is allied with
Unitel in Canada.

Unitel and Bell Canada are in competition.  As a result, AT&T will
*not* 'validate' (check on and accept) Bell Canada calling cards!  MCI
and Sprint will accept Bell Canada calling cards.

If you go to the States, make sure the long-distance carrier on the
phone you are using is not AT&T. Dial 1-700-555-4141 to check.  To use
your Bell card on another long-distance carrier, you will have to dial
a special seven-digit access code in front of the number you wish to
dial, then dial '0', then the number, then your Bell calling card
number, thus:

101xxxxx + 0 + (area code) + local number, (wait for tone), + your
calling card number. The 101xxxxx is the access code. They all start
with 101, so they won't be confused with an area code. You should be
able to get the access code from the other long-distance carrier.

Bell is working on setting up a 'Canada Direct' toll-free (area code
800 or 888) number for use in the States so we can avoid this hassle,
but I don't know when it will be active.

Telecom in the Nineties: it's a jungle out there.

Take care!


Scott Robert Dawson  [e-mail]
http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:03:21 -0700
From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: VSNL Starts India's First Internet Service


-==This Indian Techonomist bulletin (C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh

August 14, 1995: India's overseas communications monopoly, Videsh
Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) today launched India's first full
Internet service for public access. The Gateway Internet Access
Service (GIAS) was launched one week after the deadline Chairman and
Managing Director B K Syngal had given The Indian Techonomist, but
before before India's August 15th Independence Day, a favourite for
public-sector inaugurations.

VSNL stated that while the GIAS will be available immediately from
Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras, it will be directly connected
to Pune and Bangalore "shortly". Users from other locations can
connect through the Department of Telecommunications' I-NET, an
X.25 network accessed through leased lines or at a concessional
dial-up rate from almost anywhere.

The connection between VSNL and MCI in the US starts with "multiple
64kbps" links, which will "grow into T1 or E1 by the end of the year."

The pricing structure and other information is the same as previously
believed - $160 for 250 hours for individuals (shell accounts); about
$500 for institutional dial-up SLIP/PPP accounts; much more for leased
lines, and a ridiculous $16 for 250 hours for "students", to be made
available later this year. See http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/vsnl.html

The VSNL will, however, "work closely" with the telecom monopoly to
provide leased lines to customers, who would normally have to wage a
slow war to get them within a reasonable time.

The Techonomist received a press release late in the night. A first
reaction to the actual services will only be possible after the 15th,
a statutory holiday.

-==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
-==Licensed for ELECTRONIC distribution, including commercial, provided
-==this notice is attached. This bulletin is from The Indian Techonomist,
-==the newsletter on India's information industry.
-==http://dxm.org/techonomist/ - e-mail [e-mail]
-==Phone [phone]; H-34-C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA.

The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry
http://dxm.org/techonomist/                             [e-mail]
Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh           [e-mail]
Vox [phone]; 3760335;     H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:15:39 EDT
From: Michael A. Darden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deregulation and Competition in Telecom: MIT Journal Report


DEREGULATION AND EMERGING COMPETITION IN THE U.S. TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY:

A Special Issue of MIT Press's JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY

As Editor Daniel F. Spulber indicates in his "Introduction" to the
Summer 1995 issue of MIT Press's JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY (JEMS), the U.S.A.'s telecommunications industry is a *huge*
industry.  It includes local-exchange and long-distance telephone
companies, competitive access providers, cable-television
distributors, satellite services, and wireless service companies, as
well as manufacturers of fiber optics and coaxial cables, satellites,
central office switches, a wide array of customer-premises equipment
and other products.  This industry moreover supplies *the* medium for
transactions in the nation's information economy.

Via telecommunications technology, more and more Americans electronically
transmit voice, text, data, and video information all over the world;
and, electronic data interchange -- such as the more than $2 trillion
per day in U.S., electronic funds-transfers -- is fast becoming a
standard, international mode of interbusiness *and* interpersonal
communication.  School children, health care and finance professionals
nationwide are as well daily modeming onto the ever-growing
information superhighway -- including the Internet and other
networks -- which promises to be the country's dominant method of
effecting commercial transactions, delivering information services,
and providing entertainment.

Significantly, while deregulation and technological change generate
innovative forms of competition in the U.S.'s information economy,
American telecommunications markets increasingly integrate.
Regulatory barriers -- such as those which arbitrarily divide up and
restrict modes of electronic data-transmission -- are falling.
Telecommunications-industry companies often compete with one another
by providing customers with, for instance, either fiber optics, radio
wave, or satellite data-transmission technologies, or perhaps
different mixes of these technologies.  Local exchange telephone
companies are entering long-distance service markets; and,
long-distance telephone companies are entering local-exchange-service
markets.

As a consequence of all the preceding developments,
"[T]ELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND SERVICES WILL BE AS IMPORTANT TO
THE FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY AS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST" (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
__Telecommunications in the Age of Information__, 1991, 21).

The latest issue of MIT Press's JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY therefore features important, recent economic and management
research on deregulation and expanding competition in the U.S.
telecommunications industry.  Entitled __Competition in
Telecommunications__, this latest JEMS edition -- Volume 4, Number 2,
Summer 1995 -- is a special issue.

Some article-authors originally presented their writings in slightly
different form during a July 7-8, 1994, American Enterprise Institute
conference entitled __Telecommunications Summit: Competition and
Strategic Alliances__.  Highlights below are about some of the
noteworthy articles published in JEMS's special __Competition in
Telecommunications__ issue.


__Executive Forum__

SAM GINN
Chairman and CEO, AirTouch Communications

RESTRUCTURING THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY AND THE INFORMATION SKYWAY

This article gives an insider's perspective on the aftermath of the
AT&T divestiture in 1984, the spin-off from Pacific Telesis, and the
subsequent, rapid growth of AirTouch.

PAUL W. MACAVOY
Professor of Management, and former Dean, Yale University
School of Management

TACIT COLLUSION UNDER REGULATION IN THE PRICING OF INTERSTATE LONG
DISTANCE SERVICES

In early 1995, the __New York Times__ (Edmund L. Andrews, Saturday,
January 21, 1995, A1) proclaimed the start of a "no-holds barred
battle for long distance calls," observed that the "raucous
long-distance industry has never seen anything quite like it," and
reported that "the scramble has grown wilder, and more bewildering in
recent weeks." What is the background of this battle?

Professor MacAvoy constructs price indices for seven classes of
long-distance services and shows that the "price-cost margins of AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint in markets for the most important seven classes of
long-distance service increased as concentration declined."  He
reaches the startling conclusion that THESE RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT NOT
WITH PRICE COMPETITION BUT WITH EMERGING "TACIT COLLUSION."


SHANE GREENSTEIN AND SUSAN MCMASTER
Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
PABLO T. SPILLER
Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

THE EFFECT OF INCENTIVE REGULATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION:
LOCAL EXCHANGE COMPANIES' DEPLOYMENT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Fiber optic infrastructure is the highway for the information economy.
Getting the fiber optic backbone in place is crucial to building the
information superhighway and maintaining American competitiveness.

In their pathbreaking study, Professor Greenstein, et al., explain the
investment in fiber optic infrastructure by the regional Bell
Operating Companies.  They show the importance of deregulation through
price caps and other incentive plans.  They demonstrate the surprising
result that HAD EVERY STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY ADOPTED REGULATORY
INCENTIVES, SUCH AS PRICE-CAP REGULATION, FIBER OPTIC DEPLOYMENT WOULD
HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 75 PERCENT GREATER.


STEPHEN G. DONALD
Department of Economics, Boston University
DAVID E. M. SAPPINGTON
University of Florida

EXPLAINING THE CHOICE AMONG REGULATORY PLANS IN THE U.S.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Professors Donald and Sappington show why some states adopted
incentive regulations while others did not, and empirically
demonstrate the effects of high, local-telephone rates on the
regulators' choices.


PETER C. CRAMTON
University of Maryland

MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR: THE NATIONWIDE NARROWBAND PCS AUCTION

Two-way pagers, a new generation of wireless phones
delivering digital-quality communications anytime, anywhere
 ... such is the wireless innovation made possible by the Federal
Communication Commission's (FCC) nationwide, PCS- spectrum auction.
Many telecommunications-industry watchers expect FCC's spectrum
auction to set off a wireless boom that __Business Week__ has compared
to the California gold rush of 1849 (Therrien, L., "It's a Mad, Mad,
Mad, Mad Wireless World," __Business Week__, November 29, 1993, 129).

Professor Cramton offers an insider's bid-by-bid account of the
Federal Communications Commission's historic, first auction of the
U.S.'s wireless spectrum.  Cramton's narrative shows how companies
formulated their innovative bidding strategies and carried them out in
the national, Narrowband-PCS auctions.


Since August 1992, The MIT Press has published the JOURNAL OF
ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY quarterly.  Applying economic analysis
to business concerns, articles in the journal supply economists,
managers, and policymakers with insights on how competitive strategies
and organizational design affect company performance in the
marketplace.  A __Fortune__ article recently described the JOURNAL OF
ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY as a "showcase for [this] new
research."

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY readers are top executives,
academic researchers, and policymakers in economics, management
strategy, finance, marketing, accounting, and international business.
The journal has a circulation of over 1,500 readers worldwide.


ABOUT THE EDITOR
DANIEL F. SPULBER is Thomas G. Ayers Professor of Energy
Resource Management and Management Strategy at
Northwestern University's J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of
Management.

***********************************************************

*ELECTRONICALLY BROWSE* journals and books excerpts,
catalogs, and ordering information on THE MIT PRESS
World Wide Web Home Page, URL http://www-mitpress.mit.edu

***********************************************************

Review copies are available at the discretion of the publisher.  ISSN
1058-6407.  Published quarterly, 1996 SUBSCRIPTION RATES are $40 for
individuals, $98 for institutions, and $25 for students and retired
persons.  Current issues are $10 per copy.  Back issues are $12.50 per
copy for individuals and $25 per copy for institutions.  Outside
U.S.A., add $16 per subscription, $5 per current issue, and $5 per
back issue shipping and handling.  Canadians add additional 7% GST.
PREPAYMENT REQUIRED.  PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

FOR ORDERING INFORMATION, contact the MIT PRESS JOURNALS Circulation
Department, [phone] (TEL), [phone] (FAX), or
[e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (ralph hyre)
Subject: NANP vs E.164 (was Re: Numbering Plans, Overlays, 888)
Date: 17 Aug 1995 16:14:31 GMT
Organization: United HealthCare Corporation


Fred R. Goldstein ([e-mail]) wrote:

> The premature exhaustion of the earlier phase of the North American
> Numbering Plan has led to a lot of discomfort.  Two current threads in

> BTW, it's technically infeasible to go from, say, seven to eight
> digits because the 3+4 format is hard-coded into so much network
> software that the thought of changing it is virtually incomprehensible.

Well, ISDN is (supposed to) support E.164 addresses (15 digits, I
believe) My office E.164 address might be: [phone].

Interestingly, many companies' extension numbering schemes would fit
pretty directly.  I don't think many locations on the NANP are
directly dialable, though.

> Other countries had variable or mixed lengths; the North American
> Numbering Plan never had the flexibility that hindsight tells it it
> maybe should have had.

I think the problem is more political or economic than technical.
After all, those countries with variable length phone numbers must be
using software in their switches and PBXes, too.

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

From: Henry Oshiro <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Privacy on Cellular Phones
Date: 17 Aug 1995 05:08:25 GMT
Organization: Honolulu Cellular


GSM is TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) based.  Being digital
makes it much more difficult to intercept the intelligence being
passed over the air.  It cannot be done with an off the shelf scanner.
It sounds like high pitched buzzing.  The digital cellular service
here in some areas but not all.

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Farrar)
Date: 17 Aug 95 00:36:38 -0400
Subject: Privacy on Cellular Phones
Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no such thing as guarenteed privacy
> on a cellular phone. There is what I would call 'privacy for all practical
> intents and purposes' since probably 99 percent of celluar calls are not
> overheard. The mechanism for doing so is quite easy however, even though
> it is illegal. On most Tandy/Radio Shack scanners capable of receiving the

Pat, just because something is illegal in the U.S.A., doesn't mean
that it is illegal worldwide.  Here in Canada, your neighbour to the
north, listening to cellular phones (as well as cordless phones and baby
monitors) with a scanner is 100% legal, provided you don't profit from
what you hear. It is also 100% legal to modify a scanner to receive
the 800 MHz cellular band.

> 800 mz range for example, the removal of just one diode will make the
> scanner become capable of listening to cellular phones. The thing most
> people do not realize however in their eagerness to own a pirate (and
> quite illegally modified!) scanner is that cellular calls for the most part

Actually, from what I have read of the ECPA, it only prohibits the
sale or importation into the US of scanners that are capable of
receiving cellular bands, or are easily modified to receive cellular.
Nowhere does it say that modifications done to the scanner itself are
illegal once in the purchaser's (owner's) hands, or are scanners
manufactured before the date the particular piece of the ECPA was
enacted which came from the factory with 800 MHz capabilities are
illegal.

> just are *not interesting*, and furthermore, all you get are just fleeting
> whisps of conversation as the cars drive past. There is no continuity in
> the conversations overheard, and people with anything much to say do not
> use cellular phones any more than they use landline phones; not if the
> message is *really* a juicy one. GSM is a different thing altogether; I
> don't know that much about it.  PAT]

However, at certain times of the day, such as rush hour, those near
freeways and city streets that regularly jam up can hear quite long
segments of calls.  Likewise, those on the Canadian side of the
US/Canada border can (legally) listen in to cell frequencies/calls
made on the US side of the border.  Windsor ON scanner enthusiasts can
evesdrop on cellular calls made over in Detroit MI with impunity.
Ditto for Fort Erie ON listening into Buffalo NY, and Niagara Falls ON
listening to Niagara Falls NY, etc.


Chris

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

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Accessing Toll Free From Overseas
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 12:11:00 GMT


In TD v.15 #343, Peter Mansfield was curious about the Telstra
(Australia) recording referring to +1-880 when dialing +1-800 numbers
from Australia.

The 'Industry Numbering Committee' (INC) HAS been studying the
possibility of using Special NPA code 880 for 'Foreign-Billed 800
Inbound'. It is mainly to be used for Caribbean and other non-North-
American (+1) locations to be able to dial US/Canadian 800 numbers
when the caller does not know the 'POTS' geographic number to dial. I
was unaware that 880 is already being used from any non-North-American
points.

About a year ago, one my mailings from the INC stated that several
+1-809 countries/islands have 'self-assigned' 300 and 400 for
'caller-pays' 800.  This 'self-assignment' process caused some
problems with relations with Bellcore North American Numbering Plan
Admin, as NANPA is supposed to be the administrator of NPA codes,
including the special N00 series for non-geographic purposes, and
these 809 telecom admins. were not following procedures. I don't know
if 300 and 400 still work from the various 809 points, but 880 is
supposed to take care of this as a *standardized* code.

Many times, I don't know which POTS number to call, and my location is
not available to dial a particular 800 number. It would be nice to
call (knowing in advance that there is a charge), replacing the 800
with 880 for domestic 800 calls.

And BTW, 880 won't cause problems with the 88X-XXX series of 'mark-sense'
*billing* codes used for remote non-dial operator-ringdown points
scattered all over 'undeveloped' North America. There are NO 880-XXX
codes, only 881 thru 889 are used. I don't know how the new toll-free
888 code will affect the older 888-XXX ringdown points, nor do I yet
know which 'caller-pays' replace code will be used for the new 888
toll free numbers.


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK:[e-mail]           |4710 Wright Road| ([phone])
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954([phone])|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917([phone])|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: Accessing Toll Free From Overseas
Date: 17 Aug 1995 20:16:52 -0700
Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University


[e-mail] writes:

> I recently came across an interesting situation when attempting to
> dial a US 800 number from Sydney, Australia.

> Optus Communications (our second national carrier, formed in 1992) adver-
> tises direct connection to US 800 numbers. Just dial international
> access code 0011 + 1-800-NXX-XXXX and you're connected.  When you do
> dial this, a intercept message before connection states that you will
> be charged normal IDD rates to the US for this call.

It sounds like a way to rout the call through a special international
carrier, maybe so they get a special rate from them.

I for one would not like to get my 800 bill and find a bunch of
charges from callers overseas. Since mine is not used for busness even
more so. But with a business the cost of the call could be more then
the profit on the product. AT&T 800 numbers used to work from Europe
using the number to reach the US over AT&T, don't know if it does any
more.


The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is.
SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub [phone] 2400/14.4 24 hours,
Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #348
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10667;
          18 Aug 95 3:26 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02429 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:49:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02421; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:49:00 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:49:00 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #349

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 95 21:49:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 349

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom and the End of WW-2 (Patrick Townson)
    Re: PacBell's New Network (Bradley Ward Allen)
    X.25 Access Providers (Adam Feinberg)
    Re: Rural Fibre (Mark Williston)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 20:32:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom and the End of WW-2


The first couple weeks in August saw numerous stories in the media
relating to the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. There
was a great deal of discussion about the use of 'the bomb' to bring an
end to it all, both pro and con. Surely President Harry S Truman (known
back then at times as 'give em hell Harry' will be remembered for
his decision well into the next century if not longer.

            ---------------------------------------------
            "Mrs. Brown, what does the 'S' in President
            Truman's middle name stand for?" asked the
            one child of his teacher in that second grade
            classroom during the current events period
            that winter day in 1948 following Truman's
            election. Mrs. Brown started to explain that
            the /S/ was a 'stand-alone'; that is, that
            the single letter /S/ was his middle name
            and that therefore, when writing his name
            the use of a dot or 'period mark' following
            the S was inappropriate. It was not an abb-
            reviation of his middle name, it *was* his
            middle name. As she patiently explained all
            this, one child best left unnamed raised his
            hand to say, "My father says the 'S' stands
            for Shit!". Mrs. Brown tried hard to keep a
            straight face and keep from smirking.
            --------------------------------------------

In the initial stages of the exploration of nuclear power -- for all its
wonderfulness, for all its awfulness -- much of the work was done here
in the Chicago area at the University of Chicago. Living as I did in
the 1960's in the Hyde Park neighborhood and a matter of just two or
three blocks from the site where the first nuclear reaction was sustained
on that winter day in 1942, I was reminded of it whenever I walked
past the site and the commemorative placque installed there. Now the
University library; then the underside of the grandstand to Stagg Field.

Living as I did at the Windermere Apartment Hotel, 56th and Stony
Island Avenue, (FAIrfax-6000 for the switchboard, although most of the
tenants including myself had our own private lines in addition to an
extension on the hotel board; mine was HYDe Park 3714) I was very privil-
eged to be a nearby neighbor of Laura Fermi, the widow of Enrico
Fermi. She often took her dinner in the Anchorage, which was the name
of the hotel dining room as did I, and she told a story once which I
hope will interest you as it did when she told it to me.

Her words from this point forward unless otherwise indicated:

In July, 1945 as the work neared completion, a great deal of final
research was being done, and a test explosion was planned for an
early morning in what is now the White Sands Missle Range area in
New Mexico. Enrico and several other scientists planned to be present
to observe the test, take measurements and other things. Actually,
the scientists and researchers were stationed over a fifty mile
or so area around the circumference of White Sands. Since Enrico
had some equipment to take along when we left home, we decided to
make the trip to Alamogordo by automobile, and it was a very hot,
very dusty two day trip for us, but we arrived in Alamogordo in
mid-afternoon the day before the test. The heat was, for me at
least, incredible. The temperature skirted around between 95 and
105 degrees all that summer there, we were told later by people who
had been on location for as much as month before the day of the
test. The temperature at night would drop to the upper seventies
or lower eighties perhaps by 3 am ... and the sun would rise at
a little before 5 am so that by midday the oppressive heat would return.

After checking into our hotel -- the only one in Alamogordo, then
a town of a few thousand people -- we ate and went to bed since we
had to get an early start. About 3 am the next morning we arose, and
collected our gear to get to the test site. All this was very hush-
hush, we were all warned against saying anything at all to the local
people about the purpose of our visit. Enrico had been assigned to
a place about five miles outside of town and we got out there about
3:45 am. The test was scheduled for 4:30 am, but at about 4:15 am
it started raining. Raining hard too; they told me later it was the
first rain in the area all summer. The rain lasted about fifteen
minutes then stopped as suddenly as it had started. The thing we
immediatly noticed was the wonderful relief from the heat, as the
temperature had apparently dropped into the middle sixties as a
result.

Well, 4:30 came ... no explosion. 4:35, then 4:40 ... just silence
and darkness across the desert as the sun started to rise. Enrico
was concerned that the test had not come off as scheduled, and he
wondered out loud if it might have been cancelled due to the rain.
We had no radio gear or other method of contacting the other people
in the area, and Enrico decided we should return to town and look
for a telephone to use to call the others and find out what was
happening.

We got back into town at right about 5 am. The only thing open at that
time of night was the hotel where we were staying and Enrico told me
to wait in the car while he went in to make a call on the pay station
there. He returned two or three minutes later to say that the phone
was not working and that he had been unable to raise the operator.
He told me to start driving the car, and while I was driving, he was
looking out of the car window, glancing at the telephone poles and
the overhead wires. He would say 'turn left here' and I would drive
down one street, then he would say 'turn right' and I would go down
another street.

As we drove down one street, I saw several houses as you would expect
to find anywhere, but one in particular was different. From all direc-
tions there were telephone poles around this house, in the front yard
and the back yard. The wires from the poles all came down and were
connected to some sort of a metal pipe or pole on the side of the
house; there were hundreds of wires there and they all then went in
through a hole into the side of the house.

Enrico said to park the car and I did. We got out and walked up to
the front porch of this house. The front porch light was burning,
and the front door was open, but the screen door on the front was
closed and latched from the inside.

We looked inside and I saw a telephone switchboard in one corner of
the room. Several lights on it were blinking on and off, with
people trying to reach the operator. Across the room from that
was a sofa with an end table, a lamp and a radio. The radio was
playing soft music, and the lamp was on. A fan was also there, turned
on blowing the air around.  On the sofa lay a woman sound asleep. She
looked like a young woman about 18 or 19 years old.

Enrico banged on the screen door a couple times and rattled it
rather loudly. All of a sudden the woman opened her eyes and
looked at us standing there. She turned and looked at the switchboard
with all the lights blinking. Then she turned and looked at us again.
"Oh, my God!" she said excitedly. Pausing long enough to put a cigarette
in her mouth and light it, she rushed over and sat down at the board
and started frantically taking calls as fast as she could.

Enrico and I walked back to the car and he drove immediatly out to
the test site and our assigned station. We got back to our spot at
about 5:30 or a few minutes after that, and we had only been there
a minute or less than two minutes when the test was conducted. To this
day now twenty five years later (PAT note: this was said in 1970)
I have never seen anything as spectacular as that morning in the New
Mexico desert.

When we met with other scientists later that day we found out what
had happened. Although the test and the people involved were scattered
over a range of about fifty miles, all the communications between them
were routed through Alamogordo. The switchboard there was used to
connect everyone involved. Since everything was very top secret, I
guess they saw no reason to tell the telephone operator what they
would be doing, and obviously she did not not know. Normally I doubt
she handled more than two or three calls during the entire night, and
I know what happened in this case: the weather like it was, no one
who worked a night shift was able to sleep during the day from the
heat, and then when you were at work the temperature would cool off
enough that you could sleep, just a little even though you were not
supposed to sleep; you were supposed to be working. The poor lady
probably had not slept much for a couple days, then laying there on
that sofa reading or whatever between calls finally caught up with
her.

I doubt to this day that the lady is aware that her falling asleep
at the switchboard caused the first atomic explosion in the world
to be delayed by an hour and several minutes beyond its scheduled
time.

  (end)   ------------------------------------

With dinner over and more coffee and after dinner liqueurs than anyone
should have, I left the Anchorage Windermere dining room and went back
upstairs to my apartment thinking of the time several years before
that I had walked over to the old Illinois Bell central office at 61st
and Kenwood about 1959-60. The entire first floor was given over to
the crossbars and frames with the telephone operators occupying the
second floor. Hot as blazes that evening also, all the windows were
open at 'Kenwood Bell' as they had not gotten around to air conditioning
the place. Very few large companies or offices were air conditioned in
those years, we just had ceiling fans -- many of them -- around the
room.

When all the windows were open at Kenwood Bell, as they were apt to
be on a hot summer night, you could hear those switches a block away.
And when you walked past outside on the sidewalk, all you heard was
a constant chatter as the switches did their duty. That night also it
rained, and as the rain started and I darted into a doorway for
shelter, looking across the street at the central office I saw one
of the operators get up from the board, walk over and put first her
hand out the window, and then her head looking up. She felt the rain
coming down and began going around the room closing all the windows.
On the first floor, a man was doing the same. You had to close all
the windows to keep the dampness from affecting the switchboard, but
little comfort that was to the people who were sweltering inside.

I thought Laura Fermi's account of (what is now) fifty years and a
month ago at White Sands might be of interest to the historians here.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail] (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: PacBell's New Network
Date: 17 Aug 1995 18:59:25 -0400
Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key)


In <[e-mail]> Steve Cogorno <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [...] THe new network is fiber optic to each neighborhood and then
> coax into each home.  [...]  According to PacBell, the target date
> for city-wide deployment is Summer 1996 (IMHO pretty fast for a city
> [San Jose] of 800,000 residents). [pp] Video services will be
> availible by that time, and by the end of 1996, PacBell will abandon
> it's regular copper network

It seems Pacific Bell will definately have a corner, literally, on
that market!  Yay, it only took a decade!

But on a more emotional note, I wonder how long it will take Manhattan
to get to this stage; this prompts feelings of my rerooting in more
progressive markets once again (not *that* feeling again).  I think
right now and for some time into the future, New York City will be as
it has always been with most things in this city as I've seen it;
rather than basically free market and a large amount of affordable
useful merchandise, everything will be either welfare-quality or high
cost and whatever you can afford and/or whatever you can intimidate
someone into getting for you.

Well, perhaps there's hope: yesterday, one of the three POTS lines I
ordered via MFS two or three months ago was put to service!  {It
should be noted that the line turned on with MFS was previously a
NYNEX line in service, and I now have two phone numbers for the same
line (one as the number it was before and one new MFS number); the other two
lines are pending NYNEX's installation into my unit, which is pending
what the NYNEX person told me I have to do which is to get a *written*
letter from my landlord (who incidentally hardly knows my language and
hardly knows what an electron is, much less why someone would want to
have more than one phone line) stating that it is OK to install the
new line from the basement to my unit and where; the NYNEX installer
mentioned possibilities of historic building designation codes as
being possible slow-ups, which I find rediculous in this welfare-hotel-
quality gutted building, so I'll have to find out and see}.

Wow, competition from a competitor that has lower customer
service and is under the thumb of its own competitor (all lines MFS
uses are NYNEX's up to the NYNEX facility, where MFS then colocates
equipment with NYNEX; the only things MFS are the equipment at the
facility and the connections between the MFS equipments where such
calls are routed).  Really, though, this is a pinkynail hold on a
relatively new development in the market, and I can only see this as a
first step to increased competition and eventual quality of service.

At some point, one daydreams, MFS will note the number of customers in
certain neighborhoods to be large enough to run their own lines,
*hopefully* not just traditional (as in century old technology) copper
(hint hint, something thunder and lightning won't be attracted to, not
that this matters in Manhattan where everything is underground).

Actually, my hinting plead brings up a question; while I understand
the bandwidth topology and hierarchy, I don't understand why fiber
wasn't used for the very end of the link as well in the Pacific Bell
installations?  Are fiber cable, tools, and connection equipment still
more expensive than coax cable?

Don't lots of businesses use fiber to their computers in networks
these days?

I'm a bit confused.


- More on MFS Intelenet -

So far all the interactions have been very curteous, I haven't been
put into too many circular impossibilites, and the employees really do
seem to be working hard.

I have programmed myself into using the computer-data line for all my
outbound calls while the modem's off.  Suddenly I get a call on that
line causing me to wonder whether I was going insane because I had it
call-forwarded, and it was an MFS tech checking to make sure the line
was working.  I was duly excited and the MFS tech answered my
procedural questions very nicely (I was asking him what I have to do
and was it necessary for me to brain-pick him, and he basically
answered with the appropriate thing for each question with answers
such as my new MFS number, no, wait, contact landord, and contact
salesperson in a way that seemed quite logical to me).  Anyway, today
as I used the phone for lots of outbound calls, I didn't ever
encounter any problems, and afterwards I realized that I had been
using a new carrier.

Problems:

* I get either fast busy or a recording announcing that I've done
something wrong when I dial these beginning combinations: *70; *77;
*67; *87; *66; *69; 101; 10XXX other than 10440; 1900; 550.  Yes,
that's right, I can't use my selected long distance carrier via 10555
(in my case); I must use MFS.

* CID is not passed consistently.  It works when: I dial direct to a
NYNEX line with CID.  It does not work when I call to a NYNEX line
forwarded to the MFS line forwarded to a NYNEX line (forwarding NYNEX
lines does preserve CID).  My WilTel/LDDS/WorldCom 800 number which
normally either gives ANI information for out-of-service-area calls
and CID information for in-service-area calls via CID always gives OOA
for my calls from my MFS line; I'm guessing that MFS is in the service
area so is consistent with Wiltel/LDDS/WorldCom's silly behavoir of
only doing ANI->CID on out-of-service-area calls, and furthermore
whatever path the long distance call MFS->WilTel/LDDS/Worldcom->NYNEX
takes discards the CID data much as the calls from MFS->NYNEX->MFS->NYNEX
do (as opposed to the MFS->NYNEX calls).  I have not tested calling
NYNEX->MFS->NYNEX, nor do I have CID on my MFS line (yet?  do they
offer this?  They said they do).  Some of this forwarding was via my
Call Forwarding features, and some via the forwarding NYNEX does for
my old phone number to my new MFS line (i.e.  one NYNEX number and one
MFS number, with the MFS number being the "real" number).

Random things:

* 10440 is the MFS LD code, and it doesn't work from NYNEX, only from
MFS (silly since MFS doesn't accept any other code, I tried 10288,
10222, 10333, 10555).

* 1-700-555-4141 works as expected (properly to my knowledge).

* 958 gives the number of MFS line with equivilent tones, clickings
and voices as NYNEX 958 with exception at the end of the announcement
where MFS omits a few fast busy signals (I guess MFS added this
feature at the request of NYNEX which commonly uses 958 on lots of
lines while poking in boxes).

* 1-800-MY-ANI-IS gives the same number as 958.  (No surprise.)

* 72#0114122733XXXX# behaves just the same as local and domestic calls;
I can forward my 800 number to an international number!  Not remotely,
though.  (NYNEX doesn't work this way.)

* Dialing 1 plus any area code works for that area code, including the
same area code, in this case 212; in other words, when using MFS lines
you can just nevermind where you're at, a useful feature.  (NYNEX
doesn't work this way.)

* Long distance calls complete quicker than most other long distance
companies during the evening and night.  During the day they're pretty
slow.  800 numbers all complete very slowly, probably all going
through some common bottlenecking procedure.

My sales rep has yet to call me to finish necessary details, so
perhaps many issues here will be enhanced and worked out properly.
Customer Service told me the sales rep has the final information, but
that what she has on my account for right now is a 15.5 cents per
minute rate at all times for long distance intra and inter state.
They aren't able to tell me what the cost of local calls are (15.5
cents per minute?  free?  A dollar a piece?  Who knows?  Hopefully no
nasty surprises when the bill comes!)  I really hope MFS offers
no-answer-call-forwarding too since NYNEX doesn't.

Further information when I get it ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam Feinberg)
Subject: X.25 Access Providers
Date: 17 Aug 1995 12:15:32 -0400
Organization: The Pipeline


I am looking for an X.25 service provider that has  nodes in New York City
and worldwide.


Adam

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

From: Mark Williston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rural Fibre
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 20:45:13 CST
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>


On Mon, 14 Aug 95 15:58:17 EDT, Tony Harminc <[e-mail].
EDU> wrote:

> I've just spent a vacation week in rural Ontario (Haliburton area),
> and was astonished at the amount of aerial fibre I saw.  I found
> myself watching the poles rather than the road each time we drove
> through a new area, and sure enough those orange tagged loops were
> almost everywhere.  Questions:

By loops, do you mean cable going from poles to houses, or pole to
pole. Pole to pole, with orange tags, sometimes blue or even a spiral
of orange plastic wrapped around it are generally trunk fibers feeding
an CO, OPM, WIC or DMS Urban. Fiber loops to houses are not very
common yet and are rare.

> What is the significance of the orange tags?  I had assumed they just
> marked the cable as fibre rather than copper, so the field people
> would know not to yank too hard on it.  But then I noticed that some
> areas had blue tags.  What do they signify?

They are there, as you state, for us cable splicers or line men to
make us aware that that cable is fiber. We have to call Repair or
whatever number is stamped on the tag before we move them. A fiber
break could cause many custormers to loose service.

> What is the equipment found every 15-20 km?  Typically there is a little
> fenced compound with a couple of cabinets beside the road, supplied with
> 120V power.  Just repeaters?  As far as I could see, the copper cable
> did not enter the compound, so it presumably was not an SLC type of thing.

If you looked around further, you would see copper cables sprouting
from the ground and up a pole somewhere. Unless this is a long
distance fiber which would need reconditioning after a measured
distance.

> How many strands are typically in one of these aerial cables, and what
> data rate do they run at?

Fiber cables can carry a lot of fibers or very few. Its hard to tell
by the looks of the external cable itself. (There goes my copper
splicing job! USA here I come!) :)

> What is the topology of these fibre networks?  It looked as though the
> fibre runs were simply interoffice trunking, that is each little town
> big enough to have its own CO/wire centre was connected to each
> neighbouring little town/village.  But I don't see how this explains
> the easy availability of phone lines, e.g. the people next door to the
> cottage we rented had no trouble getting two business lines and one
> residential line, even though they are in an area where 6 and 8 party
> lines were the norm not too many years ago.  This was at the end of a
> little gravel road by the lake in the middle of nowhere, around 10 km
> from the CO in the village.  They told me that an Internet provider is
> promising service in a couple of months.

Most telcos in Canada have been trying to get rid of party-lines all
together as quick as possible lately. I think here in Nova Scotia, we
may have one or two communities left to convert. As we kill the gosip
lines, we are placing enough copper to facilitate a modern network
which would explain why the availability of lines in that area.

> How do they install the fibre -- it seems to be bound to the existing
> copper cable with a spiral wrap.  Is there a sort of giant sewing-machine-
> on-a-truck that just cruises along the road wrapping a huge bobbin of
> nylon around the whole bundle ?  Or do they typically replace the
> copper at the same time ?

Fiber is placed basically the same way copper is placed. We use a
machine called a Lasher. It has lashing wire spools loaded in it and
as it is pulled along, it rotates the spools, lashing the cable to the
strand.

Most copper cables that are replaced by fiber are transformed from
toll to be used as local cables feeding residences. Unless they are
old and or defective beyond reuse.

I start my tan in Jamaica every spring and finish it off all summer
long on top of telephone poles. No shade up there at all except for
cloudy days. I hate lightning storms real bad!


    ]\/[ark ]/\[illiston - Freelance Games & Graphics Programmer
    Author of: Two Bit Poker, Lucky Sevens & Ringing Bells.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #349
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17263;
          18 Aug 95 5:47 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03792 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:15:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03784; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:15:03 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:15:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #350

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 95 23:15:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 350

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Carl Moore)
    Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Richard Harris)
    Area Code Confusion (L) By Ted Landphair/Washington (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (Jensoft)
    Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (Michael Fumich)
    Re: Do Quiet Computers Exist? (Kevin P. Fleming)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:57:42 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines


[e-mail] (James E. Bellaire) writes:

> Q. Why should NPAs be required to split rather than be overlaid?

> A. They should not.  NPA overlays have been in use for several years in
>    New York and California.

New York City's 917 NPA has certainly existed for several years, but
as far as I know, it is the *only* overlay in the entire NANP (though
overlays almost happened in other places like Chicago, Miami and
Atlanta).  What California NPA were you referring to?

> This means 10 or 11 digit dialing for local
> calls, with the old users being able to keep their numbers.  Sometimes
> 7 digit dialing is allowed IF the area code is the same.

What service areas are there that *don't* allow intra-NPA local calls
to be dialed using 7D?  I'm not aware of any yet, although mandatory
10D dialing has been mooted as a future option for some metro areas
that might receive overlay NPAs.

> Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA
> boundries [sic]?

> A. They are not.  Suprised?  In many rural areas users can dial across NPA
> and state lines with 7 digits.  The only time 10 or 11 digits are used
> is in major metropolitan areas.

This latter statement is certainly false.  Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the
exception, not the rule, even in rural areas.


Bob Goudreau            Data General Corporation
[e-mail]        62 Alexander Drive
[phone]            Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:50:48 PDT


James E. Bellaire said:

> A. They should not.  NPA overlays have been in use for several years in
> New York and California.  This means 10 or 11 digit dialing for local
> calls, with the old users being able to keep their numbers.  Sometimes
> 7 digit dialing is allowed IF the area code is the same.

NPA overlays certainly have *NOT* been used in California. There are
currently 13 NPAs in California (707-North Coast, 916-Sacramento/Sierras,
415-San Francisco, 510-East Bay, 209-Central Valley, 408-San
Jose/Central Coast, 805-Bakersfield/Southern Central Valley, 818-North
LA Basin, 213-Los Angeles, 310-Central LA Basin, 714-Orange County,
909-Riverside/Imperial Valley, and 619-San Diego/California Desert).
542 may be an overlay, but that is two years from now.

While I don't disagree that overlays are a good idea, it will take
some consumer education.  I don't like the idea of an overlay for
landline phones though, because I don't want to have to remember what
area code my friend has (seven digits to remeber is enough for me :-).  It
would be easier to put all wireless services into an overlay, then
tell customers XXX is for wireless.


Steve    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But the wireless people would never permit
that since it would then be inconvenient for *their* customers. Consider
the big stink here earlier with 630: Cellular One and Ameritech Mobile
would have none of it. So we landline people are being forced to switch
again.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:58:31 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines


What overlays have been in use?  All I know of that's been around for
a while is 917, which came in c. 1992 for cellular and pager overlay in
New York City.  What about California, other than the recent debate
over area code 562?

Local calls from Delaware to outside of it are still 7D.  New Jersey
(at least the Bell areas) is allowing 7D within NJ but usually
1+NPA+7D for out-of-state local.  Old area 215 (Pa.) had 7D for local
to other NPA, but this became 1+NPA+7D (followed later by removing 1
from 1+7D within 215).  In Maryland: there's that NPA+7D scheme for
local calls to DC and Va. suburbs and across the 301/410 border; but
7D remains for the scattered cases of local calls to Del., Pa., and W.
Va. as well as one case from area 410 to area 804 on the eastern
shore.

I was in Ann Arbor (Michigan) last month, and find its local calling
area is within area 313 except for South Lyon, which is in 810.  I
tried the two South Lyon prefixes from a pay phone in Ann Arbor, and
had to use 7D for one of the prefixes and 1+810+7D for the other.
(The South Lyon prefixes are 437 and 486, but not necessarily in that
order.)  I don't know what the general rule is for local calls from
Michigan to other area code.

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

Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines
From: [e-mail] (Richard Harris)
Organization: JYACC, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 19:02:44 PST


TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is no reason to ever go to
> eleven digits as in 1+anything. The reason is that when we get to the
> point that all calls must be dialed as AC + seven digits, we will no
> longer need the initial '1' as a flag. Right now it serves as a flag
> to indicate that an area code is following rather than a prefix. When
> we get to where we always begin with an area code, then switches can
> be modified to always expect ten digits and always expect the first
> three to be an area code.    PAT]

Of course, that would prevent 0+ dialing :-).  Better to do what you propose
only if the first digit is N.


Richard

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Area Code Confusion (L) By Ted Landphair/Washington
Date: 16 Aug 1995 11:08:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


TITLE=AREA CODE CONFUSION (L)
BYLINE=TED LANDPHAIR
TELEPHONE=619-3515
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=NANCY SMART

CONTENT=  [INSERTS IN AUDIO SERVICES]

[ED. NOTE.  THIS IS ONE OF TWO PIECES ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH MODERN
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.  THIS ONE CONCERNS THE EXPLOSION OF AREA
CODES.  THE SECOND, SLUGGED "TELEPHONE FUTURE SHOCK," DEALS WITH THREE
OTHER MODERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHANGES.]

INTRO:   BEFORE THE ADVENT OF COMPUTERS, THERE WAS A JOKE THAT
         MADE THE ROUNDS IN THE TELEPHONE BUSINESS.  THE COUNTRY
         WAS GROWING SO FAST, AND SO MANY PEOPLE WERE CALLING
         OPERATORS TO PLACE LONG-DISTANCE CALLS AND FIND OUT
         OTHER PEOPLE'S TELEPHONE NUMBERS, THAT BY THE TURN OF
         THE CENTURY, IT LOOKED LIKE EVERYONE GRADUATING FROM
         HIGH SCHOOL WOULD HAVE TO BECOME A TELEPHONE OPERATOR IN
         ORDER TO SERVE ALL THE NATION'S NEEDS!  THAT WON'T BE
         NECESSARY, OF COURSE, THANKS TO SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER
         NETWORKS THAT DO THE WORK OF THOUSANDS OF OPERATORS --
         AND DO IT FASTER.  BUT VOA'S TED LANDPHAIR SAYS
         AUTOMATION IN THE TELEPHONE BUSINESS HAS BROUGHT WITH IT
         SOME REAL HEADACHES.

TEXT:    LEWIS MUMFORD, THE BRILLIANT SOCIAL PHILOSPHER AND
         ARCHITECTURAL CRITIC OF THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY, ONCE
         OBSERVED THAT AMERICANS CONFUSE PROGRESS WITH
         MECHANIZATION.  NO DOUBT HE WOULD BE SHOCKED AT THE
         BLIZZARD OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS INNOVATIONS THAT HAVE
         COMPLICATED MODERN LIFE HALF A CENTURY LATER.  THE
         TELEPHONE INDUSTRY, IN PARTICULAR, HAS DRASTICALLY
         CHANGED THE WAY WE COMMUNICATE.

         IN 1951, WHEN ONE COMPANY -- THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
         TELEGRAPH COMPANY -- HAD A MONOPOLY ON LONG-DISTANCE
         SERVICES,  IT INTRODUCED AREA CODES, WHICH BROKE THE
         COUNTRY INTO PIECES.  THEY'RE SIMILAR TO CITY CODES
         OVERSEAS.  EACH STATE GOT AT LEAST ONE AREA CODE, AND
         THE BIG, POPULOUS STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK
         GOT SEVERAL.  THAT MEANT THE PHONE COMPANY'S SWITCHES
         COULD INSTANTLY RECOGNIZE WHAT PART OF THE COUNTRY YOU
         WERE TRYING TO REACH AND SEND THE CALL THERE.  AND IT
         MEANT THAT YOU COULD DIAL LONG-DISTANCE CALLS YOURSELF.
         THESE AREA CODES ALL HAD A NUMBER 1 OR A ZERO IN THE
         MIDDLE, SUCH AS 4-ZERO-1, 4-ZERO-2, 516, 517 AND SO
         FORTH.

         UNDER THAT SYSTEM, THERE COULD BE AS MANY AS 144 AREA
         CODES.  FEW PEOPLE BACK THEN THOUGHT WE'D EVER NEED THEM
         ALL.  BUT THE NUMBER OF TELEPHONE USERS HAS EXPLODED SO
         MUCH THAT THE COUNTRY HAS NOW LITERALLY RUN OUT OF AREA
         CODES.

         THE SOLUTION SEEMED SIMPLE ENOUGH:  DON'T JUST USE ZERO
         AND 1 AS THE MIDDLE NUMBER ANY LONGER.  USE OTHER
         NUMBERS AS WELL.  BUT THAT'S WHERE THE HEADACHES BEGAN.

         AMERICANS HAD GOTTEN USED TO DIALING 801 OR 412 OR
         ANOTHER SUCH NUMBER AS AN AREA CODE.  WHEN WE SEE A
         NUMBER LIKE 219, WE KNOW IT MUST BE AN AREA CODE.  IT
         HAS A 1 IN THE MIDDLE.  SAME THING WITH OUR PHONE
         SYSTEMS AT THE OFFICE.  THEY SAW A 219 AND SPED THE CALL
         OFF TO NORTHERN INDIANA, WHICH HAS THE 219 AREA CODE.

         BUT THEN BIG CITIES LIKE LOS ANGELES RAN OUT OF ALL THE
         POSSIBLE LOCAL NUMBERS, AND THEY STARTED USING NUMBERS
         LIKE 219 AS THE FIRST THREE DIGITS OF LOCAL NUMBERS.

         WHEN THE NATION RAN OUT OF AREA CODES, COMBINATIONS LIKE
         941 THAT UNTIL THEN WERE RESERVED FOR LOCAL NUMBERS,
         STARTED SHOWING UP AS AREA CODES.  ALL OF A SUDDEN, 941
         WAS THE AREA CODE FOR A WHOLE SECTION OF FLORIDA -- NOT
         JUST THE FIRST THREE DIGITS OF YOUR GRANDMOTHER'S PHONE
         NUMBER ACROSS TOWN.

         SOME PEOPLE WHO FOUND OUT THAT 941 WAS NOW AN AREA CODE
         TRIED TO REACH FLORIDA -- AND GOT YOUR GRANDMOTHER
         INSTEAD!!

         PEOPLE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY STARTED HEARING MESSAGES
         LIKE THIS:

TAPE CUT ONE: WRONG NUMBER  :11

         (PHONE RINGS ONCE)

         [RECORDED FEMALE VOICE]  "YOUR CALL CANNOT BE COMPLETED
         AS ENTERED.  PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER AND TRY AGAIN, OR
         CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR ASSISTANCE. MESSAGE NUMBER
         44-2-3-ZERO."

TEXT:    HERE'S AN EXAMPLE:

         LES BROWN'S COMPANY IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, BUILDS
         EQUIPMENT THAT OTHER COMPANIES USE TO MAKE NEWSPAPER
         VENDING BOXES.  ONE OF HIS BIG CUSTOMERS IS IN MOBILE,
         [MOH-BEEL] ALABAMA. ALL OF ALABAMA USED TO BE UNDER ONE
         AREA CODE -- 2-ZERO-5.  BUT THEN SOUTHERN ALABAMA GOT A
         NEW 3-3-4 AREA CODE, AND MR. BROWN'S PHONE SYSTEM IN
         MEMPHIS SIMPLY COULD NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO DIAL IT.

TAPE CUT TWO: RECORDED OPERATOR MESSAGE  :14

         (PHONE RINGS ONCE) "THE AREA CODE YOU HAVE DIALED:
         2-ZERO-5, HAS BEEN CHANGED TO 3-3-4. PLEASE TRY YOUR
         CALL AGAIN WITH A NEW AREA CODE. MESSAGE NUMBER
         40-2-3-ZERO."

TAPE CUT THREE:  BROWN :09

         "WE WERE UNABLE TO SELL THEM ANYTHING, AND THEY WERE
         UNABLE TO GET OUR MESSAGES, TO GET OUR FAXES [FACSIMILE
         COPIES], AND CONSEQUENTLY WE ENDED UP LOSING A LOT OF
         BUSINESS."

TEXT:    AT THE OTHER END OF THE LINE, THE ALABAMA COMPANY, R-A-K
         SYSTEMS, LOST MONEY, TOO.  RICHARD KITZMANN IS PRESIDENT
         AND PART-OWNER.

TAPE CUT FOUR:  KITZMANN  :11

         "AT THE BEGINNING THEY WOULD GET A RECORDING THAT WOULD
         SAY, 'THIS PHONE NUMBER IS NO LONGER IN SERVICE.' SO
         THAT GAVE THEM AN INDICATION THAT WE WERE OUT OF
         BUSINESS."

TEXT:    RON CONNORS, IN EFFECT, IS IN CHARGE OF THE NATION'S
         AREA CODES.  HE WORKS FOR BELLCORE, THE RESEARCH ARM OF
         THE VARIOUS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANIES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
         HE SAYS, JUST AS THE PHONE COMPANIES ARE HAVING TO
         UPGRADE THEIR SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE THE MILLIONS OF NEW
         PHONE NUMBER AND AREA CODE COMBINATIONS, SO CUSTOMERS
         ARE SIMPLY GOING TO HAVE MODERNIZE THEIR TELEPHONE
         SYSTEMS, OR WHAT ARE SOMETIMES CALLED P-B-XES.  IT'S THE
         PRICE OF PROGRESS.

TAPE CUT FIVE: CONNORS  :26

         "THEY COULD GO TO K-MART [DISCOUNT STORE] AND BUY THE
         'BLUE-LIGHT SPECIAL.'  HERE'S A P-B-X FOR 99 DOLLARS AND
         95 CENTS.  AND PEOPLE SEE THAT AND SAY, 'WOW, THAT'S
         REAL CHEAP.  I CAN PUT THIS IN, AND MY BUSINESS IS GOING
         TO BE GREAT.  I'LL SAVE MONEY.' AND THE PROBLEM IS,
         THOUGH, THAT THESE THINGS ARE FINE, BUT THE NETWORK
         CHANGES AND HAS TO BE UPGRADED.  AND PEOPLE HAVE TO
         ACCEPT THAT AS PART OF THEIR OBLIGATION WHEN THEY BUY A
         PIECE OF THE NETWORK, SO TO SPEAK."

                      [/////BEGIN OPT////]

TEXT:    MR. CONNORS SAYS THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE TO BUYING THE
         NECESSARY EQUIPMENT TO KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGICAL
         PROGRESS.  THAT GOES FOR THE VARIOUS PHONE COMPANIES,
         WHICH MUST UPGRADE OR RE-PROGRAM EVERY SWITCH, EVERY
         CIRCUIT, AND EVERY DATABASE THAT DEALS WITH LONG
         DISTANCE.  AND IT APPLIES TO CUSTOMERS, WHOSE EQUIPMENT
         HAS TO KEEP PACE IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO
         CALL ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY OR IN THE WORLD.

TAPE CUT SIX: CONNORS  :13

         "IT'S GOTTA HAPPEN.  WE WERE OUT OF AREA CODES.  WE WERE
         OUT OF NUMBERS. THE PLAN HAD TO EXPAND.  THERE'S BEEN AN
         EXPANSION PLAN IN PLACE FOR 30 YEARS. IT HAD TO HAPPEN.
         THERE IS NO CHOICE.  IF PEOPLE WERE TO CONTINUE TO GET
         PHONE NUMBERS, THIS CHANGE HAD TO BE MADE."

                       [/////END OPT////]

TEXT:    WHICH BRINGS TO MIND ANOTHER QUOTATION.  IN 1970, ALVIN
         TOFFLER WROTE, "FUTURE SHOCK IS THE SHATTERING STRESS
         AND DISORIENTATION THAT WE INDUCE IN INDIVIDUALS BY
         SUBJECTING THEM TO TOO MUCH CHANGE IN TOO SHORT A TIME."

(SIGNED)

NEB/TL/NES

11-Aug-95 4:50 PM EDT (2050 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

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

From: [e-mail] (Jensoft)
Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services
Date: 16 Aug 1995 02:42:08 -0700
Organization: Blarg! Online Services - 206/784-9681


North Coast Communications ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am looking for ANY information on the following companies;
> Beylen Communications
> WKP Communications or WKP Long Distance (Seattle WA)       pic 10718
> International Audiotext Network Inc. (location unknown)  pic 10509

Pat,

Here's the info.

Ry

I found two spellings of the first one ... I tried B[ae]yl[ae]n for a
search.  Here's what I found:

Baylan Communications Inc
Vienna VA
703-450-6446

Beylen Inc
New York NY
212-843-4300

International Audiotext Network
Seattle WA
206-286-5200

This last one isn't exact, but it's a likely culprit!
W K Enterprises Inc
Tacoma WA
206-767-0617


<A HREF="http://www.wicker.com">Wicker</A>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be interesting to see what the
one in Vienna, Virginia is all about. Michael Fumich has an updated
report on the others you mention next.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 20:34 EST
From: Michael Fumich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services


The story so far:

On 8-7-95 I was informed by a source at US West that three "500"
prefixes (200, 739, & 938) were now online. 1+ calls to the "4141"
test numbers reported "You have reached the ALLNET network - Switch
47.8". My source further related that random 1+ calls were branded
"WKP Long Distance" (an Adult Services Provider), and that the calls
were being forwarded to Hong Kong @ "Three Ninety Nine" per minute.
(No decimal point - hope it's not $399.00!! :+)

"0+" calls to the "WKP Long Distance" branded numbers provided the
ALLNET jingle. All of this indicated to me the calls were most likely
handled by ALLNET and that they were responsible for these prefixes.

I called ALLNET Corporate Offices about this matter several days later
and was told that ALLNET does not issue "500" numbers, business,
personal, or otherwise. I was also told that it was AT&T that was
transporting all 500 calls and that I should call them (AT&T said
absolutely not!).

ALLNET also stated that it is official company policy not to be
involved with adult service providers, and they did not list WKP or
Beylen in their records.

On 8-13-95 the 1-500-NXX-4141 test numbers began reporting that I have
reached the "SPR - Worldcall Network". 0+ calls still gave the ALLNET
jingle however.

On 8-14-95 I wrote TELECOM Digest requesting from readers information
leading to the unmasking of the persons responsible for this matter.
Several wrote and provided very helpful leads.

Beylen - PIC Code 10718 (per list available at Telecom Archives):
^^^^^^

A reader reported a phone number 212-843-4300. I called this number
and it was answered by a young woman who answered "Beylen". I asked
what sort of business this was and I was told "communications". I then
began to question her further and she transferred me to "John".
"John" would not elaborate what type of "communications" business this
was. He also denied any knowledge of PIC 10718. When I asked if he
knew of WKP he said "NO!" and became extremely defensive. As Pat has
stated on other matters, you can tell almost every time when you are
being lied to.

NYNEX reports - Beylen Inc. /  12 E. 53rd NYC / 212-758-3116
This number was directly answered "Good Afternoon" by "John".

WKP Communications aka WKP Long Distance - PIC Code 10718 (per Ameritech):
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Integretel reports - WKP Communications, Inc.
                     1200 5th Ave. / Suite 1206
                     Seattle WA           98101

I then checked the whois database @rs.internic.net and they were
actually listed! <WKP.COM> The above address was given, with a phone
number of 206-622-3385. This phone answers "Communications Group". I
did not question further figuring it would be pointless.

The plot thickens!:

When I dial 10718-1-700-555-4141, the equal access test number, I find
that I have reached "The Equal Access Dialing" network. When I dial
10718 +0 + # to reach an operator the call does not complete and gives me
Switch "WCCH2".

The exact same thing happens with 10509, assigned to International
Audiotext Network Inc. , also of Seattle WA. In fact, several PIC's
known to be used by Adult Service Providers gave me the recordings
described above.

The heart of the matter?:

"WCCH2" in fact indicates the call is being handled by WCT, Inc. a
long distance company located in San Luis Obispo CA. I was informed
that "Worldcall" was one of their brands. WCT is owned by Frontier
Communications International as is (surprise!) ALLNET. I probed
further (and higher up) and when I mentioned WKP? BOOM! "Who are YOU!"
"What do you REALLY want?" "No Comment!" etc., etc. etc.

My mother had a saying she was rather fond of ... "Oh what a tangled
web we weave, when we practice to deceive" . This is a very tangled
web indeed!

So ... who assigns the "500" prefixes? Bellcore? FCC?. Who are these
prefixes assigned to? ALLNET? WCT? Frontier? or God Forbid, WKP?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!

(And Thank You! to thse that wrote and called. Please note that the
number in my .sig is Voice Mail Only, I have no way to answer it
directly.)


Michael L. Fumich  / E-Mail:  <[e-mail]> / Phone: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well readers, if your PBX is capable of
screening as far the prefix within an area code, you might want to blacklist
500-200, 500-739, and 500-938 to keep those employees of yours who have
idle time on their hands, unclean thoughts in their minds and lust in their
hearts from running up your bill too much. I hate to see people block 1-500
entirely as a result of things like this, but maybe it will come to that
also. And don't forget 900-999. That one is very bizarre and very expensive.

Michael, you mentioned how Allnet tried to hide what they are doing, but
I want you to know they are not unique. If you are ever able to get anyone
at AT&T to own up to the deal they cut with the people in Nevada for those
chat lines or the deal they have with the telco in Bonaire, Netherland
Antilles for hot chat -- for people who like to 'do fone' -- I would be
very surprised. You might want to also look into the Vienna, Virginia
operation alluded to by the other correspondent in this issue and see what
those people are about.

It occurs to me that one very good public service this Digest might
perform would be a complete expose of who runs what in the world of
adult phone services.  I think it would be great to put togther a file
which gave the names and home or real business addresses of the slime
involved in these things. Their personal name and address, their
corporate names, their PIC codes, the prefixes they use both in 900
service as well as 500 and 800, etc. We would want to include the
address of their mail drop, identified as such along with how to *really*
reach them when a victimized phone subscriber had something they wanted
to say, etc. Of course we would want to include the names and home
addresses of each officer of their various corporations, the name and
address of the person who accepts their legal service, etc ... all
of which is public information, so please, no bleeding hearts need
take me to task for alleged invasions of privacy.

And I do not grouse about them because they do sex talk on the phone.
My complaint is that they moved out the tidy little box we had for
them known as 900/976 where phone system admins could be protected
against abuse, and began abusing 800 as well.  I don't care what anyone
chats about on the phone or their computer as long as they pay their
own bills, and 900/976 along with billed number screening was one way
to assure that was pretty much done.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin P. Fleming)
Subject: Re: Do Quiet Computers Exist?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 01:59:03 GMT
Organization: Reliable Networx, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Peter Rukavina <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I have been a PC owner for 15 years, and am just now becoming aware of
> how much the constant hum of cooling fans and hard disk drives
> detracts from the experience of using them.  I could never figure out
> why an hour or two of work would send me away with a headache and
> fatigue, but the recent pleasant experience of using a friend's laptop
> convinced me that noise was part of the problem.

> I'd buy a laptop, but the small screen and cramped keyboard [to say
> nothing of the price!] would only cause me other ergonomic problems.

> So I am wondering: are manufacturers who produce "silent" or
> noise-reduced desktop PC-compatible machines?  Such a question
> produces only blank stares from local computer dealers.

Well, I don't know of a manufacturer that produces machines
specifically designed to be quiet ... but any good clone builder (like
my company) can specify components that will do the job.

For example, my home PC (the one I'm using right now), has a Conner
FilePro 1.2G IDE hard drive. This drive makes no perceptible spinning
noise, and the seeking noise is quite tolerable. When the system shuts
the drive down after inactivity, of course, it's completely silent, as
would any drive be.

In addition, a PC Power and Cooling Silencer power supply will
automatically slow down (and even shut off) its internal fan, as the
heat load and power draw decreases. So for all intents, you could
build your silent PC pretty easily.


Kevin Fleming, Reliable Networx, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ   Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #350
******************************